No, not at all. I was merely asking to see the proof of your claim. I just happen to not move on to what ever distraction you throw my way because there is nothing you can actually back it up with, and keep you on topic instead.{}^* That you choose to expose your incompetence on what ever you bring up instead of addressing the actual question is not my responsibility.
That’s rich, coming from so liberal a liar as yourself. Remind me, when did you earnestly try to actually parse the question, much less address it? I can’t think of one message you posted since I posed it, wherein you did not try to talk of something else. Frankly, in trying to reinterpret what is happening here this way, you do more insult to the intelligence of our readers, than to my character, but it is not my place to demand apologies on their behalf.
Now, maybe you changed your mind since then. A convenient development, all of a sudden, after hundreds of times being pointed out where estimating sequence space size was an inadequate approach to the problem, including yours truly’s attempt at explaining as much to you, to be sure. Still, something tells me any other point you make will after some kicking and screaming be dropped just the same if any pressure as mild as not letting you go on to babble something else is applied.
No. Let’s see a calculation to estimate what would be “sufficiently large” instead, just like I asked. Because if we get to just define stuff with no regards to data, then we might as well say that three is sufficiently large. Or that nothing shy of 10^{370} is. Until we have some data and rigorous inference from data, this is just babble.
I think I asked to see a proof. I do not think this sorry negotiation qualifies as proof.
This rather heavily implies that you had not covered one of the most basic probability distributions, the Binomial Distribution, whose mathematical definition explicitly includes the combinatorial Binomial Coefficient. Given that pedagogically, the Binomial Distribution, via the Central Limit Theorem, is typically used to introduce the Normal Distribution, probably the most important distribution in statistics, I cannot help but question whether your understanding of Statistics is deficient.
I should hope they are not. But I have asked you to back up your claim on that question far too many times to just forget about it and entertain you with my own opinion on it instead. You have yet to muster an attempt at addressing it. Mighty rich is your righteous indignation at some alleged one-sidedness after asking me the question you are so persistently dodging to substantiate your answer to. Suffice it to say I am indeed hesitant to be answering your queries until after you made some attempt at not completely ignoring mine, and I’ll happily leave to the judgement of our readers how fairly or patiently they deem I treated you until this point and what good, if any, that did our chat.
Now, feel free to present a proof, that the possibility of a search is contingent upon functional sequence space size. Alternatively you are welcome to confess that you know of no means to substantiate this claim and I will surely cease to push you to provide any. And if then you can keep a dignified, respectful tone of voice like what I’ve been consistently offering you (and after the lies you told, I daresay that’s well beyond what is deserved or warranted), I may well indulge your curiosity about what my opinions on these matters are.
I didn’t know any of that and unlike Bill Cole I have no problem admitting that. It’s also all completely irrelevant to Bill’s counterfactual beliefs about speciation, common ancestry, the de novo emergence of genes, and their duplication and divergence.
Imagine Bill suddenly doing a 180 and throwing his last 5-10 years of internet bullshitting under the bus in this way. What would he have left if he conceded the foundational axiom upon which literally all his stupidity is built?
Demonstrating that something would require a “statistical miracle” would require (i) a working understanding of statistics, and (ii) an ability to actually do math (as opposed to simply waving in the vague general direction of math). Which brings us right back to Bill’s Math Class.
Every time Bill attempts maths he reveals another thing of which he is ignorant. He’s shown he doesn’t know how to work with exponents, what ratios are, what “base 2” means, what probability distributions are, and now he doesn’t know the difference between a definition and an assumption. There is no way that some-one with his claimed education could not know these things - unless he was taught maths at the equivalent of Patriot University, or has since suffered some form of brain trauma.
So the number of elements in a search doesn’t have to be an integer?
The only miracle shown so far is Bill passing a university maths course.
Bill, you are getting gently beaten to death here. I wonder what you are getting out of this. Not an education, it is clear your attention span is inadequate for that.
Hi Alan
I am interested how people will defend false ideologies like materialism. Keiths at TSZ is an interesting case study. What you perceive as “beaten up” are really logical fallacies that make you feel more secure in you worldview. If you start to spot the logical fallacies the arguments will start to look very different to you.
All proofs contain assumptions. It does not appear you are prepared to discuss a proof as complex as the one you asked for.
You were able to form a simple proof but the one you are asking for is much more complex.
Yeah according to GE it’s only something on the order of 999999 of 1 million mutations that are invisible to selection. Or something close to it.
Of course, if you mean to say instead that the New Improved GE that no longer has anything to do with fitness and has been redefined to just mean loss-of-function mutations. But in that case, GE doesn’t predict the inevitable extinction of all life. Heck, it doesn’t even predict life couldn’t evolve. And in that case, all your crap about Kimura’s curve, Sanford’s bastardization of it, and the supposed “zone of no selection” goes out the window.
Sorry Gilbert but you’re going to have to make up your mind.
Incorrect. Also, irrelevant. No proof begins with “Do you agree with…”. Not one. Now, please, quit stalling and just get on with rendering yours, if you have one, or confess that you do not, if you do not.
Until you present a proof, I am indeed not prepared to discuss one. First write it up, then we can discuss it.
