HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

⬐ JacobAldridge

I'm not sure that if you got struck by lightning at 9am whether they would let you onto a plane which would crash at 2pm.

I think you would need some sort of overnight hospital observation.

Therefore this entire argument is false.

/ID Logic

⬐ pbhj

Somebody doesn't understand statistics. That aside ...

The ERV similarity as evidence of a common ancestor has mileage. The video doesn't give sufficient details to make the assertions that it does.

Are those ERV sequences predisposed to align to particular sequences and hence appear on particular genes? How many such sequences do we share with other primates? other mammals? molluscs? trees? What have these ERVs survived intact, what's the relative proportion of partials and do those match up too.

Even if the insertions are random, then are organisms more fit with the insertions at a particular point. Hence the virus could have affected multiple organisms randomly* but only those with the insertion at a particular location were fit enough to survive. This appears to contradict this being evidence of a 'recent' common ancestor.

The method that shows "evolution being true has a probability of 1" can also be used to show that the probability of extraterrestrial life is zero [abiogenisis observed = 1, number of stars O(10^23)].

-- * = analogy: kids draw on their bedroom walls in random places (perturbed by height; this is equivalent to some sites being favoured) their mothers wipe off the drawings where they see them (virus at some sites reduces fitness of organism). Observe all kids walls, drawings only appear behind the bed - hence kids all got together at some point and decided to only draw on the wall behind the bed (common ancestor).

The search engine would return only those aspects of evolution that are known to be almost certainly true. See for example this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI

Newton's laws are not truth but merely an approximation that suffices in most cases.

⬐ DanielBMarkham

That Newton's Laws are not "truth" is exactly my point. I kind of set you up for that one, sorry.

Programmers and technicians deal in booleans -- yes or no answers. I know a couple of times I've heard people around here get frustrated when we start talking about the meanings of words. They just want simple declarative statements: evolution is true, detractors are wrong. Global Warming is true, detractors are wrong. etc.

Analysts, or people who have to translate from human languages to programming on a regular basis, understand that truth is such a slippery concept as to be almost meaningless. I can have three people in a room and have them discuss what a program is going to do until everybody is happy, and then still there are misunderstandings. Language is just too slippery for universal truth operations.

Or put another way, save universal truth for the philosophers.