- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,070
- 16,820
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
I've seen you try this pathetic Jedi mind trick numerous times.
Does it ever actually work for you?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You seem to be a very angry sort.
I can only imagine your stress in trying to maintain belief while it crumbles around you.
Free Parameter definition | Dictionary of Electronic StatisticsYou are conflating a common definition of the word "free" with the statistical one. Sad stuff Z.
Also, they are saying "as few as possible" not "none".
Because model selection tests directly quantify the evidence for and against competing models, these tests overcome many of the well-known logical problems with Fisherian null-hypothesis significance tests (such as BLAST-style E values).
common descent, yes. universal common descent, no.
(another layer of statistical error could be introduced at this point).
Really? What's the chance you could be specific. What statistical error layer could be introduced, exactly?
To quantify the evidence supporting the various ancestry hypotheses, I applied three of the most widely used model selection criteria from all major statistical schools: the log likelihood ratio (LLR), the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the log Bayes factor (LBF).
Good statistical methods but one might ask if the previous assumptions can be overcome to enable some objectivity?
Which assumptions? And what does "enable some objectivity" mean? Perhaps rather than rephrasing your question you could provide an answer? (i.e. what should have been done to overcome these previous assumptions and enable some objectivity).
Problems should be noted with the Markovian substitution model :
This was also my second problem with the paper. But I basically agree.
I recommend you listen to the whole song. It's the final thoughts of a man about to be sent to the electric chair ("Mercy Seat")
Except you want me to also deny reality. Not going to happen. I'd also have to give up my day job, and I quite like my day job and its associated pay check.
Hey you should be reading that paper!
Ok, I am back again. I have not been able to get the complete paper and like I said I am not an immunity expert.
I know of a another paper that is coming out in response to this one you have cited. It is by an eminent immunologist who ran a research facility for 20 years. He should have it ready shortly as he is working on as we speak.
You can speak to this better having the complete paper but, the absrtact doesn't indicate anything new. Convergent evolution which is an inference to start with, and gene duplication. The abstract doesn't look like the researchers have discovered much new only possible answers like many before them. Maybe you could tell us if thy have indeed found the answers to how the immune system was built step by step, or not.
Is this another one of the same type of papers given to judge Jones?
When I get a copy of the response paper. I will post it. It will be more an exhaustive reply.
Here is something also that is interesting on adaptive immunity. This is from Biologos. Kathryn Applegate argues this adaptive evolution from a theistic view and there is Edward Max who also weighed in.
Adaptive Immunity: Chance or Necessity?
I really don't know why Ewert doesn't publish his dissenting opinions in peer-reviewed journals. Oh, probably because they are just creationist hand waving.
The paper I posted provides phylogenetic evidence and two mechanisms to demonstrate how jawed vertebrates generated their adaptive immune system, and how jawless vertebrates generated theirs. The fact that both lineages developed different adaptive immune systems that are still adaptive immune systems is convergent evolution.
That paper was a review (collected findings of many papers) that simply addressed the adaptive immune system. The innate system, which is present in virtually all living things, is a whole other fascinating story. There is a phylogenetic distribution of immune system components/tactics that is consistent with all other phylogenetic trees.
Nothing Ewert has ever published precludes the natural evolution of the immune system. I will only accept peer-reviewed papers as your counter-evidence. Non peer-reviewed opinion pieces are not reviewed by experts.
Quite true. ID does not appear in the relative scientific journals specifically because it just doesn't follow scientific methods. Using scientific terms is not following the scientific method.
From the American Association for the advancement of Science (AAAS):
Intelligent design proponents may use the language of science, but they do not use its methodology. They have yet to propose meaningful tests for their claims, there are no reports of current research on these hypotheses at relevant scientific society meetings, and there is no body of research on these hypotheses published in relevant scientific journals. So, intelligent design has not been demonstrated to be a scientific theory. While living things are remarkably complex, scientists have shown that careful, systematic study of them can yield tremendous insights about their functions and origins (as it has in the past).
Your are incorrect Rick. Id is increasing its footprint in the journals. Remember it is a relatively new hypothesis.
I agree, testing for design is a new idea as well but just becuase it has not been nailed down yet doesn't mean it is not valid. There are over 50 peer reviewed papers relating to intelligent design.
Evolution papers make all sorts of claims that show no real evidence just inference. Journals are full of them.
It has also been established that those who dare publish ID friendly papers are diciplined. ID is taboo for Evo scientists and you dare not mention it or else. That has nothing to do with the science.
Your are incorrect Rick. Id is increasing its footprint in the journals. Remember it is a relatively new hypothesis.
I agree, testing for design is a new idea as well but just becuase it has not been nailed down yet doesn't mean it is not valid.
ID is taboo for Evo scientists and you dare not mention it or else. That has nothing to do with the science.
I really don't know why Ewert doesn't publish his dissenting opinions in peer-reviewed journals. Oh, probably because they are just creationist hand waving.
The paper I posted provides phylogenetic evidence and two mechanisms to demonstrate how jawed vertebrates generated their adaptive immune system, and how jawless vertebrates generated theirs. The fact that both lineages developed different adaptive immune systems that are still adaptive immune systems is convergent evolution.
That paper was a review (collected findings of many papers) that simply addressed the adaptive immune system. The innate system, which is present in virtually all living things, is a whole other fascinating story. There is a phylogenetic distribution of immune system components/tactics that is consistent with all other phylogenetic trees.
Nothing Ewert has ever published precludes the natural evolution of the immune system. I will only accept peer-reviewed papers as your counter-evidence. Non peer-reviewed opinion pieces are not reviewed by experts.
Ever wonder why so many peer reviewed papers get published that are simply describing possible avenues of evolution? Why are there so few, if any, that actually detail how evolution HAS worked.
It seems that much of the evidence for evolution comes from inference from things that are infered to be evolution. For example, convergence.
Convergence is conjecture not fact. It is assumed and therefore scews any evidence that uses it as a basis for that evidence.
In several previous posts, there was much debate over the bacterial flagellum. No one came up with a single paper showing how it was built. There were one or two that had general ideas, but nothing that dealt on a biochemical level showing the steps.
Behe is slandered all over and misrepresented continuously. Yet no one has shown how the flagellum or the (TTSS) systems could be built by a Darwinian process.
The point of the type III secretory system argument was to demonstrate that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex.
No one knows exactly how the flagellum evolved, but the one testable idea that ID came up with (irreducible complexity) was demolished.
The standard of evidence you require is virtually impossible to meet. Along your line of reasoning, it is impossible to demonstrate that human being can develop from an embryo because we don't know all the steps. It's ludicrous.
regurgitating PRATTs from professional creationists.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?