|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Richard Townsend Member (Idle past 4759 days) Posts: 103 From: London, England Joined: |
I don't think it can explain things like the evolution of the flatfish Can you explain why? If this is to do with the lack of credible intermediates between ordinary fish and flatfish, eg intermediate eye positioning, then recent discoveries on this will interest you.
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/07/Flatfish Eye This kind of discovery is why I believe in evolution. Edited by Admin, : Shorten long link.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
As for this case, the article wasn't peer reviewed, which is against the rules. Whether it's ID, evolution, or fairy dust, the article HAS to be peer reviewed.
Sternberg said it was sent to three reviewers, who are still anonymous. There's no reason to believe he didn't. Many suspect that the reviewers were chosen specifically to accept the article without real review, or that there was not even a nominal review, but there's no extant evidence for those suspicions. There definitely was (and is) a rule that all articles are to be reviewed by two editors, and Sternberg definitely broke that rule. The journal's press release said:
quote: Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3265 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
There definitely was (and is) a rule that all articles are to be reviewed by two editors, and Sternberg definitely broke that rule. Ok, so my main point still stands. He broke a rule when having the paper published. As I said earlier, I can only go on what I've heard about the case on this forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
From the top of my head, ID predicted that there are uses for junk DNA and there are at least 10 of them. And most of them had been discovered by biologists (evolutionists, natch) before the lawyer Phillip Johnson founded the ID movement. So that's not much of a prediction. Now, does the fact that some junk DNA really is junk contradict ID? Or is it not that sort of a prediction? You know, the sort by which one can test a hypothesis?
ID also predicted that the TTSS devolved from the flagellum and it has proven it. (Do you want references?) The claim of the ID movement was that the flagellum would be completely useless if any parts were removed. This is not the same as predicting that it would be useful (as a TTSS) if parts were removed. It is kind of the complete opposite.
An extrapolation from Darwinism made a certain amount of evolutionists believe that devolution doesn't occur but that wasn't true. Give an example of natural selection selecting for decreased fitness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I don't have any problems with genetic algortihms. My issue is with a certain style of argument where someone asks a question which on the face of it is genuine but in fact refers to a specific fact or piece of research and whose essential purpose is just to catch the other party out.
In this case I was talking about Parasomnium at [msg=1588,698] asks Smooth Operator ...
Do you mean by this that if the researcher sets up an evolutionary process to evolve, say, designs for electronic oscillators - so the constraint would be "make me an oscillator" - we should not expect it to evolve, for example, a radio receiver, correct? Anyone who has followed the progress of genetic algorithms is likely to be familiar with an experiment which was publicised several years ago had just such a result, an algorithm for designing oscillators produced what was essentially a crude radio. traderdrew's question was somewhat similar in nature to this but at least had the advantage that it was posed in such way as to indicate that there was a sub-text to the queston. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
traderdrew's question was somewhat similar in nature to this but at least had the advantage that it was posed in such way as to indicate that there was a sub-text to the queston. I'd still love to hear his reasoning for his claim of only a 2% chance of the patient being HIV positive. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well, consider the problem as stated:
Imagine that you are a doctor and one of your patients asks to take an HIV test. You assure her that the test is unnecessary as only one woman out of a thousand with her age and sexual history is infected. She insists, and sadly the test result indicates viral infection. If the HIV test is 95% accurate, what is the chance that your patient is actually sick? Imagine 1000 women all in the same situation as this woman. Test them all. Then 999 of them will be uninfected and 1 will be infected. Of the 999, 5% will get a false positive result, which is 50 women (to the nearest whole number). Therefore (assuming that the woman who is infected doesn't get a false negative) 51 women will get a positive test result but only 1 will actually have HIV. Hence any particular woman being diagnosed as having HIV has only a 1 in 51 chance of being the 1 woman in the population who actually has HIV. This is ~ 2%.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
But that analysis, while accurate, has no application to the hypothetical. The hypothetical involved one person taking one test and getting one result from a test that is 95% accurate.
Apples and oranges. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No, you get exactly the same answer. It's just that this way is easier for non-mathematicians to think about, because you're scaling up to a population size where you can think about whole numbers.
What is statistically true of a thousand apples will be true of any one of those apples. If of the thousand apples, 356 are red, then any given apple has a 0.356 chance of being red --- and, if the thousand apples are a perfectly representative population, vice versa. Oranges don't come into it. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Yes, if a population of 1000 has 356 positives, then each of them has a 0.356 chance of being positive. However, if one of that population is then tested with a test that has a 95% accuracy rate, that test result changes the odds for that individual. That's the purpose of the test, to find out if that particular individual is positive or not. To say that the odds of a positive remain the same after the test ignores the fact of the test.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The odds don't remain the same. They go from 1 in 1000 to 1 in 51.
But you don't get as much information as you'd like, because (in the event of a positive result) the chances that she did have the virus and you've detected it are swamped by the chances that she didn't have it and you've got a false positive. Look at it this way. Before we run the test, the odds are as follows: A: Probability that she does not have HIV and the test will show this = 0.999 0.95 = 0.94905 B: Probability that she does have HIV but the test will show that she doesn't = 0.001 0.05 = 0.00005 C: Probability that she does not have HIV but the test will show that she does = 0.999 0.05 = 0.04995 D: Probability that she has HIV and the test will show this = 0.001 0.95 = 0.00095 Now, if we do the test and it comes back positive, the information that this gives us is that she definitely fell into group C or D. But it does not change the relative likelihood of the two. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
Please now, get back on-topic.
If there's an off-topic theme you wish to pursue, find an appropriate topic or do a Proposed New Topic. Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts. Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report discussion problems here: No.2 Thread Reopen Requests 2 Topic Proposal Issues Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073] Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon. There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot. Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Message 150 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5181 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
If you go back and look at my post, you will see that I didn't say that the flatfish didn't evolve. I was well aware of that link you posted. You see, I do some homework. I wouldn't want to be invested in something if I thought it wasn't true.
Rather I would pose questions such as these. What advantage would natural selection have to act on if one of the eyes was displaced but still on one side? I would theoretically believe that the first mutation would have occurred in a single fish. This being the case then, how do the descendants of the first mutant build upon that mutation without being wiped out or repressed by the genetics of normal fish as the genes get passed on? I can use Darwinian conjecture and speculation to help answer my second question. I believe I have a basic understanding of Darwinism. I can think from it. I wouldn't debate it but there would still be some doubt. How would it be a guarantee that the mutation wouldn't be lost? Indeed the flatfish is a unique creature. Contrary to what Dawkins and Jerry Coyne have stated in their books, I think it is a good design. I have observed them in the wild. They are quick and some of them utilize camouflage as they can change their pigments to a certain extent in order to blend in over various habitats. The designs of their mouths seems to have an advantage over skates as they can capture prey above them unlike a skate which would have to be on top of prey in order to capture it. The skate and the flatfish are somewhat apples and oranges and it would be relatively unfair to say that one design is superior to the other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Indeed the flatfish is a unique creature. How can it be a unique creature, when there are several genera of flatfish. Unique means "one of a kind". It would only be a unique species if there was only one species of flatfish. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5181 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
This will be my last post on this here. I noticed that the moderators wanted to keep this on the topic after I posted my information on the flatfish.
How can it be a unique creature, when there are several genera of flatfish. Unique means "one of a kind". It would only be a unique species if there was only one species of flatfish. An easy answer. What other vertebrate exhibits this sort of asymmetry? Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024