tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post3112891586732266261..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: What’s the Alternative?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger142125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45665734960193105352010-05-06T18:54:02.619-07:002010-05-06T18:54:02.619-07:00Cornelius,
when i say evolution occurs, i am refer...Cornelius,<br />when i say evolution occurs, i am referring to eg antibiotic resistance, which you agree constitutes an example of evolution. that evolution occurs, as is illustrated by these examples, is a fact.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25340402262773546352010-05-05T20:22:14.144-07:002010-05-05T20:22:14.144-07:00nanobot74:
=======
"So evolutionists cla...nanobot74:<br /><br />=======<br /> "So evolutionists claim evolution is a scientific fact"<br /><br /> I don't know why you keep attributing views to me that i don't hold. where did i ever say evolution is a scientific fact? it is a fact that evolution occurs, but the theory of evolution can never be a fact just by definition.<br />======<br /><br />Classic. What, me say evolution is a fact? Nooo, I just said it is a fact that evolution happens. Right.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7793538339912750582010-05-05T14:09:41.724-07:002010-05-05T14:09:41.724-07:00I'll take flat earth for $75, or geocentrism f...I'll take flat earth for $75, or geocentrism for $100.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51677946836904345292010-05-05T11:43:56.033-07:002010-05-05T11:43:56.033-07:00Cornelius,
"So evolutionists claim evolution ...Cornelius,<br />"So evolutionists claim evolution is a scientific fact"<br />I don't know why you keep attributing views to me that i don't hold. where did i ever say evolution is a scientific fact? it is a fact that evolution occurs, but the theory of evolution can never be a fact just by definition.<br /><br />"Sorry, but the peer-reviewed literature does not typically engage in proposing, defending and mandating asinine theories."<br /><br />there are over 30 peer-reviewed scientific journals devoted exclusively to evolutionary biology, and many more that feature evolution as a focus. yet now by your own admission the statement that the nested hierarchy proves evolution has never appeared in any of this literature. yet you continue to claim that this statement is accepted by all evolutionary biologists. why is that?<br /><br />me: "it does, however, support the hypothesis of common descent"<br /><br />you: "Of course, but that's not the claim"<br /><br />me: it is the claim i just made. i'm glad you agree with me.<br /><br />"You certainly would not come to the conclusion that evolution is a scientific fact"<br /><br />see above<br /><br />the rest is all about your irrational loathing of statistics. of course the statistics don't know anything about the science at hand, they are just an objective tool used by the scientist who does know the science. outliers are certainly interesting but are taken into account by the stats. if there are enough of them, they will affect the broad pattern, if not, you can take note of them and investigate later. otherwise, you might conclude that, because two of your samples were incredibly obese but have the hearts of olympic marathoners, there is no relationship between obesity and heart health, even though the expected relationship is seen in the 200 other samples.<br /><br />as for proving flat earth with stats, i would like to see that as well. let's start by statistically examining the flat earth hypothesis that you will fall off the end of the earth if you sail too far. in that case, the null hypothesis is supported at the 1.00 level. not too promising so far.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23022132151901826042010-05-05T10:32:10.842-07:002010-05-05T10:32:10.842-07:00Dr Hunter:
I could make the flat earth theory or ...Dr Hunter:<br /><br /><i>I could make the flat earth theory or geocentrism look like facts if passing statistical tests was all that counted.</i><br /><br />That's something I'd really like to see. Are you up for it?Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31014221033508242352010-05-05T09:55:16.067-07:002010-05-05T09:55:16.067-07:00nanobot74:
=========
re: your quotations. I w...nanobot74:<br /><br />=========<br /> re: your quotations. I was looking more for something from the peer-reviewed scientific literature. <br />=========<br /><br />So evolutionists claim evolution is a scientific fact, and when you criticize the claim they respond: "that's not from the peer-reviewed literature..." Sorry, but the peer-reviewed literature does not typically engage in proposing, defending and mandating asinine theories.<br /><br /><br /><br />=========<br />As I said, I do not agree that the nested hierarchy proves evolution. It does, however, support the hypothesis of common descent.<br />=========<br /><br />Of course, but that's not the claim. There's all kinds of evidence that falsified predictions of evolution and common descent. If you're actually interested in objectively evaluating the theory then you'd need to engage those evidences and how they bear. You certainly would not come to the conclusion that evolution is a scientific fact.<br /><br /><br />=========<br /> "even in the Penny paper the "similar" trees have significant differences)"<br /><br />this is why we do statistics.<br />=========<br /><br />No, this is why we do science. Science is more than running piles of data through the computer's statistics package. <br /><br />=======<br /> in a correlation of obesity and heart disease there are bound to be cases that don't fit, but the overall predicted pattern can still be there.<br />=======<br /><br />No, the question is not "Did I pass some statistical test of randomness which knows nothing of the science at hand," rather, the question is "Are the outliers plausibly explained by my theory?" That, however, would raise serious problems for evolution, so instead the tout their passing of randomness tests, because such results falsifies "independent origin." That's what the Penny paper is all about. They could care less about trying to explain the wide incongruencies, their conclusion was the there was signal, and so "indendendent origin" was disproven. It's all metaphysical.<br /><br />I could make the flat earth theory or geocentrism look like facts if passing statistical tests was all that counted. That's why we have scientists, and not statisticians, doing science. Phylogenetic outliers are *not* plausibly explainable by evolution, but that doesn't matter to evolutionists.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23839330138903643752010-05-05T08:15:33.995-07:002010-05-05T08:15:33.995-07:00Cornelius,
re: your quotations. I was looking more...Cornelius,<br />re: your quotations. I was looking more for something from the peer-reviewed scientific literature. as I said, I do not agree that the nested hierarchy proves evolution. It does, however, support the hypothesis of common descent.<br /><br />"even in the Penny paper the "similar" trees have significant differences)"<br /><br />this is why we do statistics. in a correlation of obesity and heart disease there are bound to be cases that don't fit, but the overall predicted pattern can still be there. the same thing goes for your protein model- many predicted and expected values didn't fit, but the overall pattern was (weakly) there (as far as i can tell just eyeballing it). are you really bashing your own minimal contributions to science here?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53696905708719996212010-05-05T04:57:50.823-07:002010-05-05T04:57:50.823-07:00natschuster: And the article you sited explains wh...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>And the article you sited explains who reptiles and bords have different gastruzation than amphibians. But amphibians have different gastruzation than fish, with similar eggs, and birds and reptiles have different gastruzation, even though they have similar eggs. </i><br /><br />Not as different as they might appear at first glance, and the article provides an evolutionary framework for understanding the differences. <br /><br /><b>natschuster</b>: <i>My point is that maybe there are different embryos that don't look that much alike. </i><br /><br />Nothing is stopping you from studying the topic, but you don't even seem curious about the examples already provided.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86568668950979995352010-05-05T02:04:57.037-07:002010-05-05T02:04:57.037-07:00And the article you sited explains who reptiles an...And the article you sited explains who reptiles and bords have different gastruzation than amphibians. But amphibians have different gastruzation than fish, with similar eggs, and birds and reptiles have different gastruzation, even though they have similar eggs.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20876605925334725592010-05-05T01:37:15.330-07:002010-05-05T01:37:15.330-07:00Zachriel:
My point is that maybe there are differ...Zachriel:<br /><br />My point is that maybe there are different embryos that don't look that much alike. You might have chosen only the one's that do. And this at best only supports common descent of mammals, not all lifenatschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43522261922903370882010-05-04T22:24:07.352-07:002010-05-04T22:24:07.352-07:00nanobot74:
"Problem #3: I pointed out that t...nanobot74:<br /><br />"Problem #3: I pointed out that the specific prediction of a nested hierarchy was met, not just any phylogenetic signal. similarly, in the Penny paper, the specific prediction of congruence between trees was met. the trees could have been even more incongruent that random,"<br /><br />No, there are all kinds of phylogenetic incongruences which no one takes as contra indicative of evolution even though there is no plausible evolutionary explanation (even in the Penny paper the "similar" trees have significant differences).Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29927204117101326862010-05-04T22:07:10.892-07:002010-05-04T22:07:10.892-07:00nanobot74:
"where did i say the nested hiera...nanobot74:<br /><br />"where did i say the nested hierarchy proves evolution? where did anyone say that?"<br /><br />"The several subordinate groups in any class cannot be ranked in a single file, but seem clustered round points, and these round other points, and so on in almost endless cycles. If species had been independently created, no explanation would have been possible of this kind of classification." --Darwin<br /><br />"Could the single artisan, who has no one but himself from whom to steal designs, possibly be the explanation for why the Creator fashioned life in a hierarchical fashion—why, for example, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and birds all share the same limb structure?"--N. EldredgeCornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85700407629382639502010-05-04T22:00:12.141-07:002010-05-04T22:00:12.141-07:00Cornelius,
"we have this hypothesis, we'r...Cornelius,<br />"we have this hypothesis, we're going to collect data, and if the data matches what the hypothesis predicts (statistically) then all we will claim is that the study *supports* the hypothesis. And if the data do not match, then we'll drop the whole idea"<br />this is exactly what happens in evo bio journals all the time. I don't recall ever reading a paper that said "our hypothesis is supported, therefore the theory of evolution is proven", or "our hypothesis was not supported, therefore the theory of evolution is false."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14690468183551993212010-05-04T21:51:30.597-07:002010-05-04T21:51:30.597-07:00Cornelius,
"Which raises the question of how ...Cornelius,<br />"Which raises the question of how you possibly could think the evolutionary argument that the nested hierarchy proves evolution"<br /><br />where did i say the nested hierarchy proves evolution? where did anyone say that?<br /><br />problem #1: you are still confused about hypotheses v theories. yes, evolutionary hypotheses have been falsified. does this merit falsification of the entire theory? let's say that there was no correlation between obesity and heart disease. would this falsify the entire theory of exercise physiology?<br /><br />problem #2: again, if anyone is saying the nested hierarchy is proof of evolution, they are wrong. you should be able to see why from my previous comments.<br /><br />Problem #3: I pointed out that the specific prediction of a nested hierarchy was met, not just any phylogenetic signal. similarly, in the Penny paper, the specific prediction of congruence between trees was met. the trees could have been even more incongruent that random, and I'm afraid, contrary to your statement, that he would not label such a pattern as a succesful prediction just because it was different than random. <br />Problem # 4: see problem #3- we are making specific predictions about patterns, not just any pattern. so we are not just rjecting the null hypothesis in any old direction. you really do seem to think that all statistics are metaphysical. no wonder you didn't use them in your own work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49522597674697122232010-05-04T21:08:39.720-07:002010-05-04T21:08:39.720-07:00nanobot74:
But you said:
--------
using a random...nanobot74:<br /><br />But you said:<br /><br />--------<br />using a random distribution (i.e. not a nested hierarchy) as a null model is a standard in all hypothesis-based statistical tests. or else you would say that the results of all statistical tests are religious, e.g.<br /><br />"God wouldn't make the results of this drug trial different than random at the level of p<0.05 , so the drug must be the cause of these people getting better."<br />--------<br /><br />No, not at all. You're confused on this. The only way the evolutionists methods could qualify as science, and be comparable to the observational studies and clinical trials, would be if they said: we have this hypothesis, we're going to collect data, and if the data matches what the hypothesis predicts (statistically) then all we will claim is that the study *supports* the hypothesis. And if the data do not match, then we'll drop the whole idea.<br /><br />Conversely, the way that the observational studies would have to be done to be comparable to evolution would be like this. Health researchers would say that after years of study, they conclude that an unknown bacteria causes heart disease and there can be no other cause. Now the key question is, is there or is there not heart disease. A massive study is undertaken, and the conclusion is there is no question about it, there is heart disease. Therefore, it is a fact that this unknown bacteria exists, and is doing just what we thought it did.<br /><br />Also, it is often hypothesized that this bacteria acts rapidly. For example, when expected patterns are not observed, the researchers say that the patterns was erased by rapid, high levels, of the bacteria activity. The heart disease was there, but then the additional actions of the bacteria causes other effects, and the heart disease went away.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39320949368175680422010-05-04T21:05:03.967-07:002010-05-04T21:05:03.967-07:00nanobot74:
" if you're going to go down ...nanobot74:<br /><br />" if you're going to go down the "correlation does not equal causation" route- thanks, i already know that. "<br /><br />Which raises the question of how you possibly could think the evolutionary argument that the nested hierarchy proves evolution is no different than your observational study example of obesity and heart disease being correlated. The most we can conclude is:<br /><br />1. Obesity and heart disease are correlated.<br />2. The hypothesis that obesity *causes* heart disease is not falsified.<br />3. The correlation supports the hypothesis that obesity causes heart disease because it is a fulfilled prediction.<br /><br />The case of the nested hierarchy is different, as I pointed out. You made the distinction between a double blind study and an observational study, but an observational study is still not like the evolutionary claim. Here's why:<br /><br /><br />Problem #1:<br /><br />In an observational study the prediction is binding. If the hypothesis is that obesity that we can observe causes heart disease that we can observe, then there better be a correlation between these two observations. In performing the study, they risk not being able to reject the null hypothesis, and thus falsifying the hypothesis. If you cannot falsify the hypothesis then your test, insofar as a test of the hypothesis, is meaningless.<br /><br />Evolutionists do not do this. Evolution is not harmed either way, as Penny pointed out (in that peer-reviewed paper). Either way, evolution can explain the result.<br /><br />Problem #2:<br /><br />Secondly, imagine that observed correlation is not a causation. That is a possibility, which is why rejection of the null hypothesis does not prove the hypothesis that there is correlation, it merely supports the hypothesis. That's a much weaker conclusion (it doesn't falsify the hypothesis).<br /><br />Again, evolutionists do not follow this method. If they did, all they could say is that the results show that the null hypothesis (of no phylogenetic signal) can be rejected and our prediction succeeded. A successful prediction is one among many predictions, many of which are false. But evolutionists tout this as proof of evolution, not merely as a successful prediction.<br /><br />Problem #3:<br /><br />You can have a rejection of the null hypothesis that does not support the hypothesis, and indeed falsifies it. Namely, in this example of obesity and heart disease, you could have a negative correlation. That is non random, but falsifies the hypothesis that obesity causes heart disease. The results show just the opposite.<br /><br />Again, evolutionists do not do this. Yes, there is non random phylogenetic signal. But the nested hierarchy is repeatedly falsified, in important ways. By "important," I mean the deviations are above the noise -- they are not explained by evolutionary theory, aside from the usual hand-waving (then a bunch of mutations occurred in just the right place). So yes, the null hypothesis is rejected, but this just raises more questions.<br /><br />So rather than claiming an evolutionary success if their prediction is fulfilled, they claim success merely if the null hypothesis is rejected. Any phylogenetic signal counts as a win for evolution.<br /><br />Problem #4:<br /><br />But Problems #1-3 are not problems for evolutionists. Why? Because they hold that the rejection of the null hypothesis is a rejection of creationism. This goes back to Kant, and runs all through the evolution literature up to today. It is not merely a retort of those creationist rascals. Indeed, Carl von Linne's creationist views never had a problem with the nested hierarchy he thought he observed. You won't find this in the Bible anywhere. The nested hierarchy as a falsification of creationism is a uniquely evolutionary metaphysic.<br /><br />You don't find anything like this in clinical trial testing. <br /><br />(continued)Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-92044904830275596052010-05-04T19:38:20.204-07:002010-05-04T19:38:20.204-07:00Cornelius,
just a typo, i meant the hypothesis tha...Cornelius,<br />just a typo, i meant the hypothesis that obesity causes heart disease was supported. and if you're going to go down the "correlation does not equal causation" route- thanks, i already know that. i hope you will also address the example of your own published work that uses the same methodology of comparing a predicted to a measured pattern.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65002075708326051642010-05-04T18:20:13.633-07:002010-05-04T18:20:13.633-07:00natschuster: Are you sure your not being selective...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>Are you sure your not being selective about the embryos you selected? </i><br /><br />They're selected to represent diverse organisms so that it is easy to verify that they have many more points of similarity during the phylotypic stage than in their developed forms. Ask if you are curious. <br /><br /><b>natschuster</b>: <i>And whatever the reason, the during the gastrula stage the cells and tissues from the embryos from the different vertebrate orders follow very different paths. </i><br /><br />Not for "whatever the reason," but because they have been adapted to their particular developmental pattern, in particular, the presence of a yolk. Yolks are the derived trait. Interestingly, humans develop an umbilical vesicle, homologous to the yolk sac, while the genes for yolk are non-functional pseudogenes. <br /><br />Arendt & Nübler-Jung, <i>Rearranging gastrulation in the name of yolk: evolution of gastrulation in yolk-rich amniote eggs</i>, Mechanisms of Development 1999. <br /><br />Brawand, Wahli & Kaessmann, <i>Loss of egg yolk genes in mammals and the origin of lactation and placentation</i>, PLoS Biology 2008.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16824831004907984482010-05-04T18:08:08.544-07:002010-05-04T18:08:08.544-07:00nanobot74:
OK, good example. First, a clarificati...nanobot74:<br /><br />OK, good example. First, a clarification:<br /><br />===<br />Because the statistical test employed is the same and the results are interpreted in the same way. In an observational study, there is no control group and effects of e.g. obesity are correlated with e.g. heart disease. the hypothesis is that obesity causes heart disease, and the prediction is that obesity and heart disease will be positively correlated. they found this statistically significant positive correlation, i.e. the null hypothesis of no relationship was rejected. the alternative hypothesis, in the predicted direction, was supported, suggesting that overweight women are more likely to get heart disease.<br />===<br /><br />Why did you conclude "suggesting that overweight women are more likely to get heart disease" rather than "suggesting that obesity causes heart disease"? Do you implicitly include the hypothesis, or is there a reason you didn't mention it?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85263067762316919692010-05-04T18:07:53.812-07:002010-05-04T18:07:53.812-07:00David said... Was it Quine who pointed out that fo...David said... <i>Was it Quine who pointed out that for any apparent falsification of an hypothesis about a collection of empirical data, it is always possible to save the hypothesis with sufficient ad hoc assumptions?</i><br /><br />A great illustration of that phenomenon is <a href="http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm" rel="nofollow">Sagan's Dragon</a>. It's also often considered to relate to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle" rel="nofollow">Ptolemaic epicycles</a>. (Interestingly, historical evidence for the popular notion that astronomers kept adding epicycles to continually justify geocentrism seems scant; but that's irrelevant to what I'm going to say here.)<br /><br />As I see it, whenever evaluating if spurious <i>ad hoc</i> reasoning is at work, one must consider the alternate hypotheses. In the case of Sagan's Dragon, the alternate hypothesis is simple and obvious: the null hypothesis that there is no dragon. No anomalies exist which require anything like a dragon to explain them, so no further hypothesis is necessary.<br /><br />In the case of Ptolemaic astronomy, the alternate hypothesis is rather trickier: that something else (the Sun) serves as the center point of the objects' arcs of motion. In order to refute the epicycles — even though we <i>now "know"</i> epicycles are unnecessary — you need to have an alternative. It's not enough to say "epicycles are just <i>ad hoc</i>", or (worse still, in hindsight) "natural/undirected forces are clearly inadequate to account for the observed astronomical facts".<br /><br />Right now, I can think of at least one area of science with a major "ad hoc" premise holding things together — dark matter. Instead of assuming and testing its existence/nonexistence, we <i>could</i> just say, "clearly, all our prior assumptions about the fundamental laws are very incorrect." But by itself, this gets us nowhere.<br /><br />It all comes down to the same darn question asked in this post's title. If you think you're seeing epicycles… what's your heliocentrism? And how is it to be distinguished from the "hypothesis" (indescribable supernatural design) which we all know is unnecessary when dealing with matters of astronomy, meteorology, or any other non-biological science?Catchlinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06167383766634943562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4281585246291227602010-05-04T16:38:14.068-07:002010-05-04T16:38:14.068-07:00Are you sure your not being selective about the em...Are you sure your not being selective about the embryos you selected?<br /><br />And whatever the reason, the during the gastrula stage the cells and tissues from the embryos from the different vertebrate orders follow very different paths. And birds and reptiles can have similar sized eggs. And saying they have different egg environments and structures only pushes the problem back one step. And I would expect things that are similar in the end product to resemble each other during the manufacturing process. I imagine a car and a truck would look the same at some point on the assembly line.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60760895338756860172010-05-04T16:32:15.088-07:002010-05-04T16:32:15.088-07:00natschuster: if similarities in one stage imply co...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>if similarities in one stage imply common descent, then the very great differences at earlier stages that I mentioned above should imply the opposite. </i><br /><br />Take a look at the following embryos. They are all mammals. Can you tell what they are? You would certainly recognize the developed forms. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.zachriel.com/images/embryo1.jpg" rel="nofollow">Embryo 1</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.zachriel.com/images/embryo2.jpg" rel="nofollow">Embryo 2</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.zachriel.com/images/embryo3.jpg" rel="nofollow">Embryo 3</a><br /><br />Embryos have have many more points of similarity during the phylotypic stage than in their developed forms. That's simply a fact. The gastrula stage varies due to the structure and environment of the egg, such as the size of the yolk.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4498351777578652462010-05-04T15:42:16.743-07:002010-05-04T15:42:16.743-07:00Ritchie and Zachriel:
I understand that Haeckle n...Ritchie and Zachriel:<br /><br />I understand that Haeckle not only faked the drawings but was very selective in his choice of samples. Some closely related species have embryos that don't look all that much alike. And if similarities in one stage imply common descent, then the very great differences at earlier stages that I mentioned above should imply the opposite.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17866145062348124072010-05-04T09:23:32.135-07:002010-05-04T09:23:32.135-07:00Cornelius,
"You'll have to elaborate on w...Cornelius,<br />"You'll have to elaborate on why you think an observational or cohort study is no different than the evolutionary claim about the nested hierarchy"<br /><br />Because the statistical test employed is the same and the results are interpreted in the same way. In an observational study, there is no control group and effects of e.g. obesity are correlated with e.g. heart disease. the hypothesis is that obesity causes heart disease, and the prediction is that obesity and heart disease will be positively correlated. they found this statistically significant positive correlation, i.e. the null hypothesis of no relationship was rejected. the alternative hypothesis, in the predicted direction, was supported, suggesting that overweight women are more likely to get heart disease.similarly, we propose the hypothesis of common descent and the prediction that patterns of descent will form Markov-chain like nested hierarchies. We find that they form such nested hierarchies (not just any old pattern), rejecting the null hypothesis of no pattern. the alternative hypothesis of common descent, with the specifically predicted pattern of nested hierarchies, was supported, suggesting that organisms living today descended with modification from ancestral forms.<br />you use this same methodology (although without actually using those troublesome statistics) in your own work on proteins. so what's the problem again?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51946503084551563892010-05-04T08:57:16.106-07:002010-05-04T08:57:16.106-07:00nanobot74:
====
You are referring to only a small...nanobot74:<br /><br />====<br />You are referring to only a small subset of clinical trials, probably the least frequently performed kind. double blind, placebo controlled studies are ideal but are difficult and expensive to run and are not performed as often as observational studies or cohort studies. yet people make life-and-death decisions based on these studies. are you saying that all of these studies are metaphysically based and are not valid science?<br />===<br /><br />You'll have to elaborate on why you think an observational or cohort study is no different than the evolutionary claim about the nested hierarchy. It is not at all clear why you see this parity, and why you see the evolution's metaphysics as no different than such studies. I could try to explain, but I might not address what you are thinking of. I tried that once and it didn't work. So I think you need to give a specific example, or otherwise elaborate on why you see the parity.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.com