Rethinking junk DNA

<< < (2/8) > >>

cyghost (July 17, 2009, 08:35:27 AM):
Quote
What both of you seem to fail to notice is that the latter style of thinking is not scientific in any way either.
I am not sure I follow you here. Do elaborate please?
Mefiante (July 17, 2009, 09:20:51 AM):
What both of you seem to fail to notice is that the latter style of thinking is not scientific in any way either.
Two words: “Null hypothesis,” ironically a term coined by a renowned geneticist. Alone the first two sentences of the article should clear things up for you.



Hmm, it looks like you’re itching to be obnoxious, Mechanist. A move to the “Flame Wars” subforum may be in order:
BTW, 'Luthon64, don't you have better things to do than to engage with someone who has monotonous repetition, tawdry irrelevancies and illusory tu quoque deflections?
Well, when they then proceed to add monumentally ignorant inanity to a growing list of follies then it tends to rouse my sensibilities. Furthermore, you have already amply demonstrated your unwillingness (or perhaps your inability) properly to consider anything besides what you think you already know, so you’ll have to accept that I’m going on defensible inference here.



It is good manners after all to accuse another of the above... even though it adds zero to a constructive and civil exchange of ideas ???.
If you wish to construe verifiable observations regarding your intellectual impostures as ill-mannered and unconstructive then please go ahead and do so. It bothers me not at all.

'Luthon64
Teleological (July 17, 2009, 09:45:31 AM):
Hmm, it looks like you’re itching to be obnoxious, Mechanist. A move to the “Flame Wars” subforum may be in order:
BTW, 'Luthon64, don't you have better things to do than to engage with someone who has monotonous repetition, tawdry irrelevancies and illusory tu quoque deflections?
Well, when they then proceed to add monumentally ignorant inanity to a growing list of follies then it tends to rouse my sensibilities. Furthermore, you have already amply demonstrated your unwillingness (or perhaps your inability) properly to consider anything besides what you think you already know, so you’ll have to accept that I’m going on defensible inference here.



It is good manners after all to accuse another of the above... even though it adds zero to a constructive and civil exchange of ideas ???.
If you wish to construe verifiable observations regarding your intellectual impostures as ill-mannered and unconstructive then please go ahead and do so. It bothers me not at all.

'Luthon64

So... when you post the above, are you of the opinion that you are being civil and it allows for a good environment to exchange ideas? Elaborate how you might think it does...

Oh, and formulate a null hypothesis regarding junk DNA won't you (junk DNA being the topic at hand after all)?
cyghost (July 17, 2009, 10:37:06 AM):
I give you the first two lines because I really don't think you read them:

In statistical hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis (H0) formally describes some aspect of the statistical behaviour of a set of data; this description is treated as valid unless the actual behaviour of the data contradicts this assumption. Thus, the null hypothesis is contrasted against another hypothesis

The rest of the article is interesting and a worthwhile read as well.

The "civil" and intellectual rigorous modes operandi here should have been for you admitting you were wrong, thanking Anacoluthon64 for providing the link and moving on. A "civil environment" only works if all participants work at it. I have the distinct impression you count yourself above such. This is a problem.
Teleological (July 17, 2009, 11:08:20 AM):
Provide a null hypothesis with regards to junk DNA and its function.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page