Glad to have our resident clown lighten up the air. Wolbachia's counter move is deadly and effective. It produces a toxic chemical in the sperms of the male wasp, which when entering the eggs of a healthy female, kills the eggs! The bacteria inside the infected females, on the other hand, produces a detoxicant that renders the toxic chemical brought by the sperms harmless. This strategy evens the odds between the infected transexual females and healthy females, and ensures the survival of the bacteria. Now it's the wasps' move again. To be continued...
Let's weigh in with the Pope. But I deny my Father has anything to do with this insanely unreasonable universe. Jesus
From professor to spellchecker once again. Do you not tire of losing arguments. You really need to take some debate lessons. You will learn to avoid making statements you can't support.
I'm so humbled. Let me learn how to debate from you, master. Lesson 1. Misquote a famous guy, preferably a Nobel Laureate, people like Weinberg (and misspell his name too). Point out clearly that he won a Nobel Prize. Then whatever you say would sound more important even if it has nothing to do with the Nobel Prize. Lesson 2. When your opponent accuses you of appealing to authority, ask him some trivial questions that's been answered by a textbook. If he quotes the textbook, then accuse him of appealing to authority. If he doesn't, call him a moron. Lesson 3. Sprinkle your replies with words like moron, fool, and other derogatives. It makes your argument so much more convincing.
As if you didn't use pejorative terms in your replys. Again you exhibit your lack of integrity. I have not misrepresented a noble prize winner and you have just confirmed this entire subject is over your head. Do you know what a misrepresentation is? You keep throwing the word around like a five year old yet you never actually point one out. You are a child. and now you can see why I must cite authorities to you. You --- once misrepresented what a null hypothesis is. You were berating me and acting like you were some sort of academic. You did not back down until I cited you to an internet cite which pointed out how wrong you were. I gave you an authority. It is the same now. You do not believe what I say - even though I am correct, it is too painful for you to adjust your views. I have not even argumed the authority is correct only that they are scientists who say that there is evidence of design. Yet you are so dense you refuse to read the english. You refuse to understand the math. You make false accusations when the quotes are there to be read. Somehow you think that referencing experts on a subject beyond your expertise is unscientific. Are you really a professor somewhere? Have you ever read a journal with a footnote or a cite to an authority on the subject? do you think citing to authority is a problem with academia and academic journals? do you think calling a scientific expert in a trial is a problem for science. Get a life.
You were proven to have misrepresented others in another thread. This is not the thread to rehash all of that. One way for one not to lose an argument, is to pretend that he never lost the argument. You're doing very well here. You keep bringing this up as a trophy. What a proud guy! Since you kept wanting to argue this again, let's do it. Do you have any clue what a null hypothesis is? From all the bragging you're doing, it's clear that you still don't understand it. In my opinion, a null hypothesis should be one that assumes nothing. You gave me an example of a different definition. When I looked things up, I found out that many people use the definition that the null hypothesis is one that needs to be proven wrong. Although I disagree with this definition, because it is widely used I admitted that I could be wrong. Yes you did appeal to authority in this case but it doesn't mean that you understood what was being argued. In my view, the correct definition of a null hypothesis, is the following: It is the assumption that any observed difference between two samples of a statistical population is purely accidental and not due to systematic causes. Now go ahead and argue that it is not this. This time I'm going to stick to my definition and claim that people who deviate from this definition are in error. Make your argument now. Show us that you actually know something. You never understood anything that you argued. This time it's no different. Science doesn't care who testifies in a trial, or who references whom on a subject. In a properly written research paper, references are not for the purpose of appealing to any authority. They are there so that other researchers can go and check to see if the cited work is correct. Just because an article cites Newton or Einstein doesn't automatically make it more valid than another article which doesn't cite these people. As I said before, you always refuse to learn. And it shows.
I deny my Father has anything to do with this equation. What kind of ego makes up something to perpetuate struggle and competition among scarce resources? Rational? yes. Sane? no. Jesus
Actually if the method of the designer is what you consider the evolution theory, then evolution theory is actually intelligent design.
LOL. One of the key ingredients of the evolution theory is "stupid random chance," (using z10's words). The ID proponents are opposed to that. If they're willing to accept "stupid random chance" as a possible method of intelligent design, then I have no more argument with them.
Oh, I am not attached to the phrase "random ignorant chance..." but it does describe what the Darwinists seem to have faith in. Just tell me what words you would use to explain what is the opposite of Intelligent Design... Oh, and no, ID not not creationism...