Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8929 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-24-2019 8:28 PM
28 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, JonF, Tanypteryx (6 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,375 Year: 15,411/19,786 Month: 2,134/3,058 Week: 508/404 Day: 23/89 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 148 of 438 (463750)
04-19-2008 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by randman
04-18-2008 3:38 PM


Eugenics was definitely influenced by Darwinism and played a significant role in Hitler and NAZI thinking. To deny this is silly.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by randman, posted 04-18-2008 3:38 PM randman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Rrhain, posted 04-19-2008 8:56 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 149 of 438 (463751)
04-19-2008 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by randman
04-18-2008 7:22 PM


On your comment on amorality vs immorality, my point on amorality is that there are no absolute morals for Darwinism. 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 Darwinism.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by randman, posted 04-18-2008 7:22 PM randman has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 334 of 438 (517270)
07-30-2009 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by traderdrew
07-30-2009 11:00 AM


Re: CSI and DNA
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by traderdrew, posted 07-30-2009 11:00 AM traderdrew has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 337 of 438 (517296)
07-30-2009 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by subbie
07-30-2009 7:39 PM


Re: Wildly off topic
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%.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by subbie, posted 07-30-2009 7:39 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by subbie, posted 07-30-2009 10:28 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 339 of 438 (517302)
07-30-2009 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by subbie
07-30-2009 10:28 PM


Re: Wildly off topic
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by subbie, posted 07-30-2009 10:28 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by subbie, posted 07-30-2009 11:14 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 341 of 438 (517305)
07-30-2009 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by subbie
07-30-2009 11:14 PM


Re: Wildly off topic
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by subbie, posted 07-30-2009 11:14 PM subbie has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 362 of 438 (517898)
08-03-2009 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by traderdrew
08-02-2009 1:11 PM


Re: Flatfish an ID Perspective
Somehow that analogy between comparing unfortunate genetic accidents (extra sets of body parts) and building fundamentally new irreducibly complex systems seems to be quite a stretch.

No such analogy was made. Re-read the statement to which you are ostensibly replying.

You haven't read my ID counter to the evidence. With shellfish, you can have a series of what appears to be changes but there could be problems with this. It doesn't factor any possible ecophenotypic variations that can effect the development of structures of shellfish. Some seashells in one particular ecological habitat could turn out to look a little bit different in another.

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?

I have read different views of archeopteryx (not in ID books) but in evolution books. "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne, says its a reptile and a fancy book (forget the name) on prehistoric birds and precursors of birds says that archeopteryx is a true bird. What is the matter here?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by traderdrew, posted 08-02-2009 1:11 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by traderdrew, posted 08-03-2009 1:26 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019