Archive for the 'evidence' Category

13
Jan
11

PZ Myers – a hypocrite

PZ Myers likes people to think he is a liberal, tree hugging, lovable teddy bear, but he is simply a hypocrite as are his followers … correction – worshippers!

Advertisements
01
Jun
10

A PZ Myers clone perhaps?

Sounds like somethin’ PZ Myers would say….

25
May
10

Dog poop? DNA testing? Gimme a break!

Dog poop? DNA testing? Gimme a break!.

21
May
10

Researchers may be close to creating life – but it’ll never happen!

Researchers may be close to creating life – but it’ll never happen!.

17
May
10

Somebody needs an education

I will not name the skeptic that is constantly and consistently reading my posts and attacking me, but I do want “he, she, or it” to know that they certainly can attack me for my beliefs but it would be best if “he, she, or it” has something better than this…

Let me preface my remarks by saying that “he, she, or it” must be inept in more ways than one, because “he, she, or it” said that “he, she, or it” tried to leave a comment but could not.

Now, just so there is no misunderstanding, “he, she, or its” exact words were,  “I tried to post a comment to your post “Let’s get our facts straight”, but when I submit, I’m informed that I need to be logged in to comment, but I can’t see any way to log in.”

Anyway, that alone may explain why “he, she, or it” cannot read nor understand scientific notation.  I know it is a difficult concept to grasp, especially when you are incapable of figuring out how to log in to post a comment, but it is really not that difficult:  Here is the basic lesson – 10 raised to the 1st power is simply 10; 10 to the 2nd power (notated as 102) and is computed as 10 x 10 which equals 100; 103 is equivalent to 10 x 10 x 10 or 1,000, and so forth.

Now “he, she, or it” said this in an email to me:

“Your reading comprehension is on stunning form as usual.  This is what the article *actually* says:

‘A universal common ancestor is at least 102,860 times more probable than having multiple ancestors, Theobald calculates.’ “

Well, it appears that my blog reader not only needs help in how to log in to post a comment on my blog, but needs a basic understanding of how to read scientific notation and when not to open “his, her, or its” mouth.

The article states “A universal common ancestor is at least 102,860 times more probable…” 

The problem I see with “he, she, or it” constantly railing away at me about my posts is this.  If “he, she, or it” has something credible to say, then say it.  But if “he, she, or it” cannot even understand that 102,860 is different from 102,860, and not just a little different, but WAY different, then maybe “he, she, or it” should stick to reading something simple like The Cat in the Hat!

16
May
10

Let’s get our facts straight

I was drawn to read an article in ScienceNews, May 12, 2010, by Tina Hesman Saey. I am not sure if it was curiosity or boredom that led me to read this particular article, All present-day life arose from a single ancestor, nevertheless I began reading…

“One isn’t such a lonely number,” the article began. “All life on Earth shares a single common ancestor, a new statistical analysis confirms.” Confirms? Did she say CONFIRMS?

I thought confirm meant “To support or establish the certainty or validity of” or “To verify.”

Here is Saey’s evidence that verifies that you and I come from some slimy single celled bacterium eons and eons ago.

Saey says that “Because microorganisms of different species often swap genes, some scientists have proposed that multiple primordial life forms could have tossed their genetic material into life’s mix, creating a web, rather than a tree of life.”

So to determine which hypothesis is more likely correct, Douglas Theobald’s, a biochemist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass., “put various evolutionary ancestry models through rigorous statistical tests.”

The results Saey says, “come down overwhelmingly on the side of a single ancestor.”

According to Saey in her ScienceNews article, Theobald, reported in Nature, May 13, that he calculated that “a universal common ancestor is at least 102,860 times more probable than having multiple ancestors.” Theobald went on to report that, “such a scenario is 103,489 times more probable than the best multi-ancestor model,” saying, “That’s a 1 with 3,489 zeros after it.”

Now, it appears to me that Theobald needs a little help in some basic math, because the difference between 102,860 and is 103,489 is a 1 with 629 zeroes after it – quite the difference. And let’s not forget, Tina Saey needs a little help in some basic reporting!

27
Apr
10

A nice little comment about…

The Cascade Effect: A Biologist Shares His Faith and His Story Living with Wilson’s Disease (An inherited disorder of copper metabolism)

One reader wrote this to me: “Loved it!!! I learned a lot about Wilsons disease…about long journeys with health issues…about how God doesnt ever let us go or let us down…but most of all, how we should all have compassionate hearts for others. We may not know or understand the roads they are walking. It was a blessing, Mark. Job well done! :)”

Thank you!




Professor Dendy

Professor Dendy’s Blog Calendar

October 2017
M T W T F S S
« Apr    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Professor Dendy’s Tweets

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

Recent Comments

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 9 other followers

Blog Stats

  • 16,303 hits
var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-12390501-3']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })();