OK, what have you published in biology that isn’t a review article? A biologist is a person who does biology. What biology?
3 Likes
I didn’t say it bothered me. I just want to point out the implications of what you said, for the simple reason that they are clearly absurd. That you deny the implications doesn’t get rid of them.
1 Like
Sometimes I wonder how much of this is merely rhetorical sparing to see how far the rhetoric can take you. @pnelson, you know that CD predicts homoplasy. It is hard to take it seriously when you present homoplasy as evidence against evolution, and then ignored quantitative tests of common descent that test CD far more rigorously (phylogenomics) A Test of Common Descent vs. Common Function.
Do you really believe the arguments you are putting forward @Pnelson? Or is this having some fun with rhetorical gamesmanship? Maybe clarifying it is the second case would make this all more fun to engage with, as it can be fun to spar.
I’ll look forward to seeing it. One request. When you reference Peaceful Science, note:
As for whether or not you are scientist? I hope that was not received as an ad hominem. I was merely emphasizing thinking like a quantitative scientist. There are many non-quantitative scientists that would struggle with this too. For those that want to see your publications, you have collaborated with Richard Buggs to publish on Orphan genes before, right?
I think Buggs misses the elephant in the room on these. He is a legitimate and accomplished scientist. You’ve published with him already on this. It would be interesting to see how he makes the case (though I do not actually know if he is ID).
4 Likes
Buggs is a creationist. Not quite sure what flavor. Sorry, thinking about someone else. I also have no idea of his position on ID.
2 Likes
I e sent my email to @pnelson by PM text!
George, I did not receive your message with your personal email address. Please contact me via regular email at nelsonpa@alumni.uchicago.edu or paul.alfredp@gmail.com, and I’ll send you the exercises. Thanks.
2 Likes
Please run that one by me first. I like you, but I will defend my “turf”. 
Yes and no. Statistics are vital when there are factors that cannot be experimentally controlled. In some setting it is feasible to perform single factor experiments, look at the results, and see an obvious difference. Practically speaking, almost all of those easy tests have been done, and we mostly see them in science class demonstrations.
1 Like
13 posts were split to a new topic: Tales from the Statistical Trenches