Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
63 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (1 member, 62 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 8/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discontinuing research about ID
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 8 of 393 (755104)
04-04-2015 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dubreuil
04-04-2015 5:51 AM


Welcome to the fray, Dubreuil,

I spent a few years to actually test the predictions of intelligent design at the present time. A paper with about 60 pages and 9 appendices resulted (http://vixra.org/abs/1504.0033) that supports the theory of ID. ...

From just your abstract:

quote:
... The residual uncertainty was calculated to 1 : 10^7 and a high correlation ratio for the data basis related to the found pattern was proved through an intra class correlation test. The results are statistically significant with 5,3 sigma. ...

What are your assumptions that lead to this conclusion and how did you test them for accurately modeling reality?

What you appear to have done is mistake a model for reality. Math cannot prove or disprove reality, all it can do is model it.

Now in one sense, all science does is approximate reality with models, however, the scientific validity of a model is found by testing it against reality. With no testing all you have is a conjecture, a concept, or a (weak) hypothesis. If it is not testable then it is not scientific but philosophical (and you can't tell if it is true or not). If the testing contradicts the hypothesis, then it is the model that is incorrect (it does not approximate reality).

We think of the models as approximate explanations, and the approximations are refined by repeated testing to eliminate the chaff from the wheat.

... We asked other conventional research journals whether they accept papers about ID, but they only replied they will neither review nor publish a paper about intelligent design. Therefore we have now given up to search for a journal that would accept our paper. ...

Perhaps that is because it appears you haven't completed the requirements for review. It doesn't seem that you have properly tested (or even have a test for) your hypothesis.

Can you state what your falsification test is? Can you excerpt where you have done this testing and what the results were?

Without scientific testing to validate or invalidate your hypothesis you are not in a position to publish, according to standard scientific protocols.

I spent a few years to actually test the predictions of intelligent design at the present time. ...

What are those predictions?

Running simulations is not necessarily testing against reality, you need to first show you can simulate reality, then predict something new and test for it. It appears that all you have done is a mathematical review of data based on certain unspecified (as yet) assumptions:

quote:
... It is shown that the results are best explained by a bias in chance itself, to create nontrivial structures. ...

Curiously, evolution demonstrably shows a robust ability to derive nontrivial structures, by the act of selection on random variations.

Physics and chemistry also show that molecular reactions are not pure chance reactions and arrangements, but that the structures are predictable from the atomic structures. This chemical selection is thus also nontrivial.

So I suspect that your model does not adequately model natural mechanisms.

... The found law-like pattern supports a triune God with a residual uncertainty of 1 : 10^3.

How did you eliminate all other god/s?

One of the problems I have with Neo-paleyism is the failure to consider other explanations for perceived phenomena.

See Is ID properly pursued? for further comments.

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

RAZD writes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dubreuil, posted 04-04-2015 5:51 AM Dubreuil has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(4)
Message 9 of 393 (755110)
04-04-2015 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dubreuil
04-04-2015 11:42 AM


Re: put up or shut up -- this is not a whine and jeez party
Do you noticed the URL in the first post?

I did, however, debate on this forum is not done by pasting urls, but by discussion of specific points.

Can you pick your best argument from the paper and present both it and the objective empirical evidence that supports it?

Review is not necessary. ...

Without open peer review and critiques (getting published is the first step) it is not science, just an expounding of assertion/s.

... We already got some feedback from other persons who mainly agreed with us about this topic. ...

What about people that disagree with you? Getting support from the choir doesn't test your assertions as having broad application. This is like cherry picking evidence to only include that which supports your assertions.

... The previous statement was merely a warning to not engage in research about intelligent design. Even a positive feedback here will not help to publish the paper elsewhere. ...

Curiously, this statement applies to any set of assertions that are not supported by rigorous testing against reality. You can't expect to get a peer-reviewed publication in a scientific journal without doing the science.

... Therefore a review by laymen in information science is neither necessary nor desired.

Amusingly there are many people here with PhD's in the appropriate fields, and they can help you to reach the level of science necessary for publication if that is your actual desire (as opposed to just wanting to whine about being suppressed).

If you want help I suggest you open up and provide substance. Politely and respectfully.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dubreuil, posted 04-04-2015 11:42 AM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Dubreuil, posted 04-04-2015 1:35 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 26 of 393 (755140)
04-05-2015 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dubreuil
04-04-2015 1:35 PM


Re: put up or shut up -- this is not a whine and jeez party
Seriously, you can't review the paper within a few hours. It takes at least a month to examine the whole paper. Not even experienced reviewers can review a paper of this size in less than a month.

Agreed, nor can you just ask someone to spend such an amount of time, energy and resources to review your paper without providing sufficient information that would make it interesting. That is why we ask you to condense it into specific points.

What I can however do is look at your paper and see that it is missing clearly defined elements that are required for applying and completing the scientific methodology that should be expected for a paper to be adequately prepared for scientific review.

The best argument is presented on page 6-7 under "Proving the pattern". ...

And what is it? Curiously I was well beyond page 8 and still looking for how a pattern was demonstrated. Clearly you are going to need to provide something more than references to page numbers.

My impression at this point is that you have made a very complex analysis of something rather simple, but that you can't state it simply. Now I know it is a shocking concept that the main characters appear regularly in a TV show and interact in a way that makes patterns in line with the basic premise of the show. In the original Star Trek everyone knew that >the new ensign in the red shirt that beamed down to the planet with the main characters was going to die< was a stock story pattern.

The whole Appendix B is about the falsification test.

Really? Here I thought it was the objective empirical data for generating and developing the pattern:

... The objective empirical evidence for this calculation is represented in Appendix A and Appendix B on pages 16-37. ...

You do understand don't you that making a pattern out of the data in appendix B and then using the data in appendix B to test the pattern is not a true falsification test, but more like a begging the question logical fallacy.

Nowhere in appendix B or anywhere else in your paper do you describe how your pattern analysis could be falsified. What I did see was your modifications of the "pattern" found in appendix A to make it fit appendix B ... by making it more general.

To make the remaining 9 episodes fit with the pattern, 12 additions were necessary. To make the remaining 9 episodes fit with the pattern, 12 additions were necessary. The pattern that results has less quality: ...

So either appendix B falsifies your pattern or it is part of it: your choice.

The question was: "Do you accept papers about intelligent design for a peer-review?" and there was always a refusing answer. ...

You would get the same response if you asked "Do you accept papers about astrology for a peer-review?" -- and the reason is that neither astrologists nor IDologists have yet demonstrated doing science. If you are doing science then it should not matter whether it is about ID or astrology or making pigs fly.

If we take it as given that you found an amazing pattern of repetition in the Star Trek series with a high degree of non-trivial non-randomness -- that the whole first 12 pages are accurate and valid and true for the sake of argument -- how does this relate to Intelligent Design? It appears that you just extrapolate from Star Trek to Intelligent Design and boldly go where no science has gone before.

Let me extract only those parts that discuss Intelligent Design:

quote:
(Abstract) ... The similarities with the circumstances of the origin of first life are tremendous. The results indicate that intelligent design exists at the present time. ...

Introduction

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. The theory of intelligent design gives answers to largely unanswered questions, like the origin of first live. For the origin of first life a force is missing that drives polymerization [3]. Not only to largely unanswered biological and chemical questions an answer is given, even the fine-tuned universe could be possibly explained through an intelligent cause. A force that causes complexity in such diversity would be a mathematical or a physical force. If an intelligent cause exists as fundamental force of nature, then it could be still present and sensible at the present time. Raw data will be analysed for included patterns. If a fundamental force exists that creates complexity for several different situations, then it could create complexity for human decision processes as well. It will be shown that the results are best explained by a bias in chance itself, to create nontrivial structures.

The patterns' origin and intelligent design

... The patterns origin seems to be more likely in chance itself, then in unconscious human decision processes. That could be an indication for intelligent design. There are existing similar problems for creating a suitable theory for the origin of first life. The question of how simple organic molecules formed a protocell is largely unanswered [3]. The circumstances for this question are the same as for the found pattern. In both settings is chance the most important factor. A protocell can only form if all necessary molecules are at the correct place at the correct time. The found pattern can only originate, if all persons are at the correct place at the correct time. If chance itself is biased to create nontrivial structures, then both problems can be explained with intelligent design. ...


It appears that you make the common (creationist) mistake of thinking that ALL the elements of a protocell need to be present in order for the protocell to form in one fell swoop. This has been demonstrated to be a false assumption.

Thus your argument of 12 tedious pages reduces down to a spurious calculation of an improbability akin to the assembly of an airplane in a junkyard by a tornado.

In other words you created an intricate overly complex mathematical structure, and then argue that it applies to a straw man argument in order to show Intelligent Design.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : "


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dubreuil, posted 04-04-2015 1:35 PM Dubreuil has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 34 of 393 (755156)
04-05-2015 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dubreuil
04-05-2015 11:43 AM


The probability, that the pattern is a result of chance was calculated to 1.063*10^-7. ...

Calculations of improbability mean nothing unless you have included ALL the possibilities. See the old improbable probability problem for common mistakes.

... Therefore the chance that the pattern occurred naturally is only one to ten million. ...

In the White Mountains of California there grows a species of tree call the Bristlecone pine. They are very long lived, and as a consequence a dendrochronology was developed from their ring patterns extending over 8,000 years.

Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dubreuil, posted 04-05-2015 11:43 AM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Dubreuil, posted 04-05-2015 12:58 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 43 of 393 (755167)
04-05-2015 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dubreuil
04-05-2015 12:58 PM


Let me apologize for hitting the "submit" button before my post was complete.

He seems to think that the TV show qualities he's chosen should be random and that therefore any patterns he finds indicate an outside influence on chance. The fact that patterns repeat in TV shows (and indeed in all human activities) over and over again hasn't seemed to have occurred to him.

..or the writers and directors set the appearances specifically to further the plot but to the artistically ignorant these appearance seem coincidental.

These are not my statements. Please correct their attribution.

Calculations of improbability mean nothing unless you have included ALL the possibilities. See the old improbable probability problem for common mistakes.

I agree. There were also a few mistakes in the paper before we got comments about it some time ago.

Good, however, you still make one big one as I shall show below.

In the White Mountains of California there grows a species of tree call the Bristlecone pine. They are very long lived, and as a consequence a dendrochronology was developed from their ring patterns extending over 8,000 years.

Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

ID supports an old earth. Have you forgotten about that?

I am, however that was not the point I was in the process of developing when I accidentally hit the "submit" button instead of the "preview" button. Allow me to proceed with my argument:

In the White Mountains of California there grows a species of tree call the Bristlecone pine. They are very long lived, and as a consequence a dendrochronology was developed in 1954 CE from their ring patterns extending over 8,000 years.

http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html

quote:
The bristlecone pine chronology in the White Mountains currently extends back almost 9,000 years continuously. That's to 7,000 BC! Several pieces of wood have been collected that will extend this date back even further.

This chronology was again updated and extended in 1972 to 6,291 BCE:

(see Dendrochronology of Bristlecone Pine Prior to 4000 BC (PDF))

Question A: what is the probability of those rings forming in exactly that pattern for a period covering 8262 years by purely random random variations?

If we simplify the data so that consecutive rings are either (A) wider than the previous ring, (B) virtually the same as the previous ring width, and (C) narrower than the previous ring^(a), would you not agree that the probability of that specific pattern occurring by purely natural random variations is 1 in 3^8262 = 9.5×10^3941?

How would you test that it was a non-random pattern?

In 1973 another chronology was developed from trees on a different mountain -- totally independent of the original "Methuselah Master Chronology"

Accuracy of tree ring dating of Bristlecone Pine for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale

quote:
... The final chronology contains 5403 annual values ...
... Year-by-year comparison indicates that the rings dated at 5859M and 5330M are absent from the Campito chronology. Insertion of a nominal value of '0' for the ring width index for each of these years (Figure 6) brings the chronologies into exact synchrony.

A long tree ring chronology for bristlecone pine has been developed independently of previous work. Several lines of evidence show that the growth rings are true annual rings. Evaluation of several potential sources of error in tree ring dates indicates that any uncertainty in calendar dates assigned to annual rings in this series is due to annual rings that may be absent from all samples for a particular year or years. Internal evidence and intrachronology comparison suggest that there are only two such occurrences in the 5403-year Campito record developed in this work. Annual rings for these years are represented in the Methuselah chronology, which has served as the standard for most radiocarbon calibration studies. The Methuselah chronology very probably contains no dating error, at least back to 3435 BC.


There is an 18 year offset between the begining point of these two chronologies, so the period of overlap is (5403 - 18 =) 5385 years.

The difference found was that two rings were missing from the second chronology and they matched two rings in the older chronology that were narrow growth rings rather than extra rings. Inserting a 0 width ring at these two dates resulted in a 100% match between the two chronologies.

Question B: what is the probability of those rings forming in exactly the same pattern for 5383 of the 5385 years by purely random natural variations?

If we use the same simplification of the data (so that consecutive rings are either (A) wider than the previous ring, (B) virtually the same as the previous ring width, and (C) narrower than the previous ring)^(a), would you not agree that the probability of that specific pattern occurring by purely natural random variations for the period of overlap is 1 in 3^5383 = 2.2×10^2568 for each chronology and thus that the probability of both occurring is ((2.2×10^2568)^2 =) 4.9x10^5136?

Question C: Do you not agree that a probability of one in 4.9x10^5136 is smaller than a probability of one in 9.5×10^3941? and that both are much smaller than one in 1.063x10^7?

Just because a pattern can be found does not mean that the pattern was intentional. To do that you have to be able to predict the pattern with an explanatory hypothesis.

... The pattern is not about the plot as for example "the new ensign in the red shirt that beamed down to the planet with the main characters is going to die". The pattern is about appearances and affected persons. ...

IE -- the plot/s.

... Appearances are mostly coincidental triggered and depend on camera positions and environmental conditions, for example a tree that covers a person. ...

IE -- stock plot gimmicks.

Because the pattern quantises coincidental appearances that emerge to a pattern that was not created by chance with a probability of 1:10^7 it is assumed that there is a bias or an intelligent agent in chance itself.

Do you realize that the probability that a post hoc ergo propter hoc observation of a pattern will be the pattern that occurred (was observed) is always 1?

To show you have something of scientific merit you have to have an explanatory hypothesis, then make a prediction of what will occur and what will not occur and then test those predictions. The falsification test is a prediction that should not occur if your predicted pattern occurs.

From Message 8:

quote:
Can you state what your falsification test is? Can you excerpt where you have done this testing and what the results were?

Without scientific testing to validate or invalidate your hypothesis you are not in a position to publish, according to standard scientific protocols.


Do you understand that all your math adds up to is an observation of a post hoc ergo propter hoc pattern and argument from incredulity?

You have no prediction, no test, no science.

On the other hand I can hypothesis that the ring widths observed are related to the climate for that year of growth. This hypothesis would predict that a second independent chronology would be virtually identical to the first, a prediction that would be invalidated by observing a totally different pattern from trees on another mountain.

I can further predict that a pattern of 14C levels would be found within the tree rings that would relate to (A) the decay of 14C with time and (B) the amount of 14C present in the atmosphere at the time the ring grew (a subset of climate parameters). That pattern is:

And I can further predict that the same 14C pattern would be found in other dendrochronologies from other places in the world, such as with Irish oak and with German oak chronologies. They do - the image above is a combined correlation.

These three (3) predictions are all validated, and as a consequence I can have a very high degree of confidence that this a real pattern caused by natural phenomena, climate and radioactive decay, and not by some design intent.

Please note that I do not need to calculate the relative (im)probability of this occurring to show that this observed pattern is caused by natural phenomena.

That is how science works.

Enjoy

________
notes:
^(a) -- even using 5 categories { (A) More than twice the width of the previous ring, (B) wider than the previous ring but less than twice the width, (C) virtually the same as the previous ring width, and (D) narrower than the previous ring but wider than half the width, and (E) narrower than half the previous ring width } would still be a simplification and the probability calculation would be even more damning for your argument.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dubreuil, posted 04-05-2015 12:58 PM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Dubreuil, posted 04-05-2015 3:48 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 393 (755170)
04-05-2015 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by frako
04-05-2015 1:34 PM


Yea but it is possible that people are wired to tell stories in a similar way. You may have just found the pattern we use to tell stories.

It's not like the episodes were not selected and edited to meet the production parameters for the show. IIRC there is a list of do's and don'ts for writers ...

And when you have several options to make a pattern work (female OR drive core?) it looks more like making a pattern and then selecting the elements to "observe" in order to make the pattern work.

Typical creationist\idologist arguments from incredulity.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by frako, posted 04-05-2015 1:34 PM frako has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 50 of 393 (755176)
04-05-2015 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dubreuil
04-05-2015 3:48 PM


failure avoidance doesn't make failure go away.
I already presented this points. From Message 14: "The pattern was created to fit with season 1, 3 and 4 at the actual start of the episode (00:00). Afterwards it was tested on season 5 and 6 and a random data source.".

Curiously I notice that you ignored the majority of my post ... including the parts that show your probability calculation to be irrelevant to science (and hence the reason your "paper" is not up to the standard needed for peer review in a scientific journal)

You have failed to eliminate possible causes for your pet probability, and the fact that it is thousands of orders of magnitude more probable than the observed tree ring pattern -- which IS natural -- shows that your incredulity at the size of improbability is misplaced: that something is improbable does not mean it HAD to be designed.

And you still have not replied to the inappropriate extrapolation of star trek to the origin of life in Message 26:

quote:
It appears that you make the common (creationist) mistake of thinking that ALL the elements of a protocell need to be present in order for the protocell to form in one fell swoop. This has been demonstrated to be a false assumption.

Thus your argument of 12 tedious pages reduces down to a spurious calculation of an improbability akin to the assembly of an airplane in a junkyard by a tornado.

In other words you created an intricate overly complex mathematical structure, and then argue that it applies to a straw man argument in order to show Intelligent Design.


It matters less than the amount of ant frass in Antarctica what your calculations and pattern observations show, when your irrelevant extrapolation to the formation of life is patently just wishful thinking.

You have provided no basis for thinking there was a correlation from one to the other ... other that personal incredulity ...

Science proceeds by demonstrating cause and effect, by extrapolating an explanation from data and then making a testable prediction ... and testing it.

You
Have
Not
Done
That

You have shown no link between origin of life and star trek tv episodes.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dubreuil, posted 04-05-2015 3:48 PM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Dubreuil, posted 04-05-2015 5:56 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 53 of 393 (755181)
04-05-2015 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Dubreuil
04-05-2015 5:56 PM


Re: failure avoidance doesn't make failure go away.
... For the Higgs boson the level of certainty was only 4.9 sigma and it was accepted as discovery: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...d-Particle-has-been-found.html. ...

The difference is that this was validation of a prediction of what should be observed if the Higgs boson existed.

... A certainty of 1:10^5136 is a high level of certainty, but 1:10^7 is also a good level of certainty and not irrelevant to science. ...

And the first is due to purely natural causes, the second is due to human interactions.

... Would you also name the causes I have failed to eliminate in your opinion?

That tv episodes are necessarily non-random by-products of humans developing the episodes within certain fixed parameters.

I referred to [3]. "The question of how simple organic molecules formed a protocell is largely unanswered." is a quotation: https://www.boundless.com/...tions-about-early-life-521-5399. An other quotation: "Several problems exist with current abiogenesis models, including a primordial earth with conditions not inductive to abiogenesis, the lack of a method for simple organic molecules to polymerize, and the mono-chirality of molecules seen in life." ...

And you still fail to make any kind of rational reason to claim that patterns in a tv show mean that ID is involved in the origin of life.

(See Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I)
and Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) for a different take.)

... A bias or an agent in chance itself would make abiogenesis models more credible.

Nope. What makes them credible (or not) is whether or not they work.

There are natural biases in the way chemicals form and interact, and once you have self-replicating molecules you have the beginning of evolution, which means selection causing an additional bias.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Dubreuil, posted 04-05-2015 5:56 PM Dubreuil has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 86 of 393 (755291)
04-07-2015 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Dubreuil
04-06-2015 5:09 PM


Just to be clear
I want to clear up some of your initial obfuscations.

First -- what is being analyzed:

... Only the first minute is quantised mostly. I agree that there are patterns for longer times. But the 1:10^7 probability is only about a pattern in the first one or two minutes.

So you are ONLY talking about the first 2 minutes of the introduction/s to the episodes and not to the whole episodes, and that is where you find your pattern.

and Second -- what "triggers" your "pattern" recording:

quote:
The found pattern

It was possible to find a matching pattern, that will be described in this section. For a complete description there are three other persons necessary:

P.Al green, big/wide/a lot, lack of knowledge, do nothing, holiday,
very old, starships, standby, science, stone, death, 4

Now I note that this is a list of 14 rather different "triggers" that let you designate\count an appearance etc of P.A1 ... and that when we look at the pattern analysis for this "trigger" we have:

quote:
The full pattern found for ST:TNG looks like this:

E1E2E3E4E5E6E7E8E9E10E11E1E13E14E15
P.Al*, -***, -**-*, +*, -*, -*, +

So even with 14 different "triggers" P.A1 only appears in 11 out of 15 episodes?

Similar argument can be made for P.BW (7 "triggers" -- "colour black/white, silver, ice, cold, invisible, 6") and for P.En (2 "triggers" listed -- energy, lovely -- but then expanded in the discussion following: "P.En appears wherever the word energy or the word lovely is mentioned. As person P.En appears often as young women. The warp core as source of all energy counts as an appearance of P.En too if it is shown or mentioned.")

Curiously the fact that these "triggers" seem to be rather arbitrary (ie unrelated to one another of the same category) leads me to the conclusion that your "pattern" is an artifact of your analysis rather than a pattern in the tv show.

This would also explain how you find the same "pattern" in other documents.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 5:09 PM Dubreuil has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-07-2015 9:17 AM RAZD has seen this message

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 87 of 393 (755296)
04-07-2015 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dubreuil
04-06-2015 5:26 AM


Another clarification -- testing ID is not really a part of the paper
It appears that you are walking away from your claim of ID involvement.

RAZD writes:

And you still fail to make any kind of rational reason to claim that patterns in a tv show mean that ID is involved in the origin of life.

The papers topic is about testing ID at the present time, not in the past. It was not the main topic to show that ID is involved in the origin of life in this paper.

Now, again I refer to the discussion of ID in your paper (from Message 26):

Let me extract only those parts that discuss Intelligent Design:

quote:
(Abstract) ... The similarities with the circumstances of the origin of first life are tremendous. The results indicate that intelligent design exists at the present time. ...

Introduction

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. The theory of intelligent design gives answers to largely unanswered questions, like the origin of first live. For the origin of first life a force is missing that drives polymerization [3]. Not only to largely unanswered biological and chemical questions an answer is given, even the fine-tuned universe could be possibly explained through an intelligent cause. A force that causes complexity in such diversity would be a mathematical or a physical force. If an intelligent cause exists as fundamental force of nature, then it could be still present and sensible at the present time. Raw data will be analysed for included patterns. If a fundamental force exists that creates complexity for several different situations, then it could create complexity for human decision processes as well. It will be shown that the results are best explained by a bias in chance itself, to create nontrivial structures.

The patterns' origin and intelligent design

... The patterns origin seems to be more likely in chance itself, then in unconscious human decision processes. That could be an indication for intelligent design. There are existing similar problems for creating a suitable theory for the origin of first life. The question of how simple organic molecules formed a protocell is largely unanswered [3]. The circumstances for this question are the same as for the found pattern. In both settings is chance the most important factor. A protocell can only form if all necessary molecules are at the correct place at the correct time. The found pattern can only originate, if all persons are at the correct place at the correct time. If chance itself is biased to create nontrivial structures, then both problems can be explained with intelligent design. ...


Your answer to this (Message 51) was that you were just quoting others regrading the probability of origins of life rather than testing it or actually (god forbid) applying your "pattern" technique to extract evidence of it.

So the ONLY role of ID in this paper is that IF ID is present, THEN it can be found (will result) in a pattern, ... and the follow-up claim is that IF a pattern emerges. THEN ID can be inferred. Yes?

You do realize that this is the logical fallacy called Affirming the Consequent:

quote:
Any argument of the following form is invalid:
If A then B
B
Therefore, A

So your article title ("About testing Intelligent Design at the present time and references about a triune God") is misleading: you have not tested ID, just assumed it.

In fact, you could remove all references to ID from the paper (and to god/s) and the valid conclusions from your paper would be unaffected (if not improved).

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 5:26 AM Dubreuil has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 112 of 393 (755350)
04-07-2015 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 12:01 PM


Further clarification part 1
RAZD writes:

So you are ONLY talking about the first 2 minutes of the introduction/s to the episodes and not to the whole episodes, and that is where you find your pattern.

Yes.

Which you further clarify in Message 97:

The first two minutes are mostly "Teasers": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_open.
You will read there: "On television, this is often done". ...

If I were going to pick the one part of these shows to be the most formulaic it would be these opening "teasers" ... they "set the scene" for the episode. In plays there is "the prologue" that does the same. This is a standard theatrical device.

This part of the show would also be the most controlled by the directorial staff regardless of who writes the episode, kind of like the first paragraph in a newspaper article with the "who, what, where, when, why and how" elements.

... Often, not always. The rules how to create the first minutes are very different for different series and episodes. To create the first minutes in a very different way than it is normally done can also increase it's popularity. We should therefore expect that patterns will normally be ignored in the first minutes.

This is your assumption unsupported by any evidence. Curiously I expect the opposite.

The opening credits are strict formula with the theremin-like music and the intoning of the stock

"Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before." ...

You repeat this claim in Message 93:

TV shows as whole are developed, but the first few minutes are not developed in the same way for every episode.

Again I disagree. The "teasers" for mystery shows are pretty formulaic in previewing who is going to be charged (wrongly) with what crime, for example.

To make a claim of expectation of variation you would need to provide evidence that this was the case, not a calculation showing there is a pattern and an assumption that there should not be one.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 12:01 PM Dubreuil has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 113 of 393 (755351)
04-07-2015 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 12:01 PM


Further clarification part 2
RAZD writes:

So even with 14 different "triggers" P.A1 only appears in 11 out of 15 episodes?

No. E1 to E15 are the 15 events from the pattern. Message 28 explains what the pattern is. There is an exemplary pattern with E1 to E4 explained and how the fit was tested. The actual pattern has 15 parts. You can also read the example in words on page 6 in the paper.

Well I for one am still having some trouble figuring out what your pattern is, as it seems you have made your discussion of it very complex, imho.

Let's pretend that I am very simple minded, a doddering old man or a young child, and you are trying to explain to me what the pattern is: use words and try to be as explicit as you can be.

If I can go back to my tree ring example I can see the most recent rings from the older chronology making this pattern:

{}BABBABCCBCBACB ...(etc)

(where {} represents the first ring measured) and when I look at the most recent rings from the (18 year) newer chronology I see:

{}bcbaababacbbabbacbBABBABCCBCBACB ...(etc)

(where lowercase is used for the years that came after the older chronology and the last "b" is the {} location of the beginning of the older chronology).

Now this is rather obviously a distinct pattern (and one that becomes statistically more unique the longer the trinary pattern is measured) that can be matched with other trees.

Can you spell out your pattern simply? Inquiring minds want to know ...

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 12:01 PM Dubreuil has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 114 of 393 (755354)
04-07-2015 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 12:01 PM


Further clarification part 3
RAZD writes:

Curiously the fact that these "triggers" seem to be rather arbitrary (ie unrelated to one another of the same category) leads me to the conclusion that your "pattern" is an artifact of your analysis rather than a pattern in the tv show.

I maybe was too diligent about this. Only a few of these options are actually necessary. After I introduced P.Al for everytime more than 5 person are visible I noticed that the named elements tended to appear only if P.Al appears too and added them to P.Al then. ...

A most bizarre, imho, approach for someone looking for patterns. Why not have them a separate elements and their appearance being included as part of the pattern?

... I probably could remove the most of this options without affecting the pattern. But with the additional options the pattern has a higher predictive power. If I would remove for example stones or the number 4, then stone and the number 4 could appear randomly. Attached to P.Al they are only allowed to appear at 11 out of 15 events.

Or conversely, P.A1 appears in 11 out of 15 events because they are added to the P.A1 profile and there would be fewer appearances without them (which then makes the "pattern" an artifact of lumping them all under one category).

If you think you can remove elements and still maintain your pattern then they are not essential to the pattern and should NOT be included in the profile/s: Occam's Razor suggests that you use the simplest explanation first, and only increase the complexity when it is needed to explain the evidence.

It appears that you methodology needs review.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 12:01 PM Dubreuil has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 117 of 393 (755358)
04-07-2015 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 3:15 PM


Further Clarification part 4
There can be simple rules. From Message 95: "in the first 5 seconds a person appears". The probability was calculated for it happening solely by chance. The results showed that the pattern was not created solely by chance. That concurs with your opinion.

Can you envisage an introductory "teaser" segment that does NOT include a "person" appearing in the opening seconds?

Can I take it from this that the first part\element of your "pattern" is: "a person appears" (which sounds a lot like stage directions imho).

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : st

Edited by RAZD, : 1st element


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 3:15 PM Dubreuil has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 118 of 393 (755363)
04-07-2015 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 12:01 PM


Further clarification part 5
RAZD writes:

So the ONLY role of ID in this paper is that IF ID is present, THEN it can be found (will result) in a pattern, ... and the follow-up claim is that IF a pattern emerges. THEN ID can be inferred. Yes?

If ID is present at the present time, then it COULD have been involved in the origin of life. That is not a main part of the paper, the paper is about testing at the present time.

Curiously my point is that this paper in reality is not about demonstrating the presence of ID, it is just saying that ID could be used to explain (X), but with no substantiation that it is needed to explain (X). It seems you have a problem understanding causality (this btw is Dr A's argument) and, more importantly, how to demonstrate it.

IF ID is present, THEN it could be found in a pattern. ...

ANY pattern? or should we find it in ALL patterns (or just hope to "get lucky")?

... If there is no other explanation like chance, conscious or unconscious human behaviour or other restraints left, then it COULD be ID. ...

or not. That is not an explanation based on knowledge of the cause, but an argument based on the absence of knowledge of the cause, and the presumptive assumption of an unknown causal agent. Also called "wishful thinking."

In other words, you are claiming that anything that cannot be explained must be evidence of design? That because you cannot think of another explanation that it must by default be *miracle of miracles* {GOD}. Ever heard of "god of the gaps?"

... It's an indication that intelligent design exists at the present time. That it could be caused by ID and not by magic little pigs is inferred from the residual uncertainty of 1:10^3 about a triune God: Message 39.

How about 3 invisible pigs?

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : ...


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 12:01 PM Dubreuil has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022