The existence of God and the efficacy of prayer

[kyrani99]

Isn't it strange how every mouse on the planet has mouse DNA? I mean... what are the odds?

How about looking at a more realistic picture and never mind the mice, for who it is hardly odd that they all have the much the same genes.

During 2015, an estimated 221,200 new cases of lung cancer were expected to be diagnosed. These represent several different sub types of cancer. All of the people in the particular sub type have characteristic genetic signatures. What are the odds? The mutations are supposed to be RANDOM!

It is like saying all the people who go to the casino and who are 5ft tall all draw the same numbers at the roulette wheel! WHAT ARE THE ODDS?

 

[kyrani99]

Except that the metal was not hidden by the person observing the tester, either. So who is sending these negative ESP signals?

Can you send these negative ESP signals? If you can get a person to select an option less than is predicted by chance, that's a testable prediction in and of itself.

How about you explain how they can get a ZERO result.

 

[kyrani99]

The claim made for the Lifeguard by its manufacturers was that it could detect a human heartbeat at certain distances and through certain materials. The experiment tested that claim, using a double blind protocol to ensure that no sources of information other than the Lifeguard were available to its operator. The claim was proved false.

What I don't understand is why do you need to do a double blind if you are testing a piece of equipment. I've never heard such a thing. So I surmise that somehow there must be paranormal involved. Can you clear this up for me?

 

[kyrani99]

The claim made by the dowser was that he could detect objects using a dowsing rod under certain conditions. The experiment tested that claim, using a double blind protocol to ensure that no sources of information other than the dowsing rod were available to the dowser. The claim was proved false.

You don't find it strange that there was no chance involved?

 

[kyrani99]

All this amounts to "the conditions weren't right." The controls are put in place to verify the effect only- that's it, full stop. If no effect is demonstrated, the reason for the lack of effect is irrelevant to the test (though simplicity makes the conclusion obvious). To say that the controls are what negated the effect is to say that no controls are possible, and that the effect is not empirically demonstrable. That's an excuse not to test, not a reason for failing one.

And how do you know it was ESP? It could have been the alignment of the deep quantum field particles that was off, right? I mean, if you're going to invoke one imaginary effect to defend the absence of another, any imaginary effect will do.

The problem I have with this is that the tester didn't get it right even for chance. That sounds suspicious to me.

 

[kyrani99]

Have you queried any journals with your hypothesis?

I have looked up a lot of journals and looked at a lot of the research and I have been able to verify what I had seen. But I need to go further than that. I need to show how and why the stem cells make the changes.

Science here doesn't help me because the scientists suppose that the cells' DNA is altered through damage and subsequent spontaneous, random mutations. That is how they explain the first cancer cell. Then there are two theories after that first cancer cell appears.

One says that the cancer mass with its heterogeneity develops by clonal evolution. That is that there are more random mutations and they are naturally selected for fitness.

The other theory says they are cancer stem cells that change. This is true from what I have seen but it is true right from the start and not as a later stage.

 

[Pixel42]

How about you explain how they can get a ZERO result.

The description of the test doesn't specify how many buckets there were and how many had a metal object in them, but typically with such tests there are around ten buckets, just one of which contains the object/substance being dowsed. So on average the dowser will find the object in just one attempt in every ten by chance alone. The description says the dowser took the test "several" times. So zero successful attempts would have been the most likely chance result, which is what happened.

 

[kyrani99]

No discussion of genetic mutations in lung cancer? I'd think that someone who laughs at scientific research on cancer, could explain why the genetic signatures of cancer are wrong.

Who said the genetic signatures are wrong.
I am saying how do they appear if cancer is the result of random mutations and DNA damage and then further mutations?

How do you get order out of random mutations?

Clearly if you have characteristic genetic signatures they can't arise out of chaos.

 

[Donn]

During 2015, an estimated 221,200 new cases of lung cancer were expected to be diagnosed. These represent several different sub types of cancer. All of the people in the particular sub type have characteristic genetic signatures. What are the odds? The mutations are supposed to be RANDOM!

Just guessing: if they fall into types, there must be something that sorts them. Doctors group them that way.

The mutations probably, again only guessing, may be random but within a small pool of choices. Like a burglar who rolls a dice, but there are only ten houses in the street so he hits the same ones quite often.

 

[Pixel42]

What I don't understand is why do you need to do a double blind if you are testing a piece of equipment. I've never heard such a thing. So I surmise that somehow there must be paranormal involved. Can you clear this up for me?

It is surprisingly easy for people to fool themselves into thinking a piece of equipment like this is working successfully, because of those cognitive biases I keep reminding you about. Confirmation bias is the biggest culprit. People remember the hits, forget the misses, and vastly underestimate the likelihood of getting the hits by chance. A double blind test eliminates the effect of those cognitive biases, so that the actual success rate can be determined.

The infamous ADE 651 fake bomb detectoris another device which fooled lots of people, but which was proved by properly controlled testing to be completely useless.

 

[Pixel42]

You don't find it strange that there was no chance involved?

There was only chance involved. The dowser did no better than the expected chance rate of success, which with a small number of attempts with a small number of buckets is zero.

 

[Pup]

How about looking at a more realistic picture and never mind the mice, for who it is hardly odd that they all have the much the same genes.

During 2015, an estimated 221,200 new cases of lung cancer were expected to be diagnosed. These represent several different sub types of cancer. All of the people in the particular sub type have characteristic genetic signatures. What are the odds? The mutations are supposed to be RANDOM!

It is like saying all the people who go to the casino and who are 5ft tall all draw the same numbers at the roulette wheel! WHAT ARE THE ODDS?

My post #1411 addresses that quite a bit. It seems you're puzzled by a common beginner's misunderstanding of evolution. Mutations are random, but natural selection's effect on the mutations is not.

It would be like a casino promising $10 in free chips to everyone who's five feet tall. People of all random heights walk in, but only those who are 5ft tall get free chips. What are the odds!

Mutations are random, just as you said, but only mutations with certain attributes make it past the body's defenses to become cancer.

The links in post #1411 address and explain this common issue. I can certainly understand why someone just learning about evolution would be puzzled by it. But you've presented yourself as an expert on the subject.

After reading the explanations in post #1411, do you still think we should be surprised that only some of the random mutations become cancers? Why should this surprise us?

 

[Pup]

Who said the genetic signatures are wrong.
I am saying how do they appear if cancer is the result of random mutations and DNA damage and then further mutations?

How do you get order out of random mutations?

Clearly if you have characteristic genetic signatures they can't arise out of chaos.

We were posting at the same time, but I think my most recent post and #1411 address this. It's a common beginner question about evolution:

http://www.indiana.edu/~oso/evolution/selection.htm
"How can an apparently random process result in apparently directed evolution? This question is one of the 'logical' problems that many people have with evolution. It is simply counter-intuitive that a random process can give rise to highly-ordered structures, and to adaptation to specific environment."

 

[IanS]

You are trying to misrepresent what I have said.

Did you write the following, or did you not ? -

So how honorable are doctors and the medical industry.1. There is a push to try and say that a placebo is all about how a patient is treated and the doctors support and blah, blah, blah, when they know full well that IF a person BELIEVES that whatever they are given, will make them well again, they will get well again.

Because that's the passage I quoted to you in that previous reply, but where you just replied by chopping that part out of the quote you made from my post, and claiming I was misrepresenting you.

So did you say the above or not ? It's a direct quote pasted from your own post by the way.

Is that above quote a genuine unaltered quote of your own words? Yes or No?



By the way, you also added the words quoted below, where you are clearly trying to claim that people recover from illness (you are actually talking there about cancer!) as long as they simply believe they will recover ... and you then reinforce that by saying that as soon as they stopped believing then they would become seriously ill again! Here's your own quote -

I do not recommend placebo for cancer but there has been evidence of people recovering while ever they believed that a drug or dummy drug, given to them, will make them well. Once they began to believe it wouldn't work or heard that it wouldn't work from some authority figure, such as another doctor, the placebo failed.

 

[Thor 2]

NO! The corollary is not true.
If a person is toxic they are not treatable by any method in which they must exercise their own authority because they have none. It is mob rule.

If a person doesn't get well they must be toxic is FALSE.
A person may not get well for many reason but chief reason is because they haven't appreciated that the body is purpose-driven and not a machine.
It is vitally important to realize what the nocebo effect is all about.

Sounds familiar. Faith healers claim the one who is not healed is at fault because their faith wasn't strong enough.

 

[kyrani99]

It is surprisingly easy for people to fool themselves into thinking a piece of equipment like this is working successfully, because of those cognitive biases I keep reminding you about. Confirmation bias is the biggest culprit. People remember the hits, forget the misses, and vastly underestimate the likelihood of getting the hits by chance. A double blind test eliminates the effect of those cognitive biases, so that the actual success rate can be determined.

The infamous ADE 651 fake bomb detectoris another device which fooled lots of people, but which was proved by properly controlled testing to be completely useless.

I still don't understand. It is a mechanical device that does the detecting. What has the human to do with it?

We don't double blind driver to test cars. We don't double blind someone testing if a toaster works or a clock or a radio. Why double blind the user of this device?

 

[abaddon]

I still don't understand. It is a mechanical device that does the detecting. What has the human to do with it?

We don't double blind driver to test cars. We don't double blind someone testing if a toaster works or a clock or a radio. Why double blind the user of this device?

Because it does not work. What part of that is difficult for you?

A dowsing rod is a mechanical device. Those don't work either. In the real world, we call those "sticks".

 

[kyrani99]

Just guessing: if they fall into types, there must be something that sorts them. Doctors group them that way.

The mutations probably, again only guessing, may be random but within a small pool of choices. Like a burglar who rolls a dice, but there are only ten houses in the street so he hits the same ones quite often.

There are tens of thousands of genes that can be mutated. Some journal articles I read talk about 5000 genes may be tested. And a lot fewer genes for specific cancers are used in defining a profile. So for instance some test for beast cancer test 21 genes. I've seen other take some 70 genes and there will be sub types, which have characteristic set of genes within the genes tested for the sub type. Other cancers may have bigger profiles, others smaller but they are only the genes that doctors call driver mutations. In reality there are thousands of genes that may define a signature. So it is not possible to put it down to coincidence.

They claim the mutations occur during cell division or through damage. However the mutations are relevant to the type of cells so their reasoning is not justified.

 

[kyrani99]

Because it does not work. What part of that is difficult for you?

A dowsing rod is a mechanical device. Those don't work either. In the real world, we call those "sticks".

So we're talking about a device that is only an aid for a human user. So there is a paranormal aspect to the method. It is not like a radio where the user is not needed to detect the radio station other than setting the dial.

 

[Pixel42]

I still don't understand. It is a mechanical device that does the detecting. What has the human to do with it?

It is the human who determines whether or not the device works, based on whether or not it correctly detects the presence of a person more often than the tester assumes it would purely by chance. But humans are subject to confirmation bias, i.e. they will tend to pay more attention to the times the device gives the right answer than to the times it gives the wrong one; they will also tend to vastly underestimate the likelihood of the device being right purely by chance. So they can easily inadvertently fool themselves into thinking that the device is working when its success rate is not really any better than chance. The design of a blind test removes the subjective element, ensuring that the device's success rate is accurately measured and compared to the known chance success rate.

We don't double blind driver to test cars. We don't double blind someone testing if a toaster works or a clock or a radio. Why double blind the user of this device?

Blinding is only necessary when it's the tester's own judgement that is being used to assess whether or not the device being tested does what it is claimed to do. If there's no subjective judgement required there's no need to remove it.