Always talking about micro-evolution?

i wasn't trying to be funny.

tick says,

quote:

---

You are the one who brought up the idea of "confusing" people, which indeed revealed a glimpse of your inner workings, intents, and methods of debate (whether you use those methods or just approve of those who do).

---

so you are saying that ned is here to purposely confuse people!?! i might not always agree with what he says, but i don't think he is unfair or full of malicious intent when he replies to others' posts.
i on the other hand, am full of malice towards ignorance and dishonesty. so, let's see who has been dishonest lately...

quote:

---

An example of micro evolution is a coyote evolving into a wolf (or vice versa). An example of macro evolution is a frog evolving into an elephant. Or even more macro would be rocks or hydrogen gas (or just non-life) evolving into a human.

---

do you realy proffer these statements as true? if you do, then please share the supporting information for these assumptions.

quote:

---

Can you give me a more precise figure? "Almost zero" could mean "0.0001" just as easily as "0.00000001" depending on context, viewpoint, and purpose. If you could show me your math, I would appreciate that too.
  —Skeptic

---

Actually, the info you seek is in the abstracts that Mammuthus posted.From Halos SC, et al: "The average power of paternity exclusion for the nine loci is 0.9962 and the discriminating power is 1-2 x 10(-9)."From de Pancorbo MM, et al: " In all these systems, no exclusion was observed, with a combined probability of paternity of 0.9997. This demonstrates the reliability of the obtained results."From Holt CL, et al:"During rigorous evaluation, AmpFlSTR PCR Amplification Kits reproducibly yielded sensitive and locus-specific results, as required in routine forensic analyses." No numbers, but considered reliable.And from Birus I, et al:"STR DNA typing is the "golden standard" of human identification, but evidential value of a genetic match can be easily misinterpreted. Therefore, careful use of statistical methods is essential for the proper evaluation of laboratory results. Whenever possible, multiple relatives should be analyzed and other evidence based on the information about time, place, and other conditions of disappearance, as well as anthropological and other "classical" forensic data should always be put together and compared before any final decision about the identity is made." This abstract shows how inbreeding can cause false positives, which must be taken into consideration.The abstracts that Mammuthus put time and effort into finding give you exactly what you were looking for. These not only show the probability with given loci, but also possible causes of misidentification due to overepresentation of alleles in a given population. One population was found to have even distribution for given loci (Filipino) and another displayed skewed distributions (Croatia). What else do you need?

No, actually I didn't expect anyone other than Ned to understand the post. There just seems to be some sort of pending, abstract issue that was triggered by something... I don't know what; I'm still awaiting an answer (from Ned). You see, on another topic board, Ned popped up out of nowhere (sort of like a superatom), and challenged me to join a topic board that dealt with some kind of flooding. He seemed to think that I was "smart" but boldy stated that he was "pretty smart". Which, I guess, seemed to imply the he was smarter. I would be glad to join a flood zone topic board, for no specific purpose on my part really, but first I was curious why he selected a topic on flooding over another topic. I was just curious. He hasn't responded to that yet, rather has chosen to just snipe at me occaisionally on whatever topic board he happens to find me. So, please don't misunderstand our form of communication.

I thank you for a great response. But, as has been previously declared elsewhere, I'm not as smart as Ned; could you help me understand this better?
Could I ask for an answer in the format of:
1 in a thousand or
1 in 10,000 of
1:100k or
1:400b or t?
Or maybe just a 1:1 with a number showing the number of zeros behind it?
Thnx.

I did reply as to why I asked you to come on over to the flood thread.I am skeptical of how much you really want to listen and learn. I think that starting with something a bit less complex and with more clear cut results might show where other more complex things might go.As I said, I also want to see creationist dragged into that thread because it is a fairly straight forward issue (if anything is) that they have no answer for but a bunch of hand waving contradictory made up ideas. So I figure it will be quicker to see if we get answers like "agree to disagree" which is a reasonable answer when discussing matters of opinion. It is a rather silly answer when there is evidence which can be used to resolve the issue. That is the nice thing about those things which can be approached by science. They are, eventually, amenable to resolution. Agreeing to disagree becomes an untenable idea when there is enough data. If this is where someone will run to hide then I'm not willing to invest as much effort.If we were working in one of the faith and belief threads you might want to test me to see if I would actually read biblical passages for example. If I didn't when they were pointed out to me then you might wonder why you should bother.If I started off with "Christians are all cannibals it says so in the Bible" and you asked for chaper and verse and I didn't supply it but kept making similar statments you might wonder about how bright I am.If my opening post was of that nature you might want to try to see if I was willing to listen for a bit or not.

Yea, I'd like that translation too actually. I'm too lazy to try to learn about those terms.However, it does seem that the answers you asked for were there even though you reacted rather badly. I suggest an apology might be in order.

Certainly. I believe someone else countered me as to whether the wolf really evolved from the coyote or not, but that wasn't my point. Dogs, coyotes, wolves. All are in the same genus "canis", and it only seemed logigal to me that wolves, since they're bigger and better, would have been the natural selection over a dog or a coyote. If that was a mistake, ok then, my mistake. As far as species go, dogs and wolves are interfertile, which by definition of the term "species", makes dogs and wolves the same species. But let's say that's wrong too, because none of that was my point.And if you mean my reference to a frog turning into an elephant, yes, I believe that's macro evolution just as you'll find evolutionists admitting to on several websites and publications.If you meant that part about life springing from rocks; isn't that where life started here on earth according to what kids are taught in our schools? And before rocks, there was lots of hydrogen gas although I didn't think it necessary to list all the elements that existed after the big bang. Why would I not believe our teachers of the great theory of evolution, the study that avoids the question of the origin of life?
So, the supporting information that you're seeking can be found in the textbooks that you're already familiar with. Forum admin doesnt' allow a whole lot of cut and pasting, so I'll refrain from doing that here.

I don't recall reacting badly, Ned. Exactly which reaction are you talking about?

Sorry, this was a duplicate post of #70. Not sure how that happened. Must have hit enter twice.[This message has been edited by Skeptick, 02-06-2004]

Your original statement was (post #54): Now you state: Sorry, my mistake. If not funny, um, what was your intent then? Or maybe we should just drop it?

Pretty well all of post 51. You were a bit snarky and then asked the question again as if you hadn't been given the answer. In fact you didn't understand that you had been.

there are many models, starting with the classic miller-urey exeriment that show how inorganic compounds can naturally become organic compounds such as amino acids and fatty acids. the miller-urey experiment is no longer tenable b/c an early earth would have a different atmosphere from the one they used in their model. other scientists have shown, though, that organic molecules can come from inorganic substances in a whole slew of different atmospheres with different energy sources.the creation of protenoid microspheres in the lab by heating different combinations of amino acids together and then putting the resulting self-ordering amino acid polymers in water provides a model of how the precursors of cells could develop. the research is ongoing and no one is saying that this is how it definitely happened, but this is a far cry from just "belief". besides, like i have said on other posts in other threads, you can still say that god exists and this is the way he/she/it chose to do things. same goes with the big bang. science cannot, and should not, answer the "god question". i don't think a lot of scientists are athiests. maybe agnostic, but i think that goes along with the whole "show me the evidence" mindset of a scientist.

quote:

---

Why would I not believe our teachers of the great theory of evolution, the study that avoids the question of the origin of life?

---

science should avoid the question about ultimate origins as posed by christians, muslims, jews, kabbalists, sikhs, hindus, zoroastrianists, etc. they deal with the supernatural. science deals with nature and natural phenomena.

...i was satirizing the assumption that darwin somehow contributed to nazism. if darwin did have a tatoo of a swastika on his butt, it would have been a good luck charm at that time. the nazis demonized the ancient symbol by taking it as their own. sounds familar...nazis coopting something that had no control over whether it was coopted or not. interesting...