Re: Question for Sean Pitman



On Jan 8, 7:48 pm, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 8, 4:03 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jan 8, 6:46 pm, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 8, 6:46 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 05:25:07 -0800 (PST), in article
<6987b9e5-6d75-4071-ad52-657d24aa8...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, wf3h
stated..."

On Jan 8, 7:38=A0am, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 8, 4:26=A0am, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

How do you calculate the odds of a nonrandom event, =A0Sean?

Some people are exceptionally dense. =A0I just explained to you, Lenny,
that the odds I'm calculating are the odds of a random event hitting
upon something that can then be non-randomly selected. =A0What do you
not understand about that? =A0The odds are not of a non-random event
happening. =A0Those odds are 100% once the target is actually found by
purely random chance. =A0So, the only real question is, what are the
odds that a target will be found in a given span of time?

<chuckle> what's amusing about seeingseancall someone else 'dense'
for not applying his version of statistics is that, ifseanapplied
statistics to creationism, he wouldn't be a creationist. creationism
has failed 100% of the time it's been used.

but, of course, the man behind the curtain neglects to address the
failure of his own ideas...

Of course, the odds that a random event happening are completely
dependent upon the particular assignnment of probabilities.

For example, the odds that the house will win in a gambling game
are close to 100%. Even though the house takes every precaution
that it is truly random. (The house prudently makes sure that the
outcomes are random for each event, as long as they know that in
the long run, the odds strongly favor the house. Departures from
randomness can hurt the house: a crooked dealer, or a customer who
detects a pattern.)

Yes indeed. The question here is, how long does the house expect it to
take for the house to win a big, on average? In other words, how
often is a particular event expected to happen in a given span of
time. That's the question here. How long will it take, on average
for a random search to find a novel beneficial target in sequence
space given that the location of the target is not directly known?
Answering that question requires the use of some statistical analysis
- some real math.

Show us, Sean.

Give us a real-world example. Pick a genetic sequence in the human
genomje that you nfdeel absolutely positively could not have evolved,
ever, not in a billion trillion years.

Show us itsd corresponding genetic sequence in chimps.

Use all the real math you like to demonstrate why one sequence coulod
not have evolved from the other.

Show us,Sean. Show the entire world, right here.

Why are you so reluctrant to apply your wonderful real mathematical;
model to the real world,Sean. . . . ?

Put up or shut up,Sean.

I've already done this for bacterial systems -

http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html



Horse ***, Sean.

Now answer my goddamn question and quit running away from it.

Fucking coward.





Have any comments that are actually substantive instead of your usual
lame pejoratives?




Yeah, Sean, I do.

Here's one that you seem quite unable to respond to:

Show us your wonderful mathematics in action, Sean. Point to a human
genetic sequence that you think absolutely positively could not have
evolved under any circumstances in zillions of years. Point to the
corresponding ape sequence. Then show us why one could not have
evolved into the other.


You seem quite unable to answer that simple question. I can think of
only three possible reasons for your inability (or unwillingness) to
answer. Either (1) there is no such sequence, (2) there is such a
sequence, but you don't know how to use your own mathematical model to
tell us what it is, or (3) there is such a sequence and you do know
what it is, but for some unfathomable reason you want to keep it all a
big secret from everybody.

If you don't have the balls to answer my simple question, Sean, would
you at least tell me WHY you won't answer it? Is it reason number
one, reason number two, or reason number three?

My money, of course, is on reason number one.

Put up or shut up, Sean. Fish or cut bait, Sean. *** or get off the
goddamn toilet, Sean.

I weary of your evasive handwaving.

Coward.



================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"


Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

.

Loading