Why reality is the evolutionists' worst enemy

[jeffrey....@gmail.com]

I've just finished my essay suggesting that reality refutes evolutionist belief and without the "hard cognitive work" they engage in, reality would naturally correspond with Christian theism. My essay is at https://thesecularleftcritique.wordpress.com/reality-is-tough-on-evolution-or-when-the-data-doesnt-fit-your-theory-the-data-must-be-wrong/

Here's one sample paragraph;

Humans have a conscious awareness of God, seek an overarching ideology that answers the same questions a religion would, and have an enduring sense of guilt that needs to be assuaged. These are all religious predispositions, compatible with Christianity, that suggest to me humans are religious by nature. Humans obviously have no need for such concepts if materialism is true, but they do need these concepts if they are created by someone or something to need them and seek the god that gave them to us. With the acknowledgement that DNA is coded information, information needs an intelligent source, and life needs some type of intelligence guiding its development (as Dawkins admits to when he argues that nature “selects”) we can accept that people are religious because some intelligent agent programmed or created us to be religious.

I'll try to see if there are any responses to this post this week.

[jillery]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 16:21:50 -0700 (PDT), jeffrey....@gmail.com
wrote:

The concepts you identify above, of seeking answers, and of feelings
of guilt, are also characteristic of many social organisms, especially
social mammals. ISTM that fact alone refutes your expressed
conclusions, that they're unnecessary if materialism is true, and that
they imply God.

Also, Dawkins and other science educators often use teleological
metaphors when explaining complex and detailed concepts to audiences
untrained in their disciplines. To suggest such words imply a
purposeful intelligence as cause is a common but dishonest word game.

I recommend you don't quit your day job.

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Öö Tiib]

On Monday, 1 October 2018 02:25:03 UTC+3,Jeffrey Stueber jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
> I've just finished my essay suggesting that reality refutes evolutionist belief and without the "hard cognitive work" they engage in, reality would naturally correspond with Christian theism. My essay is at https://thesecularleftcritique.wordpress.com/reality-is-tough-on-evolution-or-when-the-data-doesnt-fit-your-theory-the-data-must-be-wrong/
>

It seems quite usual. Doubt about ToE expressed but no fundamental issues
of it put forward. No facts that contradict with it. No experiments,
measurements nor observations described.

Only typical arguments from ignorance, political, philosophical and
religious arguments that science is maybe wrong or evil. Show how it
is wrong. Give alternatives that somehow fit the piles of data that
we have better. How can search for truth be evil?

Also why should ToE explain religion? May be it was easier to keep
collective obedient and cooperating when Shaman scared them with
boogeymen and promised magical rewards and defenses to faithful.
It is likely easier to work with devoted to common goal collective
and so the defenses were there. Self-fulfilling prophesy.

We also sure applaud to the people who sing better songs or tell
better tales. So more mystical fairy tales likely provided some
social advantages. However that all is sort of social evolution
and that is not what biological ToE deals with.

[RonO]

This could be the breakthrough of the 10th century, but you missed it by
only 1,000 years.

Ron Okimoto

[Edna Freon]

Words are the result of purposeful intelligence.
Intelligence is purpose so teleological explanations are
inevitable; there may not be any other kind.

Bill

[Mark Isaak]

One of the things I learned in college is that before embarking on
original research, you should check that it really is original. In
other words, read up on what others have said on on the subject already.
You will find that many people have already explained how "awareness
of God" and such can evolve naturally. You may not agree with their
explanations, but you need to understand them and address them. You
apparently (based on your comment about Dawkins) do not understand how
evolution works at all; I suggest you start by learning that.

Also, you need to be careful with your claims; don't rely only on
sources that fit your bias. In particular, "information needs an
intelligent source" is not at all true, nor is it true that life needs
intelligence to guide its development. (Do you really think that a
dragonfly, for example, cannot grow to adulthood without human help?)

Finally, be precise with your terminology. Know what it means (as with
"development"), or if multiple meanings are possible (as with
"materialism"), clearly spell out which meaning you intend, and stick
with that meaning and only that meaning.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Omnia disce. Videbis postea nihil esse superfluum."
- Hugh of St. Victor

[jillery]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 19:54:46 -0500, Edna Freon <fre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 16:21:50 -0700 (PDT),
>> jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>I've just finished my essay suggesting that reality
>>>refutes evolutionist belief and without the "hard
>>>cognitive work" they engage in, reality would naturally
>>>correspond with Christian theism. My essay is at
>>>https://thesecularleftcritique.wordpress.com/reality-is-tough-on-evolution-or-when-the-data-doesnt-fit-your-theory-the-data-must-be-wrong/
>>>
>>>Here's one sample paragraph;
>>>
>>>Humans have a conscious awareness of God, seek an
>>>overarching ideology that answers the same questions a
>>>religion would, and have an enduring sense of guilt that
>>>needs to be assuaged. These are all religious
>>>predispositions, compatible with Christianity, that
>>>suggest to me humans are religious by nature. Humans
>>>obviously have no need for such concepts if materialism is
>>>true, but they do need these concepts if they are created
>>>by someone or something to need them and seek the god that
>>>gave them to us. With the acknowledgement that DNA is
>>>coded information, information needs an intelligent
>>>source, and life needs some type of intelligence guiding
>>>its development (as Dawkins admits to when he argues that

>>>nature ?selects?) we can accept that people are religious

>>>because some intelligent agent programmed or created us to
>>>be religious.
>>>
>>>I'll try to see if there are any responses to this post
>>>this week.
>>
>>
>> The concepts you identify above, of seeking answers, and
>> of feelings of guilt, are also characteristic of many
>> social organisms, especially
>> social mammals. ISTM that fact alone refutes your
>> expressed conclusions, that they're unnecessary if
>> materialism is true, and that they imply God.
>>
>> Also, Dawkins and other science educators often use
>> teleological metaphors when explaining complex and
>> detailed concepts to audiences
>> untrained in their disciplines. To suggest such words
>> imply a purposeful intelligence as cause is a common but
>> dishonest word game.
>>
>> I recommend you don't quit your day job.
>
>Words are the result of purposeful intelligence.
>Intelligence is purpose so teleological explanations are
>inevitable; there may not be any other kind.
>
>Bill

You conflate the message with the medium, which is just another
dishonest word game.

[Oxyaena]

On 9/30/2018 7:21 PM, jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
> I've just finished my essay suggesting that reality refutes evolutionist belief

No, it doesn't, reality *confirms* "evolutionist belief". Click on this
link if you don't believe me:

http://talkorigins.org/

> and without the "hard cognitive work" they engage in, reality would > naturally correspond with Christian theism.

By your logic reality equally corresponds to Hindu theism.

> My essay is at https://thesecularleftcritique.wordpress.com/reality-is-tough-on-evolution-or-when-the-data-doesnt-fit-your-theory-the-data-must-be-wrong/
>
> Here's one sample paragraph;
>
> Humans have a conscious awareness of God, seek an overarching ideology that answers the same questions a religion would, and have an enduring sense of guilt that needs to be assuaged. These are all religious predispositions, compatible with Christianity, that suggest to me humans are religious by nature. Humans obviously have no need for such concepts if materialism is true, but they do need these concepts if they are created by someone or something to need them and seek the god that gave them to us. With the acknowledgement that DNA is coded information, information needs an intelligent source, and life needs some type of intelligence guiding its development (as Dawkins admits to when he argues that nature “selects”) we can accept that people are religious because some intelligent agent programmed or created us to be religious.
>

All of that falls under the logical fallacies of "special pleading",
"argument from ignorance", and "begging the question". Religion
presumably evolved as a result of people becoming aware for the first
time that death is an inevitability, and so they created the concept of
eternal life (a la "immortality" or the "afterlife") to try to cope with
the concept of eternal oblivion. Morality evolved as a result of primate
sociality, in order to maintain group cohesion (because humans, and by
extension most other primates, are social creatures) society needed to
develop some "rules" in order to keep the group afloat as a stable entity.

[Oxyaena]

Ha! Good one, but religious ideologues had already came up with this
type of claptrap *long* before the 10th century, if the same people
arguing for ID now were alive three millennia ago, they'd be arguing
that wood is an element and that the gods use lightning as divine
punishment.


>
> Ron Okimoto
>

[Burkhard]

jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
> I've just finished my essay suggesting that reality refutes evolutionist belief and without the "hard cognitive work" they engage in, reality would naturally correspond with Christian theism. My essay is at https://thesecularleftcritique.wordpress.com/reality-is-tough-on-evolution-or-when-the-data-doesnt-fit-your-theory-the-data-must-be-wrong/
>
> Here's one sample paragraph;
>
> Humans have a conscious awareness of God, seek an overarching ideology that answers the same questions a religion would, and have an enduring sense of guilt that needs to be assuaged. These are all religious predispositions, compatible with Christianity, that suggest to me humans are religious by nature. Humans obviously have no need for such concepts if materialism is true,

The last sentence does not follow from the ones before. "Finding out how
the world works" has obvious advantages, so the capacity to do so is
something that is perfectly compatible with the ToE. One way to master
our environment is by making tools. Making tools requires us to think
about things in terms of purpose, function and design. Once the world is
understood, and indeed subjugated,through these criteria, another factor
comes in hand: reasoning about invisible causes. Animals posses this
ability in varying degrees - does the kitten know that its mother is
still helping it (by getting food e.g.) even if she is not at that point
visibly present? This is a massive advantage, and allows much more
complex forms of collaboration- and in particular also anticipation of
what an adversary (saber tooth tiger) might be doing if I'm not seeing it.

Understanding the world though categories such as tool, part, purpose,
and the ability to have causal explanations where the cause is unseen
are extremely helpful, but can result in cognitive overshoot - how do
you explain lightning? Someone invisible throw it because he was as
angry as I am when I throw things.

A much more comprehensive discussion is in Lewis Wolpert (2006). Six
impossible things before breakfast, The evolutionary origins of belief.
New York: Norton Along similar lines, but with emphasis on agent
detection, there is Atran, S; Norenzayan, A (2004). "Religion's
evolutionary landscape: counterintuition, commitment, compassion,
communion". The Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences. 27 (6): 713–30,

The "feeling of guilt" points towards another driver in the evolution of
religion. While the above focused on cognition and our tendency to
project our agency onto the environment, "social glue" theories"
emphasize the value for coordination. We observe e.g. in some other
primates how they seem to have internalized some social norms - e.. not
giving the best food to the alpha male but hiding it. This behaviour
comes with external signs of "bad conscience" - furtive glances,
"playing innocent" and also "compensation". This,
interestingly,sometimes also happens when the alpha male is not around
to observe. Internalized surveillance, feeling constantly on the spot to
that rule violations are caught and punished has benefits for the group,
and coordinated behaviour. One specific theory is that it allowed for
joined child minding - I can trust to hand over my baby to another woman
of the tribe and go picking berries if I believe we are always watched,
she believes we are always watched, and I know that she believes we are
always watched - and sanctioned. People who have written on the "social
glue" theory of the evolution of religion include Rossano, Matt (2007).
"Supernaturalizing Social Life: Religion and the Evolution of Human
Cooperation" and Johnson, D., & Bering, J. (2006). Hand of God, mind of
man: Punishment and cognition in the evolution of cooperation.
Evolutionary Psychology, 4(1), 147470490600400119.

Note that non of this "disproves" religion - might just have been the
way god ensured she was intelligible to us. But the inverse also holds,
none of this presents insurmountably difficulty for a purely secular
account.

but they do need these concepts if they are created by someone or
something to need them and seek the god that gave them to us. With the
acknowledgement that DNA is coded information, information needs an
intelligent source,

that is simply question begging. Why? Smoke means (codes for) fire, are
wildfires all caused by an intelligent source?

and life needs some type of intelligence guiding its development (as
Dawkins admits to when he argues that nature “selects”)

that is just a misunderstanding of Dawkins caused by the trickery of our
language. Another avenue btw to explain the evolution of religion, as a
side effect of human grammar. Once we can form sentences such as "It is
raining", we are cognitive led to think that there is an "It" that does
the raining.

[zencycle]

On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 7:25:03 PM UTC-4, jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:

> I've just finished my essay suggesting that reality refutes evolutionist
> belief and without the "hard cognitive work" they engage in,

In other words, you're supporting the idea that belief in a deity occurs in the absence of hard cognitive work. I agree.

> reality would naturally correspond with Christian theism.
>My essay is at https://thesecularleftcritique.wordpress.com/
> reality-is-tough-on-evolution-or-when-the-data-doesnt-fit-your-
> theory-the-data-must-be-wrong/

In actuality, the idea that the data is wrong if it doesn't fit the theory is a typical creationist move. When real science is conducted, and the data doesn't fit the theory, it's generally the theory that gets modified. Try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

>
> Humans have a conscious awareness of God

No, we don't. The concept of a god is taught, not innate.

> seek an overarching ideology that answers the same questions a religion would,

OF course, this means there _ARE_ alternatives.

> and have an enduring sense of guilt that needs to be assuaged.

Wrong again, Guilt is taught.

> These are all religious predispositions, compatible with
> Christianity, that suggest to me humans
> are religious by nature.

If you mean by nature we seek to understand our surroundings, and question our origins, then yes. But that it necessarily leads to the revelation of christ is complete bullshit.

> Humans obviously have no need for such concepts if materialism is true, but
> they do need these concepts if they are created by someone or something to
> need them and seek the god that gave them to us.

How are materialism and and theism incompatible? Seems to me that christianity in particular leads by a very different example.

> With the acknowledgement that DNA is coded information, information
> needs an intelligent source

Big leap there, Jeff. Evolution gives more-than-plausible alternatives.

> and life needs some type of intelligence guiding its development

Assumption - not provable.

> (as Dawkins admits to when he argues that nature “selects”)

This is a complete misunderstanding of Dawkins, and the concept of natural selection. Based on the tenor of this essay, It's likely intentional, and at the very least intellectually dishonest.

> we can accept that people are religious because some intelligent
> agent programmed or created us to be religious.

You may be able to accept that. That's what happens when you believe "reality refutes evolutionist belief and without the hard cognitive work".

Shutting off your brain is no way to go through life, son.

[Robert Carnegie]

Humans obviously have no /need/ of masturbation, and
yet you wrote that.

[Lucifer]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 16:21:50 -0700 (PDT), jeffrey....@gmail.com
wrote:

Why is there no evidence for this magical stupid god?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 5:10:02 PM UTC-7, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Monday, 1 October 2018 02:25:03 UTC+3,Jeffrey Stueber jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
> > I've just finished my essay suggesting that reality refutes evolutionist belief and without the "hard cognitive work" they engage in, reality would naturally correspond with Christian theism. My essay is at https://thesecularleftcritique.wordpress.com/reality-is-tough-on-evolution-or-when-the-data-doesnt-fit-your-theory-the-data-must-be-wrong/
> >
>
> It seems quite usual. Doubt about ToE expressed but no fundamental issues
> of it put forward. No facts that contradict with it. No experiments,
> measurements nor observations described.

The fundamental reason the ToE is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities. If the successful use of combination therapy for treating hiv doesn't convince you, try studying and understanding the Kishony and Lenski experiments. All real, measurable and repeatable empirical examples of evolution demonstrate this. You almost did the mathematics correctly yourself.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 7:00:02 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 9/30/18 4:21 PM, jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
> > I've just finished my essay suggesting that reality refutes evolutionist belief and without the "hard cognitive work" they engage in, reality would naturally correspond with Christian theism. My essay is at https://thesecularleftcritique.wordpress.com/reality-is-tough-on-evolution-or-when-the-data-doesnt-fit-your-theory-the-data-must-be-wrong/
> >
> > Here's one sample paragraph;
> >
> > Humans have a conscious awareness of God, seek an overarching ideology that answers the same questions a religion would, and have an enduring sense of guilt that needs to be assuaged. These are all religious predispositions, compatible with Christianity, that suggest to me humans are religious by nature. Humans obviously have no need for such concepts if materialism is true, but they do need these concepts if they are created by someone or something to need them and seek the god that gave them to us. With the acknowledgement that DNA is coded information, information needs an intelligent source, and life needs some type of intelligence guiding its development (as Dawkins admits to when he argues that nature “selects”) we can accept that people are religious because some intelligent agent programmed or created us to be religious.
>
> One of the things I learned in college is that before embarking on
> original research, you should check that it really is original. In
> other words, read up on what others have said on on the subject already.
> You will find that many people have already explained how "awareness
> of God" and such can evolve naturally. You may not agree with their
> explanations, but you need to understand them and address them. You
> apparently (based on your comment about Dawkins) do not understand how
> evolution works at all; I suggest you start by learning that.

One of the things you didn't learn in college is the correct accounting rules for population genetics. But I really can't fault you for this because your instructor also didn't understand these accounting rules. This would explain why you didn't get much out of your graduate-level course in population genetics.

[jillery]

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 03:13:01 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 5:10:02 PM UTC-7, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
>> On Monday, 1 October 2018 02:25:03 UTC+3,Jeffrey Stueber jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
>> > I've just finished my essay suggesting that reality refutes evolutionist belief and without the "hard cognitive work" they engage in, reality would naturally correspond with Christian theism. My essay is at https://thesecularleftcritique.wordpress.com/reality-is-tough-on-evolution-or-when-the-data-doesnt-fit-your-theory-the-data-must-be-wrong/
>> >
>>
>> It seems quite usual. Doubt about ToE expressed but no fundamental issues
>> of it put forward. No facts that contradict with it. No experiments,
>> measurements nor observations described.
>The fundamental reason the ToE is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities. If the successful use of combination therapy for treating hiv doesn't convince you, try studying and understanding the Kishony and Lenski experiments. All real, measurable and repeatable empirical examples of evolution demonstrate this. You almost did the mathematics correctly yourself.

Even Jeffery would recognize your nonsense non-sequiturs and asinine
ad-hominems.

>> Only typical arguments from ignorance, political, philosophical and
>> religious arguments that science is maybe wrong or evil. Show how it
>> is wrong. Give alternatives that somehow fit the piles of data that
>> we have better. How can search for truth be evil?
>>
>> Also why should ToE explain religion? May be it was easier to keep
>> collective obedient and cooperating when Shaman scared them with
>> boogeymen and promised magical rewards and defenses to faithful.
>> It is likely easier to work with devoted to common goal collective
>> and so the defenses were there. Self-fulfilling prophesy.
>>
>> We also sure applaud to the people who sing better songs or tell
>> better tales. So more mystical fairy tales likely provided some
>> social advantages. However that all is sort of social evolution
>> and that is not what biological ToE deals with.
>

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 4:35:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 03:13:01 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 5:10:02 PM UTC-7, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
> >> On Monday, 1 October 2018 02:25:03 UTC+3,Jeffrey Stueber jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > I've just finished my essay suggesting that reality refutes evolutionist belief and without the "hard cognitive work" they engage in, reality would naturally correspond with Christian theism. My essay is at https://thesecularleftcritique.wordpress.com/reality-is-tough-on-evolution-or-when-the-data-doesnt-fit-your-theory-the-data-must-be-wrong/
> >> >
> >>
> >> It seems quite usual. Doubt about ToE expressed but no fundamental issues
> >> of it put forward. No facts that contradict with it. No experiments,
> >> measurements nor observations described.
> >The fundamental reason the ToE is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities. If the successful use of combination therapy for treating hiv doesn't convince you, try studying and understanding the Kishony and Lenski experiments. All real, measurable and repeatable empirical examples of evolution demonstrate this. You almost did the mathematics correctly yourself.
>
>
> Even Jeffery would recognize your nonsense non-sequiturs and asinine
> ad-hominems.

It is quite possible the Jeffery has a no better understanding of the mathematics of stochastic processes than you do but at least he is not making the silly claim that reptile can grow feathers and fish turn into mammals. It is the ignorance of people like you who cause drug-resistant infections, herbicide-resistant weeds, pesticide-resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatment. You do this by your failure to correctly understand how evolution works. Take an introductory course in probability theory and stop being a mathematically incompetent nitwit.

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/2/18 3:17 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 7:00:02 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 9/30/18 4:21 PM, jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I've just finished my essay suggesting that reality refutes evolutionist belief and without the "hard cognitive work" they engage in, reality would naturally correspond with Christian theism. My essay is at https://thesecularleftcritique.wordpress.com/reality-is-tough-on-evolution-or-when-the-data-doesnt-fit-your-theory-the-data-must-be-wrong/
>>>
>>> Here's one sample paragraph;
>>>
>>> Humans have a conscious awareness of God, seek an overarching ideology that answers the same questions a religion would, and have an enduring sense of guilt that needs to be assuaged. These are all religious predispositions, compatible with Christianity, that suggest to me humans are religious by nature. Humans obviously have no need for such concepts if materialism is true, but they do need these concepts if they are created by someone or something to need them and seek the god that gave them to us. With the acknowledgement that DNA is coded information, information needs an intelligent source, and life needs some type of intelligence guiding its development (as Dawkins admits to when he argues that nature “selects”) we can accept that people are religious because some intelligent agent programmed or created us to be religious.
>>
>> One of the things I learned in college is that before embarking on
>> original research, you should check that it really is original. In
>> other words, read up on what others have said on on the subject already.
>> You will find that many people have already explained how "awareness
>> of God" and such can evolve naturally. You may not agree with their
>> explanations, but you need to understand them and address them. You
>> apparently (based on your comment about Dawkins) do not understand how
>> evolution works at all; I suggest you start by learning that.
> One of the things you didn't learn in college is the correct accounting rules for population genetics. But I really can't fault you for this because your instructor also didn't understand these accounting rules. This would explain why you didn't get much out of your graduate-level course in population genetics.

How would you know? A typical sixth-grader knows more about population
genetics than you will ever know. They probably know, for example, that
the term refers to the genetics of populations, a point which you still
don't get.

[jillery]

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 05:01:21 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:


>It is quite possible the Jeffery has a no better understanding of the mathematics of stochastic processes than you do but at least he is not making the silly claim that reptile can grow feathers and fish turn into mammals. It is the ignorance of people like you who cause drug-resistant infections, herbicide-resistant weeds, pesticide-resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatment. You do this by your failure to correctly understand how evolution works. Take an introductory course in probability theory and stop being a mathematically incompetent nitwit.

Once again, the ability to recognize your nonsense non-sequiturs and
asinine ad-hominems has nothing to do with the mathematics of
stochastic processes. You're just posting crap because you have
nothing intelligent to say.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

I would know because I know the difference between the survival of the fittest and improvement in fitness (adaptation). And you and your graduate-level instructor don't know this because I've published the correct mathematics which governs improvement in fitness. And this math applies to the Kishony experiment, the Lenski experiment, the use of combination therapy for the treatment of hiv, for any real, measurable and repeatable example of rmns. But feel free to post any real, measurable and repeatable example which contradicts this math. Maybe you should get a sixth grader to help you. And while you are at it, find a sixth grader who can give a better explanation of how bio-molecules can last millions of years. Your explanation is just plain dumb.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:30:04 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 05:01:21 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
>
> >It is quite possible the Jeffery has a no better understanding of the mathematics of stochastic processes than you do but at least he is not making the silly claim that reptile can grow feathers and fish turn into mammals. It is the ignorance of people like you who cause drug-resistant infections, herbicide-resistant weeds, pesticide-resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatment. You do this by your failure to correctly understand how evolution works. Take an introductory course in probability theory and stop being a mathematically incompetent nitwit.
>
>
> Once again, the ability to recognize your nonsense non-sequiturs and
> asinine ad-hominems has nothing to do with the mathematics of
> stochastic processes. You're just posting crap because you have
> nothing intelligent to say.

Looks like Barbie is trying to take math lessons from dimmy. That explains it.

[jillery]

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 10:44:53 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:30:04 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 05:01:21 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >It is quite possible the Jeffery has a no better understanding of the mathematics of stochastic processes than you do but at least he is not making the silly claim that reptile can grow feathers and fish turn into mammals. It is the ignorance of people like you who cause drug-resistant infections, herbicide-resistant weeds, pesticide-resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatment. You do this by your failure to correctly understand how evolution works. Take an introductory course in probability theory and stop being a mathematically incompetent nitwit.
>>
>>
>> Once again, the ability to recognize your nonsense non-sequiturs and
>> asinine ad-hominems has nothing to do with the mathematics of
>> stochastic processes. You're just posting crap because you have
>> nothing intelligent to say.
>Looks like Barbie is trying to take math lessons from dimmy. That explains it.

You must enjoy proving me right, you do it so often.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 11:10:04 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 10:44:53 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:30:04 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 05:01:21 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >It is quite possible the Jeffery has a no better understanding of the mathematics of stochastic processes than you do but at least he is not making the silly claim that reptile can grow feathers and fish turn into mammals. It is the ignorance of people like you who cause drug-resistant infections, herbicide-resistant weeds, pesticide-resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatment. You do this by your failure to correctly understand how evolution works. Take an introductory course in probability theory and stop being a mathematically incompetent nitwit.
> >>
> >>
> >> Once again, the ability to recognize your nonsense non-sequiturs and
> >> asinine ad-hominems has nothing to do with the mathematics of
> >> stochastic processes. You're just posting crap because you have
> >> nothing intelligent to say.
> >Looks like Barbie is trying to take math lessons from dimmy. That explains it.
>
>
> You must enjoy proving me right, you do it so often.

Finally, you realize you are Barbie.

[Lucifer]

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 05:01:21 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 4:35:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 03:13:01 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> wrote:
>>

>> >On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 5:10:02 PM UTC-7, ? Tiib wrote:
>> >> On Monday, 1 October 2018 02:25:03 UTC+3,Jeffrey Stueber jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > I've just finished my essay suggesting that reality refutes evolutionist belief and without the "hard cognitive work" they engage in, reality would naturally correspond with Christian theism. My essay is at https://thesecularleftcritique.wordpress.com/reality-is-tough-on-evolution-or-when-the-data-doesnt-fit-your-theory-the-data-must-be-wrong/
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> It seems quite usual. Doubt about ToE expressed but no fundamental issues
>> >> of it put forward. No facts that contradict with it. No experiments,
>> >> measurements nor observations described.
>> >The fundamental reason the ToE is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities. If the successful use of combination therapy for treating hiv doesn't convince you, try studying and understanding the Kishony and Lenski experiments. All real, measurable and repeatable empirical examples of evolution demonstrate this. You almost did the mathematics correctly yourself.
>>
>>
>> Even Jeffery would recognize your nonsense non-sequiturs and asinine
>> ad-hominems.
>It is quite possible the Jeffery has a no better understanding of the mathematics of stochastic processes than you do but at least he is not making the silly claim that reptile can grow feathers and fish turn into mammals. It is the ignorance of people like you who cause drug-resistant infections, herbicide-resistant weeds, pesticide-resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatment. You do this by your failure to correctly understand how evolution works. Take an introductory course in probability theory and stop being a mathematically incompetent nitwit.

It appears people don't understand what you are saying.
You are not disputing the fact that evolution happened but you are
disputing the theory of how it happened. That's OK because theories
are made to be challenged.

[jillery]

Nonsense non-sequiturs and asinine ad-hominems do not a disputation
make. Just sayin'.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 18:22:43 +1000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Lucifer
<LuciferMo...@bigpond.com>:

>On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 05:01:21 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
><klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>>...the silly claim that reptile can grow feathers and fish turn into mammals.

>It appears people don't understand what you are saying.
>You are not disputing the fact that evolution happened but you are
>disputing the theory of how it happened. That's OK because theories
>are made to be challenged.

Actually, with his repeated denial that either feathers or
mammals evolved, exhibited again above, he *is* disputing
that evolution happened at all, not the details of the
theory explaining it.

And repeated requests for his explanation regarding where
either came from have been greeted by irrelevancies, non
sequiturs and ad hominems. Those, including repeated
references to the Kishony and Lenski experiments, neither
relevant to that question, are all he has.
--

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

[Pro Plyd]

zencycle wrote:
> On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 7:25:03 PM UTC-4, jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I've just finished my essay suggesting that reality refutes evolutionist
>> belief and without the "hard cognitive work" they engage in,
>
> In other words, you're supporting the idea that belief in a deity occurs in the absence of hard cognitive work. I agree.

And that's really all that needs to be said. Creationism et al are, at
least in this day and age,
a lazy cop out. Hand waving. Who needs to do research etc when all one has
to declare
some ... entity ... did it.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 1:25:02 AM UTC-7, Lucifer wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 05:01:21 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

Evolution happens all the time. I have to deal with the consequences of this all the time with drug-resistant infections. But it doesn't work the way you are taught in your biology class. In fact, you won't be taught how evolution works in your biology class.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 5:55:04 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 18:22:43 +1000, Lucifer
> <LuciferMo...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 05:01:21 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> > wrote:
> >
> >>On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 4:35:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 03:13:01 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 5:10:02 PM UTC-7, ? Tiib wrote:
> >>> >> On Monday, 1 October 2018 02:25:03 UTC+3,Jeffrey Stueber jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> >> > I've just finished my essay suggesting that reality refutes evolutionist belief and without the "hard cognitive work" they engage in, reality would naturally correspond with Christian theism. My essay is at https://thesecularleftcritique.wordpress.com/reality-is-tough-on-evolution-or-when-the-data-doesnt-fit-your-theory-the-data-must-be-wrong/
> >>> >> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >> It seems quite usual. Doubt about ToE expressed but no fundamental issues
> >>> >> of it put forward. No facts that contradict with it. No experiments,
> >>> >> measurements nor observations described.
> >>> >The fundamental reason the ToE is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities. If the successful use of combination therapy for treating hiv doesn't convince you, try studying and understanding the Kishony and Lenski experiments. All real, measurable and repeatable empirical examples of evolution demonstrate this. You almost did the mathematics correctly yourself.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Even Jeffery would recognize your nonsense non-sequiturs and asinine
> >>> ad-hominems.
> >>It is quite possible the Jeffery has a no better understanding of the mathematics of stochastic processes than you do but at least he is not making the silly claim that reptile can grow feathers and fish turn into mammals. It is the ignorance of people like you who cause drug-resistant infections, herbicide-resistant weeds, pesticide-resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatment. You do this by your failure to correctly understand how evolution works. Take an introductory course in probability theory and stop being a mathematically incompetent nitwit.
> >
> >It appears people don't understand what you are saying.
> >You are not disputing the fact that evolution happened but you are
> >disputing the theory of how it happened. That's OK because theories
> >are made to be challenged.
>
>
> Nonsense non-sequiturs and asinine ad-hominems do not a disputation
> make. Just sayin'.

Both mathematical and empirical evidence does, but you wouldn't know anything about that.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 12:35:03 PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 18:22:43 +1000, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Lucifer
> <LuciferMo...@bigpond.com>:
>
> >On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 05:01:21 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> >wrote:
>
> >>...the silly claim that reptile can grow feathers and fish turn into mammals.
>
> >It appears people don't understand what you are saying.
> >You are not disputing the fact that evolution happened but you are
> >disputing the theory of how it happened. That's OK because theories
> >are made to be challenged.
>
> Actually, with his repeated denial that either feathers or
> mammals evolved, exhibited again above, he *is* disputing
> that evolution happened at all, not the details of the
> theory explaining it.
>
> And repeated requests for his explanation regarding where
> either came from have been greeted by irrelevancies, non
> sequiturs and ad hominems. Those, including repeated
> references to the Kishony and Lenski experiments, neither
> relevant to that question, are all he has.

Dimmy, start with rmns didn't do it and then you figure it out from there. And too bad for you that you don't like real, measurable and repeatable evidence.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Try understanding how evolution works. But that requires some training and experience in the hard mathematical sciences, something which is lacking in the training of biologists.

[jillery]

On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 12:54:36 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>> Nonsense non-sequiturs and asinine ad-hominems do not a disputation
>> make. Just sayin'.
>Both mathematical and empirical evidence does, but you wouldn't know anything about that.

Too bad you didn't post either.

[Oxyaena]

On 10/1/2018 9:54 AM, zencycle wrote:
> On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 7:25:03 PM UTC-4, jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I've just finished my essay suggesting that reality refutes evolutionist
>> belief and without the "hard cognitive work" they engage in,
>
> In other words, you're supporting the idea that belief in a deity occurs in the absence of hard cognitive work. I agree.
>
>> reality would naturally correspond with Christian theism.
>> My essay is at https://thesecularleftcritique.wordpress.com/
>> reality-is-tough-on-evolution-or-when-the-data-doesnt-fit-your-
>> theory-the-data-must-be-wrong/
>
> In actuality, the idea that the data is wrong if it doesn't fit the theory is a typical creationist move. When real science is conducted, and the data doesn't fit the theory, it's generally the theory that gets modified. Try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
>
>>
>> Humans have a conscious awareness of God
>
> No, we don't. The concept of a god is taught, not innate.
>
>> seek an overarching ideology that answers the same questions a religion would,
>
> OF course, this means there _ARE_ alternatives.
>
>> and have an enduring sense of guilt that needs to be assuaged.
>
> Wrong again, Guilt is taught.
>
>> These are all religious predispositions, compatible with
>> Christianity, that suggest to me humans
>> are religious by nature.
>
> If you mean by nature we seek to understand our surroundings, and question our origins, then yes. But that it necessarily leads to the revelation of christ is complete bullshit.

The Inquisition would like a word with you...

[Oxyaena]

You're a population geneticist? Man, the things you never know... Then
again, I`m not a stalker like the Good DrDr is.

[Oxyaena]

Don't respond to the Good DrDr if you want your mental health in check.
For that matter, don't respond to Nyikos, Jonathan, JTEM, V/Vtard/Joe
Bruno/Art Tandy/Russian Stooge/Donald Duck/Mad Joe/Arty Joe/Mad Arty
Joe/Mad Arty Joke etc etc etc, Bill ("Edna Freon"),
satoshi/StanFast/headless samurai/Scumfest etc, Kalkidas etc. There used
to be more trolls here than the rogues gallery listed above, but they've
either moved on, died (*cough*Ray Martinez*cough*), quit in frustration
(Steady Eddie for example, something I wish Russian Stooge would do) etc.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Mark got nothing out of his graduate-level course in population genetics. And don't confuse my corrections of your blunders for stalking.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 1:30:04 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 12:54:36 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >> Nonsense non-sequiturs and asinine ad-hominems do not a disputation
> >> make. Just sayin'.
> >Both mathematical and empirical evidence does, but you wouldn't know anything about that.
>
>
> Too bad you didn't post either.

Too bad you are unwilling and incapable of understanding the posts.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 1:55:03 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:

What's the matter, you afraid I'm going to upset your delusional world? Somebody needs to show you how evolution actually works.

[Mark Isaak]

I have a masters degree in biology, which included courses in ecology
and population genetics. Those are subjects which Alan demonstrates an
inability to understand, so he lies about them instead.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Clearly, you missed that course in introductory probability theory. That explains why you got nothing out of your graduate-level course in population genetics. But your training did prepare you for a career in fictional writing.

[David Canzi]

On 2018-09-30 7:21 p.m., jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
> I've just finished my essay suggesting that reality refutes evolutionist belief and without the "hard cognitive work" they engage in, reality would naturally correspond with Christian theism. My essay is at https://thesecularleftcritique.wordpress.com/reality-is-tough-on-evolution-or-when-the-data-doesnt-fit-your-theory-the-data-must-be-wrong/
>
> Here's one sample paragraph;
>
> Humans have a conscious awareness of God,

I don't.

--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go.

[jillery]

On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 14:00:11 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 1:30:04 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 12:54:36 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Nonsense non-sequiturs and asinine ad-hominems do not a disputation
>> >> make. Just sayin'.
>> >Both mathematical and empirical evidence does, but you wouldn't know anything about that.
>>
>>
>> Too bad you didn't post either.
>Too bad you are unwilling and incapable of understanding the posts.

Most of your posts are not hard to understand, because they lack any
information.

[zencycle]

On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 4:55:02 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 10/1/2018 9:54 AM, zencycle wrote:
> >
> > If you mean by nature we seek to understand our surroundings, and question our origins, then yes. But that it necessarily leads to the revelation of christ is complete bullshit.
>
> The Inquisition would like a word with you...

OH NO! NOT THE COMFY CHAIR!!!!!!!

[scienceci...@gmail.com]

jeffrey wrote on 9/30/18

>I've just finished my essay >suggesting that reality
>refutes evolutionist belief
>and without the "hard
>cognitive work" they engage
>in, reality would naturally >correspond with Christian
>theism. My essay is at
>
https://thesecularleftcritique.wordpress.com/reality-is-tough-on-evolution-or-when-the-data-doesnt-fit-your-theory-the-data-must-be-wrong/
>
>

I do not think one can have an authentic essay about reality without addressing phenomena.

>Here's one sample
>paragraph;
>
>Humans have a conscious

The argument in the above paragraph starts out using rhetoric that begs for psychology, a pseudo-science.

*Consciousness* is a cold case investigation. Even Chalmers says that the hard problem of consciousness is something that goes on in the dark. The inherent problem to point out is that consciousness cannot be conscious of consciousness-itself. It gets bracketted out of the world. With that, it has no reality, no phenomenon.

Next, materialism is truely a need. The evidence here is that there are more physicians than faith healers. The World Health Organization says there is a doctor shortage. The need for the practice of material medicine is real.

Lastly, the DNA-information found in nature is subject to noise. That is the phenomena. There is a signal and there is a noise. Both fit, both are fitting side by side.

If you make the argument that selection has no noise or that it is not nature making the s/n ratio fit, then you risk going against the weight of the phenomena in nature. So if nature makes noise fit, the investigation for the source of the s/n ratio can stop there.

Humans are now information-gatherers. The need for a cleaner information signal increases because we want to improve the fitness of this gathering to one side, the signal side. We see this going on as the digital age continues. It will reach faster and greater data mining with newer material based computers. The AI revolution about to take place in this century will try to strengthen our signal gathering, but we are not sure if AI will do that as we think.

SC RED

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 12:59:46 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

Is that supposed to address his post regarding the nature of
Creationism? Hint: It doesn't.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 12:56:58 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

>On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 12:35:03 PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 18:22:43 +1000, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Lucifer
>> <LuciferMo...@bigpond.com>:
>>
>> >On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 05:01:21 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >>...the silly claim that reptile can grow feathers and fish turn into mammals.
>>
>> >It appears people don't understand what you are saying.
>> >You are not disputing the fact that evolution happened but you are
>> >disputing the theory of how it happened. That's OK because theories
>> >are made to be challenged.
>>
>> Actually, with his repeated denial that either feathers or
>> mammals evolved, exhibited again above, he *is* disputing
>> that evolution happened at all, not the details of the
>> theory explaining it.
>>
>> And repeated requests for his explanation regarding where
>> either came from have been greeted by irrelevancies, non
>> sequiturs and ad hominems. Those, including repeated
>> references to the Kishony and Lenski experiments, neither
>> relevant to that question, are all he has.

>Dimmy, start with rmns didn't do it and then you figure it out from there.

See what I mean?

> And too bad for you that you don't like real, measurable and repeatable evidence.

Like, for instance, the fossil record and current genetic
relationship data? Oh, I forgot; they contradict your
piss-poor "model" so you reject them.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 10:20:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 12:59:46 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> :
>
> >On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 12:50:03 PM UTC-7, Pro Plyd wrote:
> >> zencycle wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 7:25:03 PM UTC-4, jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I've just finished my essay suggesting that reality refutes evolutionist
> >> >> belief and without the "hard cognitive work" they engage in,
> >> >
> >> > In other words, you're supporting the idea that belief in a deity occurs in the absence of hard cognitive work. I agree.
> >>
> >> And that's really all that needs to be said. Creationism et al are, at
> >> least in this day and age,
> >> a lazy cop out. Hand waving. Who needs to do research etc when all one has
> >> to declare
> >> some ... entity ... did it.
>
> >Try understanding how evolution works. But that requires some training and experience in the hard mathematical sciences, something which is lacking in the training of biologists.
>
> Is that supposed to address his post regarding the nature of
> Creationism? Hint: It doesn't.

No dimmy, it addresses the failures of the reptiles grow feathers crowd.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 11:30:02 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 14:00:11 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 1:30:04 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 12:54:36 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Nonsense non-sequiturs and asinine ad-hominems do not a disputation
> >> >> make. Just sayin'.
> >> >Both mathematical and empirical evidence does, but you wouldn't know anything about that.
> >>
> >>
> >> Too bad you didn't post either.
> >Too bad you are unwilling and incapable of understanding the posts.
>
>
> Most of your posts are not hard to understand, because they lack any
> information.

Just the correct explanation of how rmns works. Any of your posts show how reptiles grow feathers?

[jillery]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 05:32:49 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 11:30:02 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 14:00:11 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 1:30:04 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 12:54:36 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Nonsense non-sequiturs and asinine ad-hominems do not a disputation
>> >> >> make. Just sayin'.
>> >> >Both mathematical and empirical evidence does, but you wouldn't know anything about that.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Too bad you didn't post either.
>> >Too bad you are unwilling and incapable of understanding the posts.
>>
>>
>> Most of your posts are not hard to understand, because they lack any
>> information.
>Just the correct explanation of how rmns works. Any of your posts show how reptiles grow feathers?

Asinine ad-hominems and nonsense non-sequiturs do not an explanation
make. Just sayin'.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 05:34:31 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

<klei...@sti.net>:

>On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 10:20:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 12:59:46 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> :
>>
>> >On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 12:50:03 PM UTC-7, Pro Plyd wrote:
>> >> zencycle wrote:
>> >> > On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 7:25:03 PM UTC-4, jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I've just finished my essay suggesting that reality refutes evolutionist
>> >> >> belief and without the "hard cognitive work" they engage in,
>> >> >
>> >> > In other words, you're supporting the idea that belief in a deity occurs in the absence of hard cognitive work. I agree.
>> >>
>> >> And that's really all that needs to be said. Creationism et al are, at
>> >> least in this day and age,
>> >> a lazy cop out. Hand waving. Who needs to do research etc when all one has
>> >> to declare
>> >> some ... entity ... did it.

>> >Try understanding how evolution works. But that requires some training and experience in the hard mathematical sciences, something which is lacking in the training of biologists.

>> Is that supposed to address his post regarding the nature of
>> Creationism? Hint: It doesn't.

>No dimmy,

IOW, it's just another DocDoc non sequitur. Thanks for
confirming.

> it addresses the failures of the reptiles grow feathers crowd.

....which exist only in your rather limited mind.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 10:10:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 05:32:49 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 11:30:02 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 14:00:11 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 1:30:04 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 12:54:36 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Nonsense non-sequiturs and asinine ad-hominems do not a disputation
> >> >> >> make. Just sayin'.
> >> >> >Both mathematical and empirical evidence does, but you wouldn't know anything about that.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Too bad you didn't post either.
> >> >Too bad you are unwilling and incapable of understanding the posts.
> >>
> >>
> >> Most of your posts are not hard to understand, because they lack any
> >> information.
> >Just the correct explanation of how rmns works. Any of your posts show how reptiles grow feathers?
>
>
> Asinine ad-hominems and nonsense non-sequiturs do not an explanation
> make. Just sayin'.

You're not sayin' how reptiles grow feathers.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 11:10:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 05:34:31 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> :
>
> >On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 10:20:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 12:59:46 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> :
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 12:50:03 PM UTC-7, Pro Plyd wrote:
> >> >> zencycle wrote:
> >> >> > On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 7:25:03 PM UTC-4, jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I've just finished my essay suggesting that reality refutes evolutionist
> >> >> >> belief and without the "hard cognitive work" they engage in,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In other words, you're supporting the idea that belief in a deity occurs in the absence of hard cognitive work. I agree.
> >> >>
> >> >> And that's really all that needs to be said. Creationism et al are, at
> >> >> least in this day and age,
> >> >> a lazy cop out. Hand waving. Who needs to do research etc when all one has
> >> >> to declare
> >> >> some ... entity ... did it.
>
> >> >Try understanding how evolution works. But that requires some training and experience in the hard mathematical sciences, something which is lacking in the training of biologists.
>
> >> Is that supposed to address his post regarding the nature of
> >> Creationism? Hint: It doesn't.
>
> >No dimmy,
>
> IOW, it's just another DocDoc non sequitur. Thanks for
> confirming.
>
> > it addresses the failures of the reptiles grow feathers crowd.
>
> ....which exist only in your rather limited mind.

And all the mathematical and empirical evidence, dimmy.

[jillery]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:44:01 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 10:10:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 05:32:49 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 11:30:02 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 14:00:11 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 1:30:04 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 12:54:36 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Nonsense non-sequiturs and asinine ad-hominems do not a disputation
>> >> >> >> make. Just sayin'.
>> >> >> >Both mathematical and empirical evidence does, but you wouldn't know anything about that.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Too bad you didn't post either.
>> >> >Too bad you are unwilling and incapable of understanding the posts.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Most of your posts are not hard to understand, because they lack any
>> >> information.
>> >Just the correct explanation of how rmns works. Any of your posts show how reptiles grow feathers?
>>
>>
>> Asinine ad-hominems and nonsense non-sequiturs do not an explanation
>> make. Just sayin'.
>You're not sayin' how reptiles grow feathers.

You're not saying anything but noise because you know you have nothing
intelligent to say.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 4:25:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:44:01 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 10:10:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 05:32:49 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 11:30:02 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 14:00:11 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 1:30:04 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 12:54:36 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Nonsense non-sequiturs and asinine ad-hominems do not a disputation
> >> >> >> >> make. Just sayin'.
> >> >> >> >Both mathematical and empirical evidence does, but you wouldn't know anything about that.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Too bad you didn't post either.
> >> >> >Too bad you are unwilling and incapable of understanding the posts.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Most of your posts are not hard to understand, because they lack any
> >> >> information.
> >> >Just the correct explanation of how rmns works. Any of your posts show how reptiles grow feathers?
> >>
> >>
> >> Asinine ad-hominems and nonsense non-sequiturs do not an explanation
> >> make. Just sayin'.
> >You're not sayin' how reptiles grow feathers.
>
>
> You're not saying anything but noise because you know you have nothing
> intelligent to say.

Don't blame me if you don't understand what I'm saying. Try taking an introductory course in probability theory. Then you might understand. Whoops, I forgot, you are unwilling and incapable of doing this.

[jillery]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 16:51:18 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:


>Don't blame me if you don't understand what I'm saying. Try taking an introductory course in probability theory. Then you might understand. Whoops, I forgot, you are unwilling and incapable of doing this.

You must enjoy proving my point for me, you do it so often.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 8:20:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 16:51:18 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
>
> >Don't blame me if you don't understand what I'm saying. Try taking an introductory course in probability theory. Then you might understand. Whoops, I forgot, you are unwilling and incapable of doing this.
>
>
> You must enjoy proving my point for me, you do it so often.

Any point you have is very dull. Take a course in introductory probability theory, it might sharpen your point.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:45:51 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

<klei...@sti.net>:

If one incorrectly applies mathematics to generate a
defective model, and if one limits "empirical" so as to
exclude objective physical evidence, that is...

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 10:25:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:45:51 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

dimmy, there is nothing wrong with this model, it is your understanding which is defective. Learn introductory probability theory and then perhaps you will correct your defective understanding.

[jonathan]

On 9/30/2018 8:00 PM, jillery wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 16:21:50 -0700 (PDT), jeffrey....@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> I've just finished my essay suggesting that reality refutes evolutionist belief and without the "hard cognitive work" they engage in, reality would naturally correspond with Christian theism. My essay is at https://thesecularleftcritique.wordpress.com/reality-is-tough-on-evolution-or-when-the-data-doesnt-fit-your-theory-the-data-must-be-wrong/
>>

>> Here's one sample paragraph;
>>
>> Humans have a conscious awareness of God, seek an overarching ideology that answers the same questions a religion would, and have an enduring sense of guilt that needs to be assuaged. These are all religious predispositions, compatible with Christianity, that suggest to me humans are religious by nature. Humans obviously have no need for such concepts if materialism is true, but they do need these concepts if they are created by someone or something to need them and seek the god that gave them to us. With the acknowledgement that DNA is coded information, information needs an intelligent source, and life needs some type of intelligence guiding its development (as Dawkins admits to when he argues that nature “selects”) we can accept that people are religious because some intelligent agent programmed or created us to be religious.
>>

>> I'll try to see if there are any responses to this post this week.
>
>
> The concepts you identify above, of seeking answers, and of feelings
> of guilt, are also characteristic of many social organisms, especially
> social mammals. ISTM that fact alone refutes your expressed
> conclusions, that they're unnecessary if materialism is true, and that
> they imply God.
>
> Also, Dawkins and other science educators often use teleological
> metaphors when explaining complex and detailed concepts to audiences
> untrained in their disciplines. To suggest such words imply a
> purposeful intelligence as cause is a common but dishonest word game.
>



But all higher forms of life have a purposeful intelligence.

The process of emergence is how life evolves a purposeful
intelligence, whether it's merely a group of microbes
moving towards light, or a society sending men to the Moon.

I say that God is purposeful intelligence.

That God and emergence are one in the same
as emergent properties are the source of
creation, evolution and all that we see.

Both are mysterious and 'unseen' forces
that permeates everything and pushes
all to create, organize and evolve.

All that exists is emergent, God is everywhere
and watches over us every day by creating
an inherent system wide bias towards good
or a more evolved future.

Some day you'll understand that fact of reality.

If you haven't found God yet it's merely because
you haven't looked hard enough.





> I recommend you don't quit your day job.

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

--

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 11:51:37 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

<klei...@sti.net>:

Your model, by your own admission, does not include
selection, because the "math" on which it rests does not
include a term or terms for selection, as was pointed out to
you by those actually competent to analyze your assertions,
and handwaved away by you, very soon after your arrival.

Q.E.D., your model is defective.

> it is your understanding which is defective. Learn introductory probability theory and then perhaps you will correct your defective understanding.

Been there; done that. Learned how *not* to apply it, a
lesson you apparently slept through.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 15:19:44 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>:

>On 9/30/2018 8:00 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 16:21:50 -0700 (PDT), jeffrey....@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I've just finished my essay suggesting that reality refutes evolutionist belief and without the "hard cognitive work" they engage in, reality would naturally correspond with Christian theism. My essay is at https://thesecularleftcritique.wordpress.com/reality-is-tough-on-evolution-or-when-the-data-doesnt-fit-your-theory-the-data-must-be-wrong/
>>>
>>> Here's one sample paragraph;
>>>
>>> Humans have a conscious awareness of God, seek an overarching ideology that answers the same questions a religion would, and have an enduring sense of guilt that needs to be assuaged. These are all religious predispositions, compatible with Christianity, that suggest to me humans are religious by nature. Humans obviously have no need for such concepts if materialism is true, but they do need these concepts if they are created by someone or something to need them and seek the god that gave them to us. With the acknowledgement that DNA is coded information, information needs an intelligent source, and life needs some type of intelligence guiding its development (as Dawkins admits to when he argues that nature “selects”) we can accept that people are religious because some intelligent agent programmed or created us to be religious.
>>>
>>> I'll try to see if there are any responses to this post this week.
>>
>>
>> The concepts you identify above, of seeking answers, and of feelings
>> of guilt, are also characteristic of many social organisms, especially
>> social mammals. ISTM that fact alone refutes your expressed
>> conclusions, that they're unnecessary if materialism is true, and that
>> they imply God.
>>
>> Also, Dawkins and other science educators often use teleological
>> metaphors when explaining complex and detailed concepts to audiences
>> untrained in their disciplines. To suggest such words imply a
>> purposeful intelligence as cause is a common but dishonest word game.
>>
>
>
>
>But all higher forms of life have a purposeful intelligence.

So far as we know, with an example of one (or possibly two
or three), that is correct. So let's see how that fact is
applied...

>
>The process of emergence is how life evolves a purposeful
>intelligence, whether it's merely a group of microbes
>moving towards light, or a society sending men to the Moon.

Again, no real argument there. So...?

>I say that God is purposeful intelligence.

That is what is known as "begging the question", and is a
logical error. Since the existence of God has yet to be
demonstrated objectively, it cannot be used as an assumption
in a logical argument. Therefore, what you've written below
has no logical validity.

>That God and emergence are one in the same
>as emergent properties are the source of
>creation, evolution and all that we see.
>
>Both are mysterious and 'unseen' forces
>that permeates everything and pushes
>all to create, organize and evolve.
>
>All that exists is emergent, God is everywhere
>and watches over us every day by creating
>an inherent system wide bias towards good
>or a more evolved future.
>
>Some day you'll understand that fact of reality.

Some day, you *may* understand that religious beliefs are
not "facts of reality", but personal beliefs.

>If you haven't found God yet it's merely because
>you haven't looked hard enough.

Belief in God, indeed in *any* deity, is a matter of faith,
and no amount of "looking" other than inside oneself can
validate it.

[Oxyaena]

So we're all God? This seems to be taking a turn towards Spinoza's God,
don't you think?

>
> That God and emergence are one in the same
> as emergent properties are the source of
> creation, evolution and all that we see.

So, nothing but mindless mumbo-jumbo?

>
> Both are mysterious and 'unseen' forces
> that permeates everything and pushes
> all to create, organize and evolve.

God helped "push" me to find my car keys yesterday.

>
> All that exists is emergent, God is everywhere
> and watches over us every day by creating
> an inherent system wide bias towards good
> or a more evolved future.

"He sees you when you're sleeping... He knows when you're awake..."

>
> Some day you'll understand that fact of reality.

Big Brother here we come!

>
> If you haven't found God yet it's merely because
> you haven't looked hard enough. >
>

I saw God in my toast today. Does that count?

[jeffrey....@gmail.com]

On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 6:25:03 PM UTC-5, jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
> I've just finished my essay suggesting that reality refutes evolutionist belief and without the "hard cognitive work" they engage in, reality would naturally correspond with Christian theism. My essay is at https://thesecularleftcritique.wordpress.com/reality-is-tough-on-evolution-or-when-the-data-doesnt-fit-your-theory-the-data-must-be-wrong/
>
> Here's one sample paragraph;
>
> Humans have a conscious awareness of God, seek an overarching ideology that answers the same questions a religion would, and have an enduring sense of guilt that needs to be assuaged. These are all religious predispositions, compatible with Christianity, that suggest to me humans are religious by nature. Humans obviously have no need for such concepts if materialism is true, but they do need these concepts if they are created by someone or something to need them and seek the god that gave them to us. With the acknowledgement that DNA is coded information, information needs an intelligent source, and life needs some type of intelligence guiding its development (as Dawkins admits to when he argues that nature “selects”) we can accept that people are religious because some intelligent agent programmed or created us to be religious.
>
> I'll try to see if there are any responses to this post this week.

I promised I would issue at least one reply to the posts regarding my essay, so this reply is that one reply. Overall I was pleased that it generated so many. First of all, Jillery respond that:

[quote]The concepts you identify above, of seeking answers, and of feelings

of guilt, are also characteristic of many social organisms, especially
social mammals. ISTM that fact alone refutes your expressed
conclusions, that they're unnecessary if materialism is true, and that
they imply God.

Also, Dawkins and other science educators often use teleological
metaphors when explaining complex and detailed concepts to audiences
untrained in their disciplines. To suggest such words imply a
purposeful intelligence as cause is a common but dishonest word game.

I recommend you don't quit your day job.[quote]

Well since I never went to school for writing – accounting instead, actually, as I, at that time, didn’t know I had it in me to be a writer – I will be sticking to my day job. As far as the trait of “seeking answers” and “feelings of guilt” mentioned above, they seem quite limited in animals and don’t reflect the extent to which humans engage in these things. Funny, but Jillery never seems to respond to the point I raise with my quotation from J.P. Moreland that “it is often rational to have guilt feelings in the face of moral failure even when no human is present toward whom one feels shame, or even if someone is present, the sense of shame goes beyond what would be appropriate if only another human were involved.” This type of guilt often appears in, say, the SJW movement that seems to want to correct past injustices by taking things away from people now (e.g. denying a white man a position in favor of a black woman). But other people in other circumstances can reflect this type of guilt. It’s a guilt feeling that is more in line with a feeling that one must satisfy some type of transcendent being, such as a god, that demands a particular behavior regardless of time or place. The guilt that animals feel, particularly a dog or cat, for instance, seems prevalent only in the face of a person who can bring out this guilt (e.g. “bad Fido for ripping up my paper!) If you know of any study that shows any animals that can and do engage in guilty behavior when not in the presence of a human who brings out these behavior in the animal then, by all means, I would be willing to read such a thing and give it the attention it deserves. But my experience does not accord with the proposition that animals, in general, have any kind of guilt feelings that go along with their sociality but only when in the company of humans.
I’ve read plenty of Dawkins, Gould, and company and beyond these. What exactly is so difficult about it? Their works aren’t written in some ancient Egyptian language that only a specialist can decipher. They are available for reading by anybody with the mental faculties to do so. Same thing with philosophy; it’s not for everybody. That being said, I question why scientists such as Dawkins would constantly slip into such language, and I am not the first to notice this. For instance. See the following links:
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/03/in_evolutionary/
https://creation.com/explaining-design-away
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-010-0272-7

That should do it for now. You, Jillery, of course, will not accept what these web sites say because they embrace a view contrary to what you believe. Why not just state what strands of DNA have changed and how they have changed in order to give rise to a particular trait or behavior? That seems easy enough except, of course, if evolutionists do not know the answer and wish to cover their lack of knowledge by using teleological language. If you don’t know what segment of DNA gives rise to a trait, why not just cover up that lack of knowledge by saying “natural selection chose that trait”? See how easy it works? That’s the problem with Dawkins and company. Or does Dawkins secretly believe some type of intelligent planning is involved although he would deny thinking that way.

Mark Isaak suggests I study how evolution works. I think, based on what I wrote previously, I got a good handle on it. Maybe not every nuance but the general points I think I got. But then he says this:

[quote]Also, you need to be careful with your claims; don't rely only on
sources that fit your bias. In particular, "information needs an
intelligent source" is not at all true, nor is it true that life needs
intelligence to guide its development. (Do you really think that a
dragonfly, for example, cannot grow to adulthood without human help?) [quote]

This from a guy who has a masters degree in biology. Nobody has suggested that human help is needed for a dragonfly to grow into an adult. It’s interesting that nobody, in the replies I’ve read, said anything about the article I mentioned in Science magazine and one put out by Nature Publishing Group (publisher of Nature magazine) which both assert that DNA is information. These are, as far as I know, secular journals and not devoted to creationist or ID arguments. Clearly the trend in science is toward DNA as information and away from life as a result of a random mixture of chemicals in a soup. Do you disagree with these secular web sites? If so, why? Information implies intent and that implies intelligence which would guide the dragonflies development from its initial creation and also its development.

Zencycle says ‘And that's really all that needs to be said. Creationism et al are, at

least in this day and age, a lazy cop out. Hand waving. Who needs to do research etc when all one has

to declare some ... entity ... did it.” That implies intelligent-design and creationism are nothing but god-of-the-gaps research and ignores their claims rest on positive evidence, not just lack of evidence, and therefore zencycle shows he doesn’t understand or want to understand their claims.


At this stage Alan Kleinman got into the dispute and the debate seemed to revolve more around what he was saying against the evolutionists in this forum and it became a bit messy as far as I am concerned. Nothing has been presented to be in the replies I’ve read to lead to any serious doubts about the veracity of what I have written so far.

[Oxyaena]

On 10/7/2018 4:22 PM, jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 6:25:03 PM UTC-5, jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
>> I've just finished my essay suggesting that reality refutes evolutionist belief and without the "hard cognitive work" they engage in, reality would naturally correspond with Christian theism. My essay is at https://thesecularleftcritique.wordpress.com/reality-is-tough-on-evolution-or-when-the-data-doesnt-fit-your-theory-the-data-must-be-wrong/
>>
>> Here's one sample paragraph;
>>
>> Humans have a conscious awareness of God, seek an overarching ideology that answers the same questions a religion would, and have an enduring sense of guilt that needs to be assuaged. These are all religious predispositions, compatible with Christianity, that suggest to me humans are religious by nature. Humans obviously have no need for such concepts if materialism is true, but they do need these concepts if they are created by someone or something to need them and seek the god that gave them to us. With the acknowledgement that DNA is coded information, information needs an intelligent source, and life needs some type of intelligence guiding its development (as Dawkins admits to when he argues that nature “selects”) we can accept that people are religious because some intelligent agent programmed or created us to be religious.
>>
>> I'll try to see if there are any responses to this post this week.
>
> I promised I would issue at least one reply to the posts regarding my essay, so this reply is that one reply. Overall I was pleased that it generated so many. First of all, Jillery respond that:
>
> [quote]The concepts you identify above, of seeking answers, and of feelings
> of guilt, are also characteristic of many social organisms, especially
> social mammals. ISTM that fact alone refutes your expressed
> conclusions, that they're unnecessary if materialism is true, and that
> they imply God.
>
> Also, Dawkins and other science educators often use teleological
> metaphors when explaining complex and detailed concepts to audiences
> untrained in their disciplines. To suggest such words imply a
> purposeful intelligence as cause is a common but dishonest word game.
>
> I recommend you don't quit your day job.[quote]
>
> Well since I never went to school for writing – accounting instead, actually, as I, at that time, didn’t know I had it in me to be a writer – I will be sticking to my day job. As far as the trait of “seeking answers” and “feelings of guilt” mentioned above, they seem quite limited in animals and don’t reflect the extent to which humans engage in these things.

Bullshit. A dog was seen running into traffic to save another dog's life
on a highway in Chile:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HJTG6RRN4E

How does that not count as morality? Would *you* do that for a fellow human?


[snip bullshit]

Then you obviously have no clue what you're fucking talking about. To
bring up dogs again, a dog who wants another dog's toy but doesn't want
to be caught will hide the toy from the other dog's sight, and only pull
it out when the other dog is gone:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/dogs-use-deception-get-treats-study-shows-180962492/

> I’ve read plenty of Dawkins, Gould, and company and beyond these. What exactly is so difficult about it? Their works aren’t written in some ancient Egyptian language that only a specialist can decipher. They are available for reading by anybody with the mental faculties to do so. Same thing with philosophy; it’s not for everybody.

Such as yourself?

> That being said, I question why scientists such as Dawkins would constantly slip into such language, and I am not the first to notice this. For instance. See the following links:
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/03/in_evolutionary/
> https://creation.com/explaining-design-away
> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-010-0272-7
>
> That should do it for now. You, Jillery, of course, will not accept what these web sites say because they embrace a view contrary to what you believe.

Those websites are not valid sources for evolutionary theory. The
TalkOrigins Archive will suit you well:

http://talkorigins.org/

Why not just state what strands of DNA have changed and how they have
changed in order to give rise to a particular trait or behavior? That
seems easy enough except, of course, if evolutionists do not know the
answer and wish to cover their lack of knowledge by using teleological
language. If you don’t know what segment of DNA gives rise to a trait,
why not just cover up that lack of knowledge by saying “natural
selection chose that trait”? See how easy it works? That’s the problem
with Dawkins and company. Or does Dawkins secretly believe some type of
intelligent planning is involved although he would deny thinking that way.

You obviously lack any understanding of basic evolutionary theory,
natural selection doesn't cause a trait to come into being, mutations
do, selection only acts on mutations that are beneficial or harmful to
the population of a species. How many three-legged goats do you see
wandering around?

>
> Mark Isaak suggests I study how evolution works. I think, based on what I wrote previously, I got a good handle on it. Maybe not every nuance but the general points I think I got. But then he says this:

Ignorance of a subject doesn't correlate to knowledge of a subject.

>
> [quote]Also, you need to be careful with your claims; don't rely only on
> sources that fit your bias. In particular, "information needs an
> intelligent source" is not at all true, nor is it true that life needs
> intelligence to guide its development. (Do you really think that a
> dragonfly, for example, cannot grow to adulthood without human help?) [quote]
>
> This from a guy who has a masters degree in biology. Nobody has suggested that human help is needed for a dragonfly to grow into an adult.

And yet you said that organisms need intelligent guidance to grow.

> It’s interesting that nobody, in the replies I’ve read, said anything about the article I mentioned in Science magazine and one put out by Nature Publishing Group (publisher of Nature magazine) which both assert that DNA is information.

DNA is a molecule half-hazardly put together to form some working whole,
most of what constitutes DNA is actual "junk", serving other purposes
such as structural purposes, or being the leftover remnants of long dead
viruses, or even not being genes at all but looking like genes (look up
"pseudogenes"). Clearly this matches the predictions of evolution rather
than design, or was God drunk when he created DNA?

> These are, as far as I know, secular journals and not devoted to creationist or ID arguments. Clearly the trend in science is toward DNA as information and away from life as a result of a random mixture of chemicals in a soup.

Have you ever read a basic biology textbook? No, then I suggest you
start reading. This pile of flotsam isn't even worth the time refuting,
go here for further information:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ THAT will give you an accurate
understanding of how evolution works.

As a side note, did anyone *ever* suggest that life started as a random
mixture of chemicals in a soup? Can you name *one* evolutionary
biologist or prebiotic chemist who has said that? I doubt you'll find one.

> Do you disagree with these secular web sites? If so, why? Information implies intent and that implies intelligence which would guide the dragonflies development from its initial creation and also its development.
>




> Zencycle says ‘And that's really all that needs to be said. Creationism et al are, at
> least in this day and age, a lazy cop out. Hand waving. Who needs to do research etc when all one has
> to declare some ... entity ... did it.” That implies intelligent-design and creationism are nothing but god-of-the-gaps research and ignores their claims rest on positive evidence, not just lack of evidence, and therefore zencycle shows he doesn’t understand or want to understand their claims.
>
>
> At this stage Alan Kleinman got into the dispute and the debate seemed to revolve more around what he was saying against the evolutionists in this forum and it became a bit messy as far as I am concerned. Nothing has been presented to be in the replies I’ve read to lead to any serious doubts about the veracity of what I have written so far.
>

Ignorance begets confidence, knowledge begets uncertainty. That you are
still confident in your ignorant ramblings on the subject are the
hallmarks of a fool, of an exemplar of the Dunning-Kruger effect, *not*
a man of science.

>

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/7/18 1:22 PM, jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
> [...]

> Mark Isaak suggests I study how evolution works. I think, based on what I wrote previously, I got a good handle on it. Maybe not every nuance but the general points I think I got.

You are probably not the best one to judge.

> But then he says this:
>
> [quote]Also, you need to be careful with your claims; don't rely only on
> sources that fit your bias. In particular, "information needs an
> intelligent source" is not at all true, nor is it true that life needs
> intelligence to guide its development. (Do you really think that a
> dragonfly, for example, cannot grow to adulthood without human help?) [quote]
>
> This from a guy who has a masters degree in biology. Nobody has suggested that human help is needed for a dragonfly to grow into an adult.

You did, when you said: "... life needs some type of intelligence
guiding its development ...". Perhaps you do not understand what
"development" means, but even if that is the case, the issues of
increased information which come with growth from egg to adult are not
substantially different than with evolution from _Pikaia_ to komodo.

> It’s interesting that nobody, in the replies I’ve read, said anything about the article I mentioned in Science magazine and one put out by Nature Publishing Group (publisher of Nature magazine) which both assert that DNA is information.

A snowflake is also information. Do you believe each snowflake needs
God's purposeful guidance in order to form?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 11:10:02 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 11:51:37 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

You are an idiot dimmy. You can't tell the difference between the survival of the fittest and adaptation.

>
> Q.E.D., your model is defective.

Because a dim dimmy like you says so? You have no idea how the Kishony experiment works and your simple mind can't see beyond relative frequencies in populations. You are just an old dog who can't learn new tricks (and really doesn't understand the old tricks). Take a course in introductory probability theory and stop being such a dumb dimmy.

>
> > it is your understanding which is defective. Learn introductory probability theory and then perhaps you will correct your defective understanding.
>
> Been there; done that. Learned how *not* to apply it, a
> lesson you apparently slept through.

Yea right! You have no idea how evolution works and you have no idea what a binomial distribution is. Lights out when dimmy's around.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 1:25:03 PM UTC-7, jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 6:25:03 PM UTC-5, jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
> > I've just finished my essay suggesting that reality refutes evolutionist belief and without the "hard cognitive work" they engage in, reality would naturally correspond with Christian theism. My essay is at https://thesecularleftcritique.wordpress.com/reality-is-tough-on-evolution-or-when-the-data-doesnt-fit-your-theory-the-data-must-be-wrong/
> >
> > Here's one sample paragraph;
> >
> > Humans have a conscious awareness of God, seek an overarching ideology that answers the same questions a religion would, and have an enduring sense of guilt that needs to be assuaged. These are all religious predispositions, compatible with Christianity, that suggest to me humans are religious by nature. Humans obviously have no need for such concepts if materialism is true, but they do need these concepts if they are created by someone or something to need them and seek the god that gave them to us. With the acknowledgement that DNA is coded information, information needs an intelligent source, and life needs some type of intelligence guiding its development (as Dawkins admits to when he argues that nature “selects”) we can accept that people are religious because some intelligent agent programmed or created us to be religious.
> >
> > I'll try to see if there are any responses to this post this week.
>
> I promised I would issue at least one reply to the posts regarding my essay, so this reply is that one reply. Overall I was pleased that it generated so many. First of all, Jillery respond that:
>
> [quote]The concepts you identify above, of seeking answers, and of feelings
> of guilt, are also characteristic of many social organisms, especially
> social mammals. ISTM that fact alone refutes your expressed
> conclusions, that they're unnecessary if materialism is true, and that
> they imply God.
>
> Also, Dawkins and other science educators often use teleological
> metaphors when explaining complex and detailed concepts to audiences
> untrained in their disciplines. To suggest such words imply a
> purposeful intelligence as cause is a common but dishonest word game.
>
> I recommend you don't quit your day job.[quote]
>
> Well since I never went to school for writing – accounting instead, actually, as I, at that time, didn’t know I had it in me to be a writer – I will be sticking to my day job. As far as the trait of “seeking answers” and “feelings of guilt” mentioned above, they seem quite limited in animals and don’t reflect the extent to which humans engage in these things. Funny, but Jillery never seems to respond to the point I raise with my quotation from J.P. Moreland that “it is often rational to have guilt feelings in the face of moral failure even when no human is present toward whom one feels shame, or even if someone is present, the sense of shame goes beyond what would be appropriate if only another human were involved.” This type of guilt often appears in, say, the SJW movement that seems to want to correct past injustices by taking things away from people now (e.g. denying a white man a position in favor of a black woman). But other people in other circumstances can reflect this type of guilt. It’s a guilt feeling that is more in line with a feeling that one must satisfy some type of transcendent being, such as a god, that demands a particular behavior regardless of time or place. The guilt that animals feel, particularly a dog or cat, for instance, seems prevalent only in the face of a person who can bring out this guilt (e.g. “bad Fido for ripping up my paper!) If you know of any study that shows any animals that can and do engage in guilty behavior when not in the presence of a human who brings out these behavior in the animal then, by all means, I would be willing to read such a thing and give it the attention it deserves. But my experience does not accord with the proposition that animals, in general, have any kind of guilt feelings that go along with their sociality but only when in the company of humans.
> I’ve read plenty of Dawkins, Gould, and company and beyond these. What exactly is so difficult about it? Their works aren’t written in some ancient Egyptian language that only a specialist can decipher. They are available for reading by anybody with the mental faculties to do so. Same thing with philosophy; it’s not for everybody. That being said, I question why scientists such as Dawkins would constantly slip into such language, and I am not the first to notice this. For instance. See the following links:
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/03/in_evolutionary/
> https://creation.com/explaining-design-away
> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-010-0272-7
>
> That should do it for now. You, Jillery, of course, will not accept what these web sites say because they embrace a view contrary to what you believe. Why not just state what strands of DNA have changed and how they have changed in order to give rise to a particular trait or behavior? That seems easy enough except, of course, if evolutionists do not know the answer and wish to cover their lack of knowledge by using teleological language. If you don’t know what segment of DNA gives rise to a trait, why not just cover up that lack of knowledge by saying “natural selection chose that trait”? See how easy it works? That’s the problem with Dawkins and company. Or does Dawkins secretly believe some type of intelligent planning is involved although he would deny thinking that way.
>
> Mark Isaak suggests I study how evolution works. I think, based on what I wrote previously, I got a good handle on it. Maybe not every nuance but the general points I think I got. But then he says this:

Mark has admitted that he got nothing out of his graduate-level course in population genetics and his understand of evolution verifies this. You understand far more than Mark because at least you understand the the joint probability of random events is computed using the multiplication rule.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 3:10:02 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 10/7/18 1:22 PM, jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
> > [...]
> > Mark Isaak suggests I study how evolution works. I think, based on what I wrote previously, I got a good handle on it. Maybe not every nuance but the general points I think I got.
>
> You are probably not the best one to judge.

Mark needs to learn how evolution actually works. He didn't learn how in his graduate-level course in population genetics.

[Oxyaena]

On 10/3/2018 7:58 PM, David Canzi wrote:

> On 2018-09-30 7:21 p.m., jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
>> I've just finished my essay suggesting that reality refutes
>> evolutionist belief and without the "hard cognitive work" they engage
>> in, reality would naturally correspond with Christian theism. My essay
>> is at
>> https://thesecularleftcritique.wordpress.com/reality-is-tough-on-evolution-or-when-the-data-doesnt-fit-your-theory-the-data-must-be-wrong/
>>
>>
>> Here's one sample paragraph;
>>
>> Humans have a conscious awareness of God,
>

> I don't.
>

Finally, someone who gets me!

[jillery]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 13:22:34 -0700 (PDT), jeffrey....@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 6:25:03 PM UTC-5, jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
>> I've just finished my essay suggesting that reality refutes evolutionist belief and without the "hard cognitive work" they engage in, reality would naturally correspond with Christian theism. My essay is at https://thesecularleftcritique.wordpress.com/reality-is-tough-on-evolution-or-when-the-data-doesnt-fit-your-theory-the-data-must-be-wrong/
>>
>> Here's one sample paragraph;
>>
>> Humans have a conscious awareness of God, seek an overarching ideology that answers the same questions a religion would, and have an enduring sense of guilt that needs to be assuaged. These are all religious predispositions, compatible with Christianity, that suggest to me humans are religious by nature. Humans obviously have no need for such concepts if materialism is true, but they do need these concepts if they are created by someone or something to need them and seek the god that gave them to us. With the acknowledgement that DNA is coded information, information needs an intelligent source, and life needs some type of intelligence guiding its development (as Dawkins admits to when he argues that nature “selects”) we can accept that people are religious because some intelligent agent programmed or created us to be religious.
>>
>> I'll try to see if there are any responses to this post this week.
>
>I promised I would issue at least one reply to the posts regarding my essay, so this reply is that one reply. Overall I was pleased that it generated so many. First of all, Jillery respond that:
>
>[quote]The concepts you identify above, of seeking answers, and of feelings
>of guilt, are also characteristic of many social organisms, especially
>social mammals. ISTM that fact alone refutes your expressed
>conclusions, that they're unnecessary if materialism is true, and that
>they imply God.
>
>Also, Dawkins and other science educators often use teleological
>metaphors when explaining complex and detailed concepts to audiences
>untrained in their disciplines. To suggest such words imply a
>purposeful intelligence as cause is a common but dishonest word game.
>
>I recommend you don't quit your day job.[quote]
>
>Well since I never went to school for writing – accounting instead, actually, as I, at that time, didn’t know I had it in me to be a writer – I will be sticking to my day job.

Ok then, now that you have assured us of your immediate financial
security....

>As far as the trait of “seeking answers” and “feelings of guilt” mentioned above, they seem quite limited in animals and don’t reflect the extent to which humans engage in these things.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "quite limited" I stipulate
for argument's sake humans exercise these attributes more than other
species, but that's not a relevant factor here. Instead, it is that
other species do them at all, a fact to which you explicitly admit
above. If other species have these attributes, however limited, your
expressed line of reasoning implies these attributes have nothing to
do with the veracity of materialism and God-seeking. Or you can
accept that other species seek God as well and humans are unique in
that regard. Pick your poison.

>Funny, but Jillery never seems to respond to the point I raise with my quotation from J.P. Moreland that “it is often rational to have guilt feelings in the face of moral failure even when no human is present toward whom one feels shame, or even if someone is present, the sense of shame goes beyond what would be appropriate if only another human were involved.”

It might be funny if you actually raised that point or cited that
quote in the post to which I replied. There are a lot of points
raised in your cited article. Since you expected me to comment about
that one specific point, the burden was on you to say so explicitly,
instead of setting up a "gotcha" game.

>This type of guilt often appears in, say, the SJW movement that seems to want to correct past injustices by taking things away from people now (e.g. denying a white man a position in favor of a black woman). But other people in other circumstances can reflect this type of
>guilt. It’s a guilt feeling that is more in line with a feeling that one must satisfy some type of transcendent being, such as a god, that demands a particular behavior regardless of time or place. The guilt that animals feel, particularly a dog or cat, for instance, seems prevalent only in the face of a person who can bring out this guilt (e.g. “bad Fido for ripping up my paper!) If you know of any study that shows any animals that can and do engage in guilty behavior when not in the presence of a human who brings out these behavior in the animal then, by all means, I would be willing to read such a thing and give it the attention it deserves. But my experience does not accord with the proposition that animals, in general, have any kind of guilt feelings that go along with their sociality but only when in the company of humans.
>I’ve read plenty of Dawkins, Gould, and company and beyond these. What exactly is so difficult about it? Their works aren’t written in some ancient Egyptian language that only a specialist can decipher. They are available for reading by anybody with the mental faculties to do so. Same thing with philosophy; it’s not for everybody. That being said, I question why scientists such as Dawkins would constantly slip into such language, and I am not the first to notice this. For instance. See the following links:
>https://evolutionnews.org/2017/03/in_evolutionary/
>https://creation.com/explaining-design-away
>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-010-0272-7
>
>That should do it for now. You, Jillery, of course, will not accept what these web sites say because they embrace a view contrary to what you believe.

Ok then, yet another mindreader wannabe. Of course, I could as easily
say that you didn't accept what I said because they embrace a view
contrary to what you believe, which would end further meaningful
dialog. Is that your intent?

> Why not just state what strands of DNA have changed and how they have changed in order to give rise to a particular trait or behavior? That seems easy enough except, of course, if evolutionists do not know the answer and wish to cover their lack of knowledge by using teleological language. If you don’t know what segment of DNA gives rise to a trait, why not just cover up that lack of knowledge by saying “natural selection chose that trait”? See how easy it works? That’s the problem with Dawkins and company. Or does Dawkins secretly believe some type of intelligent planning is involved although he would deny thinking that way.

Your argument above is incorrect for two reasons:

1) Very few human behaviors are controlled directly by one or even a
set of genes. Instead, there are genes which at most predispose
individuals to particular behaviors. And then there's the issue of
free will.

2) Even if science has no idea what gives rise to particular traits
and behaviors, that says nothing about the veracity of your preferred
inference. You invoke the same false dichotomy asserted by "God of
the gaps" and other arguments from ignorance.

I leave other posters to speak for themselves.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

You also don't have an awareness of how evolution works, Anoxyaena.

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/7/18 4:25 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 3:10:02 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 10/7/18 1:22 PM, jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Mark Isaak suggests I study how evolution works. I think, based on what I wrote previously, I got a good handle on it. Maybe not every nuance but the general points I think I got.
>>
>> You are probably not the best one to judge.
> Mark needs to learn how evolution actually works. He didn't learn how in his graduate-level course in population genetics.

Alan thinks that telling lies about people you disagree with is (a) how
to do science; (b) good manners; and (c) Christian behavior.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 16:21:33 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

<klei...@sti.net>:

....and how 'bout them Mets?

Hint for the clueless: No one, least of all me, mentioned
"survival of the fittest".

>> Q.E.D., your model is defective.

>Because a dim dimmy like you says so?

No, Allie, because your "fundamental equation(s)" have no
terms for selection.

> You have no idea how the Kishony experiment works

A-n-n-n-d we're once more off to the "restricted lab
experiment" races.

> and your simple mind can't see beyond relative frequencies in populations.

You *do* realize that changes in the relative frequencies of
variants in a population, over generations, *is* how
evolutionary change is measured, right? And that it doesn't
matter whether that change results from selection or drift,
right, but that selection is (almost?) always a factor in
one way or another, and that it therefore must be part of
any valid model of evolution?

Oops; I guess you don't.

> You are just an old dog who can't learn new tricks (and really doesn't understand the old tricks). Take a course in introductory probability theory and stop being such a dumb dimmy.
>>
>> > it is your understanding which is defective. Learn introductory probability theory and then perhaps you will correct your defective understanding.
>>
>> Been there; done that. Learned how *not* to apply it, a
>> lesson you apparently slept through.

>Yea right!

Yeah, exactly right.

> You have no idea how evolution works and you have no idea what a binomial distribution is.

Wrong again, Allie. As usual.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 8:10:03 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 10/7/18 4:25 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 3:10:02 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 10/7/18 1:22 PM, jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>> Mark Isaak suggests I study how evolution works. I think, based on what I wrote previously, I got a good handle on it. Maybe not every nuance but the general points I think I got.
> >>
> >> You are probably not the best one to judge.
> > Mark needs to learn how evolution actually works. He didn't learn how in his graduate-level course in population genetics.
>
> Alan thinks that telling lies about people you disagree with is (a) how
> to do science; (b) good manners; and (c) Christian behavior.

Oh, so you got something out of your graduate-level course in population genetics? Compute for us the intensity of selection for the Lenski experiment using the Haldane equations. You won't because you didn't get anything out of your graduate-level course in population genetics.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 8:25:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 16:21:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

That's smart of you because you know nothing about the subject. When you learn something about the subject, get back to us.

[JWS]

I've been making some small progress on educating myself
about Kleinman's claims. I have to tell you that it is
starting to look like he is correct. As I see it right
now, if you kill off an entire population, evolution
appears to quit working on that population. I'll have
to get back to you later though.

[jillery]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 08:33:03 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 8:10:03 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 10/7/18 4:25 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> > On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 3:10:02 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> >> On 10/7/18 1:22 PM, jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>> [...]
>> >>> Mark Isaak suggests I study how evolution works. I think, based on what I wrote previously, I got a good handle on it. Maybe not every nuance but the general points I think I got.
>> >>
>> >> You are probably not the best one to judge.
>> > Mark needs to learn how evolution actually works. He didn't learn how in his graduate-level course in population genetics.
>>
>> Alan thinks that telling lies about people you disagree with is (a) how
>> to do science; (b) good manners; and (c) Christian behavior.
>Oh, so you got something out of your graduate-level course in population genetics? Compute for us the intensity of selection for the Lenski experiment using the Haldane equations.

You first.

[jillery]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 08:08:48 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:

>On 10/7/18 4:25 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 3:10:02 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 10/7/18 1:22 PM, jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> Mark Isaak suggests I study how evolution works. I think, based on what I wrote previously, I got a good handle on it. Maybe not every nuance but the general points I think I got.
>>>
>>> You are probably not the best one to judge.
>> Mark needs to learn how evolution actually works. He didn't learn how in his graduate-level course in population genetics.
>
>Alan thinks that telling lies about people you disagree with is (a) how
>to do science; (b) good manners; and (c) Christian behavior.

and (d) an explanation or argument.

[jillery]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:06:14 -0700 (PDT), JWS <jld...@skybeam.com>
wrote:

>I've been making some small progress on educating myself
>about Kleinman's claims. I have to tell you that it is
>starting to look like he is correct. As I see it right
>now, if you kill off an entire population, evolution
>appears to quit working on that population. I'll have
>to get back to you later though.

AIUI that would be the one case where his argument applies. However,
the multiplication rule of probability isn't needed to figure it out.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 9:10:03 AM UTC-7, JWS wrote:
> On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 10:25:03 AM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 16:21:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

Certainly explains the 99% of all species being extinct. Selection pressures are not all that good for populations. They certainly didn't make your brain.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 11:40:02 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:06:14 -0700 (PDT), JWS <jld...@skybeam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I've been making some small progress on educating myself
> >about Kleinman's claims. I have to tell you that it is
> >starting to look like he is correct. As I see it right
> >now, if you kill off an entire population, evolution
> >appears to quit working on that population. I'll have
> >to get back to you later though.
>
>
> AIUI that would be the one case where his argument applies. However,
> the multiplication rule of probability isn't needed to figure it out.

It is if the population is able to adapt.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 11:35:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 08:33:03 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 8:10:03 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 10/7/18 4:25 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 3:10:02 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> >> On 10/7/18 1:22 PM, jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >>> [...]
> >> >>> Mark Isaak suggests I study how evolution works. I think, based on what I wrote previously, I got a good handle on it. Maybe not every nuance but the general points I think I got.
> >> >>
> >> >> You are probably not the best one to judge.
> >> > Mark needs to learn how evolution actually works. He didn't learn how in his graduate-level course in population genetics.
> >>
> >> Alan thinks that telling lies about people you disagree with is (a) how
> >> to do science; (b) good manners; and (c) Christian behavior.
> >Oh, so you got something out of your graduate-level course in population genetics? Compute for us the intensity of selection for the Lenski experiment using the Haldane equations.
>
>
> You first.

I have, the paper has been accepted for publication. But if you want to try and do it yourself, get Haldane's paper, Cost of Natural Selection. Whoops, I forgot, you don't do math.

[jillery]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:56:35 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 11:40:02 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:06:14 -0700 (PDT), JWS <jld...@skybeam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I've been making some small progress on educating myself
>> >about Kleinman's claims. I have to tell you that it is
>> >starting to look like he is correct. As I see it right
>> >now, if you kill off an entire population, evolution
>> >appears to quit working on that population. I'll have
>> >to get back to you later though.
>>
>>
>> AIUI that would be the one case where his argument applies. However,
>> the multiplication rule of probability isn't needed to figure it out.
>It is if the population is able to adapt.

Since the case is "kill off the entire poplulation", that means they
weren't able to adapt, by definition. Read for comprehension.

[jillery]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:55:05 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 11:35:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 08:33:03 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 8:10:03 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> >> On 10/7/18 4:25 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> >> > On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 3:10:02 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> >> >> On 10/7/18 1:22 PM, jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >>> [...]
>> >> >>> Mark Isaak suggests I study how evolution works. I think, based on what I wrote previously, I got a good handle on it. Maybe not every nuance but the general points I think I got.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You are probably not the best one to judge.
>> >> > Mark needs to learn how evolution actually works. He didn't learn how in his graduate-level course in population genetics.
>> >>
>> >> Alan thinks that telling lies about people you disagree with is (a) how
>> >> to do science; (b) good manners; and (c) Christian behavior.
>> >Oh, so you got something out of your graduate-level course in population genetics? Compute for us the intensity of selection for the Lenski experiment using the Haldane equations.
>>
>>
>> You first.
>I have, the paper has been accepted for publication.

Don't be insulted that I don't take your word for it, or that I don't
wait for you to prove it.

[jillery]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:52:14 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 9:10:03 AM UTC-7, JWS wrote:

[...]

>> I've been making some small progress on educating myself
>> about Kleinman's claims. I have to tell you that it is
>> starting to look like he is correct. As I see it right
>> now, if you kill off an entire population, evolution
>> appears to quit working on that population. I'll have
>> to get back to you later though.
>Certainly explains the 99% of all species being extinct.

Even if it explained extinct species, it doesn't explain the millions
of extant species.

>Selection pressures are not all that good for populations. They certainly didn't make your brain.

So what do you think did make brains?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 1:50:04 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:55:05 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 11:35:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 08:33:03 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 8:10:03 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> >> On 10/7/18 4:25 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >> >> > On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 3:10:02 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> >> >> On 10/7/18 1:22 PM, jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >>> [...]
> >> >> >>> Mark Isaak suggests I study how evolution works. I think, based on what I wrote previously, I got a good handle on it. Maybe not every nuance but the general points I think I got.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You are probably not the best one to judge.
> >> >> > Mark needs to learn how evolution actually works. He didn't learn how in his graduate-level course in population genetics.
> >> >>
> >> >> Alan thinks that telling lies about people you disagree with is (a) how
> >> >> to do science; (b) good manners; and (c) Christian behavior.
> >> >Oh, so you got something out of your graduate-level course in population genetics? Compute for us the intensity of selection for the Lenski experiment using the Haldane equations.
> >>
> >>
> >> You first.
> >I have, the paper has been accepted for publication.
>
>
> Don't be insulted that I don't take your word for it, or that I don't
> wait for you to prove it.

Don't be insulted but you could always do the math yourself. It's not hard if you understand what Haldane was doing. But you don't.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 1:50:04 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:52:14 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 9:10:03 AM UTC-7, JWS wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> I've been making some small progress on educating myself
> >> about Kleinman's claims. I have to tell you that it is
> >> starting to look like he is correct. As I see it right
> >> now, if you kill off an entire population, evolution
> >> appears to quit working on that population. I'll have
> >> to get back to you later though.
> >Certainly explains the 99% of all species being extinct.
>
>
> Even if it explained extinct species, it doesn't explain the millions
> of extant species.

I'd explain that but you wouldn't understand if you get my drift.

>
>
> >Selection pressures are not all that good for populations. They certainly didn't make your brain.
>
>
> So what do you think did make brains?

Perhaps it was the same selection pressure that made reptiles grow feathers?

[jillery]

Then do it.

[jillery]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 14:01:13 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 1:50:04 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:52:14 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 9:10:03 AM UTC-7, JWS wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >> I've been making some small progress on educating myself
>> >> about Kleinman's claims. I have to tell you that it is
>> >> starting to look like he is correct. As I see it right
>> >> now, if you kill off an entire population, evolution
>> >> appears to quit working on that population. I'll have
>> >> to get back to you later though.
>> >Certainly explains the 99% of all species being extinct.
>>
>>
>> Even if it explained extinct species, it doesn't explain the millions
>> of extant species.
>I'd explain that but you wouldn't understand if you get my drift.
>>
>>
>> >Selection pressures are not all that good for populations. They certainly didn't make your brain.
>>
>>
>> So what do you think did make brains?
>Perhaps it was the same selection pressure that made reptiles grow feathers?

Is that your final answer?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 2:20:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 14:01:13 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 1:50:04 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:52:14 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 9:10:03 AM UTC-7, JWS wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> >> I've been making some small progress on educating myself
> >> >> about Kleinman's claims. I have to tell you that it is
> >> >> starting to look like he is correct. As I see it right
> >> >> now, if you kill off an entire population, evolution
> >> >> appears to quit working on that population. I'll have
> >> >> to get back to you later though.
> >> >Certainly explains the 99% of all species being extinct.
> >>
> >>
> >> Even if it explained extinct species, it doesn't explain the millions
> >> of extant species.
> >I'd explain that but you wouldn't understand if you get my drift.
> >>
> >>
> >> >Selection pressures are not all that good for populations. They certainly didn't make your brain.
> >>
> >>
> >> So what do you think did make brains?
> >Perhaps it was the same selection pressure that made reptiles grow feathers?
>
>
> Is that your final answer?

Check the punctuation.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 2:20:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 13:56:51 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 1:50:04 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:55:05 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 11:35:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 08:33:03 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 8:10:03 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> >> >> On 10/7/18 4:25 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 3:10:02 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On 10/7/18 1:22 PM, jeffrey....@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> [...]
> >> >> >> >>> Mark Isaak suggests I study how evolution works. I think, based on what I wrote previously, I got a good handle on it. Maybe not every nuance but the general points I think I got.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> You are probably not the best one to judge.
> >> >> >> > Mark needs to learn how evolution actually works. He didn't learn how in his graduate-level course in population genetics.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Alan thinks that telling lies about people you disagree with is (a) how
> >> >> >> to do science; (b) good manners; and (c) Christian behavior.
> >> >> >Oh, so you got something out of your graduate-level course in population genetics? Compute for us the intensity of selection for the Lenski experiment using the Haldane equations.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> You first.
> >> >I have, the paper has been accepted for publication.
> >>
> >>
> >> Don't be insulted that I don't take your word for it, or that I don't
> >> wait for you to prove it.
> >Don't be insulted but you could always do the math yourself. It's not hard if you understand what Haldane was doing. But you don't.
>
>
> Then do it.

I have, why don't you do it. I'll give you a hint on how to do the computation. Use equations (1) and (2) and the total of selective deaths from Haldane's Cost of Natural Selection paper. Then take the values from Lenski's experiment and use that to calculate the value of "k". It's not much harder than 2+2!

[jillery]

If you didn't meant that to be your final answer, then you posted a
pointless question. That suggests you have no idea what you're
talking about and are proud of it. Is anybody surprised.

[jillery]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 14:38:38 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>> Then do it.
>I have

Prove it.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 3:30:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 14:39:36 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

You don't understand the point.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 3:30:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 14:38:38 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >> Then do it.
> >I have
>
> Prove it.

Why? You won't understand it. If you did understand it, you could easily do the computation yourself.

[jillery]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 15:38:52 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 3:30:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 14:38:38 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Then do it.
>> >I have
>>
>> Prove it.
>Why?

Because you never have.

[jillery]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 15:37:15 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>You don't understand the point.

You don't understand the question.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 5:45:02 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 15:38:52 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 3:30:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 14:38:38 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Then do it.
> >> >I have
> >>
> >> Prove it.
> >Why?
>
>
> Because you never have.

There you go again, blaming me because you are unwilling and incapable of understanding.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 5:45:02 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 15:37:15 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >You don't understand the point.
>
>
> You don't understand the question.

I do understand how rmns works and you don't. Take a course in introductory probability theory and then you might understand.

[jillery]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 17:51:08 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 5:45:02 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 15:37:15 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> wrote:
>>
>> >You don't understand the point.
>>
>>
>> You don't understand the question.
>I do understand how rmns works and you don't.

The question wasn't about rmns. You must enjoy proving me right, you
do it so often.