Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-22-2017 6:55 PM
401 online now:
jar, JonF, Meddle, Modulous (AdminModulous) (4 members, 397 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Happy Birthday: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,856 Year: 27,462/21,208 Month: 1,375/1,714 Week: 218/365 Day: 60/62 Hour: 4/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456Next
Author Topic:   A Test Of Science And Evolution Knowledge
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13311
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 31 of 83 (814037)
07-03-2017 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by nwr
07-03-2017 1:24 PM


Re: I don't see the point
Mike wants us to think that he is informed and has sound reasons for rejecting evolution. He has to use indirect means because when he tries to present his arguments it becomes obvious that it isn't true. Typical creationist egotism I'm afraid.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by nwr, posted 07-03-2017 1:24 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2017 6:34 AM PaulK has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7509
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 32 of 83 (814040)
07-03-2017 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
07-02-2017 2:02 PM


The first quiz/test is population genetics. A difficult test Goku provided (a member from EFF with good education of evolution), I only got 65% on this test and that is probably the best low score I have ever got because my knowledge of this minutia level of science isn't the best;

https://highered.mheducation.com/...r20/multiple_choice.html

Out of 43 questions, you answered 31 correctly, for a final grade of 72%

Quite a tricky technical one that one.

This is just a test on evolution I googled;

http://www.gotoquiz.com/evolution_t_f_quiz

I got 88% on that one.

Don't like this one, some questions that are not really answerable:

quote:
3. Evolution is a process which involved the origin of life.

I mean, the origin of life seems to have utilised evolutionary processes so it could be considered true. The Theory Of Evolution as it stands today, doesn't include the origin of life, but the evolution of life on earth does include the origins of life.

quote:
Evolution can be compatible with all the world's major religions.

Depends on what you consider the world's major religions really. The world's major religions could be interpreted to be compatible with evolution, but this way round is ambiguous.

Anyway: You were 92% correct.

And finally a science and technology quiz, which I got 14 out of 15;

http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/science-knowledge-2013/

You answered 13 of 13 questions correctly.

Interesting to see that all of the answers but one are answered correctly by the majority of people. That one question gets 3/4 of people.

So then do creationists understand the ToE, but perhaps just don't value it like you do?

I'd say that many creationists do not understand the ToE at all, exhibiting persistent misapprehensions about one thing or another to do with the subject. Of those that have a grip on it, their religious commitment to a particular belief overrides their reasoning - and they find ways to rationalize the contradiction.

I believe there are many creationists like me, that understand your theory but simply don't accept it is true and believe on logical grounds it runs short of the mark.

I've seen your logic and find it lacking. I think you are very much trying to rationalise your scepticism.

My belief is that there is a strong connection between disinterest in a subject and ignorance of it.

Maybe so - but this doesn't explain why so many creationists who are active in the EvC debate have such persistent holes in their knowledge. They are clearly interested in the subject, right?

I believe in all honesty, if the boot was on the other foot, evolutionists would generally score low if there were tests to understand the creationist arguments from creation scientists.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that evolutionists scored better than creationists on creationist arguments. But that's a hypothesis for the testing, I suppose.

I have given an argument against evolution here which is a logically correct deductive argument in message one

quote:
So that means between the Permian and Triassic we should see the transitionals for lizards.

This is empirically false. Regardless of your logic, if it fails in facts your are going to err. There is no 'should' with fossils. There is no reason to expect such fossils. The correct reasoning is actually 'if a transitional fossil exists, it would be found here'. If no such fossils exist we won't find them. If we haven't found them, we won't see them.

You go on to talk about how this applies to other groups too. That said, I could argue evolution without the use of fossils. Fossils give us natural history, but aren't required evidence for evolution. We are just fortuitous we have some fossils, and the fossils we have are consistent with what we know about evolution from other sources. The existence of fossils made it easier to develop the theory, and gives us some additional data to work from - but evolution could be true with zero fossil. Evolution does not necessitate fossils.

Anyway, you'll find the lizard fossils in the Carboniferous, before the Permian and Triassic - see Hylonomus. It came after Westlothiana, which seems to have a mix of amphibious and reptillian/amniote features. See also: Casineria - also showing a mix of characteristics - exhibiting the characteristics of, dare I say, a 'transition' between the two groups.

These are not obscure fossils, so one wonders - how did you miss them when you wrote what you wrote? I suggest you are simply not motivated to find them as they contradict or complicate your thesis.

Another problem with this issue, is that when creationists question evolution or they say something that doesn't favour it, automatically in my experience of debate, it seems to be a tactic to say that the creationist only says those things because of a lack of understanding....Isn't that basically just an ad hominem tactic

No, it is not an attack of the person - but an attack of their knowledge. A perfectly valid tactic in a debate.

What does it really mean to say the "scientific community's assessment", Lol.

It means that the people trained in subject generally say one thing. It's like saying 'in the electrical engineer's community assessment you should ensure your domestic circuits are correctly earthed' or something. It's not a controversial subject. The experts are called experts and are given the credibility of expertise for a reason. I would trust electricians perspectives on wiring my house over the opinions of lay people who have superstitions regarding earthing circuits for traditional reasons.

Are they necessarily experts in critical thinking and logic?

Not necessarily, but generally, yes. Getting a degree or a phd requires becoming rather good at critical thinking and most subjects require logic and reasoning skills, mathematics and so on. In fact, as a general rule - one has to be among the best critical thinkers and reasoners in the world to achieve this. An expert in critical thinking, you might say. Being humans as part of a human process of educational assessment - this is not a perfect system, but it's a pretty good one.

Is the truth-veracity/value of a claim, and it's proof-status, something science deals with for historical theories which began with evolution and long ages?

In so far as science is about truth/veracity and proof statuses in general - then yes, science deals with this for 'historical theories'. But then....

That is to say, they themselves assess evolution to see if it counts as a well explained or best scientific explanation of the facts, they themselves aren't assessing it's truth-value.

This is no different than any science. 'Historical' theories are not exceptional in this regard. The Theory of Relativity, the Theory of Quantum Loop gravity - they are all attempts to build explanatory frameworks for the facts as we understand them, with a cycle of hypothesis testing which, the philosophy goes, gets us ever closer to truth but without us ever being certain if and when we get to The Truth.

They are not sitting down then saying, "yes, macro evolution truly did happen it is proven."

No scientist says this about anything, in the way you are meaning it here. They will more likely to say 'it is overwhelmingly likely...based on the evidence presently available' if they are being technical, only reverting to informal language if the forum permits it - ie., talking to a lay audience.

That isn't how a theory operates. It operates by inductive reasoning

Inductive, abductive, deductive - no type of logic is excluded from the process. Abductive is quite an important, and often overlooked, method:

quote:
Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, abductive inference, or retroduction) is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation.--wiki

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 07-02-2017 2:02 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by dwise1, posted 07-04-2017 1:06 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply
 Message 46 by caffeine, posted 07-04-2017 2:58 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19226
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 33 of 83 (814052)
07-03-2017 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
07-02-2017 2:02 PM


95% ...
100%
100%

This is really really sad

You scored 100%.
You scored better than 93% of the public and the same as 7%.

It wasn't that hard folks.

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 1 by mike the wiz, posted 07-02-2017 2:02 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Stile, posted 07-04-2017 9:48 AM RAZD has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10066
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 34 of 83 (814057)
07-04-2017 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by PaulK
07-03-2017 1:18 PM


Re: Evidence for kinds
In reality - as we have recently seen - creationists looking for "kinds" do not find adequate evidence in biology and instead have to turn to scripture to identify the (supposed) boundaries.

With the exception of the separation of humans from all other apes, I don't think creationists do turn to scripture. There really is not much scriptural classification help anyway. In the place "after its own kind" is mentioned, only a few animals are listed. We know that there are various "kinds" of winged fowl and that other creatures come in kinds, but not much else.

When creationists say, for example, that lions, tigers, and tailless Manxes are all the same kind, they are not consulting scripture because those animals are not even mentioned.

I'd also point out that there is no single rigorous way to identify species either. We've seen animals classified as separate species based on very tiny genetic differences without any test of whether individuals of species can interbreed. We consider lions and tigers to be separate species. Coyotes and wolves are separate species even though many coyotes and wolves can interbreed without the problems that are encountered when lions and tigers interbreed.

I'm sure that a creationist would lump dogs, wolves, and coyotes all in one kind. I don't see why a baraminologist would be less able than a biologist to justify their conclusion using science only and without returning to scripture.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2017 1:18 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 07-04-2017 12:35 AM NoNukes has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13311
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 35 of 83 (814058)
07-04-2017 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by NoNukes
07-04-2017 12:14 AM


Re: Evidence for kinds
See the link in Message 651

A baraminology tutorial with examples from the grasses (Poaceae)


There really is no single ‘baraminology method’ but rather a collection of methods used in successive approximation. In the following sections, I present a few techniques that can be used by nearly any biologist. I begin with Scriptural considerations, then move to additive and subtractive evidences, and conclude with an interpretation of my results.

(bolding mine)

Note also that the the only "subtractive evidence" is morphological difference which is hardly strong evidence of a discontinuity in itself. It is a result entirely consistent with evolution. There is no "hard" criterion that allows different "kinds" to be reliably identified.

The objection that the same could be said of species or the other taxonomic groupings used by mainstream science entirely misses the point. The absence of clear boundaries is evidence for evolution, and against the existence of separate "kinds" no matter what system is employed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by NoNukes, posted 07-04-2017 12:14 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by NoNukes, posted 07-04-2017 8:49 PM PaulK has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2999
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 36 of 83 (814059)
07-04-2017 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
07-02-2017 2:02 PM


On the population genetics test, I scored 74% (32 correct, 11 incorrect, 0 unanswered). For that one you would have had to have studied population genetics in order to have all the terminology and equations down.

On the Evolution T/F quiz, I scored 92%. I got two "wrong":
1. The evolution of major groups of animals and plants is an observed fact.
13. Evolution can be compatible with all the world's major religions.

We could quibble about #1, but I strongly disagree with #13. Evolution does not in any way conflict with the idea of Divine Creation nor with the existence of any of the gods. The only source of conflict is when the religions create that conflict. When religions insist on conflicting with reality (such as YEC does), then they also conflict with evolution. Evolution can be compatible with all the world's major religions so long as those religions do not make contrary-to-fact claims about the reality -- even those who take issue with the very idea of reality at least do not try to claim that if the real world is actually as it is then God does not exist (basically, the YEC claim).

I would need to challenge your 88% score on that one. Most of those questions were creationist misconceptions about evolution. As the unrepentant YEC that you evidence yourself to be, if you had answered them honestly, then you would have thought most of them to be true and hence should have gotten a much lower score. For those who did not notice, that quiz had a preface:

quote:
Since, 1) I will be teaching intro. to physical anthropology in the fall, and 2) I found out "they" are attempting to open a creationist museum on the border on Ohio and Kentcuky, I figured I would just see for myself were Americans stand on the idea of evolution. 3 out of 9 congressmen polled about whether they believed in "evolution" or not stated that they didn't. That to me is scary.

Please indicate whether each following statement is true or false, in terms of how you think biologists use and understand the term "evolution" today. YOU do NOT necessarily have to AGREE with the statement for it to be "true" as you think biologists see it. The purpose of this is to determine the collective level of understanding on this topic. In every case below, "evolution" means "biological evolution".



OK, so you could answer contrary to what you think. Which makes you and your situation even worse, because you know better and yet you persist in misconstruing evolution.

The Pew Research quiz/poll, I aced it, 13 out of 13. It was really simple.

Wait a tick ...

mike the wiz writes:

And finally a science and technology quiz, which I got 14 out of 15;

http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/science-knowledge-2013/
(This last one is a good one because when you are finished it shows a statistic of how you compare to people of the same age group and so forth.)


"14 out of 15"? ???? There were only 13 questions, so where are you getting that "15" from?

Now, for statistical data collection purposes, they also asked us our age range, our gender, and our educational level. Are those what you are talking about? Well, I hate to inform you that 13 + 3 = 16, not 15.

Assuming that you can correctly answer questions about your age, gender, and educational level (no, I am not fishing for sarcasm here, but if you wish to claim that you in fact cannot answer those questions correctly, then do please proceed), what does that do to your actual score? I trust that you did print out a PDF of that page and will share it with us (I did print mine). Otherwise, it would appear that you got two of those extremely simple science questions wrong, not -1 of them as you claim.

Edited by dwise1, : First paragraph: "For that one you would have had to have studied population genetics in order to have all the terminology and equations down"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 07-02-2017 2:02 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by NoNukes, posted 07-04-2017 5:21 PM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 68 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2017 8:06 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2999
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 37 of 83 (814061)
07-04-2017 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Modulous
07-03-2017 3:29 PM


mike the wiz writes:

And finally a science and technology quiz, which I got 14 out of 15;

http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/science-knowledge-2013/

You answered 13 of 13 questions correctly.

Interesting to see that all of the answers but one are answered correctly by the majority of people. That one question gets 3/4 of people.

Two things:


  1. There were only 13 questions, yet he claims "14 out of 15". That is a factual discrepancy that needs to be resolved. I pointed that out to him in my Message 36, which should have been posted immediately before this one.

  2. Which question are you referring to? I printed out my results page as a PDF, but it did not include all the questions. I would be interested to know which question 75% of the people didn't answer correctly.

BTW, regarding your new avatar. At a Scottish Games here in the USA, I saw a t-shirt that read, "If this were a skirt, I'd be wearing underwear!"

On a slightly different note, back in the day when Brandon Frazier redid Bedazzled in 2000 in which Elizabeth Hurley played Peter Cook's part, the Devil, I noticed something. In one scene she's wearing a tartan mini-skirt. But then I notice the leather straps. She's wearing a mini-kilt! As they say, the Devil's in the details!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Modulous, posted 07-03-2017 3:29 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Stile, posted 07-04-2017 9:34 AM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 45 by Modulous, posted 07-04-2017 2:07 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1829
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.4


(4)
Message 38 of 83 (814076)
07-04-2017 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
07-02-2017 2:02 PM


Actually, I think the tests are meaningless. No questions about South African rocks? You guys know absolutely nothin' about science.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 07-02-2017 2:02 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Stile, posted 07-04-2017 9:42 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3037
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 39 of 83 (814084)
07-04-2017 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by mike the wiz
07-03-2017 1:04 PM


mike the wiz writes:

I'm baffled by this comment though

You take things too personally. (Could very well be my fault, I'm not a very good writer.)
It wasn't intended to be a personal comment about you.

I didn't argue that disinterest makes something false, which would be disbelief basically, which is the fallacy of an argument from incredulity.

And I never said that you did argue such a thing.
Again, you took the comment too personally or combatively. I wasn't arguing against you, I was just stating an idea.

For example is a steady state theory reality or monera or spontangeous generation because science is "the study of reality".

None of those are reality.
No existing theory in science today is reality either.
Evolution theory is not reality.
Theory of gravity is not reality.

What are you arguing against?

I don't think you understood what I said. Here, I'll bold the important part for you this time:

quote:
Therefore what's 'understood by science' is always 'true to reality' (as far as we can tell with the available information.)

It all depends on what information we have available to us.
As that information grows and changes, so do our understandings. Getting closer and closer to reality.

mike the wiz from evolutionfairytale writes:

ARE SOME TYPES OF SCIENCE INHERENTLY WEAKER?

By their nature yes

This is absolutely correct.

But 'evolution theory' isn't one of the weaker (younger/newer/less information available) sciences. It's one of the stronger sciences.
The only thing that makes a science strong or weak in this context is the amount of available information we have for the idea in question.

For example it was concluded Rhodocetus had a tail fluke and was ancestral to whales, but the finder of the organism later admitted it probably was a land animal for various anatomical reasons, proving that the type of forensic reconstruction for evolution, can be weak, especially with argued transitions.

Exactly. Science is self-correcting. That's why this issue was self-corrected.
That's why evolution theory is one of the stronger sciences. It has been self-corrected for many, many years now and is rather strong in it's core theory.

To put it in a more meaningful context, the chances of downforce existing have to be 99.999999%, and the chance of linear momentum existing must be 99.9999999% but really we all know they do exist, we have a reasonable knowledge they do

You are conflating facts with theories.

Down-force and linear momentum are descriptions of facts.
Like 'the sun warms my skin' and 'robins eat worms' are facts.

Evolution theory is an explanation of a (large) group of facts. Facts like fossils, genes and procreation.
Newton's theory of motion is an explanation of a (large) group of facts. Facts like down-force, linear momentum and gravity.

Your personal experience of motion-related facts and evolution-theory have no affect on evolution being a strong scientific theory. Again, the only thing affecting how strong or weak evolution theory is how much information about it is available. Since there's lots of information over many, many years... it's a strong theory.

Regardless of whether or not 'we all know they do exist.' Such common-knowledge-of-the-population facts are irrelevant to the knowledge of the scientists doing science with the information available to them.

but to say the chances of evolving from slime, after an abiogenesis from mud, is an equal chance, because they are both science, is incredibly naive, and exceedingly poor reasoning based on generalisation fallacy.

This is true.

No one says abiogenesis is as strong as evolution in scientific evidence. The available information on abiogenesis is not at the same level (yet).

But, of course, this has no impact on the theory of evolution being a strong science.
It has no impact on abiogenesis being good science.
It has no impact on abiogenesis being our closest-to-reality explanation according to the available information.
It has no impact on our ability to gain more information on abiogenesis and adapt it into a strong scientific theory as well, one day.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by mike the wiz, posted 07-03-2017 1:04 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3037
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 40 of 83 (814087)
07-04-2017 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by dwise1
07-04-2017 1:06 AM


dwise1 writes:

Which question are you referring to? I printed out my results page as a PDF, but it did not include all the questions. I would be interested to know which question 75% of the people didn't answer correctly.

Oh... me me me, pick me!!

Peek to read:

Will have to check with Mod to be sure, but I'm guessing he's talking about the "most abundant gas in the air" question. It's the one I got wrong. And I've gotten it wrong multiple times in my life (at least 2, and I think maybe more). The reflex is to go with Oxygen because we all breathe it. The answer, however, is of course: Nitrogen.

My science knowledge is pretty weak... I don't think about or go over any such facts in my general life.
However, I have a fairly good understanding of things I know, and things I don't. For this question, my normal answer would be "I don't know... let's go look it up." And a 2-second google search would give me the correct answer. Because of this always-available-encyclopedia-in-my-pocket I rarely retain facts I don't deal with on a regular basis.

But... searching google would be going against the "good-faith-idea" of the test. So I just answered as best I could at the time. And was wrong again, for the same reason again

One day, I'll learn. One day, some day!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by dwise1, posted 07-04-2017 1:06 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3037
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 41 of 83 (814088)
07-04-2017 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Pressie
07-04-2017 8:19 AM


Pressie writes:

Actually, I think the tests are meaningless.

I fully agree with this assessment.

But, just wanted to give mike something of what he asked for and see where he went with it.
Since he doesn't seem to be going down the route of "better on the test = smarter person" or anything like that... I think the tests are just there as a fun kinda-related antic associated with his main point:

That some creationists exist that understand evolution theory... but just don't think it's the best explanation.

I agree to a point.
Any person (creationist or not) that understands evolution theory... but doesn't think it's the best explanation either:

1. Has some additional information available to them that current scientists do not. (Doubtful, but possible... also, a Nobel Prize winning event.)

2. Does not understand science or how/why science works.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Pressie, posted 07-04-2017 8:19 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3037
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 42 of 83 (814089)
07-04-2017 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
07-03-2017 9:03 PM


RAZD writes:

It wasn't that hard folks.

It was hard to me.
Especially the first one.

Of course, I don't study biology in any way.
I have a general understanding of the over-arching principles... but that first test deals with a lot of specific facts. Those are simply out of my area of knowledge.

I also don't think such specific facts are necessary to have a very good understanding of how evolution generally works as a scientific theory.

But, really, if I ever wanted to know those facts... I'd look it up on google and get the answer quite quickly, I would assume

The other two... I see the same issues Mod suggested: that some of the answers, if the questions are taken strictly and literally, are easily argued to be the 'wrong' answers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 07-03-2017 9:03 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2017 1:26 PM Stile has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19226
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 43 of 83 (814108)
07-04-2017 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Stile
07-04-2017 9:48 AM


It was hard to me.
Especially the first one.

It was the hardest for me (not that up on population genetics and all their formulas). Once I saw "... the Hardy-Weinberg equation, the term 2pq represents ... " I figured that the full equation is

p^2 + 2pq + q^2

where p is one allele and q the other allele, so pq is heterozygous and the others are homozygous,

The equation with R = 0.8 (making w = .02) is

(0.8)^2 + 2(0.8)(0.2) + (0.2)^2
= 0.64 + 0.32 + 0.04

But I did a little grid to figure it out:

wRRRR
w  ww    Rw    Rw    Rw    Rw  
R  Rw    RR    RR    RR    RR  
R  Rw    RR    RR    RR    RR  
R  Rw    RR    RR    RR    RR  
R  Rw    RR    RR    RR    RR  

Σ(RR) = 4x4 = 16
Σ(Rw) = 2x4 = 8
Σ(ww) = 1x1 = 1
Σ(all) = 5x5 = 25 (check)

16/25 = 64%
8/25 = 32%
1/25 = 4%

It took me longer to dB code this that to scratch it out on an envelope (literally).

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 42 by Stile, posted 07-04-2017 9:48 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Stile, posted 07-04-2017 1:33 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3037
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 44 of 83 (814111)
07-04-2017 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by RAZD
07-04-2017 1:26 PM


RAZD writes:

Once I saw "... the Hardy-Weinberg equation, the term 2pq represents ... " I figured that the full equation is...

I agree. The math wasn't the hard part for me.

where p is one allele and q the other allele, so pq is heterozygous and the others are homozygous

I don't know what any of the terms mean:

Allele?
Heterozygous?
Homozygous?

May as well be comic book villains for all I know


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2017 1:26 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2017 6:59 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7509
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 45 of 83 (814114)
07-04-2017 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by dwise1
07-04-2017 1:06 AM


There were only 13 questions, yet he claims "14 out of 15". That is a factual discrepancy that needs to be resolved.

I'm happy to suppose he remembered he got one wrong and misremembered the number of questions and had already closed the tab when he made the post. It doesn't seem something that needs resolving in my mind, as peculiar as it is.

Which question are you referring to? I printed out my results page as a PDF, but it did not include all the questions. I would be interested to know which question 75% of the people didn't answer correctly.

Stile is correct. It's that particular question - not added here to avoid 'spoilerism' - It's easy to see how most people went wrong there.

BTW, regarding your new avatar. At a Scottish Games here in the USA, I saw a t-shirt that read, "If this were a skirt, I'd be wearing underwear!"

Two people complemented my 'kilt' the day that day. My responses were:
1) The knickers I'm wearing suggests otherwise.
2) Kilts don't generally have underskirts {some male kilt wearers do go for a cotton slip, but not without controversy!}

I mean - you'd think the bright pink bra, visible in the picture, and C-cup breasts would have been a clue too Aye, the beard oft overpowers the boobs, laddie.

In one scene she's wearing a tartan mini-skirt. But then I notice the leather straps. She's wearing a mini-kilt! As they say, the Devil's in the details!

Of course all kilts are skirts, but not all skirts are kilts. The leather 'brings to mind a kilt', and the concept of kilt has been watered down from traditional roots I imagine. Faux kilt? Kiltish? Pseudokilt?

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by dwise1, posted 07-04-2017 1:06 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017