Nothing but a fairytale
Seanpit
< snip >
> > Sean Pitman:
> > Without any odds analysis whatsoever. Your "potentially" useful
> > intermediates are what are in question here - what are the odds of
> > these needed intermediates actually existing in the form necessary to
> > make the leap to the next intermediate step?
> Howard Hershey:
> The odds have to have been good enough to have happened twice in the
> history of life on this earth.
Sean Pitman:
Yep - and what are those odds? Have even a rough idea?
> Given the amount of time and the number
> of bacteria that would have had similar systems, it is hardly
> surprising that at least two did.
How do you know it is "hardly surprising"? What are the actual odds?
Only if you have at least some idea as to the actual odds would you
have any basis to be surprised - or not. So, what are the odds?
Where is your statistical basis for your non-surprise?
> > Have any idea? - any
> > idea at all? All you've done so far is invent just-so stories that
> > have absolutely no basis in reality. These intermediates you imagine
> > simply do not exist in reality in the same creature nor are they
> > likely to exist like you imagine. If you think otherwise, please do
> > present some real statistical analysis here . . .
>
> GIGO probability statistics is as irrelevant as the probability that
> RR would be shot by a guy trying to impress Jodi Foster.
You have to have at least some statistical basis to call your theory
"scientific" Howard. You say your position is "likely" given a few
hundred million years - likely enough to have happened "twice" in that
amount of time. How likely is it Howard? I want some real numbers
here. Where is your statistical basis for this "likely" claim of
yours?
> > > You yourself recognize that size, by itself, does not determine the
> > > size of the gap whenever you lie and say I can choose any starting
> > > point in total sequence space and then object when I do just that.
>
> > You can choose any "likely" starting point Howard. What are the odds
> > that a chosen starting point or points represents reality? You always
> > choose possible starting points that are highly unlikely without any
> > explanation as to why such a starting point was chosen - besides the
> > fact that you need it to have existed for your theory to work. Again,
> > possible doesn't mean likely. There's a big difference here.
>
> What you mean is that nasty old me chooses *likely* functions that
> happen to have sequences or structures similar to those actually
> present in the end system. Rather than some random sequence. What is
> *unlikely* about a bacteria having a rotatable pore? A motor? Most
> bacteria do have those.
Having just any pore or motor isn't enough Howard. You're picking
pores and motors that are unlikely to have actually existed. If you
think otherwise, please provide a basis for why you think your picks
are actually likely to have existed to the degree of homology needed
to cross the gaps you think were crossed by RM/NS.
> > Is it possible for a starting point to be one mutation away from a
> > target? Yep. Is this necessarily likely? Nope.
>
> And as the model system with the deleted FliG points out, there are at
> least a couple of different single mutations that can produce the same
> *function* by different mechanisms. Importantly they differ
> quantitatively wrt the strength of rotation.
This is only true if you start with extremely homologous systems -
what is the likelihood that this would ever be the real starting point
for any bacterium in a few billion years with an average population
size of 1e35? Have any idea?
> > What are the odds Howard? Some actual odds analysis here -
> > please . . .
>
> I am not going to engage in GIGO numerology.
That's right. You only engage in just-so story telling. You have no
numerology at all - GIGO or otherwise. You don't even consider the
use of real statistical analysis. Why not? Because, that would open
up your ideas to potential falsification. Your stories, as they
stand, are not testable in a falsifiable manner. You could always
say, well, the needed steppingstone system just hasn't been discovered
yet - but it most likely existed anyway. That's not science Howard.
Sorry.
> If you want a rank
> ordering of what mechanism is *least* likely, that would be both of
> the ones you posit as dichotomous: Your straw man evolution mechanism
> is only a little more likely than the idea of a completely
> undetectable something doing something at some time and place to poof
> whatever one chooses to exist. I think the *more* likely mechanism of
> evolution involves a series of small gaps with functional systems/
> proteins that are intermediate.
That has nothing to do with the question of if your needed
steppingstones likely existed. You can dream them up all day long.
Without some real statistical analysis, their just fairytale stories -
not science. If your steppingstones did not exist like you imagine,
the mechanism of RM/NS could not work. So, what are the odds that
these all-important "intermediates" i.e., the steppingstones, did
exist like you imagine?
> > > > We are talking about novel beneficial targets being
> > > > found. What are the odds of a novel beneficial target being found by
> > > > RM/NS?
>
> > > Depends on the starting points.
>
> > LOL - Right! What are the odds that your starting points will be
> > where you need them to be Howard? Knowing the actual location of both
> > starting and ending points ahead of time does not require the use of
> > odds analysis or science to determine the odds of evolution
> > happening. If the actual location of both starting points and targets
> > are known, the average time needed to cross the gap can be determined
> > with a simple formula.
>
> When the gap is as small as that described for the example given, the
> time needed to cross the gap is not the limiting factor.
Yeah - and what is the likelihood that the gap will actually be as
small as you describe in real life? Again, you are only dealing with
your imagination here - not real science.
> It is the
> presence or absence of the necessary environmental conditions that
> favor the accumulation of those variants when they occur.
Of course - which says nothing about the odds of how long it should
take for the variations to occur on average or the odds that the
proper environment will be there when they do happen to occur. Simply
pointing out the need for the obvious isn't science either. It is
baseless wishful thinking.
> I.e., it
> depends on the selective pressure. And that indeed can be used to
> estimate the probability that any such mutation will go to fixation.
That isn't what is in question here. What is in question here are the
odds that a specific gap distance that you've imagined will actually
exist in real life in a given span of time - like a few billion
years. Have any idea how to answer that particular question?
> > That's *not* the question here Howard. The question involves a
> > situation where one or the other between starting and target points is
> > not directly known. What are the odds that an unknown starting point
> > would have been a given distance away from a known ending point?
>
> Those odds are not determinable
If they're not determinable, you have no scientific theory Howard.
You are left with your just-so stories. While certainly entertaining,
they don't qualify as real "science". Sorry.
> unless you assume the "747 in a
> tornado" strawman and an arbitrarily random starting point.
The actual location of the starting point is unknown Howard. The only
thing that can be roughly determined is the likely distance of the
starting point compared to a certain target that is known. This
determination requires statistical analysis - i.e., real science.
This is something you just don't do. You simply assume that the
starting point was "close enough" - - based on what? How do you know
this?
> The odds
> are very poor that evolution worked by such a mechanism. Just as the
> odds are very poor that whatever you want was poofed into existence by
> magic by an undetectable something somehow sometime someplace. The
> odds strongly support the idea that you have presented a FALSE
> DICHOTOMY in your argument that "If NOT X, then Y". There are many
> much more likely mechanisms to generate X than either mechanism X or Y
> that you provide.
Oh really? - name some. I'm sure SETI scientists would be very
interested as well.
> > Or,
> > on the other hand, what are the odds that a known starting point will
> > be within a given distance of an unknown target location? That's the
> > real question here Howard. That's the question you do not answer with
> > any real statistical analysis whatsoever.
>
> What was the probability that, given knowledge of the existence of
> John Hinkley, that he would try to assassinate Ronald Reagan? What
> was the probability that, given knowledge of Ronald Reagan having been
> shot, that it would be, specifically, by John Hinkley?
It certainly could be statistically determined that the odds are much
smaller than the total population of the Earth. The odds are that the
culprit would likely be located within a certain range of the Reagan
when he was shot - like within the known range of the weapon that was
used to shoot him. Knowing that John Hinkley was within this range,
the odds are actually pretty good that he was the shooter, vs. someone
off in, say, Africa or Mexico City, or the next county over or even
the next block over.
Come on now. The odds here are based on at least a rough estimate of
the ratio of beneficial (targets) vs. non-beneficial (non-target)
sequences in sequence space. Such ratios can be roughly but usefully
determined - and many have done so to at least some useful degree. It
is well known and well publicized that potential targets within
sequence space are the significant minority of all sequences even at
very low levels of functional complexity. There really is no argument
here. It is also pretty clear, essentially unarguable, that as
sequence size and/or specificity increases the ratio of targets vs.
non-targets decreases exponentially.
The only real argument you have left is one of the general location of
targets within sequence space - i.e., the clustering argument. In
order for your theory to remain remotely viable, you'd have to propose
a scenario where targets remain just as clustered at higher levels as
they are at lower levels within sequence space despite an exponential
decline in the ratio of targets vs. non-targets. The actual observed
evidence contradicts this hypothesis. Known targets, regardless of
the information system in question (English, computer languages, known
genetic sequences) do not remain as tightly clustered at higher levels
of functional complexity.
So, all you really have left are your imagined scenarios devoid of any
statistical support. You're going against the best available evidence
because you just "know" evolution happened like you imagine it could.
That's not science.
> > > If you have a *specific* gap between
> > > *specific* functions that cannot be crossed because all the *possible*
> > > intermediate pathways between these functional states are too long,
> > > why don't you show *that* as your example.
>
> > The actual gap size is not known with 100% certainty Howard.
>
> The actual gap size of *each* step cannot be known with certainty.
That's right. That is why science is actually useful here - to
determine the likelihood of the gap size between each step.
> One can use the evidence of the sequence and structure and
> subfunctions and utilities and potential utilities of complex systems
> to work out possible pathways involving a series of steps and ask what
> sorts of changes are required to produce those functionally relevant
> changes.
Possible pathways? Again, showing a possible pathway isn't remotely
the same thing as showing a likely pathway. You need to back up your
proposed "possibilities" with some real statistical analysis before
they become scientifically supported as being remotely "likely".
> Again, there is no "the" gap size. There are a number of
> gaps between functional states.
No. There is a single real minimum gap distance between the actual
location (though unknown) of a starting point and the actual and known
location of a target point. While this distance is not directly
known, it is still there. It is "the" minimum distance that must be
traveled by RM/NS before success can be realized.
> Some of them can be crossed through a
> series of mutations because they represent quantitative differences
> that optimize a pre-existing function.
Any difference that optimizes a pre-existing functional system isn't a
"gap" between qualitatively different islands of function - by
definition. Optimizing a system once even the very edge of the island
cluster for this system is actually discovered is easy. It is the
finding of the edge of the island that is the hard part here.
> > That's
> > the whole reason why science is needed here.
>
> Which is what I am doing by looking at specific evidence involving
> specific features and functions of specific proteins and systems that
> exist or could easily have existed.
Ah, you used the word "easily" again without any numerical
qualification. This term requires the use of some sort of statistical
quantification - how "easy" is it? - Howard? You can't just through
around terms like "easily" and "likely" and "probably" without any
statistical support. Don't you get this?
> You, OTOH, are engaging in a
> false dichotomy and using GIGO numerology completely divorced from any
> specific evidence to pretend that you are doing science.
We aren't talking about my statistical argument here. This is all
about the statistical logic behind your claim to scientific
superiority - a claim that doesn't seem to have any statistical
support or predictive value at all. How then do you know that your
claims are more likely than mine? In order to say this, you have to
have at least some statistical support - do you not?
> > We are talking about
> > likely gap distances - not gap distances that are already known ahead
> > of time. What are the odds that any one target with sequence space
> > where the location of targets is not directly known will be within a
> > certain distance of a known starting point? That's the question here
> > Howard. Have any idea how to answer that question using real
> > statistical analysis?
>
> That is unanswerable unless you specify your assumptions. For the
> assumptions you are making, that evolution works like the "747 in a
> tornado" straw man, your probability may be right even though your
> mechanism is stupid. GIGO math is not science. Science is about
> evidence, not math based on false assumptions.
Evolution must work by crossing the gap from one beneficial
steppingstone target island to the next to the next by the mechanism
of RM/NS. That's how evolution must work. We both agree this much.
The only question is, what are the odds that the next closest
steppingstone will be close enough to find this side of trillions of
years of time? That's the only important question here. It is this
very question that you do not even address. You simply make up
stories that you claim are "likely" but have no basis in any odds
analysis at all. What does the word "likely" mean when you can't
attach any numbers to it at all? Those who play the lottery think
they have a "likely" chance of winning - uh, what does that mean
without knowing the odds at all? - nothing. Nothing but a
fairytale.
< snip rest >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
heekster
<sea...@gmail.com>summed up Intelligent Design, when he wrote:
<snipped 330 lines of nonsense>
wf3h
> On 30 Nov, 06:36, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Given the amount of time and the number
> > of bacteria that would have had similar systems, it is hardly
> > surprising that at least two did.
>
> How do you know it is "hardly surprising"? What are the actual odds?
> Only if you have at least some idea as to the actual odds would you
> have any basis to be surprised - or not. So, what are the odds?
> Where is your statistical basis for your non-surprise?
it's rather tedious watching a creationist hypocritically asking
others for information he himself refuses to provide.
sean insists that creationism is true. he provides no data for this.
he insists that others provide statistical analyses for their
arguments. however, his idea is the most used failed idea in history.
the statistic he refuses to accept is the 100% failure rate of
creationism/ID.
it's the old double standard of creationism. they assert creationism
is scientific and they know this because it's what their church
teaches
why bother reading WHAT sean has to say? all he's going to do is say
that his argument is true because...well...because it's true
R. Baldwin
news:c9cef520-2d1c-4e5f...@k24g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
> On 30 Nov, 06:36, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
Hey Sean, what's bigger - 4.32, 4.5, or 19?
Perplexed in Peoria
Or in other words, "Bozo in unum == all bozos on omnibus".
[A difficult triple reference to Ray Martinez, legal Latin, and Firesign Theater.
Probably won't work.]
Or maybe the moral is "Don't suggest to people who know more and
read and think more carefully than you, that they "believe in fairytales".
And especially don't suggest that the source of their credulity is an inability
or unwillingness to "do the math".
(M)-adman
Sean has more scientific knowledge in his toe nails then you will ever possess in life time.
I bet that Sux, eh?
--
It is all about the truth with:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
Erwin Moller
> On 30 Nov, 06:36, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Howard Hershey:
>> The odds have to have been good enough to have happened twice in the
>> history of life on this earth.
>
> Sean Pitman:
> Yep - and what are those odds? Have even a rough idea?
>
What an unfair question.
Do you know what these odd are?
How would you calculate such odds?
Please provide full statistical analysis.
(But that goes without saying when such a question is posed to a
well-thinking individual like yourself)
>> Given the amount of time and the number
>> of bacteria that would have had similar systems, it is hardly
>> surprising that at least two did.
>
> How do you know it is "hardly surprising"? What are the actual odds?
> Only if you have at least some idea as to the actual odds would you
> have any basis to be surprised - or not. So, what are the odds?
> Where is your statistical basis for your non-surprise?
What if nobody on Earth can provide these odds you keep asking about?
What if the underlying mechanisms are waaaay too complex to catch in a
statistical analysis? Too many factors to incorperate into a formula?
Too many unknowns?
Does that mean the object in question doesn't exist or couldn't exist?
What are the odds the Earth has excactly one moon?
What are the odds I can find excactly 12 rocks in my backyard that are
white and weight more than 12 grams?
Since you cannot answer these questions I conclude:
1) The Earth has no moon.
2) I don't have white 12-gram rocks in my backyard.
Your attempt at being scientific by asking questions about
propablilities only show how unfit you are to do statistics.
If you want clear answers about odds you need to confine and define what
you are talking about!
You can talk about odds when you throw 10 dices that are perfect and ask
yourself questions like: "How propable is it they add up to 20?"
Once you leave this clearly defined area of math and enter the real
world, working with odds is a lot harder.
An analogy: "What are the odds I can find excactly 12 rocks in my
backyard that are white and weight more than 12 grams?"
Sounds simple enough?
How would you approach?
You could check all the other yards in my town, and take that as an
average. That would be a reasonable approach. Right?
But what if I tell you you didn't take into account that the owner of my
yard (me) hates white rocks and removes them whenever he sees them?
Now you would have to come up with a new analysis: You must take into
account how often I check my yard, what the chances are that new white
rocks appear, what the chances are I spot them, etc. etc.
When you figured that all out, I thow in a new reason to screw up your
statistical analysis. They are easily conjured up.
I hope you agree this silly example I gave you shows at least that
working with odds in the real world is not as simple as it is when you
work with dices or other clearly defined areas.
To the original problem: Since nobody has DNA/RNA samples of each and
every organism that lived on Earth, we will always have 'gaps'.
I think we can call that a fact.
You seem to claim that since nobody can produce this full life-onEarth
record, RM/NS must be wrong because you found a few structures that are
unlikely to be 'produced' by RM/NS because the chances of that happening
are too small. Right?
Your reasoning is that you need too many random mutations from some
starting point to come to these specific sequences.
And you ask proponents of NS to do the math for you so they can proof
themselfs wrong.
I ask you: How can a proponent of NS ever produce these odds in a
remotely reliable way without having a 'snapshot' of the predecessors?
And even if they had this 'snapshot', it is a superhuman task to do
total reliable statistics on that.
I think any NS proponent will agree with you that these sequences
propably didn't came into existance by pure chance from one organism to
its offspring.
They will tell you functional proteins were coded by their predecessors
that served some useful function in the cell, hence they were fafoured
and survided.
Then you ask us to show all these functions.
If we don't, we are not scientific enough.
And, of course, nobody can show you that with 100% certainty.
So you conclude NS is wrong, or at least totally unproved.
Is that a good summary, Seanpit?
If you agree, I like to point to the above: Give me the odds the Earth
has excactly one moon with total certainty.
If you can't, I conclude the Earth has not one moon, or at least it is
totally scientific onproven that Earth has one moon.
One last point on this: If your strict rigid standards for 'scientific
proof' or odds were used on religion, not 1 thing from religion would stand.
>
>>> Have any idea? - any
>>> idea at all? All you've done so far is invent just-so stories that
>>> have absolutely no basis in reality. These intermediates you imagine
>>> simply do not exist in reality in the same creature nor are they
>>> likely to exist like you imagine. If you think otherwise, please do
>>> present some real statistical analysis here . . .
>> GIGO probability statistics is as irrelevant as the probability that
>> RR would be shot by a guy trying to impress Jodi Foster.
>
> You have to have at least some statistical basis to call your theory
> "scientific" Howard. You say your position is "likely" given a few
> hundred million years - likely enough to have happened "twice" in that
> amount of time. How likely is it Howard? I want some real numbers
> here. Where is your statistical basis for this "likely" claim of
> yours?
Why don't you do that math for us Seanpit?
It looks like all scientists that worked on it so far couldn't convince you.
I really look forward to your analysis.
Of course, again, please provide a FULL statistical analysis WITHOUT
cutting corners, like not taking into account every atom in Jupiter (and
the rest of the universe for that matter).
>
>>>> You yourself recognize that size, by itself, does not determine the
>>>> size of the gap whenever you lie and say I can choose any starting
>>>> point in total sequence space and then object when I do just that.
>>> You can choose any "likely" starting point Howard. What are the odds
>>> that a chosen starting point or points represents reality? You always
>>> choose possible starting points that are highly unlikely without any
>>> explanation as to why such a starting point was chosen - besides the
>>> fact that you need it to have existed for your theory to work. Again,
>>> possible doesn't mean likely. There's a big difference here.
>> What you mean is that nasty old me chooses *likely* functions that
>> happen to have sequences or structures similar to those actually
>> present in the end system. Rather than some random sequence. What is
>> *unlikely* about a bacteria having a rotatable pore? A motor? Most
>> bacteria do have those.
>
> Having just any pore or motor isn't enough Howard. You're picking
> pores and motors that are unlikely to have actually existed.
Unlikely to have actually existed?
"Unlikely" is a statistical expression, right?
So please provide full statistical analysis for your claim.
(Again: Don't cut corners please, like omitting any particle in the
universe. We want to do REAL SCIENCE, no guessing games.)
Be honest now: Do you find my demands reasonable?
<snip snip>
>
>>> We are talking about
>>> likely gap distances - not gap distances that are already known ahead
>>> of time. What are the odds that any one target with sequence space
>>> where the location of targets is not directly known will be within a
>>> certain distance of a known starting point? That's the question here
>>> Howard. Have any idea how to answer that question using real
>>> statistical analysis?
>> That is unanswerable unless you specify your assumptions. For the
>> assumptions you are making, that evolution works like the "747 in a
>> tornado" straw man, your probability may be right even though your
>> mechanism is stupid. GIGO math is not science. Science is about
>> evidence, not math based on false assumptions.
>
> Evolution must work by crossing the gap from one beneficial
> steppingstone target island to the next to the next by the mechanism
> of RM/NS. That's how evolution must work. We both agree this much.
> The only question is, what are the odds that the next closest
> steppingstone will be close enough to find this side of trillions of
> years of time? That's the only important question here.
Yes, I can agree to that.
Unless somebody comes up with a reliable way to calculate answers to
such incredible difficult questions, I suggest we don't put chances on them.
And that is what most do, or don't.
However, if YOU claim that the chances of it happening are so small one
can call it impossible, it is up to you to provide the reliable
calculations, since YOU make the claim.
Any calculation that only looks at pointmutations, without taking into
account the big picture, is of course no serious candidate for such a
calculation.
With big picture I mean:
- possible useful predecessor sequences
- Chromosomal crossover
- full descriptions of environment where organism live
- fitnessfunctions
etc etc.
Nobody can do this in a reliable way, and I expect you know that.
It is this
> very question that you do not even address. You simply make up
> stories that you claim are "likely" but have no basis in any odds
> analysis at all. What does the word "likely" mean when you can't
> attach any numbers to it at all? Those who play the lottery think
> they have a "likely" chance of winning - uh, what does that mean
> without knowing the odds at all? - nothing. Nothing but a
> fairytale.
The claim it is 'likely' is NOT based on hard calculations, but is
merely a conclusion, since appearantly it DID happen.
But that must sound like a circular argument to you. ;-)
I don't know about you, but if I see a thing happen a few times, I am
not inclined to think it is almost impossible, no matter how many pages
GIGO produces that 'proofs' it couldn't actually happen.
In my opinion smart people work with best bets, with most likely
scenarios, with best supported theories.
That is what the scientific method is all about.
Unlike religious people scientists don't have 100% sure things, which is
a GOOD thing, because it leaves the possibility open the old 'facts'
weren't right after all.
Every scientific discovery adds to our total knowledge.
Religious 'knowledge' doesn't care too much to check against reality.
So ,like I asked before: If you apply your scientific standards to
religion, what is left?
Regards,
Erwin Moller
>
> < snip rest >
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
>
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Reentrant
> Sean has more scientific knowledge in his toe nails ...
Ahh - those vestigial claws our ancestors used for tree climbing, burrowing
and defence. What's YOUR explanation for humans having toe nails?
--
Reentrant
Erwin Moller
That is an easy one: God put them on humans, so Sean could put his
scientific knowledge in them.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
TomS
<49366c42$0$191$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>, Erwin Moller stated..."
>
>Seanpit schreef:
>> On 30 Nov, 06:36, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Howard Hershey:
>>> The odds have to have been good enough to have happened twice in the
>>> history of life on this earth.
>>
>> Sean Pitman:
>> Yep - and what are those odds? Have even a rough idea?
>>
>
>What an unfair question.
>Do you know what these odd are?
>How would you calculate such odds?
>
>Please provide full statistical analysis.
>(But that goes without saying when such a question is posed to a
>well-thinking individual like yourself)
I'd just like to see an estimate of the odds that "Intelligent
Design" is responsible.
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
wf3h
sure does. there's no question about it: sean knows more scientific
facts than i do. that's called being an 'idiot savant'
YOU, OTOH, are just an idiot.
and knowing scientific facts does not make one a scientist. THINKING
scientifically is quite different than knowing scientific facts
sean can't think scientifically. he, like you, is crippled by your
religious beliefs.
wf3h
he probably thinks he has toes so he can count to 20.
Cheezits
Never mind that - why do seals have toenails on their flippers?
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
richardal...@googlemail.com
So perhaps you can identify *any* testable hypothesis he has *ever*
presented anywhere?
You realise that hypothesis testing is fundamental to science, don't
you?
Or perhaps you can explain why he persists in presenting his
"theories" on web sites and forums rather than writing them up for
scientific publication. After all, he is on record of saying that
anyone with a "candid mind" is capable of understanding them. Do you
think that Sean's "theories" are so challenging that no editor of any
academic journal anywhere in the world is capable of understanding
them?
Or perhaps, just perhaps, Sean knows perfectly well that his
"theories" are a load of unsubstantiated and untestable bollocks, but
provided he can fool scientifically illiterate and ignorant
creationists that they are "scientific" it gives him the ego-boost he
craves?
RF
(M)-adman
You simply lack the intelligence to achieve a higher level of thinking.
But of course that is because you are evolved from an ape i am sure.
Steven L.
> On 30 Nov, 06:36, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
>>> Sean Pitman:
>>> Without any odds analysis whatsoever. Your "potentially" useful
>>> intermediates are what are in question here - what are the odds of
>>> these needed intermediates actually existing in the form necessary to
>>> make the leap to the next intermediate step?
>
>> Howard Hershey:
>> The odds have to have been good enough to have happened twice in the
>> history of life on this earth.
>
> Sean Pitman:
> Yep - and what are those odds? Have even a rough idea?
It's not a question of odds (probability), but of *mathematical
expectation*.
Mathematical expectation is the product of the odds times the number of
trials.
So the real determining factor here is: How many *organisms* existed
before the leap to the next intermediate step occurred.
If the number of single-celled organisms in Earth's oceans was in the
decillions, then even a very small probability of making the
intermediate step *per organism* becomes a virtual certainty over that
entire population.
And that's very likely. Today, just one bacterium gives rise to a new
generation every twenty minutes. Under optimum conditions, that will
produce a quintillion new bacteria in just seven hours.
It has been estimated that today, there are some 5 x 10^30 bacteria on
earth. There may have been comparably astronomical numbers of
single-celled organisms on earth ever since they first multiplied into
every corner of the earth, billions of years ago.
That means that even a seemingly miniscule probability is a virtual
certainty eventually, over that entire population. With a population
that astronomical, anything can happen.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
chris thompson
What you call "a higher level of thinking" the Highway Patrol calls,
"driving while impaired".
Chris
snip
Inez
> On 30 Nov, 06:36, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> > > Sean Pitman:
> > > Without any odds analysis whatsoever. Your "potentially" useful
> > > intermediates are what are in question here - what are the odds of
> > > these needed intermediates actually existing in the form necessary to
> > > make the leap to the next intermediate step?
> > Howard Hershey:
> > The odds have to have been good enough to have happened twice in the
> > history of life on this earth.
>
> Sean Pitman:
> Yep - and what are those odds? Have even a rough idea?
>
> > Given the amount of time and the number
> > of bacteria that would have had similar systems, it is hardly
> > surprising that at least two did.
>
> How do you know it is "hardly surprising"? What are the actual odds?
The older I get, the more incredulous I am that grown men and women
walk around acting as if they actually believe there is a mysterious
man in white beard and sandals who secretly controls the universe.
Really? You really believe that? What are the odds of that being
true? Care to calculate it? Does God have less than 1000 fairly
specified amino acids?
Rolf
"Seanpit" <sea...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:c9cef520-2d1c-4e5f...@k24g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
It is possible that I am wrong, but I have a very strong suspicion that
whatever Sean is trying to prove with mathematic already is proven wrong by
facts?
Fancy, or maybe not so fancy math doesn't preempt reality, does it?
Even Behe seems to have have failed in convincing anyone with his "Edge." We
don't have much faith in Dembski either, have we? Seems those guys are
fighting windmills.
But a creationist is doomed to clutch at whatever straw he may find.
Ray Martinez
[BIG snip....]
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
If evolution or Darwinism is "nothing but a fairytale" why do you----
an IDer----support its **main claims** of species mutability
accomplished by natural selection (= unintelligent agency)?
Since you accept the enemy of Creationism and IDs main claims, is not
the Emperor fully clothed, contradicting the Andersen story, which
opens your web site?
Can you show me any paleontological report that denies **species**
stasis/changelessness to be the **predominant fact** seen in
geological formations (I have never seen one)? Does "low level
evolution" mean variation within species? If "low level evolution"
occurs (as you claim) and if it means "variation within species," why
can't the same be described as "designed change" in accordance with ID
theory (= Intelligent agency)? If "low level evolution" does not mean
"variation within species," but some type of limited speciation or
restricted macroevolution, how do you reconcile the same with stasis/
changelessness?
Ray
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Sean has more scientific knowledge in his toe nails
And that is where it stays, it never reaches his brain.
--
Bob.
heekster
Not as much as the fact that you do not know what scientific knowledge
is, how to get it, or how to understand it.
Seanpit
wrote:
> "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in messagenews:Xns9B68D688A...@216.168.3.30...
> > Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >news:c9cef520-2d1c-4e5f...@k24g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> On 30 Nov, 06:36, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
>
> Or in other words, "Bozo in unum == all bozos on omnibus".
> [A difficult triple reference to Ray Martinez, legal Latin, and Firesign Theater.
> Probably won't work.]
>
> Or maybe the moral is "Don't suggest to people who know more and
> read and think more carefully than you, that they "believe in fairytales".
> And especially don't suggest that the source of their credulity is an inability
> or unwillingness to "do the math".
Have you seen any math even attempted to be done around here when it
comes to supporting the mechanism of RM/NS? - any statistical basis
whatsoever? If so, I'd sure like to see it . . .
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> Seanpit wrote:
> > On 30 Nov, 06:36, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > < snip >
>
> >>>SeanPitman:
> >>> Without any odds analysis whatsoever. Your "potentially" useful
> >>> intermediates are what are in question here - what are the odds of
> >>> these needed intermediates actually existing in the form necessary to
> >>> make the leap to the next intermediate step?
>
> >> Howard Hershey:
> >> The odds have to have been good enough to have happened twice in the
> >> history of life on this earth.
>
> >SeanPitman:
> > Yep - and what are those odds? Have even a rough idea?
>
> It's not a question of odds (probability), but of *mathematical
> expectation*.
>
> Mathematical expectation is the product of the odds times the number of
> trials.
>
> So the real determining factor here is: How many *organisms* existed
> before the leap to the next intermediate step occurred.
>
> If the number of single-celled organisms in Earth's oceans was in the
> decillions, then even a very small probability of making the
> intermediate step *per organism* becomes a virtual certainty over that
> entire population.
How certain? Do you have the first clue how to even roughly estimate
the probability that even with a population of 1e35 bacteria that job
could be done this side of a trillion years? Where is your math for
this "virtually certain" notion of yours? All this certainty, so
little math - well none actually. No statistical analysis at all.
> And that's very likely. Today, just one bacterium gives rise to a new
> generation every twenty minutes. Under optimum conditions, that will
> produce a quintillion new bacteria in just seven hours.
Very good. So, you should have some good idea as to the actual odds
of success. All you have to do now is come up with the likely
Euclidean distance that such a large population needs to cross and
you've got some real statistical backing for your theory. Once you do
this, you'll be the first. Good luck! ; )
> It has been estimated that today, there are some 5 x 10^30 bacteria on
> earth. There may have been comparably astronomical numbers of
> single-celled organisms on earth ever since they first multiplied into
> every corner of the earth, billions of years ago.
Correct . . . you've only got a little bit further to go to have a
real scientific theoretical basis for the mechanism of RM/NS. You're
so close! . . . yet so far far away . . .
> That means that even a seemingly miniscule probability is a virtual
> certainty eventually, over that entire population. With a population
> that astronomical, anything can happen.
You think that's a big population? You think a few billion years is
enough time to "do anything" - however unlikely? How unlikely do you
think the odds are? Have any idea? - even a rough guesstimate?
Come on now. I keep hearing this same just-so story over and over and
over again. And, surprisingly, this is the stuff that gets rated 5-
stars around here. This nonsense fairytale just-so story stuff. No
math needed. Just blind assertions based on "enough time and a big
enough population can produce any miracle you like" nonsense. Where's
the real odds analysis here? Where's the science?
Look, at least I try to produce some sort of rough analysis that at
least attempts to approximate the question at hand. At least try to
do something similar:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html#Calculation
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
Tell that to SETI scientists who believe the odds are quite good that
they'll be able to detect non-human intelligence by finding certain
features in ratio waves that no known non-intelligent force of nature
produces and yet is within the range of modern human production.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
Tell me Ray, when you go to Las Vegas and roll the dice, does God roll
the dice for you? Some things simply have the appearance of
randomness to such a degree that you couldn't tell otherwise - even if
God was rolling the dice for you. You just can't tell yourself. From
your perspective, it is unpredictable. That's the definition of
apparent randomness - something which you cannot predict the future of
with greater than even odds of success. The very same thing is true of
apparently random non-predictable mutations in DNA. Could God be
deliberately causing this mutations to occur? Sure. Is there a
pattern that you can detect and use to predict the future of
additional mutational changes? Nope. So, from your perspective and
mine, these mutational changes are in fact apparently random since
there is no way for you or me to predict them ahead of time. Again,
that's the definition of random here. That is what RM/NS is all about
- the appearance of non-predictability.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Ray Martinez
Since design, specified complexity, and adaptation are phenomena
recognized universally to exist, said changes cannot be "random" (=
understood face value definition). These phenomena cannot be the
result of a mechanism tied to a genuine element of randomness----
logically impossible. Said changes are designed. "Random" belongs to
the terminology of ID opponents.
Your commentary also informs the Group that you accept a counterfeit
definition of "random." Suddenly you are using the qualifier
"apparent." Do your Evolutionist opponents here at Talk Origins know
this, that is, do they know that when you agree that mutation is
random that you really mean "apparently random"?
> So, from your perspective and
> mine, these mutational changes are in fact apparently random since
> there is no way for you or me to predict them ahead of time.
The result of design says Intelligence was somehow involved.
> Again,
> that's the definition of random here. That is what RM/NS is all about
> - the appearance of non-predictability.
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No.
"Apparent randomness" is not the definition Darwinists accept.
Ray
William Morse
I keep trying to remind everyone that She's Chinese. Which would maybe
fit in with the sandals, even if the white beard seems like a long shot.
But I admit I don't have a good handle on how many fairly specified
amino acids can dance on the head of a pin. :-)
Yours,
Bill Morse
Boikat
Smoking crack, again?
>
> But of course that is because you are evolved from an ape i am sure.
And so are you. Well, actually humans *are* still apes. Or, is this
one of those times where you're goint to assert that you are not an
evolved ape, but are really a alien/human hybrid, or were "specially
created"? if so, you should consider sueing your creator, since he
seems to have fucked up on your "brain" bit.
Oh, and some supporting evidence would be nice.
>
> --
>
> It is all about the truth with:
You wouldn't know the truth if it came up to you and kicked you in the
'nads.
Boikat
Baron Bodissey
It seems -- based on lengthy discussions a few threads back -- that we
definitely can't trust your math. Ah, but you ran away from that
thread.
Baron Bodissey
We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the
culture.
– Rev. Ray Mummert, Dover, PA
Ray Martinez
I do understand that Evolutionists claim that RM-NS has the ability to
prevent an endless random walk, however.
Bedrock to Western thought and logic is Aristotle's Logic: "A" cannot
be "A" and not "A" at the same time. Said logic is, of course,
accepted by both Atheism and Theism thought alike. If you were
educated in the West then your education presupposed this logic.
Material causation, by definition, must be undirected, unguided,
purposeless, goal-less. It is as such because it presupposes Theos and
His power and His purposes to be absent from reality or nature----that
is why transmutation is necessary. This is also why all Atheists
accept material causation, of course. None of the aforementioned
adjectives mean also directed, also guided, could have purpose, might
be goal oriented. They mean what they mean----literally. The Clergy
Letter Project states that the Bible is not to be taken literally----
like a scientific text. When the scientific literature says mutation
is random it does not mean "apparent" or "not random" or "having the
appearance" of randomness. "A" cannot be "A" and not "A" at the same
time. "Random" cannot be "random" and "not random" at the same time.
The argument or claim that RM-NS "is all about - the appearance of non-
predictability" (to use your words) violates Aristotle's Logic;
therefore, said claim exists in service to a hidden agenda. That
agenda is the proselytization of material causation to a world
inhabited by Biblical Theism. Material nature is inanimate, it is not
conscious of its own existence. Darwinism says transmutation powered
by RM-NS is a random phenomena occurring in nature mindlessly and
automatically. In order to sell this pig to Theism they dress it in
silk shirts and dresses; "random" does not really mean "random." I am
sorry Sean, you have bought another bridge from Darwinists (enemies of
ID). "Random" means total randomness, like a roulette wheel. Each
number has the exact same chance of hitting every time the wheel is
moving. "Appearance" of non-predictability or "apparent" randomness
are throwaway claims, motive explained.
Ray
Devils Advocaat
Under what context are these three phenomena "recognized universally
to exist"?
> said changes cannot be "random" (=
> understood face value definition).
According to the OED there are several definitions of the word
"random" which are determined by the context in which the word is
used.
Given the present topic I would imagine that you are referring to one
of the following two meanings:
"Not sent or guided in a special direction; having no definite aim or
purpose; made, done, occurring, etc., at haphazard.
Governed by or involving equal chances for each of the actual or
hypothetical members of a population; also, produced or obtained by a
random process (and therefore completely unpredictable in detail);"
Would you be kind enough to tell us which meaning is the one you are
using?
> These phenomena cannot be the
> result of a mechanism tied to a genuine element of randomness----
> logically impossible.
Are you saying there are no predictable natural phenomena that have
random causes?
I ask only for information.
> Said changes are designed. "Random" belongs to
> the terminology of ID opponents.
Curious, you insist that the word "random" should be taken at its
"face value definition" and then you reject it as belonging to the
"terminology of ID opponents", why is this?
>
> Your commentary also informs the Group that you accept a counterfeit
> definition of "random." Suddenly you are using the qualifier
> "apparent."
No, Seanpit is merely telling you that some things are definitely
random, and some are apparently random, and that from the human
perspective it is not possible to distinguish between the two.
And in all fairness you cannot accuse Seanpit of using a counterfeit
definition of "random" (which he hasn't) when you are guilty of using
a counterfeit definition of "readily" in the context of sexual
reproduction (which you define as "instantly and excessively").
> Do your Evolutionist opponents here at Talk Origins know
> this, that is, do they know that when you agree that mutation is
> random that you really mean "apparently random"?
You are misinterpreting Ray, as you have apparently chosen to ignore
the fact that a phenomena that is "apparently random" is
indistinguishable from the "truly random" from a human perspective.
>
> > So, from your perspective and
> > mine, these mutational changes are in fact apparently random since
> > there is no way for you or me to predict them ahead of time.
>
> The result of design says Intelligence was somehow involved.
And your evidence for this is?
>
> > Again,
> > that's the definition of random here. That is what RM/NS is all about
> > - the appearance of non-predictability.
>
> > Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> No.
>
> "Apparent randomness" is not the definition Darwinists accept.
>
> Ray- Hide quoted text -
Desertphile
<sea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tell me Ray, when you go to Las Vegas and roll the dice, does god roll
> the dice for you?
The gods do not play dice.
> Some things simply have the appearance of
> randomness to such a degree that you couldn't tell otherwise
Tossed dice do not appear random.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
hersheyh
> On 30 Nov, 06:36, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> > > Without any odds analysis whatsoever. Your "potentially" useful
> > > intermediates are what are in question here - what are the odds of
> > > these needed intermediates actually existing in the form necessary to
> > > make the leap to the next intermediate step?
> > Howard Hershey:
> > The odds have to have been good enough to have happened twice in the
> > history of life on this earth.
>
> Sean Pitman:
> Yep - and what are those odds? Have even a rough idea?
Do you have a rough idea why the odds you present represent a straw
man version of evolution? It is not because of the accuracy of the
number. It is because the underlying assumptions that 1) *as you
point out*, your starting point in determining "likely gap size" is
declared and asserted to be unknown and therefore must be,
mathematically, randomly distributed in sequence space (although you
often only give a number that represents *maximal* distance from the
teleologic end point), 2) that the "likely gap size" determined above
is completely devoid of any functional intermediates between it and
the teleologic goal, 3) this is taking place in an imaginary sequence
space which impossibly puts each *single* function on an island of
that, and only that, function (regardless of sequence) which lies
randomly separate from different islands of all other function. And
with any sequence, no matter how close to one that produces the
teleologic *single* function, being offshore even though functional
sequences that differ by many more sequence differencs are onshore.
Neither situation describes the reality of proteins and protein-based
systems.
>
> > Given the amount of time and the number
> > of bacteria that would have had similar systems, it is hardly
> > surprising that at least two did.
>
> How do you know it is "hardly surprising"?
Because each of the flagella that evolved *in fact* have a rotatable
pore and a motor subsystem included within them.
> What are the actual odds?
A hell of a lot better than the bogus odds involving total sequence
space that you provide. And it has already been demonstrated
experimentally that more than the two ways that linking *did* occur
can exist. GIGO numerology based on a phony mechanism, even if the
numbers are true, do not make for good science. Especially when you
dishonestly use that number to make the false dichotomous claim that
"Y", a mechanism with no support whatsoever, is true because, by your
GIGO numerology based on a false mechanism, X cannot work. I *agree*
that X cannot work *if* it had to do so by the mechanism you claim.
It doesn't.
> Only if you have at least some idea as to the actual odds would you
> have any basis to be surprised - or not. So, what are the odds?
> Where is your statistical basis for your non-surprise?
Because the structures and functions I describe are *actually* present
in the flagella, I would say that the odds are far better for my
mechanism being true than for yours being true.
> > > Have any idea? - any
> > > idea at all? All you've done so far is invent just-so stories that
> > > have absolutely no basis in reality. These intermediates you imagine
> > > simply do not exist in reality in the same creature nor are they
> > > likely to exist like you imagine. If you think otherwise, please do
> > > present some real statistical analysis here . . .
>
> > GIGO probability statistics is as irrelevant as the probability that
> > RR would be shot by a guy trying to impress Jodi Foster.
>
> You have to have at least some statistical basis to call your theory
> "scientific" Howard. You say your position is "likely" given a few
> hundred million years - likely enough to have happened "twice" in that
> amount of time. How likely is it Howard? I want some real numbers
> here. Where is your statistical basis for this "likely" claim of
> yours?
O.K. First determine for me the number of bacteria that had protein
export pores which functioned similarly to the protein export pore
that *is* an integral part of the eubacterial flagella at the time the
eubacterial flagella arose. Then determine the subset of those that
had motor systems related to MotAB like the motor subsystem that *is
also* an integral part of the eubacterial flgella. [A similar number
could be derived for the related pilin pore and motor of archaeans.]
So far, this could be a pretty significant fraction of all bacteria.
But it would definitely represent a very small subset of "total
sequence space." Then tell me how many of these bacteria lived in an
environment that would have selectively favored some function due to
motorized rotation. The gap needed to produce that function would be
the gap I have already described. *Even if* it had involved inventing
the linker protein from scratch rather than generating one by chimeric
fusion of two proteins, the gap would be smaller than the one you
calculate based on a bogus straw man theory of evolution. I *don't*
need to produce an actual number to know that. I know it because I
have limited my search to changes in a small subset of proteins that I
have good reason to think actually existed in real bacteria and am
dividing by that number rather than by total sequence space. It would
be like knowing that the potential assassin is likely to be someone
who is or has been within at least rifle shot and knowing that, no
matter how large the crowd, dividing one by that basically
undeterminable number will necessarily give you a better estimate of
the probability of an assassin than would be by dividing by the
population of the earth. The latter is what your GIGO number
effectively does and such a number is basically useless. Even though
I cannot give you *an* odds number, I can easily tell you that the
probability is much greater that a president will be assassinated by
someone who was or is in close proximity to him (or his path) than he
would be by a randomly chosen person on the earth. And that
information actually *is* useful and relevant to people who are
assigned to protect the president.
> > > > You yourself recognize that size, by itself, does not determine the
> > > > size of the gap whenever you lie and say I can choose any starting
> > > > point in total sequence space and then object when I do just that.
>
> > > You can choose any "likely" starting point Howard.
Unless my "likely" starting point is too close.
> > > What are the odds
> > > that a chosen starting point or points represents reality?
What are the odds that there exist bacterial cells with protein export
or pilin pores that are rotatable and with motor systems? Pretty
good. Many bacteria actually have them. In fact *all* bacteria with
flagella have them, as they are clearly part of the flagella itself.
Flagella are composed of a rotatable pore + whip of some kind and a
motor of some kind. What is improbable about starting with organisms
that have these subsystems before they become part of a flagella.
After all there are bacteria with these subsystems in which they are
not part of a flagella but are of utility to the bacteria. I am not
positing something that cannot happen, like random starting point, one
gap searches thoughout total sequence space for a teleologic goal like
someone else is.
> > > You always
> > > choose possible starting points that are highly unlikely without any
> > > explanation as to why such a starting point was chosen - besides the
> > > fact that you need it to have existed for your theory to work.
I chose the starting points I did because there is evidence that
rotatable pores exist independently and usefully in bacteria, that
motor systems exist independently and usefully in bacteria, and that
flagella (either archaean or eubacterial) function by the linkage of a
motor subsystem to a rotatable pore subsystem. Isn't that an
explanation?
What explanation do you give for starting at some undetermined random
site in total sequence space? Do you really think that biologists
think that systems evolve by a random walk across completely
functionless space from an unknown random site via a single gap? Or
do you simply wish to fool fools into thinking that because then your
GIGO math actually works. You can then defeat the big bad scary straw
man you put an "evolution" sign on, oh brave Sir Robin.
> > > Again,
> > > possible doesn't mean likely. There's a big difference here.
>
> > What you mean is that nasty old me chooses *likely* functions that
> > happen to have sequences or structures similar to those actually
> > present in the end system. Rather than some random sequence. What is
> > *unlikely* about a bacteria having a rotatable pore? A motor? Most
> > bacteria do have those.
>
> Having just any pore or motor isn't enough Howard. You're picking
> pores and motors that are unlikely to have actually existed.
No. I am choosing pores and motors that *do* exist within flagella.
And also have structurally similar counterparts that exist with
independent functionality without being part of a flagella.
> If you
> think otherwise, please provide a basis for why you think your picks
> are actually likely to have existed to the degree of homology needed
> to cross the gaps you think were crossed by RM/NS.
What exact degree and type of homology do you think is needed? All I
require is that there be a rotatable pore with an end sticking out
that can be linked to another protein that interacts with the motor.
I don't require a *specific* pore or a *specific* motor. It is,
however, highly probable that the pore and motor that *were* used
would be similar to the rotatable pore and motor that are subparts of
the flagella.
> > > Is it possible for a starting point to be one mutation away from a
> > > target? Yep. Is this necessarily likely? Nope.
It only has to be one (or a few) mutation(s) away once (so long as the
environment favored the mutation).
> > And as the model system with the deleted FliG points out, there are at
> > least a couple of different single mutations that can produce the same
> > *function* by different mechanisms. Importantly they differ
> > quantitatively wrt the strength of rotation.
>
> This is only true if you start with extremely homologous systems -
> what is the likelihood that this would ever be the real starting point
> for any bacterium in a few billion years with an average population
> size of 1e35? Have any idea?
Bacteria are far more likely to have functional pores and motors than
they are to have "total sequence space". Some of these can certainly
be homologous to the rotatable pore and motor subsystems that are part
of the flagella, given that some are homologous. Do remember that
there is not a single sequence in eubacterial flagella. There are
significant differences in the number of proteins and in the sequence
of the proteins in different eubacterial flagella (as well, of course,
in the different archaean flagella). There are many possible sequences
(including some with fewer or more proteins in the system) that could
produce the same functional effect, so you need to be more specific
about what degree of homology you require and think is unlikely to
ever be present. I have focused on *functional* homology with only
the features involved in linkage requiring some structural
requirements. I haven't discussed sequence at all.
> > > What are the odds Howard? Some actual odds analysis here -
> > > please . . .
>
> > I am not going to engage in GIGO numerology.
>
> That's right. You only engage in just-so story telling. You have no
> numerology at all - GIGO or otherwise. You don't even consider the
> use of real statistical analysis. Why not?
I have certainly explained why the real theory of evolution will
*necessarily* produce different (and more likely) odds than your GIGO
straw man. And the consequences that has for your "If NOT X, then Y"
dichotomy, where Y has no independent supporting evidence.
> Because, that would open
> up your ideas to potential falsification. Your stories, as they
> stand, are not testable in a falsifiable manner. You could always
> say, well, the needed steppingstone system just hasn't been discovered
> yet - but it most likely existed anyway. That's not science Howard.
> Sorry.
Of course my ideas could be falsified. All you have to do is show how
impossible it is for there to be any independent rotatable pore to
actually exist in a bacteria or any independent motor subsystem. Or
if they existed that there must necessarily be a large gap of a
*specific* size between them and the same systems linked together.
> > If you want a rank
> > ordering of what mechanism is *least* likely, that would be both of
> > the ones you posit as dichotomous: Your straw man evolution mechanism
> > is only a little more likely than the idea of a completely
> > undetectable something doing something at some time and place to poof
> > whatever one chooses to exist. I think the *more* likely mechanism of
> > evolution involves a series of small gaps with functional systems/
> > proteins that are intermediate.
>
> That has nothing to do with the question of if your needed
> steppingstones likely existed. You can dream them up all day long.
I didn't randomly dream up the rotatable pore and motor. I looked at
how bacterial rotary flagella are put together and the functions of
the subsystems included in the flagella. And saw that similar systems
(sometimes just functionally similar, in other cases structurally
similar, and even sequence similar) exist in the absence of flagella.
And that flagella can actually include additional properties.
> Without some real statistical analysis, their just fairytale stories -
> not science. If your steppingstones did not exist like you imagine,
> the mechanism of RM/NS could not work. So, what are the odds that
> these all-important "intermediates" i.e., the steppingstones, did
> exist like you imagine?
The odds of an ancestral bacteria having a rotatable pore system and a
motor system is much greater than the probability of it having total
sequence space. Look at the number of bacteria that have such
systems, including those that are actually part of flagella. I don't
know of any bacteria that has total sequence space.
> > > > > We are talking about novel beneficial targets being
> > > > > found. What are the odds of a novel beneficial target being found by
> > > > > RM/NS?
>
> > > > Depends on the starting points.
>
> > > LOL - Right! What are the odds that your starting points will be
> > > where you need them to be Howard? Knowing the actual location of both
> > > starting and ending points ahead of time does not require the use of
> > > odds analysis or science to determine the odds of evolution
> > > happening. If the actual location of both starting points and targets
> > > are known, the average time needed to cross the gap can be determined
> > > with a simple formula.
>
> > When the gap is as small as that described for the example given, the
> > time needed to cross the gap is not the limiting factor.
>
> Yeah - and what is the likelihood that the gap will actually be as
> small as you describe in real life? Again, you are only dealing with
> your imagination here - not real science.
Imagining bacteria with total sequence space is what is imaginary.
Observing bacteria with rotatable pores and motors is evidence.
> > It is the
> > presence or absence of the necessary environmental conditions that
> > favor the accumulation of those variants when they occur.
>
> Of course - which says nothing about the odds of how long it should
> take for the variations to occur on average or the odds that the
> proper environment will be there when they do happen to occur. Simply
> pointing out the need for the obvious isn't science either. It is
> baseless wishful thinking.
>
> > I.e., it
> > depends on the selective pressure. And that indeed can be used to
> > estimate the probability that any such mutation will go to fixation.
>
> That isn't what is in question here. What is in question here are the
> odds that a specific gap distance that you've imagined will actually
> exist in real life in a given span of time - like a few billion
> years. Have any idea how to answer that particular question?
>
> > > That's *not* the question here Howard. The question involves a
> > > situation where one or the other between starting and target points is
> > > not directly known. What are the odds that an unknown starting point
> > > would have been a given distance away from a known ending point?
>
> > Those odds are not determinable
>
> If they're not determinable, you have no scientific theory Howard.
> You are left with your just-so stories. While certainly entertaining,
> they don't qualify as real "science". Sorry.
Actually it is the nonexistence of bacteria with total sequence space
that is your problem. I can point to bacteria with rotatable pores
and motors.
> > unless you assume the "747 in a
> > tornado" strawman and an arbitrarily random starting point.
>
> The actual location of the starting point is unknown Howard.
Meaning that it is randomly placed in your math. As in the "747 in a
tornado" straw man mechanism.
> The only
> thing that can be roughly determined is the likely distance of the
> starting point compared to a certain target that is known. This
> determination requires statistical analysis - i.e., real science.
No. It involves GIGO math based on a dishonest straw man mechanism.
Where is the bacteria that has total sequence space as a starting
point?
> is well known and well publicized that potential targets...
>
> read more »
Devils Advocaat
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 19:01:57 -0800 (PST), Seanpit
>
> > Tell me Ray, when you go to Las Vegas and roll the dice, does god roll
> > the dice for you?
>
> The gods do not play dice.
On Discworld they do ... and sometimes they cheat as well.
>
> > Some things simply have the appearance of
> > randomness to such a degree that you couldn't tell otherwise
>
> Tossed dice do not appear random.
True ... but I wonder how random is a tossed salad?
>
> --http://desertphile.org
Inez
claims I will be sure to get on their case.
But you're avoiding the question. If you are claiming that
complicated systems cannot arise naturally then you need to explain
how a system complicated enough to intelligently engineer flagellum
came to be. Can you give an example of such a designing system that
is less than 1000aa long? If not, your own argument would seem to
refute your theory.
Burkhard
> Tell that to SETI scientists who believe the odds are quite good that
> they'll be able to detect non-human intelligence by finding certain
> features in ratio waves that no known non-intelligent force of nature
> produces and yet is within the range of modern human production.
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
I don't think that that's what motivates them, and most certainly not
in the form of odds that someone calculates (and on what basis,
prey?). They neither need nor want to calculate first what hte odds of
alien life are, then the odds that the aliens develop means of
communication similar to ours, and finally the odds that signal
patterns that have no known natural source are the result of this
communication. Nor are they obsessed with the question if the
detection of such signals would be PROOF for alien life.
Rather, their reasoning is perfectly pragmatic, and driven by the sort
of natural curiosity that underpins all science. and tat is not based
on calculating odds. Goes a bit like this: there are lots of planets
out there, and no reason to believe that ours is in any way special
(as we aren't religious and don't believe in the typical hubris that
assumes there is a special plan just for us) So there might be life on
them too (whatever the odds). Since evolution is not merely random
(the NS part) and since some of these planets might have a similar
environment as ours, they just might communicate in ways not too
dissimilar from ours (whatever the odds, who cares). If we as humans
communicate, we take great care to use a) patterns and b) patterns
that are sufficiently distinct from the ones we find around us, (if I
communicated to you by planting trees instead by writing, you might
find it too difficult to know when you see a message rather than a
forest). IF we were ever able to find such patterns, then this would
be quite interesting , wouldn't it? Not because it is a proof of
alien life, or even gives us a measurable probability for it, but as
a heuristic devise to ask new research questions. Our colleagues in
physics can try to find a new causal mechanism that accounts for them,
which would be very interesting and worthwhile in its own right. We
can in the meantime ask ourselves what else we can try to find out if
they are really the result of alien activity. Replicate the message
and send one back (dangerous, we might just say "your mom fxxx
donkeys" or the alien equivalent to it). Pinpoint the place where they
originate and send something out to look?
All of it extremely fascinating, all of it totally unrelated to "odds"
or probabilities
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Backup storage for Sean's scientific knowledge?
Kermit
Perplexed in Peoria
On 2 Dec, 23:02, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>
> > HeySean, what's bigger - 4.32, 4.5, or 19?
>
> Or in other words, "Bozo in unum == all bozos on omnibus".
> [A difficult triple reference to Ray Martinez, legal Latin, and Firesign Theater.
> Probably won't work.]
>
> Or maybe the moral is "Don't suggest to people who know more and
> read and think more carefully than you, that they "believe in fairytales".
> And especially don't suggest that the source of their credulity is an inability
> or unwillingness to "do the math".
Have you seen any math even attempted to be done around here when it
comes to supporting the mechanism of RM/NS? - any statistical basis
whatsoever? If so, I'd sure like to see it . . .
----------------------
PiP:
People with that kind of math usually take it to the peer-reviewed
literature, or to textbooks.
Only time I have seen it around here is in response to you, now that
you mention it. I understand there was also a flurry of it back when
Walter ReMine was active. Personally, I eat the stuff up. I wish
there were more mathematically competent evolution skeptics posting
here. And that the ones we have were more competent.
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> On 30 Nov, 06:36, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> > > Sean Pitman:
> > > Without any odds analysis whatsoever. Your "potentially" useful
> > > intermediates are what are in question here - what are the odds of
> > > these needed intermediates actually existing in the form necessary to
> > > make the leap to the next intermediate step?
> > Howard Hershey:
> > The odds have to have been good enough to have happened twice in the
> > history of life on this earth.
>
> Sean Pitman:
> Yep - and what are those odds? Have even a rough idea?
Since you started a new thread, there isn't enough data in the OP to
have any idea what you're talking about. In light of that, however, I
will be happy to provide peer review for this presentation of your,
since I also know next to nothing about math.
>
> > Given the amount of time and the number
> > of bacteria that would have had similar systems, it is hardly
> > surprising that at least two did.
>
> How do you know it is "hardly surprising"? What are the actual odds?
> Only if you have at least some idea as to the actual odds would you
> have any basis to be surprised - or not. So, what are the odds?
> Where is your statistical basis for your non-surprise?
Are we talking about rotary flagella still?
The question isn't what are the odds that this person <points> will
win the lottery, but rhther what are the odds that a man like that
<points over there> would win? In case you don't recognize him, he's
last week's winner.
In my home state of Washington, the odds are better than 50% that
*somebody will win the big one. The odds that a particular person,
are extremely low, of course. Your question should not be "what are
the odds that this particular thing would happen" but rather "what are
the odds that something interesting would develop?".
>
> > > Have any idea? - any
> > > idea at all? All you've done so far is invent just-so stories that
> > > have absolutely no basis in reality. These intermediates you imagine
> > > simply do not exist in reality in the same creature nor are they
> > > likely to exist like you imagine. If you think otherwise, please do
> > > present some real statistical analysis here . . .
>
> > GIGO probability statistics is as irrelevant as the probability that
> > RR would be shot by a guy trying to impress Jodi Foster.
>
> You have to have at least some statistical basis to call your theory
> "scientific" Howard.
So please justify your 747 strawman in the 1000aa assertion:
Please explain why your target is the only appropriate one for
calculations.
Please show all of the possible targets of interest (and how you
arrived at them).
Please show how you have accounted for all possible paths to these
targets.
Please show how you have established all of the possible precursor
gene for your calculations.
Rinse, lather, repeat.
<snip>
Kermit
Inez
Since it is unlikely that you'll reply to me, I'll add the second part
of my argument.
There is no reason to posit intelligence AND magic. Magic can explain
anything by itself, so if you believe in magic there is no logical
reason to think that intelligence had to be behind it. The
"intelligence" part is just to put a friendly face on the universe, it
is not logically required.
heekster
wrote:
>On 3 Dec, 11:46, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Pitman, you prevaricating moron, stop attempting to speak for SETI.
You fuck it up, every time that you mention the acronym.
ratio waves?
Hell, you aren't even cognizant of the optical side of the search.
SETI has nothing to do with odds. They have no way to calculate them.
Their data is incomplete. Just like your education.
Seanpit
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> No.
>
> "Apparent randomness" is not the definition Darwinists accept.
Yes it is. Read up a bit on chaos theory. You will note that
randomness is not determinable. It is not provable that a particular
number or sequence or phenomenon is actually "random". All that can
really be said is that it has the appearance of being non-
predictable. This doesn't mean that it wasn't actually determined or
deliberately produced. It just means that from a given perspective,
like yours, you can't determine how it was done in a predictable
manner that can be used to determine or predict how that sequence will
look over time.
That, is the definition of randomness used in science. This is why
the possibility of deliberate non-random manipulation is not ruled out
when a number or sequence is said to be "random". It is just that a
non-random origin cannot or at least has not been detected as of yet.
> Ray
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
Nope. Take a couple of well-balanced dice and throw them on a craps
table 100 times. See if you can predict, with better than even odds
of success, what all 200 numbers will be in order ahead of this little
experiment. If you can't do better than even odds of success, then
this experiment was apparently random from your perspective. Does
this mean that it was truly random from God's perspective? Nope. God
has more information than you have and may very well be capable of
perfectly predicting the outcome of such an experiment. This of
course would mean that it is not truly random in reality (i.e., from
God's perspective). It just means that you can't tell the difference
from your own perspective. So, from your perspective it is, for all
practical purposes, random or non-predictable.
Again, that is why, in chaos theory, the hypothesis that a given
sequence has a truly random origin can never be proven. It is one of
the big surprises and frustrations in mathematics. It is a big
limitation to theoretical mathematics - that neither randomness nor
non-randomness can be proven - even theoretically. This sort of proof
is beyond the powers of mathematics or any other form of science.
That is why even mathematicians are stuck with the concept of
"apparently random".
You really need to do some more reading into the concept of randomness
in mathematics as well as chaos theory.
> Ray
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
There was a minor correction of some math done in one of my essays. I
made the correction, but where did I "run away" from any thread?
> Baron Bodissey
> We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the
> culture.
> – Rev. Ray Mummert, Dover, PA
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
wf3h
> wf3h wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 4:49 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >> wf3h wrote:
> >>>>> On 30 Nov, 06:36, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> of bacteria that would have had similar systems, it is hardly
> >>>>>> surprising that at least two did.
>
> >>>>> How do you know it is "hardly surprising"? What are the actual
> >>>>> would you have any basis to be surprised - or not. So, what are
> >>>>> the odds? Where is your statistical basis for your non-surprise?
>
if this were true, i'd be a creationist...the flintstones would be
educational TV.
>
wf3h
i've seen the math on sean's view of science. it's the most used
failed idea in history: creationism. it's failed 100% of the time.
after THAT, any OTHER idea should be a siren song to sean...except, of
course, he has no objectivity
wf3h
tell that to SETI scientists who think you're absolutely wrong on SETI
search mechanisms and assumptions.
wf3h
>
> How certain? Do you have the first clue how to even roughly estimate
> the probability that even with a population of 1e35 bacteria that job
> could be done this side of a trillion years? Where is your math for
> this "virtually certain" notion of yours? All this certainty, so
> little math - well none actually. No statistical analysis at all.
>
and, once again, sean engages in hypocrisy. he asks scientists to do a
statistical analysis while he himself fails to do a similar analysis
on his view of ID/creationism
the only known mechanisms that humans...'intelligent design'
agents...use to create DNA would not be available to intelligent
designers. thus sean has failed to exclude..as he should, any known
INTELLIGENT mechanisms.
he is using a double standard for evaluation of mechanisms...and that
is based solely on his religious beliefs.
R. Baldwin
Ray Martinez
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > No.
>
> > "Apparent randomness" is not the definition Darwinists accept.
>
> Yes it is. Read up a bit on chaos theory. You will note that
> randomness is not determinable. It is not provable that a particular
> number or sequence or phenomenon is actually "random". All that can
> really be said is that it has the appearance of being non-
> predictable. This doesn't mean that it wasn't actually determined or
> deliberately produced. It just means that from a given perspective,
> like yours, you can't determine how it was done in a predictable
> manner that can be used to determine or predict how that sequence will
> look over time.
>
> That, is the definition of randomness used in science.
That definition, as relayed by your keyboard, is not the definition or
claim used by **evolutionary theory.** Changing the focus to
"science" (which does not include Darwinism) is a bait-and-switch. And
if the Emperor is naked, as you and I know he is, the same makes
Darwinism pseudoscience or "Scientism" (book thesis, Professor Huston
Smith, "Why Religion Matters" 2001).
Evolutionary theory says the process is fundamentally random, life is
an accident (1). When Professor Asa Gray suggested "that 'variation
has been led along certain beneficial lines,' like a stream 'along
definite and useful lines of irrigation'" [fighting for a concession
of "appearance," per your attempt] Charles Darwin broke his silence
concerning God and natural selection, rebuking Gray (a Christian and
staunch supporter) publicly. Darwin went on to say that if true, there
is no reason or purpose to postulate natural selection (2). In his
"Autobiography" Darwin said specifically that "the action of natural
selection" is comparable to "the course which the wind blows" (3).
These statements are official and objective claims of evolutionary
theory and they have not changed one iota. They are as such because
Darwin is the founder and father of the modern theory. While many of
Darwin's peripheral ideas have been falsified (as he predicted) the
foundation of his theory, and its general structure (which includes
all of the previous), stands firm today (4; reference #1 above is
further supported).
"Random" means random. Any qualifier placed before said word, or any
argument made to suggest a paradox, is a direct violation of
Aristotle's Logic and is therefore invalid. This violation, and its
motive, has been explained to you (5). The results of design,
specified complexity and adaptation seen in every aspect of nature
dictate that variation is not the result of random phenomenon, but
designed (6); produced by phenomenon that is guided and supervised,
having a purpose.
1. David E. Comings, 2008:647 http://www.didmancreategod.com/
2. Charles Darwin, "The variation of animals and plants under
domestication" 1868:432 Vol.2
3. Charles Darwin, "Autobiography" Nora Barlow ed. 1958:87
4. S.J. Gould, "The Structure Of Evolutionary Theory" 2002; it is the
central claim and thesis of this book to show that Darwin's general
theory of evolution remains scientifically true and well supported by
his modern day colleagues.
5. http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/491a3190ce7e3dff
6. William Dembski, "Intelligent Design" 1999; Dembski says that based
on the reality of specified complexity, mutation cannot be random. I
extend and buttress the fact by including design and adaptation.
> This is why
> the possibility of deliberate non-random manipulation is not ruled out
> when a number or sequence is said to be "random". It is just that a
> non-random origin cannot or at least has not been detected as of yet.
>
> > Ray
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
Burkhard
> "Random" means random. Any qualifier placed before said word, or any
> argument made to suggest a paradox, is a direct violation of
> Aristotle's Logic and is therefore invalid. This violation, and its
> motive, has been explained to you (5).
Nothing in Aristotelian logic forbids the recognition of degrees of
properties, and even less so the acceptance that sometimes things are
different from what they seem. It only forbids that one of the
appropriately qualified properties applies and does not apply at the
same time. Btw, even this is rather a strict requirement for many
purposes, which is the reasons why Aristotelian logic is not
particularly good at modelling natural language arguments, and quite
a number of modifications have been put forward, from multivalued
logic to fuzzy sets to supervaluation.
as far as randomness is concerned: pseudorandomness is as a matter of
course contrasted with true randomness, particularly in
cryptography. A process, is pseudorandom if it appears random but is
really deterministic - and unfortunately for cypographers,
pseudorandomness is all they get, when what they would really like is
true randomness. But as von Neumann put it, in particularly apt way
for this board:
"Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits
is, of course, in a state of sin".
Statistical randomness as it is usually defined does not tell you if a
sequence is "truly random" (objective unpredictability even under the
assumption all relevant factors are known) or merely pseudorandom.
Informally, it simply states that a numerical sequence has no
recognisable pattern (note: recognisable) Formally, it is a sequence
that passes one of the accepted tests for randomness, the first of
which was put forward by Kendall and Babington. See their M.G. Kendall
and B. Babington Smith, "Randomness and Random Sampling Numbers,"
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 101:1 (1938), 147-166.
Lee Jay
> Evolutionary theory says the process is fundamentally random, life is
> an accident (1).
> "Random" means random.
Well, I'm glad we got that cleared up.
Ray, I have a simple yes-or-no question for you.
Let's say that I tell a young child they'll be rewarded if they bring
me blue buttons. I give the child a bucket containing a large number
of buttons, half red and half blue. The child throws the bucket into
the air and thus spreads the buttons inside all over the floor.
Finally, the child walks around and collects the blue buttons and
brings them to me.
The question is, is the process I just described "fundamentally
random"?
Lee Jay
Ray Martinez
> > "Random" means random. Any qualifier placed before said word, or any
> > argument made to suggest a paradox, is a direct violation of
> > Aristotle's Logic and is therefore invalid. This violation, and its
> > motive, has been explained to you (5).
>
> Nothing in Aristotelian logic forbids the recognition of degrees of
> properties, and even less so the acceptance that sometimes things are
> different from what they seem. It only forbids that one of the
> appropriately qualified properties applies and does not apply at the
> same time.
Of course that is exactly what I said. The key requirement being
(quoting you): "It only forbids that one of the
appropriately qualified properties applies and does not apply at the
same time."
I believe Sean is saying: "We cannot predict the outcome or direction
or result therefore mutation or variation is random or has the
appearance of random because of this inability." This is obviously
true, that is, the inability to predict outcome or result. What I
believe Sean does not understand is some basic facts: both Creationism-
ID and Darwinism possess their own set of terms to describe, interpret
and explain phenomena. These terms have a long pre-history and as a
group they correspond directly to the main presupposition that each
respective paradigm accepts. "Random" like "chance" (and many others)
belong exclusively to Naturalism-Materialism (the presupposition of
Darwinism). Darwinian paradigm presupposes the non-existence and non-
involvement of God and His attributes (Intelligence and Design) IN
reality. Therefore, when a person accepts any of these terms to
describe, interpret and explain reality the presupposition, of course,
comes with it----automatically.
(By the way: the historical data showing Darwin to have committed
apostasy and converted to Materialism during 1837 and 1838 is
abundant. He believed religion was not based on any rational
foundation, miracles do not exist, evolution produced the brain which
in turn invented and imagined the concept of "God.")
It is impossible to turn back the clock and reinvent "random." It
belongs to the evolutionary paradigm----irreversibly. "Random" thus
presupposes, and means (by association) the non-existence and non-
involvement of invisible Designer in reality. If true, the term is
spot-on, having direct correspondence to Materialism. Materialism is
the deranged "scientific" arm of Atheism worldview. Materialism is
open rebellion to God, blasphemy of the highest order. Species
mutability is the main claim of Materialism. Mutability is the most
extraordinary claim ever presented to Adamkind. One day (hopefully
soon) I will refute the claim with scientific evidence already in my
possession.
> Btw, even this is rather a strict requirement for many
> purposes, which is the reasons why Aristotelian logic is not
> particularly good at modelling natural language arguments, and quite
> a number of modifications have been put forward, from multivalued
> logic to fuzzy sets to supervaluation.
>
The abandonment of Aristotelian Logic, by Evolutionists, if true,
disproves Materialism. And they are not even aware of this fact.
Evolutionists who do this have committed suicide. To say "A" can be
"A" and not "A" at the same time violates the strict anti-
supernaturalism of Materialism. Until now I have intentionally
withheld the following fact: there is only ONE valid exception to
Aristotelian Logic: Theos-ology or Theology (source: Dr. Gene Scott).
Materialists are SO confused, their abandonment has bequeathed to
Theism the scientific basis supporting the Incarnation. Christ was all
Man and all God at the same time every moment of His life.
What is the source of "confusion" (fusion of contrary concepts)?
For another topic....
> as far as randomness is concerned: pseudorandomness is as a matter of
> course contrasted with true randomness, particularly in
> cryptography. A process, is pseudorandom if it appears random but is
> really deterministic - and unfortunately for cypographers,
> pseudorandomness is all they get, when what they would really like is
> true randomness. But as von Neumann put it, in particularly apt way
> for this board:
>
> "Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits
> is, of course, in a state of sin".
>
> Statistical randomness as it is usually defined does not tell you if a
> sequence is "truly random" (objective unpredictability even under the
> assumption all relevant factors are known) or merely pseudorandom.
> Informally, it simply states that a numerical sequence has no
> recognisable pattern (note: recognisable) Formally, it is a sequence
> that passes one of the accepted tests for randomness, the first of
> which was put forward by Kendall and Babington. See their M.G. Kendall
> and B. Babington Smith, "Randomness and Random Sampling Numbers,"
> Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 101:1 (1938), 147-166.
Ray
hersheyh
Actually, I can predict, out of 200 tries that I should,
statistically, get two ones or two twelves about 1/36th of the time
each, and a seven 6/36th of the time [6 or 8 will appear about 5/36th
of the time each; 4 or 9 about 4/36th each, 3 or 10 about 3/36th each,
and 2 or 11 about 2/36th each].
Which means that there is no way to do significantly better than being
right 1/6th of the time (by calling 7 each time). But that is assuming
honest randomness in the process without significant bias. And, of
course, there would be an error bar within which I would expect my
actual results and 200 trials will probably produce results closer to
expected for 7's than for 1's. So I certainly am able to make *some*
useful predictions about what to expect *precisely* because this is a
fair random event -- namely that my best odds favor choosing 7 each
time.
> If you can't do better than even odds of success,
I would strongly consider some non-random bias in the mechanism if
anyone did *as well as* even odds in 200 tosses.
> then
> this experiment was apparently random from your perspective.
Maybe your perspective. Not mine.
> Does
> this mean that it was truly random from God's perspective? Nope. God
> has more information than you have and may very well be capable of
> perfectly predicting the outcome of such an experiment. This of
> course would mean that it is not truly random in reality (i.e., from
> God's perspective). It just means that you can't tell the difference
> from your own perspective. So, from your perspective it is, for all
> practical purposes, random or non-predictable.
There is a difference between "random" as described above and "non-
predictable". If I have enough evidence of how the process works and
even a simple knowledge of probability, I can "predict" a number of
useful things, such as the liklihood of success when drawing to an
inside straight.
But if you are talking about events that, by nature, have or are
likely to have happened just once, you cannot determine the
*probability* of it having happened or happening again. Particularly
if, by it happening, the environment changes the odds of something
similar recurring. Depending on the availability of evidence, you can
sometimes describe how it did happen or was most likely to have
happened. You most certainly cannot determine probabability if you
strongly suspect that some aspect of the process was non-random and
biased, such as an environmental condition favoring one result over
another. Gee! I wonder what that means for your GIGO numerology?
hersheyh
I obviously meant two sixes or twelve total.
John S. Wilkins
> > "Random" means random. Any qualifier placed before said word, or any
> > argument made to suggest a paradox, is a direct violation of
> > Aristotle's Logic and is therefore invalid. This violation, and its
> > motive, has been explained to you (5).
>
> Nothing in Aristotelian logic forbids the recognition of degrees of
> properties, and even less so the acceptance that sometimes things are
> different from what they seem. It only forbids that one of the
> appropriately qualified properties applies and does not apply at the
> same time. Btw, even this is rather a strict requirement for many
> purposes, which is the reasons why Aristotelian logic is not
> particularly good at modelling natural language arguments, and quite
> a number of modifications have been put forward, from multivalued
> logic to fuzzy sets to supervaluation.
This agrees with what I know of both Aristotle's logic and the tradition
that culminated in Boole. The Greeks of course knew of degrees of
properties - they invented the Sorites after all. Aristotle referred to
some essential properties as "the more and the less".
>
> as far as randomness is concerned: pseudorandomness is as a matter of
> course contrasted with true randomness, particularly in
> cryptography. A process, is pseudorandom if it appears random but is
> really deterministic - and unfortunately for cypographers,
> pseudorandomness is all they get, when what they would really like is
> true randomness. But as von Neumann put it, in particularly apt way
> for this board:
>
> "Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits
> is, of course, in a state of sin".
>
> Statistical randomness as it is usually defined does not tell you if a
> sequence is "truly random" (objective unpredictability even under the
> assumption all relevant factors are known) or merely pseudorandom.
> Informally, it simply states that a numerical sequence has no
> recognisable pattern (note: recognisable) Formally, it is a sequence
> that passes one of the accepted tests for randomness, the first of
> which was put forward by Kendall and Babington. See their M.G. Kendall
> and B. Babington Smith, "Randomness and Random Sampling Numbers,"
> Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 101:1 (1938), 147-166.
Outside my area of competence, but also what I understand to be the
case. Chaos, too, is fully determinate.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
(M)-adman
Ray, I have now decided that you are nutz. You exist on information overload alone.
--
It is all about the overload with:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
Seanpit
>
> Outside my area of competence, but also what I understand to be the
> case. Chaos, too, is fully determinate.
It is not determinable if a particular sequence is truly chaotic or
random.
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
> scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
Not necessarily. It certainly may appear random from your
perspective. But, it is possible that some higher-level perspective
could view this scenario as perfectly determinable. That is why it is
mathematically impossible to prove that a particular sequence or
pattern is actually "chaotic" or "random".
> Lee Jay
Sean PItman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
>
> > Nope. Take a couple of well-balanced dice and throw them on a craps
> > table 100 times. See if you can predict, with better than even odds
> > of success, what all 200 numbers will be in order ahead of this little
> > experiment.
>
> Actually, I can predict, out of 200 tries that I should,
> statistically, get two ones or two twelves about 1/36th of the time
> each, and a seven 6/36th of the time [6 or 8 will appear about 5/36th
> of the time each; 4 or 9 about 4/36th each, 3 or 10 about 3/36th each,
> and 2 or 11 about 2/36th each].
Come on Howard. I'm talking about with better than even odds of
success from what is statistically expected. In other words, I'm
asking you to beat Las Vegas here with better than even odds of
success.
> Which means that there is no way to do significantly better than being
> right 1/6th of the time (by calling 7 each time). But that is assuming
> honest randomness in the process without significant bias. And, of
> course, there would be an error bar within which I would expect my
> actual results and 200 trials will probably produce results closer to
> expected for 7's than for 1's. So I certainly am able to make *some*
> useful predictions about what to expect *precisely* because this is a
> fair random event -- namely that my best odds favor choosing 7 each
> time.
>
> > If you can't do better than even odds of success,
>
> I would strongly consider some non-random bias in the mechanism if
> anyone did *as well as* even odds in 200 tosses.
Let me make it easier for you Howard. Make it a fair coin toss. If
you consistently made the same bet on the toss over a million tosses,
odds are you'd come out with the same amount of money you started with
- i.e., the same number of wins and losses of the same amount. That's
what "even odds of success" means. If you can do better than these
even odds of success, the coin toss isn't as random as expected given
the hypothesis of a "fair" coin toss. There would be a detectable
"bias" or non-randomness from the expected in the coin toss that could
be used to predict the future and take money from someone betting in
favor of a truly fair coin toss.
Remember Howard, while there are nonrandom aspects to random events
like random coin tosses (such as the expected overall distribution of
heads vs. tails to be very predictably 50:50), this discussion is
about those aspects that are not predictable with better than even
odds of success: like which will appear next? - heads or tails? You
can't know that with better than 50% odds of success if the coin toss
is really "fair". That's what makes it "random" - - obviously.
Sometimes you can be a real dolt - - most of the time actually.
< snip rest of nonsense >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
John S. Wilkins
> On Dec 5, 6:24 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> >
> > Outside my area of competence, but also what I understand to be the
> > case. Chaos, too, is fully determinate.
>
> It is not determinable if a particular sequence is truly chaotic or
> random.
Really? You can't tell if a Mandelbort set is random?
Seanpit
wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 19:01:57 -0800 (PST), Seanpit
>
> <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Tell me Ray, when you go to Las Vegas and roll the dice, does god roll
> > the dice for you?
>
> The gods do not play dice.
>
> > Some things simply have the appearance of
> > randomness to such a degree that you couldn't tell otherwise
>
You should do very well in Vegas then ; )
> --http://desertphile.org
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
hersheyh
> On Dec 5, 12:03 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Nope. Take a couple of well-balanced dice and throw them on a craps
> > > table 100 times. See if you can predict, with better than even odds
> > > of success, what all 200 numbers will be in order ahead of this little
> > > experiment.
>
> > Actually, I can predict, out of 200 tries that I should,
> > each, and a seven 6/36th of the time [6 or 8 will appear about 5/36th
> > of the time each; 4 or 9 about 4/36th each, 3 or 10 about 3/36th each,
> > and 2 or 11 about 2/36th each].
>
> Come on Howard. I'm talking about with better than even odds of
> success from what is statistically expected. In other words, I'm
> asking you to beat Las Vegas here with better than even odds of
> success.
Not the definition of even odds that I use. But if you agree with my
predicted odds (my ability to predict the odds is based on a
mathematical understanding of a *completely random* unbiased process)
that is fine with me.
> > Which means that there is no way to do significantly better than being
> > right 1/6th of the time (by calling 7 each time). But that is assuming
> > honest randomness in the process without significant bias. And, of
> > course, there would be an error bar within which I would expect my
> > actual results and 200 trials will probably produce results closer to
> > expected for 7's than for 1's. So I certainly am able to make *some*
> > useful predictions about what to expect *precisely* because this is a
> > fair random event -- namely that my best odds favor choosing 7 each
> > time.
>
> > > If you can't do better than even odds of success,
>
> > I would strongly consider some non-random bias in the mechanism if
> > anyone did *as well as* even odds in 200 tosses.
>
> Let me make it easier for you Howard. Make it a fair coin toss. If
> you consistently made the same bet on the toss over a million tosses,
> odds are you'd come out with the same amount of money you started with
> - i.e., the same number of wins and losses of the same amount. That's
> what "even odds of success" means. If you can do better than these
> even odds of success, the coin toss isn't as random as expected given
> the hypothesis of a "fair" coin toss. There would be a detectable
> "bias" or non-randomness from the expected in the coin toss that could
> be used to predict the future and take money from someone betting in
> favor of a truly fair coin toss.
I have no problem with that description. Your ability to predict this
probability is due to the assumption that the mechanism is completely
random and that there is no environmental bias favoring one or the
other outcome. Do I have that right?
> Remember Howard, while there are nonrandom aspects to random events
> like random coin tosses (such as the expected overall distribution of
> heads vs. tails to be very predictably 50:50), this discussion is
> about those aspects that are not predictable with better than even
> odds of success: like which will appear next? - heads or tails? You
> can't know that with better than 50% odds of success if the coin toss
> is really "fair". That's what makes it "random" - - obviously.
And that your ability to make a prediction is based on the assumption
that the process is completely random and that there is no bias
favoring one or another result? Do I have that right?
>
> Sometimes you can be a real dolt - - most of the time actually.
Actually, we seem to agree on the basics: That being able to
calculate the odds requires certain assumptions about the mechanism.
1) All possible results are available from the *real* starting point,
in this case two die, each with six different numbers, one to six. If
one of the sides on one of the die had no pips, the odds would
change. If 3/4 of the pips were six, the odds would change. 2) That
the process is completely random and without environmental bias.
Which has the correllary of: If the process were to be repeated after
one number comes up, that has no effect on that number coming up
again.
> < snip rest of nonsense >
Gee, I thought the above was merely ironic pointing out that *even
odds* did not apply to the situation. The *interesting* stuff was in
the "nonsense" you snipped.
**********
> > Does
> > this mean that it was truly random from God's perspective? Nope. God
> > has more information than you have and may very well be capable of
> > perfectly predicting the outcome of such an experiment. This of
> > course would mean that it is not truly random in reality (i.e., from
> > God's perspective). It just means that you can't tell the difference
> > from your own perspective. So, from your perspective it is, for all
> > practical purposes, random or non-predictable.
> There is a difference between "random" as described above and "non-
> predictable". If I have enough evidence of how the process works and
> even a simple knowledge of probability, I can "predict" a number of
> useful things, such as the liklihood of success when drawing to an
> inside straight.
Assuming that the conditions and assumptions mentioned above hold.
> But if you are talking about events that, by nature, have or are
> likely to have happened just once, you cannot determine the
> *probability* of it having happened or happening again. Particularly
> if, by it happening, the environment changes the odds of something
> similar recurring. Depending on the availability of evidence, you can
> sometimes describe how it did happen or was most likely to have
> happened. You most certainly cannot determine probabability if you
> strongly suspect that some aspect of the process was non-random and
> biased, such as an environmental condition favoring one result over
> another. Gee! I wonder what that means for your GIGO numerology?
*******
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Lee Jay
Whooosh.....right past you Sean.
Lee Jay
Ray Martinez
Quantity of information is not a rational basis for rejection or a
valid reason to **slander** another Creationist-IDist as "nuts";
therefore one of us is not a genuine Creationist-IDist.
No Creationist-IDist has any reason or justification to reject
anything said in my message. Because you do not understand the
information or refuse to understand, or because you are ignorant that
makes me "nuts." Since you are also a Fundamentalist, and a person who
thinks of himself as a Creationist, and since you support the enemy of
Creationism (= evolution) I am comforted and relieved to receive the
disapproval of your kind (= ignorant, confused; identifying
characteristics of a Fundamentalist). The approval of your kind would
surely make me as you say----glad I didn't get it.
I conclude therefore that you are a Judas and a troll, looking for the
approval of on-looking Evolutionists, kissing their ass. Your slander
is the typical slander that I receive from Atheist-Evolutionists. This
proves that you are indeed a real Evolutionist and I am indeed a real
Creationist----slander explained.
Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young Biosphere
Creationist-species immutabilist, Paleyan Designist, British Natural
Theologian.
Ray Martinez
Sean: based on things posted by three Evolutionists upthread they do
not agree with your representation of "random" to mean "apparently"
random or "appearance" of randomness.
Again, this fact supports my contention that "random" means truly
random (face value meaning) and any definition employing a qualifier
is intended to deceive undecided Christians into accepting
evolutionary theory. If this occurs evolutionary theory has new
converts, but the real claim of fact does not change: the process
remains fundamentally random.
Most ordinary evolutionists and some evolutionist authors will gladly
misrepresent evolutionary theory in order to secure Christian support.
When this happens these "Christians" will corrupt Genesis for them. I
have never seen any evolution scholar say that "random" means
"apparent" or "having the appearance." In fact, I invite you to show
me one Historian of Science scholar, that is, a person with a Ph.D. in
the History of Science, say such a thing.
S.J Gould, Ernst Mayr, Michael Ghiselin, and Janet Browne (to name
just a few) have both scientific and history of science scholar
status. Again, I have never seen these scholars, who understand both
disciplines, say such things.
Most practicing scientists are totally ignorant of Philosophy and
History of Science. They are not qualified to interpret the data that
they and other scientists produce.
Ray
Lee Jay
Can't even come up with a one-word answer, huh Ray?
Lee Jay
hersheyh
An even better analogy would be if the buttons were 1/2 composed of
sugar and 1/2 composed of keratin bone and they were tossed into a
shallow pool of water (an unintelligent selective environment, you
might even dare say). All you do is ask the child to collect *all*
the buttons he can find a few days later.
But I certainly agree with the "Whoooosh" comment, even with the use
of the semi-intelligent child actor.
DJT
> On Dec 5, 8:53 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> > Ray, I have now decided that you are nutz. You exist on information overload alone.
>
> Quantity of information is not a rational basis for rejection or a
> valid reason to **slander** another Creationist-IDist as "nuts";
> therefore one of us is not a genuine Creationist-IDist.
What 'quality of information' Ray? Also, expressing one's opinion
is not "slander" even if were spoken, instead of written.
>
> No Creationist-IDist has any reason or justification to reject
> anything said in my message.
Except that it's nuts.....
> Because you do not understand the
> information or refuse to understand, or because you are ignorant that
> makes me "nuts."
well, no, Ray, it's because you are nuts what makes you nuts.
> Since you are also a Fundamentalist, and a person who
> thinks of himself as a Creationist, and since you support the enemy of
> Creationism (= evolution) I am comforted and relieved to receive the
> disapproval of your kind (= ignorant, confused; identifying
> characteristics of a Fundamentalist).
If you were "relieved" then you wouldn't be whining like this.
> The approval of your kind would
> surely make me as you say----glad I didn't get it.
Ray has a talent for driving away even those on his own side.....
>
> I conclude therefore that you are a Judas and a troll, looking for the
> approval of on-looking Evolutionists, kissing their ass. Your slander
> is the typical slander that I receive from Atheist-Evolutionists. This
> proves that you are indeed a real Evolutionist and I am indeed a real
> Creationist----slander explained.
Of course, Ray has never been slandered here, not even libeled. Ray
rightly gets trounced on his arguments, and calls it "slander".
>
> Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young Biosphere
> Creationist-species immutabilist, Paleyan Designist, British Natural
> Theologian.
Which means he doesn't understand any of those self appointed
titles.
DJT
Ray Martinez
[Snip....]
Since intelligence was involved----no.
RM-NS has even less intelligence than said child. In fact, it is
mindless; therefore, the process is fundamentally random. Your attempt
to qualify "random" with antonymic analogy involving intelligence has
an ulterior motive, which I have identified in other messages.
Of course since you have not revealed your hand (providing
interpretation of your analogy), and since we are not sitting at the
same table in the presence of one another, you exist in a position to
save face.
Ray
DJT
snip
>
> Sean: based on things posted by three Evolutionists upthread they do
> not agree with your representation of "random" to mean "apparently"
> random or "appearance" of randomness.
Ray, please understand that you don't know that "random" means in
relation to evolution. Random does not mean "unguided", or "without
purpose".
>
> Again, this fact supports my contention that "random" means truly
> random (face value meaning)
Your "face value meaning" is wrong. That's why you keep making this
same mistake. You don't seem to understand what the word really
means, which is demonstrated by your tautology that "random means
random".
> and any definition employing a qualifier
> is intended to deceive undecided Christians into accepting
> evolutionary theory.
Again, acceptance of a scientific theory has nothing to do with
whether or not one knows the meaning of "random". Evolution is not a
random process, even though random variations are part of the
process. Selection is non random, which is why the process is not
fully random.
> If this occurs evolutionary theory has new
> converts, but the real claim of fact does not change: the process
> remains fundamentally random.
The process is not "fundamentally random" because selection is not
random. Again, you are defining the word "random" to be the same as
"unguided" or "not directed by an intelligent being". Neither one
is correct.
>
> Most ordinary evolutionists and some evolutionist authors will gladly
> misrepresent evolutionary theory in order to secure Christian support.
"Christian support" is irrelevant to science. "Evolutionists" aren't
the ones misrepresenting the theory, and there's no need to garner
"Christian support". Christians support evolution because of it's
explanatory power, not because it's supposed to be deterministic, or
teleological.
> When this happens these "Christians" will corrupt Genesis for them.
Understanding science does not cause corruption of Genesis.
Corruption of Genesis is treating it as a science text.
> I
> have never seen any evolution scholar say that "random" means
> "apparent" or "having the appearance."
Nor would you. The point is that it's not possible to determine
between truly random events, and those that appear to be random, but
are controlled by a supernatural being.
> In fact, I invite you to show
> me one Historian of Science scholar, that is, a person with a Ph.D. in
> the History of Science, say such a thing.
Strawman, Ray. No one claims that, so your "invitation" is
meaningless. Also, scholars and people with Ph.D.s are not always
right. People who don't hold degrees are not always wrong.
>
> S.J Gould, Ernst Mayr, Michael Ghiselin, and Janet Browne (to name
> just a few) have both scientific and history of science scholar
> status.
And they could be wrong, or right. Having "scholar status" in your
mind doesn't carry much weight.
> Again, I have never seen these scholars, who understand both
> disciplines, say such things.
That's because you entirely misunderstand those genuine scientists.
What you think of as "random" is simply unguided, and non
teleological. There are many events which are not consciously
guided, but are not random either.
>
> Most practicing scientists are totally ignorant of Philosophy and
> History of Science.
If that were true, that would put them in the same boat as you,
Ray. You show yourself to be equally ignorant, and actually much
more ignorant, as you accept things that are patently untrue.
> They are not qualified to interpret the data that
> they and other scientists produce.
Why should anyone accept your pronouncement on this matter? Why
would either philosophy or history of science matter to the
interpretation of evidence?
DJT
Lee Jay
> On Dec 6, 11:56 am, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 5, 7:17 am, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 4, 8:47 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Evolutionary theory says the process is fundamentally random, life is
> > > > an accident (1).
> > > [snip]
> > > > "Random" means random.
>
> > > Well, I'm glad we got that cleared up.
>
> > > Ray, I have a simple yes-or-no question for you.
>
> > > Let's say that I tell a young child they'll be rewarded if they bring
> > > me blue buttons. I give the child a bucket containing a large number
> > > of buttons, half red and half blue. The child throws the bucket into
> > > the air and thus spreads the buttons inside all over the floor.
> > > Finally, the child walks around and collects the blue buttons and
> > > brings them to me.
>
> > > The question is, is the process I just described "fundamentally
> > > random"?
>
> [Snip....]
>
> Since intelligence was involved----no.
>
> RM-NS has even less intelligence than said child. In fact, it is
> mindless; therefore, the process is fundamentally random.
Okay, fine, use hersheyh's example instead:
"An even better analogy would be if the buttons were 1/2 composed of
sugar and 1/2 composed of keratin bone and they were tossed into a
shallow pool of water (an unintelligent selective environment, you
might even dare say). All you do is ask the child to collect *all*
the buttons he can find a few days later. "
Lee Jay
Lee Jay
I was thinking about following a simple rule (pick up all the blue
buttons), but I see your point.
Lee Jay
DJT
> > > Ray, I have a simple yes-or-no question for you.
>
> > > Let's say that I tell a young child they'll be rewarded if they bring
> > > me blue buttons. I give the child a bucket containing a large number
> > > of buttons, half red and half blue. The child throws the bucket into
> > > the air and thus spreads the buttons inside all over the floor.
> > > Finally, the child walks around and collects the blue buttons and
> > > brings them to me.
>
> > > The question is, is the process I just described "fundamentally
> > > random"?
>
> [Snip....]
>
> Since intelligence was involved----no.
That's because it involves selection.....
>
> RM-NS has even less intelligence than said child. In fact, it is
> mindless; therefore, the process is fundamentally random.
Wrong. Mindlessness has nothing to do with randomness.
>Your attempt
> to qualify "random" with antonymic analogy involving intelligence has
> an ulterior motive, which I have identified in other messages.
Ray, intelligence is not the antonym of random. As for
"identifying ulterior motives" you always get that wrong.
>
> Of course since you have not revealed your hand (providing
> interpretation of your analogy), and since we are not sitting at the
> same table in the presence of one another, you exist in a position to
> save face.
No "saving face" is needed. Your claims that evolution is a
"fundamentally random" process is just wrong.
DJT
hersheyh
Actually the child does not have to even pick them up in my example.
All you need do is notice which buttons still exist relative to the
starting point. And, if buttons self-reproduced...
>
> Lee Jay
R. Baldwin
69d59d...@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
No Sean, Chaos Theory is about deterministic systems. It is not the same as
random,
heekster
Lee Jay
Yes...according to Ray, throwing dirt into a sieve stack and getting
out groups sorted by grain size (i.e. not random as went in) is a
process requiring a mind. I guess if you don't have a mind, it's hard
to know what is, and is not required of one.
Lee Jay
Lee Jay
> On Dec 6, 1:15 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > RM-NS has even less intelligence than said child. In fact, it is
> > mindless; therefore, the process is fundamentally random.
>
> Wrong. Mindlessness has nothing to do with randomness.
>
> >Your attempt
> > to qualify "random" with antonymic analogy involving intelligence has
> > an ulterior motive, which I have identified in other messages.
>
> Ray, intelligence is not the antonym of random.
Ray, please read and absorb the above - it's fundamental to many of
your arguments, and you are dead wrong about it every time. A mind in
NOT required for a process to be non-random!
Lee Jay
Ray Martinez
> On Dec 6, 1:15 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 6, 11:56 am, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 5, 7:17 am, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 4, 8:47 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Evolutionary theory says the process is fundamentally random, life is
> > > > > an accident (1).
> > > > [snip]
> > > > > "Random" means random.
>
> > > > Well, I'm glad we got that cleared up.
>
> > > > Ray, I have a simple yes-or-no question for you.
>
> > > > Let's say that I tell a young child they'll be rewarded if they bring
> > > > me blue buttons. I give the child a bucket containing a large number
> > > > of buttons, half red and half blue. The child throws the bucket into
> > > > the air and thus spreads the buttons inside all over the floor.
> > > > Finally, the child walks around and collects the blue buttons and
> > > > brings them to me.
>
> > > > The question is, is the process I just described "fundamentally
> > > > random"?
>
> > [Snip....]
>
> > Since intelligence was involved----no.
>
> > RM-NS has even less intelligence than said child. In fact, it is
> > mindless; therefore, the process is fundamentally random.
>
> Okay, fine, use hersheyh's example instead:
>
Howard's example is not fundamentally different.
> "An even better analogy would be if the buttons were 1/2 composed of
> sugar and 1/2 composed of keratin bone and they were tossed into a
> shallow pool of water (an unintelligent selective environment, you
> might even dare say). All you do is ask the child to collect *all*
> the buttons he can find a few days later. "
>
Since Howard has intelligence participating too (a child), said
process is not fundamentally random.
The Evolutionists are stymied. Their attempt to maintain "random" but
re-define the concept to mean "not entirely" is prevented by
Aristotelian Logic: "A" cannot be "A" and not "A" at the same time.
Ray
hersheyh
If the child were not there, would the sugar buttons reappear?
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
According to the facts assumed in your example, yes. This, then,
exposes the original component of intelligence participating in the
process to have been a ruse or trap? If not, what was the purpose of
the child?
Ray
Lee Jay
?????
> This, then,
> exposes the original component of intelligence participating in the
> process to have been a ruse or trap? If not, what was the purpose of
> the child?
To just follow the rule - no decision making or learning
(intelligence) required.
Lee Jay
John S. Wilkins
As a philosopher and historian of science, I can only say, of course
he's right...
Devils Advocaat
Aristotle's Logic, in my opinion, cannot be used to counter the
concept that an apparently random event is completely
indistinguishable from a truly random event.
hersheyh
The only real purpose of the child is to observe and report on what
happened in the selective environment in the complete absence of any
intelligence (unless you give water more credit for smarts than I
do). Are you *really* claiming that if sugar buttons and bone buttons
get tossed into a pool, that the sugar buttons will not dissolve
unless there is an "intelligent" agent there to pick them up or watch
them? Or that they will reassemble (contrary to the 2nd law of
thermodynamics) the moment the "intelligent watcher" leaves the
scene? I pointed out that the child actually bringing the buttons he
can find the next day back to you is not really important.
If you really do think that sugar will not *differentially* dissolve
in water, relative to bone, in the total absence of an intelligent
agent acting on it, you have a very different view of empirical
reality than I do.
DJT
The child here is just a collection system. It could just as easily
be a completely automated system, or process. Adding the child
doesn't introduce any intelligence into the selection process.
>
> The Evolutionists are stymied. Their attempt to maintain "random" but
> re-define the concept to mean "not entirely" is prevented by
> Aristotelian Logic: "A" cannot be "A" and not "A" at the same time.
A major part of the problem you have, Ray, is that "A" in this case
means something different than what you apparently think it means.
You are defining "random" to be the same thing as "unguided" or
"without a mind". As everyone has been trying to get you to
understand, that is wrong.
Random, in the context of science means:
"1. Relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by
a probability distribution.
2. Relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as
in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance."
The American Heritage Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Houghton
Mifflin Company
You are making the same mistake that most creationists make when they
say that evolution is 'only a theory'. You are using the term as if
it were in the general vernacular, rather than the way scientists use
the term.
In terms of Aristotelian logic, you are assuming that the "A" that
can't be "not A" has properties that in reality it doesn't have. In
short, what you think is "A" isn't what you imagine it to be.
DJT
(M)-adman
How is THAT a chez watt?
--
It is all about the truth with:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
Boikat
> heekster wrote:
> >> In the, "abject lack of any verisimilitude whatsoever" category,
>
> >>> Most practicing scientists are totally ignorant of Philosophy and
> >>> History of Science. They are not qualified to interpret the data
> >>> that they and other scientists produce.
>
> How is THAT a chez watt?
Because of the source. Raytard is not qualified, either. Neither are
you, obviously. It's that "irony" thing.
>
> --
>
> It is all about the stupidity with:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
I corrected your sig for you. Again.
Boikat
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>heekster wrote:
>>> In the, "abject lack of any verisimilitude whatsoever" category,
>>>
>>>> Most practicing scientists are totally ignorant of Philosophy and
>>>> History of Science. They are not qualified to interpret the data
>>>> that they and other scientists produce.
>
>How is THAT a chez watt?
If you have to ask then you lack the brains to understand a sensible
answer.
Now I know you are a very forgetful person, or at least you like to
run away and try to forget things. However, on the 29th September 2008
you failed to deal with a number of items that were first listed by
Boikat.
So, to help you, here (again) are the mistakes Boikat (and now myself)
think you need to address:-
Claiming the actor Paul Newman was a creationist....
Claiming that "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific*
discoveries...
Claiming wars have been fought because some scientific finding
discredited some facet of some religion...
Claiming to have a "higher education" than most posters to this news
group....
Claiming to understand how geologists determine the age of any given
sample of rock...
Now, will you deal with them? Or do I need to keep reminding you?
--
Bob.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>:
>heekster wrote:
>>> In the, "abject lack of any verisimilitude whatsoever" category,
>>>
>>>> Most practicing scientists are totally ignorant of Philosophy and
>>>> History of Science. They are not qualified to interpret the data
>>>> that they and other scientists produce.
>
>How is THAT a chez watt?
Look at the category. Use your dictionary. Then consider the
meaning of "Chez Watt". (Didn't we just discuss this?)
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
(M)-adman
>> On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 12:23:12 -0600, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>:
>>
>>> heekster wrote:
>>>>> In the, "abject lack of any verisimilitude whatsoever" category,
>>>>>
>>>>>> Most practicing scientists are totally ignorant of Philosophy and
>>>>>> History of Science. They are not qualified to interpret the data
>>>>>> that they and other scientists produce.
>>>
>>> How is THAT a chez watt?
>>
>> Look at the category. Use your dictionary. Then consider the
>> meaning of "Chez Watt". (Didn't we just discuss this?)
THE STATEMENT IS TRUE,
therefore, not really a chez watt
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Liar!
>
>therefore, not really a chez watt
--
Bob.
Ray Martinez
> heekster <heeks...@iwxt.net> wrote:
> > In the, "abject lack of any verisimilitude whatsoever" category,
>
> > >["]Most practicing scientists are totally ignorant of Philosophy and
> > >History of Science. They are not qualified to interpret the data that
>
> As a philosopher and historian of science, I can only say, of course
> he's right...
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
> scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
A very rare moment of agreement between Wilkins and I.
Ray
Burkhard
>
> I believe Sean is saying: "We cannot predict the outcome or direction
> or result therefore mutation or variation is random or has the
> appearance of random because of this inability." This is obviously
> true, that is, the inability to predict outcome or result. What I
> believe Sean does not understand is some basic facts: both Creationism-
> ID and Darwinism possess their own set of terms to describe, interpret
> and explain phenomena. These terms have a long pre-history and as a
> group they correspond directly to the main presupposition that each
> respective paradigm accepts. "Random" like "chance" (and many others)
> belong exclusively to Naturalism-Materialism (the presupposition of
> Darwinism). Darwinian paradigm presupposes the non-existence and non-
> involvement of God and His attributes (Intelligence and Design) IN
> reality. Therefore, when a person accepts any of these terms to
> describe, interpret and explain reality the presupposition, of course,
> comes with it----automatically.
Several things are wrong with this reasoning. The first is a plain
logical mistake. If A is a precondition of B and C is a precondition
of B, this it dopes to follow that A =B. Even if the notion of
"Random" were exclusive to naturalism, an Non-involvement of God were
exclusive to naturalism, this doe not mean that they are th same
thing. I like my tea with sugar and milk, that does not mean sugar and
milk are the same thing.
Second there is no reason why one would have to accept the
"philosophical presuppositions" of a specific scientists to accept his
theory. Newton believed tat his absolute space was the "sensorium of
God" - but you do not have to be a Christian to either understand, or
believe the correctness of, Newtonian particle mechanics. Every
scientist is free to speculate about the philosophical implications of
his theories, but as long they are not formally represented there,
this is just it, a personal speculation. Darwin believed XYZ? So what!
Third, I would consider it highly unlikely that Darwin, or any other
of his contemporaneous materialists, would consider "random" or
"chance" the way you describe them, as true randomness. Precisely
because they are materialist scientists, they tend to believe in a
deterministic universe, governed by "Laplace Demon - IF you knew
the precise location and momentum of every atom in the universe then
Newton's laws reveal the entire course of cosmic events, past and
future. Randomness in this worldview is always only pseudorandomness,
a description of the limitations of our knowledge, not an ontological
feature of the world.
>
>
> It is impossible to turn back the clock and reinvent "random." It
> belongs to the evolutionary paradigm----irreversibly. "Random" thus
> presupposes, and means (by association) the non-existence and non-
> involvement of invisible Designer in reality.
Again, the argument doe not work, in either direction
Random does not exclude a creator - I'm one counter example (using
random generators frequently when I write programs)
Conversely, only because something is not random does not entail a
creator or a telos.
I can predict that the sun tomorrow will again rise in the west and
settle in the east, and will not pop up at some arbitrary point on the
horizon. This does not mean I believe it is a blazing ball carried
by a giant Scarab His place, or some other divine intervention. I only
have to assume that there are universally valid laws of nature that
determine its behaviour. So Darwin could fully consistently claim
that the world is deterministic and nonetheless we can not (as yet)
know pr predict where a specific mutation will take place - classic
peusdorandomness
>
> The abandonment of Aristotelian Logic, by Evolutionists, if true,
> disproves Materialism. And they are not even aware of this fact.
> Evolutionists who do this have committed suicide. To say "A" can be
> "A" and not "A" at the same time violates the strict anti-
> supernaturalism of Materialism. Until now I have intentionally
> withheld the following fact:
Says who? Logic describes certain features of our language, in the
case of Aristotelian logic the semantic properties of the quantifiers
"all" and "there is/some". Our language however is much richer than
that, and has e.g. quantifiers such as "most", "many", "a few" - all
require different extensions to Aristoteles logic.
Matter of fact, his system doesn't even allow you to do basic math -
you have to add at least the logic develop by the Stoa to get close
to modern Boolean logic - which admittedly is still bivalent, which is
your main point. But the logic of the weak quantifiers is not, and
neither is the logic of vague predicates, intensional or modal
operators etc etc etc.
So the richer your description of our language and our reasoning
abilities, the greater the likelihood you abandon bivalent logic. In
fact, some of these approaches are motivated by the belief that
Aristotles' logic is not materialist enough, since its strictness
works better with abstract platonic entities than "messy" material
objects. Lesnwieski's multivalued logic, as well as Brouwer's
intuitionist logic, are both examples of logics that were developed
precisely because classical logic seemed to make to many
metaphysical, non-materialist assumptions.
Fuzzy logic is one extreme example of a logic that violates the
specific Aristotelian principle you emphasized. It is used for the
programs tat organise the Tokyo underground (because trains are often
"sort of late, sort of punctual") and the delicates option in my
washing machine - unless you assume that the Tokyo underground and my
washing machine are therefore supranatural beings, your idea that
materialism requires bivalence is in trouble
DJT
According to your frequent assertions, that makes you wrong.
DJT
Ray Martinez
The purpose of the child was bait. Once your opponent disagreed with
the proposition based on the participation of intelligence, Lee Jay
gladly jettisoned, leaving the material scenario having accomplished
an act of selection on its own. But selection was not accomplished in
the scenario outlined. What was accomplished was a simple act of
separation----nothing else. Material phenomena or agency does not have
the ability to choose or select, the same is exclusive property of
mind or intelligence. The very act of assigning this property to
material agency is a violation of Aristotelian Logic or advocacy of
perverted logic----which is a long standing criticism of mine directed
at evolutionary theorists.
> Are you *really* claiming that if sugar buttons and bone buttons
> get tossed into a pool, that the sugar buttons will not dissolve
> unless there is an "intelligent" agent there to pick them up or watch
> them? Or that they will reassemble (contrary to the 2nd law of
> thermodynamics) the moment the "intelligent watcher" leaves the
> scene? I pointed out that the child actually bringing the buttons he
> can find the next day back to you is not really important.
>
> If you really do think that sugar will not *differentially* dissolve
> in water, relative to bone, in the total absence of an intelligent
> agent acting on it, you have a very different view of empirical
> reality than I do.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
heekster
Wilkins) wrote:
>heekster <heek...@iwxt.net> wrote:
>
>> In the, "abject lack of any verisimilitude whatsoever" category,
>>
>> >Most practicing scientists are totally ignorant of Philosophy and
>> >History of Science. They are not qualified to interpret the data that
>> >they and other scientists produce.
>
>As a philosopher and historian of science, I can only say, of course
>he's right...
Can you say, "ambiguous antecedent"?
Seanpit
>
> > > Outside my area of competence, but also what I understand to be the
> > > case. Chaos, too, is fully determinate.
>
> > It is not determinable if a particular sequence is truly chaotic or
> > random.
>
Randomness of a particular sequence or set cannot be proven. It is
beyond the power of mathematics.
> John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
> scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com