Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 121 of 160 (517487)
08-01-2009 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Dr Adequate
08-01-2009 6:02 AM


Re: Gish Gallop
Ok, but then let me know when Neo-Darwinian evolution is proven beyond reasonable doubt
Oh and by the way, You have any statistical study on that last claim ? Because personnally, it would surprise me a whole lot that the proportion of PhD scientists who hear voices in their head be higher then the proportion of those who believe in special creation ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2009 6:02 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2009 6:18 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 122 of 160 (517488)
08-01-2009 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by slevesque
08-01-2009 5:56 AM


Re: Arrogance
I would think that his little 'math error' wasn't because he was 'mathematically illeterate' as you called him ...
I didn't. I wrote "mathematically illiterate". Spelling is only one of the many things that I can do.
I mean, come on, how low-ball of a comment was that, seriously ?
Yes, someone was attacking the results of science as being "ridiculous" by making errors which were in fact ridiculous ... but I'm arrogant for pointing this out.
Oh yeah, and before I forget it, Biologists haven't done the math, population geneticists have ... (Unless of course, you don't know the difference between biology and genetics, in which case I will forgive your ignorance)
Are you really claiming that genetics isn't a branch of biology?
I evidently find ignorance harder to forgive that you do. Also, I can recognize it.
See how easy it is to be arrogant ?
You will find, however, that being arrogant and right requires a little more study.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by slevesque, posted 08-01-2009 5:56 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by slevesque, posted 08-01-2009 6:26 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 123 of 160 (517489)
08-01-2009 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by slevesque
08-01-2009 6:11 AM


Re: Gish Gallop
Ok, but then let me know when Neo-Darwinian evolution is proven beyond reasonable doubt
Now. This is why all creationist arguments turn out, on analysis, to be unreasonable.
Oh and by the way, You have any statistical study on that last claim ? Because personnally, it would surprise me a whole lot that the proportion of PhD scientists who hear voices in their head be higher then the proportion of those who believe in special creation ...
Well, unless scientists are specially immune to schizophrenia, it would appear to follow from the incidence of schizophrenia in the general population and the pathetic paucity of scientists that the special creationists can find to stick on their little lists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by slevesque, posted 08-01-2009 6:11 AM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 124 of 160 (517490)
08-01-2009 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Dr Adequate
08-01-2009 6:14 AM


Re: Arrogance
I didn't. I wrote "mathematically illiterate". Spelling is only one of the many things that I can do.
Come and argue in french without doing a spelling mistake, then we'll talk ... (How many times do I have to say I speak french on this forum, I said it like 10 times already lol)
Are you really claiming that genetics isn't a branch of biology?
I evidently find ignorance harder to forgive that you do. Also, I can recognize it.
Of course, I was saying there is a difference between genetics and biology, not that the two are unrelated.
Furthermore, I would also suggest that to do the type of maths calculations you were saying had been done by biologists, you would need not a PhD in Biology, but in genetics (and be specialized in population genetics). Hence my statement was correct.
If you still think that your statement was accurate (''Biologists, who suffer from neither of these deficiencies, have done the actual math. It's not difficult''), I highly doubt anyone on this board will agree with you, even the proponents of Neo-Darwinism on this forum ...
You will find, however, that being arrogant and right requires a little more study.
Being able to say 'I made a mistake' does not require study, but is an essential quality to be a goood scientists. Wouldn't you agree ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2009 6:14 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2009 6:41 AM slevesque has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 125 of 160 (517495)
08-01-2009 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by slevesque
08-01-2009 6:26 AM


Re: Arrogance
Come and argue in french without doing a spelling mistake, then we'll talk ... (How many times do I have to say I speak french on this forum, I said it like 10 times already lol)
Je sais bien que vous parlez francais. Mais je n'ai pas ecrit "illeterate". (Feel free to correct my grammar, and thank le bon Dieu that you don't have to hear my pronunciation.) I will not flame you for any other errors in English that you may make ... indeed, I recall that I have pointed them out most tactfully. But if you're quoting me, you shouldn't quote me as mis-spelling "illiterate"; and I couldn't let that pass: I'm sure you see why.
Of course, I was saying there is a difference between genetics and biology, not that the two are unrelated.
Furthermore, I would also suggest that to do the type of maths calculations you were saying had been done by biologists, you would need not a PhD in Biology, but in genetics (and be specialized in population genetics). Hence my statement was correct.
If you still think that your statement was accurate (''Biologists, who suffer from neither of these deficiencies, have done the actual math. It's not difficult''), I highly doubt anyone on this board will agree with you, even the proponents of Neo-Darwinism on this forum ...
You're wrong.
It's as though I said: "The man driving the motorcycle crashed into the tree", and you were to say: "Motorcycle! You fool, that was a Harley-Davidson."
A geneticist is necessarily a biologist, just as a Harley-Davidson is necessarily a motorcycle.
---
Incidentally, you overestimate the difficulty of the calculations. You would certainly not need a PhD in population genetics to do that particular bit of math.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by slevesque, posted 08-01-2009 6:26 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by slevesque, posted 08-01-2009 6:46 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 126 of 160 (517496)
08-01-2009 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by LucyTheApe
08-01-2009 4:19 AM


Re: Analogy fails
You say Coyote, that you have bones of people antediluvian. Then you say that you have can relate these to contemporary tribes. Please show me the evidence. I was brought up a scientist, still am. But things these days don't seem to add up.
1) Google "On Your Knees Cave" and find the article by Kemp et al. They sequenced mtDNA about 10,300 years old from this cave in southern Alaska. The mtDNA matched living individuals from Santa Barbara to the tip of South America.
2) There was no global flood. That's a religious belief that has failed utterly when confronted with scientific evidence.
3) This is all off topic here. If you want to discuss this further find a flood-related thread for a reply.
Edit to add:
Kemp, B. M., Malhi, R. S., McDonough, J., Bolnick, D. A., Eshleman, J. A., Richards, O., Martinez-Labarga, C., Johnson, J. R., Lorenz, J. G., Dixon, E. J., Fifield, T. E., Heaton, T. H., Worl, R., Smith, D. G. 2007. Genetic analysis of early holocene skeletal remains from Alaska and its implications for the settlement of the Americas. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, vol. 132, no. 4, pp. 605-621.
Edited by Coyote, : Add reference

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-01-2009 4:19 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 127 of 160 (517497)
08-01-2009 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Dr Adequate
08-01-2009 6:41 AM


Re: Arrogance
So ... if I have a PhD in Biology (hence being a Biologist) I should be able to do those specific population genetics calculations ?
Anyways, I would probably bet that those who did those calculations (initially) were not Biologists as you said, but population geneticists.
I intend Biologist as someone who is referred by the scientific community as a Biologist, usually with a PhD in Biology. A Geneticist will never be referred to as a Biologist ...
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2009 6:41 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2009 7:03 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 132 by cavediver, posted 08-01-2009 8:00 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 128 of 160 (517498)
08-01-2009 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by slevesque
08-01-2009 6:46 AM


Re: Arrogance
So ... if I have a PhD in Biology (hence being a Biologist) I should be able to do those specific population genetics calculations ?
Not necessarily. I'm not sure --- would it really be possible nowadays to get a PhD in biology without having math skills up to that level? Perhaps it is.
But the possibility that some biologists might not be able to do the math does not change the fact that biologists have done the math.
Anyways, I would probably bet that those who did those calculations (initially) were not Biologists as you said, but population geneticists.
A population geneticist is a biologist. A violinist is a musician. A pole-vaulter is an athlete. A blackmailer is a criminal.
I intend Biologist as someone who is referred by the scientific community as a Biologist, usually with a PhD in Biology. A Geneticist will never be referred to as a Biologist ...
A geneticist is, and always will be, a biologist.
ge·net·ics (j-nt'ks) n. (used with a sing. verb) The branch of biology that deals with heredity, especially the mechanisms of hereditary transmission and the variation of inherited characteristics among similar or related organisms.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by slevesque, posted 08-01-2009 6:46 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by slevesque, posted 08-01-2009 7:11 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 129 of 160 (517499)
08-01-2009 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Dr Adequate
08-01-2009 7:03 AM


Re: Arrogance
I think we will stop this since its going a bit nowhere ... I mean, by your understanding of it, you could have said a plant physiologist did the math and it would have been accurate. (this was intended before your edit, with the 'some biologist are probably capable of doing the maths')
My point was that your statement was unecessary arrogance, and it was not the first I saw you say something like thta. Heck, I had found the first post you made on my very first thread very arrogant ...
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2009 7:03 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2009 7:21 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 130 of 160 (517504)
08-01-2009 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by slevesque
08-01-2009 7:11 AM


Re: Arrogance
I think we will stop this since its going a bit nowhere ... I mean, by your understanding of it, you could have said a plant physiologist did the math and it would have been accurate.
No, I could not have said that, since plant physiology does not subsume the field of population genetics. However, biology does subsume the field of population genetics.
My point was that your statement was unecessary arrogance ...
If you will be advised by me, you will not in future attempt to make this nor any other point by denying that geneticists are biologists.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by slevesque, posted 08-01-2009 7:11 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 131 of 160 (517510)
08-01-2009 7:54 AM


Slevesque and Dr Adequate,
Your subthread titled Arrogance began with Dr Adequate's Message 104. I'm a little late here, things seem to be settling down now, but in case not I wonder if you two could be persuaded to set this aside.
For Slevesque, I understand that you were only coming to the defense of LucyTheApe, but please let moderators do their job. If you think a moderator should look in on a thread please post to Report discussion problems here: No.2.
For Dr Adequate, could you focus more on the content and less on the qualities of the person producing the content. This is from your Message 104 replying to Slevesque's genetic calculations:
Dr Adequate in Message 104 writes:
What you have written is indeed ridiculous. I'm going to guess either that you're mathematically illiterate or that you don't know the difference between the word "similarity" and the word "difference".
Simply pointing out the errors would have been sufficient. I recognize that some people's error rate seems to be a bit on the high side, and a bit of chiding does seem appropriate from time to time in the hope of providing a little impetus to do better, but for the most part please follow the Forum Guidelines and keep discussion impersonal.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 132 of 160 (517511)
08-01-2009 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by slevesque
08-01-2009 6:46 AM


Re: Arrogance
A Geneticist will never be referred to as a Biologist ...
Completely and utterly wrong. My fields are cosmology, relativity, quantum gravity, and string theory. This makes me a physicist - even though I know (next to) nothing about lasers and optics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by slevesque, posted 08-01-2009 6:46 AM slevesque has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 133 of 160 (517518)
08-01-2009 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by slevesque
08-01-2009 5:56 AM


Mental calculation
but rather a simple mental calculation error in my opinion.
Let's be clear. That is not what you can see. It doesn't actually take a 'calculation' when you see 3% different of 3*109 and see an answer that still has a 109 in the answer. It is like it is written in red showing it is wrong.
Then to ignore the order of magnitude change that makes in the result and the change that makes to the argument used shows just how out of depth he is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by slevesque, posted 08-01-2009 5:56 AM slevesque has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 134 of 160 (517522)
08-01-2009 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by slevesque
08-01-2009 5:18 AM


Is there anything you're not wrong about?*
You gotta love Dr.Adequate's arrogance [so true] and how he never was told even once (since I'm here) to be more respectful by the admins ...
Worse, he had his message stricken by admin only 12 days ago.
*Dr. Adequate's original ” and I must add "adorable" ” message.
{So, you think inserting this extraneous blather is a good thing? Including quoting what was "hidden" in that other message? You like linking to admin disiplanery actions elsewhere? Remember this one? I suggest you monitor and tighten up your own posting quality. - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by lyx2no, : Fix MID. Change subtitle.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : The red stuff.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by slevesque, posted 08-01-2009 5:18 AM slevesque has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 135 of 160 (517564)
08-01-2009 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Alan Clarke
08-01-2009 4:35 AM


Re: Analogy fails
Wow. Just wow.
Seldom has anyone displayed such a depth of ignorance and wide-ranging scope of wrong ideas in such a short time. You really deserve a prize.
I'll pick one and let others take on other parts.
Mitochondrial Eve isn't the first man. It isn't even the first woman. It's the most recent person believed to be an ancestor of everyone living today. In other words, if we had perfect ancestry information about all people who ever lived, everyone alive today would be able to trace their ancestry back to Mitochondrial Eve.
No need to reply to this, unless that is you are unable to understand the difference between what I've said and what you said.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Alan Clarke, posted 08-01-2009 4:35 AM Alan Clarke has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by NosyNed, posted 08-01-2009 4:48 PM subbie has replied
 Message 140 by caffeine, posted 08-04-2009 6:02 AM subbie has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024