RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

  Topic: Statistical challenge for Demski?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2006,04:13   

New evidence that natural selection is a general driving force behind the origin of species.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Charles Darwin would undoubtedly be both pleased and chagrined.

The famous scientist would be pleased because a study published online this week provides the first clear evidence that natural selection, his favored mechanism of evolution, drives the process of species formation in a wide variety of plants and animals. But he would be chagrined because it has taken nearly 150 years to do so.

What Darwin did in his revolutionary treatise, “On the Origin of Species,” was to explain how much of the extraordinary variety of biological traits possessed by plants and animals arises from a single process, natural selection. Since then a large number of studies and observations have supported and extended his original work. However, linking natural selection to the origin of the 30 to 100 million different species estimated to inhabit the earth, has proven considerably more elusive.

Read the whole thing.

Since this is a statistical study, Demski should see this as a chellenge, whether indirect or direct, to his statistical work. Or at least Demski, if he felt so inclined to do actual research, would attempt to analyze this work and find weaknesses or holes in their analysis.

I really doubt it will ever happen, but I think he should do something to refute the findings of this research. That is if he cared.

("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)


Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2006,04:15   


If I could delete this post, I would. I didn't realize there was a thread on this already.


("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)


Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2006,10:56   

Contrary to Bill's stats, this study relies on biological data and doesn't produce meaningless calculations, like the probability of the random formation of a bacterium. ???


Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2006,11:18   

Billy doesn't debate "your" topics. :D

Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut


Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2006,05:24   

Remember the rules, Billy does not have to stoop to [our] "pathetic level of detail".

I crack up everytime I see where he is described as a mathematician.  What a quack.

Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  4 replies since Feb. 27 2006,04:13 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]