Ray's paper finally released!

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Spotted Owl

unread,
Jul 12, 2009, 2:37:34 PM7/12/09
to

Andrew Cunningham

unread,
Jul 12, 2009, 2:57:45 PM7/12/09
to
On Jul 12, 2:37 pm, Spotted Owl <geop...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/
>
> fnord

Oh man, that thing is incredibly hilarious.

"The data and theories of creation scientists are far, far superior to
the data and theories of the theory of evolution. But few people know
that fact."

What theories do they have?

"There is no scientific evidence that any segment of DNA on the planet
earth came to exist by random mutations of nucleotides of DNA."

Where does cancer come from?


I just picked out a random chapter and already it's full of massive
holes in logic. I can't even continue reading because of how inane it
all is. Who on earth would write such a thing?

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
Jul 12, 2009, 2:56:18 PM7/12/09
to
On Jul 12, 2:37 pm, Spotted Owl <geop...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/

This fellow is also the author of "The Detection of Ether," which can
be found here: http://www.teslaphysics.com. Also, "The Overnight Cure
For Cancer," which is available here: http://www.new-cancer-treatments.org/Cancer/OCC.html.

Mitchell Coffey


hersheyh

unread,
Jul 12, 2009, 3:32:17 PM7/12/09
to

Quack! Quack! And triple quack! A gen-u-ine three-fer nut job.
Biology, physics, and medicine.

Spotted Owl

unread,
Jul 12, 2009, 3:40:18 PM7/12/09
to
On Jul 12, 8:32 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 12, 2:56 pm, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 12, 2:37 pm, Spotted Owl <geop...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/
>
> > This fellow is also the author of "The Detection of Ether," which can
> > be found here:http://www.teslaphysics.com.  Also, "The Overnight Cure
> > For Cancer," which is available here:http://www.new-cancer-treatments.org/Cancer/OCC.html.
>
> > Mitchell Coffey
>
> Quack! Quack! And triple quack!

And they told me quacks don't echo.

Bruce Stephens

unread,
Jul 12, 2009, 4:19:16 PM7/12/09
to
hersheyh <hers...@yahoo.com> writes:

But not Ray's paper. He's already said that his is going to have an
improbably long glossary, and this book appears not to have one (at
least, not in the Contents).

Nomen Publicus

unread,
Jul 12, 2009, 5:34:07 PM7/12/09
to

If anybody is looking for a podcast project,
http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/ provides a concentrated source of
insanity that needs to be refuted.

Starting from the third sentence of chapter 1 ("..the theory of evolution
requires that life be created from simple chemicals.") we know that the
author has no real understanding of modern evolution theory and seems to be
attempting to refute a bastardised version of evolution that is widely
promulgated by creationist web sites. Hint, evolution says nothing about the
origin of life.

--
Individuals mutate, populations evolve.

Desertphile

unread,
Jul 12, 2009, 5:58:43 PM7/12/09
to

In the USA it is against the law to claim there is "a cure for
cancer." I suppose it is still legal to say there is a cure for
specific cancers for which there are cures.

> Mitchell Coffey


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

wf3h

unread,
Jul 12, 2009, 6:14:04 PM7/12/09
to
On Jul 12, 2:37 pm, Spotted Owl <geop...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/
>
> fnord

i understand when ray's paper is released, charmin has optioned it.

wf3h

unread,
Jul 12, 2009, 6:18:33 PM7/12/09
to
On Jul 12, 2:37 pm, Spotted Owl <geop...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/
>
> fnord

incidentally...the book on the mathematics of evolution?

it contains virtually no math.

typical creationist work

Steven L.

unread,
Jul 12, 2009, 6:56:45 PM7/12/09
to
Spotted Owl wrote:
> http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/

It's not Ray's work, but I'm reading it anyway.

It's striking that this author has written an entire book attacking the
Theory of Evolution--without ever defining the ToE for the benefit of
readers.

And it's clear from his attacks that he didn't bother to understand the
ToE before attacking it. He conflates it with abiogenesis and even the
Big Bang, as if it's all one theory.


--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Steven L.

unread,
Jul 12, 2009, 7:05:45 PM7/12/09
to

The term you are looking for is "crank," not "quack."

Frank J

unread,
Jul 12, 2009, 7:11:19 PM7/12/09
to
On Jul 12, 2:37 pm, Spotted Owl <geop...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/
>
> fnord

At least give the author credit for knowing that not many people would
actually pay money for it. :-)

Frank J

unread,
Jul 12, 2009, 7:14:43 PM7/12/09
to
On Jul 12, 6:56 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Spotted Owl wrote:
> >http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/
>
> It's not Ray's work, but I'm reading it anyway.

Why? Why would anyone read anything that's not written by Ray?

(Sorry, had to say it)

>
> It's striking that this author has written an entire book attacking the
> Theory of Evolution--without ever defining the ToE for the benefit of
> readers.

It's either that or define it incorrectly. So there's a method to the
[m]adness.

>
> And it's clear from his attacks that he didn't bother to understand the
> ToE before attacking it.  He conflates it with abiogenesis and even the
> Big Bang, as if it's all one theory.

(sarcasm) Wow, that never happened before. (end sarcasm)

>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email:  sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net

Kent Paul Dolan

unread,
Jul 12, 2009, 8:08:29 PM7/12/09
to
Andrew Cunningham wrote:
> Spotted Owl <geop...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/

> Oh man, that thing is incredibly hilarious.

> "The data and theories of creation scientists are
> far, far superior to the data and theories of the
> theory of evolution. But few people know that
> fact."

> What theories do they have?

> "There is no scientific evidence that any segment
> of DNA on the planet earth came to exist by random
> mutations of nucleotides of DNA."

> Where does cancer come from?

> I just picked out a random chapter and already
> it's full of massive holes in logic. I can't even
> continue reading because of how inane it all is.
> Who on earth would write such a thing?

You'll notice it is written in part for the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. To say that
these people believe three impossible things every
day before breakfast, understates the case. I know,
I was married to one for quite a while.

xanthian, who just skimmed the mathy parts a bit.

Since the author bases his arguments on the usual
creationist mendacity that only a complete living
cell with the full complexity as we know it today
could possibly have been the putative result of an
"abiogenesis event", rather than, say, molecule
level replicators, the enter website can be
dismissed out of hand as a pack of lies.

Kent Paul Dolan

unread,
Jul 12, 2009, 8:10:35 PM7/12/09
to
wf3h wrote:

> i understand when ray's paper is released,
> charmin has optioned it.

ROFL

xanthian.

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
Jul 12, 2009, 10:53:13 PM7/12/09
to

And religion, of course. Would you care to wager a guess about
politics?

Mitchell Coffey

Devils Advocaat

unread,
Jul 13, 2009, 12:51:01 AM7/13/09
to
On 12 July, 22:34, Nomen Publicus <zzas...@buffy.sighup.org.uk> wrote:
> Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> > hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> On Jul 12, 2:56 pm, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
> >>> On Jul 12, 2:37 pm, Spotted Owl <geop...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> >http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/
>
> >>> This fellow is also the author of "The Detection of Ether," which can
> >>> be found here:http://www.teslaphysics.com.  Also, "The Overnight Cure
> >>> For Cancer," which is available here:http://www.new-cancer-treatments.org/Cancer/OCC.html.
>
> >>> Mitchell Coffey
>
> >> Quack! Quack! And triple quack!  A gen-u-ine three-fer nut job.
> >> Biology, physics, and medicine.
>
> > But not Ray's paper.  He's already said that his is going to have an
> > improbably long glossary, and this book appears not to have one (at
> > least, not in the Contents).
>
> If anybody is looking for a podcast project,http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/provides a concentrated source of

> insanity that needs to be refuted.
>
> Starting from the third sentence of chapter 1 ("..the theory of evolution
> requires that life be created from simple chemicals.") we know that the
> author has no real understanding of modern evolution theory and seems to be
> attempting to refute a bastardised version of evolution that is widely
> promulgated by creationist web sites. Hint, evolution says nothing about the
> origin of life.
>
> --
> Individuals mutate, populations evolve.

I thought the line was "genes mutate, individuals reproduce,
populations evolve".

But I might be wrong on that.

Nomen Publicus

unread,
Jul 13, 2009, 3:17:45 AM7/13/09
to

sadly google doesn't find either version as an attributable quote. Even
worse, the closest matches are all from creationist web sites :-(

--
Don't believe in God? You are not alone. FreeThoughtAction.org

Nomen Publicus

unread,
Jul 13, 2009, 3:19:48 AM7/13/09
to

There is a mormon "version" of the book at

http://www.prophetsorevolution.com/


--
Isaac Asimov: Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived.

backspace

unread,
Jul 13, 2009, 9:29:58 AM7/13/09
to
http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/ChaptersMath/Chapter_210__The_Claims_of_Evolution__.html

Claim #4: Natural Selection Solves the Improbability Issues
"....This is one of the arguments designed to justify the theory of
evolution in spite of its statistical problems. The problem with this
theory is that natural selection does not affect the mutations of
genes. Natural selection occurs AFTER the new species exists. In
other words, natural selection occurs AFTER totally random mutations
of DNA have created a new species (assuming the theory of evolution is
true). The only thing natural selection can do is decide which of the
already existing species will survive. Natural selection has
absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the species or the
design of its DNA. Natural selection, which is non-differentiating as
mentioned before, does not come into play until all of the mutations
are finished and the species is ready to start surviving. Why do you
think it is also called "survival of the fittest?" The term "fittest"
means the species is already alive...."

> The problem with this theory is that natural selection does not affect the mutations of genes.
Darwin didn't know about genes.

> In other words, natural selection occurs AFTER totally random mutations of DNA have created a new species (assuming the theory of evolution is true).
Darwin never said RM what are you talking about?

> The only thing natural selection can do is decide which of the already existing species will survive.
Depends what is your concept with NS, do yo have a citation ?

> Natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the species or the design of its DNA
NS has no true single meaning what are you referring to?

> Natural selection, which is non-differentiating as mentioned before
Cite Oos ?

> Why do you think it is also called "survival of the fittest?" The term "fittest" means the species is already alive...."
Depends who says SoF ...

Eric Root

unread,
Jul 13, 2009, 10:06:47 AM7/13/09
to
On Jul 13, 9:29 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/ChaptersMath/Chapter_210__The_C...

>
> Claim #4: Natural Selection Solves the Improbability Issues
> "....This is one of the arguments designed to justify the theory of
> evolution in spite of its statistical problems.  The problem with this
> theory is that natural selection does not affect the mutations of
> genes.  Natural selection occurs AFTER the new species exists.  In
> other words, natural selection occurs AFTER totally random mutations
> of DNA have created a new species (assuming the theory of evolution is
> true).  The only thing natural selection can do is decide which of the
> already existing species will survive.  Natural selection has
> absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the species or the
> design of its DNA. Natural selection, which is non-differentiating as
> mentioned before, does not come into play until all of the mutations
> are finished and the species is ready to start surviving.  Why do you
> think it is also called "survival of the fittest?"  The term "fittest"
> means the species is already alive...."
>
> > The problem with this theory is that natural selection does not affect the mutations of genes.
>
> Darwin didn't know about genes.

What Darwin did or didn't know is irrelevant in this case. We're
talking about the state of the science now.

>
> > In other words, natural selection occurs AFTER totally random mutations of DNA have created a new species (assuming the theory of evolution is true).
>
> Darwin never said RM what are you talking about?

So what? Darwin is irrelevant, just as he was in your previous non
sequitur.

>
> > The only thing natural selection can do is decide which of the already existing species will survive.
>
> Depends what is your concept with NS, do yo have a citation ?
>
> > Natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the species or the design of its DNA
>
> NS has no true single meaning what are you referring to?
>
> > Natural selection, which is non-differentiating as mentioned before
>
> Cite Oos ?

Why? What concievable goal could be reached by referring to OoS, let
alone citing it?

>
> >  Why do you think it is also called "survival of the fittest?"  The term "fittest" means the species is already alive...."
>
> Depends who says SoF ...

It has to do with the real world, and who said it is irrelevant.

Eric Root

nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 13, 2009, 10:36:49 AM7/13/09
to
I've seen several scientists from way back, and several scientists
from now say the same thing. It is mathematically impossible that
evolution in general occurs through random mutations and natural
selection. The numbers just don't add up, the ratio of working
mutations and non working mutations is simply too small.

And it is an error to say you have found such and such a working
mutation in the laboratory to prove random mutation / selection is
true, because:
1. it is possible the mutation in the laboratory is not random but
instead chosen in an informed and reasoned way
2. there is not sufficient basis to generalize to all nature based on
a few mutations in the laboratory.

I've seen some laborotary experiments mentioned where large and
working changes occur in very few generations, indicating this is not
random mutations and natural selection at work, because natural
selection is expected to work much slower then that. Randomness has a
certain pattern, so to prove random mutations are true it is not
sufficient to note that a mutation has taken place, you actually have
to show that the mutation coincedes with a pattern of randomness,
instead of that it conincides with a pattern of reasoned and informed
decisionmaking. The facts show the mutations coincide more with a
pattern of reasoned and informed decisionmaking, rather than with a
pattern of randomness.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

TomS

unread,
Jul 13, 2009, 10:51:44 AM7/13/09
to
"On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 07:36:49 -0700 (PDT), in article
<ac9390e6-039a-497e...@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
nando_r...@yahoo.com stated..."

>
>I've seen several scientists from way back, and several scientists
>from now say the same thing. It is mathematically impossible that
>evolution in general occurs through random mutations and natural
>selection. The numbers just don't add up, the ratio of working
>mutations and non working mutations is simply too small.
[...snip...]

I've *never* heard *anyone* demonstrate that "intelligent design"
has a higher probability.


--
---Tom S.
"...ID is not science ... because we simply do not know what it is saying."
Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
DOI:10,1007/s11229-009-9540-x

hersheyh

unread,
Jul 13, 2009, 10:52:13 AM7/13/09
to
> Claim #4: Natural Selection Solves the Improbability Issues
> "....This is one of the arguments designed to justify the theory of
> evolution in spite of its statistical problems.  The problem with this
> theory is that natural selection does not affect the mutations of
> genes.  

Quite true.

> Natural selection occurs AFTER the new species exists.  

Goal post moved. NS occurs to existing variants. Apparently this
turkey's mind is so besotted with the idea that 'species' poof into
existence in one swell foop, that he thinks all species are due to
single mutational changes and, probably, that this requires that the
same mutation occur in both a male and a female at the same time and
place. 'Speciation' is a process, not an event.

> In
> other words, natural selection occurs AFTER totally random mutations
> of DNA have created a new species (assuming the theory of evolution is
> true).  

Speciation is a process that involves random mutation and natural
selection. But it is not identical with those events.

> The only thing natural selection can do is decide which of the
> already existing species will survive.  Natural selection has
> absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the species or the
> design of its DNA.

Not in the way that he thinks, anyway.

> Natural selection, which is non-differentiating as
> mentioned before, does not come into play until all of the mutations
> are finished and the species is ready to start surviving.  

If he is claiming that NS only works on variants that *actually* exist
in a population, he is quite right. NS only works on variants that
*actually* *really* do currently exist in a population. Not even
Darwin, not even Paley, claimed otherwise.

> Why do you
> think it is also called "survival of the fittest?"  The term "fittest"
> means the species is already alive...."

Variant is not a synonym for species.

> > The problem with this theory is that natural selection does not affect the mutations of genes.
>
> Darwin didn't know about genes.

SFW? Science did not stop with Darwin

> > In other words, natural selection occurs AFTER totally random mutations of DNA have created a new species (assuming the theory of evolution is true).
>
> Darwin never said RM what are you talking about?

SFW? Science did not stop with Darwin.

> > The only thing natural selection can do is decide which of the already existing species will survive.
>
> Depends what is your concept with NS, do yo have a citation?

There are science libraries full of both older and modern descriptions
of NS. Why do you have a problem finding them? Laziness? Ignorance?

> > Natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the species or the design of its DNA

Yes it does. Just that NS doesn't *always* lead to speciation. It is
more likely to generate new species from existing populations under
specific conditions like changing environmental pressures, the
appearance of a mutation that allows exploiting a previously
unavailable niche, reproductive isolation for non-genetic reasons,
life at the fringe of current species range.

> NS has no true single meaning what are you referring to?
>
> > Natural selection, which is non-differentiating as mentioned before
>
> Cite Oos ?

You actually expect that crank to have read the OoS? I don't.

> >  Why do you think it is also called "survival of the fittest?"  The term "fittest" means the species is already alive...."
>
> Depends who says SoF ...

The idiot (name backspaced out, an act of kindness) that always comes
back to this old shorthand description of NS and pretends that it is
all one needs to know about the modern understanding of NS?

backspace

unread,
Jul 13, 2009, 12:04:05 PM7/13/09
to
On Jul 13, 5:36 pm, nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
> working changes occur in very few generations, indicating this is not
> random mutations and natural selection at work, because natural
> selection is expected to work much slower then that.

Who expected NS to work much slower?


>  Randomness has a certain pattern, so to prove random mutations are true

Who says random mutatations? Who has established that what is random,
since random is mathematically meaningless.

backspace

unread,
Jul 13, 2009, 12:06:26 PM7/13/09
to
On Jul 13, 5:52 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >  Why do you think it is also called "survival of the fittest?"  The term "fittest" means the species is already alive...."
>
> > Depends who says SoF ...
>
> The idiot (name backspaced out, an act of kindness) that always comes
> back to this old shorthand description of NS and pretends that it is
> all one needs to know about the modern understanding of NS?

Who has established the modern understanding of NS and what is this
understanding?

Wombat

unread,
Jul 13, 2009, 12:13:22 PM7/13/09
to

Do your own research.

Wombat

Sapient Fridge

unread,
Jul 13, 2009, 1:55:54 PM7/13/09
to
In message
<ac9390e6-039a-497e...@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
nando_r...@yahoo.com writes

>I've seen several scientists from way back, and several scientists
>from now say the same thing. It is mathematically impossible that
>evolution in general occurs through random mutations and natural
>selection.

Show us your maths.

>The numbers just don't add up,

Show us the numbers and we'll see if they add up or not.

> the ratio of working
>mutations and non working mutations is simply too small.

You forgot to tell us what the ratio is. I'm spotting a pattern here.

>And it is an error to say you have found such and such a working
>mutation in the laboratory to prove random mutation / selection is
>true, because:
>1. it is possible the mutation in the laboratory is not random but
>instead chosen in an informed and reasoned way

So your reasoning is that all mutations are bad, and any that look like
beneficial mutations aren't actually mutations at all as they are
individually hand-crafted by your god?

Nice way of covering all the bases.

>2. there is not sufficient basis to generalize to all nature based on
>a few mutations in the laboratory.

The point of experiments in the lab is to reduce the number of variables
to a reasonable number. All experiments work like that.

Are you claiming that all lab experiments of any kind are useless
because they are all done in artificial environments?

>I've seen some laborotary experiments mentioned where large and
>working changes occur in very few generations, indicating this is not
>random mutations and natural selection at work, because natural
>selection is expected to work much slower then that.

Cite your source for the expected speed of mutation and natural
selection.

<snip - more assertions>

--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://spamsights.org http://spews.org http://spamhaus.org

Devils Advocaat

unread,
Jul 13, 2009, 2:03:45 PM7/13/09
to
On 12 July, 19:37, Spotted Owl <geop...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/
>
> fnord

Here is the craziest part of that website so far (Chapter 23):

"If evolution were true, our human DNA, and the DNA of all other
living species on this
earth, could trace their genealogy back to the "first living cell" and
thus all DNA on earth
would contain 660 million years of accumulated genetic defects because
there would
have been 660 million years of accumulating and continuous genetic
entropy.

Why would we see these mutations on our DNA? The reason is that there
is no
mechanism on any DNA to fix most type of genetic errors."

If I am not mistaken the majority of errors occur during DNA
replication and there are several correction mechanisms, which
actually keep the replication error rate down to just 1 in every
100,000 bases.

So where did this guy get his biology education from?

Karel P

unread,
Jul 13, 2009, 2:41:39 PM7/13/09
to
backspace <steph...@gmail.com> wrote in news:70a710f7-78f8-40b2-b070-
c904c8...@j21g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:

> On Jul 13, 5:52�pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> > > �Why do you think it is also called "survival of the fittest?" �T


> he term "fittest" means the species is already alive...."
>>
>> > Depends who says SoF ...
>>
>> The idiot (name backspaced out, an act of kindness) that always comes
>> back to this old shorthand description of NS and pretends that it is
>> all one needs to know about the modern understanding of NS?
>
> Who has established the modern understanding of NS and what is this
> understanding?
>
>

Not that it will help if you really don't want to learn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Regards,

Karel

--
If knowledge can create problems, it is not
through ignorance that we can solve them (Asimov)

Frank Sullivan

unread,
Jul 13, 2009, 3:50:16 PM7/13/09
to
> The numbers just don't add up, the ratio of working
> mutations and non working mutations is simply too small.

Regression towards the mean?

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
Jul 13, 2009, 4:34:19 PM7/13/09
to
[snip]

Furthermore, mutations that were deleterious to the organism in
respect to its environment, singularly or in combination, would tend
to cause the organism to be selected against, preventing it from being
fixed in a population.

Note also that his use of the term "genetic defects" in this context
begs the question.

Mitchell Coffey

Kent Paul Dolan

unread,
Jul 13, 2009, 11:57:14 PM7/13/09
to
backspace wrote:

> Who has established that what is random, since
> random is mathematically meaningless.

Since this is one of the lies you repeat endlessly,
and is a foundation stone of your more general
mendacity, an intervention seems necessary, though
probably fruitless, you being invincibly ignorant
and all.

Here is a page explaining what mathematical
randomness means, written so that even a moron like
you has some chance of comprehending it.

Go inform yourself about the methematical meaning of
randomness so that you don't say anything this
egregiously stupid again, or forever be the butt of
scorn, the more likely outcome.

http://www.serve.net/buz/Notes.1st.year/HTML/C6/rand.002.html

xanthian.

Kent Paul Dolan

unread,
Jul 14, 2009, 12:00:48 AM7/14/09
to
Devils Advocaat wrote:

> So where did this guy get his biology education from?

Blind Stupid Assertions University.

HTH

xanthian.

Garamond Lethe

unread,
Jul 14, 2009, 10:27:17 AM7/14/09
to

Fisher.

> and what is this understanding?

The probability that a single copy of an allele with selective
advantage $s$ will be fixed in a population of effective size
$N_e$ is $2s(N_e/N)/(1-e^{-4N_es})$.

Doubtless this isn't the answer you wanted so you'll ask the
question again soon.

backspace

unread,
Jul 14, 2009, 5:11:26 PM7/14/09
to
On Jul 13, 11:34 pm, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
> Furthermore, mutations that were deleterious to the organism in
> respect to its environment, singularly or in combination, would tend
> to cause the organism to be selected against, preventing it from being
> fixed in a population.

== rephrase ==
Deleterious mutations would tend to cause the organism to be


selected against, preventing it from being fixed in a population.

== rephrase ==
Deleterious mutations means to be selected against.

Other than noting they were selected against how did you measure their
Deleteriousness ?

backspace

unread,
Jul 14, 2009, 5:13:59 PM7/14/09
to
On Jul 14, 5:27 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@liamg.com> wrote:
> > and what is this understanding?

> The probability that a single copy of an allele with selective
> advantage $s$ will be fixed in a population of effective size
> $N_e$ is $2s(N_e/N)/(1-e^{-4N_es})$.

=== rephrase ===
Those with a selective advantage will be fixed in a population.

Other than noting there were "fixed" how was their advantageousness
measured?

Woland

unread,
Jul 14, 2009, 5:36:13 PM7/14/09
to

By counting their offspring and their offspring's offspring.

Mike L

unread,
Jul 14, 2009, 5:38:11 PM7/14/09
to

You know perfectly well what an advantage is, and can easily think of
examples of what might be advantageous to various life-forms in
different situations. Just get a grip of yourself, man.

--
Mike.

Garamond Lethe

unread,
Jul 14, 2009, 6:12:57 PM7/14/09
to

backspace wrote:
> On Jul 14, 5:27 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@liamg.com> wrote:
> > > and what is this understanding?
>
> > The probability that a single copy of an allele with selective
> > advantage $s$ will be fixed in a population of effective size
> > $N_e$ is $2s(N_e/N)/(1-e^{-4N_es})$.
>
> === rephrase ===
> Those with a selective advantage will be fixed in a population.
>

Only two errors there. Granted, it's just one sentence, but I think
you're getting better.

1) Selective advantage is a scalar, not a boolean. Think of a
variable
like temperature. Objects don't either have temperature or not have
temperature, the temperature of an object is a quantity that can be
measured. All mutations have a selective advantage, but the ones
you're hoping to get have s>1.

2) The equation defines a probability. Having a large selective
advantage
doesn't mean that the mutation *will* fix in the population, it just
means
that it's more likely to fix than a mutation with a smaller selective
advantage.

A better "restatement" might be "More advantageous alleles are more
likely
to fix in a population than less advantageous alleles".

This is trivially easy to falsify, and indeed there are several
situations where
this doesn't hold (think frequency-dependent selection). In
situations like that,
you need a model with a few more variables.

> Other than noting there were "fixed" how was their advantageousness
> measured?

Fixation doesn't define fitness, at least not in a one-off case. If
the same
mutation was introduced into multiple populations, then you could
probably
put a bound on fitness, but you'd need to do a lot of experiments to
get a
decent bound.

A second, more precise method would be to measure time to fixation
(which is also influenced by the amount of selective advantage).
That
would take fewer experiments to get the same bound (I think).

The third method is counting offspring.

Ray Martinez

unread,
Jul 14, 2009, 6:21:03 PM7/14/09
to

I have been reading the exchanges between you and Backspace, Garamond.
Your performance here, in regards to your degree, is evidence that you
knew how to pass classes.

Ray

wf3h

unread,
Jul 14, 2009, 7:24:39 PM7/14/09
to

i wonder when he learned to spell 'measure'. now if he could only
learn what it means

Devils Advocaat

unread,
Jul 15, 2009, 2:24:04 AM7/15/09
to

And their offspring's offspring's offspring :P

Woland

unread,
Jul 15, 2009, 4:13:05 AM7/15/09
to

Why you fnording fnord...

Garamond Lethe

unread,
Jul 15, 2009, 6:06:41 AM7/15/09
to

Wow. Google really mangled that. Oh well.

>
> I have been reading the exchanges between you and Backspace, Garamond.
> Your performance here, in regards to your degree, is evidence that you
> knew how to pass classes.

Well, just barely. It turns out that while nothing in biology makes
sense except in light of evolution, nothing in evolution makes sense
(or so I'm told) except in light of population genetics. Population
genetics isn't necessarily difficult mathematically, I just found it
utterly unintuitive.

On top of that there was the small problem that I didn't know the
basics like "What's an eukaryote? (and should I worry if one bites
me?)" and "What's the difference between meiosis and mitosis?".
Wikipedia was a lifesaver for the factual information, but this
being a grad class the homework is not supposed to be a recitation
of facts.

Instead, there were questions like: "Here is some real-world
allele frequency data. Derive the effects of frequency-dependent
selection on these populations." and "Here is some real-world
nucleotide diversity data. Derive the selection coefficient
for these alleles given an arbitrary recombination rate."
Questions like that can't be answered using google. (Nor could
they be answered using the textbook and an undergraduate degree
in biology, at least according to a few of my classmates.)

Overall, it was a great experience. The lectures were wonderful,
and if I had to do it over again (and I probably will) I'd just
audit the class and not spent more than five hours a week on the
homework. I now have a much better grasp on what I don't know
and what I'm interested in.

But most important, I learned that evolution as discussed on
t.o. and written up in the popular press is a pale imitation
of evolution as it is used by biologists. Actual evolution
is a collection of mathematical models, and while those models
can be discussed using words, in order to invalidate a model
you don't address the words, you address the math. I had
done a lot of reading about evolution prior to that class,
and none of it prepared me for that.

So now I have several equations that have been burned into my
brain from staring at them for hours on end. The one I quoted
above is a favorite. Expressing selection in terms of mathematical
probabilities makes (to my mind, at least) questions of tautology
irrelevant. It's a model. It's wrong (in Box's sense of the term).
It's either more or less useful. In situations where it's less
useful, use a different model. If no existing model is good
enough, create your own and publish it.

wrt your own work, I really do recommend that you drop Darwin
entirely. Showing Darwin was wrong about everything doesn't
get you any closer to the math, and in this field (if not on
t.o.) the math is what counts.


>
> Ray
>

Devils Advocaat

unread,
Jul 15, 2009, 6:31:12 AM7/15/09
to

What have the fnords ever done for us?

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
Jul 15, 2009, 4:27:38 PM7/15/09
to
On Jul 14, 5:11 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

No honest person able to speak English would claim that "mutations


that were deleterious to the organism in respect to its environment,
singularly or in combination, would tend to cause the organism to be

selected against, preventing it from being fixed in a population" can
be paraphrased accurately as "Deleterious mutations means to be
selected against." Is the problem that you do not know what "in
respect to its environment" means? I ask because I wouldn't want to
accuse you of dishonesty if the issue is merely that you don't
understand the language. On the other hand, you do have a history of
false witness, so I lean toward that explanation.

Mitchell Coffey

Bob Casanova

unread,
Jul 15, 2009, 6:16:45 PM7/15/09
to
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 03:31:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Devils Advocaat
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk>:

More than the pschevies.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

Dick C.

unread,
Jul 15, 2009, 9:27:25 PM7/15/09
to
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:QpWdnRc0Fvq098fX...@earthlink.com:

> Spotted Owl wrote:
>> http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/
>
> It's not Ray's work, but I'm reading it anyway.
>
> It's striking that this author has written an entire book attacking the
> Theory of Evolution--without ever defining the ToE for the benefit of
> readers.
>
> And it's clear from his attacks that he didn't bother to understand the
> ToE before attacking it. He conflates it with abiogenesis and even the
> Big Bang, as if it's all one theory.

To a creationist the TOE is defined as all science they do not like.

>
>

--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin

Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.com

Woland

unread,
Jul 16, 2009, 2:28:45 AM7/16/09
to

Well, they did build the aqueducts.

John S. Wilkins

unread,
Jul 16, 2009, 2:45:32 AM7/16/09
to
Woland <jerr...@gmail.com> wrote:

And the roads...
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Devils Advocaat

unread,
Jul 16, 2009, 4:36:08 AM7/16/09
to
On 16 July, 07:45, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Woland <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 14, 10:31 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On 15 July, 09:13, Woland <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 14, 6:24 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 14 July, 22:36, Woland <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 14, 5:13 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jul 14, 5:27 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@liamg.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > and what is this understanding?
> > > > > > > > The probability that a single copy of an allele with selective
> > > > > > > > advantage $s$ will be fixed in a population of effective size
> > > > > > > > $N_e$ is $2s(N_e/N)/(1-e^{-4N_es})$.
>
> > > > > > > === rephrase ===
> > > > > > > Those with a selective  advantage will be fixed in a population.
>
> > > > > > > Other than noting there were "fixed" how was their advantageousness
> > > > > > > measured?
>
> > > > > > By counting their offspring and their offspring's offspring.
>
> > > > > And their offspring's offspring's offspring :P
>
> > > > Why you fnording fnord...
>
> > > What have the fnords ever done for us?
>
> > Well, they did build the aqueducts.
>
> And the roads...

The roads go without saying, but apart from the aqueduct, the
sanitation and the roads ........
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net

Rolf

unread,
Jul 16, 2009, 5:30:08 AM7/16/09
to

And don't forget, Ray, your performance here is evidence that you never
would pass, bonehead!

> Ray


Walter Bushell

unread,
Jul 16, 2009, 9:38:14 AM7/16/09
to
In article
<ef709ddc-febf-402f...@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Devils Advocaat <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

sanitation, the roads, the preservation of Greek culture and the killing
off of trouble makers ........

The did give us Christianity; which I can't decide if it is a mixed
blessing or a mixed curse.

Give me that old time religion, if it's good enough for Socrates it's
good enough for me.

Louann Miller

unread,
Jul 16, 2009, 11:47:29 AM7/16/09
to
wf3h <wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote in news:da24c0d0-0c0f-493f-adeb-
e28921...@l32g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:

>> Deleterious mutations means to �be selected against.
>>
>> Other than noting they were selected against how did you measure their
>> Deleteriousness ?
>
> i wonder when he learned to spell 'measure'. now if he could only
> learn what it means

This really is like asking "at the end of a fight to the death, how do you
decide who won?"


nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 16, 2009, 6:17:52 PM7/16/09
to
Randomness (uninformed decisions) can be objectively identified as
true to fact, and also reasoned and informed decisionmaking can be
objectively identified. And the evidence shows that the patterns in
DNA fit reasoned and informed decision making, not randomness.

What this means basically is that organic life has a comprehensive
anticipatory relationship with its future. So rather that the future
of say a forest consists of alternative mutations and the constraints
of selection, there are larger alternatives in the future, like for
instance alternative whole new trees. So random mutations do not
control things within the confines of selection, but mutations are
guided by these larger alternatives. That is what the DNA shows,
informed and reasoned decisionmaking.

So to say it is a true and significant fact that mankind was likely to
be at the beginning of the universe already, and this alternative
would have guided random mutations.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Andrew Cunningham

unread,
Jul 16, 2009, 6:27:00 PM7/16/09
to
On Jul 16, 6:17 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Randomness (uninformed decisions) can be objectively identified as
> true to fact, and also reasoned and informed decisionmaking can be
> objectively identified. And the evidence shows that the patterns in
> DNA fit reasoned and informed decision making, not randomness.

So you see cancer as being a reasoned and informed result of cell
division?

Sapient Fridge

unread,
Jul 16, 2009, 6:43:49 PM7/16/09
to
In message
<ee043b43-2d46-4bfd...@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> writes

>Randomness (uninformed decisions) can be objectively identified as
>true to fact, and also reasoned and informed decisionmaking can be
>objectively identified. And the evidence shows that the patterns in
>DNA fit reasoned and informed decision making, not randomness.

You forgot to include this evidence in your post.

<snip - yet more unsupported assertions>
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://spamsights.org http://spews.org http://spamhaus.org

John S. Wilkins

unread,
Jul 16, 2009, 8:56:31 PM7/16/09
to
Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Well yes, Rambo has killed all the antagonists and saved the oppressed
villages, but has he *really* won?"

wf3h

unread,
Jul 16, 2009, 9:08:52 PM7/16/09
to
> Randomness (uninformed decisions) can be objectively identified as
> true to fact, and also reasoned and informed decisionmaking can be
> objectively identified. And the evidence shows that the patterns in
> DNA fit reasoned and informed decision making, not randomness.
>
> What this means basically is that organic life has a comprehensive
> anticipatory relationship with its future. So rather that the future
> of say a forest consists of alternative mutations and the constraints
> of selection, there are larger alternatives in the future, like for
> instance alternative whole new trees. So random mutations do not
> control things within the confines of selection, but mutations are
> guided by these larger alternatives. That is what the DNA shows,
> informed and reasoned decisionmaking.

well...no. a mutation doesn't know it's random. it's a simple chemical
reaction that substitutes one base pair for another. it's really that
simple. no decisions. no 'informed' anything.

>

Kent Paul Dolan

unread,
Jul 17, 2009, 12:34:09 AM7/17/09
to
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:

[Babbling Snipped.]

Seek mental health help.

xanthian.

nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 17, 2009, 4:41:37 AM7/17/09
to
How can Darwinists say the mutations are random, if they can't
objectively identify randomness? We can objectively identify
randomness, and the evidence shows it's not random.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu