No. I just did a precise calculation of Anita in the test getting at least two people right and at least one location right purely by chance. It works out to be 49/864, which equals 5.67%. The odds of getting 7 hits in 10 coin tosses is much greater -- 17.19%.
For the sake of argument, I'll play along with your scenario. Let's focus on this "purely by chance" phrase you're so fond of. In each of the three trials one of three mechanisms was at work.
1) Pure chance. This is the equivalent of rolling a die once to select a person and flipping a coin a second time to select a side. While I disagree with your number, it's close enough to my calculations to be acceptable. Did you see her flip a coin or roll a die? I didn't, so this didn't happen.
2) Anita, through a method unknown to science, was able to "sense" the presence of each and every kidney present. Just like with the lady administering the sonogram, this should have resulted in three
complete successes. This did not happen.
3) Using skills of observation Anita was able to tilt the odds favor to land somewhere between 1 and 2. This is what happened.
First off, the older you are, the more likely you are to have donated a kidney. For example, in
California in 2006 living donors in the age groups 18-34, 35-49, and 50-64 were about even at 1,800 in each group (the below 18 group was nominal). That means that every year about 130 *more* people at any given age will have donated a kidney.
In other words at the end of 2006, the 18 year olds will have about 130 donors. The 19 year olds will have the 130 donors from last year and 130 from the current year. The 20 year olds will have 260 from prior years plus another 130. You see how this works?
Then you have the issue of people needing nephrectomies. Cancer is one major cause. Obviously, the older you are, the more likely are you to get cancer lose a kidney. Likewise, some nephrectomies are due to injury. Again, the longer you've been on the planet, the more chances you have had of sustaining an injury requiring the removal of a kidney.
On top of that 60% of living donors are male. Furthermore, kidney cancer occurs in men at twice the rate it does in women. I don't know the nephrectomy rates, but I would be surprised if it was significantly different. Men play contact sports and engage in dangerous activities like riding motorcycles (on and off-road) far more than women do. They get shot more often. They make up the bulk of war casualties.
I could go on, but the point has been made.
On top of that she was able to observe people for nearly 30 minutes. She was moving around behind so that each person was the "focus" of her attention. She could see them react and hear/see them breathe/swallow as a nervous reaction.
We set out to see if there was anything at all to her claim, which was scenario #2. There wasn't. We also know #1 was simply not possible with all of the data available to her. What happened, #3, is exactly what I expected to happen.
In other words, there's nothing to see here. Sorry. It's sorta like the deal Dr. Ertel and the kid drawing balls from the bag "purely by chance" as seen here. I mean, no way did he peek in the bag, right?
