yes, it isn't exactly fresh from the field.
OTOH, they have been looking for them a very long time, well, ever since darwin made his claims.
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.
yes, it isn't exactly fresh from the field.1993?!do you have any idea how many fossils have been found since then? That article is older than me!
they have been looking for them a very long time, well, ever since darwin made his claims.
correlation does not imply causation, and you know it.
did you know reading skills are correlated to show size?
i can "prove" all kinds of nonsense with "statistical correlations".
and you have the gall to tell me i'm wrong for distrusting it????????????
no scientist on the planet would ever tell me such a thing.
my original assertion stands:
you are either no scientist, or you aren't being honest.
yes, it isn't exactly fresh from the field.
OTOH, they have been looking for them a very long time, well, ever since darwin made his claims.
self taught.Have you ever studied statistics?
yes, but you didn't post this stuff.There are two quite different reasons why correlation does not imply causation. The first is that the correlation may be spurious, i.e. just a fluke. Statistical analysis, which you distrust, gives you tools to tell how likely it is that your correlation is spurious. Statistical analysis does not consist of pointing to a correlation and saying, "Hey, this causes that." Instead, statistical analysis is precisely what the skeptic should be employing, to test whether a correlation is genuine or not.
this was exactly my point, and you essentially told me i was wrong for feeling that way.The second reason is that correlation does not tell you what is cause and what is effect. If you have a robust, repeatable correlation (and have eliminated artifacts, and have accounted for multiple testing), then the correlation does indeed imply that there is some kind of causal relationship operating. Why else would two things be consistently correlated? What it can't tell you is whether A is caused by B, B caused by A, or whether both are caused by C, D and E. But it does tell you that something is going on that requires a causal explanation.
i understand that, but this stuff (raw data) is usually left out when presenting the results.There is no magic path in science for going from correlation to a causal relationship, but there are plenty of approaches available. Multiple independent correlations, all predicted by a single causal model, provide evidence supporting the accuracy of the model. Controlled experiments let you manipulate and distinguish possible causal factors. Discovery of a mechanism that you can test independently is solid evidence for causation.
yes, but even most well intentioned analysis is questionable, for the reasons you stated.This is what we do as scientists. We don't just see a correlation and conclude that we know what's going on(*), but we also don't ignore correlations because they're not definitive by themselves. We try to understand them and explain them.
well see, the thing here is, the questions you are asking yourselves can be "begging the answer", and i'm not sure how to explain that.As an example, here is a paper based entirely on a correlation (an autocorrelation, actually); I'm using it because I was one of the principle authors. In it, we identify the correlation, study its characteristics and consider multiple possible causal explanations for it. The one we conclude is probably true -- that recombination rates vary a lot across the human genome -- makes possible all kinds of predictions that can later be used to test our conclusion. That's how science is done. If you think our paper is not scientific, then you have a seriously distorted notion of what science is. (Either that, or none of us are scientists, in which case Harvard, Oxford, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and the president of the United States are all going to be really embarrassed, because they think we're scientists.)
but yet i get chastised for questioning YOUR science.(*) Well, some of us do. A lot of crappy science gets published.
self taught.
yes, but you didn't post this stuff.
you simply posted the results of a statistical analysis and said "there it is".
"surveys" are notorious in this regards.
not only can the questions be "fraudulent", the analysis that is applied to them can also be "fraudulent".
so, you wind up with something that is utterly useless but is presented as absolutely unbiased and legit.
this was exactly my point, and you essentially told me i was wrong for feeling that way.
you know, i caught a lot of flak for standing my ground over this even to the point of being told i lost credibility because of it.
i understand that, but this stuff (raw data) is usually left out when presenting the results.
yes, but even most well intentioned analysis is questionable, for the reasons you stated.
well see, the thing here is, the questions you are asking yourselves can be "begging the answer", and i'm not sure how to explain that.
IOW, although the questions seem unbiased, they aren't.
i'm sure you are aware of that.
"surveys" can be made that appear completely unbiased, except they are anything but that.
but yet i get chastised for questioning YOUR science.
i've been told i employ double standards and that i've lost credibility because i stood my ground.
what do you say to those people SFS?
you know, i i'll bet a million to one SFS wishes he never joined the discussion, and i know exactly how he feels.Well when you try and discuss something with people who have actually studied the subject at hand and may even work in that field you can expect a little criticism when you show that you don't know what you're talking about but you still insist that you're right.
yes, it isn't exactly fresh from the field.
OTOH, they have been looking for them a very long time, well, ever since darwin made his claims.
you know, i i'll bet a million to one SFS wishes he never joined the discussion, and i know exactly how he feels.
i've been told i employ double standards and that i've lost credibility because i stood my ground.
So you don't trust statistical analyses, and your complaint is that I didn't post a statistical analysis? Which is it? I didn't post a statistical analysis because most people wouldn't understand or trust one. Just looking at the data should be enough to convince most people that there are real relationships between them. For example, do you really need to have a statistical analysis to determine that there's a correlation between these two variables?yes, but you didn't post this stuff.
you simply posted the results of a statistical analysis and said "there it is".
"surveys" are notorious in this regards.
not only can the questions be "fraudulent", the analysis that is applied to them can also be "fraudulent".
so, you wind up with something that is utterly useless but is presented as absolutely unbiased and legit.
I told you not to simply dismiss correlations because you don't trust statistics. If there's a real relationship between genetic diversity within a population and genetic differences between populations, then offer an alternative explanation for it. Common descent predicts that relationship, so finding it is evidence supporting common descent.this was exactly my point, and you essentially told me i was wrong for feeling that way.
you know, i caught a lot of flak for standing my ground over this even to the point of being told i lost credibility because of it.
I have no idea what you mean by this.i understand that, but this stuff (raw data) is usually left out when presenting the results.
So question the analysis. Find something wrong with it. Do your own analysis. "It could be wrong" is a statement you can make about absolutely everything, and that therefore tells you nothing about anything. This is why I asked you what conceivable evidence there could be that you would accept. If all you're going to do is dismiss evidence because there could be something wrong with, you're not looking for evidence at all, so stop pretending.yes, but even most well intentioned analysis is questionable, for the reasons you stated.
Biased surveys can be analyzed, and the mechanism of bias can be determined. Can you find anything wrong with my analysis?well see, the thing here is, the questions you are asking yourselves can be "begging the answer", and i'm not sure how to explain that.
IOW, although the questions seem unbiased, they aren't.
i'm sure you are aware of that.
"surveys" can be made that appear completely unbiased, except they are anything but that.
but yet i get chastised for questioning YOUR science.
I'd say they're pretty much spot on.i've been told i employ double standards and that i've lost credibility because i stood my ground.
what do you say to those people SFS?
There seems to be a negative correlation between how strongly you express your certainty about something and the probability that it's wrong. I've been engaging in conversations like this for something like 25 years now.you know, i i'll bet a million to one SFS wishes he never joined the discussion, and i know exactly how he feels.
my complaint is i don't know what you are trying to prove.So you don't trust statistical analyses, and your complaint is that I didn't post a statistical analysis? Which is it?
yes, i think i brought that point up.I didn't post a statistical analysis because most people wouldn't understand or trust one.
i have no doubt you believe you found a causal relationship.Just looking at the data should be enough to convince most people that there are real relationships between them.
i have no idea what the graph means.For example, do you really need to have a statistical analysis to determine that there's a correlation between these two variables?
If you do, a correlation test gives a p-value of 2.2x10[sup]-16[/sup], i.e. the probability that the correlation is a statistical fluke is smaller than that number. Does that fact change your mind, or was your complaint here a red herring?
thanks for confirming my stand.Yes, you can get fraudulent data and fraudulent analyses.
i never questioned your analysis.If you think my data are inaccurate, look for yourself: all of these data are publicly available, and you can do your own analysis. Or point to something wrong in my analysis.
HOX genes would seem to suggest that each organism has its own origin.I told you not to simply dismiss correlations because you don't trust statistics. If there's a real relationship between genetic diversity within a population and genetic differences between populations, then offer an alternative explanation for it. Common descent predicts that relationship, so finding it is evidence supporting common descent.
in order for someone to explain your data, they must see what you see.I would love to see a creationist attempt to explain these data.
the problem with DNA analysis is the commonality of DNA to all lifeforms.You yourself offered two vague suggestions, neither of which actually explains anything about the data.
it makes no difference to me who "wins".At this point, it seems pretty clear to me that critics of evolution have no substantive arguments, just a selective skepticism they deploy to fend off conclusions they don't like.
this is another thing about statistical analysis, unless you have all the data and thoroughly understand the problem, you can't effectively analyze it.So question the analysis. Find something wrong with it.
i do not dismiss your work nor do i think it's wrong.If all you're going to do is dismiss evidence because there could be something wrong with, you're not looking for evidence at all, so stop pretending.
if you want to fault me for mistrusting statistical analysis, then be my guest.I'd say they're pretty much spot on.
i never questioned your analysis.
i said i don't trust statistical analysis, and for good reason.
HOX genes would seem to suggest that each organism has its own origin.
any mutation in these genes quickly results in a non viable organism.
the problem with DNA analysis is the commonality of DNA to all lifeforms.
transposons further complicate the matter.
it boils down to this:
1. i don't trust statistical analysis, for good reason.
2. i do not understand the problem.
3. i do not have all the data.
4. i probably couldn't offer an opinion even if i had the data because of 2
It's interesting, because during my last doctor's visit, I asked my doctor, a Christian, if he believed in evolution, and he said YES.I actually thought about this forum during a doctor's appointment this afternoon because he brought up evolution.
Be careful with that.I've been a vegetarian since I was nine and recently became a vegan, which apparently is a choice not supported by evolution. Or my parents, haha. He was trying to teach me about the evolutionary reasons for why a vegan diet isn't ideal for humans and compel me to eat eggs and fish and try to gradually gain fifteen pounds as I move into adulthood.
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?