Thread: Stem Cells and Human Cloning

Originally posted by bradybaker

Small polls are not a good tool when dealing with a big population.

Actually they are an extremely good tool. You really need to go take a stats class before you get into arguments with people who know what they're talking about.[/b]

I know what I am talking about and the size of this poll is too small to be accurate. They did not have as many people in the poll as they should have. Check the data yourself. To have a statement like this you would need a larger size. Notice how I have been saying small.

Originally posted by Yume
I know what I am talking about and the size of this poll is too small to be accurate. They did not have as many people in the poll as they should have. Check the data yourself. To have a statement like this you would need a larger size. Notice how I have been saying small.

I don't know why I keep getting drawn back into this. It's not my responsibility to cure you of your ignorance, but I'm getting annoyed at your persistent attempts to spread it. Clearly when I asked you if you know what a representative sample is, you didn't even bother to look up the term and discover that you, in fact, have no idea what it means before you answered a hasty false affirmative. What are you, Yume-- 13, 14 years old? What’s the highest level of mathematics instruction you’ve had? The most dangerous people in the world are those who don't know what they don't know. Right now, you either fall into that category or are purposely trying to conceal what you know to be your lack of knowledge on this subject. Whichever one it is, lay off. You don't know what you're talking about and each further post only confirms the fact. Go educate yourself with a statistics class—or even just a stat book—first, and then come back to this discussion which hopefully, after this long diversion, will get back on its original track.

So, how ‘bout those stem cells…?

Do you even know how many people were polled? That is your problem. I do know stats and there is a basic quota you should make to your sample size. This poll didn't make it. Statistivs are good and I like to use them, but the data you provided just doesn't work. There are basic requirements that people must achieve to have valid data. You have not even touched that argument thus you have failed to claim validity. I have said this many times and I gave you too many times to respond. It is you who need to listen or read in this case more closely. I recommend you look into your data more in depth before you use it. A big problem I have found with many people is they do not do an analysis on others data. They just accept it as true. That is not a very good idea. You should know how the research was done before you believe it.

About Stem Cell Research. I am all for it until people start wanting to use humans they aborted in the research. First they are given no chance to live and then their remains are used to better someone else. That is a sad day for Democracy in my eyes.

Originally posted by Yume
Do you even know how many people were polled? That is your problem. I do know stats and there is a basic quota you should make to your sample size. This poll didn't make it. Statistivs are good and I like to use them, but the data you provided just doesn't work. There are basic requirements that people must achieve to have valid data. You have not even touched that argument thus you have failed to claim validity. I have said this many times and I gave you too many times to respond. It is you who need to listen or read in this case more closely. I recommend you look into your data more in depth before you use it. A big problem I have found with many people is they do not do an analysis on others data. They just accept it as true. That is not a very good idea. You should know how the research was done before you believe it.

Dear God, you really are this dense, aren't you?

If you "know statistics," answer my question. What's the highest level of mathematics instruction that you've had? To be fair, I'll list the pertinent math courses I've taken, so we can compare who knows best what they're talking about: Calculus I, Calculus II, Calculus III, Statistics, Differential Equations, and Linear Algebra, all of those taken and successfully completed with a cummulative 4.0 GPA within the last 5 years, with Calculus III and above taken at a first tier private university.

My response to your "argumenents" has been, for the first two times, and now this third one: REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE. Go and look up the damn word, Yume, and then realize that your claims of a sample too small to accurately represent the American population are impotent when a small, REPRESENTATIVE sample is constructed and polled. If you actually bothered to look at the data you're criticizing before plopping down at your keyboard and chewing and regurgitating what you've already said, you'd realize that the household survey covered 106,418 households. That number is 90 times as large as the approximately 1000-1500 people needed to construct a representative sample of the US population with a margin of error of +/- 3%. If you know how to multiply numbers, you'll find that even with an error of 3% (which is unlikely, since the standard error for the mean and medium incomes is less than 1%), the averages DO NOT CHANGE enough for the overall trend to reverse. Would you like to know what margin of error is necessary for the trend to reverse? For such a thing to even be possible for a portion of the trend would require that the error be greater than the greatest magnitude of difference between two categories, and that would necessitate 11.3% error. To reverse the entire trend would require far more error. That is unheard of. If such were the case, US census data would never be used by government policy makers or researchers in academia and the corporate sector.

So, before for you start making an blithering idiot of yourself, take your own advice. Analyze the data before you criticize it.

Originally posted by Yume
Do you even know how many people were polled? That is your problem. I do know stats and there is a basic quota you should make to your sample size. This poll didn't make it. Statistivs are good and I like to use them, but the data you provided just doesn't work. There are basic requirements that people must achieve to have valid data. You have not even touched that argument thus you have failed to claim validity. I have said this many times and I gave you too many times to respond. It is you who need to listen or read in this case more closely. I recommend you look into your data more in depth before you use it. A big problem I have found with many people is they do not do an analysis on others data. They just accept it as true. That is not a very good idea. You should know how the research was done before you believe it.

About Stem Cell Research. I am all for it until people start wanting to use humans they aborted in the research. First they are given no chance to live and then their remains are used to better someone else. That is a sad day for Democracy in my eyes.

You have taken 1 statistics class. This is over.

Originally posted by Yume+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Yume

Do you even know how many people were polled? That is your problem. I do know stats and there is a basic quota you should make to your sample size. This poll didn't make it. Statistivs are good and I like to use them, but the data you provided just doesn't work. There are basic requirements that people must achieve to have valid data. You have not even touched that argument thus you have failed to claim validity. I have said this many times and I gave you too many times to respond. It is you who need to listen or read in this case more closely. I recommend you look into your data more in depth before you use it. A big problem I have found with many people is they do not do an analysis on others data. They just accept it as true. That is not a very good idea. You should know how the research was done before you believe it.

About Stem Cell Research. I am all for it until people start wanting to use humans they aborted in the research. First they are given no chance to live and then their remains are used to better someone else. That is a sad day for Democracy in my eyes.

You have taken 1 statistics class. This is over.[/b]

you've taken more/higher level one?

Originally posted by Yume
You have taken 1 statistics class. This is over.

Did you even read the rest of his post?

Are we playing the credientals game? Let's not, no-one cares.

Originally posted by CT
you've taken more/higher level one?

No. If he had, he would have said so. I would imagine that this is his attempt to bow out dragging what he believes remains of his dignity by again avoiding a simple question and making an ambivalent statement that he hopes will be interpreted as implying that he has more expertise in this area than I.

And no, Kaniaz, this isn't a contest of credentials, but it is a question of credibility.

OK, that's all I was able to glean from the posts (I have no idea what "Stats 1" is, etc).

I will humor you Perengrinus.

I have taken 3 years of stats classes all at which are at the beauty of the best WCC basketball team.

I just find it pointless when someone really has to go that off topic. I'm getting the point with bradybaker too. I have a standard considering I have won countless trophies in debate classes. You do not do things like this. I like to keep debate room rules and that includes keeping on topic. I have actually left a debate because someone said that my khaki pants were unprofessional and should be marked down. I still won it too.

I'm speechless...I am without speech.

Originally posted by Yume
I have taken 3 years of stats classes all at which are at the beauty of the best WCC basketball team.

Wait....a basketball team taught you stats? Well there's your problem right there!

Originally posted by Yume
I will humor you Perengrinus.

Aww, shucks. That's mighty fine of you, there. Mighty fine.

I have taken 3 years of stats classes all at which are at the beauty of the best WCC basketball team.[/b]

I'm with Bradybaker on this one. This is going to sound just plain rude, but I simply cannot believe that someone who lacks such a basic understanding of statistical principles could have taken three statistics classes, even if only at the middle school or high school level and even if they were \"statistics for the game of basketball\" (or whatever that non-sentence about beauty and basketball is supposed to mean). Also, for the record, a secondary school math class (or three) is not qualitatively equivalent to a university-level mathematics course.

I just find it pointless when someone really has to go that off topic. [/b]

I wouldn't have felt the need to if you hadn't jumped in and started dogmatically criticizing something you don't understand.

I have a standard considering I have won countless trophies in debate classes. You do not do things like this. I like to keep debate room rules and that includes keeping on topic. I have actually left a debate because someone said that my khaki pants were unprofessional and should be marked down. I still won it too. [/b]

And with such logic as, "Each person's individual choice to have kids, not have kids, or define the variable of the number of kids they want reflects the statistics of the data so even if you actually had accurate data it could have changed because it is possible it could have," as perfectly circular as Giotto's proof to the Pope of his artistic skill, how could you not win your debates?

But I will agree with you on one thing, this discussion diverged a long way back.. somewhere on page 2, I think.

Originally posted by Perengis
I'm with Bradybaker on this one. This is going to sound just plain rude, but I simply cannot believe that someone who lacks such a basic understanding of statistical principles could have taken three statistics classes, even if only at the middle school or high school level and even if they were \"statistics for the game of basketball\" (or whatever that non-sentence about beauty and basketball is supposed to mean). Also, for the record, a secondary school math class (or three) is not qualitatively equivalent to a university-level mathematics course.

Sorry I meant to say I have taken 3 years of stats classes all at which are at the beauty of the college with the best WCC basketball team. Gonzaga is a nice college.

And with such logic as, \"Each person's individual choice to have kids, not have kids, or define the variable of the number of kids they want reflects the statistics of the data so even if you actually had accurate data it could have changed because it is possible it could have,\" as perfectly circular as Giotto's proof to the Pope of his artistic skill, how could you not win your debates?

But I will agree with you on one thing, this discussion diverged a long way back.. somewhere on page 2, I think.[/b]

Sometimes in Lincoln Douglass debate that can go against you. Also in CX that info can really hinder you.

We'll just leave it be. It is a waste of time. We all have our opinions.

Originally posted by Yume
Sorry I meant to say I have taken 3 years of stats classes all at which are at the beauty of the college with the best WCC basketball team. Gonzaga is a nice college.

Ok, now I'm speechless, except to say that you should ask for your tuition money back. Seriously. I went ahead and dragged out some of my old stats notes. The equation for the margin of error in a poll such as the census data I posted is approximately equal to 1 divided by the square root of the number of people in the sample. That's where I got the \"1000-1500 people represent a margin of error of approximately 3%\" statement. For the 106,418 people polled by the census bureau for that report, that equates to a predicted 0.3% margin of error, which is comparable to the calculated 0.47% error in the median income for that particular report. If after 3 statistics classes, you weren't even taught that much, you were gypped. You should really get your money back.

Sometimes in Lincoln Douglass debate that can go against you. Also in CX that info can really hinder you.[/b]

I guess sarcasm doesn't come through a computer screen very well.

But yeah, this is dead. There's really no point anymore.

Originally posted by bradybaker
Is human cloning ok?

No. I think the technology will get banned. It's dangerous to do things like that.

Originally posted by albinox+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(albinox)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker

Is human cloning ok?

No. I think the technology will get banned. It's dangerous to do things like that.[/b]

I could see it possibly getting banned in the US, but if that happens, cloning operations will simply locate elsewhere. It's like any other kind of technology-- you can't "undiscover" it. Once something is known to be possible, there will always be people who want to experiment with it. Whether human cloning occurs in the US or is outsourced to another country, I'm confident that it will occur.

Originally posted by Peregrinus
I could see it possibly getting banned in the US, but if that happens, cloning operations will simply locate elsewhere. It's like any other kind of technology-- you can't \"undiscover\" it. Once something is known to be possible, there will always be people who want to experiment with it. Whether human cloning occurs in the US or is outsourced to another country, I'm confident that it will occur.

Yes, It is inevitable! =

Originally posted by Peregrinus+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Peregrinus)</div>

Originally posted by albinox@
<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker

Is human cloning ok?

No. I think the technology will get banned. It's dangerous to do things like that.

I could see it possibly getting banned in the US, but if that happens, cloning operations will simply locate elsewhere. It's like any other kind of technology-- you can't \"undiscover\" it. Once something is known to be possible, there will always be people who want to experiment with it. Whether human cloning occurs in the US or is outsourced to another country, I'm confident that it will occur.[/b]

Well, no one has been able to clone humans yet, so I don't think we will have to worry so much about it. Maybe they never will be able to clone humans at all.

Originally posted by albinox
Well, no one has been able to clone humans yet, so I don't think we will have to worry so much about it. Maybe they never will be able to clone humans at all.

We're close. The technology needed to clone a human is not that different from that needed to clone a sheep.

Originally posted by albinox
Well, no one has been able to clone humans yet, so I don't think we will have to worry so much about it. Maybe they never will be able to clone humans at all.

What you said Peregrinus!



Yes, It is inevitable! Number 9. please come to the front , number 9!

Originally posted by Yume+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Perengis

I'm with Bradybaker on this one. This is going to sound just plain rude, but I simply cannot believe that someone who lacks such a basic understanding of statistical principles could have taken three statistics classes, even if only at the middle school or high school level and even if they were \"statistics for the game of basketball\" (or whatever that non-sentence about beauty and basketball is supposed to mean). Also, for the record, a secondary school math class (or three) is not qualitatively equivalent to a university-level mathematics course.

Sorry I meant to say I have taken 3 years of stats classes all at which are at the beauty of the college with the best WCC basketball team. Gonzaga is a nice college.

And with such logic as, \"Each person's individual choice to have kids, not have kids, or define the variable of the number of kids they want reflects the statistics of the data so even if you actually had accurate data it could have changed because it is possible it could have,\" as perfectly circular as Giotto's proof to the Pope of his artistic skill, how could you not win your debates?

But I will agree with you on one thing, this discussion diverged a long way back.. somewhere on page 2, I think.[/b]

Sometimes in Lincoln Douglass debate that can go against you. Also in CX that info can really hinder you.

We'll just leave it be. It is a waste of time. We all have our opinions.[/b]

Yume all I have seen you do is saying that Peregrinus' information and knowledge is invalid, without any reasons why. You say you know better then her because you took more highschool classes but thats not really a solid argument to back up your statements. Peregrinus has provided facts, information, etc. and you've deciced not to acknowledge those without any clear reason. So I'm interested in your reasonings why she is not correct.
This is not about opinions, but about the facts.

Ill make this simple:

1-cloning whole humans= bad

2-genetic modification= bad

3-cloning hearts and other organs= good

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
reasons for my answers:

1. cloning whole humans: I dont really have a reason why this would be wrong other than my own religious beliefs and political beliefs, (to each his own)

2. genetic modifications: The fist people to have this done to their children would probably have complications and whatnot, (what if your child wasnt meant to have something you gave them, so it clashed with some other natural bodypart and made them look bad (defined chin, smaller nose, bigger nose, etc...) also your child might be looked at as an outcast of society, or you would make naturally "beautiful" people have a disadvantage, there could also be something with the sports thing, like when your child being gifted at sports grows older and tries to join the league hes rejected because he was "given" his abilities thus putting naturals at a disadvantage

3. cloning hearts and other organs: I thyink that this would be widely accepted, as long as you didnt kill a baby or something like that, this would be the same as building a fake heart from fabric (not possible I know but you get the point ) you wouldnt be killing anything or taking your soul away. Im sure there would be some people that rejected it but still many more would accept it. the only way that I can see this as bad is if you made new better muscles for athletic purposes or better eyes or something like that, (as long as you stay in what a human can normally have). also overpopulation may be a factor in the future but im sure that there would be a greater number of suicides as well.

(excuse me if this was way off topic of what your talking about now but I only read 3 pages )

i would wanna get my future hot wife cloned, if you know what i mean