Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   TOE and the Reasons for Doubt
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 256 of 530 (528494)
10-06-2009 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 9:11 AM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
This argument about lunar regression and the time factor is another explosive issue that they are confronted with.
Yeah, my coffee exploded all over my screen when I read your drivel Given that I utterly refuted your nonsense in a single post, do you think you could go back over there and acknowledge - thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 9:11 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 257 of 530 (528521)
10-06-2009 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 9:30 AM


Creationist nonsense again
Evolution is not a science. ...It isn't even close.
More creationist misinformation/disinformation.
Seems like this is the latest effort to discredit the theory of evolution--to claim (dishonestly) that it is a philosophy rather than a science. This false claim follows closely on the heels of "teach the controversy" and other creationist nonsense.
I rejected it on the basis of scientific evidence against it.
Probably just after you got religion, else why would you turn your back on established science for such fringe nonsense? See, the scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution and contradicts the type of fringe nonsense you have been posting here for days now.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 9:30 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 258 of 530 (528544)
10-06-2009 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Kaichos Man
10-06-2009 8:01 AM


Re: Physician, heal thyself.
Hi, Kaichos Man.
Kaichos Man writes:
Well, absolutely. And it's so easy to prove they are incompetent, isn't it? Simple problem. A one in four chance occurring 1000 times in succession.
What's the real answer, Iyx2no?
I see you ignored my post on this (Message 192). You forgot that evolution happens to populations, not to individuals!
It's not a 1/4 chance happening 1000 times in succession: it's like a 1/4 chance happening 1000 times simultaneously, after which some selection processes dictate which and how many of the 1000 get to proliferate themselves into the next round, and repeating that same process 1000 more times.
Selection effectively increases the probability of obtaining a "good" result, because it removes the "bad" stuff and allows the "good" stuff to increase its proprotional representation in a population.
And, having an entire population, instead of just one individual, increases the number of times you get to roll the proverbial dice during each round.
So, evolution is the preferential survival and proliferation of the "good" mutations that do happen, which increases the "good" population, which also increases the chance of the next "good" mutation happening to an individual that already has the first "good" mutation.
So, while your model does show one possible result, it only shows one possible result. In a real population, you will have other individuals with more, with fewer, with "better," and with "worse" mutations, and those with more "better" mutations will proliferate better and become increasingly well represented in the population, continually increasing the likelihood that the next "good" mutation will be added to all the previous "good" mutations.
In summary:
You forgot selection.
And you forgot the population.
And, you assumed that you could dictate, a priori, what counts as "good."
Without these corrections to your model, your model fails to provide any sort of meaningful commentary on evolution. Continuation of this argument amounts to the molestation of a strawman.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-06-2009 8:01 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-07-2009 8:49 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 259 of 530 (528556)
10-06-2009 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Kaichos Man
10-05-2009 8:37 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
Hi, Kaichos Man.
Kaichos Man writes:
You assert that evolution has no target. You are, respectfully wrong. It's target, even though it is unconscious of the fact, is survival. It's purported aiming device is natural selection.
I don't really mind your referring to survival as the "target" of evolution (I wouldn't say it myself, though), but I do mind your translating this into predictions about "the gene we want to evolve" or about "completion" of the gene (both ideas taken from the following quote, in this message from you, upthread):
Kaichos Man writes:
To give ourselves a flying start, we'll say there was a gene-duplication event in this particular genome, and the duplicate gene is already 98% similar to the gene we want to evolve. Of course, natural selection won't apply to a duplicate gene, so we'll need to evolve it to a point where natural selection can take it to completion. Let's say we have to improve it by just 0.5% for NS to kick in. So the new gene is 20 bps away from completion, with just 5 bps required to enable natural selection.
How on earth do you think knowing that survival is the "target" of evolution gives you an ability to diagnose the exact genetic sequence needed by the organism? There are millions of different ways to survive, after all.
Look at your example: if the target is survival, then, by "the gene we want to evolve," you must be referring to the gene sequence that results in survival, right? That is the "target," or the "gene we want to evolve," isn't it?
Well, how does the animal survive while its survival gene is only partially complete?
Furthermore, if the organism's target is survival, why exactly is it still evolving when it's clearly already surviving?
Clearly, survival is not the target or function of individual genes or mutations. On the level of genes, what exactly does "survival" mean, anyway?
So, maybe you should present, not survival itself, but any of the millions of ways to survive, as the "target" of evolution. In truth, then, this means that evolution has millions of alternative targets, any one of which will do, given the proper circumstances. In fact, there are so many different "targets," it's probably more appropriate to not refer to them as "targets," and to just agree with Jacortina (not Jacorinta) there there is no target.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-05-2009 8:37 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 260 of 530 (528600)
10-06-2009 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Coyote
10-05-2009 6:05 PM


Re: Doubts? Or out to destroy the TOE?
Hi Coyote,
One minor problem with your post:
"...a scientist qualified by years of graft and experience?"
I have to hold my hand up here and admit to being a Yorkshire-man from 'the old country'. In my native Yorkshire the phrase "to be a grafter" is a great compliment - it means the hardest of workers.
My father often used to say "Come on lad put some graft in" — meaning, get working harder. Other typical Yorkshire sayings which are apparently unique to my area are "Come on lad - shape yourself", or "Come on lad - frame yourself". All these words (graft, shape, and frame) mean the same - pull yourself together and put in some seriously hard work.
I suppose we use colloquialism so unthinkingly it is easy to see why readers half way across the globe get at cross-purposes. I hope you didn't think I meant that scientists 'graft' their work from efforts of others etc....I think we'll leave that to our Creationist friends to do....in case they think I am unduly mean here - grafting in the non-Yorkshire sense is precisely what the practice of quote-mining is all about - and we know who does those don't we?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Coyote, posted 10-05-2009 6:05 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Coyote, posted 10-06-2009 4:01 PM Drosophilla has not replied
 Message 265 by Dr Jack, posted 10-06-2009 5:02 PM Drosophilla has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 261 of 530 (528620)
10-06-2009 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Izanagi
10-05-2009 11:39 PM


Re: Doubts? Or out to destroy the TOE?
Hi Izanaqi
Interesting post:
As an expat living in China, I don't hear any debate here about evolution. People accept it as true because it is good science. There are no creationists arguing for a 10000 year old Earth, or people arguing that a worldwide flood occurred. Religion is essentially nonexistent here. There is no doubt.
As creationists gain ground, scientists will flock to where their ideas are accepted, where they don't have to debate science against religion. And China will be more than happy to accept them, especially if it means achieving an edge in applied sciences.
Am I right in assuming that in China communism has meant little religious infatuation? If so it would help explain their onward march in the sciences. It has to be remembered these guys invented paper, gunpowder and goodness knows what else hundreds of years before the West.
I find it amusing that so many creationists in the West take their creature comforts such as cars, computers and medicine for granted, yet hold the underlying science in contempt.
I have more sympathy for groups like the Amish in the USA. At least by living a true 17th century life (eschewing technology like the internal combustion engine, zippers, and electricity to name a few of our modern scientific technologies) they really practice what they preach....of course it won't stop them being overrun by Chinese
21st Century technology if the occasion should arise...!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Izanagi, posted 10-05-2009 11:39 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Izanagi, posted 10-06-2009 3:01 PM Drosophilla has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 262 of 530 (528630)
10-06-2009 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Drosophilla
10-06-2009 2:34 PM


Re: Doubts? Or out to destroy the TOE?
It is in part due to Chinese Communism, but I think a large part is the more practical view people in China hold about life. While the Chinese do hold and celebrate spiritual beliefs, they are able to separate those beliefs from reality.
Also, Chinese history up until recently has been tied up with imperialism. Remembering that foreigners used to control large swathes of Chinese territory, the Chinese government has dedicated itself to becoming a world power. This means forgoing ridiculous notions that do little to protect China from outside influence. That also means shielding the Chinese from outside influences, like Christianity. In fact, Christmas is not a recognized holiday (although the commercial side is celebrated), and because the government dislikes the inclusion of Christmas into the fabric of the lives of the citizen, the government has recently taken steps to ensure more traditional holidays are celebrated while Western holidays are shunned.
The government here recognizes that technology has been the key to dominance. Just like the Europeans ruled the world with their guns, the Chinese seek to advance their technology to a level that is at least on par with the Western states. But I am positive that the Chinese government wouldn't mind achieving dominance in technology. That means funding for the applied sciences that provide technological advancement and funding for the sciences that drive the applied sciences forward.
That's why many analysts say that China's recent announcement to develop their ET is indicative of their current change of policy. Through manufacturing, they have grown their economy to become the second largest exporter and third or second largest economy. But the Chinese government recognizes that future economic growth will be through ET, and so the government is shifting their focus into developing those technologies. It doesn't matter if global warming is real or not, they do it because it makes economic sense and because it makes them more energy independent. Very practical, don't you agree?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Drosophilla, posted 10-06-2009 2:34 PM Drosophilla has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(2)
Message 263 of 530 (528659)
10-06-2009 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 1:08 AM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
Message 242:
It is because of the evidence that I reject evolution. Science is a province of God. He made it. When all things are considered science (true science!) will match what the scriptures teach because both come from Almighty God.
Do you think you can actually impress anyone here with drivel like this? (other than your creationist brethren of course). Science and religion are the complete antipathy of each other. In ancient Greece and Rome they had aqueducts, sewage systems, bath spa's and a good standard of education including mathematics, philosophy and science.
Compare that with your Christian England 1500 hundred years later. In sixteenth century England faeces were thrown into the streets, infections, Black Death and ignorance were rife....and the Church was in charge of education and schooling. Fledgling scientists were put to death for heresy and in Spain the Inquisition prospered and science floundered and reversed. 1500 hundred years of Christianity wiped out many of the advancements made by the ancient Greeks and Roman empires.
Have you read the Old Testament Book of Job? Where God challenges mere humans to rival his knowledge? God questions Job about a number of natural phenomena and Job has to bow in ignorance....but no longer my friend - science has prevailed in the 21st century and shown your God to be a scientific idiot...hammered by his own words:
Job 38:22-23: "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail, which I reserve for times of trouble, for days of war and battle?"
Laughable isn't it! Storehouses of hail eh!
Or:
Job 38:25-27: "Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain, and a path for the thunderstorm, to water a land where no man lives, a desert with no one in it, to satisfy a desolate wasteland and make it sprout with grass?
Sounds like Las Vegas to me! And no God put up L.A - that's for sure.
Or:
Job 38:34 "Can you raise your voice to the clouds and cover yourself with a flood of water?"
We can do better than raise our voice to the clouds - I'm sure most reading these words have flown over them and looked down on them from above! And we dam up rivers, redirect them, create reservoirs...and oh so much more. Read the rest of Job 38 for more enlightening verses on God's true ignorance of science fact.
Calypsis...we've outgrown your God - with the help of science. The same science that you despise - for despise it you do. To say the following
No, evolution is not a ‘science’. It is an interpretation of scientific fact. Biology, geology, astronomy, physics ect. are legitimate studies of science. Evolution is not.
speaks volumes of your ignorance. Gravity is an interpretation of scientific facts (in physics), plate tectonics is an interpretation of scientific facts (in geology), stellar formation is an interpretation of scientific facts (in cosmology) and Evolution is an interpretation of scientific facts (in biology).
Are you really so ignorant that you don’t realise that ALL scientific theories are grounded first in observation, secondly by known scientific ‘laws’ and ‘processes’, thirdly by the generation of predications and fourthly by comparison of models to the observable world.
This is how science works in case you don’t know. And guess what.in 150 years no-one has EVER falsified the ToE (and god knows.you lot have tried your hardest!).
But scientists too try to falsify their theories.did you realise that? Probably not — but that is how science worksit isn’t a case of some yokel saying Oh look that must be how the world works — I’ll call it the ToE and defend it to the hilt no matter what True science is much more self-regulatory and inquisitional than that.
Final challenge for you Calypsis: You say you have rejected Evolution on the basis of science evidence. So I’m asking for the answer to these two questions:
1. Please define in words exactly what you think the ToE is — you should be able to do this in less than three sentences.
2. Please provide the scientific evidence that disproves the above.if you can do this you’re a better man than those that have inhabited the last 150 years before you..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 1:08 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 264 of 530 (528666)
10-06-2009 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Drosophilla
10-06-2009 2:09 PM


Re: Graft
I suppose we use colloquialism so unthinkingly it is easy to see why readers half way across the globe get at cross-purposes. I hope you didn't think I meant that scientists 'graft' their work from efforts of others etc....I think we'll leave that to our Creationist friends to do....in case they think I am unduly mean here - grafting in the non-Yorkshire sense is precisely what the practice of quote-mining is all about - and we know who does those don't we?
No, I just assumed you made a typo and meant "craft."
But you learn something new here every day. Thanks for the explanation!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Drosophilla, posted 10-06-2009 2:09 PM Drosophilla has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 265 of 530 (528697)
10-06-2009 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Drosophilla
10-06-2009 2:09 PM


Re: Doubts? Or out to destroy the TOE?
I suppose we use colloquialism so unthinkingly it is easy to see why readers half way across the globe get at cross-purposes. I hope you didn't think I meant that scientists 'graft' their work from efforts of others etc....I think we'll leave that to our Creationist friends to do....in case they think I am unduly mean here - grafting in the non-Yorkshire sense is precisely what the practice of quote-mining is all about - and we know who does those don't we?
It's not just Yorkshire, I was baffled as to why Coyote was objecting.
Heh: two peoples very much alike in everything, of course, but their language

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Drosophilla, posted 10-06-2009 2:09 PM Drosophilla has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 266 of 530 (528703)
10-06-2009 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Calypsis4
10-05-2009 11:31 PM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
Peg was telling the truth even if she did not list all her sources. I have read the statements by most of those whom she quoted and I can verify that she did not take them out of context ...
You claim that you can "verify" that each of those statements was not taken out of context.
Well, good for you. Hooray! Only, before I believe that you're telling the truth, I'd like to see you, for each of those statements, quote the sentence that preceded it and the sentence that followed it. Just to check that you really have seen the context and that you're not just an ignorant stinking gasbag of creationist lies like so many people who post here. I mean no insult to you personally, but you must realize that so many filthy stupid degraded creationist liars crawl on these forums oozing their foul degenerate slime of falsehood that I am obliged to check.
Thanks.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Calypsis4, posted 10-05-2009 11:31 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 267 of 530 (528720)
10-06-2009 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Kaichos Man
10-06-2009 8:01 AM


Re: Physician, heal thyself.
Well, absolutely. And it's so easy to prove they are incompetent, isn't it?
The pronoun "one" I was not referring to "they". "One" had on the instant established his own incompetence.
I have devised a two player game called Hit-or-Miss using your maths establish its fairness. The field of play is two concentric circles: a 10 foot inner ring, and an 100 foot outer ring of stakes set 1 foot apart. The object of the game is to roll a ball between two of the stakes from within the inner ring. The first player hurls the ball without knowing which of the two posts the ball is supposed to roll through. The second player has to roll the ball through the same gap as the first player. The first player gains the point when ever the second player misses. The second player gains the point whenever he hits. I will be first player, and to illustrate my great skill, I shall play blindfolded.
Simple problem. A one in four chance occurring 1000 times in succession. What's the real answer, Iyx2no?
Which problem: (41000 - 1)/41000 ≡ 1 for all intents and purposes; (x - 1)/x = (x/x)- (1/x) = 1 - x-1, which I already did; or the P of something that has happened of happening = 1?
The problem of pre-assessing the P of an event is not simple when it's not an entirely random event and the attractors are mostly unknown: I'm not competent to solve it. But I'm not so incompetent to not see so obvious a misapplication of probabilities.
Again, you are using information you clearly misunderstand to doubt a theory you clearly misunderstand. Why do you think that should convince me you've come to your doubt honestly?
I'm a sceptic: doubt is my starting gate. You are a cynic: doubt is your finish line.

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-06-2009 8:01 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-07-2009 8:58 AM lyx2no has replied

  
Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 5182 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 268 of 530 (528733)
10-06-2009 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 9:02 AM


Post removed
Nothing to see here. Sorry
Edited by Tanndarr, : Moving question to another thread
Edited by Tanndarr, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 9:02 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 269 of 530 (528741)
10-06-2009 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Izanagi
10-05-2009 11:39 PM


Re: Doubts? Or out to destroy the TOE?
They will come forth with mighty weapons, like PPCs,
Particle Projection Cannons?
Will we see Mad Cats and Gunslingers stomping over the horizon?
(Always preferred Gauss Rifles myself).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Izanagi, posted 10-05-2009 11:39 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Izanagi, posted 10-06-2009 7:53 PM Larni has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 270 of 530 (528742)
10-06-2009 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Larni
10-06-2009 7:48 PM


Re: Doubts? Or out to destroy the TOE?
Will we see Mad Cats and Gunslingers stomping over the horizon?
Haha, quite possibly. I've always liked PPCs even though it gives off a lot of heat; however, I can see many arguments for why the Gauss Rifle might be better. It's just PPCs don't need ammo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Larni, posted 10-06-2009 7:48 PM Larni has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024