If Darwin or the FBI had less than 15% of the data for a case

[Subduction Zone]

Fine, now show how the evidence that "You ARE the father!" is any different than the evidence that tells us that we are related to chimpanzees.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And where did I say anything about an "initial chimpanzee"? Heck, I'd be interested in hearing just what that even is!

LOL! You mentioned "chimpanzees". I guess somehow that is the "initial chimpanzee". I am still waiting for a difference between the evidence between when it is applied to human relationships and our relationship to other apes.

 

[Set Free]

And where did I say anything about an "initial chimpanzee"? Heck, I'd be interested in hearing just what that even is!

‘Initial chimpanzee, false equivalence.’

There was no need to quote mine only half of a sentence to make it appear I was referring to an initial, individual chimpanzee. You know very well that I was referring to your initial statement of false equivalence.

 

[Jose Fly]

‘Initial chimpanzee, false equivalence.’

There was no need to quote mine only half of a sentence to make it appear I was referring to an initial, individual chimpanzee. You know very well that I was referring to your initial statement of false equivalence.

You're still not making sense.

And I didn't quote mine you. I quoted the entire sentence in full. Note the capitalized y in "You" and the period at the end. Try to pay better attention and avoid making false accusations.

 

[Jose Fly]

LOL! You mentioned "chimpanzees". I guess somehow that is the "initial chimpanzee". I am still waiting for a difference between the evidence between when it is applied to human relationships and our relationship to other apes.

Yeah, I've no idea where "initial chimpanzee" came from. Maybe the creation week?

 

[Set Free]

You failed to bring up your initial chimpanzee, false equivalence.

You're still not making sense.

And I didn't quote mine you. I quoted the entire sentence in full. Note the capitalized y in "You" and the period at the end. Try to pay better attention and avoid making false accusations.

Your reply makes no sense. I said nothing about an "initial chimpanzee", whatever that is.

And where did I say anything about an "initial chimpanzee"? Heck, I'd be interested in hearing just what that even is!

Oh well, try to keep avoiding. Another fruitless conversation. Shame on me for engaging and being an inhibitor for your deceptive, quote mining, and dodging abilities.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh well, try to keep avoiding. Another fruitless conversation. Shame on me for engaging and being an inhibitor for your deceptive, quote mining, and dodging abilities.

Oh my! Someone does not know what "quote mining" is.

Tell me when did he ever use the term "initial chimpanzee"?

 

[Jose Fly]

Oh well, try to keep avoiding.

What exactly do you think I'm avoiding?

Another fruitless conversation. Shame on me for engaging and being an inhibitor for your deceptive, quote mining, and dodging abilities.

That's quite a series of accusations. Any actual substance to back them up, or are you just the kind of person who goes around making false and unsubstantiated allegations?

 

[Set Free]

No. I won't agree. The same methods are used with no diminishment in quality at all. The amount of testing and experimental opportunities available to ground inference to theory are also the same. The level of deployment of evolutionary science in technological applications are also the same as in physics and chemistry (biotechnology, genetic engineering, genetic algorithms, CRISPR etc.). The role of evolutionary principles in bio-engineering is like the role of thermodynamics in mechanical engineering, absolutely central.

By the way, you do know that both thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, chemical reaction science and things in computer science like search algorithms are entirely about the Mathematics of statistical probabilities? Folks in science education are telling schools to remove calculus and introduce linear algebra and statistics in the advanced levels as they are far more central to all hard sciences.

Science is simply different in its character from what is taught in schools, unfortunately. And this creates mistaken notions among people who don't go on to do science or advanced engineering in college. I have come to realize the enormity of this gap only recently as frankly, I wasn't listening to what was taught as science in school.

I am very interested in improving science education, as I think it's made unnecessarily confusing and hard. Hence the rant.

Fair enough, I don’t require anyone agree or conform to have a conversation. I do disagree that the quality of the work is consistent ~.

There are many well-intended scientists trying to improve science. Glad you’re one of them. I think that many don’t go on because of the politics, job security, and the restraints being put on. It is not a pleasant field. A lot of demands and pressure in order to survive. I’m not sure where you’re at in life but how do you handle them? I’ve personally known a few students who were once zealous to help change the world through science, eager and intrigued going into college only to find the cold reality that it wasn’t possible. They were turned off quickly.

If something cannot be simplified or easily explained, yes many as well don’t want the challenge. Seems to be innate for some to naturally become and it’s just not for many. Can’t change someone into something they’re not.

 

[Set Free]

What exactly do you think I'm avoiding?


That's quite a series of accusations. Any actual substance to back them up, or are you just the kind of person who goes around making false and unsubstantiated allegations?

Are you surprised? I’ve already quoted all of posts clearly presenting your quote mine, trying to divert away. I’ve also already posted your diversion. I am not going to keep repeating something useless and fruitless. Caught with your hands in the cookie jar for anyone who can read to see. .

It’s all good though, it’s only human nature to do those kinds of things and try to survive. Just don’t expect responses any longer if this is how you choose to play.

 

[sayak83]

Fair enough, I don’t require anyone agree or conform to have a conversation. I do disagree that the quality of the work is consistent ~.

There are many well-intended scientists trying to improve science. Glad you’re one of them. I think that many don’t go on because of the politics, job security, and the restraints being put on. It is not a pleasant field. A lot of demands and pressure in order to survive. I’m not sure where you’re at in life but how do you handle them? I’ve personally known a few students who were once zealous to help change the world through science, eager and intrigued going into college only to find the cold reality that it wasn’t possible. They were turned off quickly.

If something cannot be simplified or easily explained, yes many as well don’t want the challenge. Seems to be innate for some to naturally become and it’s just not for many. Can’t change someone into something they’re not.

I am a post-doctoral scholar and a part-time lecturer. Currently applying for faculty positions in universities in India and US.

For me, it's a calling, not a profession. I simply do what I love and check if someone's gonna pay me for it. Not starving yet, though Ramen has been on the menu often.

 

[Jose Fly]

Are you surprised? I’ve already quoted all of posts clearly presenting your quote mine, trying to divert away.

Um, no. You claimed I only quoted part of one sentence, even though the record clearly shows I quoted the entire sentence.

And even though I asked you to specify what you think I'm avoiding, you've yet to do so.

I’ve also already posted your diversion.

No you haven't. If you think you have, show where.

I am not going to keep repeating something useless and fruitless. Caught with your hands in the cookie jar for anyone who can read to see. .

We can put this up to the group.....Does anyone here agree with Set Free that I have been avoiding something and quote mining him?

It’s all good though, it’s only human nature to do those kinds of things and try to survive. Just don’t expect responses any longer if this is how you choose to play.

What fascinates me is how you've managed to completely lose focus of our discussion of science and are now making this all about personally attacking me.

Perhaps your accusations of diversion are just projection on your part.

 

[sayak83]

To infer is to deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning RATHER THAN from explicit statements. Inferences are educated guesses.

Explicit:
stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.

Inferences are not explicit.

Evidence are not proofs.

A paternity test establishes explicit genetic proof.

Are you confusing and mixing them?

No it does not.
The genetic sequence similarity is evidence for the inference that the guy is the father. Fatherhood can only be inferred from evidence, not proved (legal profession wrongly uses the word proof for inference to the best evidenced explanation. This creates the confusion.)

 

[Jose Fly]

No it does not.
The genetic sequence similarity is evidence for the inference that the guy is the father. Fatherhood can only be inferred from evidence, not proved (legal profession wrongly uses the word proof for inference to the best evidenced explanation. This creates the confusion.)

Exactly. Notice how when I posted a fuller explanation, @Set Free ignored it and instead started throwing around a bunch of empty accusations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly. Notice how when I posted a fuller explanation, @Set Free ignored it and instead started throwing around a bunch of empty accusations.

And his next step is to put you on ignore. When I demonstrated that he had no clue when it came to the subject of evidence he threatened to do so to me. Since he has not responded to my recent corrections that it appears that he followed through with his threat.

At this rate he will be mumbling to himself in the corner by the end of the month.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

‘Initial chimpanzee, false equivalence.’

There was no need to quote mine only half of a sentence to make it appear I was referring to an initial, individual chimpanzee. You know very well that I was referring to your initial statement of false equivalence.

You've been told several times by several posters that they don't understand what you mean. That's evidence. Take an inference from it.

People aren't telling you that for no reason, and they aren't wrong when they tell you that they don't know what you mean. Why on earth would anybody think that you were referring to an "initial statement of false equivalence" (did you mean claim? was there a subsequent statement of false equivalence?) using the words "initial chimpanzee"?

Another fruitless conversation. Shame on me

See above.

I’ve already quoted all of posts clearly presenting your quote mine, trying to divert away. I’ve also already posted your diversion.

Add me to the list of people who have no idea what you are calling a quote mining, or what you think is a diversion or why. Like I said: make a valid inference from the evidence. You are not as clear as you think.

 

[Set Free]

Let's see if we can straighten this out.

Let’s.

In science, we are often faced with figuring out the details of events that we didn't directly witness (either due to it happening in the past or due to the scale of the event). To do that, we collect data relavent to the event and through inference we draw conclusions about the event.

Correct, that is direct evidence which is the strongest evidence.

‘Through inference we draw conclusions.’ This is the best you’ve done so far giving an accurate description.

In the example I gave (paternity testing), neither the judge nor the geneticists witnessed the child being conceived. So the scientists collect data relative to the child's conception (genetic samples from the child and alleged father) and compare specific regions of their genomes. If the child has the same specific sequences as the father, the scientists conclude that the man is indeed the child's father.

In the examples(plural) that you gave, you failed to mention the false equivalence brought up here.
Comparing is done by ‘observation,’ not inference. Same sequences are ‘observed,’ not inferred. There is no requirement here for an inference.

Now here's the important part.....that conclusion is an inference.

99.9% explicit, observed proof has no requirement for an inference.

Per Cambridge meaning of infer:
to form an opinion or guess that something is true because of the information that you have. This goes decent with your most accurate description of ‘through inference we draw conclusions.’

Why is it an inference? Because the conclusion that the man is the child's father was not the result of direct observation or replication of the event, but was instead drawn from analysis of indirect data.

The result was made by observation of the DNA as well as replication of the DNA to produce the explicit proof. Correct, not the event itself.

Obviously the fact that the conclusion was inferred is not an issue since we base very important legal decisions on similar inferences, sometimes even matters of life and death.

Primarily, intent. If someone is recorded telling someone they’ll kill them and a few days later that person is killed. Yes, there can be an inference made that the recorded person likely did it. Inferences are made during the process, not as a result. No jury or judge says, ‘We or I infer that the person is guilty or innocent.’ ‘We or I infer that the person is the father of the child.’

Hopefully now you understand how objecting to scientific conclusions merely because they're inferred from indirect data isn't at all meaningful or valid.

I object to your false equivalence. Never stated that inference had no meaning or validity of events unobservable and unrepeatable.

 

[Set Free]

You've been told several times by several posters that they don't understand what you mean. That's evidence. Take an inference from it.

People aren't telling you that for no reason, and they aren't wrong when they tell you that they don't know what you mean. Why on earth would anybody think that you were referring to an "initial statement of false equivalence" (did you mean claim? was there a subsequent statement of false equivalence?) using the words "initial chimpanzee"?



See above.



Add me to the list of people who have no idea what you are calling a quote mining, or what you think is a diversion or why. Like I said: make a valid inference from the evidence. You are not as clear as you think.

It took you about 5 of your own posts and I still don’t even know if you understand your quoting of my words and adding your own words in post #162. (Still no acknowledgment from you, is there still confusion?) Ignore you go.

Clearly, I have doubts that you’d be able to see accurately and follow what others say and do if you cannot even see or understand what yourself did.

 

[Set Free]

I am a post-doctoral scholar and a part-time lecturer. Currently applying for faculty positions in universities in India and US.

For me, it's a calling, not a profession. I simply do what I love and check if someone's gonna pay me for it. Not starving yet, though Ramen has been on the menu often.

Hope that you find what you’re looking for!

Good humor in that .

 

[sayak83]

Hope that you find what you’re looking for!

Good humor in that .

Back to the discussion. What comparison have you made with hard science discipline to come to the conclusion that evolutionary biology is lacking in scientific rigor?