alt.education

"Patriot Games" wrote in message
news:46df21b3$0$32533$4c368faf@ ...
> "James Powell" wrote in message
> news:XdmdnUgbauz1QEDbnZ2dnUVZ_tuonZ2d@ ...
>> "Patriot Games" wrote in message
>> news:46dc44e3$0$18991$4c368faf@ ...



Seemed to have missed my point in the original reply for this example.

>>> In a city of 35,000 there would be TOTAL births.
>> Correct.
>>> Of which 70 would be polydactyly.
>> Wrong.
>
> Only a FOOL would think so.
>

If you mean only a FOOL would think there are 70 cases of polydactyly, then
you are correct.



>> Now, this study ends up with a rate higher than yours ( /1,000 births),
>> but note the raw numbers. Do you still think you are going to see 70
>> cases in 500 births?
>> /content/tu447429n434g052
>> "One hundred and twenty-nine embryos with polydactyly were found among
>> 36,380 human conceptuses obtained through induced abortion ..."
>
> 2/1,000= . They found almost TWICE AS MANY.
>

Wow, Einstein. I guess my mentioning that the rate was /1,000 live births
passed right by you. By the way, that is one and a half times, not twice as
many.

The point, however, is that they found 129 cases in 36,380 pregnancies
( % of the pregnancies).

Now, explain again how you expect to see 70 cases in births ( %
births)?

Enroll in a remedial math course and quit proving yourself to be an ass.

James Powell