Hell man you can order custom DNA online and have it shipped to your door

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD5uNAMbDaQ

No response ???

lol k

@nightstalker thats basically mormonism

@stag still mormonism lol

wtf i love mormonism now

lol

mormons are white muslims

basically you work your way to godhood and then u get your own creations

John Smith was American Muhammed

@stag so you think Jesus was a Jew right?

I dont think Jesus was an Uyghur or a Turk no

He might have been what was considered as a Jew back then

But what is known as a Jew nowadays, the bastard diaspora of the Turkic races, no

So the relation between the hypothesis formulated by an abductive inference
and the testing and confirmation performed by an inductive inference
can be illustrated a bit more clearly in statistical terms. Imagine a set
of data points plotted on a graph.

It is possible, statistically, to fi nd a line
drawn through those points that describes, or fits, that set of points best.
Think about how science typically works

didnt ask you about his genetics kid

We make observations about the
world, map out those observations, and then try to fi nd an explanation
that fi ts them. A linear regression, the line drawn through the cloud of data
that fi ts the data best, is like a hypothesis.

Why do you care if I think Jesus was a jew or not?

Once drawn, that line can be
extended along its trajectory to suggest where we might look for more and
new data. If the original data suggest a particular line, then, statistically
speaking, we can expect to fi nd similar evidence along an extension of the
same line.

If the original data, to put this another way, suggest a particular
line of inquiry, then, if we follow that line, we can expect to find more evidence
like the evidence we started with.

So i can see how much a Jew you are

lol

Im not jewish

sure

Of course, in any scientific measurement
not all the data, or even most of it, will line up perfectly. The
data are always somewhat loosely clustered or scattered into a rough shape
of some sort, but even a general clumping of data is enough to suggest
where you can draw a line that describes most of them. An educated guess
at where to draw the line is abductive. Looking for data to confi rm the line,
after it is drawn, is inductive.

Once a hypothesis has been well established, once we fi nd a lot of
data points where an extension of the line predicted they would be, or
when we continue to find evidence that maps into our same, original, cluster, we
have good reason to become suspicious of new data points that
fall too far from the line.

In other words, once we have enough evidence
to believe our hypothesis is true, new evidence that does not confi rm our
hypothesis will not be easily accepted. In fact, data points might show up
so far off the line that we can reasonably suspect that they are not real data
at all but artifacts of the measurement or mistakes in our observations: like
a smudge on the lens we mistake for a distant galaxy, or a glowing weather
balloon we mistake for a UFO, or even, perhaps, crazy observations that
belong to a category we have to label with a variable like “X."

Points like this, well off the line of an accepted hypothesis, are called “radical outliers.”

Inductive method tells us that when enough radical outliers appear,
like a second flock of data points landing adjacent to the fl ock we used
to draw our original line, they stop being radical outliers and begin to
suggest that our initial data set was not large enough.

A lot of new points suggest that we got it wrong from the start and that our original line needs
to be bent or shifted to include them, or that we may have found an entirely
separate line of evidence, a second hypothesis we need to look into.

Scientists with well - established theories will assert in public that when
suffi cient amounts of new, nonconfi rmatory, data enter the system, the
hypothesis will be swapped out for one that accounts for the new data,
but this is never what happens.

Once accepted, hypotheses have their own
inertia. Once we adopt a hypothesis, usually based on a relatively small
sample size, we are reluctant to let go of it, regardless of how many radical
outliers we find later. A great deal of both data and psychological motivation
is required to force us to reexamine hypotheses and explanations we
have accepted and to which we have grown accustomed.

It seemed crazy to fifteenth - century scientists, for instance, to think that Earth orbited the
sun. What is interesting is that it was not a preponderance of new data that
changed Copernicus’s mind about the relation of the sun and Earth.

The hypothesis was changed, not by a flood of radical outliers or new data, but
by a reformulation of Ptolemy’s hypothesis into one that would explain all
the data more economically. Prior to this, data suggesting a different, non -
Ptolemaic, orbital arrangement were ignored, ridiculed, or bent into pre -
Copernican orbits in increasingly dizzying ways.

Aliens are probably nonfeeling for other species