Science under attack in Texas

[JohnStOnge]

As far as evolution, why not answer the question about genetic markers used in the legal system? Is the science valid enough to condemn someone to prison or death?

I didn't see the question about genetic markers used in the legal system, presumably because there are so many posts in this thread. I have no problem with exactly matching gene sequences and saying that, going in, it would be very unlikely that a sample of genetic material randomly selected from the population of humans on Earth would exactly match, in terms of gene sequencing for some fragment, the genetic material of a "suspect." Unfortunately, since I didn't see the question, I don't know how you're expanding that into support of the proposition that the overall theory of evolution has been established at a level of certainty that is as high as it gets in science.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Uncertainty is not a red herring.

No, it's not. The red herring is the tactic of using the idea that "nothing is ever certain in science" to imply that the overall theory of evolution is established with certainty as high as it gets. Plus, frankly, there are things that are certain in science as a practical matter. I know we've been all through it but, again, there is no uncertainty about things on this planet that are released will fall as long as they are not less dense than the medium they're released in so that buoyancy is a factor or there is some other mechanical intervention.

You maintain that there is some miniscule theoretical uncertainty. But if I say that one billion people will drop a shot put from their arms held level above the ground and ask you if you are willing to say that there will be any cases in which a shot put or shot puts will not fall, you're not going to say it because you know it isn't going to happen. And I could raise that number to anything above a billion that I choose and you would say the same thing because you'd know it's still not going to happen.

 

[JohnStOnge]

My certainty that I am typing this rather than in a coma somewhere dreaming that I am typing this is not 100%.

See, to me, that is an example of the red herring. You were indeed 100% certain that you were typing. And the certainty associated with the idea that you were typing is a WHOLE lot more established than the certainty associated with the idea that Blue Whales have ancestors that were single celled organisms. A WHOLE lot.