h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

- have seen this discussion many times before...

How about 'demonstrated'?


As in

'It has been clearly demonstrated that the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is, to an exceptional degree, an accurate representation of the world'

or

'It has been clearly demonstrated that the Theory of Magical Life-Starting offers no insight into the way the world works and, in fact, is wildly inaccurate.'

No 'proof' there.

Yep, that'll do.

Where were we?

Ste

Theory of Magical Life-Starting

... that wouldn't be the Big Bang Theory, then?

No. That's the Theory of Magical Universe-Starting.

Beyond it there be dragons.



Maybe.

*scribbles furiously in book *

"Theory of Magical Universe-Starting"

"Beyond it there be dragons"

"Maybe"

"Theory of Magical Universe-Starting"

Deep voice, Drum roll..... "Let there be LIGHT!" ! Hoopla! ... "And now, Ladies and Gentlemen, I shall, with a wave of my wand, a virgin bring forth a son!"

Hey! you've done both there life starting and universe starting! Do it again again, again

Hey... If you want more, you have to pay to see the show

Here, my week's pocket money:

from the article in New Scientist:

"They are probably dramatically under-diagnosed," Kruskall says, "and also dramatically rare."

Kruskall is the scientist who discovered the chimerism. Since a chimera is the result of a scrambling/incorporation of fraternal twins, the incidence of chimera's has to be just a fraction of the incidence of twin births. The twin birth rate in the US in 2001 was 6%, so it's safe to say that chimera's are less than 1% - which means that it's safe to say that DNA testing is still 99% accurate.

I am in two mnds. Will it give creationism some credibility?

As long as the teaching goes along the lines "At some time in the past people thought the world was flat. We now know that is rubbish as we can show the world is round. We once thought God created everything as we had no other explanation, we now know that creationism is rubbish and that evolution is the best explanation we now have for why we are here.' then I will be happy.

As I understand it, the DNA is not "mixed" but can vary depending on where and what sort of sample is drawn. For instance, semen sample and blood sample might give two different results. Certainly, the Mitochondrial DNA would be the same.

Perhaps, in the future, three samples would be taken -- blood, saliva and semen (or 4, including mouth swab).

Arnie: it's safe to say that chimera's are less than 1% - which means that it's safe to say that DNA testing is still 99% accurate.

W: Chimeras may be a tiny proportion representing a small percentage of any population but if that person were deprived of their child or condemned to death on the strength of that evidence (especially now that we know this) is pure injustice to me.

Right, well is there any other evidenciary procedure which comes even close to the above accuracy? No. Are criminal procedings in general so flawless that the above accuracy is the limiting factor? No, not even close.

I think there are bigger fishes to fry in the various justice systems...

No dispute from me on that account, Arnie
Wilma

Presumably there will be a mulitple choice section on creationism:

In genesis, which creation order is correct:

a) Humans were created after the other animals and the first man and woman were created simultaneously.

b)Humans were created before the other animals. The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.

c) BOTH of the above.

<>

In this case, I think Pattern Cjhaser's "wordiness" *is* clearer than just using the word 'proof' would be, especially in talking to laypeople. Wordiness doesn't always get in the way of clarity, but as in this case, I think, aids it...

I didn't pursue my point because people were getting bored - not unreasonably. But clarity is the aim, and over-simplification - say by using "proof" when something more precise is needed - acts directly against clarity.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Well then PC given that you have so often had this argument can you not accept that with at leat the people with whom you have gone over this with when they say "scientific proof" what they mean is a contraction of "scientific proof beyond reasonable doubt/consistant with availble evidence" and save us all a load of bother .