I said I'd do it on a previous thread, but I forgot, but this time I'm going to do it. I have a friend who is math Ph.D. and who works with statistics and genetics all day long as part of a large bioscience firm. I'm going to ask him if this article makes any sense mathematically. I or any of us here my not understand the answer (we are talking Ph.D. level math), but I'll go to
argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) if that's the case. Normally a logical fallacy, it is valid if
- person is qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject
- most experts in the field (mathematics with application to genetics and statistics) agree on this issue
- the authority was not making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious
Of course, he could give me an answer I don't like. I've never talked with him on this subject before. In either case I'll post the results.
Of course, he could give me an answer I don't like. I've never talked with him on this subject before. In either case I'll post the results. I have the results. I have some paragraphs of talk about finer points of the tendency of DNA to self-assemble, and to automaticlly self-assemble into very complex forms, some math, etc. Honestly, much was over my head as I don't think he has quite mastered the ability to talk much below Ph.D. level on this subject.
But the end result was the quote "...their argument is scientific balony."
From what I gather, the author here may also be shooting at the wrong target. My friend said getting good DNA is the easy part; it's getting it wrapped in a membrane that's a bit more complicated ("But there are other theories about that."). I think that might be more vulnerable to an actual scientific attack than the fuzzy math statistics.