Discussion from "Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS"

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#861  Postby GenesForLife » Jan 22, 2011 2:54 pm

Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.

This is the conclusion that Behe draws, all this means is that if losing function increases fitness, then that mutation will be fixed, nothing to do with your putrid little assertion of "Only when genes are deleted, they can evolve", also note that adaptive benefit is the key here, since in the Hayashi paper the replacement within the gene did result in a drastic loss of fitness, no amount of fucking redundancy or Behe's rules would apply here.

Just to make things more worse for you, here is the abstract of Behe's paper.


Adaptive evolution can cause a species to gain, lose, or modify a function; therefore, it is of
basic interest to determine whether any of these modes dominates the evolutionary process under
particular circumstances. Because mutation occurs at the molecular level, it is necessary to
examine the molecular changes produced by the underlying mutation in order to assess whether
a given adaptation is best considered as a gain, loss, or modification of function. Although that
was once impossible, the advance of molecular biology in the past half century has made it
feasible. In this paper, I review molecular changes underlying some adaptations, with a particular
emphasis on evolutionary experiments with microbes conducted over the past four decades.
I show that by far the most common adaptive changes seen in those examples are due to the loss
or modification of a pre-existing molecular function, and I discuss the possible reasons for the
prominence of such mutations.


[1] How does some adaptations = all adaptations? Since you have asserted what Behe himself does not state in his paper while ignoring a very important qualifier, that of adaptive benefit, you were ergo indulging in quote mining.

[2] Most common =/= all , modification of function =/= deletion of gene either, so there are two more instances where you fucking lied and quote mined, funnily enough you quote mined one of your own.

Shame on you for your blatant fuckwittery, truly fucking pukeworthy, I would suggest that your behaviour is typically disgraceful and is not suited to be worthy of what passes for rational discourse with integrity.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#862  Postby hackenslash » Jan 22, 2011 4:31 pm

Царь Славян wrote:My interpretation of the double slit experiment is simple. The EM radiation is passing through the both slits and thus is causing disturbance in the aether.


ImageImage

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but not nearly so dangerous as having none and thinking you know anything. This is among the most cretinous statements ever made by a reality-denier, and quite probably deserves a brand new category of award. Indeed, it's such a puddle of botty-water, it doesn't even merit the epithet 'not even wrong'. This is not even not even wrong. It's so horrendously wide of the mark, in fact, that it would be cruel to even tell you why it's wide of the mark, to the degree that it should probably have its own clause in the FUA.

What complete and total stupidity.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21383
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#863  Postby iamthereforeithink » Jan 22, 2011 4:37 pm

Царь Славян wrote:My interpretation of the double slit experiment is simple. The EM radiation is passing through the both slits and thus is causing disturbance in the aether.


Dude, stick to biology. You're looking worse than Deepak Chopra here.
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
User avatar
iamthereforeithink
 
Posts: 3332
Age: 9
Male

Country: USA/ EU
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#864  Postby twistor59 » Jan 22, 2011 4:38 pm

hackenslash wrote:
Царь Славян wrote:My interpretation of the double slit experiment is simple. The EM radiation is passing through the both slits and thus is causing disturbance in the aether.


ImageImage

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but not nearly so dangerous as having none and thinking you know anything. This is among the most cretinous statements ever made by a reality-denier, and quite probably deserves a brand new category of award. Indeed, it's such a puddle of botty-water, it doesn't even merit the epithet 'not even wrong'. This is not even not even wrong. It's so horrendously wide of the mark, in fact, that it would be cruel to even tell you why it's wide of the mark, to the degree that it should probably have its own clause in the FUA.

What complete and total stupidity.


I guess it's against the FUA to sig something without permission of the originator ? It's almost on a par with the FSTDT "if there were such a source, scientists would have known about it"
A soul in tension that's learning to fly
Condition grounded but determined to try
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earthbound misfit, I
User avatar
twistor59
RS Donator
 
Posts: 4966
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#865  Postby hackenslash » Jan 22, 2011 4:40 pm

I had thought of sigging it myself, but I'm fairly sure the poster will not permit it, and will probably whinge about it to the staff if not asked.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21383
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#866  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 22, 2011 4:41 pm

Царь Славян wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: Again you are evading the point, whether intentionally or by miscomprehension.

To posit design, you must posit intent. Design is defined by intent. Without intent, there is no design, only the appearance of design like sand blowing up against a wall and leaving a 'designed' slope, or a mammal taking a crap and leaving a 'designed' spiral.



I know that design means intent. I know that, you don't have to keep repeating that. But what you also have to understand is that I do not have to know what the intent was, in order to detect design in the first place. If I found a piece of paper on the street that had something written on it, I wouldn't know why the person that wrote that, did it. But I would certainly know it was designed.


You have just done a 180. You repeated over and over that design does not mean intent. Now you are making like you accepted it all along.

I could go back through this thread and re-quote around 10 times where you said precisely the opposite.

Now you've come to this understanding, you need to go back and reread my arguments where you kept stating that intent was irrelevant - by rejecting out of hand this point that you now accept unreservedly, you most probably missed some very crucial critiques of your position.


Царь Славян wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Then, fundamentally, you are demanding that our language change to accomodate your belief. Unfortunately for you, that is not going to happen. You are now delving into the realm of pseudoscience. Design necessarily implies intent, when you say you see design, you are saying that you see realised intent.


Design is intent, but I do not have to know exactly what the intent was in order to detect design.


Your goalposts have moved. Re-read our last 5 exchanges to see how much your position has shifted. I can't really be expected to argue with a moving target unless you accept that you have changed your position.



Царь Славян wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:I am saying it again because it's like you have a blind spot here and just can't see where your argument leads.

But following your ill-defined position of inferring design, everything could be designed. It's a typical form of pseudoscience when all roads lead to Rome.


Wrong. According to my method, snowflakes were not designed.


Wow! What an incredible conclusion! However, the problem, as I already said, is that it doesn't follow from your premise.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 23448
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#867  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 22, 2011 4:51 pm

Царь Славян wrote:
Tsar, you are a willfully ignorant cunt, because any biologist would understand what the implications of GRN's in development and evolution. And any biologist would understand that ID is not science. Grow up, and don't splatter your stinking intellectual diarrhea here.


Michael Behe is a biologist, he claims that ID is science, so that proves you wrong.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8 ... -told.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html

Q = questioner
A = Michael Behe

Testifying in court under oath.

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 23448
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#868  Postby Rumraket » Jan 22, 2011 4:53 pm

Царь Славян wrote:Same shit all over again. It's like you pick out a single sentence and ignore the rest. ID is a cheap trick to avoid the first amendment to the constitution, so you can sneak religious bullshit into public school. You intentionally avoid naming the designer in order to achieve this goal. Problem is, this tactic was exposed ages ago and it's not going to work. You aren't fooling anyone.
Then please do what I asked you to do.

LOL. I just told you that ID is specifically constructed to avoid naming the designer in order to sneak it into public schools. The creationists who set the bullshit up to begin with simply took their creationism books and replaced the word creator or god with intelligent designer/intelligent agency.

You don't know if an invisible designer designed snowflakes. A supernatural designer. An extremely technologically superior designer we don't currently know how to detect might be doing the design. Any observation is compatible with a design claim and therefore unfalsifiable. Deal with it.
Exactly I DO NOT KNOW that. And precisely therefore, I DO NOT INFER design.

It's called the design INFERENCE, not design PROOF.

If you actually spent a second researching ID claims you would have known that, but you didn't, so you are clueless about a SCIENTIFIC THEORY you are criticisig.

The point of teh design INFERENCE is to present a REASON to INFER design. Get it? What we need to have, is a method that would give us reason to call a particular object designed. If using our method the results come in negative, as in, there is no reason to call an object designed, then we do not infer design.

Yes, an invisible pink unicorn could have still designed it. But then again, an invisible pink unicorn can do anything. But since we have no reason to ascribe anything to an invisible pink unicorn, we don't do it.

The same with design inference, if we have reason to infer design, we infer it, if we don't then we don't. And that there makes ID scientific because it can be falsified, namely there can be presented some observations that would give us reason to say that an object could be accounted for with something else.

Fuck, in your earlier post you even stated that the designer could have designed a given entity to not look designed. Don't you see it? If objects can be designed to look non-designed, and objects can evolve to look designed, your metric for inferring design is simultaneously unfalsifiable and meaningless.
Not to mention the fact that your method for inferring design is based on Dembski's ludicrous and arbitrarily invented 1/2 threshold.

Your fucking idiotic claim that "proteins need to bind to gtp to leave the nucleus" is a manifest demonstration of this total lack of knowledge you suffered from. I'm just happy I could contribute a little to your education.
Not proteins but RNA. And that's true in eukaryotes.

Yes I'm glad I taught you that... but you said proteins. You only said RNA now because I spend 6-8 pages teaching you how it worked.

No, I asked you for evidence that ALL proteins need to bind to GTP to be considered functional. The paper you provided was a demonstration of your failure to understand the relationship between GTP, mRNA and proteins.
Your subsequent attempt at obfuscation further exposed your lack of knowledge that the Ribosome was found outside the cell nucleus.
I presented you what I considered relevant. If you disagree, then that's your porblem.

ROFL. What you considered relevant was factually irrelevant to your original claim and what I demanded as evidence for this claim. You bullshitted and lost. But you'restill trying to rewrite history I see. :whistle:

How about YOU learn the fucking language of probability theory, and supply it with a fucking proper understanding of evolutionary genetics?
I already know it, otherwise I wouldn't be telling you to learn it.

Says the guy who invents an explanation for genetic redundancy where no evidence for it exists, and had no clue about the process of DNA-to protein biosynthesis

A straight out fucking lie.
Nope, and I'll do it again.

Okay, here we go again. For everyone to see. Point by point.

The ev program was modified from version 3.67 to version 3.69 so that there is a new parameter that allows one to select between the three possible methods for handling ties. The program will automatically upgrade older versions of the parameter file (evp) by adding this parameter.
Again, the same thing, he modifies teh special rule to be a new parameter, so still fine tuning the fitness function to produce a goal. This is still the place where teh intelligent agent introduces information into the program.

He REMOVED THE SPECIAL RULE. He submitted Dembski's bullshit to an EMPIRICAL TEST and PROVED HIM WRONG. Check the second fucking link.

The ev paper did not make this claim since the phrase "complex specified information" was not used. It is unclear what this means. Shannon used the term "information" in a precise mathematical sense and that is what I use. I will assume that the extra words "complex specified" are jargon that can be dispensed with. Indeed, William A. Dembski assumes that information is specified complexity, so the term is redundant and can be removed.
This is why it's painfull to read what this guy writes. He doesn't even know what Specified Complexity is, and thinks that it's just a bunch of redundant words.

They ARE a bunch of redundant words. The only thing that matters is whether the fucking program produces an increase in information while correctly simulating evolution or not. However the fuck Dembski want's to define information to prop up mythology is irrelevant.

This statement represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the paper. The phrase 'for free' does not appear in the paper. The claim in the ev paper is that the information appears under replication, mutation and selection, commonly known as 'evolution'. It is not for free! Half of the population DIES every generation! In the standard example given in the paper, to gain 4 bits required the (virtual) deaths of some 32 organisms x 704 generations = 22528 deaths. On average that's 22528/4 = 5632 deaths per bit. Note that theoretically one could get 1 bit of information with only 1 binary decision. So the evolution is, not surprisingly, a rather inefficient information generating mechanism. No biologist has ever claimed any differently!
Note that "from scratch" does not mean the same thing as "for free". "From scratch" refers (obviously) to the initial condition of the genome which is random in this case so that Rsequence = 0 bits. That is, there is no measurable information in the binding sites at the beginning of the simulation. "For free" would mean "without effort", and the paragraph above demonstrates that there is quite a bit of effort and (virtual) pain for the gains observed.
For free of from scratch is irrelevant. A better and more precise statement would be, that Schneider claims to get more information from his program than random chance would produce in the same period.

No, it's not irrelevant and he shows why:

Thomas D. Schneider wrote:Note that "from scratch" does not mean the same thing as "for free". "From scratch" refers (obviously) to the initial condition of the genome which is random in this case so that Rsequence = 0 bits. That is, there is no measurable information in the binding sites at the beginning of the simulation. "For free" would mean "without effort", and the paragraph above demonstrates that there is quite a bit of effort and (virtual) pain for the gains observed.

NOTE ALSO that Dembski has attempted to put words into my head. I did not use the term "complex specificed information" in my paper. This is Dembski's jargon, unique to him. No scientist or engineer uses it. Furthermore, the statement implies that I made the information. That's wrong, it was generated by the process of the program. A careful scholar would avoid incorrect attributions.


The No Free Lunch theorems are not relevant to the problem, so Dembski is using misdirection. Indeed this is obvious from inspection of the ev program and its results: it works as claimed. A careful worker would not make this mistake because they would take the time to understand the theorem before citing it.
The NFL theorems are relevant to the problem since we are dealing with algorithms here. And the NFL theorems claim that no algorithm outperforms any other averaged over all fitness functions. The reason for that is that the algorithm itself doesn't produce any information, it's comming from the fitness function.

ROFL. Here's one of the fucking authors of the original NFL Theorem showing why Dembski's usage is bullshit :
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/jello.cfm

This is not unreasonable because it happens the same way in nature. For example, if a bacterium has severe mutations in 5 ribosome binding sites, then that means that 5 proteins will not be made. Is this fatal? Not necessarily. Suppose that the 5 proteins code for processing 5 different sugars. If the sugars are not in the medium that the bacterium swims in then it will make no difference. But when the bacterium comes to a solution where one of the sugars is available, it will be unable to eat. If that is the sole carbon source, it will starve (surely a 'mistake'!) and bacteria that have mutations that correct a site or already have a correct site will survive. A simple way to account for this is to count the number of mistakes. It may be that a highly beaten up genome (with 100 mistakes) is pretty much as badly off as one with only a few mutations, so maybe one should take the logarithm of the number of mistakes. But a logarithm is a monotonic function of its argument, so this will not change the selection order and therefore would not affect the evolution (other than wasting computer cycles). Surely it is not reasonable to say that a creature with 5 mistakes will survive better than one with 2 so to match the natural situation we should pick a monotonic function. That's what I did in the paper.
Yes it's the same thing in nature. So the nature is set up to find such solutions by evolution. Fine.

So the answer to "Who or what determines the number of mistakes?" is: Just as in nature, the number of genetic control systems that if controlled would give an advantage determines the number of mistakes.
So, in nature the fitness function of nature decides, in a computer program, the fitness function of teh program decides. OK.

:picard:

Nature is not fucking "set up" to find solutions by evolution unless you can demonstrate it empirically. The program simulates evolution, nature does not. Nature just works...

"The map is not the terrain" - Hackenslash

I generally do not find 'fitness' to be a useful concept. In the ev program there is no fitness function and the word 'fitness' does not appear in the paper. Unlike most biologists I dispense with the concept of a fixed 'fitness function'. A 'fitness landscape' is too rigid since it does not describe the effects the organism itself may have and it does not account for a changing environment (In addition, fitness is generally depicted as 2 dimensional, which causes severe conceptual problems, see ccmm). At best there is only 'relative instantaneous fitness' in a changing environment. That is, whoever makes the fewest mistakes in the current environment is likely to survive.
Well you can call it relative instantaneous fitness, but it's commonly known as the fitness function. Calling it any other way doesn't make it into something else.

Calling it a fitness function doesn't make it into one. You can't assume the conclusion in your argument.

Counting of the number of mistakes matches what happens in nature, as described above. I only claim that the ev simulation matches what happens in nature in essential points. No smuggling occurs.
Yes, that's what happens in nature. But this program was set up to perform this way. So the question is, was nature also?

Well why don't you go and do some field experiments and observation and find out? Why doesn't the Discovery Institute go and DISCOVER something?

If Dembski finds that this produces information, then he will understand that the simulation shows that information can be generated in nature solely by replication, mutation and selection. That is information as mathematically defined by Claude Shannon can be generated by Darwinian evolution.
No, because Schneider is the one who put the information into the fitness function for the algorithm to extract it.

All of the same bullshit over again and you managed to ignore the testable claim just like Dembski did. :whistle:

Blind assertion.
We all await the evidence.
It's in the paper. Deal with it.

No it's not, prove we wrong. Cite in the paper where specifically it is shown that it was a case of genetic redundancy.

Oh fuck, another handwave just went by... :whistle:

We could ask ourselves "What is the probability that the genomes of extant life would fall on a hierarchical tree of life?"
For example, Human are postulated to descend from a common ancestor we whare with Chimpanzees. Chimpanzees and Humans are postulated to descend from a common ancestor we whare with Gorillas. Etc. etc.
So we look at the sequenced genomes for a line of organisms we postulate are related by common descend in a specific order, and we calculate the probability that their genomes sequences should happen to randomly align with this postulated tree of life. We go on and do this for every genome of every organism we have sequenced, and we happen to find that their genomes fall exactly as expected on this postulated evolutionary this tree of life we derived from comparative anatomy, biogeography, developmental biology, embryology and paleontology.

What are the fucking odds that the genomes of every organism we sequence, should happen to fall in perfectly with the predicted evolutionary tree of life? Incomprehensibly infinitesimal. (Go back and find the fucking paper if you want the actual numbers, I can't be bothered doing all your work for you).

There it is, the statistical test that demonstrates common descent. Evolution happened. GET OVER IT.

** I should add here that the actual statistical test is a little more complicated than the way I have explained it. They also compared the accepted evolutionary model with different scenarios like multiple independent origins with convergent evolution etc.
Read the actual paper.
That doesn't mean that any of the organisms are related. Yeah, it's a small probability that they would all align. That's true, but from that it does not follow that they are all related.

It means common descent is the most likely explanation out of all the possible ones. Maybe you should submit that to Dembski's 1/2 threshold and see how it comes up. Oh wait, 1/2 only works when one presupposes design, or what?.. R O F L.

Maybe they were designed that way?

Which would be an unfalsifiable claim. :whistle:

No, I don't belive people came from rocks. I don't know how life began, but I have never even seen a hypothesis that suggests people sprang out of rocks.
I didn't say sprang from rocks. But minerals melted from rocks, and slowly formed first self replicating molecule and over billions of years formed a human. So basicly, people came from rocks. That's what some people believe.

Since no complete model of abiogenesis has been submitted, It's not really a problem I can say I suffer from.

How did life begin? I don't know. There is a reason they are called hypotheses, not accepted theories. They are works in progress, not consensually accepted positions.

You are attacking a strawman. If you spend a little time reading on the subject you would realize there's a lot more going on than just "melting minerals turning into self-replicating molecules".

Combination? Please elaborate...
Combination is when you take two things, like two statements and combine them together.

Here's an example.

a.) I went to school today.
b.) I walked down the road.
c.) I went to school today and I walked down the road.

See, I didn't equivocate these two statements. I didn't say they were the same. I simply combined them into one larger statement. There you go, you learned something new today!

Yes thank you that was very impressive and i'm sure you are very proud, but I already knew what the word itself meant.

What I'm trying to understand is this obsession you have with lumping an incompletely understood hypothesized event together with one of the most successful and most evidentially supported scientific theories of all time. One is not the other, and one is not contingent on the other either.

However life ultimately began, and where we draw the line as the ultimate beginning of something we can call "life" has zero impact on the validity of Darwinian evolution. It works very well all by itself.

It seems you keep arguing from the assumption that one HAS to believe something, regardless if one has valid, evidentially supported reasons for doing so.
Last edited by Rumraket on Jan 23, 2011 9:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13113
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#869  Postby Rumraket » Jan 22, 2011 5:01 pm

iamthereforeithink wrote:
Царь Славян wrote:My interpretation of the double slit experiment is simple. The EM radiation is passing through the both slits and thus is causing disturbance in the aether.


Dude, stick to biology. You're looking worse than Deepak Chopra here.

I'm afraid his work in biology isn't any better. Just saying :lol:
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13113
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#870  Postby Darkchilde » Jan 22, 2011 5:16 pm

Царь Славян wrote:
That there is a designer god. ID is hiding the word god behind the word designer, but everyone knows that it is just smokescreen.
Feel free to demonstrate that. While you're failing, I'll point you to this article, which is the basis for design inference. Please feel free to point out where is GOD mentioned in this particular paper.

http://www.designinference.com/document ... cation.pdf


Ever heard of the Wedge document and the Discovery Institute that are the main proponents of ID?

Царь Славян wrote:
Well then., why don't you go on a terrace 10 storeys up and jump down and try to fly like Superman. It is a certain bet that you will end up as soup on the pavement... The human body does not have the physical characteristics needed for flight.
I'm not claiming that I can fly, but maybe others can.


Oh does your designer god designed humans with wings? Or too much X-Men reading?

Царь Славян wrote:
Wrong. We have made antimatter, in fact an anti-hydrogen atom, and by your logic since people made that then the universe is fine-tuned to have antimatter atoms as well. Can you see the fault in your argument?
Actually no, it's correct. If something like anti-matter can exist in this universe, then yes, teh universe is fine-tuned for that to exist.


Then by your interpretation, there is no need for a designer. The universe can be like that, without the need for a designer.

Царь Славян wrote:
The fact that the Universe supports life, just means that it has the capability given certain conditions to have life.
Yes, in other words, fine-tuned for life to exist. I never said fine tuned for life to be EVERYWHERE. Just fine tuned for life to exist in the first place.


If the universe is fine-tuned for life to exist, then it would exist all over the place. Do you really understand what fine-tuning is? And even if it is fine-tuned for life, according to you then, it is a natural process, because the universe is fine-tuned for black holes, for neutron stars, etc. therefore there is no need for a designer.

Царь Славян wrote:
If the universe was fine-tuned, then life would be everywhere, even on the Sun or on Jupiter, or on Mars. Is there such evidence? No, not at all.
Exist, not be everywhere. I said exist.


See my answer above.

Царь Славян wrote:
That the universe is fine-tuned for life is another religious belief. In fact, every scientist that believes the fine-tuning argument, is some kind of theist/deist. And it is just belief and nothing more.
No, what's a religious belief is that people come from rocks.


You even got that wrong. The Bible says that god made Adam from dust. Is there anything that you actually know?

Царь Славян wrote:
On the contrary, it is you who does not get science. Even the most strange hypothesis have had a basis in some observed phenomenon or something. Can you think of any hypothesis that is not based on some phenomenon, on some data, on a belief, on something? In order for a new hypothesis to arise, there is always something in the back that made people think of it. Even creationism as a hypothesis, has its basis on the Bible, even though we know that it is a totally failed hypothesis. And by creationism, I include ID.
Observed phenomena are not the same as evidence. Evidence are observations that support a particular hypothesis.


very good. You do understand something, but that was not my point. My point was that in order for there to be a hypothesis, something must trigger it. A stimulus to make and research that hypothesis, design more experiments, and find more data to support it.

Царь Славян wrote:
The Rosetta stone, though, has specific writing on it. Hieroglyphics, and a lot more, which could be compared with other writings, ways that it was done, and other similar examples. Do not confuse man-made artifacts with your proposed "design". They are different, in the fact that while the Rosetta stone was man-made, your design hypothesis fails in all its tests.
Answer the question please. Do you need to see someone design the Rosetta stone, to actually infer design of the Rosetta stone?


No, but that's not the point, is it? You are bringing an example of a known designed artifact and you are comparing it to something totally different, that does not have any scientific evidence that is designed. Just your belief that it cannot arise without a designer.

Царь Славян wrote:
Oh, and are you a physicist?
Does it matter?


Yes, because you are ignorant of physics. Totally.

Царь Славян wrote:
The Copenhagen interpretation does not break the laws of causality.
Yes it does. There is no clear line between cause and effect, and events are calculated probabilistically. It is claimed that we can not know the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time. It's either one or the other. And that is because it's indeterminate untill we measure it. Thus there is no standard cause and effect as we know it. Thus, it is illogical.


And here is where you are wrong. This is the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. Do you know who Werner Heisenberg was? The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle actually says that there are certain pairs of physical characteristics, for which the more accurately we measure and can know one of them, the less accurately we can measure and know the other one. It does not mean that the particle does not have position and momentum, it means that it is impossible for an observe to know both at high accuracy and precision. So, for example I can know the position at 40% accuracy and the momentum at less than 60% accuracy. In the actual equations, Planck's constant enters into consideration.

It does not mean that because we cannot know two pairs of quantities there is no cause and effect; you are making assumptions out of your arse again. Nothing I have ever read about the Copenhagen interpretation says anything like that.

Царь Славян wrote:
And I showed you superposition in a big object. Now, if you do not want to accept the evidence, I cannot help you.
The link is currently unavailable.


It works fine for me. It is from the Institute of Physics: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42019

Царь Славян wrote:
Look up Feynman path integrals as well. True there is still a lot to research, and learn, but not by postulating a designer hypothesis which is not falsifiable. A
How do you know it's unfalsifiable?


Okay then, I'll play. How is the design hypothesis falsifiable?

Царь Славян wrote:
Well, evidence, paper and go get the Nobel prize then. Since you are smarter than all those physicists like Niels Bohr, Paul Dirac, etc. go and do some proper research and publish your results. I will be waiting for you to get the Nobel prize by showing that the Copenhagen interpretation is illogical, and not science. Go, then, and do not lose time with atheists that "don't get" science. Since you get science, go and do science.
I don't have to do that in order to claim that it's not science. Why should I go through all the trouble just to say what I already know?


Because you do not understand science. And I showed you why you have misunderstood the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. You did not even know its name!

Царь Славян wrote:
Maths and logic are tools of science mostly.
Yes, and also they are a higher abstraction tools than science. And science can not violate neither math nor logic.

Maths is also science, but it is different in that you can see mathematically even things that do not exist. For example, you can model a fairy's wings mathematically. If you would spent a bit more actually learning about the Copenhagen interpretation, you would see that it is not illogical as such. it is where the equations and data has led us. What is your explanation of the double slit experiment then?
The equations of QM are fine. I never said that they are false. It's the Copenhagen interpretation that is false, because it claims that there is no clear line between cause and effect. My interpretation of the double slit experiment is simple. The EM radiation is passing through the both slits and thus is causing disturbance in the aether.


Aether? :what: :what: :what: :what: :whine: :whine: :whine: :whine:

Царь Славян wrote:
So does my invisible pink unicorn theory.


Hypothesis not theory.

Царь Славян wrote:
Intelligence exists. We don't have to find a particular intelligent agent for every designed artefact we find. If we did, then we would also have to find the person who made the Rosetta stone to infer that it was designed.


And we know who made the Rosetta stone: the Ancient Egyptians and we know a lot about Ancient Egypt. We do not need to know the specific person(s) who made the stone, but we do know which people did. How about your designer then? What do we know about that piece of shit?

Царь Славян wrote:
That it's not science? You would have to show me that ID is not falsifiable.


Show me first how it can be falsified. When you have a designer that can do "everything", then whatever evidence we find to the contrary is just "the way the designer wanted it". No falsification ever. Can you show me how the design hypothesis can be falsified?

Царь Славян wrote:
Yeeeey! Good for you!

Nobody ever did. Would you be the first?


Try re-reading the thread. GenesForLife, Rumracket, etc. have shown you the evidence. You just refuse to accept it.

Царь Славян wrote:
LOL! Now that's funny! :D


Thank you very much for making fun of people's pain. Thank you very much for being inconsiderate of other people's suffering.

Царь Славян wrote:
Non sequitur maybe?


How can you know the intent, purpose of something that does not exist? True, you cannot know the purpose of many other people, probably because you do not know these people or because you never asked them. But in the caase of your designer, why don't you try and find said designer and ask him what his purpose is?

Царь Славян wrote:
I disagree.


You can disagree all you want, but up to now, you have not shown any evidence for design. Saying that the universe is fine-tuned, so fucking what? It could have this fine-tuning because of naturalistic processes, and except for your belief that fine-tuning requires a designer, you have nothing.
User avatar
Darkchilde
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 9015
Age: 50
Female

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#871  Postby Darkchilde » Jan 22, 2011 5:25 pm

hackenslash wrote:I had thought of sigging it myself, but I'm fairly sure the poster will not permit it, and will probably whinge about it to the staff if not asked.


Hey guys, if someone should sig it, that's me! he was answering me... So I take precedence! :P :P :naughty2: :naughty2:
User avatar
Darkchilde
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 9015
Age: 50
Female

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#872  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 22, 2011 5:38 pm

twistor59 wrote:
I guess it's against the FUA to sig something without permission of the originator ? It's almost on a par with the FSTDT "if there were such a source, scientists would have known about it"



Technically, I don't understand how this rule could have come about.

In the FUA it says:

Content rights
rationalskepticism.org does not claim ownership or rights to any content, photos, videos, audio or other works of authorship posted on this website by its members. After posting content on rationalskepticism.org, you will continue to hold all ownership rights to your posted content, as well as all rights to use your content in any way, shape or form according to your discretion. On this site, such content must be within the limitations of prohibited content as deemed by our Terms of Use and our Forum Users' Agreement. By posting content on this site, you are hereby granting rationalskepticism.org a limited license for using, altering, duplicating, publishing, republishing or reproducing their work through rationalskepticism.org services and linking, in its entirety or as rationalskepticism.org sees fit, in perpetuity. As a limited license, this means that your content is subject to global reach via the internet, is royalty free (not subject to fees imposed on rationalskepticism.org) and that you are free to post and license the same content to other parties outside of rationalskepticism.org (non-exclusive). This limited license does not expire and is upheld for as long as rationaskepticism.org sees fit.



'By posting content on this site, you are hereby granting rationskepticism.org a limited license for using... duplicating.... republishing or reproducing their work through rationalskepticism.org services and linking, in its entirety or as rationalskepticism.org sees fit'

As a member that seeks to use someone else's words as a quote in their signature that is a part of rationalskepticism.org, it is covered by the above.

I understand that some people may have used quotes in signatures to get around the personal insult rule in the past, but that's against them insulting not reposting others words.

If you can quote someone to reply to them, what's the difference of quoting them in your signature? :scratch:
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 23448
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#873  Postby hackenslash » Jan 22, 2011 5:42 pm

Somebody had a whinge about it. I forget who, and the circumstances.

The only reason I can think of for not allowing a member to quote another member in their sig, permission or no, would be if that sig constituted a misrepresentation of the poster's position, which should surely be covered by the quote-mine rule. In this case, there is no context that could make that statement anything less than utterly fucking ridiculous, and no way to misrepresent the ludicrous degree of crass stupidity it clearly is, so of course that wouldn't apply.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21383
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#874  Postby twistor59 » Jan 22, 2011 5:47 pm

Oh well it's academic anyway. DC has claimed first dibs on it.
A soul in tension that's learning to fly
Condition grounded but determined to try
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earthbound misfit, I
User avatar
twistor59
RS Donator
 
Posts: 4966
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#875  Postby Darkchilde » Jan 22, 2011 5:52 pm

twistor59 wrote:Oh well it's academic anyway. DC has claimed first dibs on it.


Yes, and I have used it.

If Czar wants me to remove it, I will, in accordance to the FUA. Until he says so, I am keeping it. However, this is not quote-mining, nor any misrepresentation. This is what Czar actually believes, so I am hoping that he will not have any objections.
User avatar
Darkchilde
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 9015
Age: 50
Female

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#876  Postby theropod » Jan 22, 2011 6:26 pm

...
and dating methods.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7450
Age: 65
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#877  Postby byofrcs » Jan 22, 2011 6:51 pm

Царь Славян wrote:
You missed the step before i.e. the step whereby the designer decides the fitness function and thus sets a goal or, with evolutionary model, where the environment has been formed without agency.
I DID NOT MISS ANY STEPS! LEARN TO READ! CAN YOU SPEAK ENGLISH!!?!?!?!?

PART 2 – THE FITNESS FUNCTION

In case of the computer search, this is the part where the designer sets up the fitness function to select some sequences over others.

In case of natural evolution, the nature itself and it's properties decide which DNA sequence gets selected over others.


THERE
ARE
NO
MISSING
STEPS!!!!!!!!!!

THEY
ARE
TWO
IDENTICAL
LISTS

NOW POINT OUT THE DIFFERENCE OR SHUT THE HELL UP!!!!!!!!!



In one list there is an implied designer and there is intent and in the other there is no designer and no intent. Where there is a designer with intent then we use the word "goal".

So the lists are not identical in step 2 where it has the wording "Asign value of fitness" (sic) . With the designer version then the step is actually,

"Designer assigns value of fitness to specific sequences."

and with the unintentional then the fitness function is,

"Blindly eliminate unfit sequences leaving residual fit sequences."

They are the opposite sides of the same coin but one is flipped by a designer.



Using the example of the salinity of the sea then it is either a) the designer sets the salinity by causing salt content of the water or, b) the salt content of the water is not a goal but a result of what salts are available from rocks.
And what's the physical difference in these two processes?



The intent of the designer i.e. what goal they had in mind.



Goal in the English language very strongly implies agency, pre-planning, pre-definition and so on. What happens with natural selection is not equivalent to a computer search because of this pre-definition of goal by an agent.
So basicly you are saying that there is no difference except semantics? What is the PHYSICAL difference?



The "PHYSICAL difference" is that one has a designer in it i.e. an agent of some kind and the other doesn't. This is not a semantic difference but a rather large difference.



Then we are at an impasse because you call it a goal which implies agency. In your argument you thus hope to sway the view towards agency.
No, I want to show you that both processes are PHYSICALLY IDENTICAL.



Except one has a designer and the other doesn't.



Then you should be able to show me how easy this is given we have "Mount Rushmore". You should be able to explain exactly what the "information" is.
The faces of the people is teh information.



What if Mount Rushmore was accurate carvings of plants ? Or what if Mount Rushmore was a carving of a mountain ?.



Equally your formula should be able to trivially show how to measure the information with napped flints. I think this would be very helpful to the people who study prehistory to allow them to quickly sort naturally occurring artefacts from man-made ones.
Yup, it would do wonders.

Bingo - that is the problem that these archaeology people have. By cut marks in animal bones and by the presence of discarded napped flints its clear that sharp stone edges were used on animals and that these would crafted but you seem to have discovered some way of readily identifying design from random for these researchers. I imagine that they would be interested if your algorithms were trustworthy.
How do you know that all those items were not there simply by chance?



Circular argument is circular.


Very easy to answer this - SETI doesn't presume a designer for each anomalous signal but stringently re-checks and has so far discarded all to date. They err on the side of caution.
Neither does ID. Does ID claim that EVERYTHING is designed?



Well if it is anything to do with bacteria then this has a massive impact in our world as all the life of this world that breathes oxygen is only here because of bacteria. Without bacteria there would be no Trees, no animals, no humans, nothing bigger than a few hundred micrometers.

So the implications of designers mucking with bacteria are astounding and critical to the tree of life on Earth. This is their planet. They made it and they keep it alive.

So though ID may not claim "EVERYTHING is designed" what they do claim has an impact on everything that lives on this planet.


Intelligent Design supporters have a designer in mind and stick it onto selective biological features and then argue like crazy and refuse to accept the consensus view that they are doing it wrong. They presume agency and so do not err on the side of caution.
Wrong. ID proponents don't presume a designer also. Which designer am I presuming?



When you say designed then you claim an agent of some kind. With respect to this topic, with some this is Aliens and with others this is God. Obviously both of those sound kind of silly so those that support ID generally stop at "designed" so they don't sound silly.



Wrong - if one person does something and everyone can't reproduce this are you then saying that the majority view is irrelevant ? That's stupid.
If they can't reproduce it then that's a different story. I said that majority OPINION is irrelevant, not majority EXPERIMENTS. Learn the difference.



I'm assuming that when scientists give opinions that count then this comes from experience they have had with experiments rather than the opinion of the Man on the Clapham Common Bus. Learn the difference. Scientists are especially subjected to being hoisted by their own petard by the vision of hindsight.


Trees are found in nature - not "wood" and the difference is that wood is processed by an agent with a purpose. Ore is found in nature - very rarely free "metal". Metal is ore that is processed for a purpose.

Bacteria flagellum do not use "processed" materials but materials that are commonly found in nature.
Proteins that make the bacterial flagellum are no found in nature, except in living organisms. And what if I had a table from unprocessed wood and iron?



Without tooling then you start to have an artefact that becomes harder and harder to determine if there was any intent i.e. agency behind it.


Graphite is chemical related to diamond - the physics of the presentation also matters. With Mount Rushmore then the issue is that the National Parks Service says that the "granite was very resistant, eroding one inch every 10,000 years." thus we look at how the surface has weathered and we see that the natural wearing deviates. Thus the probability is there is a design.
Maybe it formed faces by chance?


Maybe, equally maybe, if it was a mountain face that was carved into the shape of a mountain face, how do we tell that from chance ?.


Why are you continually bringing up an example that everyone says is designed and has clear marks of design i.e. no one says that Mount Rushmore is natural ? If anyone said Mount Rushmore was naturally occurring then it is easy to show the abnormalities - scree that as been blasted off by explosive shocks, and a surface finish that is wrong for the time periods.
Becasue I want to show you teh features of designed objects and how do we tell them from non-designed ones.



...and equally I'm showing how to do this by looking at the toolchain in use rather than through the use of mathemagic of statistics.



So there are better designs such that if the Intelligent Designer spent a bit more time they could have done better ?
I could say so.



So there could be many other sequences that are equally as good as this one sequence, perhaps even better ?. If this is true then this rapidly improves the probability of this one sequence being common and a probably likely outcome.



I think we've already had fun with that - when I throw a 6 sided die with my eyes closed then it comes up with a "1" and you thus say that was "design".
The chances of any number coming up by cahnce is 1:1. But as I said earlier some sequences are more prevalent then others, thus are more probable than others.



Without examining the outcomes of all the probabilities then you can't make claims about the probability of this one outcome. As many others have said any sequence is equally likely by chance but the search space is massive. Other than yourself though, no one says the process of Evolution is by chance.



But it is explained by natural selection. Once again you have latched onto the word "chance" as tightly as you have the word "goal".
Bit if it did evolve by chance and natural selection then you are invoking an algorithm, and the NFL theorem clearly states that algorithms don't produce any new information except which random chance could. So you are displacing the problem to a higher order search.


No, and in fact this allows us to be able to justify any information we find because as everyone says any sequence is equally likely by chance so all possible information can be produced by chance.

Again with no intended goal then no search is done. It is only with a designer than needs a specific (or one of a set of) searches as it is only a designer that has a desire for specific outcome. We call this outcome a "goal".
In America the battle is between common cents distorted by profits and common sense distorted by prophets.
User avatar
byofrcs
RS Donator
 
Name: Lincoln Phipps
Posts: 7906
Age: 55
Male

Country: Tax, sleep, identity ?
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#878  Postby hotshoe » Jan 22, 2011 6:55 pm

Царь Славян wrote:
You missed the step before i.e. the step whereby the designer decides the fitness function and thus sets a goal or, with evolutionary model, where the environment has been formed without agency.
I DID NOT MISS ANY STEPS1! LEARN TO READ2! CAN YOU SPEAK ENGLISH 3!4!?5!?6!?7!?

THERE
ARE
NO
MISSING
STEPS8!9!10!11!12!13!14!15!16!17!

THEY
ARE
TWO
IDENTICAL
LISTS

NOW POINT OUT THE DIFFERENCE OR SHUT THE HELL UP 18!19!20!21!22!23!24!25!26!
(numbers in green my addition for clarity)

Wow, ALL CAPS and 26 exclamation points. Someone really lost it there.

If it makes you so angry to have us decline to take your IDiot-spew for gospel, if you can't handle being politely disagreed with, maybe you should take a long break from this forum.

We'd miss you, of course, but we would understand if it were necessary for your mental health to take a break.

And while you're recovering, you could read something with actual science for once. I recommend starting with something light and easy: Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything. Get the book - read the whole thing. You won't regret it !

And even if you're not angry with us for rejecting your spew, get the book anyway. You still won't regret it !

(Note, only two exclamations - I'm not an "angry atheist") :lol:

Edit - WTF I missed that whole middle line of exclamation points. Recalculating now ...
26 Exclamation points in six sentences. A new world record.
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#879  Postby hotshoe » Jan 22, 2011 7:24 pm

theropod wrote:...
and dating methods.

RS

I think we could make a list of the things of which Tsar's posts show misunderstanding ("misunderstanding", to put the kindest interpretation on it).
Let's see:

all of physics, apparently, with special emphasis on:
aether
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

dating methods, with special emphasis on:
radiometric dating

logic
probability
biology, with special emphasis on:
protein formation
RNA transcription

design
intent
falsifiability
hypothesis
evidence no, he seemed to understand "evidence" in replying to one of Darkchilde's posts
atheism

Well, no one can be an expert on everything these days, so that's not too bad, is it ?
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#880  Postby hotshoe » Jan 22, 2011 7:33 pm

Царь Славян wrote:
That there is a designer god. ID is hiding the word god behind the word designer, but everyone knows that it is just smokescreen.
Feel free to demonstrate that. While you're failing, I'll point you to this article, which is the basis for design inference. Please feel free to point out where is GOD mentioned in this particular paper.

http://www.designinference.com/document ... cation.pdf


Oh my god. Did you really just do what I think you did ?

<double-checks link>

Oh my god, you did. You really did. You linked to one of lying Dumbski's papers as "evidence" that Dumbski ISN'T lying WHEN he lies about hiding his personal creator god behind the smokescreen of "designer".

Oh my god. That has got to be the funniest thing so far this year. IF it weren't so funny, I'd say it was terminally stupid, but you get a pass for the sheer chutzpah of your comedy efforts.
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest