Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

err, where exactly? As with just about everything else, you seem highly confused.

I'm sorry, but even if he does explain himself, Shapiro is still an idiot for using the term "non-random" in this context. But then, BD has made it quite clear that he only wants to use idiot-speak, so probably best if you don't mention big words like "distribution" and "probability" as they will only upset him.

Hi Shadow - you tell me this - is there such a discrepancy in the criminal justice courts, that lawyers and judges would not understand statistics as it relates to probability of guilt?One would think that such knowledge would be essential in the courts - so essential that without it gulity men would walk free and innocent men would languish in jail... how many examples would you like me to bring to the table of blatent miscarriages of justice because of the complete ignroance of statistics shown by defense, prosecution, judge, and jury? Can we start with the "probabilities" discussed in OJ's trial?In answer to your question - does Shapiro understand "random" in the context of evolution? No, not sufficiently. Surely you can see the care with terminology that is being brought here? We talk of "random with respect to", we talk of uniform and non-uniform probability distributions. And you can see the contrast with Shapiro's cavalier, naive, and blatently incorrect use of "random" and "non-random". Non-random can only mean "no random component" and thus "determined". But this is not what he means.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

No, I want to ensure that criminal cases are not misjudged on the basis of bad probability put forward by the defense/prosecution. I'm sorry, you are otherwise too stupid to respond to, other than to express the contents of this post.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.