When you and Will debated whether the definition of 'venomous' requires that the animal has an effective delivery system to administer its venom to its prey, I thought it was absurd that you brought the issue of years of experience and schooling into the discussion. It takes about 5 minutes to understand the two sides of the debate and an hour or two of research to determine how the 'experts' use the different terminologies.
It looked to me like a lot of posturing just to undermine the other person.
I won't take your question at face value, but I will take it for granted that you were implying that if somebody has proved out fewer morphs he is less qualified to discuss genetics and statistics. I will try to tone down my response and just limit myself to saying that such a notion is silly. The knowledge of genetics and statistics is an objective science that has nothing to do with personal experience. I will go a little further and suggest that if somebody really does think there is a connection, then it's probably an indication he doesn't understand the 2 subjects.
These happen to be subjects I grew up surrounded by. My father is a Physics professor and two of my brothers are actuaries. I, myself am very strong in math, but when in doubt constantly ask them for feedback.
This is my last post on this forum, because the opportunity for reasonable discussion is usually replaced by aggressive rudeness. I'd rather put my energies elsewhere.

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Hide Replies ]