Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   LAVA - Lossy Adaptation Via (Natural Selection) of Alleles (Explained)
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 31 of 51 (526600)
09-28-2009 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Blue Jay
09-28-2009 2:28 PM


Re: Hypothesis Testing
quote:
read some of his posts to get an idea of the depth of the insult intended by comparing you to him.
Actually, upon reflection, I feel that I owe Brad an apology. While his writing style is, well, let's say ideosyncratic, I come away from his posts with a vague feeling that he's rather intelligent and knows what he's talking about. I get neither of these impressions from reading ACD's logorrhea.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Blue Jay, posted 09-28-2009 2:28 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by AChristianDarkly, posted 09-29-2009 2:23 PM subbie has not replied

  
AChristianDarkly
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 51 (526873)
09-29-2009 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Larni
09-28-2009 1:38 PM


Well. Now we all know what kind of creature Boba-Fett is.
Yes. I went through some of the articles on HT written by the American Journal of Psychology, and completely missed that they use a lot of stats.
Did you also, somehow, miss the whole ABC thing made in the post to Bluejay? Do you also not get it? Then try the 2nd-next post to Bluejay; it has even more humour and ridicule in it, and is at least twice as clear.
If you still do not get the point, then that is very, very, very much your problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Larni, posted 09-28-2009 1:38 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Larni, posted 09-29-2009 1:33 PM AChristianDarkly has replied

  
AChristianDarkly
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 51 (526877)
09-29-2009 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by subbie
09-28-2009 2:07 PM


Is this not a forum dedicated to correcting the errors of mindless fanatics?
Are you not one of the more active members?
And you have a problem with ill-defined terms, or the misuse of terms?
And all submissions must be of article standard, or nice and bite-sized.
Why not put all this on the main page of the forum.
I have read through my post, yet again. It seems to me to be rather straightforward. Try ignoring the brackets, and reading what is left. That is quick. Impedance goes way down.
Clarity. You should note, when ignoring the brackets, that the contents of the brackets are there to provide just that. Sometimes :-) The style is weird, I guess. But not irrational.
(There is no devil that indwells the Tome of the Demon. Really. It will not eat your face off, because it does not exist.)
My brand of self-contentment is cheaper than weed. That alone makes me more happy.
More than one thread runs through the main post. They are related. I picked the funky one for the topic title/ focus. Again, they are related.
=====
While in principle it sounds nice to say that a simple idea can presented simply, that is not a truism. As you wish, so let it be: {A Challenge: See if you can spot the simple idea that is LAVA. Hint. It is not quite as obvious as all that.}
* Let it be assumed that the reader knows what natural selection is.
* Let the word 'Adaptation' have the following meaning: (AVA): Adaptation Via natural selection of Alleles.
* This process is, exclusively, playing Lego {*} with alleles. Or the alteration of gene frequencies, if you want, due to selectors in nature.
{*} (registered trade mark - please do not sue me, oh lawyers of a very large corporation)
{There was some justification for saying all this, but it was removed in order to preserve clarity.}
* It seems obvious {justification DELETED: in order to enhance clarity} that natural selection will tend to, as natural conditions change, to actively reduce the number of alleles. This is what is meant by 'Lossy', i.e. L(AVA). But, of course, {DELETED.}
Normally, the loss of large quantities of BOB+ {Not know what BOB is? Too bad. Clarity is important.} would bother people. What can be said about BOB? The following is very interesting: {DELETED}
So, of course, what now follows is:
* Let it be assumed that alleles are not trivial to make {DELETED}, and that the loss of an allele is not a non-event in terms of BOB+ {See bracket before previous bracket before the previous bracket.}
* In order to lend some support for the above, let there be a not-overly-complex guess-ti-mation of some of the factors that would influence the rate that BOB should be occurring at. {See previous bracket.}
* In order to lend some support for the above-the-above, let there be a not-overly-complex guess-ti-mation of some of the requisites that would dictate the rate that BOB would have to be occurring at. {See previous bracket.}
So, what does this all mean? What do these comparative rates of BOB {you guessed it} imply?
Of course, as stated previously in the section on {DELETED}, BOB can be tracked in the real world. This would mean that real rates could be measured, both for LAVA {see main topic post title; explanation deleted to further enhance clarity}, and BOB+. This would logically, it seems, make it possible to actually validate the presence of BToE {you guessed it in one, again} in the real world. Thus allowing for a relatively simple way to shut those stupid IDers up! Or vice versa.
Would it make sense to try and debate the above? Is it short enough yet? Clear?
Spend a few moments, and try and understand that while I was trying to be humorous, I was also completely serious. Really. There is no way to make this whole argument short. Not without ending up with something like the above.
Do you get my point? Please reply to this question. (If not, then there is nothing more to say.)
In the spirit of all my other brackets: {If you do not understand my point, and still want to insist that I somehow magically shrink everything down to the size of small nail, and that if I do not, you will have to seriously and very maturely, as a scientist of course, have to consider ignoring me... go ahead. But kindly do not try and pretend that you are some kind of super-duper 'adult', and that I am some kind of mentally deficient idiot. You lot decided on Ad hominem circumstantial and Ad hominem abusive. Kindly do not attempt to shift the blame for your miss-judgements onto me, and kindly note that your silly paranoia about the Incredible Mind-Eating Evil of the Tome of the Demon is SILLY. If you want to continue with the pretence(s) of the Tome of the Demon, knock yourself out. God knows I'm getting tired of it. Cry wolf much?}
I do not now what I am talking about. Really. If you want to be concise, i.e. clear, you should say that it does not look as if I know what I am talking about. Since you freely admit to not having read the Tome of the Demon.
In fact, it would be so, nice, if all of you tried to practice that kind of clarity. Just an idea. You may notice, or not, that I usually do try and practice exactly that kind of clarity.
Well, since you freely admit to not having read the Tome of the Demon, and that you have no (apparent) intention of doing so, just what does that imply in terms of your continued participation? Under the terms you have outlined, of course, Sir.
If the point I tried to make about the stating of the simple ideas involved is not acceptable to you, then that leaves only your first choice, I would think.
Perhaps the three of you (+bluejay, +DrA), should each cast a vote: End It, or Go On.
=====
All that I have seen from you, is label-gunning.
You call it picking out what you can see, out of the nonsense. Which of course is nonsense, big surprise, without the context of the Tome of the Demon.
I call it ad them hominems.
Since the Legend of the Tome of the Demon has now attained such power among all of you, negating any attempt by anyone to read it, ever, I am wondering if there is any more purpose to this post.
Do you all agree?
Edited by AChristianDarkly, : spelling mistake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by subbie, posted 09-28-2009 2:07 PM subbie has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 34 of 51 (526878)
09-29-2009 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Blue Jay
09-28-2009 2:33 PM


Dude, thought we were cool with this; don't sweat it, man.
I just wanted to pick Darkly up on it; I do it all the time

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Blue Jay, posted 09-28-2009 2:33 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
AChristianDarkly
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 51 (526879)
09-29-2009 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Blue Jay
09-28-2009 2:28 PM


Re: Hypothesis Testing
I am replying twice to you. This is a response to your post. The second I wrote before I even saw it - it was a just-in-case.
{{29}}
Have confidence that someone, here, will just understand what I write? I wish! Have you not read all the previous posts?
My entire point was conveyed as the letter 'b'.
I see. So the Tome of the Demon is, literally per definition, incomprehensible garbage.
If I had known this, I would have never even started posting. My mistake. Live and learn.
Please read the bit about voting for the end of this topic in my previous post to Sir subbie.
(And DrA, if you are reading this, please also post your vote.)
Either this 'No! the Tome will eat my mind!' stuff has to end, or this post is dead.
It is literally that simple.
Really. 4 sentences. Since you did not get the point, how can you tell?
You confuse me. Your insults are somewhat sophisticated, yet your comprehension sucks. Its like you are both young and older at the same time.
Brad McFall writes like a classic sociopath. Of course, I write like a schizophasic, but only on the surface. So I am not insane :-) But I think he is.
You are an unpleasant little shit, aren't you.
No. Hypothesis in science, and HT {a technique} are not the same thing. There may be some kind of conceptual similarity, but no more. (Um. You are really screwing the pooch here.)
Shift... Heh. What an odd thing to say. I have problem with the definition of the term 'evolution': due to DrA's efforts, I have changed that to BEvolution, to limit it to a subset of it 'full' meaning (whatever that may be). {In fact, I have come to realize that since I do not actually use concept directly, I might as well ignore it.} I also insist on not equating the word 'adaptation' to 'evolution'. Then I define it as the altering of gene-frequencies, via natural selection. This should not be a problem, but for some weird reason, this is not allowable. I suppose I would have changed it to BAdaptation eventually, in an effort to get the debate moving along. Does not seem like that will be happening now.
My point is this: I have gone to some effort not to try and alter the meaning of words: which is why I rather tried to create little 'things', with specific meanings to each, so as to be exact, so that there would not be confusion. Instead of seeing it in that light, I was called insane.
But you are just being inane.
Pardon me, but you are not correct in your statements. I assume that the others will not correct you, here, since being a rabid fanatic I will immediately claim victory, and run off into the world proclaiming it far and loud.
I am not completely wrong, and for saying that, I am adding my just-in-case-post I had prepared for you. Which, while quite funny, is rather nasty.
You are, however, incorrect in stating that the process which was used in the case of smoking is identical to that used in linking ToE to natural selection. I am not sure how to correct your statement - it is very wrong. Wolfram does not think that natural selection is the main drive behind ToE. What does that tell you about the state of it being 'proven'?
'The four year...' Tending. Seem to. Which is my point. Sigh. 'Proven'?
On second thought, I'll tone down the second post: hitting someone like you is no fun. I mean, you are a jerk, but...
Sigh. Dude... you seem to miss the point about why B is required. It limits the possible explanations. Hence the biochemical thingy.
You are quoting without comprehension. (Heshey-Chase paragraph.)
{edit} You mean what I mean with AVA? That is trivial. Or are you going for broke and mean ToE?
Biochemical mechanism for evolution,- Sigh. Please take all your posts to one of the senior people here, and have a long set of chats. Either DrA or subbie would, I am sure, not mind going through your posts and pointing out your mistakes.
Yes. Increasing risk, not cause. I know. Hence the whole 'stats' business. I meant to say 'can cause'. Sorry.
Heh. The link is absolute {as you likely to get}. But that is not the point. Certain chemicals 'can' cause cancer. Several of them are in cigarettes.
B.
Ok. My spelling sucks - I would be lost without Word. Hence the 'smuck' and not 'schmuck'. You got me there.
Your final comment might have inspired me to retaliate before, but now your post just depresses me. In a few years, you too can be a master label-gunner. But not yet, young padawan.
Your initial post got me. Fooled me it did. I thought you were merely typing rapidly. But you are not even a proper label gunner. You are not yet one with your bullets.
And I am also fairly certain that you effectively misrepresented yourself in post#22: 1000's? And you still reason at this level? Before EvC I posted maybe 5 posts in my whole life.
Ok. Accepted. Maybe you're just a bit slow. Guess that is possible.
I should have known then. Sigh. Well, so I guess you have made me look stupid by attributing (far) more to you than you even started to deserve.
Again. Darwin might love the taste of my flesh. No more.
Edited by AChristianDarkly, : removed unclear meaning (maybe 5 times - maybe 5 posts)
Edited by AChristianDarkly, : {edit} perhaps I misunderstood

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Blue Jay, posted 09-28-2009 2:28 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 36 of 51 (526881)
09-29-2009 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by AChristianDarkly
09-29-2009 1:11 PM


If you still do not get the point, then that is very, very, very much your problem.
Sorry, dude; I'm a bit touchy on the subject and did not get the humour involved.
It's easy to miss the stats; I find them fuck boring when I'm doing research

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by AChristianDarkly, posted 09-29-2009 1:11 PM AChristianDarkly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by AChristianDarkly, posted 09-29-2009 1:39 PM Larni has not replied

  
AChristianDarkly
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 51 (526883)
09-29-2009 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Blue Jay
09-28-2009 2:28 PM


Ode to the B
I have had an epiphany. Thank you, Bluejay.
It has often been said that mental rot has taken over the universities of the world; that the work they do has become almost universally worthless, meaningless. Garbage.
It is clear to me now that the underlying cause of this is the Theory of Evolution.
More specifically, the indoctrination of students with the kind of vacant-headed statistical-'science' that underlies ToE.
You are a perfect example of this. Again, thank you. And I am not kidding.
Someone, like Newton, would be sitting under a tree one day, and have a bird poop on his head (the Apple story was just a sanitized version, don't you know). Before that time, everyone of course knew about the Great Rule Of Dropping Stuff. What Newton did that was different, was that he had the idea that matter attracted matter. It was an awesome idea {*}. This was a different idea from that of the Great Rule Of Dropping Stuff. People were, like, surprised, and stuff, you know?
{*} {Not as awesome as the competing hypothesis (oops! you would call that an Unshakable Obviously-Proven-To-Be-True Full-Blown Scientific Theory; sorry!) of the sky pressing everything down to the ground. Or the repelling power of the colours blue and black. Or the sin that is the world being pressed down towards Hell by God.}
If you cannot grasp the difference in the above conceptualizations, kindly go to the nearest beach, and start surfing until you die, someday. Hopefully happy, at peace, and fulfilled. Weed can do all that for you. Please. The Father of Reality really wants you to just shut the hell up: you have no idea how annoying you are to Him.
Now. Newton was a scientist. A real one. You, and the legion of little pip-squeak morons standing in line behind you, are not. You are all just children. And stupid.
Now. It is possible to setup experiments, and test the Great Rule Of Dropping Stuff. And Prove it. Conclusively. Via hypothesis testing. {Only here on earth, however. So let all this be happening in, oh say 1899.}
You could then re-use the above measurements, and prove the Theory Of Pressing Sin. Conclusively. Via hypothesis testing.
With really accurate measurements, {with a field painted blue, and a candle, at night} you could even disprove the Theory of Repelling Colours. Conclusively. Via hypothesis testing. Too Cool! Yeah!
It is possible to setup experiments, and test the matter attract matter thingy. And Prove it. Conclusively. Via hypothesis testing. {You go and read up on it, if you like, surfer-dude!}
If you somehow still, after reading up, cannot fathom the difference between them; again, the beach awaits your coming, breathlessly.
(Fundamentally, your problem is that you are utterly allergic to reality. People like you build a virtual conceptualization of the world, and then take up residence. The clinical term for this state of being is 'insane.' Fortunately, your models are, generally, so sophisticated that you can still function somewhat in society. Of course, you are a gibbering, ignorant, idiot, but you have many friends, all of them just like you. How cute!)
At this point, I could again try and show how ToE fails to fit into this evil, old-school, discriminating kind of science. (Or you can go back a re-read my previous post {25} to you.) But I think that at some point you, yourself, will have to activate your own little grey cells. The challenge of attempting such a feat might invigorate your otherwise ossified mind; perhaps a gear or two might even make a partial revolution. Who knows.
I cannot un-stupid you. And I really fail to see why I should even try, any more, to try and talk reason with you. After all, I am not here to try and change the mind of people; for example, like you: I am simply trying to debug something. You are not helping in that regard. You cannot help, I now realize, because you are fundamentally irrational, and insane. Perhaps you really are, functionally, a schizophrenic?
Good luck with all that, little moronic child. And Goodbye. I herewith invoke the Adamantium Boots of Oz and make you uncreated to me.
Clink-Clank-Clunk. Poof!
Hey! Where did he go? Bluejay? Bluejay! Oh my god, they killed Bluejay! Those Bastards!
=====
Even if, somehow, I have sunk so deeply into insanity that the above is all actually irrational, and poor uncreated Bluejay was in fact rational (may he smoke weed in peace), it does not affect the arguments in the main topic post. Very much, anyway. Not that anyone would realize this of course.
If I am correct about the worth of the statistical proofs used, in general, to 'prove' ToE, then the methodology suggested in the main topic post would be rather necessary.
If I am incorrect (i.e. pretty much nuts) then it would be far less necessary, but still quite useful as a set of checks to run in parallel (but completely separate) with whatever else is being done.
Of course, if I am nuts, then obviously that invalidates everything I have ever, and will ever, say, write or do. Wait, isn't that like an odd-homo-sapien-attack, or something like that? Duh. Sometimes me am just so stupid. Me are sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Blue Jay, posted 09-28-2009 2:28 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Blue Jay, posted 09-29-2009 3:25 PM AChristianDarkly has replied

  
AChristianDarkly
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 51 (526884)
09-29-2009 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Larni
09-29-2009 1:33 PM


Ha. I've been stuck with one problem at work for more than year. My hatred for stats exceeds your own. I hope, otherwise your life must suck...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Larni, posted 09-29-2009 1:33 PM Larni has not replied

  
AChristianDarkly
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 51 (526892)
09-29-2009 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by subbie
09-28-2009 2:34 PM


Re: Hypothesis Testing
Interesting. You read... that. And then say... this. Mmmmm.
I feel like this highlights something, but I can't quite put my finger on it...
I have these vague feelings, and some odd impressions floating around in my head... Damn these drugs, I feel like I've been shot through the cerebral-cortex.
===
logorrhea: "incoherent talkativeness occurring in certain kinds of mental illness, such as mania."
"Logorrhoea is a symptom of an underlying illness, and should be treated by a medical professional."
Ouch. Insult via dictionary & www, take 2.
Edited by AChristianDarkly, : more wiki

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by subbie, posted 09-28-2009 2:34 PM subbie has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 40 of 51 (526907)
09-29-2009 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by AChristianDarkly
09-29-2009 1:37 PM


Re: Ode to the B
Hi, ACD.
ACD writes:
oops! you would call that an Unshakable Obviously-Proven-To-Be-True Full-Blown Scientific Theory; sorry!)
No, I wouldn't. There is no such thing as "proof" in science. That's what I meant when I wrote, in Message 23:
Bluejay writes:
Neither hypotheses nor theories are "proven": statistics is the only tool used by any science to demonstrate the accuracy of any hypothesis. The term "hypothesis test" is a statistical method, and a hypothesis that has "passed" enough of these statistical procedures is considered a theory.
I thought for sure you should be able to keep up with a simple statement that I made: I mean, after all, you can keep up with all the voices inside your head, so how hard could one statement be, right? Well, I suppose I've learned my lesson.
So, just to be sure you caught it this time:
SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ARE NOT "PROVEN TO BE TRUE."
This includes evolution and gravity.
Perhaps now you would care to address my argument for what it is, rather than for what one of the voices in your head seems to think it is?
-----
ACD writes:
Sigh. Dude... you seem to miss the point about why B is required. It limits the possible explanations. Hence the biochemical thingy.
Then, by all means, provide for me the biochemical mechanism by which smoking causes cancer. You might be surprised to learn that this biochemical mechanism to which you allude is not actually known at this present time.
E.g., see Hu et al (2009). Toxicology Letters. 190(1): 23-31, which states, in the first sentence of the abstract:
quote:
Despite the significance of cigarette smoke for carcinogenesis, the molecular mechanisms that lead to increased susceptibility of human cancers are not well-understood.
...and proceeds to describe a correlative, hypothesis-testing statistical experimental study that Hu Yingchun and a swarm of co-authors did to find support from a transcriptome level for the theory that smoking increases the risk of cancer.
All science uses the same methodology, and no science ever proves anything true. The word "theory" does not mean what you purport it to mean: it refers to a largely successful hypothesis, not to a proven fact.
Once you realize that, your entire argument becomes meaningless.
-----
ACD writes:
Ok. My spelling sucks - I would be lost without Word. Hence the 'smuck' and not 'schmuck'. You got me there.
My "schizonphrenic" (Message 23) went completely under the radar, though.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by AChristianDarkly, posted 09-29-2009 1:37 PM AChristianDarkly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by AChristianDarkly, posted 09-29-2009 5:20 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
AChristianDarkly
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 51 (526927)
09-29-2009 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Blue Jay
09-29-2009 3:25 PM


Re: Ode to the Bunny
Whoo.
The degree to which you defend your 'point', while missing the point, is a purple bunny (might as well start acting schizophrenic.)
The problem with label-gunning, is that you start to see what is not there, jackass.
(You know, I rather prefer to be insulted for what is real. More fun your way, I guess.)
Did I ever reject statistics? Did I ever state that there is such a thing as 'absolute proof?'
I did not. Why would I. I am aware of the point you are trying to make. I kind of thought everyone did.
The g-constant in gravity is empirical. Which means measurements. Which means stats. Pretty much everything is measurements (in the physical world.) So pretty much everything is stats.
I know. I have not said otherwise. That, however, is not the point.
(Why does gravity exist, exactly? {Evolution? Heh. That is so famous by now.} No one knows. But so what? Matter attracts matter. This happens. Fact. But g is still {statistically} empirical.)
{Smoking}: Cancer is somewhat well understood, yes? It is known that some kind of biochemical mechanism causes it, yes? As opposed to being caused by magnets, or nearby lightning strikes, or eating too much cheese, or wearing the colour pink, or watching too much Oprah, yes? (These are all possible alternatives.)
Take a whole bunch of cell cultures: those you treat with carcinogens tend to get cancer. The others far less so. This is not an issue of degree, it is a question of causality.
But _more_ than that: cancer cells show certain types of damage. It kind of makes sense to the experts that certain chemicals can indeed cause those types of damage.
It makes sense. (REAL sense. Not imagined sense.)
Which is B. Which is my point. Is this getting through your evo-powered-brain-armor yet?
Sigh. Let me try another track: How do you choose A?
If you were to bother to go read a (good; just in case) textbook on stats, under the section on HT, you will notice them carping on and on about 'listing all the alternatives.'
B limits it down to one. Kind of. Until something better comes along. Such is science.
(It is hardly my fault that you do not want to adhere to the basic rules of HT. Sometimes being a rebel is just not right.)
ACD writes:
It limits the possible explanations.
B. Are you still blind? Do you not get the purpose of B? I am sure it has a fancy name. I only know it in terms of 'listing all the alternatives'.
Yes. I agree. It is the same basic procedure for all 'science.' But. Sometimes there is B. And. Sometimes not.
This is my point. I assume you get it now. (Or am I being silly.)
So. Is there a B for Evolution? Most certainly. With the magnificently fuzzy definition that exists for 'Evolution', you can indeed setup experiments that prove this. Conclusively. Via hypothesis testing. (Sound familiar?)
Now. I am not an expert. In pretty much anything. So I am reduced to picking up the odd little things that experts do say, and kind of limping along from there.
So. Did you miss my point about Wolfram? What do you think that implies about B for ToE?
Do you not understand what the implication is of what he is saying?
However. The question is actually a lot more basic than all this. To some extent, an expert is not required. Why? Because the rules of science are known.
You can see gravity in action. Pick up rock (matter), and it will move towards more matter (earth.)
You cannot see the process, or processes, that drive evolution. You cannot infer it directly (action on rock). Only very indirectly (fossil record, patterns in DNA, etc. etc.)
Sigh. Get it?
(A bit more bluntly then. ToE 'edits' DNA. This {general} editing process is _invisible_. Cannot be directly inferred.) {X} Unless you directly trace the action of ToE on the DNA. Aka BOB.
(This was the 'how well can you abstract' part.)
Oh. But silly me. If you cannot infer it directly, then just re-define 'evolution' until you can. Like saying AVA is part of evolution. Easy. Just like that. Snap!
Or you play with the dialectic, as with the so-called 'fact of evolution.' (See the damn Tome, or do not ask.)
This is my problem with the whole sorry setup.
Now. Not being overly well educated, but hopefully not being a complete moron, I came to this forum with my silly 'BOB' thing. Which simply leads to looking for ToE acting directly on the DNA. Since, however, no one will ever read the Tome of the Demon, that makes this conversation dead.
(Honestly, I never expected this kind of detail would come up, hence the less complex choice of topic-path, namely LAVA.)
I _think_ my understanding of BOB makes sense. Which is why I am here.
I _think_ the whole LAVA thing makes sense. Ditto.
Again, you confuse me. You say silly things the one moment, and then make a lot of sense the next. Ah. Dawn.
I am tired. It is past 11 at night, and I have to go work tomorrow.
I'll think about all this some more, and maybe reply again tomorrow night. Think I've said everything I wanted to, though.
And no. F@cking Darwin does not love. Evolution has the heart of a hungry and horny satanist.
{X2} HT isn't all that great, by the way. It kind of sucks, actually. To some extent, 'common sense' does end up being the final arbitrator.
Edited by AChristianDarkly, : {X}
Edited by AChristianDarkly, : (X2)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Blue Jay, posted 09-29-2009 3:25 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Blue Jay, posted 09-30-2009 2:32 AM AChristianDarkly has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 42 of 51 (527008)
09-30-2009 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by AChristianDarkly
09-27-2009 10:22 AM


Re: Evolution resulting in increased complexity
Does this render my gibberish more comprehensible?
I'm afraid that your meaning is still deeply cryptic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by AChristianDarkly, posted 09-27-2009 10:22 AM AChristianDarkly has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 43 of 51 (527015)
09-30-2009 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by AChristianDarkly
09-29-2009 5:20 PM


Re: Ode to the Bunny
Hi, ACD.
First off, don't edit posts after people have responded to them (unless the editing is specifically requested by the responder).
The reasons for this should be obvious.
-----
ACD writes:
Did I ever reject statistics?
Did I ever say you did?
-----
ACD writes:
Did I ever state that there is such a thing as 'absolute proof?'
Did I ever say you did?
-----
ACD writes:
The problem with label-gunning, is that you start to see what is not there, jackass.
For an example of this, please see the above-quoted material.
-----
ACD writes:
I am aware of the point you are trying to make.
How can you expect me to believe this when you're still spouting this crap:
ACD writes:
Cancer is somewhat well understood, yes? It is known that some kind of biochemical mechanism causes it, yes?
...Take a whole bunch of cell cultures: those you treat with carcinogens tend to get cancer. The others far less so. This is not an issue of degree, it is a question of causality.
But _more_ than that: cancer cells show certain types of damage. It kind of makes sense to the experts that certain chemicals can indeed cause those types of damage.
It makes sense. (REAL sense. Not imagined sense.)
Which is B. Which is my point. Is this getting through your evo-powered-brain-armor yet?
Nothing here is different from the way we do things in evolutionary biology, ACD. Please stop repeating this as if there is something profound here.
-----
ACD writes:
If you were to bother to go read a (good; just in case) textbook on stats, under the section on HT, you will notice them carping on and on about 'listing all the alternatives.'
B limits it down to one. Kind of. Until something better comes along. Such is science.
Uh... what is your point? Is it now your argument that I don’t understand what you meant by B?
Is it always going to be your first assumption that I am an incompetent cretin? Or are you eventually going to get around to acknowledging that I am, in fact, qualified to do science (which is, by the way, the reason I am doing science professionally)?
Get it? Sigh.
-----
ACD writes:
(A bit more bluntly then. ToE 'edits' DNA. This {general} editing process is _invisible_. Cannot be directly inferred.) {X} Unless you directly trace the action of ToE on the DNA. Aka BOB.
This is your big point? That no one has seen evolution happening?
Why did you not just write, "no one has seen evolution happening" in your OP, then? Could it be because, when you say it so directly, it sounds really stupid? Maybe that should have been a clue to you.
This may come as a shocker to you, but no one has ever seen any biochemical mechanism in action. This is because people can't see molecules. It doesn't stop us from studying quantum mechanics, so why should it stop us from studying evolution?
Have you heard about the lizards that developed a new organ in 36 years? (News article and source)
Evolution has been observed. End of story. You lose.
-----
{Added by Edit:
ACD writes:
...you can indeed setup experiments that prove this. Conclusively. Via hypothesis testing.
No, you cannot prove it. Stop saying that you can prove stuff with hypothesis testing. The best you can do is support your decision to not reject it. This point is crucial for you to get through your thick skull.}
Edited by Bluejay, : Addition.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by AChristianDarkly, posted 09-29-2009 5:20 PM AChristianDarkly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by AChristianDarkly, posted 09-30-2009 1:17 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
AChristianDarkly
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 51 (527183)
09-30-2009 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Blue Jay
09-30-2009 2:32 AM


The F@ck You Johnnies Post
Let me get this over with.
=====
The fact that I do not reject statistics, the very fact that my ABC path (aka proof) USES the same statistics as the AC path, should have cleared this 'proof' nonsense up. 'Proof' is a colloquial short-hand. Like what you use in informal settings, like a forum.
(Wiki and dictionary the word, if you like.)
You are the label-gunner, because you are blindly assuming, and then stating as fact, that I am not aware of the limitations of using the word 'proof', you silly little idiot child.
Clearly, you are making an issue out of nothing. I would assume for the purposes of not having to face up to the magnificent examples of stupidly on your part, thus far.
It is of course quite valid to raise the issue of correctly understanding 'proof' in the scientific context. Fair enough.
It should be obvious by now that I have at least a basically sufficient grasp of the ideas involved.
However. I think that it is quite obvious that you could not possibly be so stupid as to not grasp the difference between having a B available, and not. Therefore you are using this as an excuse to engage in endless, mindless, chatter. Aka bullsh@t.
You are playing debate-debate. Were.
Sorry. This is now over, little rat-f@ck child.
How does my being factual in pointing out that you are, observably, a label-gunner, make me one. You know, talking sh@t, like you do, just for the sake of talking sh@t, like you do, is childish. You teensy twerp.
=====
BJ writes:
Nothing here is different from the way we do things in evolutionary biology, ACD.
I will assume you are talking cr@p. More specifically, you are lying.
I am unsure how to respond to the rest of your chatter. Taking it as a given that you are a liar, and are engaging in debate-debate, I will perhaps spare a sentence or two, here and there, on your post.
BJ writes:
This is your big point? That no one has seen evolution happening?
No. It is not my big point. Not in these posts. (In the main post, it is a big point. After some restrictions and explanations.) Here it has to do with B versus no B. As you well know.
BJ writes:
This may come as a shocker to you, but no one has ever seen any biochemical mechanism in action.
Yes, I know that there is no way to look into a cell and actually watch the chemical reactions taking place there. And scientists responded to this by...?
As you well know.
ACD writes:
Oh. But silly me. If you cannot infer it directly, then just re-define 'evolution' until you can. Like saying AVA is part of evolution. Easy. Just like that. Snap!
You may recall this bit. At this point the irony is again mountainous:
1st) Do you not realize that your example is AVA?
2nd) Do you not realize that this is exactly the re-definition mentioned (done decades ago, by people just like you, Bluejay)?
WTF?
You are aware that through selective breeding, you can get Pekinese from wolves. (Essentially the exact same process as in your example.) I call it AVA. Look for it, if you want.
If you want to _define_ AVA as part of Evolution, then of course you can prove it. Just like you have just done. Just like it was done in your example.
Sometimes irony just jumps on you and starts dancing, Bluejay.
This is a big point in the Tome of the Demon. In fact, the LAVA argument rests on this.
AVA means simply playing Lego with already available alleles. Nothing new comes into being. Hence, my claim that calling this process evolution is deceptive as worst, and serves no purpose at best.
(Incidentally, I am quite certain this is why both subbie and DrA are absolutely refusing to read the Tome of the Demon. This is why they so are so deeply allergic to defining something like 'ordered complexity' {aka BOB for short}, from the fossil record.)
This type of thing is indeed a central proof of your all-embracing definition of evolution.
ACD writes:
And Prove it. Conclusively. Via hypothesis testing.
Obviously, I was trying to make the point about B in this part of the post.
Just more taking cr@p on your part, I know.
=====
BJ writes:
First off, don't edit posts after people have responded to them (unless the editing is specifically requested by the responder). The reasons for this should be obvious.
Are you perhaps referring to my editing of the main post? In that case the irony, oh the irony: you refuse to read it, {I blindly assume from the lack of any indication to the contrary} then complain that I edited it. Insinuating that I am somehow a dishonest piece of sh@t for doing so. Huh. Given the flood of complaints, surely I would have had more than enough justification to do a complete rewrite, not just make a few relatively minor changes. (Check the PNT area. The 'original' is not gone. Do a comparison if you like.) And as for the _addition_ of the W.I.P. section, for the sake of trying to make things more clear: well, that was just plain evil, was it not?
I post. Read it through a few times. Wait. Come back and repeat. Make edits (almost always very small ones.) Once I have done that, I leave it.
If you replied too rapidly, then that is your problem. Unless you want to accuse me of something. If so, please take it up with the admins, misrepresentation is against the forum rules, after all. Perhaps a record of all edits are kept by them. If so, then you have my permission (if required at all), to go ask them for it all. Knock yourself out.
=====
I find that I have a few things to say about you, to you, you despicable little worm.
There is of course no way that anyone can be so utterly dim-witted so as to not get the point I made (so many times) about B. Therefore you did. Therefore you are a liar.
Being dishonest is a bad thing: people remember, like I will. They will also refuse to have anything more to do with you, like I will. Right after this post.
You are a Debater. You do not, and likely cannot, reason. (Perhaps you can, but then that would imply that you are lying _so much_ that it is not visible.) You have a limited ability to abstract: you cannot make fine distinctions (again, lying would obscure this: but why would you want to look stupid?)
What makes you terminally a smurf, however, is that you do not actually understand what you read. I seriously doubt this is intentional, since it shows you up as a pretentious numskull.
Your 'intellect' seems to be based on pretense. Without either definitions, or articles, or chapters in books, to 'echo off' from, you are vacuous. (Which allowed the detection of your smurf-genes, FYI.)
Lastly. Little children learn an interesting game at some point: repeatedly asking 'why', or 'how.' You do the same thing, with just with more general questions. Perhaps this could be called baiting or leading, but I rather doubt that is what it is: it really seems to be how you build your posts. Which means you post cr@p, inevitably.
=====
I made several mistakes on this forum.
*) The first was assuming intellectual honesty from any of you. You, subbie, and DrA are all liars. You are the direct, obvious kind. {Either you are an utter moron, or a liar.} The other two rest on the fact that no one can know what goes on inside the mind of another. (You also make liberal use of this.) However. One can consider their powerful insistence against simply reading 'yet another lot of mindless drivel.' This truly makes no sense. I do talk a lot, but I am most certainly not gibbering. So why the insistence that I am? A reasonable man would conclude that they do not wish to be bothered. Fair enough. But rather than say that outright, instead they create two myths: the Tome and the Insane Author. That is a strong case for their intellectual dishonesty: hence they are liars.
*) In a sense I allowed the farce concerning the 'gibberish' factor of the main post to come into being. (I was not to blame for this however. I really was trying to be nice and accommodating.) Both subbie and DrA are, simply put, lying about the intelligibility of the Tome of the Demon.
Normally one cannot prove lying. In this case however, the test is blindingly simple. Read the main post, and see if the reactions to it are reasonable. I have asked two other people to read it. I told them what was being said here. They said you were all talking nonsense. One of them said you were talking cr@p.
*) There is no real justification for the way I have been represented here as being, actually, insane. This was made a part of the whole 'legend of the gibberish' construct. By subbie and DrA. Coupled to this, both subbie and DrA started saying that everything that I was posting was indicative of a kind of insanity. Not that I am not eloquent, but that I am insane. This, too, was part of the same underlying, deceptive mindset held in common by all 3 of you.
So far, it seems to me, not one of you has any intention of doing anything else besides perform mindless evangelization of Evolution. Or, in the case of BJ, mindlessly bullsh@tting until kingdom come.
Therefore it follows that attempting to converse with any of you is less than pointless.
Therefore I will ignore you three from now on, and hope that someone will come along and actually read what I wrote. And start conversing in a sane fashion.
Speaking To Some New Person:
My stated goal is the debugging of the Tome of the Demon. If you are not willing to help me in this regard, then I have no desire to talk to you. I am sick of just 'talking.'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Blue Jay, posted 09-30-2009 2:32 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Coyote, posted 09-30-2009 1:23 PM AChristianDarkly has replied
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2009 1:40 PM AChristianDarkly has replied
 Message 47 by Blue Jay, posted 09-30-2009 10:27 PM AChristianDarkly has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 45 of 51 (527185)
09-30-2009 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by AChristianDarkly
09-30-2009 1:17 PM


Re: The F@ck You Johnnies Post
My stated goal is the debugging of the Tome of the Demon.
And what "tome" would that be?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by AChristianDarkly, posted 09-30-2009 1:17 PM AChristianDarkly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by AChristianDarkly, posted 10-01-2009 2:01 PM Coyote has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024