Yes, that's the part that I specifically explained to you was wrong. I have read it, there's no need to quote it at me. I quoted it at you.
Its not enough to claim he is wrong ...
I showed why he was wrong. Did you not follow the explanation?
... without showing your own calculations with the correct numbers.
It is, in fact, quite "enough" when my purpose was to show that he's made a mistake. A ridiculous, crass, stupid mistake.
If someone calculates the net average wealth of the American family as $100,000,000 based on the assumption that all their furniture is made of solid gold, then to show that he has blundered in his reasoning it is sufficient to point out that this is not in fact the case. In order to indicate his error it is not necessary for me to calculate the true figure on a more solid actuarial basis.
However, if you would like to look at some reality-based figures, I have them here. Though if you couldn't spot the flaw in the kook's reasoning I have little hope that you will be able to follow mine.
As to be expected from your side of the fence, another idiotic line of reasoning.
If you don't understand something, it is not necessarily the case that the thing you don't understand is idiotic.
In this case it is quite true and quite simple. I can point out the flaws in someone else's calculations without producing correct calculations of my own.
Do you actually deny this, or did you just feel an urgent desire to say something stupid?
I agree if the assumption was made using solid gold furniture, the calculations would be exaggerated. What part of his calculations do you equate to being solid gold furniture and why?
I told you.
He's implicitly taking the proportion of mutations that are harmful to be equal to the proportion of mutations which go on to achieve fixation in the gene pool that are harmful
Well at least you finally came up with some numbers to look at.
What the yellow rubbery fuck do you mean: "finally"? I came up with those figures in response to the very first post in which you asked me for them.
Well at least you finally came up with some numbers to look at. The difference between the site I posted and the site you posted (besides mine being right and yours being wrong ) is that yours is bias.
You say that my site is wrong and his is right. Does that mean that you can find an error in my site, or explain away the huge hulking great error in his?
Or did you just say that because you are what you would call "bias", but which I would call "biased" because I can tell the difference between an adjective and a noun?
I would say all the persons involved from both the sites we are posting from are very intelligent people.
How would you know?
Really, if you don't grasp the magnitude of his mistake even after it's been explained to you I feel no confidence in your ability to tell when someone is being stupid.
Yes. I told you I believe the site I posted to be the correct information.
Let me rephrase that, then. Do you have anything of substance to say?
You keep claiming you refuted the facts and figures from the site ...
This is, of course, not true. I do not "keep claiming" something that I have never ever claimed --- and the honesty of saying that I have is, to put it mildly, questionable.
I skipped over his facts and figures, as I pointed out, and went straight for the gross error of reasoning. Because if the reasoning is crap, which it is, then the facts and figures on which it is based are irrelevant.