 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:17:44 +0100, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
>> I think you'll find a whole bunch of the faithful who don't believe "we
>> descended from monkeys."
>
>Apes! Beware of the librarian.
The most sensible comment in the whole thread. ;)
Or.
There is no god because He was found guilty of crimes against humanity.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:49:56 +0000, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>OTOH... for what a man would wish to be true, that he more readily
>believes. I guess that explains why anybody would fall for this nonesense.
As the troll king said in Peer Gynt. "Be true to yourself-ish."
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/durstons_devious_distortions.php
> OK, that's pretty impressive.
> How is it possible to stand up in public and emit outright provable
> *lies* like this? Seriously... is there actually no law against
> deliberately trying to mislead people?
I must admit I didn't really understand that article at scienceblogs.
What I understood from that long text was, basically:
1) "He uses a value of N which is way too small, thus he is misusing the
entire equation and he is a pseudoscientist." While the article notes that
since N is a divisor and not a factor, using a value of N which is too
small actually favors the evolutionary side rather than the creationist
side, but that still matters: He is using the equation wrong, and thus
everything he says is BS.
I don't really get it. He is using a divisor which is too small,
making the overall result way larger than it should be, making his point
*weaker* rather than stronger, and he *still* gets diminishingly small
probabilities for the evolutionary processes. I suppose that if he had
used the correct value of N, the result would have been even worse from
the evolutionary point of view. Yet this article makes it a bit point
that he is using a value which is too small.
2) "He ignores the value M(Ex) and replaces it with something else." Then
I fail to see how the article explains what would have been the correct
value for M(Ex) and why it was wrong. The article just says it's wrong,
without really saying why, or what it should be.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> 1) "He uses a value of N which is way too small,
Not just that's too small, but is unrelated to the actual value of N in any
way. It's too small because he wants it related somehow to the wrong value
on top.
What he's doing is taking (say) the formula which is the equivalent of "for
what percentage of time that you roll two dice do you get a total of seven."
Instead of having "number of combinations that total to seven divided by
total number of possible pairs of dice", he's saying "roll the dice three
times. Note it doesn't come up seven any of those three times. Probability
that it comes up seven is 0 / 3."
> 2) "He ignores the value M(Ex) and replaces it with something else." Then
> I fail to see how the article explains what would have been the correct
> value for M(Ex) and why it was wrong. The article just says it's wrong,
> without really saying why, or what it should be.
M(Ex) is the number of ways you can get the result you're looking for by
arranging proteins (not the way they happen to be arranged today, which is
what Durston says). You divide it by all the possible ways you can arrange
proteins (not all the ways that they've already been arranged, which is what
Durston says).
Durston doesn't do anything with M(Ex).
The formula says "the likelihood of a random protien doing X is the number
of protiens that do X divided by the total number of possible protiens."
Makes sense, yes?
Durston says "The likelihood of finding exactly how we evolved is 1 divided
by the largest possible number of evolutionary changes in history up to now."
The two would seem to be entirely unrelated.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> 1) "He uses a value of N which is way too small,
>
> Not just that's too small, but is unrelated to the actual value of N in
> any way. It's too small because he wants it related somehow to the wrong
> value on top.
>
> What he's doing is taking (say) the formula which is the equivalent of
> "for what percentage of time that you roll two dice do you get a total
> of seven." Instead of having "number of combinations that total to seven
> divided by total number of possible pairs of dice", he's saying "roll
> the dice three times. Note it doesn't come up seven any of those three
> times. Probability that it comes up seven is 0 / 3."
>
>> 2) "He ignores the value M(Ex) and replaces it with something else." Then
>> I fail to see how the article explains what would have been the correct
>> value for M(Ex) and why it was wrong. The article just says it's wrong,
>> without really saying why, or what it should be.
>
> M(Ex) is the number of ways you can get the result you're looking for by
> arranging proteins (not the way they happen to be arranged today, which
> is what Durston says). You divide it by all the possible ways you can
> arrange proteins (not all the ways that they've already been arranged,
> which is what Durston says).
>
> Durston doesn't do anything with M(Ex).
>
> The formula says "the likelihood of a random protien doing X is the
> number of protiens that do X divided by the total number of possible
> protiens." Makes sense, yes?
>
> Durston says "The likelihood of finding exactly how we evolved is 1
> divided by the largest possible number of evolutionary changes in
> history up to now."
>
> The two would seem to be entirely unrelated.
>
Yep. He's not even using the "same" equation, he is just pasting it on
the board and hoping no one notices him deleting bits, and replacing
others with entirely unrelated bits. Its like he did this:
2 + x = 5, but I don't like 5, so lets make it 12, and since I don't
know what X is, I will use 1, and since 2 + 1 is not 12, every scientist
on the planet must be an idiot to believe that any value of x, when
added to 2 will produce 5.
Or, the way I described it in the comments (more or less), Durston sat
down and worked out how many ways you could get a full house,
incorrectly concluded that full houses are the **only** winning hand,
and that the only *real* full house is two jacks and three 4s, since its
the one he won with last week in his one and "only" hand of poker, then
proceeded to go around telling other people how dumb they where because
they thought any bigger hand, or other "way" to get a full house existed
at all, and that it was totally impossible to win with any hand that
wasn't a full house, even if the other player only had a pair of twos.
He isn't just using the rules wrong, he doesn't even own a copy of the
rule book. He isn't just making bad guesses about the odds of anyone
getting a full house, he fails to even "consider" the possibility that
some other sort of hand "could" win, or that there is some "other" way,
other than the one he saw, that could produce the one he "knows" won.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
