Refutation of a Statistical Argument Supporting Coevolution (Origins)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, February 24, 2010, 15:06 (5173 days ago) @ David Turell

David,
> > 
> > Specifically the article is refuting the p of .00015 (ish) that I know you've referenced before. THAT is the weapon it takes away from you. You can no longer use it. 
> 
> I don't know where or when I used a p value of any magnitude-I remember a number that was 1.5 x 10 ^ -some number which is what made me think of this one. -> > 
> > In either case, my overall point is that we can't trust statistical arguments for systems we don't completely understand.
> 
> But IF we understand, we can use them. Tell what is not understood.-I've discussed this before--without a mechanism or a pathway leading from nonlife to life, we cannot begin to calculate a p for the process, because kinda like physics, we have a chemistry for organic and biochem, but the distinctions between them belie their specialized scope: organic is simply carbon molecules, and biochem is LIFE chemistry. We have a bridge to neither and even if we were designed, the designer had only these (missing) tools to work with. -The probabilities as I've seen them are based ONLY on what we know now, and the most important key to the puzzle--our Rosetta stone--is finding a path from nonlife to life. If we have an A, and a Z, but can only find A->G, with a bunch of stuff missing with a known W->Z, the best you can do is discuss the results at present, which is we're missing H->V. Adler is very fond of making these types of "snapshot" judgments (such as in Difference), but what I see you doing is making an early judgment. I'll discuss that in the more related thread...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"