I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

[Dan From Smithville]

Well played sir!

Thanks.

 

[Tiberius]

Doesn't comparing DNA genetic sequences of organisms require interpretations? So we're back to square one.

It doesn't require subjective interpretations.

I mean, we can compare the letter sequence fdhnsnkfhebnd to the letter sequence fdhnsnkfhebnd. It's not open to interpretation as to whether they are the same or not. They are or they aren't, and it can be clearly shown. Likewise, mathematics isn't open to interpretation. And neither is genetics.

 

[gnostic]

An eyewitness can also be an expert witness.
Their being an eyewitness may be secondary to their expert knowledge.
Being an eyewitness does not annul their expertise.
I don't think eywitness testimony should be dismissed on that basis.

No, expert witnesses needs to be independent from those were at the scene of crime, even if he or she was an eyewitness.

For objective purposes, experts (for example forensic scientist) as eyewitnesses cannot take part in the criminal investigation, because defendant’s lawyers will exploit the scientist handling evidence, as being bias.

The expert witnesses needs to be independent.

If a forensic scientist is an eyewitness, then law enforcement need to send for ANOTHER forensic scientist to handle the crime scene and process the evidence.

The eyewitness can only testify what he or she have seen or heard.

Not only you don’t understand sciences, you don’t know anything about court trial processes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, expert witnesses needs to be independent from those were at the scene of crime, even if he or she was an eyewitness.

For objective purposes, experts (for example forensic scientist) as eyewitnesses cannot take part in the criminal investigation, because defendant’s lawyers will exploit the scientist handling evidence, as being bias.

The expert witnesses needs to be independent.

If a forensic scientist is an eyewitness, then law enforcement need to send for ANOTHER forensic scientist to handle the crime scene and process the evidence.

The eyewitness can only testify what he or she have seen or heard.

Not only you don’t understand sciences, you don’t know anything about court trial processes.

That is a good point. I didn't think about that.

 

[nPeace]

No, expert witnesses needs to be independent from those were at the scene of crime, even if he or she was an eyewitness.

For objective purposes, experts (for example forensic scientist) as eyewitnesses cannot take part in the criminal investigation, because defendant’s lawyers will exploit the scientist handling evidence, as being bias.

The expert witnesses needs to be independent.

If a forensic scientist is an eyewitness, then law enforcement need to send for ANOTHER forensic scientist to handle the crime scene and process the evidence.

The eyewitness can only testify what he or she have seen or heard.

Not only you don’t understand sciences, you don’t know anything about court trial processes.

It's not the case of one not understanding sciences or court trial processes.
It's rather a case of one not having the closed minded, or narrow view that your systems or viewpoint is ultimate, or the only systems or ways to truth, and nothing else matters.
I don't subscribe to such a narrow view.

For example, nearly 2000 years ago, a situation that highlight the modern day flawed thinking took place.
(John 8:13-20) 13 So the Pharisees said to him: “You bear witness about yourself; your witness is not true.” 14 In answer Jesus said to them: “Even if I do bear witness about myself, my witness is true, because I know where I came from and where I am going. But you do not know where I came from and where I am going. 15 You judge according to the flesh; I do not judge any man at all. 16 And yet even if I do judge, my judgment is truthful, because I am not alone, but the Father who sent me is with me. 17 Also, in your own Law it is written: ‘The witness of two men is true.’ 18 I am one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.” 19 Then they said to him: “Where is your Father?” Jesus answered: “You know neither me nor my Father. If you did know me, you would know my Father also.” 20 He spoke these words in the treasury as he was teaching in the temple. But no one seized him, for his hour had not yet come.

Jesus was the expert witness in this case.
People who placed themselves in the position of authority did not accept his witness, but what people want to or don't want to accept is irrelevant to how truth is established.

One does not need to be tied to any sytem that's is inferior to the way of truth. I certainly am not... and yes, I do understand your belief systems, but I also understand their limits.
That's what you fail to understand... evidently.

 

[nPeace]

It doesn't require subjective interpretations.

I mean, we can compare the letter sequence fdhnsnkfhebnd to the letter sequence fdhnsnkfhebnd. It's not open to interpretation as to whether they are the same or not. They are or they aren't, and it can be clearly shown. Likewise, mathematics isn't open to interpretation. And neither is genetics.

You probably (giving you the benefit of the doubt) didn't understand what I really was saying because I was short with the question.

I was not referring simply to comparing letter sequences, but interpreting what the sequences "tell us".
For example, where does this organism fit on the evolutionary tree, based on its sequences.
Not disregarding the inferences that has to be made, and the limits involved.

Spoiler: Limits

More than 90 percent of the genome is non-coding DNA, sometimes called "junk" DNA, that has no known function. Because of the vast amount of non-coding DNA, it is very hard to recognize the genes simply by looking at one sequence alone; even the best of today's computational programs fail to identify many coding sequences and misidentify others. It is similarly difficult to identify regulatory regions within DNA - the "switches" that turn gene expression on or off, up or down - as they exist only as poorly defined "consensus" sequences. Source

"Having a sequence of the human genome is good, but our ability to interpret it was limited," Lander said.
I thought you would understand that, as I figured all scientists would.

 

[gnostic]

It's not the case of one not understanding sciences or court trial processes.
It's rather a case of one not having the closed minded, or narrow view that your systems or viewpoint is ultimate, or the only systems or ways to truth, and nothing else matters.
I don't subscribe to such a narrow view.

I really don’t give a damn as to what view subscribe to, nPeace, because your view is wrong.

If an expert is testifying as eyewitness, then he or she cannot handle the evidence, because (A) it would weaken the prosecutor’s case, because (B) the defendant can exploit the expert witness’ testimony, and can claim evidence tampering and expert witness being bias.

Do you seriously think the prosecutor would want to lose the case?

A new forensic scientist needs to be used as expert witness, to handle and process the evidence.

If anyone is being closed-minded or narrow-minded, it is you. You are also being ignorant on both subjects, eg (forensic) science and court of law.

As to Jesus, I don’t really care about this too.

You were the one who brought whole eyewitness thingy. It make no to use Jesus’ trial as example, because of different time and different place. Beside that, Jesus’ trial is bogus, because a Roman governor wouldn’t have handle the case as the gospels narrated the way they did.

No roman governor would have tried and sentenced someone based on the crowd or mob. And no Romans would have allowed a crucified body of convicted criminal down in less than a day; the Romans have the brutal tendencies to let the bodies rot on the crosses for days, and even weeks. That Joseph of Arimathea could convince Pilate to have the body taken down and buried shortly after Jesus’ death, is pure fiction.

One does not need to be tied to any sytem that's is inferior to the way of truth. I certainly am not... and yes, I do understand your belief systems, but I also understand their limits.
That's what you fail to understand... evidently.

Actually you are living in the modern world, not in ancient time, so you really are tied to the modern systems, not the ancient systems of Rome or Judaea.

And to live in this world, the real reality, you would need to understand the current systems of the country that you lived in. The social system, political system, justice system, etc, today, may not be perfect, but then perfection don't exist, and there are no utopia anywhere at any time in history, because utopia don't exist, except in fantasy.

Do you see a perfect world with perfect systems, in part of the bible, eg OT or NT?

None of it exist, and there are no such thing as perfect law, or perfect justice.

If you don't understand the current systems, then you are living in deluded fantasy that will never happen. So who is the one really narrow-minded?

 

[Jose Fly]

"Having a sequence of the human genome is good, but our ability to interpret it was limited," Lander said.
I thought you would understand that, as I figured all scientists would.

Um...you realize that quote is from 20 years ago, a time when the first drafts of the human genome were first coming out, right?

Our ability to "interpret" our genome (i.e. discern function) has progressed quite a bit since then, and as you and I covered before, specifically because of our understanding of our evolutionary relationships with other organisms.

You didn't know that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Um...you realize that quote is from 20 years ago, a time when the first drafts of the human genome were first coming out, right?

Our ability to "interpret" our genome (i.e. discern function) has progressed quite a bit since then, and as you and I covered before, specifically because of our understanding of our evolutionary relationships with other organisms.

You didn't know that?

Creationists never know that science advances. That is why they take claims from fifty years ago about a lack of transitional species as Gospel truth.

 

[Tiberius]

You probably (giving you the benefit of the doubt) didn't understand what I really was saying because I was short with the question.

I was not referring simply to comparing letter sequences, but interpreting what the sequences "tell us".
For example, where does this organism fit on the evolutionary tree, based on its sequences.
Not disregarding the inferences that has to be made, and the limits involved.

Spoiler: Limits

More than 90 percent of the genome is non-coding DNA, sometimes called "junk" DNA, that has no known function. Because of the vast amount of non-coding DNA, it is very hard to recognize the genes simply by looking at one sequence alone; even the best of today's computational programs fail to identify many coding sequences and misidentify others. It is similarly difficult to identify regulatory regions within DNA - the "switches" that turn gene expression on or off, up or down - as they exist only as poorly defined "consensus" sequences. Source

"Having a sequence of the human genome is good, but our ability to interpret it was limited," Lander said.
I thought you would understand that, as I figured all scientists would.

Let's say you have some sequences of letters. You suspect that maybe they each evolved from a common ancestor, and you know that on average, there is one letter randomly changed every minute.

These are the sequences you have:

THD QURGK BRDSN KOW AUMVS OBGR THE LHZY HOG
THE QURCK BRDWN FOW JUMVS OBER THE LHZY HOG
TKH QDBUK BREWN FOW JUMYS OHTR TQE LKZY FDG
​

Would you not conclude that the first two are more closely related to each other than to the third? After all, they have many sequences in common that are different in the third. You would conclude that there was some original sequence, and it split off. One split ended up as the third sequence, and the other split changed in a few ways. You can tell what these original changes were by looking at the letters they have in common. Here I have highlighted similar letters.

THD QURGK BRDSN KOW AUMVS OBGR THE LHZY HOG
THE QURCK BRDWN FOW JUMVS OBER THE LHZY HOG
TKH QDBUK BREWN FOW JUMYS OHTR TQE LKZY FDG​

Those letters that are common among them all are highlighted in green, those shared by the first and second are highlighted in red and those shared by the second and third are highlighted in blue.

Let's see if we can figure out what the original sequence was, shall we?

First, let's take all the letters that they all have in common. After all, it's unlikely that changes in a letter position will each come to the same letter. So we'll take just the common letters between all three and replace the other letters with a *.

T** Q***K BR**N *OW *UMVS O**R T*E L*ZY **G​

These are all the letters that the three different sequences agree on. So we can reasonably conclude that those letters were in the common ancestor of all three sequences.

Now, there are nine additional positions where the first and second sequence agree, but only three positions where the second and third sequences agree. And no sequences where the first and third agree where the second disagrees.

So we can conclude reasonably that the cases where the first and second sequence agree are also cases where the letter they agree on was the original. After all, if it was a changed letter, what are the chances that the change would be to the same letter?

So, let's now add these letters in and see what we get.

TH*QUR*K BRD*N *OW *UMVS OB*R THE LHZY HOG​

Now we have even more letters!

Now we also see that there are common letters between the second and third sequences. Let's add those.

TH* QUR*K BRDWN FOW JUMVS OB*R THE LHZY HOG​

So, can we piece together a sequence of changes?

Yes we can.

We can tell by the number of similarities between the first and second that they split apart from each other after the third split away. Thus, we can conclude that the second position letter in the first word of the thirds sequence changed after the split (if it changed before the split, it's unlikely that this letter position would randomly get the same letter in both the first and second sequences). Likewise, we can conclude that the fourth position letter in the third word of the first sequence changed after the first and second sequences split (otherwise why would the second and third sequences agree?).

And we can go a step further. We can conclude (not so surely this time) that in the cases where all three sequences differ, the original letter is still found in one of them.

That gives us (I'll separate the letter positions with a | this time and separate the different options with a /):

T|H|D/E/K
Q|U|R|G/C/U|K
B|R|D|W|N
F|O|W
J|U|M|V|S
O|B|G/E/T|R
T|H|E
L|H|Z|Y
H|O|G
​

So you can see, there are only five positions where there are several options we can't eliminate.

Now, of course, I'm sure you've realised that the original sequences was:

THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG​

We can add this to the analogy with the idea that we find an earlier text that has this sequence. If we look, we get the following letters that we have correctly identified highlighted in green, and the incorrect letters in red, and the letters we are unsure of in yellow:

THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG​

So what can we conclude?

Well, we know that the letters highlighted here in red are ones that changed after the original sequence but at or before the most recent common ancestor of the first three sequences we found. And we know that the letters highlighted here in yellow didn't change until AFTER the MRCA, and each case of those letters changed.

And we can do the exact same thing with genetics.

There's no opinion, there's no matters of interpretation. There's only strictly logical scientific analysis. It doesn't matter if it's junk DNA or not. We can do the exact same thing, just as how we could do the above letter analysis even if the original sequence was random letters. Remember - at NO POINT did the meanings of the word ever come into my analysis. I never said, "Oh, this letter must be wrong because there's no such word as BRDWN."

Subjective interpretations are not required. So your argument against the analysis of the genetics is invalid.

And I really hope you read my entire post, it was very time consuming to go through and manually change the colours on a letter by letter basis. I do hope it wasn't for nothing.

 

[joelr]

If we come from monkeys.Why are monkeys not turning into humans still?

If we came from monkeys.Why doesn't someone make a machine that evolves stuff.And evolve a monkey into a human?

we didn't evolve from monkeys? There was a period where something like a chimp faced a reducing forest in Africa. SO over many years they began walking in fields more to get food. They evolved into a type of chimp that walked more than it swung in trees. These are Hominids. Every few million years a new species would emerge and spread out over the African plains. No new hominids are now going to be successful because there already are hominids on the African plains who are much more advanced than any new species of hominid.
As hominids began eating protein their brain size grew and this proved helpful. Many millions of years later they were using tools, had less body hair and were becoming more like modern humans.
Any competition (new hominids) would not survive and the geography has now changed as well back to forests being common. This is a new line of ape that may or may not survive. But the continuing trend toward intelligence allowed then to work together, store water during drought, make tools and weapons. Eventually humans came from this line.

The idea that there are constantly new hominids walking onto the plains in ridiculous. First it's a process that spans hundreds of thousands of years. But the current state of Africa holds no advantage to chimps walking around plains. Lions would kill them. Humans would kill them. It was one line of hominids that were able to survive and evolve towards more intelligent.
Even if there are a group of Chimps who are going to evolve into hominids it takes thousands of generations to even notice.

The evolving line ruled the plains, any other hominid would be wiped out along the 100 million year journey. Case in point, when Homo Sapien went to Europe they encountered Neandrotol who came up from Africa during one point of evolution and changed by the European climate. Homo Sapien killed them all over time. We were smarter and had better weapons.

These anti-evolutionists are bizarre. All they have to do is learn that actual facts and all the apologetics can be answered.

 

[Jose Fly]

Creationists never know that science advances. That is why they take claims from fifty years ago about a lack of transitional species as Gospel truth.

I've always figured that's because they spend most of their time in religious/church environments rather than scientific ones.

 

[nPeace]

Let's say you have some sequences of letters. You suspect that maybe they each evolved from a common ancestor, and you know that on average, there is one letter randomly changed every minute.

These are the sequences you have:

THD QURGK BRDSN KOW AUMVS OBGR THE LHZY HOG
THE QURCK BRDWN FOW JUMVS OBER THE LHZY HOG
TKH QDBUK BREWN FOW JUMYS OHTR TQE LKZY FDG
​

Would you not conclude that the first two are more closely related to each other than to the third? After all, they have many sequences in common that are different in the third. You would conclude that there was some original sequence, and it split off. One split ended up as the third sequence, and the other split changed in a few ways. You can tell what these original changes were by looking at the letters they have in common. Here I have highlighted similar letters.

THD QURGK BRDSN KOW AUMVS OBGR THE LHZY HOG
THE QURCK BRDWN FOW JUMVS OBER THE LHZY HOG
TKH QDBUK BREWN FOW JUMYS OHTR TQE LKZY FDG​

Those letters that are common among them all are highlighted in green, those shared by the first and second are highlighted in red and those shared by the second and third are highlighted in blue.

Let's see if we can figure out what the original sequence was, shall we?

First, let's take all the letters that they all have in common. After all, it's unlikely that changes in a letter position will each come to the same letter. So we'll take just the common letters between all three and replace the other letters with a *.

T** Q***K BR**N *OW *UMVS O**R T*E L*ZY **G​

These are all the letters that the three different sequences agree on. So we can reasonably conclude that those letters were in the common ancestor of all three sequences.

Now, there are nine additional positions where the first and second sequence agree, but only three positions where the second and third sequences agree. And no sequences where the first and third agree where the second disagrees.

So we can conclude reasonably that the cases where the first and second sequence agree are also cases where the letter they agree on was the original. After all, if it was a changed letter, what are the chances that the change would be to the same letter?

So, let's now add these letters in and see what we get.

TH*QUR*K BRD*N *OW *UMVS OB*R THE LHZY HOG​

Now we have even more letters!

Now we also see that there are common letters between the second and third sequences. Let's add those.

TH* QUR*K BRDWN FOW JUMVS OB*R THE LHZY HOG​

So, can we piece together a sequence of changes?

Yes we can.

We can tell by the number of similarities between the first and second that they split apart from each other after the third split away. Thus, we can conclude that the second position letter in the first word of the thirds sequence changed after the split (if it changed before the split, it's unlikely that this letter position would randomly get the same letter in both the first and second sequences). Likewise, we can conclude that the fourth position letter in the third word of the first sequence changed after the first and second sequences split (otherwise why would the second and third sequences agree?).

And we can go a step further. We can conclude (not so surely this time) that in the cases where all three sequences differ, the original letter is still found in one of them.

That gives us (I'll separate the letter positions with a | this time and separate the different options with a /):

T|H|D/E/K
Q|U|R|G/C/U|K
B|R|D|W|N
F|O|W
J|U|M|V|S
O|B|G/E/T|R
T|H|E
L|H|Z|Y
H|O|G
​

So you can see, there are only five positions where there are several options we can't eliminate.

Now, of course, I'm sure you've realised that the original sequences was:

THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG​

We can add this to the analogy with the idea that we find an earlier text that has this sequence. If we look, we get the following letters that we have correctly identified highlighted in green, and the incorrect letters in red, and the letters we are unsure of in yellow:

THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG​

So what can we conclude?

Well, we know that the letters highlighted here in red are ones that changed after the original sequence but at or before the most recent common ancestor of the first three sequences we found. And we know that the letters highlighted here in yellow didn't change until AFTER the MRCA, and each case of those letters changed.

And we can do the exact same thing with genetics.

There's no opinion, there's no matters of interpretation. There's only strictly logical scientific analysis. It doesn't matter if it's junk DNA or not. We can do the exact same thing, just as how we could do the above letter analysis even if the original sequence was random letters. Remember - at NO POINT did the meanings of the word ever come into my analysis. I never said, "Oh, this letter must be wrong because there's no such word as BRDWN."

Subjective interpretations are not required. So your argument against the analysis of the genetics is invalid.

And I really hope you read my entire post, it was very time consuming to go through and manually change the colours on a letter by letter basis. I do hope it wasn't for nothing.

Are you saying you agree they are interpreting?
Say I didn't have a priori - a presupposition of UCA, what would those sequences tell me?

 

[Tiberius]

Are you saying you agree they are interpreting?

I was quite clear. I shall repeat my words:

"There's no opinion, there's no matters of interpretation. There's only strictly logical scientific analysis."

Say I didn't have a priori - a presupposition of UCA, what would those sequences tell me?

If you were following the scientific method, then you would come up with several different hypotheses and then use the strictly logical scientific analysis I spoke of to test those different hypotheses to see which one was the best.

That analysis would show that a nested hierarchy was the best explanation, as I explained it.

 

[joelr]

I
It's rather a case of one not having the closed minded, or narrow view that your systems or viewpoint is ultimate, or the only systems or ways to truth, and nothing else matters.
I don't subscribe to such a narrow view.

.

Do you think your religion is the only true one? The only way to an afterlife? If so, you sure do subscribe to a narrow view.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You probably (giving you the benefit of the doubt) didn't understand what I really was saying because I was short with the question.

I was not referring simply to comparing letter sequences, but interpreting what the sequences "tell us".
For example, where does this organism fit on the evolutionary tree, based on its sequences.
Not disregarding the inferences that has to be made, and the limits involved.

Spoiler: Limits

More than 90 percent of the genome is non-coding DNA, sometimes called "junk" DNA, that has no known function. Because of the vast amount of non-coding DNA, it is very hard to recognize the genes simply by looking at one sequence alone; even the best of today's computational programs fail to identify many coding sequences and misidentify others. It is similarly difficult to identify regulatory regions within DNA - the "switches" that turn gene expression on or off, up or down - as they exist only as poorly defined "consensus" sequences. Source

"Having a sequence of the human genome is good, but our ability to interpret it was limited," Lander said.
I thought you would understand that, as I figured all scientists would.

Your first problem is, these sources are pretty outdated. 2002 and 2010 were quite a while ago. I mean, the human genome wasn't even completely mapped out until like, 2003.

 

[Jose Fly]

Your first problem is, these sources are pretty outdated. 2002 and 2010 were quite a while ago. I mean, the human genome wasn't even completely mapped out until like, 2003.

I suspect that doesn't really matter to @nPeace He searched for, and found, a phrase that said what he wanted (genomes require interpretation, and interpretations are "limited"). Any additional context, no matter how relevant, will be ignored. It's yet another example of creationist quote mining.

Such is the nature of denialism....by whatever means necessary.

 

[nPeace]

I was quite clear. I shall repeat my words:

"There's no opinion, there's no matters of interpretation. There's only strictly logical scientific analysis."

If you were following the scientific method, then you would come up with several different hypotheses and then use the strictly logical scientific analysis I spoke of to test those different hypotheses to see which one was the best.

That analysis would show that a nested hierarchy was the best explanation, as I explained it.

Strictly logical scientific analysis.

Homology searching makes use of these sequence similarities. The basis of the analysis is that if a newly sequenced gene turns out to be similar to a previously sequenced gene, then an evolutionary relationship can be inferred and the function of the new gene is likely to be the same, or at least similar, to the function of the known gene.

What does it mean to interpret?
interpret - explain the meaning of...

What's an inference?
inference - a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning

So explaining the meaning of, and or reasoning on a body of facts to come to a conclusion.

Okay. You are free to say what you like, and deny whatever you choose to, but scientists do interpret data, and make inferences.... like everyone else.

Homology among proteins or DNA is inferred from their sequence similarity.

Automated DNA Sequencers generate a four-color chromatogram showing the results of the sequencing run, as well as a computer program’s best guess at interpreting that data – a text file of sequence data. That computer program, however, does make mistakes and you need to manually double-check the interpretation of the primary data.

The Interpretation of DNA Evidence

I really don't know why I bother talking with you guys about scientific stuff. I often hear Atheists claim Creationists are dishonest. While dishonesty is not limited to Creationist, my experience with Atheists is they don't tend to be honest.
It's as though they think 'Creationists' are not very bright up top.
However, that's not surprising, considering they think anyone who disagrees with them does not understand science - even scientists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Strictly logical scientific analysis.

Homology searching makes use of these sequence similarities. The basis of the analysis is that if a newly sequenced gene turns out to be similar to a previously sequenced gene, then an evolutionary relationship can be inferred and the function of the new gene is likely to be the same, or at least similar, to the function of the known gene.

What does it mean to interpret?
interpret - explain the meaning of...

What's an inference?
inference - a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning

So explaining the meaning of, and or reasoning on a body of facts to come to a conclusion.

Okay. You are free to say what you like, and deny whatever you choose to, but scientists do interpret data, and make inferences.... like everyone else.

Homology among proteins or DNA is inferred from their sequence similarity.

Automated DNA Sequencers generate a four-color chromatogram showing the results of the sequencing run, as well as a computer program’s best guess at interpreting that data – a text file of sequence data. That computer program, however, does make mistakes and you need to manually double-check the interpretation of the primary data.

The Interpretation of DNA Evidence

I really don't know why I bother talking with you guys about scientific stuff. I often hear Atheists claim Creationists are dishonest. While dishonesty is not limited to Creationist, my experience with Atheists is they don't tend to be honest.
It's as though they think 'Creationists' are not very bright up top.
However, that's not surprising, considering they think anyone who disagrees with them does not understand science - even scientists.

Are you saying that the interpretations and inferences of just anyone is equivalent to that of knowledgeable, trained and experienced scientists?

If you have a plumbing or electrical problem at home, is it wise to ask some random dude in the Walmart parking lot or professional plumbers and electricians? Which would give the best analysis and interpretation of that data?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you saying that the interpretations and inferences of just anyone is equivalent to that of knowledgeable, trained and experienced scientists?

If you have a plumbing or electrical problem at home, is it wise to ask some random dude in the Walmart parking lot or professional plumbers and electricians? Which would give the best analysis and interpretation of that data?

Four out of five dentists say that the clog is due to Crest.