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

Is the kitty waering a costume!?

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.)

Hi, ACD.Welcome to EvC! I have not read your horrifically long opening post completely yet. (I read 1000's of others from 1000's of other IDists and creationists, and I got A's in physics, math and biology all throughout highschool and college). True enough. And, apart from the nitty-gritty things like your term "BOB+," I can kind of limp along.So, you think this is enough on which to start a discussion between us?----- Curiously, the crux of your argument seems to be about the nitty-gritty of molecular biology, so aren't you here disqualifiying yourself from this very argument?

---

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

Hi, ACD.Let me preface my remarks by saying that you're a idiot. And, like Dr A said, you're probably schizophrenic.I'd like to provide you some general advice: parenthetical commentary on yourself and your viewpoints does not help an argument at all. It makes you appear defensive, unconfident, and, yes, schizonphrenic.----- This paragraph alone is good reason to discredit absolutely everything you wrote. It represents a fundamental flaw in your understanding of how science works and what science is.Neither hypotheses nor theories are "proven": statistics is the only tool used by any science to demonstrate the accuracy of any hypothesis. The term "hypothesis test" is a statistical method, and a hypothesis that has "passed" enough of these statistical procedures is considered a theory.The only difference between biology and physics is that, in physics, it's easier to get higher levels of significance and narrower confidence intervals than in biology due to the relative simplicity of particle or object systems, but it's still exactly the same technique. So, if you discredit statistics as a means to verify a theory, then you are discrediting all of the sciences, not just the Theory of Evolution.----- I am sick and tired of creationists conflating science with engineering. Designing something that works (engineering) is not the same as devising an explanation for how it works (science). Case in point is gunpowder: the ancients figured out how to use gunpowder in weapons back when they believed in four- or five-element alchemical processes to explain how it worked.If you first learn how something works (via theoretica science), it becomes easier to apply it to make new technology. So, science is behind most modern engineering.Now, it doesn't always happen that way, but it's becoming increasingly common to design technology based on theoretical science.Many medicines are created based on clinical trials that showed positive results, without any idea as to what chemical mechanism causes them to work (especially psychiatric medicines, because the state of knowledge about the function of the human brain is still very primitive).But, car engines, airplanes, light bulbs and computers were all invented after science developed theories to explain how certain chemical and physical processes work. Also in this category are conservation strategies and biological control programs (controlling pests with natural enemies), both of which are based on knowledge gleaned from ToE.ToE is real science worthy of the term "theory," and it has technological applications, just as other sciences do. It's only your misunderstanding of it and of science in general that makes it seem so less "scientific" than other scientific topics.

---

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

quote:

---

I do not even have high-school biology. ... True enough. But I can read. And apart from the nitty-gritty of things like molecular biology, I can kind of limp along.

---

So, with only a rudimentary self-taught understanding of a major scientific field you feel qualified to construct a complete overhaul of its fundmentals. Interesting.

quote:

---

I have not read about creationism

---

And yet so much of what you say (as far as I can tell) is straight out of the creo playbook. Color me skeptical.

quote:

---

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.)

---

Brad McFall much?

quote:

---

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.

---

As far as I can tell, your concept of BOB is central to your thesis, and yet you are unable to define what you mean, hence your use of "BOB" as a placeholder. It's virtually impossible to take anything you say seriously because of that. Moreover, the overall lack of clarity in most of what you write makes understanding your position extremely difficult.

quote:

---

I disagree. It is simply a lot easier, much more fun, and rather effective.

---

You miss the point of the quote. If a position is unintelligible, actual criticism is impossible. How do you respond to an unintelligible proposition? All that leaves, then, is ridicule. That perhaps explains the high ratio of ridicule to substantive criticism in this thread.

---

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

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.

This really gets my goat!Do you honestly have no idea how much statistics is involved with psychology?What the hell do you think quantitative psychological research is?Psychological research is very, very, very statistical in nature!Jesus Christ!

The biggest problem here, I think, is your writing style. You are attempting to communicate ideas about a field of scientific inquiry to a group of people most of whom are well-versed in science generally and many of whom are well-versed in biology specifically. Clarity of expression is not only highly valued in scientific writing, it is essential. Your use of undefined or ill-defined terms, or the misuse of terms severely impedes the clear expression of ideas. Your repeated parenthetic asides further impede clear expression. The fact that some of your writing is amusing does not make up for the deficiencies of clarity. I know that at the outset you acknowledge that your style is your own and you are happy with it. I'm happy for you. Self-contentment is very important. However, it is not a substitute for clarity in the field of scientific communication.You may well have a very clear idea of what you are trying to communicate. However, until you can clearly communicate your idea, nobody else can have a clear understanding of what you are trying to say. And if we do not have a clear idea of what you are trying to communicate, it's impossible to have a productive dialogue about your ideas. You are correct that I've been a participant at this forum for some years, as well as at other fora. During that time I have come across several people who lacked the skill to communicate their ideas clearly. I don't recall a single instance of successfully sussing out their ideas to the point where they could be clearly discussed.You say that you are trying to communicate a few simple ideas. Normally the communication of simple ideas doesn't take many words. The fact that you do take an inordinately large number of words suggests that the idea really isn't that simple. However, given your writing style, it's actually quite difficult to know even that. What I do know is this: the work that I have to do to make head or tail of what you've written isn't worth it. I also suspect that the effort that would be involved in trying to extract from you some semblance of an interesting notion would not be worth it. This calculus is based in part on the fact that to the extent that I've been able to get an inkling of what you're trying to say, it seems that you mostly don't know what you're talking about.Given these conclusions, I am left with two options: ignore you, or pick out individual points that I can make out and attempt to discuss those individual points with you. It is quite possible that, under the circumstances, it would be impossible for me to choose the latter option with a fair degree of ridicule leaking through. Normally this fact would militate against my participation, however since this is a free for all topic, that becomes less a factor.Perhaps you think I'm being gratuitously insulting. I'm not trying to, I'm simply stating facts as I see them. I freely acknowledge that I could be completely wrong about my assessment of your ideas and that it is based only on partial information. If you have any thoughts that you wish to try to express about my continued participation in this thread under the terms I outlined above, please feel free to share them. I might take them into account in deciding whether and to what extent I'll continue communicating with you.

---

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

Hi, ACD.Seriously, stop commentating! Just write your arguments and have some confidence that I will understand them without your help. Better yet, adopt a writing strategy that allows you to commentate in line with the rest of your writing so you don't have to interrupt yourself to get your points across. And, allusions to future comments are not helpful in any conceivable fashion.The entire point of your reply could have been effectively conveyed in about four sentences.----- Just so you know, we're in a forum called "Free for All": this is the forum where incomprehensible garbage is placed, and the moderators make very little attempt to regulate what people write in their posts. That's why nobody is going out of their way to take you seriously.And, Brad McFall is a poster here at EvC whose posts are so grammatically contorted that each of his posts creates a new singularity in linguistic space. You can look him up with the "member search" function and read some of his posts to get an idea of the depth of the insult intended by comparing you to him.----- But, that is literally the only sense of the word that there is, ACD: that was the entire point of my last post. Statistics, science and logic all use the same definition.If you want "hypothesis" to mean something other than that definition, then you are no longer talking about the same thing that science is talking about, and your argument is nothing more than a request to shift our semantic paradigms to match yours.----- Yes, I very clearly see the problem. The problem is that you are completely wrong. Natural selection is not just supposed to be the mechanism, it has been shown to be one of the two mechanisms that are required for evolution to occur.It cannot be stressed enough: the process by which the connection between smoking and cancer was uncovered is identical to the process by which the connection between natural selection and evolution was uncovered.Here is a citation from the 1950's about the connection between lung cancer and smoking: Here is the abstract:

quote:

---

This four-year study offers additional evidence tending to connect heavy cigarette smoking with cancer. In addition, it lists several occupations that seem to have some etiological relationship to the disease. They need further study, as it is suggested.

---

Nice and solid, proven stuff, isn't it? Nothing like that "statistical H-testing" crap that evolution depends on.Here is an excerpt of the methodology:

quote:

---

Definitive study of whether an occupation or cigarette smoking is a causative factor in lung cancer requires that the incidence rate for the exposed group be determined. This rate is then compared with that of a control population, the most acceptable control being all the rest of the population from which the exposed group came. Assuming the same diagnostic and reporting standards for both groups, one may thus determine how the chance that a member of an exposed group will develop lung cancer compares with the chance that such a person would develop the disease if he were not a member of the exposed group. If the likelihood of developing lung cancer is substantially increased by being in the exposed group (e.g., a certain occupation) one may conclude that the exposure is a causative factor in the disease. The key to this analysis lies in determining comparative incidence rates for a suspect group and a control population.

---

To sum up: in order to test the hypothesis that smoking causes cancer, we should compare the incidence of cancer in smokers to the incidence of cancer in the population as a whole. Interestingly, no biochemical mechanism is proposed.Yep, nothing like that "statistical H-testing" crap at all.Also interestingly, by this time, natural selection and genetics were already well-known and well-documented, and the Hershey-Chase experiment that showed DNA's connection to this function was revealed two years earlier than the above study (1952).It seems we've known the biochemical mechanism for evolution a lot longer than we've known the biochemical mechanism for lung cancer.And, also interestingly, smoking is only known to increase the risk of developing lung cancer, not to cause it (less than 20% of smokers develop lung cancer), so you really don't have as strong or as certain a causative link as you think you do.----- You can just write, "smuck," you know: there's no rule about name-calling. But, next time, you should probably write, "schmuck," just to avoid providing me with more ammo with which to insult your education level.Edited by Bluejay, : Emphasis.

---

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

Hi, Larni. I suppose I contributed to that with my comment about psychology being less thoroughly understood than other sciences. If I was wrong, I can retract my statement: it probably should have been aimed at neurochemistry instead of psychology, anyway.

---

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