Evidence of evolution: Sex ratio as a function of male competition

[james_bond_3rd]

Been working on my new trading system. No time to post. Once it's done I'll be back.

Just a short note here. You're confusing individual events (which might have a "reason" for happening) with statistical sampling. For example, why did Napoleon lose at Waterloo? Was the loss accidental or "designed?" Does that loss make Napoleon a lesser general than Lord Wellington?

You're also missing the point I was making in the example of "great generals." The point is that when a statistical result is indistinguishable from "random ignorant chance" in a random sample, then one has no proof that the null hypothesis is wrong. In my post that you quoted, I stated clearly that I could not tell the difference from the statistical data, between whether these generals were truly great (opposite of the null hypothesis), or whether they were simply lucky (the null hypothesis). By trying to argue that they couldn't have been lucky without any statistical evidence that the null hypothesis is false, you have really highlighted your misunderstanding of this concept.

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[jem]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Been working on my new trading system. No time to post. Once it's done I'll be back.

Just a short note here. You're confusing individual events (which might have a "reason" for happening) with statistical sampling. For example, why did Napoleon lose at Waterloo? Was the loss accidental or "designed?" Does that loss make Napoleon a lesser general than Lord Wellington?

You're also missing the point I was making in the example of "great generals." The point is that when a statistical result is indistinguishable from "random ignorant chance" in a random sample, then one has no proof that the null hypothesis is wrong. In my post that you quoted, I stated clearly that I could not tell the difference from the statistical data, between whether these generals were truly great (opposite of the null hypothesis), or whether they were simply lucky (the null hypothesis). By trying to argue that they couldn't have been lucky without any statistical evidence that the null hypothesis is false, you have really highlighted your misunderstanding of this concept.

Ignorance is bliss.

history is rewritten

go back an read your arguments about the null hypothesis. You seem to get your diagrams wrong.

Your test has no bearing on whether we can find the Generals to have been great or lucky in other tests.

You are simply misstated the conclusions we could draw for your test of the null hypothesis.

I will explain it to you again. Even though you kept missing this distinction in our past arguments I think you may get it now - which is why you carefully crafted your argument (above).

As I quoted previously...

(Where H1 is the alternate Hypothesis)

The final conclusion once the test has been carried out is always given in terms of the null hypothesis. We either "Reject H0 in favour of H1" or "Do not reject H0". We never conclude "Reject H1", or even "Accept H1".

(Where H1 is the alternate Hypothesis)



You set up a test of nonsense.

All you can conclude from your test of nonsense is that you could not reject that the Generals were lucky.

You absolutely can not state that you Reject that the Generals were great generals (skilled and not random actors) .

I explained to you there were myraid ways to show to show that generals were not winning battles at random.

You argument was ridiculous from the start and you know it.
Why do you attempt to change history.

 

[archipus]

What a thread. How many letters of accomplishment do you have to have after your name to observe bees reproducing into more bees, and then come to the conclusion that bees don't reproduce into more bees. Your grand conclusion is that they reproduce into something else. That's the evolutionists take on things. It's sort of the wizard of oz type of science. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!( or those things reproducing after their own kind, like the bible says)" No, indeed, just pay attention to some little nuance that we've dreamed up. And for heaven's sake, you know we're more reliable than your own eyes. After all, we have phd's.

Some people will believe anything.