Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

If you don't have God existing, then you cannot be a theist. And since you cannot tell us how God came to exist, then you must be an atheist.I'm just using the same kind of reasoning that you are using. I don't actually believe it is valid reasoning, just as I don't believe your reasoning is valid.

Then you go on and give us exact numbers from genetics.What, exactly, do you mean by 'exact science'?

Percy:

---

... but are you saying you don't believe that measures of degree of similarity of DNA isn't a measure of relatedness?

---

This is a no-brainer. Unless you think that similarities between two physical entities must mean that these two are related? And by related, you mean having a common origin by descent?
Even entities that have no process of producing any descent, can and do show similarities with other entities, one way or another. Your whole premises is based on a made up rule that does not work in general.You can measure the similarities between two chairs. That is not a measure of relateness in any way similar to what you propose for species. Why make up a rule is not even valid one.You must believe that it is a rule that is valid for living and procreating beings only. Then give me prove that similarities always mean relatelessness. It's not.Stars show similarities with each other. Does that mean they are related by a common star that split up into smaller stars in the past?

Percy:

---

I think the point you're trying to make is this: Just as a coin might not be "true", just as it's possible for a coin to be made or weighted in such a way that the probability of heads or tails is not equal, it is possible that the 1038 possibilities that Taq mentioned for independent phylogenies are not all equally probable.

---

No, you are very wrong. This is not my point at all. I asked, what are the chances that it is a fair coin? What part of this question is so hard, that three evolutionists here fail to understand it? I'm asking for chance, odds or probability or whatever. And how you determined this.Taq claims that it is the same as the p-value, which is simply not true. The p-value of 1/1024 gives the probability of observing ten times tails, given that we have a fair coin. If you know any Baysian statistics, you should know that this is not the same as the probability that we have a fair coin, given what we observed. Prob(A|B) ≠ Prob(B|A). Very rooky mistake by Taq.That's how he reasons that non-common ancestry is very unlikely, because we observed something that is very unlikely. That is false reasoning based on poor understanding of what the p-value really means.So what you think that my point is, is totally not my point at all.

Back to this bullshit assertion of yours: And what is the certainty for your creationism? Or for your religion?ZERO %Your entire religion is completely made up.And most of your creationism is a deliberate fabrication. Deliberately crafted lies.So cut the crap already and at least try to conduct yourself with some small amount of honesty. And, yes, I do realize that honesty and truthfulness go against your religion.

And still no one knows what the fuck your point is, except everyone else is stupid.

Rephrasing what you just said:

sensei rephrased:

---

Because there is much we still don't know of DNA and genetics it is therefore arrogant of you to perform analyses of what we do know.

---

--Percy

Did I guess right about the point I think you're trying to make (see my Message 223)? If so then I think everyone's missing it because they see it as having so little merit that they wouldn't expect anyone to make it, in which case you need to make clear to everyone why this argument has merit.And if I guessed wrong then please try to explain your point again, because it just isn't coming across to anyone.--Percy

This doesn't seem an accurate analogy to what Taq's been saying, but I also think it's possible he doesn't see the point you're trying to make.If your point is important to you and you think others would find it important too then it would be worth your effort to expend your energies on clarification rather than on ad hominem, which I don't think will settle anything.--Percy

I'm pretty sure sensei gets this probability point. My guess is that he's analogizing to a coin which is not "true", but he hasn't confirmed that yet.--Percy

By "not true" I assume you mean a coin that has been distorted in a way that makes one side face up more than the other side when it's flipped. Does that actually happen? Are there actually coins like that, that are undetectable if you hold them in your hand?What would a distorted coin flip process tell us anything about reproduction? What possible point is he trying to demonstrate?As an aside, I have always thought coin tosses were an error prone way of demonstrating probabilities. A person flipping the coin cannot help but apply different forces to the coin with each flip, and it seems to me that would really widen the error bars on predictions.

Well he asked this

quote:

---

Let me ask a different question, since this one apparently is too difficult for many of you lot.
​
Researcher 1 claims: this coin is fair, with +/- 0.5 chance for tails when we toss again.
Researcher 2 claims: this coin will always land on tails, no matter how often we toss.
Researcher 3 claims: this coin has been tampered with and hugely favors tails.
​
What are the odds for these claims? If you bet 10 dollars on the first researcher, what would be your winning chances? How about if you put 10 dollars on the second researcher? And the third?

---

It seems a very strange thing to ask. They're all just claims with no evidence, so the odds can't be known without tossing them. The starting assumption is p=0.5, so you toss 'em 100 times and calculate the odds from the outcome.Why this matters and how relevant this is to his argument is another matter entirely. Probably just another brain fart.

Irrelevant to the conversation. Explain what you think the relevance is. Explain why you think the TOE is not science. Or crawl back under your rock. You are not as smart as you claim and we are not as stupid as you think. If you want to start with the personal attacks we can just let the admin deal with you.

Irrelevant. Abiogenesis is not Evolution.Where do you get your species figure from? Highest I have ever heard mentioned is about 10 million.

there are no human clones. Your response is bullshit and does not answer Percy's question.

Where does the extrapolation cease to be valid? Good question, and it will remain a good question so long as the ancestry in question is/was not available for proper measurement and observation.I accept that Evolutionary biologists read common ancestry into the genetics evidence; however, all genetic evidence points to a Creator.Please not that I would not conspire to prevent biologists from pursuing the common ancestry conclusion, nor would I forcibly prevent them from pursuing this, nor intimidate them into abandoning the pursuit, nor force-feed them my views.Also, the fact that you have drawn a conclusion from a set of evidence does not make that conclusion fact.