EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack

And yet, strangely, true, or you would be able to argue against it rather than just calling it "silly".

On your comment on amorality vs immorality, my point on amorality is that there are no absolute morals for Newtonianism. Absent of God, man makes up his own morals as he sees fit, and if he thinks it's fit to artificially select humanity's progress, who is to say he is wrong?How can you say genocide is wrong per se even? Sure, you can say you find it personally despicable and so wrong according to your morals, but who says your morals are right anyway?I don't think it takes a genius to see how the Nazis drew inspiration from Newtonianism.

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? 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. Give an example of natural selection selecting for decreased fitness.

Well, consider the problem as stated: 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%.

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.

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 = 0.94905B: Probability that she does have HIV but the test will show that she doesn't = 0.001 0.05 = 0.00005C: Probability that she does not have HIV but the test will show that she does = 0.999 0.05 = 0.04995D: Probability that she has HIV and the test will show this = 0.001 0.95 = 0.00095Now, 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.

No such analogy was made. Re-read the statement to which you are ostensibly replying. That's a little ad hoc, isn't it? How many ecological habitats are there in Chesapeake Bay, and do the shellfish in these various habitats show the variation required by your excuse? Intermediate forms, by their nature, are hard to shoehorn into modern categories. This is why creationists are equally divided on whether to call it a reptile or a modern bird --- despite their mutual conviction that it is not in any way intermediate between the two.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.