To return to the topic, Dunsapy just sent me this hilarious offering on youtube:

http://www.weloennig.de/LaryngealNerve.pdf

Spearthrower wrote:To return to the topic, Dunsapy just sent me this hilarious offering on youtube:

http://www.weloennig.de/LaryngealNerve.pdf

I tried to read some of it, but it starts out being hilariously wrong from the get-go.

This piece for example is really really stupid:

creatinist moronic screed wrote:As to the evolutionary scientists just mentioned: A totally nonsensical and relictual misdesign would be a severe contradiction in their own neo-Darwinian (or synthetic evolutionary) world view. Biologist and Nobel laureate Francois Jacob described this view on the genetic level as follows: "The genetic message, the programme of the present-day organism ... resembles a text without an author, that a proof-reader has been correcting for more than two billion years, continually improving, refining and completing it, gradually eliminating all imperfections." The result in the Giraffe? Jerry Coyne: "One of nature’s worst designs is shown by the recurrent laryngeal nerve of mammals... etc. etc.

The whole paper thus seems to attempt to claim that because natural selection has been refining adaptations for millions of years, the fact that the RLN takes a detour somehow in itself constitutes an argument against evolution.

You seriously couldn't make a more stupid argument in a lifetime.

And oh yeah, the main guy sourced for all the claims containted therein against evolution(Markus Rammerstorfer), is a creationist.

I started with an entirely open mind assuming that it was something scientific that had been run through a translator. But by the end of the second sentence, I realised it was arse-backwards nonsense - the first sentence just elicited a frown, but I thought that it might be a factor of poor translation. So I decided to see if there were any sentences I could agree with. I gave up somewhere around the end of the 3rd page.

Dunsapy is the gift that just keeps on giving - I'd never have found such incompetent dreck without him.

GrahamH wrote:Is it about combining two theories, or simply that any model has limitations? GR doesn't fit observations at very small scales and AM doesn't model space time curvature.

I almost forgot that was still hanging. It is about the combination. It´s not that GR doesn´t fit observations at small scales - it tells us something about space-time curvature and that is smooth (apart from singularities), i.e. you can zoom in to any scale and get meaningful statements. And these would make sense if paticles behaved classically otherwise. QM also makes predictions on all scales. Take the uncertaincy principle: dpdx>h. Classicaly p=m*v, so you get vdmdx+mdvdx>h. For large objects m is large enough to allow dxdv to be very small and still satisfy it. Yet it holds universally. The issue is that the combination simply doesn´t state anything meaningful. Something that´s not even wrong. Sure, both can be used as approximations, but fundamentally GR can´t handle stochasticity and that means we get GR as an approximation, when we can use a law of large numbers to make a deterministic approximation.

susu.exp wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Is it about combining two theories, or simply that any model has limitations? GR doesn't fit observations at very small scales and AM doesn't model space time curvature.

I almost forgot that was still hanging. It is about the combination. It´s not that GR doesn´t fit observations at small scales - it tells us something about space-time curvature and that is smooth (apart from singularities), i.e. you can zoom in to any scale and get meaningful statements. And these would make sense if paticles behaved classically otherwise. QM also makes predictions on all scales. Take the uncertaincy principle: dpdx>h. Classicaly p=m*v, so you get vdmdx+mdvdx>h. For large objects m is large enough to allow dxdv to be very small and still satisfy it. Yet it holds universally. The issue is that the combination simply doesn´t state anything meaningful. Something that´s not even wrong. Sure, both can be used as approximations, but fundamentally GR can´t handle stochasticity and that means we get GR as an approximation, when we can use a law of large numbers to make a deterministic approximation.

Thanks for coming back.

"these would make sense if paticles behaved classically otherwise", but particles don't behave like that. GR doesn't fit observed behaviour of particles. QM doesn't describe the motion of planets. I didn't mean to suggest that you couldn't plug numbers into the equations at any scale. Rather I meant that the equations do not describe the behaviour we observe of very big, or very small things. Am I mistaken?

GrahamH wrote:"these would make sense if paticles behaved classically otherwise", but particles don't behave like that. GR doesn't fit observed behaviour of particles. QM doesn't describe the motion of planets. I didn't mean to suggest that you couldn't plug numbers into the equations at any scale. Rather I meant that the equations do not describe the behaviour we observe of very big, or very small things. Am I mistaken?

Yes. Because the point is that you can´t plug in the numbers. A rather straightforward idea would be to say: Well particles don´t behave classically, so we just use the QM equations here to describe how particles behave. But that´s where it all goes wrong: If you plug in the QM equations into a spacetime that´s curved as GR has it, then you don´t get results. Not just wrong results, but no results at all. The equations tell you that 1=0 and from that you can derrive anything. And that´s so fundamental that it means that at least one of them is broken for good - it can´t even be part of the solution.
Both of course are incomplete, but the above means, that one of them can´t be completed, either we get a whole new theory for gravity to replace GR that is able to work at low scales or we get a new theory for low numbers of particles that doesn´t have stochasticity. The Bell violation suggest the former, the Neutrino results do so as well.

susu.exp wrote:

GrahamH wrote:"these would make sense if paticles behaved classically otherwise", but particles don't behave like that. GR doesn't fit observed behaviour of particles. QM doesn't describe the motion of planets. I didn't mean to suggest that you couldn't plug numbers into the equations at any scale. Rather I meant that the equations do not describe the behaviour we observe of very big, or very small things. Am I mistaken?

Yes. Because the point is that you can´t plug in the numbers. A rather straightforward idea would be to say: Well particles don´t behave classically, so we just use the QM equations here to describe how particles behave. But that´s where it all goes wrong: If you plug in the QM equations into a spacetime that´s curved as GR has it, then you don´t get results. Not just wrong results, but no results at all. The equations tell you that 1=0 and from that you can derrive anything. And that´s so fundamental that it means that at least one of them is broken for good - it can´t even be part of the solution.
Both of course are incomplete, but the above means, that one of them can´t be completed, either we get a whole new theory for gravity to replace GR that is able to work at low scales or we get a new theory for low numbers of particles that doesn´t have stochasticity. The Bell violation suggest the former, the Neutrino results do so as well.

I doun't have any issue with the incompatibility of GR & QM. My point is that QM simply does not include gravity, and GR does not include the interaction of of particles. If you try to model the path of an electron using just GR (or just classical mechanics) you don't get anything that matches reality. Similarly, you can't model planetary orbits by integrating the quantum behaviour of vast numbers of particles. QM must be incomplete (or wrong) since it doesn't include gravity. GR must be incomplete (or wrong) since it doesn't include particle interactions. In addition, trying to combine the two, as they are, leads to invalidity.

So I suppose it is fair to say that at least one is probably wrong and can't be fixed by simply extending it. The concept is wrong (curved space-time is an error? Particles are the wrong paradigm?)

Calilasseia wrote:

No it isn't, it's based upon mythology.

You were created in your mother's womb, were you not?

Bollocks. Do you have any empirical tests of creationist assertions to bring to the table? I await this eagerly.

Read my papers.

BLATANT CREATIONIST LIE. Which I addressed in your other thread. Going to READ any of those scientific papers, are you?

Why not read my papers?

Atheistoclast wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

No it isn't, it's based upon mythology.

You were created in your mother's womb, were you not?

Bollocks. Do you have any empirical tests of creationist assertions to bring to the table? I await this eagerly.

Read my papers.

BLATANT CREATIONIST LIE. Which I addressed in your other thread. Going to READ any of those scientific papers, are you?

Why not read my papers?

Giving an example of a well-understood natural creation(or growth if you prefer) that doesn't need the interference of gods or fairies does not lend credence to creationism, quite the opposite it demonstrates how natural processes are sufficient without the use of magic.

trubble76 wrote:
Giving an example of a well-understood natural creation(or growth if you prefer) that doesn't need the interference of gods or fairies does not lend credence to creationism, quite the opposite it demonstrates how natural processes are sufficient without the use of magic.

No, it is not well-understood. No developmental biologist knows why a fertilized egg transmutes and morphs into an elaborate multi-celled and complex organism. It is a fundamental mystery of epic proportions.

Atheistoclast wrote:

trubble76 wrote:
Giving an example of a well-understood natural creation(or growth if you prefer) that doesn't need the interference of gods or fairies does not lend credence to creationism, quite the opposite it demonstrates how natural processes are sufficient without the use of magic.

No, it is not well-understood. No developmental biologist knows why a fertilized egg transmutes and morphs into an elaborate multi-celled and complex organism. It is a fundamental mystery of epic proportions.

Therefore magic? It is better understood than that.

trubble76 wrote:

Therefore magic? It is better understood than that.

What we term "magic" is what we don't yet understand.

No. What you term magic, maybe. What I don't understand is nothing more than that. Not magic, merely not understood.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

No it isn't, it's based upon mythology.

You were created in your mother's womb, were you not?

No. The term is 'conceived'.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Bollocks. Do you have any empirical tests of creationist assertions to bring to the table? I await this eagerly.

Read my papers.

Every time you refer to your papers, you show precisely what they were intended to achieve.

Further, how is it that you can quote and cite specifics from other people's papers, yet you don't do the same when referring to your own?

I know well why it is!

Atheistoclast wrote:

BLATANT CREATIONIST LIE. Which I addressed in your other thread. Going to READ any of those scientific papers, are you?

Why not read my papers?

Why not cite the relevant parts for discussion?

Atheistoclast wrote:

trubble76 wrote:
Giving an example of a well-understood natural creation(or growth if you prefer) that doesn't need the interference of gods or fairies does not lend credence to creationism, quite the opposite it demonstrates how natural processes are sufficient without the use of magic.

No, it is not well-understood. No developmental biologist knows why a fertilized egg transmutes and morphs into an elaborate multi-celled and complex organism. It is a fundamental mystery of epic proportions.

WHY?

Of course we know WHY it occurs: it occurs in order to reproduce another individual of that organism.

It's not a 'fundamental mystery' at all. It's very well studied. It wouldn't take you more than 5 minutes to gather just how much we do know about the process - an awful lot.

Atheistoclast wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

Therefore magic? It is better understood than that.

What we term "magic" is what we don't yet understand.

That's funny: I don't recall any classes on embryology called: Magic 101.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

No it isn't, it's based upon mythology.

You were created in your mother's womb, were you not?

Bollocks. Do you have any empirical tests of creationist assertions to bring to the table? I await this eagerly.

Read my papers.

BLATANT CREATIONIST LIE. Which I addressed in your other thread. Going to READ any of those scientific papers, are you?

Why not read my papers?

Would you be so kind as to present the scientific theory of creation?

Atheistoclast wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

No it isn't, it's based upon mythology.

You were created in your mother's womb, were you not?

I was the result of two pieces of matter coming together. Or did you skip the relevant classes on biology dealing with eggs and sperm?

Atheistoclast wrote:

Bollocks. Do you have any empirical tests of creationist assertions to bring to the table? I await this eagerly.

Read my papers.

Your sad little papers don't contain any "empirical tests", they simply contain a lot of waffle masquerading as science that happens to have fooled some low-grade reviewers. Please, try getting your junk published in Proceedings of the Royal Society Part B, and let's see how quickly they toss your guff into the bin.

Atheistoclast wrote:

BLATANT CREATIONIST LIE. Which I addressed in your other thread. Going to READ any of those scientific papers, are you?

Why not read my papers?

Others have done so, and found them to be worthless. Next?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:<Snip cretoard drivel>

Would you be so kind as to present the scientific theory of creation?

You'll have fun with his replies when he gets back from his little holiday. He'll probably spin lots of worthless shit, involving deliberate misrepresentations of scientific papers (he has form in this respect, just for the record), and then end the whole pile of steaming faeces with a massive piece of conclusion jumping to the effect "my fantasy magic man did it". Along with repeat parroting of his tiresome canards about "information", which he seems to think is a magic entity that only his fantasy magic man can produce, despite this nonsense having been sent round the S-bend a long time ago by Turing and Kolmogorov amongst others. But then he parrots this shit on a regular basis. Doesn't matter how many times it's fed into the shredder, sooner or later, the same shit gets a repeat airing. But when your world view consists of treating the diseased mythological wibblings of piss-stained Middle Eastern nomads written 3,000 years ago as the last word in knowledge, and treating science as a branch of apologetics in order to prop up this encephalitic drivel, you're left with precious few other options, as creationists keep demonstrating.

It's not even as if the doublespeak creationists routinely engage in is original. Most of it was fabricated 40 years ago, by the arch-charlatan and professional liar for doctrine known as Henry Morris, who perverted the arena of discourse to a truly sordid extent with his tedious and noxious little screeds. If you want an interesting exercise, pick up a copy of one of Morris' screeds from the late 1960 and early 1970s (ideally, for about 25 cents at a car boot sale, so you're not lining the pockets of any creationists by buying this trash new), and see how much of the lies peddled by creationists emanated from Morris and his limitless capacity for duplicity.

Calilasseia wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:<Snip cretoard drivel>

Would you be so kind as to present the scientific theory of creation?

You'll have fun with his replies when he gets back from his little holiday. He'll probably spin lots of worthless shit, involving deliberate misrepresentations of scientific papers (he has form in this respect, just for the record), and then end the whole pile of steaming faeces with a massive piece of conclusion jumping to the effect "my fantasy magic man did it". Along with repeat parroting of his tiresome canards about "information", which he seems to think is a magic entity that only his fantasy magic man can produce, despite this nonsense having been sent round the S-bend a long time ago by Turing and Kolmogorov amongst others. But then he parrots this shit on a regular basis. Doesn't matter how many times it's fed into the shredder, sooner or later, the same shit gets a repeat airing. But when your world view consists of treating the diseased mythological wibblings of piss-stained Middle Eastern nomads written 3,000 years ago as the last word in knowledge, and treating science as a branch of apologetics in order to prop up this encephalitic drivel, you're left with precious few other options, as creationists keep demonstrating.

It's not even as if the doublespeak creationists routinely engage in is original. Most of it was fabricated 40 years ago, by the arch-charlatan and professional liar for doctrine known as Henry Morris, who perverted the arena of discourse to a truly sordid extent with his tedious and noxious little screeds. If you want an interesting exercise, pick up a copy of one of Morris' screeds from the late 1960 and early 1970s (ideally, for about 25 cents at a car boot sale, so you're not lining the pockets of any creationists by buying this trash new), and see how much of the lies peddled by creationists emanated from Morris and his limitless capacity for duplicity.

I know, I've seen his threads on his supposed evolution debunking essays.
I'd like to thank you by the way for elucidating posts on evolutionary biology, they've increased my knowledge about the subject. Kudos!