(September 30, 2014 at 1:12 am)Surgenator Wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

Quote:The structure of DNA of all species comprises two helical chains each coiled round the same axis, and each with a pitch of 34 ångströms (3.4 nanometres) and a radius of 10 ångströms (1.0 nanometres).[6] According to another study, when measured in a particular solution, the DNA chain measured 22 to 26 ångströms wide (2.2 to 2.6 nanometres), and one nucleotide unit measured 3.3 Å (0.33 nm) long.[7]

Your 34 vs 21 is a measurement done from 1953. When you look at it more closely, things aren't that simple.

Ok this is the part where I get to
you muppet, even by your article, the first measurement is still 34/20, with the second measurement starting at 22, I think we can safely stick with 34/21.

(September 30, 2014 at 1:07 am)Huggy74 Wrote: You can scream "sharpshooter fallacy" all you want, can't argue with math.

The fact that you think we're arguing about the math just demonstrates that, despite how you're dismissing it, you don't actually know what the sharpshooter fallacy is.

Maybe learn what other people are saying before you disagree with it next time, eh?

(September 30, 2014 at 1:46 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(September 30, 2014 at 1:07 am)Huggy74 Wrote: You can scream "sharpshooter fallacy" all you want, can't argue with math.

The fact that you think we're arguing about the math just demonstrates that, despite how you're dismissing it, you don't actually know what the sharpshooter fallacy is.

Maybe learn what other people are saying before you disagree with it next time, eh?

If you remember, this conversation started after i posted a mathematical symbol, so really all we've been discussing is math.

(September 30, 2014 at 1:51 am)Huggy74 Wrote: If you remember, this conversation started after i posted a mathematical symbol, so really all we've been discussing is math.

Still haven't bothered wiki-ing the term yet, hmm?

Here, let me help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

(September 30, 2014 at 1:54 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(September 30, 2014 at 1:51 am)Huggy74 Wrote: If you remember, this conversation started after i posted a mathematical symbol, so really all we've been discussing is math.

Still haven't bothered wiki-ing the term yet, hmm?

Here, let me help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

Quote:The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are stressed. From this reasoning a false conclusion is inferred.[1] This fallacy is the philosophical/rhetorical application of the multiple comparisons problem (in statistics) and apophenia (in cognitive psychology). It is related to the clustering illusion, which refers to the tendency in human cognition to interpret patterns where none actually exist.

Except that I proved that the golden ratio is a repeated pattern that does exist.
Did you not watch the video of the mathematician explaining the fibonacci sequence?
Still don't see how this applies.

(September 30, 2014 at 2:07 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Except that I proved that the golden ratio is a repeated pattern that does exist.
Did you not watch the video of the mathematician explaining the fibonacci sequence?
Still don't see how this applies.

The pattern you have not demonstrated, the one that doesn't exist, is the connection between one occurrence of the Fibonacci Sequence and the others. You're claiming that the presence of the pattern implies that all of the universe was designed, but you haven't demonstrated a connection between individual instances and also, you're ignoring all the places in which the fibonacci sequence does not appear. Since you're implying universal design, then what you're doing is circling the hits and ignoring the misses, a textbook example of the sharpshooter fallacy.

And hey, if the presence of the fibonacci sequence implies design, does that mean the absence of it implies a lack of design? I mean, that would be the only consistent place for you to go, right?

So.... the golden ratio is everywhere, huh?

Can you tell me where can you find it in the table at the end of this page?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radius

PLEASEEEEEE!

I was going for the most basic building blocks of common matter, Hydrogen and Helium, but... 53/31 = 1.70, not 1.61
Carbon-Oxygen - 67/48 = 1.39

pfff.... this is hopeless.... A pattern that's everywhere, and yet... not.
Kind of reminds me of how my young mind noticed the fallacy of the god that's everywhere, and yet no camera had managed to capture the bugger... and cameras are everywhere!

(September 30, 2014 at 2:21 am)Esquilax Wrote:

---

(September 30, 2014 at 2:07 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Except that I proved that the golden ratio is a repeated pattern that does exist.
Did you not watch the video of the mathematician explaining the fibonacci sequence?
Still don't see how this applies.

The pattern you have not demonstrated, the one that doesn't exist, is the connection between one occurrence of the Fibonacci Sequence and the others. You're claiming that the presence of the pattern implies that all of the universe was designed, but you haven't demonstrated a connection between individual instances and also, you're ignoring all the places in which the fibonacci sequence does not appear. Since you're implying universal design, then what you're doing is circling the hits and ignoring the misses, a textbook example of the sharpshooter fallacy.

And hey, if the presence of the fibonacci sequence implies design, does that mean the absence of it implies a lack of design? I mean, that would be the only consistent place for you to go, right?

---

I think he's not looking for connections or an underlying principle, but exactly the opposite: a miracle - that it is so unlikely for the "exact" golden ratio to appear in nature that it is an smoking gun indicator of supernatural interference.

(September 30, 2014 at 8:06 am)Alex K Wrote: I think he's not looking for connections or an underlying principle, but exactly the opposite: a miracle - that it is so unlikely for the "exact" golden ratio to appear in nature that it is an smoking gun indicator of supernatural interference.

Which is self-refuting: the probability of the golden ratio appearing in nature is precisely the same as for any random number. So I guess I'm giving the guy more credit than that.

(September 30, 2014 at 12:48 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

Quote:The human body: Take a good look at yourself in the mirror. You'll notice that most of your body parts follow the numbers one, two, three and five. You have one nose, two eyes, three segments to each limb and five fingers on each hand. The proportions and measurements of the human body can also be divided up in terms of the golden ratio. DNA molecules follow this sequence, measuring 34 angstroms long and 21 angstroms wide for each full cycle of the double helix

Now what?

That's supremely sharpshooterish. All you have to do is base your arbitrary counts differently to see how that doesn't work.

Five fingers per hand, or ten fingers? Two legs and two arms, or four limbs?

Also, some things don't all in there at all. 206 bones in the human body: not in the sequence. 32 teeth (or 28 without wisdom teeth): neither in the sequence. As soon as you start handwaving away numbers you don't want to consider and only consider ones you do want to, you're getting into special pleading.

You're seeing what you want to see. Humans are very good at that.