I may have discovered the best evidence for evolution

[PsychoSarah]

And I'm going to say this again:

Don't tell me that just because genetics can show my sister and I to be related, that I should believe my sister and I should be related to chimpanzees.

Same exact information is evaluated in the same way for both things.

 

[Zosimus]

I said nothing is proven... in an absolute sense. Are you not familiar with the legal concept of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt?"

I've heard of it. Yet I also know that large numbers of people convicted of crimes are innocent.

Which one? Do you really think you would be operating a computer right now if we didn't use science to understand things like electricity? All the while engaging in logical fallacies, of course.

And people ask me "Who has told you that induction works because you have a computer? No one ever says anything like that!!!"

I guess I should have said, professional opinion. It is also the professional opinion of the scientific community in general. Some opinions carry more weight than others.

Appeal to Authority

It is not false, when applied to most conditions, now is it? It is still useful in the vast majority or situations in which such calculations are required.

Ptolemy's Earth-Centered Model works fine, too. What's your point?

From the second edition of Principia: "I have not yet been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena and I feign no hypotheses... It is enough that gravity does really exist and acts according to the laws I have explained, and that it abundantly serves to account for all the motions of celestial bodies."

So you think that quoting from a mathematical text put out by a highly religious mathematician more than a century before science came about that you are proving something about science? What pray tell do you hope to prove?

As I said, it is possible that the theory of evolution will be falsified, or superseded in the future, just not very likely.

I will believe that you are an expert on the future after you win the lottery and not before.

 

[Zosimus]

So, do you think the application of logical proofs is useful in determining the cause of diseases like chicken pox?

No, I think that the application of logical proofs is useful in ruling out the causes of diseases, such as chicken pox.

For example, if you found a number of people with all the symptoms of chicken pox and without the chicken pox virus, that would be pretty solid evidence that the germ in question is not the cause of the symptoms and that some other cause must exist.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, I think that the application of logical proofs is useful in ruling out the causes of diseases, such as chicken pox.

For example, if you found a number of people with all the symptoms of chicken pox and without the chicken pox virus, that would be pretty solid evidence that the germ in question is not the cause of the symptoms and that some other cause must exist.

Probably a different disease altogether, yes.

 

[Zosimus]

So we ignore Copi and accept your ideas. So what are your credentials in Logic? Since you are setting yourself up as the expert, it is relevant.

Dizredux

First of all, they're not my ideas. I have posted links to all of the ideas expressed.

Second, I'm one of the best GMAT and LSAT teachers in Peru with a three-time perfect score on the critical reasoning section of the GMAT. I consistently score in the top 1 percent on the LSAT.

 

[PsychoSarah]

First of all, they're not my ideas. I have posted links to all of the ideas expressed.

Second, I'm one of the best GMAT and LSAT teachers in Peru with a three-time perfect score on the critical reasoning section of the GMAT. I consistently score in the top 1 percent on the LSAT.

If you have those sorts of credentials, then you should be willing to back them up to some degree. For example, how about expressing your Peruvian background and type some fluent Spanish for us in that dialect?

 

[Zosimus]

Tell that to the judge next time you are being sued with a paternity test.

Gene Watch Page

"Promoters of forensic DNA testing have, from the beginning, claimed that DNA tests are virtually infallible....

"In this article, I will argue that this shared assumption is wrong. Although generally quite reliable (particularly in comparison with other forms of evidence often used in criminal trials), DNA tests are not now and have never been infallible. Errors in DNA testing occur regularly. DNA evidence has caused false incriminations and false convictions, and will continue to do so. Although DNA tests incriminate the correct person in the great majority of cases, the risk of false incrimination is high enough to deserve serious consideration in debates about expansion of DNA databases....

"This article will discuss major ways in which false incriminations can occur in forensic DNA testing, including coincidental DNA profile matches between different people, inadvertent or accidental transfer of cellular material or DNA from one item to another, errors in identification or labeling of samples, misinterpretation of test results, and intentional planting of biological evidence. It will also discuss ways in which the secrecy that currently surrounds the content and operation of government databases makes these issues difficult to study and assess. It will conclude by calling for greater openness and transparency of governmental operations in this domain and a public program of research that will allow the risks discussed here to be better understood.A coincidental match between different people who happen to share the same DNA profile is one way a false incrimination can occur. To understand the likelihood of a coincidental match, it is important to understand what a DNA profile is and how DNA profiles are compared. Forensic laboratories typically "type" samples using commercial test kits that can detect genetic characteristics (called alleles) at various loci (locations) on the human genome. The test kits used in the United States generally examine the 13 STR loci selected by the FBI for CODIS, the national DNA database.10 Some of the newer test kits also examine two additional STR loci.

"At each STR locus, there are a number of different alleles (generally between 6 and 18) that a person might have. Each person inherits two of these alleles, one from each parent. Numbers are used to identify the alleles and the pair of alleles at a particular locus constitutes a genotype. Hence, one person can have a genotype (for a locus called D3S1358) of "14, 15;" while another person has the genotype "16, 17." The complete set of alleles detected at all loci for a given sample is called a DNA profile. When describing DNA profiles, people sometimes mention the number of loci they encompass.

"In cases I have reviewed over the past few years, evidentiary samples from crime scenes often produce incomplete or partial DNA profiles. Limited quantities of DNA, degradation of the sample, or the presence of inhibitors (contaminants) can make it impossible to determine the genotype at every locus. In some instances the test yields no information about the genotype at a particular locus; in some instances one of the two alleles at a locus will "drop out" (become undetectable). Because partial profiles contain fewer genetic markers (alleles) than complete profiles, they are more likely to match someone by chance (see endnote 1). The probability of a coincidental match is higher for a partial profile than for a full profile."

 

[Split Rock]

I've heard of it. Yet I also know that large numbers of people convicted of crimes are innocent.

So your solution would be to convict no one. Is that correct? Do you have a practical alternative to "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?" The application of logical proofs, would, after all, convict no one.

And people ask me "Who has told you that induction works because you have a computer? No one ever says anything like that!!!"

is that some kind of dodge?

Appeal to Authority

Going back to our justice system, there is also something called an "expert witness." The opinion of an expert witness is considered more reliable than a non-expert. That is not an "appeal to authority" fallacy. Just as a car mechanic is a better judge of why your car won't start, a biologist is a better judge of why there are no placental mammals native to Australia.

Ptolemy's Earth-Centered Model works fine, too. What's your point?

It doesn't work fine. That is why it is no longer used.

So you think that quoting from a mathematical text put out by a highly religious mathematician more than a century before science came about that you are proving something about science? What pray tell do you hope to prove?

My point was that Newton understood the limitations of his law.

I will believe that you are an expert on the future after you win the lottery and not before.

I gave you my professional opinion, nothing more. Reject it if you like, I don't care. Just don't tell me that logical proofs are a useful alternative to the scientific process.

No, I think that the application of logical proofs is useful in ruling out the causes of diseases, such as chicken pox.

For example, if you found a number of people with all the symptoms of chicken pox and without the chicken pox virus, that would be pretty solid evidence that the germ in question is not the cause of the symptoms and that some other cause must exist.

That is part of Koch's postulates, yet Koch's postulates embraces logical fallacies, does it not?

What you don't seem to understand is that we can make no progress if we do nothing but exclude possibilities but not reach any tentative conclusions about anything.

 

[Dizredux]

Originally Posted by Dizredux

So we ignore Copi and accept your ideas. So what are your credentials in Logic? Since you are setting yourself up as the expert, it is relevant.

First of all, they're not my ideas. I have posted links to all of the ideas expressed.

If they are not your ideas, why did you present them?

Second, I'm one of the best GMAT and LSAT teachers in Peru with a three-time perfect score on the critical reasoning section of the GMAT. I consistently score in the top 1 percent on the LSAT.

Wow! Impressed with your brilliance aren't you? From your postings this is obvious. We can tell you are intelligent and you do not have to impress us with that. You impress us by make good points and supporting them. The most impressive is to bring up new ideas or ways of looking at things and again supporting them. Make us think so to speak. That is what I look for in a new poster.

What I am asking is, since you present yourself as an expert in Logic, what are your academic credentials in that field. Where did you study it and under whom?

I know you are having fun and games but really, it is getting a bit old and is not all that interesting any more. Maybe a new topic might be good for you.

Dizredux

 

[DogmaHunter]

And I'm going to say this again:

Don't tell me that just because genetics can show my sister and I to be related, that I should believe my sister and I should be related to chimpanzees.

You can't have one without the other. Your willfull ignorance and/or denial isn't going to change that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Appeal to Authority

You seem to be confusing the fallacy of appeal to authority with simple appeal to expertise. There's a big difference.

There are no authorities in science. Only experts.

Ptolemy's Earth-Centered Model works fine, too.

Actually, it doesn't.

I will believe that you are an expert on the future after you win the lottery and not before.

Now, you seem to be confusing "leaving options open for potential future discoveries" with accurate prediction of future events.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can't have one without the other.

Yes you can, chief.

Well ... on second thought ... maybe you can't, but I can.

 

[Zosimus]

The direct evidence in your example, witness identification, is actually quit unreliable.
The Innocence Project - Understand the Causes: Eyewitness Misidentification

Once again I must contend with, poor reading comprehension skills.

As my example clearly said, the witness saw the murder and picked the person out of a lineup. Your own link suggests that witness identification can be wrong and offers as examples:

• A witness made an identification in a “show-up” procedure from the back of a police car hundreds of feet away from the suspect in a poorly lit parking lot in the middle of the night.

• A witness in a rape case was shown a photo array where only one photo of the person police suspected was the perpetrator was marked with an “R.”

• Witnesses substantially changed their description of a perpetrator (including key information such as height, weight and presence of facial hair) after they learned more about a particular suspect.

• Witnesses only made an identification after multiple photo arrays or lineups — and then made hesitant identifications (saying they “thought” the person “might be” the perpetrator, for example), but at trial the jury was told the witnesses did not waver in identifying the suspect.
-----
So next time, read your own link.

 

[Zosimus]

Usually, it is a semantics mistake more than anything else.

Has it occurred to you that maybe semantics is all I hope to correct?

 

[Zosimus]

Zosimus Usually either to show there is support for a theory or in the case of forums, to show that the poster is just not pulling stuff out of their neither regions as is often the case.


Dizredux

Well, when I make posts, I make an assumption. I assume that if a person wants more information that he or she will use Google to search for that information. Do you want to know what panspermia theory is and what evidence there is for and against it?

Google it.

 

[Zosimus]

Probably a different disease altogether, yes.

There. You see? Logic can tell us something about the real world. Amazing!!

 

[DogmaHunter]

Gene Watch Page

"Promoters of forensic DNA testing have, from the beginning, claimed that DNA tests are virtually infallible....

"In this article, I will argue that this shared assumption is wrong. Although generally quite reliable (particularly in comparison with other forms of evidence often used in criminal trials), DNA tests are not now and have never been infallible. Errors in DNA testing occur regularly. DNA evidence has caused false incriminations and false convictions, and will continue to do so. Although DNA tests incriminate the correct person in the great majority of cases, the risk of false incrimination is high enough to deserve serious consideration in debates about expansion of DNA databases....

"This article will discuss major ways in which false incriminations can occur in forensic DNA testing, including coincidental DNA profile matches between different people, inadvertent or accidental transfer of cellular material or DNA from one item to another, errors in identification or labeling of samples, misinterpretation of test results, and intentional planting of biological evidence. It will also discuss ways in which the secrecy that currently surrounds the content and operation of government databases makes these issues difficult to study and assess. It will conclude by calling for greater openness and transparency of governmental operations in this domain and a public program of research that will allow the risks discussed here to be better understood.A coincidental match between different people who happen to share the same DNA profile is one way a false incrimination can occur. To understand the likelihood of a coincidental match, it is important to understand what a DNA profile is and how DNA profiles are compared. Forensic laboratories typically "type" samples using commercial test kits that can detect genetic characteristics (called alleles) at various loci (locations) on the human genome. The test kits used in the United States generally examine the 13 STR loci selected by the FBI for CODIS, the national DNA database.10 Some of the newer test kits also examine two additional STR loci.

"At each STR locus, there are a number of different alleles (generally between 6 and 18) that a person might have. Each person inherits two of these alleles, one from each parent. Numbers are used to identify the alleles and the pair of alleles at a particular locus constitutes a genotype. Hence, one person can have a genotype (for a locus called D3S1358) of "14, 15;" while another person has the genotype "16, 17." The complete set of alleles detected at all loci for a given sample is called a DNA profile. When describing DNA profiles, people sometimes mention the number of loci they encompass.

"In cases I have reviewed over the past few years, evidentiary samples from crime scenes often produce incomplete or partial DNA profiles. Limited quantities of DNA, degradation of the sample, or the presence of inhibitors (contaminants) can make it impossible to determine the genotype at every locus. In some instances the test yields no information about the genotype at a particular locus; in some instances one of the two alleles at a locus will "drop out" (become undetectable). Because partial profiles contain fewer genetic markers (alleles) than complete profiles, they are more likely to match someone by chance (see endnote 1). The probability of a coincidental match is higher for a partial profile than for a full profile."

I said "paternity test".

It's the test to see if a certain person is your biological off spring.
That's not the same as forensic testing of DNA on a gun or whatever.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes you can, chief.

Well ... on second thought ... maybe you can't, but I can.

No, you can't.
It's the same technique.
It either works or it doesn't.

Mind you, it didn't have to be like this. If humans really weren't related to other animals, it would be evident from the DNA. But it isn't. The opposite is true. It's evident from the DNA that we are related.

Just like it's evident from the DNA that you are more closely related to your sister then to your cousin.

Again, the technique is either valid or it isn't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There. You see? Logic can tell us something about the real world. Amazing!!

Logic isn't pulled from thin air, you know.
Logic is based on empirical observation of the world.

 

[AV1611VET]

If humans really weren't related to other animals, it would be evident from the DNA. But it isn't. The opposite is true. It's evident from the DNA that we are related.

Let's try this again:

DNA can take a hike.

Scientists called us "animals" long before DNA was discovered.

And for the record, if you want to play the DNA card, why aren't we considered plants as well?

After all, don't plants and animals converge at a common ancestor?