|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member (Idle past 266 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
quote: Yes, now answer this. How likely is it that the coin was indeed very close to 50% chance for heads and 50% chance for tails each toss? Is it 0.097... %?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member (Idle past 266 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
quote: What is your point? Animals can have fur or feathers or something else. I can also name differences. But what is the point? You are really good at totally missing the point. As expected for someone who has gone to believe in a faulty theory. As you usually need to be bad at logic to go this wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member (Idle past 266 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
quote: Wrong. You managed to miss the point again. We want to know how likely a theory is to be true. As you claim it to be beyond doubt. So in this case, it is about how likely the theory of 50% chance is true. Really, the fact that I need to spell out every single step for you, should not be surprising to me any more. But the huge lack of intelligence that you display here, while claiming to be working in science (and I don't doubt that), makes me feel sorry for the state of science in some areas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member (Idle past 266 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
quote: Sure, because we know every function of all parts of the DNA, and nothing of genetics hold any mystery for us anymore, right? Really, such arrogance often leads to error.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member (Idle past 266 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
quote: So you fail to understand even a single question. I'm not gonna repeat myself. But serioulsy, you should quit your job, better not than tomorrow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member (Idle past 266 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
quote: Says the one who changes subject all the time. Like when a noob claims if two things are the same color, they must be the same object. And one replies, you can have a red car and a red flower. Then you reply, but but but cars can also be blue. You miss the point like this all the time at every single step of the logic. You are extremely ignorant and clueless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member (Idle past 266 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
quote: I rest my case. You are hopeless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member (Idle past 266 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
quote: That was never the question. Geeze, you lack braincells as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member (Idle past 266 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
quote: Really, you are hopeless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member (Idle past 266 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
quote: If you gonna respond to everything with some variation of saying b b but religion is dumb, then f.o.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member (Idle past 266 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
I already did the math saying that the probability is less than 0.1%. Then I followed it up with a simple, straight forward question. But you managed to fail to understand it even. Like three times I asked, in different wording. Those who still not get it, better leave the talking to others. You are embarrassing to the human intellect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member (Idle past 266 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
quote: A person fell down the stairs. What is the probability that this person is female? People like Taq and Tany respond like: the probability of a person falling down the stairs is very low. What? That was not the question? You cannot read! This is the level of stupid that I have to deal with day in day out on this board. Even from those who say they are working in the field of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member (Idle past 266 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
quote: I fully support science. I only reject pseudo science.
quote: So you are just another, too dumb to follow or understand a simple question, and support dumb answers to the wrong question. The question has been asked repeatedly:
sensei: sensei: sensei: Let me ask a different question, since this one apparently is too difficult for many of you lot. Researcher 1 claims: this coin is fair, with +/- 0.5 chance for tails when we toss again.Researcher 2 claims: this coin will always land on tails, no matter how often we toss. Researcher 3 claims: this coin has been tampered with and hugely favors tails. What are the odds for these claims? If you bet 10 dollars on the first researcher, what would be your winning chances? How about if you put 10 dollars on the second researcher? And the third?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member (Idle past 266 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
Percy: This is a no-brainer. Unless you think that similarities between two physical entities must mean that these two are related? And by related, you mean having a common origin by descent?Even entities that have no process of producing any descent, can and do show similarities with other entities, one way or another. Your whole premises is based on a made up rule that does not work in general. You can measure the similarities between two chairs. That is not a measure of relateness in any way similar to what you propose for species. Why make up a rule is not even valid one. You must believe that it is a rule that is valid for living and procreating beings only. Then give me prove that similarities always mean relatelessness. It's not. Stars show similarities with each other. Does that mean they are related by a common star that split up into smaller stars in the past?
Percy: No, you are very wrong. This is not my point at all. I asked, what are the chances that it is a fair coin? What part of this question is so hard, that three evolutionists here fail to understand it? I'm asking for chance, odds or probability or whatever. And how you determined this. Taq claims that it is the same as the p-value, which is simply not true. The p-value of 1/1024 gives the probability of observing ten times tails, given that we have a fair coin. If you know any Baysian statistics, you should know that this is not the same as the probability that we have a fair coin, given what we observed. Prob(A|B) ≠ Prob(B|A). Very rooky mistake by Taq. That's how he reasons that non-common ancestry is very unlikely, because we observed something that is very unlikely. That is false reasoning based on poor understanding of what the p-value really means. So what you think that my point is, is totally not my point at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member (Idle past 266 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
Percy: Wrong again. It's about the assuptions of parts of DNA not having any function, so it should be random if there is no common ancestor.
quote: No, not even close, as I already pointed out and explained.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025