Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

copy machine universal common descent redux

189 views
Skip to first unread message

jillery

unread,
Sep 8, 2017, 2:15:04 AM9/8/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Somebody once posted to T.O. an analogy for Universal Common Descent
which used xerographic copiers, which I thought illustrated many of
the important points about the topic. I regret that I don't remember
who posted it, or who first came up with the analogy. Given the
number of posters who have recently expressed confusion about
Universal Common Descent, I thought it be worthwhile at this time to
repost that analogy. If anybody remembers that post, will you repost
it now?

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

The Incredibly Lucky JTEM

unread,
Sep 10, 2017, 2:30:05 AM9/10/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
jillery wrote:

> Somebody once posted to T.O. an analogy for Universal Common Descent
> which used xerographic copiers, which I thought illustrated many of
> the important points about the topic.

Well, "Thought" is a tad overly generous in your
case. For the sake of accuracy, let's just say
that you FELT it illustrated a point that you
didn't quite grasp and even now can't articulate.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165164525193

jillery

unread,
Sep 10, 2017, 11:10:05 AM9/10/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 9 Sep 2017 23:28:01 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> Somebody once posted to T.O. an analogy for Universal Common Descent
>> which used xerographic copiers, which I thought illustrated many of
>> the important points about the topic.
>
>Well, "Thought" is a tad overly generous in your
>case. For the sake of accuracy, let's just say
>that you FELT it illustrated a point that you
>didn't quite grasp and even now can't articulate.


I already know you don't know what you're talking about, you don't
have to continue proving it.

The Incredibly Lucky JTEM

unread,
Sep 10, 2017, 7:50:04 PM9/10/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
jillery wrote:

> I already know

Cute. Wrong, but cute.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165164525193

Greg Guarino

unread,
Sep 10, 2017, 8:00:03 PM9/10/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

jillery

unread,
Sep 11, 2017, 1:15:03 AM9/11/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 16:47:25 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> I already know you don't know what you're talking about, you don't
>> have to continue proving it.
>
>Cute. Wrong, but cute.


And you proved it again.

jillery

unread,
Sep 11, 2017, 1:20:03 AM9/11/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 16:59:44 -0700 (PDT), Greg Guarino
<riskys...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 2:15:04 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> Somebody once posted to T.O. an analogy for Universal Common Descent
>> which used xerographic copiers, which I thought illustrated many of
>> the important points about the topic. I regret that I don't remember
>> who posted it, or who first came up with the analogy. Given the
>> number of posters who have recently expressed confusion about
>> Universal Common Descent, I thought it be worthwhile at this time to
>> repost that analogy. If anybody remembers that post, will you repost
>> it now?
>
Ok, I assume you don't want the entire text reposted, so I'll
summarize:

You describe two cases, one where 32 separate "generations" of
patterns were created using a method simulating common descent, and
the other where 32 separate patterns were created using a method
simulating Intelligent Design.

Based on that, you make some relevant claims:

1) Specifically disallowing the case where the intelligent designer
deliberately designed patterns to look like common descent,
one can always distinguish between the results of the two methods.

2) By working backwards from the last generation only, one can always
reconstruct the genealogy of the entire common descent patterns.

3) One can in principle extend this analogy to any number of
generations.

Anybody who disagrees with your claims could and should actually
follow your instructions and prove them for themselves.

To make your analogy even closer to reality, one could randomly throw
away parts of some intermediate generations, because extinctions. One
could still accurately reconstruct most of the genealogy from the
final generation alone.

Alternately, instead of keeping only the last generation, one could
also keep just one percent of the intermediate generations, because
fossils. Given that, one could still reconstruct a fossil genealogy
which agrees with the final generation genealogy.

Those who deny Universal Common Descent should keep in mind your
analogy, if only to avoid looking so foolish. Too bad most of them
don't seem to mind looking foolish.

Greg Guarino

unread,
Sep 11, 2017, 4:45:03 PM9/11/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 9/11/2017 1:17 AM, jillery wrote:
>> It was me. Thanks, by the way.
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/KlwmOJ--ncg/JfIWDlHsx_kJ
> Ok, I assume you don't want the entire text reposted, so I'll
> summarize

I'm fine with reposting it. Here goes:

=============================
On 12/15/2013 12:46 AM, R. Dean wrote:

> Here you are making unjustified assumptions. We humans found these
> tree patterns. If the I.Der had chosen a different pattern; you
> could have detected the pattern and made the same observation.

This is one of the most frustrating features of these discussions. The
natural nested hierarchy of life as evidence for branching descent is
among the most important concepts, but the one least understood by
creationists.

I will try again, despite my weak credentials and my confidence that
this attempt will be as unsuccessful as the others.

You'll need 63 friends, a Xerox machine and some paper.

Draw something simple on a sheet of paper. A triangle, a circle, the
letter "H", a smiley face, whatever. Make two copies and pass those on
to two friends. Throw out the original.

Ask each friend to add their own shape to the paper you gave them. Each
of them will then make two copies of their sheet and pass them on two
two more friends, destroying the original.

Use each person only once. Continue until you run out of people. The
last "generation" of 32 friends will merely add a shape to the paper
they have been given; no need to Xerox it.

You should now have 32 sheets of paper, each with 6 drawn shapes.
Remember, you have only kept the final "generation"; all the others have
been discarded.

To make it more interesting, you could also make 32 sheets yourself,
following any other pattern you like. Lay them out in a grid 4x8. Draw a
different symbol in the first sheet of each row. Xerox those symbols all
the way across each row.

Then draw a symbol at the top of each column. Copy those onto the rest
of the sheets in the column. Continue adding symbols and copying, using
whatever pattern suits you. Copy one symbol to only the odd rows, or in
a diamond shape, or however you like.

Put each set of 32 in a separate envelope. Now mail them all off to John
Harshman. :)

[With this simple an example, I'm sure even I could work it out, but
we'll want the most expertise we can get :)]

Even without a computer, John should be able to tell which set was made
by one Mastermind and which was the product of descent with
modification. [this assumes that you have not deliberately mimicked the
"descent" pattern, a trick that would become more and more difficult as
the number of "traits" increases]

Further, among the "descent" stack, John will be able to work out which
shapes were drawn in which generation and will be able to work out for
any set of papers how many generations back their most recent common
ancestor was. He could in fact work out the whole tree, determining that
the circle in the bottom right corner was drawn first, the party hat and
the asterix were drawn in the second generation, etc.

I submit that we could work out those relationships no matter how many
generations you added. Descent with modification forms a very special
pattern, one that is prohibitively unlikely to have been produced any
other way.

The Incredibly Lucky JTEM

unread,
Sep 12, 2017, 3:30:05 AM9/12/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
jillery wrote:

> And you proved it again.

Proved what, precisely, and how?

Do you have any idea what you mean, any at
all? If so, spell it out. If not, if you're
completely clueless then keep doing what
you're doing.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165164525193

jillery

unread,
Sep 12, 2017, 8:35:04 AM9/12/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 00:28:51 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> And you proved it again.
>
>Proved what, precisely, and how?


Of course, you would know if you didn't keep mangling my replies.

So just keep doing what you're doing to prove me right again.

The Incredibly Lucky JTEM

unread,
Sep 13, 2017, 2:00:05 AM9/13/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
jillery wrote:

> Of course, you would know

I do know; you're an idiot.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165164525193

jillery

unread,
Sep 13, 2017, 7:35:05 AM9/13/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 22:58:35 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote...

...nothing relevant.

You proved my point again.

The Incredibly Lucky JTEM

unread,
Sep 16, 2017, 1:50:05 AM9/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
jillery wrote:

[nothing relevant]


Wow it doesn't look at all like you're obsessed
with me... much.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165342038213

jillery

unread,
Sep 16, 2017, 2:45:05 AM9/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 22:45:12 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

[nothing relevant]


You proved me right again.

The Incredibly Lucky JTEM

unread,
Sep 17, 2017, 2:05:04 PM9/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Mentally unhinged, jillery babbled:

> You

I'm the only thing that exists in your world.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165366429296

jillery

unread,
Sep 17, 2017, 4:15:04 PM9/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 11:02:57 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:


<nothing relevant>

You proved me right again!

The Incredibly Lucky JTEM

unread,
Sep 19, 2017, 3:25:05 PM9/19/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

jillery trolled:

<nothing relevant>

You proved me right again!




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165518439893

jillery

unread,
Sep 19, 2017, 7:40:02 PM9/19/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 12:20:40 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

<nothing intelligent>

Is anybody surprised.

Do you have any idea what you mean, any at
all? If so, spell it out. If not, if you're
completely clueless then keep doing what
you're doing.

The Incredibly Lucky JTEM

unread,
Sep 20, 2017, 12:50:04 AM9/20/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Mentally unstable troll, jillery trolled:

<nothing intelligent>

Is anybody surprised?




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165525069403

jillery

unread,
Sep 20, 2017, 1:35:03 AM9/20/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 21:48:22 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

<infantile insults deleted>

Ah, there's that "Science" again.

(It's a good thing you're retarded or you'd
feel mighty foolish!)

The Incredibly Lucky JTEM

unread,
Sep 30, 2017, 1:05:04 AM9/30/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Retarded. Foolish. jillery wrote:

<infantile insults deleted>

Ah, there's that "Science" again.

(It's a good thing you're retarded or you'd
feel mighty foolish!)




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165806334198

jillery

unread,
Sep 30, 2017, 1:50:03 AM9/30/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 22:00:09 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

You must feel like a total loser, trying
as hard as you do and still looking so
pathetic....

The Incredibly Lucky JTEM

unread,
Oct 7, 2017, 12:15:02 AM10/7/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

Not everything is about me, despite your obsession...

jillery wrote:

> You

It would probably be a good idea for you to stop
investing so much "Thought" into me.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/166068134648

jillery

unread,
Oct 7, 2017, 3:50:03 AM10/7/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 21:12:15 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Clueless JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

... nothing intelligent or relevant

It would probably be a good idea for you to start
investing some thought into your posts.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Oct 7, 2017, 1:40:02 PM10/7/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 03:45:22 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 21:12:15 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Clueless JTEM
><jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>... nothing intelligent or relevant
>
>It would probably be a good idea for you to start
>investing some thought into your posts.

And have his head explode? For shame!
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

Jonathan

unread,
Oct 7, 2017, 2:10:02 PM10/7/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Accepting the above as true, Darwinists still miss
the main point concerning evolutionary paths.

What is the entire point of science?
It's to be able to predict and by doing so
control our fate.

It's naturally assumed that by answering the question
how did we get here, we will learn how the system
works and be able to predict the future of that
system.

But that's not the case when it comes to evolutionary
systems. Some aspects are predictable, others
are not at all.



Self-organization

Self-organization can be defined as the spontaneous emergence
of global structure out of local interactions. “Spontaneous”
means that no internal or external agent is in control of
the process: for a large enough system, any individual agent
can be eliminated or replaced without damaging the resulting
structure. The process is truly collective, i.e. parallel
and distributed over all the agents. This makes the
resulting organization intrinsically robust and resistant
to damage and perturbations. (Heylighen, 2008, p. 6)





Using the game of chess as an example.

Once a life form has evolved, or once
a game of chess is over, reconstructing
the moves from beginning to end does
nothing to help predict the next move
in another ongoing game.

As each move is influenced by countless
and mostly unknowable variables.
From whims, to guesses, emotions, environment
and so on.

Let's say each move has ten possibilities.

And ten variables, the context within which
the decision was made, determine each decision.

Once the decision is made, the nine unchosen
paths vanish into thin air. Those unchosen paths
are NOT saved in the fossil record, they are NOT
recorded in the gene pool. They can't be recovered.

The ten variables, the context for the decision
are also not recorded. You can go back in time
and point out the decisions, or steps that
were made, but not the reasons WHY they
were made.

So predicting the next move in chess, or
in an evolutionary path is a fools errand.
The reason WHY each choice mas made will always
be unknowable when reconstructing the past.

Only in the present can the context be seen.

HOWEVER each move in the game of chess is
determined by a purposeful intelligence.
A player has a goal, to win, or reproduce
as the case may be, and that's the driving
force for each decision.

Intelligent decisions within a complex context
decide the next step, and by extension
each and every step as they chase a predetermined
....goal or purpose.

Same is true for all higher forms of life
evolved enough to act on their own behalf.

The evolutionary path is not decided by
random events or simple selective pressures
but by intelligent purpose. That is the
answer to WHY.

HOW is not enough, it's only half the answer
and the simple half to boot.

They 'self-organize'. Selection merely fine tunes
what self organization initially created.
The two go hand in hand, but the heart of
creation and evolution is self organization
or emergence, not natural selection.

Even Dear Emily knew this 150 years ago, see
her incredible poem defining the modern form
of self organization below. As she says the
environment merely endorses the internal
and universal process of creation born
of the persistent competition of opposing
forces. Known today as the critical interaction
between static and chaotic attractors.




The uniqueness of biological self-organization: challenging
the Darwinian paradigm


Abstract

Here we discuss the challenge posed by self-organization to
the Darwinian conception of evolution. As we point out,
natural selection can only be the major creative agency
in evolution if all or most of the adaptive complexity
manifest in living organisms is built up over many generations
by the cumulative selection of naturally occurring small,
random mutations or variants, i.e., additive, incremental
steps over an extended period of time.

Biological self-organization—witnessed classically in the
folding of a protein, or in the formation of the cell membrane
—is a fundamentally different means of generating complexity.
We agree that self-organizing systems may be fine-tuned by
selection and that self-organization may be therefore
considered a complementary mechanism to natural selection
as a causal agency in the evolution of life. But we argue
that if self-organization proves to be a common mechanism
for the generation of adaptive order from the molecular
to the organismic level, then this will greatly undermine
the Darwinian claim that natural selection is the major
creative agency in evolution.

We also point out that although complex self-organizing systems
are easy to create in the electronic realm of cellular automata,
to date translating in silico simulations into real material
structures that self-organize into complex forms from local
interactions between their constituents has not proved easy.
This suggests that self-organizing systems analogous to those
utilized by biological systems are at least rare and may
indeed represent, as pre-Darwinists believed, a unique
ascending hierarchy of natural forms. Such a unique
adaptive hierarchy would pose another major challenge to
the current Darwinian view of evolution, as it would mean
the basic forms of life are necessary features of the order
of nature and that the major pathways of evolution are
determined by physical law, or more specifically by the
self-organizing properties of biomatter, rather than
natural selection.








Growth of Man -- like Growth of Nature --
Gravitates within --
Atmosphere, and Sun endorse it --
Bit it stir -- alone --

Each -- its difficult Ideal
Must achieve -- Itself --
Through the solitary prowess
Of a Silent Life --

Effort -- is the sole condition --
Patience of Itself --
Patience of opposing forces --
And intact Belief --

Looking on -- is the Department
Of its Audience --
But Transaction -- is assisted
By no Countenance --





s



Andre G. Isaak

unread,
Oct 7, 2017, 2:20:02 PM10/7/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
In article <SZOdnbBFQKMrikTE...@giganews.com>,
Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Accepting the above as true, Darwinists still miss
> the main point concerning evolutionary paths.
>
> What is the entire point of science?
> It's to be able to predict and by doing so
> control our fate.

That's a really weird view of science. Science is an attempt to
understand how the universe works. Controlling it is engineering and
politics.

Andre

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.

The Incredibly Lucky JTEM

unread,
Nov 20, 2017, 7:10:02 PM11/20/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Bob Casanova wrote:

> posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

[snip]

"Birds of a feather..."




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/167712078183

jillery

unread,
Nov 21, 2017, 12:20:02 AM11/21/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 16:07:45 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
> [snip]
>
>"Birds of a feather..."


Better a bird than a snake in the grass.

JTEM is my hero

unread,
Apr 3, 2018, 1:15:03 AM4/3/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
jillery wrote:

> Better a bird than a snake in the grass.

Whatever you are, you keep laying eggs.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/172527112068

jillery

unread,
Apr 3, 2018, 4:10:03 AM4/3/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 22:13:39 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is my hero
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> Better a bird than a snake in the grass.
>
>Whatever you are, you keep laying eggs.


Better eggs than farts.
0 new messages