Aggravation has worn off. I'm Starting to Become Amused Over Taking Three Evolutionists Out of the Sky With One Stone.

[T Pagano]

The aggravation over the Bill Rogers Hoax/Fraud has finally worn off.

And I'm just realizing (now) that I took three evolutionists out of the
Sky With One Stone: Rogers, Harshman and Ernest Major. That's a 3-fer.
That's unprecedented and its got to be a record. . .a tough record to
beat.

Prof. Nyikos is on Spring Break; I wonder if he'll get any mileage out of
this when he gets back? Won't he be surprised when he finds out that
Rogers pulled the wool over Harshman's eyes.

In Harshman's defense, he was blinded by hopeless visions of downing me.
That could happen. . .but not today.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Delusions of grandeur. Nice.

[erik simpson]

Whatever you've been drinking must be pretty good.

[Ernest Major]

Tony is continuing his habit of running away from threads and declaring
victory - does he see Comical Ali as his role model?

This missing context is that Tony has asserted, and totally failed to
support, Dembski's claim, abusing the No Free Lunch theorems, that the
evolutionary processes can be no better than blind guessing.

The No Free Lunch theorems state that averaged over all mathematically
possible problem spaces no algorithm can outperform a blind search
(random guessing). This is an unsurprising result, but no doubt requires
some skill to invent a formal proof.

They don't state that no algorithm can outperform a blind search when
applied to specific classes of problems.

For Dembski's assertion that the No Free Lunch theorems entail that
evolutionary processes can't outperform blind guesswork (in spite of
experimental evidence to the contrary) to be valid the set of problems
encountered by evolution would have to be an unbiased subset of the set
of all mathematically possible problems.

The burden of proof that this is the case lies on you (and Dembski).

However it can readily be seen that it is not the case. We observe that
small changes in genotype often result in small changes in phenotype. We
observe that small changes in phenotype often result in small changes in
fitness. We observe that small changes in environment often result in
small changes in phenotype. We observe that small changes in environment
often result in small changes in fitness. All these observations that
the problems encounted by evolution are a biased subset of all possible
problems, and that Dembski's conclusion is fallacious, based on the
failure of its unstated second axiom.

Most members of the set of mathematically possible problems spaces have
no or rare correlation between function values at neighbouring points -
if this held for living organisms we would be living in a world in which
a dog is as likely to give birth to a cat (or catfish, or coconut) as to
another dog (and in which life rapidly goes extinct due to successful
reproduction being vanishingly rare). You can't avoid this by going to
asexual reproduction and eliminating mutations, because the animals
would die anyway when the temperature changes by a fraction of a degree,
or the atmospheric oxygen concentration changes by a fraction of a percent.

Tony might argue about whether the efficacy of evolutionary processes is
sufficent, but he can't use the No Free Lunch theorems to dismiss them
preemptively - whether they are sufficient is an empirical question. He
might take some comfort from the relatively limited amount of
observations of the capability of evolutionary processes, but he has to
recognise that

1) the voluminous evidence of the factuality of evolution from several
diverse but mutually supporting lines of evidence means that it is
perfectly reasonable to infer sufficent efficacy from the fact that life
has evolved.
2) experimental measurement of rates of evolutionary change finds rates
in nature far in excess of the rates needed to account for changes seen
in the fossil record.
3) the diversity of domestic dogs, domestic pigeons and Brassicas
obtained over periods of a few hundred years demonstrates that these
rates are not a flash in the pan dependent on standing variation.

--
alias Ernest Major

[zencycle]

On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 12:15:02 AM UTC-4, T Pagano wrote:
> The aggravation over the Bill Rogers Hoax/Fraud has finally worn off.
>
> And I'm just realizing (now) that I took three evolutionists out of the
> Sky With One Stone: Rogers, Harshman and Ernest Major. That's a 3-fer.
> That's unprecedented and its got to be a record. . .a tough record to
> beat.

The only record is the unblemished one where you make a total fool of yourself.

>
> In Harshman's defense, he was blinded by hopeless visions of downing me.
> That could happen. . .but not today.

Hard to 'down' someone who lives under a rock - like pagano the shitbag troll

This is an obvious admission that he lost to me.

[zencycle]

On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 4:20:03 AM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 20/03/2018 04:12, T Pagano wrote:
>
> This missing context is that Tony has asserted, and totally failed to
> support, Dembski's claim, abusing the No Free Lunch theorems, that the
> evolutionary processes can be no better than blind guessing.

Dembskis position is so indefensible that even dembski himself has given up on it.

[JWS]

"You're so cool, you're so cool, you're so cool."
--- Alabama

[RonO]

Pags you are hopeless. At this time you are the worst of the
creationist lot no matter if they call themselves IDiots or not, and it
isn't because the others are all that great. Face it you are competing
with guys like Bill and Dean.

Do you even have a clue as to why Dembski's junk didn't make the "best"
list of the ID perps? Why are your arguments so lame that they are
worse than the abiogenesis and fossil gap denial that failed the
scientific creationists over 30 years ago?

Why does the bait and switch keep going down if there really is any ID
science worth talking about? Why hasn't any IDiot rubes ever gotten the
ID science when they have needed it?

Except for the Discovery Institute ID perps the rest of the IDiots
"scientists" pretty much gave up on the ID science a decade ago. What
happened to the ISCID or the ID Network? I am sure that they are all
still creationists of one sort or another, but they obviously stopped
supporting the ID scam.

Why are there still any IDiots left at all, and not just the lame and
incompetent like yourself?

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 23:22:34 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

More like delusions of adequacy.
--

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

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 23:12:16 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>:

>The aggravation over the Bill Rogers Hoax/Fraud has finally worn off.

We were never really aggravated over your idiotic antics.

HTH

[Jonathan]

Picking the wings off flies is no victory.




--

"To paraphrase the Buddha — Three things cannot be long hidden:
the sun; the moon; and the truth. ‬

~ Former FBI Director James Comey (12-1-17)


s

[Ernest Major]

On 20/03/2018 22:57, Jonathan wrote:
> On 3/20/2018 12:12 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>> The aggravation over the Bill Rogers Hoax/Fraud has finally worn off.
>>
>> And I'm just realizing (now) that I took three evolutionists out of the
>> Sky With One Stone:  Rogers, Harshman and Ernest Major.  That's a 3-fer.
>> That's unprecedented and its got to be a record.  .  .a tough record to
>> beat.
>>
>> Prof. Nyikos is on Spring Break; I wonder if he'll get any mileage out of
>> this when he gets back?  Won't he be surprised when he finds out that
>> Rogers pulled the wool over Harshman's eyes.
>>
>> In Harshman's defense, he was blinded by hopeless visions of downing me.
>> That could happen.  .  .but not today.
>>
>
>
>
> Picking the wings off flies is no victory.
>

Do you really support Tony's claim that evolution can't outperform blind
guessing? (That's not really consistent with your deification of evolution.)

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 18:57:13 -0400, Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/20/2018 12:12 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>> The aggravation over the Bill Rogers Hoax/Fraud has finally worn off.
>>
>> And I'm just realizing (now) that I took three evolutionists out of the
>> Sky With One Stone: Rogers, Harshman and Ernest Major. That's a 3-fer.
>> That's unprecedented and its got to be a record. . .a tough record to
>> beat.
>>
>> Prof. Nyikos is on Spring Break; I wonder if he'll get any mileage out of
>> this when he gets back? Won't he be surprised when he finds out that
>> Rogers pulled the wool over Harshman's eyes.
>>
>> In Harshman's defense, he was blinded by hopeless visions of downing me.
>> That could happen. . .but not today.
>>
>
>
>
>Picking the wings off flies is no victory.

Neither is empty rhetoric, a point which flies over your head.

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Pro Plyd]

ID. Astrology.

Nuff said.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 7:00:03 PM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
> On 3/20/2018 12:12 AM, T Pagano wrote:
> > The aggravation over the Bill Rogers Hoax/Fraud has finally worn off.
> >
> > And I'm just realizing (now) that I took three evolutionists out of the
> > Sky With One Stone: Rogers, Harshman and Ernest Major. That's a 3-fer.
> > That's unprecedented and its got to be a record. . .a tough record to
> > beat.
> >
> > Prof. Nyikos is on Spring Break; I wonder if he'll get any mileage out of
> > this when he gets back? Won't he be surprised when he finds out that
> > Rogers pulled the wool over Harshman's eyes.
> >
> > In Harshman's defense, he was blinded by hopeless visions of downing me.
> > That could happen. . .but not today.
> >
>
>
>
> Picking the wings off flies is no victory.

You almost certainly do not realise it, but Mr. Pagano is almost certainly smarter than you are.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 18:57:13 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Jonathan
<WriteI...@gmail.com>:

>On 3/20/2018 12:12 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>> The aggravation over the Bill Rogers Hoax/Fraud has finally worn off.
>>
>> And I'm just realizing (now) that I took three evolutionists out of the
>> Sky With One Stone: Rogers, Harshman and Ernest Major. That's a 3-fer.
>> That's unprecedented and its got to be a record. . .a tough record to
>> beat.
>>
>> Prof. Nyikos is on Spring Break; I wonder if he'll get any mileage out of
>> this when he gets back? Won't he be surprised when he finds out that
>> Rogers pulled the wool over Harshman's eyes.
>>
>> In Harshman's defense, he was blinded by hopeless visions of downing me.
>> That could happen. . .but not today.
>>
>
>
>
>Picking the wings off flies is no victory.

So Tony was right?

Interesting...

[Jonathan]

No but I don't see any evidence anyone here has any better
grasp of the role of stochastic processes in evolution.

This paper from a leading biologist explains it, can you
state the effects and centrality to evolution from the
relationship he describes below?




Postmodern Biology: (Adult) (Stem) Cells Are Plastic,
Stochastic, Complex, and Uncertain


Abstract

This chapter will discuss recent findings regarding cell plasticity
and stem cell behavior, focusing on ways in which experimental design,
observer interference, and inherent stochasticity and complexity
are serving to create a new, postmodern biology.

The chapter will summarize:

(a) the four recognized pathways whereby cell plasticity
occurs physiologically;

(b) recent findings regarding unexpected epigenetic reversibility
of gene restrictions that provide the mechanistic core of
plasticity;

(c) current evidence for the stochastic nature of gene
expression and, therefore, of cell fate decisions.

It will be noted that stochastic, however, does not imply
completely random; rather, constrained randomness, intermediate
between rigid determinism and complete disorder is what is
usually seen experimentally.

Possible sources of such constrained disorder, from a biomolecular
point of view, will be discussed. The chapter will conclude
with discussions of how these findings contribute to a
Complexity Theory formulation of the body as self-organizing
emergence of interacting biomolecules and the implications of
such concepts for design and interpretation of experimental results
(i.e., a cellular version of Heisenbergian uncertainty).

[Jonathan]

On 3/20/2018 7:32 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 18:57:13 -0400, Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/20/2018 12:12 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>> The aggravation over the Bill Rogers Hoax/Fraud has finally worn off.
>>>
>>> And I'm just realizing (now) that I took three evolutionists out of the
>>> Sky With One Stone: Rogers, Harshman and Ernest Major. That's a 3-fer.
>>> That's unprecedented and its got to be a record. . .a tough record to
>>> beat.
>>>
>>> Prof. Nyikos is on Spring Break; I wonder if he'll get any mileage out of
>>> this when he gets back? Won't he be surprised when he finds out that
>>> Rogers pulled the wool over Harshman's eyes.
>>>
>>> In Harshman's defense, he was blinded by hopeless visions of downing me.
>>> That could happen. . .but not today.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Picking the wings off flies is no victory.
>
>
> Neither is empty rhetoric, a point which flies over your head.
>

It's only empty to the empty-headed. Can you give an instance
of what you're talking about? Of course you can't, that would
mean you'd have to engage in a real debate with cites and
all the rest.

That would be too hard, it's much easier to wave you finger
out the car window and drive off, like cowards do.


I can defend in detail what I say. Problem is no one here
can grasp the concepts I discuss, even if I hand them
the book, they just chew on the cover.

> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>

[Jonathan]

Nothing but personal insults, that's all you have.

Sad but true for almost everyone in this ng.

[jillery]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 18:55:13 -0400, Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>

As I have pointed out many times, whether you can defend yourself
isn't the question. Instead the question is if what you say is
relevant to the discussion.

[Wolffan]

On 21Mar 2018, Jonathan wrote
(in article<oNednSu9hPOsfi_H...@giganews.com>):

> On 3/21/2018 10:36 AM, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 7:00:03 PM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
> > > On 3/20/2018 12:12 AM, T Pagano wrote:
> > > > The aggravation over the Bill Rogers Hoax/Fraud has finally worn off.
> > > >
> > > > And I'm just realizing (now) that I took three evolutionists out of the
> > > > Sky With One Stone: Rogers, Harshman and Ernest Major. That's a 3-fer.
> > > > That's unprecedented and its got to be a record. . .a tough record to
> > > > beat.
> > > >
> > > > Prof. Nyikos is on Spring Break; I wonder if he'll get any mileage out of
> > > > this when he gets back? Won't he be surprised when he finds out that
> > > > Rogers pulled the wool over Harshman's eyes.
> > > >
> > > > In Harshman's defense, he was blinded by hopeless visions of downing me.
> > > > That could happen. . .but not today.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Picking the wings off flies is no victory.
> >
> > You almost certainly do not realise it, but Mr. Pagano is almost certainly
> > smarter than you are.
>
> Nothing but personal insults, that's all you have.
>
> Sad but true for almost everyone in this ng.

oooh, the weird and creepy guy who judges people by their names is also a
delicate little snowflake who picks fights and then whines when his targets
hit him back.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 18:56:30 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Jonathan
<WriteI...@gmail.com>:

>On 3/21/2018 10:36 AM, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 7:00:03 PM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
>>> On 3/20/2018 12:12 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>> The aggravation over the Bill Rogers Hoax/Fraud has finally worn off.
>>>>
>>>> And I'm just realizing (now) that I took three evolutionists out of the
>>>> Sky With One Stone: Rogers, Harshman and Ernest Major. That's a 3-fer.
>>>> That's unprecedented and its got to be a record. . .a tough record to
>>>> beat.
>>>>
>>>> Prof. Nyikos is on Spring Break; I wonder if he'll get any mileage out of
>>>> this when he gets back? Won't he be surprised when he finds out that
>>>> Rogers pulled the wool over Harshman's eyes.
>>>>
>>>> In Harshman's defense, he was blinded by hopeless visions of downing me.
>>>> That could happen. . .but not today.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Picking the wings off flies is no victory.
>>
>> You almost certainly do not realise it, but Mr. Pagano is almost certainly smarter than you are.
>>
>
>
>
>Nothing but personal insults, that's all you have.

My IronyMeter hates you...

>Sad but true for almost everyone in this ng.

Are you excluding yourself?