LAVA - Lossy Adaptation Via (Natural Selection) of Alleles (Explained)

 

It is highly unlikely that this post will make complete sense on the first read-through. Too many details. I apologize for my lack of writing ability.Try reading it through while ignoring all brackets. For a bit more clarity on a given idea, or just amusing chatter, read the brackets. 

 

There is a Work In Progress section at the bottom. The idea is help explain problems that are highlighted as this is discussed. 

 

At present this topic seems near death. No one wants to read the main topic post. Which makes it all quite pointless. 

 

 

LAVA - Lossy Adaptation Via (Natural Selection) of Alleles (Explained)

 

1859: Darwin had a Dream... Today: There is not one actual, provable, example of Evolution occurring in the recorded history of all of mankind. Even worse, not even one proper instance of the necessary precursor/partial DNA-activity has ever been seen. Ever. And entropy is rapidly murdering genetic information. Everywhere. All the time. {Grin.}

 

My writing style is a bit odd. I like it, which is what counts. (I've essentially been forced to be abnormally concise however; dunno if that is good or bad.) This turned out to be quite long since I had to define the required terms, here, and set some background as well. {This grew over a period of more than a week - and I ended sometimes using a term, or using a conclusion, before I properly introduce it. Oop.s}

 

Question: How come single examples of some 'problem' with Intelligent Design Of Life, aka IDOL, are held up as proof of its errancy. (ID can only claim to be a Hypothesis; the Theory of Evolution is no better, and probably {much} worse off.) But for the Theory of Evolution, aka ToE, each of a small legion of critical problems are allowed to continue? In a branch of SCIENCE? Why are there no standards when it comes to the 'science' of ToE?

I will tell you why: ToE is the premier foundational Dogma of Atheism - and modern politics is atheism.

Secular Humanism can not exist without ToE.

And where there is politics, there too are the lies of the dialectic: demonstrably the natural method of communication of the sociopath. {1:25 of people.} Real murderers, real child-fuckers. (This last can be re-phrased minus the descriptive word - but that would be even worse. {*} Welcome to the real world, Neo: where the Masters {of slaves} are not romantic. Evil.)

So. No matter what is written. No matter the facts. No matter logic. ToE shall remain as The One Truth. The Rule of Pretend 'science'. Fact. {Grin.}

{*} (Besides, no facts on Islam {MEMGLA}, no 'anti-any-religion' stuff is allowed here. I got it the first time. PS: Is NAMBLA considered a religion in this forum?)

 

I assume the reader knows what an allele (allows you to go from wolf to Pekinese, chop! chop!) is; and also therefore what a gene-pool is; ditto for natural selection of boinking thingies.

 

My goal here is, at the end of it all, to try and present an algorithmic-type argument that the ToE should be the Hypothesis of Evolution, aka HoE. This would place it on the same level as the H.IDOL (Hypothesis of IDOL)... I do the Creepy Hannibal lip-sucking-thing...

Take note that I am aware of the dialectic, so don't bother with it. But thanks anyway!

 

An anti-dialectic point: 'Everything' is not magically somehow 'conceptually' brothers with 'Evolution'. Every kind of change, every kind of 'data', is not to be considered identical with 'Evolution.'

That brand of dialectic insanity is just plain retarded: if you reason like that, then you are mindless (likely clinically insane.)

Adaptation via natural selection of alleles, i.e. playing Lego {tm} with existing genes; is absolutely not Evolution in any way, shape or form. To state/ think otherwise is utterly moronic. (No, I don't care about the damn dictionary! Ever heard of common sense? What were you given for yours?)

 

An anti-dialectic point part deux: 'Everything in the world is Science'; is also nonsense. Science is about proof. Without proof, all that is left is 'Hypothesis'. Sorry.

And I don't care about the smoking- statistics- is- 'science' thing. Until that was verified bio-chemically, it was simply a really good guess. A really strong possibility. An Hypothesis... Any practicing statistician (except a Religious Evolutionary R-evolutionary, of course) would agree with that view - I've talked to actual 'University Professors' (tm). Stats is not about facts or absolutes, it is about degrees of strength/ power. Only in the 'new' annals of 'science' is it used, solely by itself, as 'proof.'

I.e. saying that is 'looks as if ToE is true', is not science. ''Hey, we have five things we all think looks to show that ToE is true.'' That's nice. No proof for ToE, then it is HoE. (Hey, be damn glad buildings and airplanes are not designed in that fashion! Or cars. Or heart-lung machines. Or watches. Or condoms. Or...)

The Age of Aquarius = The Age of the 'science' of look-ee like-ee proof(s), aka LLP.

 

An anti-dialectic point part tri-ux {a fix}: What is science? It must be 'of-the-real'-understandable (see below-ish for a rough example when explain the 'how' of entropy; and also 'Virtual Worlds, Inc.') {ToE is not understandable, it is merely a comprehensible concept: it is not 'directly- real- world- rational' (entropy via chaos; gravity you can directly see in operation; etc.)} It must then be detectable, or measurable. (Not LLP! Not 'imaginable'!) This can be either in a lab, or via data taken from 'nature'. And lastly, since it is (almost) inevitable that reality will initially be misunderstood: all the component aspects of 'science' must always be open to re-examination, a.k.a re-validation. These three together constitute the Hypothesis, and the proof, and the endless re-validation.

(Yet another way in which ToE is a unique 'science', is that it per definition excludes ID. Note that ID can be the crystal brains of Mars, for all anyone knows - ID means some intelligence interfered. Perhaps ToE is true, but only for silicon-based live-forms...

Enter Old Mister Occam. It is known that there are such things as Intelligent Designers {a.k.a. humans.} There is a known set of processes {entropy} that are destroying the 'information' that are living molecular machines. There is no proof, whatsoever, at all, that ToE even exists {maybe it is just naturally perfectly invisible?} Occam therefore demands that the solution {selected Hypothesis} to 'where does life come from?' be answered as 'unknown I.D'. A cute argument methinks. That would be science, by the way.)

 

The Field of Play: The bedrock and endrock of any examination on ToE is DNA. No matter how weird or wonderful or subtle or complex or hidden the 'magic' of ToE may be: it MUST manifest in the DNA. {Wicked Grin.} Every little trace, of any of its actions, is made visible here: nothing is hidden. NOTHING. {Grin.} And more than that - any and all intermediate 'data storage'/ steps are limited, exclusively, to the DNA. {Grin.}

(So. Granting the assumption that there are areas {double-helix redundancy?} of 'non-active' DNA, where 'new DNA-segments' can be crafted via 'neutral mutations', these Works In Progress must be visible. Each and every one of them.)

 

So what is 'Evolution'? This is: It is (some) natural process(es) which results in BOB+.

The so-called 'Fact of Evolution' is the most significant foundation-stone (not debatable, a fact) in the arena of ToE 'reasoning(s)'. So: Let's assume the 'Fossil Record' is true and correct. As 'time' goes by, it is noted (from the rock-record) that 'fossilised'-life becomes more (and more) complex. Let's call this ''more complex'' an increase in the 'ordered-complexity' of life {a.k.a. molecular machines} (as opposed to just 'random-complexity'; i.e. tabulate values from some white-noise source); or INFO+. This is just a label. Let's rather call it BOB+ to avoid debates about what exactly 'information' is (given the damage that BOB alone can do, a properly workable definition of 'information' would of course allow the formal annihilation of ToE.)

So: give what is observed in the rocks a plain, functional definition (ordered-complexity): and also a nice catch-phrase. Cool!

So the definition of the concept 'Evolution': It is (some) natural process(es) which results in BOB+, which in the real world (at present at least) is stored in DNA (& mtDNA? - in terms of tracking ToE, it is just some more data storage to take account of), as genes (alleles.)

Ah yes, TalkOrigins, gathering place of the mind-dead (dumbies...): There is no 'Fact of Evolution.' {Grin.} Stored in the rocks or otherwise: there is only the 'Fact of BOB+'. The rocks do not say that BOB+ happened via a natural process - rocks cannot speak. They are silent. Very much so.

This 'unassailable proof' of ToE is an imaginary dream-figment. Another dialectic, clear as crystal; an example of moral and intellectual dishonesty of the first degree. Sad, really. Or really funny. Depends on your viewpoint: personally, flat-earthers amuse me.

 

As cute as the preceding little lie was, when it comes to natural selection via alleles, and calling a broomstick a Ferrari; TalkOrigins truly comes into its own.

Alleles are the Lego-blocks of Life (with different colours {alleles} for blocks of each type {gene-'slot'}.) They form the gene-pool for a given species. When faced with a 'selector' of some kind, as thingies breed, the relative percentage (a.k.a. frequency) in the total pool changes (example a higher percentage of 'tall' genes.) This is, classically, Adaptation via natural selection of alleles. It is also, by no means whatsoever, Evolution. BOB is missing. Boo hoo.

Obviously. How can anyone think otherwise? {Grin.} (Something fascinating has been demonstrated by TalkOrigins however: a great many people with high IQ's, have easily succumbed to the irrational dialectics crafted by those with even higher IQ's. Huh. {It's not paranoia... Thinking is hard work. And very slow work. Just rambling along, 'reasoning', 'thinking, like you know, stuff', is what leads people to fall to the wiles of the dialectic. Which is why hippies are such anti-real idiots - South Park got that right.})

This simple lie, told with such depth and conviction, so repeatedly, runs through the whole of TalkOrigins like a flame through magnesium (perhaps backup their pages before their re-'Evolution' begins...) Apparently everyone there is so fluff-brained, that they cannot differentiate between 'Evolution' and 'Adaptation'. What is even more amazing, is that I have yet to encounter a single ToE that does NOT have a death-grip on this obvious rational-fallacy.

(The Theory of Evolution, Natural Selection, Survival of the Fittest. All are held to be part and parcel of the same 'thing.' No. There is 'evolution', i.e. BOB+. Unproven. And there is, in the face of all the active selectors, survival with breeding, or weakness & death with no breeding. Proven.)

(Go ahead, page through TalkOrigins, keeping LAVA in mind - amazing... At this point, a very large chunk of TalkOrigins has become... well, kind of amusing, I guess: like a small Pekinese, with a big old steel chain, set into a block of concrete, trying quite seriously to rip your throat out.)

 

Oh. Of course ToE and LAVA are both supposed to work 'together' beneath the dreamscape of Evolution. So what? LAVA is still not evolution. And is science. And ToE still has to create new alleles. And is not science. (Those damnable higher order effect{s}/ manifestation{s} of ToE... nice thing about having DNA as the Place Where Everything Happens & Is Recorded For All To Examine At Their Leisure! {Grin.})

(The dialectic {similar type as 'Fact of Evolution'} phrase 'common descent' merges LAVA with ToE, and then says... 'Evolution is obviously taking place; ToE is happening in practice every day.' Yay! We is all happy with dancings!)

 

Given the prevalence of alleles in the world today, and given their fundamental role in aiding individual species to survive the harshness of the real world (natural selection!), it is an obvious requirement for ToE to (perhaps primarily!) generate more and more alleles. Not one (non-trivial) instance of this happening is known to all of mankind. {Grin.}

(So. ''Since ToE 'created' LAVA, surely LAVA is proof of ToE! Also, it makes sense to call Adaptation, Evolution! And every time Adaptation happens, Evolution happens! Yay!'' Heh. Funny. Almost got me there.)

 

This is (perhaps) off topic, but I may as well point out yet another dialectic crafted by the evil people at TalkOrigins.4.Squirrels: ''There are many separate instances (blood chemistry, bone structure, etc. etc.) of the Tree of Life being seen in nature; each one serves as yet another proof of ToE.''

He he. No. The Tree is a collection of 'Branchings'. Toe is said (by 'them') to predict a branching pattern of some kind. That is it. Proof? Where?

Ah; but the nuts never surrender: ''Each separate instance is a new proof!'' No. (And also LLP.) The Branching structure/ shape of the Tree is the LLP. Each instance verifies the Tree shape. Each instance increases the statistical power/ strength of the shape of the Tree. This is like using a pen to draw the same picture, in the same place, time after time. The lines mostly become thicker, more clear. That's all.

But; the nuts never, ever, surrender: ''Each branching of the Tree serves, independently, as yet another proof! They all add {or multiply!} together! Yay!'' (Also LLP again.) ToE predicts a branching structure throughout the organizational structure of life. Actually, it does not even predict a tree. So, no.

(PS: Um, are you aware that ToE was selected as an Hypothesis {yes it was one, officially, a long time ago} because it was supposed to match the branching patterning of the Tree of Life? {Historically that is: via bones. Additionally, Darwin also seemed to confuse AVA with ToE.} So how can you use it as a Proof of ToE? Of course, you cannot: just more verbiage, courtesy of the f@cking dialectic.)

Two more points to make here: a) As an example of 'the overwhelming support of the data for ToE' or 'the statistical strength of the evidence overwhelmingly proves ToE', it should be clear to the non-moronic that the above (and similar!) is pathetically lacking. b) The pure weakness of the above argument (and similar!): 'Toe predicts branching, of some kind; we see branching, of some kind. Yay! Science has proven ToE.' Heh. God, but you're a bunch of children: how did you lot ever end up in charge??? (No wonder people call you 'tools of Satan': how else to explain the eminence of garbage like this...?)

Oh. Forgot to include this: What is the IDOL 'explanation' for the Tree of Life? Simple: Biosphere. 'Circle of Life'. I.e. {Enables} Z Eating F, K, P and G. Dying, and then being eaten by N, Q and T.

 

I do not have a background in biology (of whatever flavour), nor in geology and archaeology (as applied to ToE arguments: I suppose there is some multi-syllable word for it: I don't care.) About those I cannot say very much. However the 'brush' argument, see below somewhere, (i.e. higher order effects; playing field) always remains valid. Given the above 3 dialectic examples that are so rabidly endorsed by those who are grounded in biology, geology and archaeology; if they are all that lacking in reason; then I see no reason to ever again take their word for anything. Ever. 'They are dead to me. All of them. Dead.'

(I am taking the radical step and rejecting all 'sciences' that have stood in support of ToE. Every one. You have cried 'Evolution!' too many times. Be gone, you-all of repute most low and foul. {Viva the 2nd Stone Age!})

These people are all insane; you do realize that, don't you?

 

Also off topic, but I either say this now, or several times later: The 'What I Would Think If I Was God-like' dialectic/ argument. Sigh. ''My pet hamster just does not understand me! Why! Why!!'' Guess, ya schmuck.

 

And YouTube 'simulations,' a.k.a. Virtual Worlds, Inc. What people like CDK007 do, is write convergent algorithms (specifically, Darwin's really slow parameter hunter) running off random number generators. And abstract universes for their algorithmic-abstractions to function in. That is it. Nothing else. (The 'outcome(s)' are inevitable, given enough time.) Do you get this? Is there really any need to say more?

Sigh. This is not hard to understand: program in a concept, and the concept will 'exist'. Virtually 'Test the ''virtual'' concept.' It 'works.' Awesome. So. What.

Rather than simulate the world, and look for ToE, these idiots actually directly code for the concept... (you know, I'm not sure what to call this sort of thing... technically it is a dialectic, and certainly so at the original source {Prof. whomever}. Mmmm. A 2nd generation dialectic, then? A monkey-lectic?)

The following is a bit more 'real': You build a real-world system, and try and 'evolve' it. First the built-in capability to resist 'mutation' will be rapidly overloaded, resulting in a load of sickly (built-in tolerances, per system, which allow for non-optimal performance) thingies; who will then slowly, miserably, die out. (Damaged alleles break very easily, just like the real thing.) Digital dust. Period. Obviously: WHY? Because ordered complexity is improbable (i.e. it is unstable, like a ball balanced on top of another ball), and chaotic deviations from it will usually be bad. (But ToE will fix it all! Yay!) And additive badness is not a good thing. Got that?

(You may, in a moment of silliness, think that this argument is an excellent way to straight-out disprove ToE. (This is {historically} perhaps the oldest {and first} type of objection raised to ToE.) Oh no! ToE works in mysterious ways, you see... It is out there, somewhere, just 'not perfectly understood'... So this argument is not allowed. But it is remembered. {Grin.})

(Another classic idea that has been 'disavowed': it is far easier to destroy, than it is to create.)

(And then there is this: Eating your own tail: ToE is supposed to be {at least mainly} driven by the engine of entropic damage. Ex. this means that for every 100% of damage instances, ToE scores maybe less than 0.1% 'possibly-good-mutation{s}' for the system. Most of the damage simply kills. Some of it degrades the {complete, overall} system, without death.

The problem is simple: some entity, degraded but mostly functional, will 'leak' BOB- into the gene-pool. There are many such 'leak'-sources. Time passes.

According to the common understanding of complex systems {which a gene-pool is}, entropy is continually assaulting the system, from all directions. Even with natural selection, highly advanced error-reduction systems, etc. etc... entropy will ultimately win.

According to ToE, the gene-pool will be kept clean, and BOB+ will also happen. In fact, ToE is apparently so awesomely powerful, that it went and created the above system - impressive.

Sigh. A deadlock. {Barring ever-zooming arguments based on less and less.} I wonder how one would break it... Entropy is powerful, and measurable. For ToE to so thoroughly dominate, it must be even more powerful, even more measurable. It is not.

So why bother writing this little sub-section? The 2 ideas listed above both make {apparent} sense. So which one is real? Mmmm? Proof, evidence, determines the reality of a given Hypothesis. {This is why LLP is such utter cr@p, by the way.} So. Now what? Program in simulations for both? How? Coding for the 2 concepts themselves is a pointless exercise - easier to draw pictures with a crayon, and just as irrelevant. And trying to 'program reality' {and get it right?!} and attempt to check them that way- Why bother? Why not just look at the real world? Mmmm? Because the real world does not show ToE. However entropy is there in all it's glory. Simulations-of-concepts are dialectics designed to paint pretty, lying, dreamscapes for the mind's eye. Bleh.)

 

Ok. Back to the grindstone: What is entropy? Why care? Let entropy be the chaos that dismantles ordered-complexity (i.e. murders existing {BOB}) until it becomes random-complexity; or if you will, that re-shuffles everything, no matter if it is ordered or not, until it is purely chaotic. (This is the heart of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: which, unlike ToE, has been proven to hold true without any observed exception, ever. Free energy naturally ends up chaotically altering matter. And then it is gone. Dust. Ever diffusing EM radiation...) Statistics does allow for a certain very low level of 'order' to manifest in nature {only for a while, however} (the classic example being crystals - which involves a trivial amount of INFO+)

ToE is supposed to be (fundamentally) driven by the kinds of damage that entropy inflicts {without exception} on all material objects (and energy?) (Via chaotic heat/ energy/ particle-flows that rend molecular/ atomic bonds; or background radiation that climbs into everything; alpha particles, gamma rays, UV, etc. etc. etc.)

Perhaps the best known example of this, is the hard fact that repeatedly copying large amounts of data results in errors: this is an absolute rule. Which also holds true for DNA. (Copy errors are a 'Very Bad Thing' {tm} for complex {molecular} machines/ systems.) And it just so happens to be scientifically measurable.

(Entropy, a.k.a. 'The Angel of Allele Death', or 'The Angel of BOB-', or... 'Perfect Anti-ToE'... {Grin.})

 

Life will not happen without some causal agent, in this universe (it is an improbability of not-comprehensible proportions. {If there is a 'sin' for ToE's, it is even thinking about the probabilities. Evil!}) For this reason a causal agent is needed {be it ToE or IDOL.} One thing that ToE absolutely must be, and quite obviously is not, is {insanely} strong: there is simply too much acting against BOB: entropy alone is hideously powerful; and all-encompassing as well.

 

At this point, it is a statement purest fact that Evolution has never been directly observed/ detected, so not measured, and hence not proven. (This alone forces the statement that ToE is not scientific; i.e. HoE.) Undeniably fact. (While the contrary is insisted upon, via the dialectic {by the same breed of nuts mentioned before} the actual dialectic nature of such efforts are visible enough.)

If ToE is even more powerful a natural force than entropy, and entropy is visible, in action, everywhere...
THEN HOW IS ToE HIDING SO WELL!

(Contrary to the 'Mystery' approach taken by ToE lawyers, it cannot simply 'happen' in some hidden place{s}, to periodically grace the world with its art-works.

ToE was/is intended as a trick to get around the limits of 'improbability' - but there are two things to keep in mind: a) the world is being watched; b) while purely theoretical, the Path of TOE is not a {complete} mystery.

We ~ can ~ see ~ you... ;-)

 

{'Robust' Genes.} So why care about entropy?

a) Well, ToE must not only generate BOB+, but generate it against the 'pull' of {all-encompassing} entropy. And not just that, the DNA which ToE is to have generated, is also (highly) resistant to {all-encompassing} entropy. And not just that, the molecular machines (a.k.a. living things) are themselves also resistant to {all-encompassing} entropy. And not just that, this all has to be true for every new allele 'created' by ToE... Let's call these little miracles 'robust' alleles.

b) Given that Natural Selection, fundamentally, runs off the damage that the entropy 'engine' ceaselessly inflicts, how can you determine the direction of the pattern? I.e. how can you (properly!) figure if something was generated via entropy, or if something was (properly) designed to resist entropy {at all levels {*}}. (Not to even mention the same LLP problem as encountered before... No proof, no science.)

READ THESE BRACKETS: {*} {all-encompassing entropy} (Since entropy is so nicely random, it has the quaint property of manifesting on every known & unknown level of {sane} abstraction - i.e. no matter which angle you look at a real-world object from, no matter how you conceptualize it, no matter which pattern(s) you see, entropy is there. Entropy is the truly universal law of 'change': and not in a good way...)

(Put another way: Entropy touches everything physical. Therefore anything related to any physical object, be it concepts or patterns, are touched by entropy.)

(Cute Thing: so ToE would have to create living systems that are resistant to entropy... which means that they must either have some way of discriminating between ToE and entropy, or otherwise they will be resistant to ToE itself. So. INCREASING the entropy-resistance would... Nah, couldn't be.)

 

{'Elegant' Genes.} (This is linked to defining what 'information' is, but a sidestep is better, methinks.) What has ToE 'created'? Alleles. Which are multiple instances of certain (very similar) gene-functions. So what ToE must create, where it can be measured, is this: NEW, &truly-unique (not a trivially damaged {in whatever way, via whatever mechanism} copy of another gene{s}), &fully-functional (it must work; and more the point, it must work at the same high level of performance expected via the median of all the other observable genes) alleles.

These types of 'elegant' genes are visible, in everything, and are everywhere. (And the median rather than the average, to enforce REAL compliance to this definition: no selling a rotten tomato for the price of a good one.)

 

{'Polished' Genes.} In general living thingies work extremely well - too well. Define 'polish' as extra gene-information that gifts small enhancements to performance. The example aimed at is that one gene (ex. shape of a given protein) will be altered in such a way that it fits 'together' with another gene(s!!!). Not only is life quite robust and elegant, but it is extremely 'polished'. It makes sense that this happens under semi-stable-selector conditions. HOWEVER, 'polish' is in direct conflict with Changes to Basic System Functionality. (I.e. as a product of ToE, it opposes ToE: a stability issue inherent to ToE-creations, perhaps?) For a 'new' gene, all those other genes affected by polish must ALSO be changed. (And become re-polished in turn.) Not only that, the available scope of 'valid' functional deviation will be radically reduced for the new gene (efficiency; but especially the impact on functionality.) This becomes a real maggot nest of molecular-machine construction-issues. The ONLY way this could work, would be for ToE to happen extremely fast... (which it obviously is not.)

'Polish' is an indicator of the 'rapid-ness' of ToE: either ToE is slow, and there will be no time/chance for polish, or ToE happens so fast, with such strength, that everything is polished. Everything is highly polished.

Oh, there is one other alternative. {Very Evil Grin.} That the world has been 'stable' in terms of selectors for such a long time, that 'polish' has come into being, and that ToE has, in effect, been locked out of the system... Heh.

 

Fancy DNA = Robust, Elegant, Polished DNA.

 

And Finally - Introducing The Topic: The logic-'brush' used here has a somewhat broad tip (and not exhaustive, nor complete, etc), but its strokes are still reasonably well defined. It is always possible to zoom in more and more and more. But since those fine ToE-strokes are to manifest in real-world living things, higher-order constraints must exist - specifically: detectable fancy DNA. An option which follows from directly this: DNA must change; those changes can be tracked. So unless everyone is willing to accept that ToE is as hidden (result = HoE) as the Lord Himself is held to be (i.e. super-naturally) some broader questions must have reasonable answers.

 

An allele is a Lego-block (tm) of living thingies. Whenever there are selector(s)-pressure in nature, the first response is adaptation via the natural selection of alleles. This is (relative to postulated evolution) very, very fast. (You can see it happening in a lab, if you wanted to.)

ToE is supposed to counter what is listed below - in fact, ToE is 'supposed' to be so powerful, that it does this with the predictability of a metronome...

 

Question Zero: What is the rate at which ToE happens? (Using the BOB definition.) This has been measured. It is zero. There has not been one single instance of BOB+ in the recorded history of the world.

{{ BOB+.rate(ToE, All Life) = not measurable {or experimentable!} = zero, zip, zilch, de-nada. }}

 

The Minimum ToE Speed (Rate) Question:

Velocity Trap 1: The ToE Super-Law, Type 1: As stated before, ToE must somehow, miraculously, as BOB+ happens to individual species, each specific BOB+ instance/ event must take other BOB+ instances/ events {from other species} into account. Needs feedback. So ToE must be even faster! {Since more and more iterations/ generations are required.}

Velocity Trap 2: The ToE Super-Law, Type 2: BOB+ instances inside a specific species must work together - i.e. walking upright requires a lot of changes. That needs feedback: gigantic amounts of it. (Ultimately driven by the process of entropic damage...) So ToE must be even faster! {Since more and more iterations/ generations are required.}

Velocity Trap 3: Life, all around, is resistant to entropy. Hence ToE must create life that is resistant to entropy. But this makes life resistant to ToE, itself. This slows down the whole ToE process (radically!) This slowness must be overcome. So ToE must be even faster!

 

Minus Problem 1: Lossy Adaptation. If some strong selector comes into play, and stays in play long enough, you will lose alleles. BOB-. And Quickly. And forever. This you can even measure - which is the classic backbone of science. (The more strong selectors in play, the better the stripping away of alleles: periodic environmental change, anyone?)

The Standard Counter-Argument to this is Gene-Reservoirs. Prove it. (I mean, step out of your little Mental Evolutionary Laboratories (tm) {MEL's}, and into the real world.) Your reservoir itself WILL BE under constant (time additive!) assault via adaptation & entropy: stasis = entropic death. Fact. The split-off branches, will have (significantly) smaller (and smaller) gene-pools. (And so be less important in terms of BOB+) As this process repeats, the gene-pool shrinks drastically: and the species becomes less and less able to utilize adaptation. Which makes it less 'fit'. Oh, and after a short while, the 'adapted' species can no longer inbreed with the reservoir... damn it! Too bad. Oops. (...and all these 'bad' things happen at a rate which can be measured, i.e. science.) (Um, why the hell are there any alleles left at all???)

{{ BOB-.rate(Adaptation, All Life) = finite, fast, understandable, experimentable }}

 

Minus Problem 2: Lossy Copying. (Entropic damage inflicted at all levels.) As already stated, entropy WILL cause damage during the copying process (when breeding). This you can measure (& draw estimates from) - which is yet more science.

{{ BOB-.rate(Copy Damage, All Life) = finite, understandable, experimentable }}

 

Rate Problem 1: Intermediate Stages - Natural Selection very powerfully opposes damaged/ non-functional genes. Since such a stage is an inevitable intermediary in the forming of new genes...

{{ BOB+.rate(ToE{full attempts}, All Life) = (1/k1)*BOB+.rate(ToE{partial attempts}, All Life) = not measurable or experimentable: not even one proper 'partial attempt' (an activity predicted by ToE) has never even been seen {example: like '10% of the required complexity', or something, of a new gene; that part of the 'iceberg beneath the water'.} }}

 

Rate Problem 2: Complex Systems:

Stability: ToE is, per definition, and especially for punctuated equilibrium (which has the interesting property that it does not have the nice rapid-feedback Darwin's gradualism did), blind. Simply, most of its attempts kill, or produce failed outcomes, etc... which means only a fraction of 'new' genes would end up being viable... which means there should be many, many, many more failed attempts... would all be visible, open to being measured... mmmm, strange how this is not happening, at all, isn't it? (On the ToE side of the equation - only a small fraction of the 'created' genes are viable.)

Complexity: The environment ToE has to work inside of (highly complex molecular machines {a.k.a. 'Life'}) is extremely complex: making something that can even work together with all the rest of the machine... magnificent in the required complexity, really. (On the ToE side of the equation - only a tiny fraction of the 'created' genes are viable.) (Especially true for punctuated equilibrium: absence of strong feedback.)

{{ BOB+.rate(ToE{new & functional}, All Life) = (1/k2)*BOB+.rate(ToE{full attempts}, All Life) = not measurable or experimentable }}

 

Rate Problems 3 & 4 & 5: DNA & its product(s) are resistant to entropy (robust). DNA is elegant. DNA is polished. Each of these implies that out of the number of 'resultant'/ fancy genes, are only a small number of those actually 'generated'. (Subset- of- subset- of- subset.)

{{ BOB+.rate(ToE{fancy}, All Life) = (1/k3 * {1/k4'3 * {1/k5'4'3}}})*BOB+.rate(ToE{new & functional}, All Life) = not measurable or experimentable, since ToE is not }}

 

So, roughly, the situation looks pretty bad for ToE. Many natural processes are busy hacking away at BOB. Hard-core, old-school science: the processes are understandable (which is nice), experiments can estimate these, and measurements can be taken from both lab experiments and nature.

There are, lots of, observed instances of BOB-.

There are no observed instances of BOB+.

And to top all this off, only the smallest possible fraction of all the hard work that ToE puts it, finally manages to graduate... yet somehow, ALL OF THE ICEBERG still stays mysteriously hidden... Mmmm?

You know, the absolute invisibility of ToE is becoming pretty annoying - at what point does 'extreme lack of instance-data' start to count against 'T'oE? I mean, can even a 'Hypothesis' survive such a lack of ANY supportive data? And ToE is supposed to be such a prolific little bunny... it has to explain the real world, after all. {Grin.}

 

Perspective. Always a good thing to have. So one last task is laid before you: remember that law-case with those stupid ID's, who were ripped a new one by the invincibility of ToE and its shining morally-pure paragons? Why not read an expert report, as presented by team-ToE's Dr. Pennock. So, what do you think of it now? Mmmm?

(Robert T. Pennock – University Distinguished Professor)

Oh. And a mandatory paranoid segment: I am personally of the opinion that the loudest voices in the ID-'movement', are in the paid employ of the 'Rockefellers', whomever they may really be. (Explain to me, then, why they ignore arguments like these? Why are the dialectics of ToE not entombed with scorn & shame? I'm not the first to suggest all these things, you know.)

 

By the way, Darwin did make sense about gradual changes - what exactly is the true (proper) reasoning behind why this is wrong? I mean, apart from the fact that it was never, has never, been demonstrated, of course. (Like anything else to do with ToE. And no damn dialectics.)

 

Epilogue: 1st: Where are the 'good', 'unshakeable' arguments for ToE? Mmmm? Putting aside the endless stream of 'fluff' (arguments/ debates/ dialectics), I have yet to encounter simple, sane, counters to the plain arguments presented here.

I do not think that there are any: alas, the dialectic: only verbiage, only mental vomit.

Sigh. It is sad that Reason has lost its value, perhaps it flickered for only a little while - the 'ideology of the moment' is the great mover in these dark days: it has become 'the truth' - despite it's obvious falsity, the dark irrationality.

Shrug. Very well then, but know that you have abandoned reason: even if there is no God, you have declared your lack of worth for all the universe to see. You fool. You worthless, foul, fool. You are not Sapien.

 

Epilogue: 2nd: And the little mandatory Christian segment: It is commonly held that people who go hunting for the correct 'god' {a sadly rare endeavour; and one complicated by the existence of devils- who- whisper- into- the- subconsciousness; and that dealing with a inhuman all-powerful telepath who desires to squish you, can be tricky}, are so weak minded that they are trapped by their own self-imagined fantasies - they are powerless to cling onto rationality & reality. Poor little things. Psychology says that of you... are you that weak? Why do you listen to the Psychologist-Scientists who say so? Mmmm? Because you are weak. {Grin.}

 

1859: Darwin had a Dream... Today: There is not one actual, provable, example of Evolution occurring in the recorded history of all of mankind. Even worse, not even one proper instance of the necessary precursor/partial DNA-activity has ever been seen. Ever. And entropy is rapidly murdering genetic information. Everywhere. All the time. {Still grinning...}

 

PS: Writing this took up the greater part of a week. Compiling the ideas took months. I write. Very. Slowly. {Shrug}

 

Written by (L-22-36): a minion of the Lovable Annihilating Virtuous Annoyer, (a.k.a. The Creator of fluffy hopping bunnies & their friends)

 

WIP = WIP = WIP = WIP = WIP = WIP = WIP = WIP = WIP
============================================The main topic post has turned out to be rather hard to read. This was expected, just not to this degree: for some reason it would seem to be almost unreadable. (I had two guys I know read it beforehand, and both of them understood it {found the experience rather painful, though.} So I don't know what the problem is: most likely we just know each other too well: adaptation in action ;-)The idea is that this be a work in progress. Already, two mistakes have come to light. I'll try and write add a small-ish section for each one, to summarize it, and talk about it a bit, in one place.Not reading the brackets here is probably not an option.What follows is W.I.P. It will change if needed. Unless catbert works for the devil and has me executed. Or, far more likely, the post dies.01.1) MF
01.2) CAP=========={-edit01.1- start}
(Definitions): The Mechanistic Framework (MF) (as used in this post)In the common usage, 'Evolution' is a general phrase, used to denote a general idea. Exactly what that is, varies from person to person.The most significant thing that 'Evolution' is famous for, is making life progress from annoying small squishy things to man-eating tigers in trees. Over a very long period of time.
This becomes observable when looking at the fossils contained in rocks: it is in fact where the idea comes from.
For the purposes of what is written here, this is called an increase in 'ordered complexity' (short-hand word-symbol is BOB+. Well, I thought it was funny. For those with slightly less humour, try BOC+ {big-@ss ordered complexity. But please go up and read why BOB was chosen in the first place.})For the sake of reducing arguments, let the sub-section of 'Evolution', that relates only to BOB, be called BEvolution. (BEvolution is simply an overview term of the whole BOB+ process. It is has no real importance as an idea, since the idea has no real function.)The big question is this: Why does/ did BOB+ happen?There is supposed to be a natural process (or set of processes!) that somehow does this. This process is not directly visible. It cannot be directly seen. In order to validate its existence, it becomes necessary to track its effects.
(Just to be clear: 'Evolution' is an overall descriptive term, while ToE is a process.)
(This process has been given the name 'the Theory of Evolution' {ToE for short}. There is an observable process in nature, namely Natural Selection, that is held to be what probably mainly underlies ToE. {ToE cannot be directly observed. Natural Selection can be directly observed.} To achieve yet more argument reduction, let that subset of ToE, detectable via BOB+, be named BToE.)So how would one go about seeing the 'tracks' of BToE?All life is built from DNA. The information to build a specific living thing, is stored in its DNA. It is stored ONLY in the DNA. (DNA is two long (physical objects!) strings of blue-prints of the little sub-bits & pieces & placements & controls & etc that make up a living creature.)
Should the process of BToE seek to alter life, it must therefore MECHANICALLY effect PHYSICAL changes to the PHYSICAL object that is the DNA.
Hence the word 'Mechanistic'.
DNA can be mapped, and the map(s) stored. This is an extremely important point: experts are required to accomplish the mapping. Once the maps are stored as arrays, they become irrelevant for the requirements of tracking BToE {as per the methodology suggested here.}
Therefore, as DNA changes over time, the changes can be noted and stored. And compared.
It follows from the way BOB+ was defined: when a new gene comes into being, and starts working in the real world, BOB+ is noted as having occurred.
At this point, the path BToE used to generate the new gene can be traced.
Very cool: this is a method which would directly allow one to prove that BToE is really happening in the real world. Or not.Something that is extremely nice about the above, is that the complexity of the actual mechanism(s) of BToE is irrelevant. It is like an invisible baker busy making cookies - the Baker can be a robot, a sentient trans-dimensional rift, or whatever: all that matters are the cookies. (Um. Do not try and stick God into this role! Proving that Natural Selection is the Baker is not the issue! Detecting that the Baker is working is the issue! I am merely highlighting a nifty property of BEvolution.)(The driving force underlying the mechanical changes is entropy: entropy randomly damages/ changes material objects: this is explained in some detail elsewhere.)
BOB+ is not an explicit mathematical definition. It most likely never will be. (The Grail of the ID movement {GID}, namely an obvious and clear way to determine to mathematically calculate the information content of DNA, does not exist yet, and maybe never will.)
BToE is supposed to utilize the changes that entropy makes, and as generation after generation of life passes by, more BOB+ is supposed to come into being.
There is however a very big difference between, for example, making 2 or 3 changes to a previous gene to make a new one, and making 10 thousand changes to make a new gene. Just for sake of saying something, let's call each such a change one 'level'. So 3 level BOB+ is not that hard to get, but 113 level BOB+ is pretty hard. (Actually, the complexity will not scale linearly: getting a 6 level will not just be twice as hard as getting a 3 level. But for the moment, this is a start.)And that is it.
{-edit01.1- end}=========={-edit01.2- start}
Copy & Paste of Genetic Information (CAP)Missed this - and it is not trivial. Oh well. I got too focused in on other stuff, I suppose, and missed (forgot, actually) this very important alternate pathway.
Namely: slice & dice, hack & slash, cut & paste (CAP) of sections of other genes to form new ones.
Sigh.First point. The mechanical framework still holds. Well, it should. This changes nothing except the rate at which BToE can theoretically generate new-ish genes or alleles. (Such genes will tend to be of low level BOB+.)Second Point: For the time being, let the mechanisms required for CAP to happen, be ignored. The MF does not care about what caused the changes to DNA. So looking specifically at/ for recombination, or gene transfer, or whatever, is not necessary for the detection of BToE.The picture originally painted was that of the 'shape,' the 'outline', the 'form', of a New Gene rising like a Whale from the Sea of Chaos - i.e. some gene (perhaps in an unused slot) is randomly (only) altered as entropy plays it's games until the rainy day when it is unleashed upon an unsuspecting world.Ok. CAP events would greatly accelerate the occurrence of ToE: more specifically, it should naturally lend itself to generating alleles. {*}
The main issues are therefore:
a) joins - Each join is, of course, to be crafted via the normal entropic/ random pathway - the difference being that only a very few sequential DNA molecules are involved. This would be real, actual, BOB+. {A join will need a small range to happen over; otherwise it is a trivial example — one single level of BOB+; nothing very 'new'} Also to do: Properly isolating the unique chunks: labelling the number and location of each occurrence of each chunk {which would also allow for theoretical 'ancient lost genes.' And where possible, for the sake of completeness, also identifying the source gene for each such a unique chunk.}
b) degree of chunkiness/ coarseness/ fineness of CAP. I.e. are there several joins.
c) and lastly the prevalence of this kind of gene-creation, as compared to the 'Whales'. Note that any singular occurrence of a unique gene-segment (no matter how many times it is replicated) will mean it is to be classified as a 'Whale.' (Even if only a small one. {**})
(The Whales may have been butchered, but they are still there in spirit... and their chunks. {I crack me up.})
{*} (Side point: just how different are alleles from each other? Would it be feasible to pick the most average {rather use median or some other minimization?} allele, and try and calc a BOB+ level for every other allele? The data would certainly be interesting... {note how this goes nicely with the requirement that a gene must 'go active' before BOB can be considered.})
{**} (Sigh. Will have to link length of unique gene-sections/ chunks to some kind of level, of something-like-BOB+, someday. What about making number of DNA bases a level of... WOB? WOC? {my allergy, namely repeatedly re-typing long phrases, sure is spawning a lot of children!})(Hey, this reminds me of natural selection of alleles again: if you were to accept ToE, then both AVA and CAP are processes that 'naturally' accelerate ToE. Cute!)All those rate equations and similar will have to be re-written someday: the level of BOB+ should be reflected in them somehow. The main problem now seems to be that a low level of BOB+ might be able to provide enough BToE to drive the world: rendering creation (and therefore detection) of Whales outside the scope of observable time.Well, damn. This has progressed to the point where some basic BOB-ing (comparison of alleles) should be possible. That is more than I expected, quite frankly: numbers can be so very pretty. But the point made in the previous paragraph sucks. Oh well. Ya got what ya got, I suppose. Rather than waiting for a dragon to be born (a Whale), one will now have to settle for watching lots of little birds hatch (alleles.) The rate equations will all still hold for this, at least.
Dagnabit! {Jumps up and down on hat.}===Something of great interest would be how alleles deviate from the (minimized) 'average'. While the maximum, but especially the minimum, levels of BOB+ would be of especial interest: how the alleles are distributed around those two would be quite an interesting titbit.
{It is to be expected that some alleles are so different, that they cannot be compared.}{-edit01.2- end}Edited by AChristianDarkly, : HTML glitchEdited by AChristianDarkly, : HTML glitch - square brackets are messing everything up - replaced with {}Edited by AChristianDarkly, : Seems OK now.Edited by AChristianDarkly, : Took out comments intend for admins in PNT area.Edited by AChristianDarkly, : Added WIP AreaEdited by AChristianDarkly, : Re-streaming of brackets. Try reading it through while ignoring all brackets. For a bit more clarity on a given idea, or just amusing chatter, read the brackets.Edited by AChristianDarkly, : added subtitle "The Legendary Tome of the Demon"

---

"Unity without verity (truth) is no better than conspiracy." - John Trapp

Well chipping at stone (~via definitions) I guess.I am not used to organizing what I write, quickly, so pardon the haphazard response.Yes, I am basically ignorant when it comes to biology. I did run some of the basic ideas past someone with a masters in biology, and also past someone who did his masters using genetic algorithms in engineering. I am not completely incapable of reason, however.
The viewpoint taken here is in a sense a purely mechanistic one - given the premise the sole thing ToE operates on is the DNA (and if not, then so overwhelmingly, at least, that it does not matter), this viewpoint can (and really should — an organic molecule, with some function, can be considered much like mechanical tool, with some function) still work.‘Immensely.’ ‘Mainly gibberish.’ Does that mean you think the reasoning-process underlying the whole post-thing is ‘immensely’ ignorant gibberish? Really. If so, Right back at ya, bub. With a bunny-bomb included. Otherwise: close to zero is close to zero, not immensely close to a gibbering zero :-)
To avoid a possible a misunderstanding here: please specify (a bit more exactly, for my little brain to grasp more easily) the lowness of the level of regard in which you view the post. Tx.Is the def for evolution acceptable?
If the def for ‘adaptation’ (with the understanding that the def is internal to the gibbering) acceptable?
If so, then have you read TalkOrigins lately? (Taking the rest of what was referred to also into account.)
Unless the definition you use for evolution is, well really fuzzily defined, what those people are talking there is obviously nonsense. Given the academic stature of the people who agree with it all... well. Hence the introduction of the dialectic - what else can explain such a general state of concept-rot?Hey. The creationist sites, and almost every ID site is garbage. Why should you guys be any more fortunate than (shudder) us in this regard?Is the point surrounding the basically irrational manner in which ‘instructional’ simulations are made, mostly OK?
If so why are such things, and they are everywhere, left to fester? Not your problem, true, but (and I do not know you at all), how much time do you spend cleaning your own house?
I am only a lowly fanatic, so I guess it means little, but I’ve pretty much been made unwelcome everywhere by simple virtue of trying to be reasonable about things. (Err, that sounds very pretentious — an example then: the bible versions issue: it is simply not sane to read a ‘version’ that was purposefully altered by a pair of ghost summoners. It is not an ‘option’. It is not a ‘choice’. Those things are cr@p. Um, this is not to invite a reply on this side-comment, or on things like it.)Most of all what motivated me was this: it is commonly held that ToE is ‘so easy to understand’ you need only slightly more than half a brain to understand it. Also, that the ‘proof’ for it is so clear, that only a nitwit will fail to accept it. (Unless I am mistaken, this is your view too, correct? You do know what to call someone who has absolute faith in his own mental infallibility, yes? {Hint - squirrels love them.})If this is not the correct way to view ToE; then kindly inform the world-media, and [insert illegal text here] people like Dawkins (Ok, I just have to say this- that guy is a retarded knuckle-head.) The point of the post (and from now on I will accede that it is all gibbering >:-) is that none of this is, in fact, true. At all.
It is a fact that the majority of the ‘strength’ of ToE in the public mind is based on fantasies. And no one seems to care about wiping away all that poop on the floor. And the walls. And the ceiling.The no-evidence for evolution ‘lie’ is not a lie. It is a fact, if you were to accept the framework given. What is meant by this, is explained in the post. A lot. It is, of course, quite possible that I am in fact not reasoning correctly (just as quite obviously CDK007 is not). If so, if you can see where (specifically) I am irrational, kindly point it out. Um, I don’t think that I am though.As for mutation killing BOB, that is not really what it was my intension was to convey. I suppose I do seem to say so here and there. The view I tried to bring over, strongly, is that the natural chaos which drives/ describes the 2nd law, is killing BOB.
However. As the title of the post would suggest, my main point (I assume in free for all there is no more main point, oh well) was that natural selection is, itself, busy killing BOB, in huge allele-sized chunks at a time.Well, perhaps your reply was intended in the same vein as the others at this time. If so, then I’ve just wasted half an hour. Time will tell.PS: To an admin — I kind of thought to remove what was before the ‘start’ and after the end. It was not the idea to make it part of the post. Should I not do this? Please advise (or just do it yourself, if you like.)

People are welcome to disagree with me. They are welcome to do absolutely anything they want to. Sometimes, however, I get annoyed when someone calls an apple a pear. It is a personal gripe-thing.

I have been trained by the CIA how to make you beg for death - using only the power of remote annoyance.Yes, I got the humor too. Of course, I actually meant it. No joke. Be glad...

Pardon me for saying this, but have you read the main topic post, in detail? Or do you really want me to just keep talking {and repeating myself over and over}? Et tu, Aristotle?The definition of adaptation, as used in the main topic post, is clear. LAVA follows from that, via common sense, but not definitively. Which is why I am here. If there are serious flaws in the logic used, kindly inform me of them. (That is why I am here: I actually want useful criticism.) There are supposed to be experts available here. That is why I am here.I do not admit to attempting to hijack the 'word' evolution. I did (at the very least) imply that it's non-specific, generalized definition makes it completely impossible to talk about, which I suppose implies that it should be altered to something else. {'Evolution' exists more as a general conclusion/ description of a kind: you can either disagree with it, or not. This is very silly.} I am, very simply, taking that which is most central to 'Evolution', namely BOB, and then ignoring the trivial fluff. Is this unreasonable? {When buying a second hand car, does the specific brand of tire polish used matter? Then why should I, or anyone really, care about the other trivialities?} {One could say that ToE does many things. The most interesting, the most important, the most difficult to achieve, is BOB+. Everything else pales in comparison. Everything else is comparatively trivial.}If you would wish to state the observed increasing of ordered complexity via the fossil-record 'fact of evolution' is less important than something else, kindly state what it (they) are. If I missed something (or several some-things) that huge, then I will be sorely disappointed with myself, and will have to very seriously consider ending this topic with - ''Oops! Me am just dumb! Sorries for wastings time of peoples.''==Simulations. Again, pardon me, but you are not actually addressing the point I raised in the main topic post. If my logic is flawed, kindly state where.Only a complete nitwit would argue against performing simulations, or the use of simulations, etc. etc. People like CDK007, however, do not seem to even vaguely understand what they are actually doing. Do you agree with the methodology of CDK007? {If you are unfamiliar with it, then of course there is no need to reply.}==Why would you have to close your eyes? Surely I am asking the exact opposite?The 'framework' is a construct of logics. If you can see where there is a flaw, please indicate such. This is why I am here.An overall statement about the 'facts of nature' does not mean much to me. Sorry, but that is just too general.=='Chaos', an abstraction? Of course. Everything is. Technically. I had hoped to convey the difference between a descriptive abstraction based on the direct observation of reality {chaos}, versus complex concepts that are intended to explain observations {ToE}. If I did not do this properly, I apologise.Again, I feel that what I meant with chaos, entropy, damage, mutation, change, etc. has been explained satisfactorily in the main topic post. You can call it OBAMA if you want to, but I am correct in stating that such random changes wrought in all material objects is the driving engine of ToE. {Entropy drives the occurrence of such events as 'mutation, recombination, lateral gene transfer, selection'.}CDK007 understood the basic necessity of this 'randomness'. If entropy is not the originator of this most basic level of 'change, and again I have made another monumental boo-boo, please do inform me of the correct way of viewing this.==Do pardon me for saying this, but no one, in the whole wide world, has yet managed to define the grail of the ID movement, namely 'Information' (as it relates to the content of DNA). Expecting me to do so is neither fair nor reasonable. And more importantly, I contend, not necessary.There is no such animal as the Grail of ID (GID). For the purposes of BOB and LAVA, it is not necessary: perfect descriptions of reality are not required to make these arguments. That would be like completely rejecting Newton's laws because they do not take relativity into account.{By the way, are you not making a call for: 'The perfect understanding of all things, before the achievement of which, nothing may be known'? If you are, then there is no point to your arguments. Or that of anyone. There is only the Smoking of the Weed.}My point is moot? I sincerely disagree. LAVA looks to be inevitable. BOB is a sufficient definition {you do not have to agree with this; it too simple a fact to just go and deny it, however, without some really serious justification.}==Increasing BOB is not really a problem, actually. Increasing it non-trivially, is the problem.
I assume this is the distinction you wish to make inroads on?If you look at how BOB is defined, it is based on molecular machines (life) becoming more ordered-complex. In the real world. Functionality is key here. Either you can document a new, working gene, or else you cannot. The use of common sense if also unavoidable, given the absence of the GID: BOB from two or three changes to a gene, versus 10000, does not scale linearly {at all}.ToE is supposed to use the chaos that is entropy. Coupled with natural selection. But it is still chaos. If only a single change or two are required, then only a few generations/ iterations are need. For 10000...Edited by AChristianDarkly, : deleted some ==Edited by AChristianDarkly, : not drift

I do not even have high-school biology. (Passed math and science{physics and the like} in high school with A's, however. Also went and got me a degree - some more physics and math.) True enough. But I can read. And apart from the nitty-gritty of things like molecular biology, I can kind of limp along.I have not read about creationism - I think He Who Made Cancer and the Clouds does not want to be seen. So He will not be seen. (Yes, I am sure you think my take on the matter is just as irrational as the other.)
What I have seen of creationism is invariably stupid. I feel insulted :-)
I have encountered exactly one FLV, by one creationist I actually liked, and that was Tisdale. Yes, I know. No need to rehash. I like him because of some of what he says, and I respect his honesty in publicly stating what he really thinks, knowing full well the forthcoming ridicule. (He was kind of an inspiration for me posting mia garbage, now that I think about it.)ToE is a way around the complexity issues of improbability. The complexities are still there. So are the improbabilities.
'Complexity is irrelevant to evolution.' No. It is something ToE must work around. With a lot of effort. And Time.There is an enormous difference between going through all the effort to generate BOB (untold generations), and then just chucking it away for some momentary advantage. Which is the whole point of the lossy bit of LAVA. Natural selection will tend to do just that. And strongly.You may want to argue that BOB+ is worthless, since ToE manufactures it on the cheap. My counter to this {micro summary: speed required of ToE, and its observability taking that into account} is presented (badly, so everyone here keeps reminding me), in the main topic post.'Complexity is neither necessary nor sufficient.' Um? I use it a rough measure. And for arguing about how fast & robust ToE has to be to overcome it.As you said, you have not read through the Gibberish yet. My focus is just fine; thanks you for your concern, however.PS: 'Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.' I disagree. It is simply a lot easier, much more fun, and rather effective. Unless you live in Britain, where they will sue your ass.Edited by AChristianDarkly, : deleted some ==

---

"Unity without verity (truth) is no better than conspiracy." - John Trapp

I've already said something like this in my reply to the Dr., but perhaps re-hash is in order.Evolution can be taken to mean many things. What it went and 'made' is the ordered complexity embodied in the DNA of all living things.
Creating the new-(orderly-functional) out of chaos, is what I (and everyone else?) consider to be the greatest claim of ToE.DNA is visible. It can be recorded for posterity. So can any and every change made to it. Such changes can then be tracked.
Should ToE be occurring rapidly enough (which is really, really should), then it should be possible to document is efforts. It only passes the grade, when it finally produces something new. Something that works. Only then are all the records gathered together, and the Path Of Generation of Gene XG9043-456 made up into a poster.So, yes, there are other events that are also called 'Evolution'. {The best example of this would be 'cutting and pasting' of genes. (CAP)} Minimal BOB+, maximum effect. This topic, however, has BOB+ as a strong focus: and the goal is state that, in the present world, ToE should be HoE. For lack of evidence.
If the world at present is running only on CAP, then the question becomes how much BOB+ is involved. And the point would be made: HoE is the winner.{PS: I forgot to include 'cutting and pasting' of genes in the main topic. Which is why of course it came up almost immediately, I guess. I had hoped to have it done by tonight, but I'll have to see. Should be done in a few days, at least.}

The noticeable thing about gravity is that it sucks. Hence why it is defined as 'that which sucks matter together.'What is _really_ noticeable about ToE, is that it is supposed to have created BOB+. So why not, generally, define ToE as that which creates BOB+?
(This change in terminology will never happen, barring an actual act of God, but maybe it should.)There is the straight-out observing the general way the white stuff in the rocks change, and then calling BOB+ the general way the white stuff in the rocks change (the fact of BOB+.)ToE is then the (proposed theoretical) mechanism that generates BOB+. So, let BOB be measured/ detected, and see if ToE is validated. If not, then ToE becomes HoE, awaiting validation.====Very good point.Ah. My bad. I finally get your point (I hope). Please ignore what should be ignored in my previous post(s) to you. (Took a while to penetrate: I took your harping on the def to be rather meaningless, and it seems it was not. I apologize. Clarity is of course very important.)Question: Does the term 'Evolution' serve any _functional_ purpose?
*Changes to DNA can be detected and tracked.
*At a critical point, a new gene can go functional {in the real world}. This is BOB+ {the greater the number of DNA changes made/ differences, the higher the 'level' of BOB+.}
*Should a new gene go functional, then, in _accordance_ with the level of BOB+, the actual _mechanism_ is validated. Where the mechanism is called ToE.
* Apart from providing an overall description of the situation, is the word or concept 'Evolution' necessary?Or put another way:
From the rocky 'fact of evolution', increased ordered complexity (whimsically labelled as BOB+), is noted.
{In general, 'Evolution' includes the above concept, but also lots of others.}
To specify, let 'Evolution', as it relates to the 'fact of evolution', be called BEvolution, or just BEvo. (This is just an overall descriptive term, and actually seems to mean almost nothing.)
ToE is a proposed mechanism (but there certainly are lots of convergent ideas on it), that is to drive 'Evolution.'
This topic is focused (in a sense) on _detecting_ how ToE drives BEvo. {*} Specifically, it is desirous to measure/ detect the activity of ToE, which should be a viable exercise via keeping track of the changes that result in BOB+.
{*} (Perhaps name ToE, as it relates to BEvo, BToE? Don't think so - ToE is supposed to be a process, not a physical item, so how would one differentiate between ToE and BToE? Mmmm. On the other hand, ToE validated via BOB+ is specific. So I guess BToE it is, then.)So. Changes are tracked. Should they result in a functional gene, BOB+ is triggered/ has occurred.
The record of changes resulting in BOB+, then validates a postulated mechanism named ToE.==Does this render my gibberish more comprehensible?

My reply to 15 covers yours as well, I think.
You are correct in that I specifically defined 'evolution' in this manner.I did this because it is the most significant, most stand-out aspect of 'Evolution.'In retrospect, something of a miss-focus, however. (As per what I say in 15.)

Hello Bluejay. Welcome back to EvC.Thank you for the first real reply. (Of course, I may be mistaken: perhaps you too are addicted to the use of a label-gun. Just a different model. If you reply, then we will see, will we not.)Thank you for the tone of your replies. I will actually enjoy this. Meow! Snarl!{{22}}*) Yes. From the stridency of your posts, I would assume the reverse is not true. Whatever.*) It is about the nitty-gritty of molecular biology, and it is not.
(After DrA's posts, I've written two short sections and intend to add them to the bottom of the main post. I'll wait for his reply to what I've written in return, and see if it still needs more work.)
After I’ve added them (or just read my replies to him and MOO for a more opaque version), try to see the difference. If you cannot, try harder. (Hint: maps are quite usable, even if you are not a map-maker. Radical idea. Changes everything.){{23}}*) If I cared about ridicule, would I be here, of all places, saying what I am saying. Good manners {as I view them} and honesty are mutually exclusive. Pretence is lying. The imminent death of the American political system is perhaps the best example of the consequences of this in the world at present.
Which is also why you do not know who I really am :-)
{And I am not busy writing a damned article: unless this forum is viewed as somehow 'royal upper' class? You mean that has been my mistake all along? Oops. Wait. Isn't that why it was placed into Free 4 All?}*) Schizophasic, actually. An advanced stage of mental degradation associated with being schizophrenic, {y}a si((lly n{u)t. This is course not true of me, since I work ha(rd at keeping track of all my brac}kets. (I also try and put, like, relevant things into them. The alternative, for me, tends to be a myriad of little 'link' symbols. The alternative to that in turn is repeatedly manually referencing, using long sentence-fragments, to what previously stated idea the presently stated one relates to. So. Very. Slow. I type slow enough as it is.
There. So am I rational, or am I merely trying to cleverly hide my insanity behind a mask of I-don't-really-give-a-crap? Mmmm? Makes you think, don' it. Ha ha! Made you think a thought! Ha ha!)*) {Smokin'} Ah. No. If you read what I wrote, you should see that I was actually talking about LLP. And you are missing the point, exactly, in any case.
There is a reason why I defined 'science' with the 3 points, as I did.
Imagine a right triangle: to the left top, is A:'smoking'. At the bottom right, is C:'cancer'. At the bottom left, is B:'biochemical pathway: specific chemicals found in cigarettes cause cancer in cells.'
Going from A, to B, to C, is science. Going from A to C, is bullpoopy: just like psychology: which uses that exact same excuse of wanna-be, statistical H-testing 'science' to 'prove' whatever nonsense 'theory' had been dreamed up this week: hey, gotta keep giving out them sheep-skins!
The alternative, should B be missing, is a complete listing of all possible alternatives. (And even then, you would have to make real sure you got them all. And you would have to qualify your results and conclusions in any case. There are rules to all this, you know.)
There is no B for ToE. ToE is invisible. It is generally supposed that natural selection is the main driver for ToE. Supposed. The mechanism for ToE is not known. (Do you see the problem here?)
Oh yes. Let me inter-space my remarks with the following: You are a smucl{.
If this is confusing, please go read a book on the subject. Or go have a chat with a stats Prof: just make sure it is not an R-evolutionary prof: bias, you know. I am sure such a person would be able to explain it much better to you than my puny attempt, and you can then come back and ridicule me for my lack of understanding of how it _really_ works.I am right about this, you know. And you are so perfectly wrong, it should be framed.
(Sigh. Responding to your honestly held criticism was kind of fun {unless it was only a label gun}: after this, I imagine will follow the wild self-justifications, requiring endless dialectic unravelling.)(Say, isn't skipping logical steps, and arriving at irrational conclusions, indicative of schizophrenia? My god! You're schizophrenic?!?! My condolences, dude; that like really sucks poopy-extruder.)When I say modern science is magic, I mean exactly this sort of thing. {Point: if my brackets are all so dumb & irrational, just why did you think I put that 'only' in the main post when talking about this? Mmmm? Could I have been trying to point out, sans a few paragraphs, this exact thing? {**} But of course not, it was just some of those crazy schizo-brain cells having a party. Yay! Party!}
{**} (Ah, but I assumed that someone knowledgeable enough to think of pointing that out, would also know about this, and hopefully get the hint. My mistake then, after all.)Again. This is all fine for psychology. If you want to sink to the level of gracing the garbage from that subject as 'science', then you will of course have no problem gracing ToE with the same title. Using the same poop for your methodology. Oh how I love the smell of weed in the morning... um, actually I have no idea what weed smells like. Does that, like, disqualify me from joining your club?(I never, once, talked about hypothesis {testing} in the statistical sense of the word. I use Hypothesis, exclusively, to mean un-proven idea. You know, what Theories are before they grow up.)I've encountered this warning (ABC-thing) _several times_, although I cannot recall where now. Sorry about that; I kind of came to think of it as common sense, part of a basic understanding you need to use statistics in the first place. Well, only for real science/ engineering, of course. Fluff needs nothing, because it is nothing. {Maybe you can weave a little costume for the kitten from all the fluff? It asked so nicely, after all.}
(There was a big thing about the misuse {actually a lack of understanding} of Hypothesis testing in the American Journal of Psychology that I ran into at some point via JSTOR. Shame. All those professors. I don't like hypothesis testing in any case; I rather prefer the bootstrap {with all its many flaws} - less airy-fairy nonsense, that way. You get less, but there is a lot less nonsense as well. Easier, too.)*) All science inherently uses statistics... No! Really? Wow. Who knew? I did. The point you miss is that you use statistics, mostly, in measurements. Hypothesis testing is used a whole lot less in the hard sciences... not so for vague, vapour-ish subjects like psychology and sociology - and evolution - get it yet?*) Conflating? Really? I could have sworn I was talking about LLP again. Must be my mistake. Wow. Here I was being as stupid as a radish and not even realizing it. I really hate it when that happens, don't you?Would that be like you conflating statistical power and scientific proof?Also. Engineering is supposed to be when science moves into common practice. There is actually an extremely strong link between them. You may not like it, or want it to be true, but there you are, and it is. Deal with it.Science is not about 'how' things work. Sorry. It is about proving that 'how'. Hypothesis. Proof. Your gunpowder example makes my point exactly. Again. Thanks!*) What do you mean with 'theoretical' science? Apart from particle accelerators, what else would you consider designs based on theoretical science? Excluding all other kinds of research apparatus. (I am assuming that your 'theoretical science' is some form of {unproven in the conventional way, exists only as stats} science? Unless you mean atomic simulations or stuff like that?)*) Statistics is amazingly useful. Hence the use in medical trials. In fact, it works so well, that it is used in _medical_ trials. So what? Are you really going to start talking about the Theory of Ritalin? Which, given the effort put in beforehand to understand, and really really really verify its action(s) {you know, all those people in white coats, spending days and months in front of microscopes... why, it is almost exactly the same as for ToE, with all those people... mmmm,} would likely be _more_ scientific than ToE?{Sigh. Let me make this clear: ToE is invisible. Immeasurable in its magnificence. Natural selection is visible. It is supposed that natural selection _mainly_ drives ToE. Supposed. Mainly. See the difference here yet? Cells going all zombie/ cancerous can be seen under a make-small-things-bigger machine. Repeatedly. See the difference(s) here, dude?}Yes, ToE is worthy of the term science. Unproven. An hypothesis. But worthy. I agree with you, completely, in this regard. ToE's mommy must be oh so very proud. Sniff.*) My misunderstanding of science. Mine, you say. There is something, somewhere, about someone that had, like a roof support or something stuck in his eye... wait, that makes no sense. Never mind.*) Darwin couldn't care less about anyone. Rationally, he would quite happily eat you while still alive, conscious, and screaming.
Eugenics. Just what was Stalin's excuse again? Mao's? Mmmm. There was a common thread, I do know that... Oh, I know! They were devout Christians! Those evil bastards!

*) What? What overhaul? What would any of all this change?
What I propose would alter nothing - it is something that sits on the outside taking notes. Scowling a little bit every now and then. Doing some more scribbling. Maybe eating some sandwiches. Nothing more.Again, I could ask for a specific example of where the main thrust of the topics' argument is wrong, but that is becoming really old. As bad as it is purported to be, have you (or anyone else here) actually read the whole thing? Not skimmed over, read?*) I did not say that I was never exposed to whatever it is that they spew forth: it is highly likely that I was. I do not care for what I have heard Christians in general say on this or similar topics.
Sigh.
Why are you all so obsessed with the playbook? From my point of view, you are trigger-happy label-gunners.I have yet to get the idea, to date, that even one of you has actually read the whole thing through. Yes, it is quite possible that I am, roughly, saying things that sound the same as what they say. I am not however referencing anything of theirs, and I am saying what I think makes sense.The most it seems anyone will do, like Bluejay, is skim over it, find some trigger words, and start label-gunning. (The jury is still out if that is the case with him, but if he should reply then that too will be made clear.)*) Brad McFall. No idea who this is. Should I care? Sigh. Do I really have to google whoever this is? {A verbiage-ator. Right here. And? Oh. I get it. Heh.}Dawkins much? You don't have to answer - it was rhetorical.*) Yes. BOB is central. To the defining of evolution as used at TalkOrigins, and lots of other places. Call me stupid for using it. I am so silly. If yours is different from theirs, well, that is interesting, but hardly noteworthy. Common thing, actually.
I chose 'BOB' simply as a _label_, to avoid the whole 'define information' thing. I even said so. Which DrA then promptly brought up anyway: although, in his defence, he clearly has not undertaken the brain enema yet.
It is not a placeholder. It is shorthand for 'ordered complexity'. Which is a simple description of what them thar rocks seem ta' be chatting about. It also types a whole lot faster. It is also a little bit funny. I said _all_ of this in the main topic post.Let me ask a very simple question: Do you know what lies behind the term 'fact of evolution'? If not, then it would be my turn to be highly sceptical. Look it up. No, really. It is a real, integral, part of your side of the argument. You should acquaint yourself with it.
MOO has a take on it which I do not agree with, but it is likely the more standard way of looking at it. (I want to whack it with some logic, while most other people just think that it is pretty. Use vs. Posters.)Yes, after DrA's posts, I did realize that 'BOB' needed some more clarification. (That is, after all, the reason why I am here.) Which I then tried to provide in the previous set of posts.
Hopefully, after the {edits 01.x} I hope to add to the bottom of the main post, this should be a clearer: I can dream, I know.As for not taking me seriously because of BOB. Are _you_ serious? An obvious attempt at humour. You not reading why I did it. And you not reading what it means. Or just not reading. Period. And you find it hard to take me seriously? That is, of course, quite funny.*) Thanks for clearing that up. Wow. You kind of miss the point of my comment on the quote: It is easier to ridicule than to try and properly understand the other guys point of view. {Think: label-gun.} Which, in practice, is generally what happens. Just like here. Consistently. BOB is fast becoming a sparkling example of my point. (I can hardly wait to see what the reaction is my very rough idea of adding 'levels' to BOB. Sigh. Which part... Ok, I'll wait for it.)=======================================*) {Is this is a waste of virtual ink?}: Note that you are standing on a vast body of written knowledge. Also, you have spent a lot of time on this forum, and perhaps others. So it all seems pretty clear and well-put to you.
In contrast to this, I am trying to explain a few relatively simple things. On my own. By myself. So it reads like a brain enema. It does not mean that it is incorrect.
To assume {and act as if}, as you are, that it is the product of a fanatical moron who is trying to state his regurgitated spin on whatever dung he has happened to consume; well, it is starting to really piss me off. If you do not want to read the damn main post: do not. Then, please, kindly reduce your activity to that of an observer.Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps like DrA you do have some valid point which I will hopefully get eventually. (I will keep reading your denigrating, baseless insults. Which one day may actually be about something written in the main post. What a dreamer I am.)
Perhaps your point, if it exists, will punch through my bible-powered-brain-armour. But so far I see less than nothing: ''...and yet you are unable to define what you mean, hence your use of "BOB" as a placeholder''. Say what? I am really getting to love the ESP you guys all have. It is so awesome. Now, if only you could get your super-powers to work correctly...What I am proposing is trivial. Simple. Clear. Straightforward. My explanation(s) seems to be none of these things. Sigh. But surely the elementary logics trapped in my webs of verbiage cannot escape the detection of you all that effectively?
(Yes, this last opens me up for yet more gratuitous insults, but that would be you all wasting your time with yet more inane label gunning. And I am getting quite tired of all the mindless drivel. And yes, I am _actually_ reading what you all say, unlike any of you all.)It is my fault for writing something that seems to be really hard to read. Yes. I have admitted to this a great many times by now. I have apologised (I think.) You have also called me insane (and really seem to have meant it), stupid (ditto), and implied severe irrationality (ditto). Oh, and ignorance (ditto).
Without even properly reading the damned main topic.
So. The inane reaction from all of you is not my fault. My faults, where I think there was basis for truth to them, I have admitted to. So, no, the high ratio of ridicule to substantive criticism is _your(all)_ baby.
By the way, what substantive criticism? Mostly everyone says 'You are stupid. Evolution is true.' Sure, everyone (even the guy with the cat) has said some things that are true, or somewhat true. Not relevant, but true.===I think people leave this forum, because it is like talking to a magical wall of echoes. Say some trigger word, and a whole bunch come back at you. Nice.
So far, two improvements have resulted to the 'Gibberish'. One was from myself, and the other DrA made me to realize (unless we were talking past each other, and I accidentally gained from the exchange.) That is it.Not one single person has so far even bothered to try and grasp what LAVA means. What it implies. Not. One. All there is, is this endless rain of label-gun droplets.You lot seem to generally be educated. So here is a little gem. One of the hallmarks when dealing with a sociopath in private life, is that they will never, ever, admit to being wrong. About anything.
Sound familiar? Or is it considered good debating technique? I am SO anxiously awaiting Bluejay's reply - there is no way he is correct. Yet, will that matter?So far, no one else has really made an argument from Gibberish; so there has been no opportunity for self-humiliation via moronic reply.
Bluejay has the dubious honour of being the first. Or will his dialectic-fu be up to the challenge? What verbal forces will be marshalled? What tricks brought into play, polished bright and shining? Stay Tuned!
(I am of course somewhat immune to this: if I am wrong, I can just say so. I do however have the disadvantage of really hating the dialectic. Guess that makes us even, then.)It is easy to say that my points are moot, if you have not read them. Silly. But easy. Ditto for similar judgement calls made based on... zip.===The problem, as I see it, is that it would have been quite easy to just quickly write something about LAVA. And then spend the next 10 years answering little side-questions. Instead, I put pretty much my entire position out there. Which, I thought in my abject stupidity, would allow a quick focus on the more interesting points. I genuinely imagined this would be more polite towards everyone - one rapid shot of everything, talk about it, and be done with it.
Idiot! Idiot!===This is the last time I put effort into a reply that does not deserve it.
You see, I really am here to debug the topic. (I am not such a twit as to think any of you can be 'saved': hey, if you want to jump into the dark, and find it filled with flame, that is your problem: I truly do not care to move people away from the choices they have made.)
As for changing your minds on anything, oh please.
If all the effort I am pouring into this has no return of the type I am seeking, then I will stop. I do not care otherwise. And you all do not care, apparently, about a subject which you all say that you do: apart from ceaseless label-gunning, of course.

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.

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

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

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.