Zachriel
Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
| Quote | | kairosfocus: H’mm: why is it that a RR of 1 in 50 bn at a far edge of the curve for the Caputo case [only one further result is possible: 41 Ds on 41 tries instead of “only” 40], is put on the same level as one where 38% of the curve <Just one step away from the middle of the curve, 20/21 splits to R or to D, each at 12% probability, by subtraction, I am too lazy to work out 41!/21!20! through Stirling’s approximation just now> would as per PO’s argument “count” against the null hyp? |
41!/(21!*20!)=
Defining the rejection region is important when calculating the results of independent trials. The odds of getting exactly X/41 is different than getting at least X/41. With playing cards, the outcome of every deal has the same low probability, but we can define (and that depends on the arbitrariness of the rules of the game) specific patterns that have varying odds. The 22/19 example was provided by Olofsson in order to illustrate the importance of defining the rejection region.
Example:
Coin flips, 1000
= 550: 0.0001694
<= 550: 0.9993041
Olofsson reasonably points out that a split of no more than 22 in 41 is quite possibly due to chance, while a split of at least 40 in 41 is probably not.
The problem with using the same probabilistic test on the flagellum is that you are comparing an exactly specified outcome with the vast numbers of possible outcomes. We can't calculate the space of possible configurations that result in flagella, or even the exact same flagellum, much less other motile systems. It's also garbage because the arrangement of nucleotides are not due to independent events, but are highly organized by historical, evolutionary processes.
| Quote | kairosfocus: Ms Coulter’s tone and ill-considered sound bites gave opportunity for clever spin doctors in the secularist evolutionary materialist progressivist camp –- they never say where they are really making progress towards! — to divert the conversation away form substance to trivia and personalities.
Let’s just say I would be positively surprised if the editors of the journal in which Prof PO’s hit piece will shortly appear, will then allow WD reasonable room for a rebuttal on the merits.
So, if you want to see how critics fare on an even playing field [poorly indeed, on the merits], you will have to keep an eye on UD, folks. Prof PO, thanks for being willing to at least engage on such a playing field. |
Level playing field?! I was banned for correctly pointing out that Scientific American is not a “hard science journal”, but a popular magazine providing a roundup of science news for a scientifically educated readership.
| Quote | | DaveScot: I’m not sure it was worth fishing this out of the spam bin but I thought it might a good way to point out that the picking of semantic nits is about the best you got. Get lost. And stop taking up space in the spam bucket. I’d rather see the thouands of ads for online casinos, low interest loans, and viagra than more of your tripe. Thanks in advance for your courtesy. -ds |
--------------
You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.
|
