Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,221 Year: 5,478/9,624 Month: 503/323 Week: 143/204 Day: 13/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution
nwr
Member
Posts: 6444
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


(3)
Message 226 of 698 (915149)
02-10-2024 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by ICANT
02-10-2024 11:57 AM


ICANT in Message 222 writes:
Percy writes:
abiogenesis, is not part of evolutionary theory
Yes Percy I know you have been telling me that for 18 years.
And for that same 18 years I have been telling you if you don't have life existing there is nothing to evolve.
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.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2024 11:57 AM ICANT has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 227 of 698 (915150)
02-10-2024 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by ICANT
02-10-2024 12:34 PM


DNA is not an exact science.
Then you go on and give us exact numbers from genetics.
What, exactly, do you mean by 'exact science'?

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2024 12:34 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Phat, posted 02-11-2024 10:57 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 228 of 698 (915151)
02-10-2024 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Percy
02-10-2024 12:03 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Percy, posted 02-10-2024 12:03 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-10-2024 2:06 PM sensei has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 229 of 698 (915152)
02-10-2024 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by K.Rose
02-09-2024 12:10 PM


Back to this bullshit assertion of yours:
Note that Scientific Fact has a pretty high Certainty bar: Zero Error, 100% Probability, 100% Confidence.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by K.Rose, posted 02-09-2024 12:10 PM K.Rose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by K.Rose, posted 02-10-2024 7:26 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 230 of 698 (915153)
02-10-2024 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by sensei
02-10-2024 1:52 PM


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

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that it has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --Percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Why should anyone debate someone who doesn't know the subject? -- AZPaul3

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by sensei, posted 02-10-2024 1:52 PM sensei has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22695
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 231 of 698 (915154)
02-10-2024 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by sensei
02-09-2024 7:51 PM


Re: Mutations Confirm Common Descent
sensei in Message 171 writes:
quote:
My point, as has been repeated several times now, is that there is no functional reason why separately created life would have to use the same tRNA's and codons.
Sure, because we know every function of all parts of the DNA, and nothing of genetics hold any mystery for us anymore, right?
Really, such arrogance often leads to error.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by sensei, posted 02-09-2024 7:51 PM sensei has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22695
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 232 of 698 (915155)
02-10-2024 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by sensei
02-09-2024 8:00 PM


sensei writes:
quote:
The chances of you correctly predicting 10 consecutive flips of the coin is 2^10, or 1 in 1024. Do the math.
So you fail to understand even a single question. I'm not gonna repeat myself. But seriously, you should quit your job, better not than tomorrow.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by sensei, posted 02-09-2024 8:00 PM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by sensei, posted 02-11-2024 3:28 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22695
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 233 of 698 (915156)
02-10-2024 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by sensei
02-09-2024 8:04 PM


Re: Mutations Confirm Common Descent
sensei writes:
Like when a noob claims if two things are the same color, they must be the same object. And one replies, you can have a red car and a red flower. Then you reply, but but but cars can also be blue. You miss the point like this all the time at every single step of the logic. You are extremely ignorant and clueless.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by sensei, posted 02-09-2024 8:04 PM sensei has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22695
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 234 of 698 (915157)
02-10-2024 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Tanypteryx
02-09-2024 8:06 PM


Tanypteryx writes:
The chances of you correctly predicting 10 consecutive flips of the coin is 2^10, or 1 in 1024. If this is incorrect, show us you can do the math.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-09-2024 8:06 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-10-2024 3:00 PM Percy has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 235 of 698 (915158)
02-10-2024 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Percy
02-10-2024 2:31 PM


My guess is that he's analogizing to a coin which is not "true", but he hasn't confirmed that yet.​
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.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that it has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --Percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Why should anyone debate someone who doesn't know the subject? -- AZPaul3

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Percy, posted 02-10-2024 2:31 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by dwise1, posted 02-10-2024 7:14 PM Tanypteryx has not replied
 Message 257 by Percy, posted 02-10-2024 7:58 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9539
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 236 of 698 (915159)
02-10-2024 3:02 PM


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.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9366
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 237 of 698 (915160)
02-10-2024 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by sensei
02-10-2024 4:03 AM


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.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by sensei, posted 02-10-2024 4:03 AM sensei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Admin, posted 02-10-2024 8:00 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9366
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 238 of 698 (915161)
02-10-2024 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by ICANT
02-10-2024 11:57 AM


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

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2024 11:57 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9366
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 239 of 698 (915162)
02-10-2024 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by ICANT
02-10-2024 12:34 PM


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

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2024 12:34 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by dwise1, posted 02-10-2024 7:36 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 120 days)
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024


Message 240 of 698 (915167)
02-10-2024 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by PaulK
02-10-2024 9:40 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2024 9:40 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-10-2024 6:06 PM K.Rose has replied
 Message 243 by Tangle, posted 02-10-2024 6:08 PM K.Rose has replied
 Message 259 by Percy, posted 02-10-2024 8:26 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 272 by PaulK, posted 02-11-2024 1:20 AM K.Rose 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