Ray's paper finally released!
Spotted Owl
Andrew Cunningham
> http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/
>
> fnord
Oh man, that thing is incredibly hilarious.
"The data and theories of creation scientists are far, far superior to
the data and theories of the theory of evolution. But few people know
that fact."
What theories do they have?
"There is no scientific evidence that any segment of DNA on the planet
earth came to exist by random mutations of nucleotides of DNA."
Where does cancer come from?
I just picked out a random chapter and already it's full of massive
holes in logic. I can't even continue reading because of how inane it
all is. Who on earth would write such a thing?
Mitchell Coffey
> http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/
This fellow is also the author of "The Detection of Ether," which can
be found here: http://www.teslaphysics.com. Also, "The Overnight Cure
For Cancer," which is available here: http://www.new-cancer-treatments.org/Cancer/OCC.html.
Mitchell Coffey
hersheyh
Quack! Quack! And triple quack! A gen-u-ine three-fer nut job.
Biology, physics, and medicine.
Spotted Owl
> On Jul 12, 2:56 pm, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 12, 2:37 pm, Spotted Owl <geop...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/
>
> > This fellow is also the author of "The Detection of Ether," which can
> > be found here:http://www.teslaphysics.com. Also, "The Overnight Cure
> > For Cancer," which is available here:http://www.new-cancer-treatments.org/Cancer/OCC.html.
>
> > Mitchell Coffey
>
> Quack! Quack! And triple quack!
And they told me quacks don't echo.
Bruce Stephens
But not Ray's paper. He's already said that his is going to have an
improbably long glossary, and this book appears not to have one (at
least, not in the Contents).
Nomen Publicus
If anybody is looking for a podcast project,
http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/ provides a concentrated source of
insanity that needs to be refuted.
Starting from the third sentence of chapter 1 ("..the theory of evolution
requires that life be created from simple chemicals.") we know that the
author has no real understanding of modern evolution theory and seems to be
attempting to refute a bastardised version of evolution that is widely
promulgated by creationist web sites. Hint, evolution says nothing about the
origin of life.
--
Individuals mutate, populations evolve.
Desertphile
In the USA it is against the law to claim there is "a cure for
cancer." I suppose it is still legal to say there is a cure for
specific cancers for which there are cures.
> Mitchell Coffey
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
wf3h
> http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/
>
i understand when ray's paper is released, charmin has optioned it.
wf3h
> http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/
>
> fnord
incidentally...the book on the mathematics of evolution?
it contains virtually no math.
typical creationist work
Steven L.
> http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/
It's not Ray's work, but I'm reading it anyway.
It's striking that this author has written an entire book attacking the
Theory of Evolution--without ever defining the ToE for the benefit of
readers.
And it's clear from his attacks that he didn't bother to understand the
ToE before attacking it. He conflates it with abiogenesis and even the
Big Bang, as if it's all one theory.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
The term you are looking for is "crank," not "quack."
Frank J
> http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/
>
At least give the author credit for knowing that not many people would
actually pay money for it. :-)
Frank J
> Spotted Owl wrote:
> >http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/
>
> It's not Ray's work, but I'm reading it anyway.
Why? Why would anyone read anything that's not written by Ray?
(Sorry, had to say it)
>
> It's striking that this author has written an entire book attacking the
> Theory of Evolution--without ever defining the ToE for the benefit of
> readers.
It's either that or define it incorrectly. So there's a method to the
[m]adness.
>
> And it's clear from his attacks that he didn't bother to understand the
> ToE before attacking it. He conflates it with abiogenesis and even the
> Big Bang, as if it's all one theory.
(sarcasm) Wow, that never happened before. (end sarcasm)
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Kent Paul Dolan
> Spotted Owl <geop...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/
> Oh man, that thing is incredibly hilarious.
> "The data and theories of creation scientists are
> far, far superior to the data and theories of the
> theory of evolution. But few people know that
> fact."
> What theories do they have?
> "There is no scientific evidence that any segment
> of DNA on the planet earth came to exist by random
> mutations of nucleotides of DNA."
> Where does cancer come from?
> I just picked out a random chapter and already
> it's full of massive holes in logic. I can't even
> continue reading because of how inane it all is.
> Who on earth would write such a thing?
You'll notice it is written in part for the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. To say that
these people believe three impossible things every
day before breakfast, understates the case. I know,
I was married to one for quite a while.
xanthian, who just skimmed the mathy parts a bit.
Since the author bases his arguments on the usual
creationist mendacity that only a complete living
cell with the full complexity as we know it today
could possibly have been the putative result of an
"abiogenesis event", rather than, say, molecule
level replicators, the enter website can be
dismissed out of hand as a pack of lies.
Kent Paul Dolan
> i understand when ray's paper is released,
> charmin has optioned it.
ROFL
xanthian.
Mitchell Coffey
And religion, of course. Would you care to wager a guess about
politics?
Mitchell Coffey
Devils Advocaat
> Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> On Jul 12, 2:56 pm, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
> >>> On Jul 12, 2:37 pm, Spotted Owl <geop...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> >http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/
>
> >>> This fellow is also the author of "The Detection of Ether," which can
> >>> be found here:http://www.teslaphysics.com. Also, "The Overnight Cure
> >>> For Cancer," which is available here:http://www.new-cancer-treatments.org/Cancer/OCC.html.
>
> >>> Mitchell Coffey
>
> >> Quack! Quack! And triple quack! A gen-u-ine three-fer nut job.
> >> Biology, physics, and medicine.
>
> > But not Ray's paper. He's already said that his is going to have an
> > improbably long glossary, and this book appears not to have one (at
> > least, not in the Contents).
>
> insanity that needs to be refuted.
>
> Starting from the third sentence of chapter 1 ("..the theory of evolution
> requires that life be created from simple chemicals.") we know that the
> author has no real understanding of modern evolution theory and seems to be
> attempting to refute a bastardised version of evolution that is widely
> promulgated by creationist web sites. Hint, evolution says nothing about the
> origin of life.
>
> --
> Individuals mutate, populations evolve.
I thought the line was "genes mutate, individuals reproduce,
populations evolve".
But I might be wrong on that.
Nomen Publicus
sadly google doesn't find either version as an attributable quote. Even
worse, the closest matches are all from creationist web sites :-(
--
Don't believe in God? You are not alone. FreeThoughtAction.org
Nomen Publicus
There is a mormon "version" of the book at
http://www.prophetsorevolution.com/
--
Isaac Asimov: Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived.
backspace
Claim #4: Natural Selection Solves the Improbability Issues
"....This is one of the arguments designed to justify the theory of
evolution in spite of its statistical problems. The problem with this
theory is that natural selection does not affect the mutations of
genes. Natural selection occurs AFTER the new species exists. In
other words, natural selection occurs AFTER totally random mutations
of DNA have created a new species (assuming the theory of evolution is
true). The only thing natural selection can do is decide which of the
already existing species will survive. Natural selection has
absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the species or the
design of its DNA. Natural selection, which is non-differentiating as
mentioned before, does not come into play until all of the mutations
are finished and the species is ready to start surviving. Why do you
think it is also called "survival of the fittest?" The term "fittest"
means the species is already alive...."
> The problem with this theory is that natural selection does not affect the mutations of genes.
Darwin didn't know about genes.
> In other words, natural selection occurs AFTER totally random mutations of DNA have created a new species (assuming the theory of evolution is true).
Darwin never said RM what are you talking about?
> The only thing natural selection can do is decide which of the already existing species will survive.
Depends what is your concept with NS, do yo have a citation ?
> Natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the species or the design of its DNA
NS has no true single meaning what are you referring to?
> Natural selection, which is non-differentiating as mentioned before
Cite Oos ?
> Why do you think it is also called "survival of the fittest?" The term "fittest" means the species is already alive...."
Depends who says SoF ...
Eric Root
> http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/ChaptersMath/Chapter_210__The_C...
>
> Claim #4: Natural Selection Solves the Improbability Issues
> "....This is one of the arguments designed to justify the theory of
> evolution in spite of its statistical problems. The problem with this
> theory is that natural selection does not affect the mutations of
> genes. Natural selection occurs AFTER the new species exists. In
> other words, natural selection occurs AFTER totally random mutations
> of DNA have created a new species (assuming the theory of evolution is
> true). The only thing natural selection can do is decide which of the
> already existing species will survive. Natural selection has
> absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the species or the
> design of its DNA. Natural selection, which is non-differentiating as
> mentioned before, does not come into play until all of the mutations
> are finished and the species is ready to start surviving. Why do you
> think it is also called "survival of the fittest?" The term "fittest"
> means the species is already alive...."
>
> > The problem with this theory is that natural selection does not affect the mutations of genes.
>
> Darwin didn't know about genes.
What Darwin did or didn't know is irrelevant in this case. We're
talking about the state of the science now.
>
> > In other words, natural selection occurs AFTER totally random mutations of DNA have created a new species (assuming the theory of evolution is true).
>
> Darwin never said RM what are you talking about?
So what? Darwin is irrelevant, just as he was in your previous non
sequitur.
>
> > The only thing natural selection can do is decide which of the already existing species will survive.
>
> Depends what is your concept with NS, do yo have a citation ?
>
> > Natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the species or the design of its DNA
>
> NS has no true single meaning what are you referring to?
>
> > Natural selection, which is non-differentiating as mentioned before
>
> Cite Oos ?
Why? What concievable goal could be reached by referring to OoS, let
alone citing it?
>
> > Why do you think it is also called "survival of the fittest?" The term "fittest" means the species is already alive...."
>
> Depends who says SoF ...
It has to do with the real world, and who said it is irrelevant.
Eric Root
nando_r...@yahoo.com
from now say the same thing. It is mathematically impossible that
evolution in general occurs through random mutations and natural
selection. The numbers just don't add up, the ratio of working
mutations and non working mutations is simply too small.
And it is an error to say you have found such and such a working
mutation in the laboratory to prove random mutation / selection is
true, because:
1. it is possible the mutation in the laboratory is not random but
instead chosen in an informed and reasoned way
2. there is not sufficient basis to generalize to all nature based on
a few mutations in the laboratory.
I've seen some laborotary experiments mentioned where large and
working changes occur in very few generations, indicating this is not
random mutations and natural selection at work, because natural
selection is expected to work much slower then that. Randomness has a
certain pattern, so to prove random mutations are true it is not
sufficient to note that a mutation has taken place, you actually have
to show that the mutation coincedes with a pattern of randomness,
instead of that it conincides with a pattern of reasoned and informed
decisionmaking. The facts show the mutations coincide more with a
pattern of reasoned and informed decisionmaking, rather than with a
pattern of randomness.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
TomS
<ac9390e6-039a-497e...@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
nando_r...@yahoo.com stated..."
>
>I've seen several scientists from way back, and several scientists
>from now say the same thing. It is mathematically impossible that
>evolution in general occurs through random mutations and natural
>selection. The numbers just don't add up, the ratio of working
>mutations and non working mutations is simply too small.
I've *never* heard *anyone* demonstrate that "intelligent design"
has a higher probability.
--
---Tom S.
"...ID is not science ... because we simply do not know what it is saying."
Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
DOI:10,1007/s11229-009-9540-x
hersheyh
> http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/ChaptersMath/Chapter_210__The_C...
>
> "....This is one of the arguments designed to justify the theory of
> evolution in spite of its statistical problems. The problem with this
> theory is that natural selection does not affect the mutations of
> genes.
Quite true.
> Natural selection occurs AFTER the new species exists.
Goal post moved. NS occurs to existing variants. Apparently this
turkey's mind is so besotted with the idea that 'species' poof into
existence in one swell foop, that he thinks all species are due to
single mutational changes and, probably, that this requires that the
same mutation occur in both a male and a female at the same time and
place. 'Speciation' is a process, not an event.
> In
> other words, natural selection occurs AFTER totally random mutations
> of DNA have created a new species (assuming the theory of evolution is
> true).
Speciation is a process that involves random mutation and natural
selection. But it is not identical with those events.
> The only thing natural selection can do is decide which of the
> already existing species will survive. Natural selection has
> absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the species or the
> design of its DNA.
Not in the way that he thinks, anyway.
> Natural selection, which is non-differentiating as
> mentioned before, does not come into play until all of the mutations
> are finished and the species is ready to start surviving.
If he is claiming that NS only works on variants that *actually* exist
in a population, he is quite right. NS only works on variants that
*actually* *really* do currently exist in a population. Not even
Darwin, not even Paley, claimed otherwise.
> Why do you
> think it is also called "survival of the fittest?" The term "fittest"
> means the species is already alive...."
Variant is not a synonym for species.
> > The problem with this theory is that natural selection does not affect the mutations of genes.
>
> Darwin didn't know about genes.
SFW? Science did not stop with Darwin
> > In other words, natural selection occurs AFTER totally random mutations of DNA have created a new species (assuming the theory of evolution is true).
>
> Darwin never said RM what are you talking about?
SFW? Science did not stop with Darwin.
> > The only thing natural selection can do is decide which of the already existing species will survive.
>
> Depends what is your concept with NS, do yo have a citation?
There are science libraries full of both older and modern descriptions
of NS. Why do you have a problem finding them? Laziness? Ignorance?
> > Natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the species or the design of its DNA
Yes it does. Just that NS doesn't *always* lead to speciation. It is
more likely to generate new species from existing populations under
specific conditions like changing environmental pressures, the
appearance of a mutation that allows exploiting a previously
unavailable niche, reproductive isolation for non-genetic reasons,
life at the fringe of current species range.
> NS has no true single meaning what are you referring to?
>
> > Natural selection, which is non-differentiating as mentioned before
>
> Cite Oos ?
You actually expect that crank to have read the OoS? I don't.
> > Why do you think it is also called "survival of the fittest?" The term "fittest" means the species is already alive...."
>
> Depends who says SoF ...
The idiot (name backspaced out, an act of kindness) that always comes
back to this old shorthand description of NS and pretends that it is
all one needs to know about the modern understanding of NS?
backspace
> working changes occur in very few generations, indicating this is not
> random mutations and natural selection at work, because natural
> selection is expected to work much slower then that.
Who expected NS to work much slower?
> Randomness has a certain pattern, so to prove random mutations are true
Who says random mutatations? Who has established that what is random,
since random is mathematically meaningless.
backspace
>
> > Depends who says SoF ...
>
> The idiot (name backspaced out, an act of kindness) that always comes
> back to this old shorthand description of NS and pretends that it is
> all one needs to know about the modern understanding of NS?
Who has established the modern understanding of NS and what is this
understanding?
Wombat
Do your own research.
Wombat
Sapient Fridge
<ac9390e6-039a-497e...@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
nando_r...@yahoo.com writes
>I've seen several scientists from way back, and several scientists
>from now say the same thing. It is mathematically impossible that
>evolution in general occurs through random mutations and natural
>selection.
Show us your maths.
>The numbers just don't add up,
Show us the numbers and we'll see if they add up or not.
> the ratio of working
>mutations and non working mutations is simply too small.
You forgot to tell us what the ratio is. I'm spotting a pattern here.
>And it is an error to say you have found such and such a working
>mutation in the laboratory to prove random mutation / selection is
>true, because:
>1. it is possible the mutation in the laboratory is not random but
>instead chosen in an informed and reasoned way
So your reasoning is that all mutations are bad, and any that look like
beneficial mutations aren't actually mutations at all as they are
individually hand-crafted by your god?
Nice way of covering all the bases.
>2. there is not sufficient basis to generalize to all nature based on
>a few mutations in the laboratory.
The point of experiments in the lab is to reduce the number of variables
to a reasonable number. All experiments work like that.
Are you claiming that all lab experiments of any kind are useless
because they are all done in artificial environments?
>I've seen some laborotary experiments mentioned where large and
>working changes occur in very few generations, indicating this is not
>random mutations and natural selection at work, because natural
>selection is expected to work much slower then that.
Cite your source for the expected speed of mutation and natural
selection.
<snip - more assertions>
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://spamsights.org http://spews.org http://spamhaus.org
Devils Advocaat
> http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/
>
Here is the craziest part of that website so far (Chapter 23):
"If evolution were true, our human DNA, and the DNA of all other
living species on this
earth, could trace their genealogy back to the "first living cell" and
thus all DNA on earth
would contain 660 million years of accumulated genetic defects because
there would
have been 660 million years of accumulating and continuous genetic
entropy.
Why would we see these mutations on our DNA? The reason is that there
is no
mechanism on any DNA to fix most type of genetic errors."
If I am not mistaken the majority of errors occur during DNA
replication and there are several correction mechanisms, which
actually keep the replication error rate down to just 1 in every
100,000 bases.
So where did this guy get his biology education from?
Karel P
c904c8...@j21g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
> On Jul 13, 5:52�pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > �Why do you think it is also called "survival of the fittest?" �T
> he term "fittest" means the species is already alive...."
>>
>> > Depends who says SoF ...
>>
>> The idiot (name backspaced out, an act of kindness) that always comes
>> back to this old shorthand description of NS and pretends that it is
>> all one needs to know about the modern understanding of NS?
>
> Who has established the modern understanding of NS and what is this
> understanding?
>
>
Not that it will help if you really don't want to learn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Regards,
Karel
--
If knowledge can create problems, it is not
through ignorance that we can solve them (Asimov)
Frank Sullivan
> mutations and non working mutations is simply too small.
Regression towards the mean?
Mitchell Coffey
Furthermore, mutations that were deleterious to the organism in
respect to its environment, singularly or in combination, would tend
to cause the organism to be selected against, preventing it from being
fixed in a population.
Note also that his use of the term "genetic defects" in this context
begs the question.
Mitchell Coffey
Kent Paul Dolan
> Who has established that what is random, since
> random is mathematically meaningless.
Since this is one of the lies you repeat endlessly,
and is a foundation stone of your more general
mendacity, an intervention seems necessary, though
probably fruitless, you being invincibly ignorant
and all.
Here is a page explaining what mathematical
randomness means, written so that even a moron like
you has some chance of comprehending it.
Go inform yourself about the methematical meaning of
randomness so that you don't say anything this
egregiously stupid again, or forever be the butt of
scorn, the more likely outcome.
http://www.serve.net/buz/Notes.1st.year/HTML/C6/rand.002.html
xanthian.
Kent Paul Dolan
> So where did this guy get his biology education from?
Blind Stupid Assertions University.
HTH
xanthian.
Garamond Lethe
Fisher.
> and what is this understanding?
The probability that a single copy of an allele with selective
advantage $s$ will be fixed in a population of effective size
$N_e$ is $2s(N_e/N)/(1-e^{-4N_es})$.
Doubtless this isn't the answer you wanted so you'll ask the
question again soon.
backspace
> Furthermore, mutations that were deleterious to the organism in
> respect to its environment, singularly or in combination, would tend
> to cause the organism to be selected against, preventing it from being
> fixed in a population.
== rephrase ==
Deleterious mutations would tend to cause the organism to be
selected against, preventing it from being fixed in a population.
== rephrase ==
Deleterious mutations means to be selected against.
Other than noting they were selected against how did you measure their
Deleteriousness ?
backspace
> > and what is this understanding?
> The probability that a single copy of an allele with selective
> advantage $s$ will be fixed in a population of effective size
> $N_e$ is $2s(N_e/N)/(1-e^{-4N_es})$.
=== rephrase ===
Those with a selective advantage will be fixed in a population.
Other than noting there were "fixed" how was their advantageousness
measured?
Woland
By counting their offspring and their offspring's offspring.
Mike L
You know perfectly well what an advantage is, and can easily think of
examples of what might be advantageous to various life-forms in
different situations. Just get a grip of yourself, man.
--
Mike.
Garamond Lethe
backspace wrote:
> On Jul 14, 5:27 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@liamg.com> wrote:
> > > and what is this understanding?
>
> > The probability that a single copy of an allele with selective
> > advantage $s$ will be fixed in a population of effective size
> > $N_e$ is $2s(N_e/N)/(1-e^{-4N_es})$.
>
> === rephrase ===
> Those with a selective advantage will be fixed in a population.
>
Only two errors there. Granted, it's just one sentence, but I think
you're getting better.
1) Selective advantage is a scalar, not a boolean. Think of a
variable
like temperature. Objects don't either have temperature or not have
temperature, the temperature of an object is a quantity that can be
measured. All mutations have a selective advantage, but the ones
you're hoping to get have s>1.
2) The equation defines a probability. Having a large selective
advantage
doesn't mean that the mutation *will* fix in the population, it just
means
that it's more likely to fix than a mutation with a smaller selective
advantage.
A better "restatement" might be "More advantageous alleles are more
likely
to fix in a population than less advantageous alleles".
This is trivially easy to falsify, and indeed there are several
situations where
this doesn't hold (think frequency-dependent selection). In
situations like that,
you need a model with a few more variables.
> Other than noting there were "fixed" how was their advantageousness
> measured?
Fixation doesn't define fitness, at least not in a one-off case. If
the same
mutation was introduced into multiple populations, then you could
probably
put a bound on fitness, but you'd need to do a lot of experiments to
get a
decent bound.
A second, more precise method would be to measure time to fixation
(which is also influenced by the amount of selective advantage).
That
would take fewer experiments to get the same bound (I think).
The third method is counting offspring.
Ray Martinez
I have been reading the exchanges between you and Backspace, Garamond.
Your performance here, in regards to your degree, is evidence that you
knew how to pass classes.
Ray
wf3h
i wonder when he learned to spell 'measure'. now if he could only
learn what it means
Devils Advocaat
And their offspring's offspring's offspring :P
Woland
Why you fnording fnord...
Garamond Lethe
Wow. Google really mangled that. Oh well.
>
> I have been reading the exchanges between you and Backspace, Garamond.
> Your performance here, in regards to your degree, is evidence that you
> knew how to pass classes.
Well, just barely. It turns out that while nothing in biology makes
sense except in light of evolution, nothing in evolution makes sense
(or so I'm told) except in light of population genetics. Population
genetics isn't necessarily difficult mathematically, I just found it
utterly unintuitive.
On top of that there was the small problem that I didn't know the
basics like "What's an eukaryote? (and should I worry if one bites
me?)" and "What's the difference between meiosis and mitosis?".
Wikipedia was a lifesaver for the factual information, but this
being a grad class the homework is not supposed to be a recitation
of facts.
Instead, there were questions like: "Here is some real-world
allele frequency data. Derive the effects of frequency-dependent
selection on these populations." and "Here is some real-world
nucleotide diversity data. Derive the selection coefficient
for these alleles given an arbitrary recombination rate."
Questions like that can't be answered using google. (Nor could
they be answered using the textbook and an undergraduate degree
in biology, at least according to a few of my classmates.)
Overall, it was a great experience. The lectures were wonderful,
and if I had to do it over again (and I probably will) I'd just
audit the class and not spent more than five hours a week on the
homework. I now have a much better grasp on what I don't know
and what I'm interested in.
But most important, I learned that evolution as discussed on
t.o. and written up in the popular press is a pale imitation
of evolution as it is used by biologists. Actual evolution
is a collection of mathematical models, and while those models
can be discussed using words, in order to invalidate a model
you don't address the words, you address the math. I had
done a lot of reading about evolution prior to that class,
and none of it prepared me for that.
So now I have several equations that have been burned into my
brain from staring at them for hours on end. The one I quoted
above is a favorite. Expressing selection in terms of mathematical
probabilities makes (to my mind, at least) questions of tautology
irrelevant. It's a model. It's wrong (in Box's sense of the term).
It's either more or less useful. In situations where it's less
useful, use a different model. If no existing model is good
enough, create your own and publish it.
wrt your own work, I really do recommend that you drop Darwin
entirely. Showing Darwin was wrong about everything doesn't
get you any closer to the math, and in this field (if not on
t.o.) the math is what counts.
>
> Ray
>
Devils Advocaat
What have the fnords ever done for us?
Mitchell Coffey
No honest person able to speak English would claim that "mutations
that were deleterious to the organism in respect to its environment,
singularly or in combination, would tend to cause the organism to be
selected against, preventing it from being fixed in a population" can
be paraphrased accurately as "Deleterious mutations means to be
selected against." Is the problem that you do not know what "in
respect to its environment" means? I ask because I wouldn't want to
accuse you of dishonesty if the issue is merely that you don't
understand the language. On the other hand, you do have a history of
false witness, so I lean toward that explanation.
Mitchell Coffey
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Devils Advocaat
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk>:
More than the pschevies.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Dick C.
news:QpWdnRc0Fvq098fX...@earthlink.com:
> Spotted Owl wrote:
>> http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/
>
> It's not Ray's work, but I'm reading it anyway.
>
> It's striking that this author has written an entire book attacking the
> Theory of Evolution--without ever defining the ToE for the benefit of
> readers.
>
> And it's clear from his attacks that he didn't bother to understand the
> ToE before attacking it. He conflates it with abiogenesis and even the
> Big Bang, as if it's all one theory.
To a creationist the TOE is defined as all science they do not like.
>
>
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.com
Woland
Well, they did build the aqueducts.
John S. Wilkins
And the roads...
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Devils Advocaat
> Woland <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 14, 10:31 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On 15 July, 09:13, Woland <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 14, 6:24 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 14 July, 22:36, Woland <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 14, 5:13 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jul 14, 5:27 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@liamg.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > and what is this understanding?
> > > > > > > > The probability that a single copy of an allele with selective
> > > > > > > > advantage $s$ will be fixed in a population of effective size
> > > > > > > > $N_e$ is $2s(N_e/N)/(1-e^{-4N_es})$.
>
> > > > > > > === rephrase ===
> > > > > > > Those with a selective advantage will be fixed in a population.
>
> > > > > > > Other than noting there were "fixed" how was their advantageousness
> > > > > > > measured?
>
> > > > > > By counting their offspring and their offspring's offspring.
>
> > > > > And their offspring's offspring's offspring :P
>
> > > > Why you fnording fnord...
>
> > > What have the fnords ever done for us?
>
> > Well, they did build the aqueducts.
>
> And the roads...
The roads go without saying, but apart from the aqueduct, the
sanitation and the roads ........
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
Rolf
And don't forget, Ray, your performance here is evidence that you never
would pass, bonehead!
> Ray
Walter Bushell
<ef709ddc-febf-402f...@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Devils Advocaat <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
sanitation, the roads, the preservation of Greek culture and the killing
off of trouble makers ........
The did give us Christianity; which I can't decide if it is a mixed
blessing or a mixed curse.
Give me that old time religion, if it's good enough for Socrates it's
good enough for me.
Louann Miller
e28921...@l32g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>> Deleterious mutations means to �be selected against.
>>
>> Other than noting they were selected against how did you measure their
>> Deleteriousness ?
>
> i wonder when he learned to spell 'measure'. now if he could only
> learn what it means
This really is like asking "at the end of a fight to the death, how do you
decide who won?"
nando_r...@yahoo.com
true to fact, and also reasoned and informed decisionmaking can be
objectively identified. And the evidence shows that the patterns in
DNA fit reasoned and informed decision making, not randomness.
What this means basically is that organic life has a comprehensive
anticipatory relationship with its future. So rather that the future
of say a forest consists of alternative mutations and the constraints
of selection, there are larger alternatives in the future, like for
instance alternative whole new trees. So random mutations do not
control things within the confines of selection, but mutations are
guided by these larger alternatives. That is what the DNA shows,
informed and reasoned decisionmaking.
So to say it is a true and significant fact that mankind was likely to
be at the beginning of the universe already, and this alternative
would have guided random mutations.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Andrew Cunningham
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Randomness (uninformed decisions) can be objectively identified as
> true to fact, and also reasoned and informed decisionmaking can be
> objectively identified. And the evidence shows that the patterns in
> DNA fit reasoned and informed decision making, not randomness.
So you see cancer as being a reasoned and informed result of cell
division?
Sapient Fridge
<ee043b43-2d46-4bfd...@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> writes
>Randomness (uninformed decisions) can be objectively identified as
>true to fact, and also reasoned and informed decisionmaking can be
>objectively identified. And the evidence shows that the patterns in
>DNA fit reasoned and informed decision making, not randomness.
You forgot to include this evidence in your post.
<snip - yet more unsupported assertions>
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://spamsights.org http://spews.org http://spamhaus.org
John S. Wilkins
"Well yes, Rambo has killed all the antagonists and saved the oppressed
villages, but has he *really* won?"
wf3h
> true to fact, and also reasoned and informed decisionmaking can be
> objectively identified. And the evidence shows that the patterns in
> DNA fit reasoned and informed decision making, not randomness.
>
> What this means basically is that organic life has a comprehensive
> anticipatory relationship with its future. So rather that the future
> of say a forest consists of alternative mutations and the constraints
> of selection, there are larger alternatives in the future, like for
> instance alternative whole new trees. So random mutations do not
> control things within the confines of selection, but mutations are
> guided by these larger alternatives. That is what the DNA shows,
> informed and reasoned decisionmaking.
well...no. a mutation doesn't know it's random. it's a simple chemical
reaction that substitutes one base pair for another. it's really that
simple. no decisions. no 'informed' anything.
>
Kent Paul Dolan
nando_r...@yahoo.com
objectively identify randomness? We can objectively identify
randomness, and the evidence shows it's not random.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
cells may be materially identical to non cancerous cells. That
indicates the causes for cancer must lie in relationships to other
cells, or properties of the cell that autonomously vary. So to say
there are decisionprocesses throughout the body, and these
decisionprocesses have internal and external relationary properties,
and properties like rhythm (just like the heart has a rhythm). So you
see that just like the origins of life can be made sense of in terms
of a decisionprocess, so too can cancer be made sense of in terms of a
decisionprocess.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
stew dean
> http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/
Truly astounding. Starts off with unsupported accusations and straight
out ignorance and then proceeds to head downhill after that.
What it does form is almost a compendium of creationist fallacies.
I've only scanned part but I'm expecting all kinds of things such as
vested interest, entropy, piltdown man etc etc to come up. I haven't
looked but if atheism, 'materialism' and Hitler get a mention then
that would be the final nail.
Oh and finally if it says that evolution covers the big bang like some
creationist sites do that'll be yet another bonus. It's all very
predictable.
Stew Dean
stew dean
> I've seen several scientists from way back, and several scientists
> from now say the same thing. It is mathematically impossible that
> evolution in general occurs through random mutations and natural
> selection. The numbers just don't add up, the ratio of working
> mutations and non working mutations is simply too small.
As someone who has played with simulations of evolution with those
small numbers I can tell you that for evolution to work the rate of
change NEEDS to be small. Too high a rate of mutation and you have an
unstable population with a large degree of genetic diseases, still
borns etc. If you have too little mutation then the population cannot
deal with loss of genetic information or changing environments.
The vast majority of evolution does not happen through mutations but
through the recombination of information in the gene pool, re using
and re combining genetic information that is found to either be
neutral or useful.
> And it is an error to say you have found such and such a working
> mutation in the laboratory to prove random mutation / selection is
> true, because:
> 1. it is possible the mutation in the laboratory is not random but
> instead chosen in an informed and reasoned way
> 2. there is not sufficient basis to generalize to all nature based on
> a few mutations in the laboratory.
Mutations are seen in the lab BUT it's impossible to tell if something
is a successful mutation nearly all the time. Most mutations are
nuetral and have no effect, a small percentage are harmful and even a
smaller amount are benefitial? So how does this small percentage
become wide spread? Through the individual that those genes create
interacting with the environment and then their offspring etc over
many generations. Over time random events get evened out.
Evolution can be seen to work mathematically in a computer, the field
of artificial life has been modelling it for year. That's why we know
about the need for low mutation rates for steady evolution. Mutation
rates can change - as can the speed of evolution but this is enough
for now.
You'll see mutations in labs but as the creatures are not in the
environment you won't get real evolution, it'll be more akin to
breeding which people have been doing for years. In a lab you can
model evolution in a mathematical way and see it working. We use this
information in engineering to evolve optimal solutions to things like
the shape of a wing or how to reduce the weight of a jet plane. If
you've flown in the last ten years than some part of that aircraft
will have been built using that knowledge. As a theory goes that's
pretty solidly conclusive.
Stew Dean
Sapient Fridge
<7c251014-d9e1-4c01...@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
nando_r...@yahoo.com writes
>As mentioned before, the curious thing about cancer is that cancer
>cells may be materially identical to non cancerous cells.
Wrong. Cancer cells have mutated DNA, typically the mutation has
damaged the cells control mechanisms.
http://humangenetics.suite101.com/article.cfm/dna_mutations_cause_cancer
nando_r...@yahoo.com
cells are regarded as healthy cells by system defences. So there are a
lot of cancerous cells in a body, most are dealt with, but some are
not identified by the body as a threat to the system. Why some are
identified as a threat and others not, while they are all basically
the same, is because of autonomously varying properties.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Kermit
> Spotted Owl wrote:
> >http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/
>
> It's not Ray's work, but I'm reading it anyway.
>
> It's striking that this author has written an entire book attacking the
> Theory of Evolution--without ever defining the ToE for the benefit of
> readers.
>
> And it's clear from his attacks that he didn't bother to understand the
> ToE before attacking it. He conflates it with abiogenesis and even the
> Big Bang, as if it's all one theory.
>
It's all scientificalistic stuff, none of which places him at the
center of the universe.
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Kermit
Kermit
> On 12 July, 19:37, Spotted Owl <geop...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/
>
>
> Here is the craziest part of that website so far (Chapter 23):
>
> "If evolution were true, our human DNA, and the DNA of all other
> living species on this
> earth, could trace their genealogy back to the "first living cell" and
> thus all DNA on earth
> would contain 660 million years of accumulated genetic defects because
> there would
> have been 660 million years of accumulating and continuous genetic
> entropy.
>
> Why would we see these mutations on our DNA? The reason is that there
> is no
> mechanism on any DNA to fix most type of genetic errors."
>
> If I am not mistaken the majority of errors occur during DNA
> replication and there are several correction mechanisms, which
> actually keep the replication error rate down to just 1 in every
> 100,000 bases.
>
> So where did this guy get his biology education from?
Education?
Kermit
Kermit
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> So to say it is a true and significant fact that mankind was likely to
> be at the beginning of the universe already, and this alternative
> would have guided random mutations.
This statement is insane. It is perhaps the most clearly and strongly
insane claim I have seen in a long time, perhaps ever.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Kermit
wf3h
> How can Darwinists say the mutations are random, if they can't
> objectively identify randomness? We can objectively identify
> randomness, and
because mutations have many causes and all we see are the end results.
because mutations happen on places in the genome that are not
predictable.
know much about chemistry? it seems you don't
Kermit
> wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote in news:da24c0d0-0c0f-493f-adeb-
> e28921989...@l32g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> Deleterious mutations means to ÿbe selected against.
>
> >> Other than noting they were selected against how did you measure their
> >> Deleteriousness ?
>
> > i wonder when he learned to spell 'measure'. now if he could only
> > learn what it means
>
> This really is like asking "at the end of a fight to the death, how do you
> decide who won?"
== rephrase ==
"The winner of the death match did not die"
== rephrase ==
"The one who did not die did not die."
This is obviously a tautology, therefore it is self-evidently true,
and therefore a fallacy and wrong. Therefore, the one who did not die,
died.
Therefore, Jesus.
Kermit
Louann Miller
93d6-da9...@y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com:
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> So to say it is a true and significant fact that mankind was likely to
>> be at the beginning of the universe already, and this alternative
>> would have guided random mutations.
>
> This statement is insane. It is perhaps the most clearly and strongly
> insane claim I have seen in a long time, perhaps ever.
I wouldn't go as far as insane. Deeply, deeply arrogant and ignorant. But
lots of people do have trouble grasping that the universe is not All About
Them. At the species level in this case.
Kermit
> On Jul 13, 11:34 pm, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> > Furthermore, mutations that were deleterious to the organism in
> > respect to its environment, singularly or in combination, would tend
> > to cause the organism to be selected against, preventing it from being
> > fixed in a population.
>
> == rephrase ==
> Deleterious mutations would tend to cause the organism to be
> selected against, preventing it from being fixed in a population.
>
> == rephrase ==
> Deleterious mutations means to be selected against.
>
> Other than noting they were selected against how did you measure their
> Deleteriousness ?
Duh. The observation that they were selected against is evidence they
were deleterious. As for exactly how, it depends on the particular
mutation. Which one did you have in mind?
"People who invest their money wisely are more likely to get rich."
This is not a tautology, altho you could rephrase it to make it look
like one.
How was the money invested wisely? This can't be answered unless you
look at a specific case.
"Folks who exercise properly are going to get stronger."
This can also be rephrased and claimed to be a tautology by an idiot.
But it's true, and to answer the question "What is proper exercise?"
we would have to get into specifics.
So... which mutation exactly did you have in mind? Or more properly,
which modifications of phenotypes (associated with genes) were
selected against?
Kermit
backspace
> On Jul 14, 5:11 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 13, 11:34 pm, MitchellCoffey<m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> > > Furthermore, mutations that were deleterious to the organism in
> > > respect to its environment, singularly or in combination, would tend
> > > to cause the organism to be selected against, preventing it from being
> > > fixed in a population.
>
> > == rephrase ==
> > Deleterious mutations would tend to cause the organism to be
> > selected against, preventing it from being fixed in a population.
>
> > == rephrase ==
> > Deleterious mutations means to be selected against.
>
> > Other than noting they were selected against how did you measure their
> > Deleteriousness ?
> .......would claim that "mutations that were deleterious to the organism in
> respect to its environment,...... would tend to cause the organism to be
> selected against, preventing it from being fixed in a population"
> can be paraphrased accurately as "Deleterious mutations means to be
> selected against."
> Is the problem that you do not know what "in
> respect to its environment" means?
Everything that is in existence is in some sort of relationship with
an environment. IF not with respect to its environment what else then,
stating the obvious borders on truisms.
backspace
> So... which mutation exactly did you have in mind? Or more properly,
> which modifications of phenotypes (associated with genes) were
> selected against?
In what context are you using selection:
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology#selection_of_rocks
1) What happens happens.: There was a selection of rocks on the
mountain after the Earthquake. The eartquake had no intent to assemble
an assortment or selection of rocks, the symbol string selection in
this case isn't associated with consciousness.
IN this context "assortment" is a synonym for "selection" at the level
of pragmatics which overides semantics.
2) The mountaineers assembled a selection of rocks to form a camp.
Selection here conveys the concept of consciousness.
wf3h
>
> Everything that is in existence is in some sort of relationship with
> an environment. IF not with respect to its environment what else then,
> stating the obvious borders on truisms.-
it's only a truism if you know it. that's the secret of genius
calculus: we teach it to high school kids. but it took the greatest
genius in history to invent it.
your statement is, itself, a truism.
Wombat
> Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:77846f41-8864-4090-
> 93d6-da9f36b6b...@y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com:
>
> > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> So to say it is a true and significant fact that mankind was likely to
> >> be at the beginning of the universe already, and this alternative
> >> would have guided random mutations.
>
> > This statement is insane. It is perhaps the most clearly and strongly
> > insane claim I have seen in a long time, perhaps ever.
>
> I wouldn't go as far as insane. Deeply, deeply arrogant and ignorant. But
> lots of people do have trouble grasping that the universe is not All About
> Them. At the species level in this case.
He thinks the Koran is the be-all and end-all. Just think of his
surprise if he discovers that M (PBOH) was really a paedophile and got
his info from under a blanket and that the twat's deity is really a
renamed moon god(des).
Wombat
Mitchell Coffey
> On Jul 15, 10:27 pm, MitchellCoffey<m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 5:11 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > Furthermore, mutations that were deleterious to the organism in
> > > > respect to its environment, singularly or in combination, would tend
> > > > to cause the organism to be selected against, preventing it from being
> > > > fixed in a population.
>
> > > == rephrase ==
> > > Deleterious mutations would tend to cause the organism to be
> > > selected against, preventing it from being fixed in a population.
>
> > > == rephrase ==
> > > Deleterious mutations means to be selected against.
>
> > > Other than noting they were selected against how did you measure their
> > > Deleteriousness ?
> > .......would claim that "mutations that were deleterious to the organism in
> > respect to its environment,...... would tend to cause the organism to be
> > selected against, preventing it from being fixed in a population"
> > can be paraphrased accurately as "Deleterious mutations means to be
> > selected against."
> > Is the problem that you do not know what "in
> > respect to its environment" means?
>
> Everything that is in existence is in some sort of relationship with
> an environment. IF not with respect to its environment what else then,
> stating the obvious borders on truisms.
Cut the crap. There isn't just one environment in this world, and the
outcome of natural selection depends on environment as a variable.
Any given mutation may be deleterious to an organism in one
environment, neutral in another environment, beneficial in yet
another. The probability of that given mutation becoming fixed in
that organism's population therefore depends on its environment. Re-
writing what I wrote as if I'd said that a deleterious mutation is
deleterious independent of the organism's environment completely
changes my meaning.
Mitchell Coffey
Cory Albrecht
This reminds me of Joss Whedon's commentary on the first episode of
Firefly. Everybody is righteous in their own mind and the hero of the story.
However, Jayne Cobb is a far more likable character than Nando.
backspace
> > Everything that is in existence is in some sort of relationship with
> > an environment. IF not with respect to its environment what else then,
> > stating the obvious borders on truisms.
> Cut the crap. There isn't just one environment in this world, and the
> outcome of natural selection depends on environment as a variable.
Natural selection has no true single meaning, are you referring to
DArwin's concept that the dinosaurs were less improved because they
are dead? What concept are you referring to with NS. The outcome of
everything in the material world depends on the environment as a
variable , this is a truism.
> Any given mutation may be deleterious to an organism in one
> environment, neutral in another environment, beneficial in yet
> another.
Covering all your bases as discussed elsewhere. Everything, every
thought and material effect is either because of harmful, neutral or
positive. There are no other possibilities. Your sentence is truistic,
it explains everything in every context for any condition and thus
explains nothing, your control of the facts is an illusion.
> The probability of that given mutation becoming fixed in
> that organism's population therefore depends on its environment.
What an amazing insight.....
backspace
> Mutations are seen in the lab BUT it's impossible to tell if something
> is a successful mutation nearly all the time. Most mutations are
> nuetral and have no effect, a small percentage are harmful and even a
> smaller amount are benefitial?
from thoughts to ideas to frogs and horses and dingbats, anything that
exists this is the truth. Your sentence is a truism.
> So how does this small percentage become wide spread? Through the individual that those genes create
> interacting with the environment and then their offspring etc over
> many generations. Over time random events get evened out.
=== rephrase ===
The small percentage of positive mutations become wide spread via the
individuals
leaving offspring.
"positive mutations" and "wide spread" are a synonymous play with
words that alludes to the same fact, but it doesn't tell us why the
mutations were positive. Obviously if the individuals leave offspring
something, anything positive had to take place or they wouldn't have
left offspring. But why were these mutations positive. The only metric
for "leaving offspring" is 'positive mutations", these two terms refer
to each other at the level of pragmatics self referentially as I
explained here: http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
> We use this information in engineering to evolve optimal solutions to things like
> the shape of a wing or how to reduce the weight of a jet plane.
Evolve in this context means positive towards our higher destiny
intent. Evolve in other contexts doesn't mean this, using one word for
multiple context is a way of sowing deceit.
Mitchell Coffey
> On Jul 17, 9:16 pm, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> > > Everything that is in existence is in some sort of relationship with
> > > an environment. IF not with respect to its environment what else then,
> > > stating the obvious borders on truisms.
> > Cut the crap. There isn't just one environment in this world, and the
> > outcome of natural selection depends on environment as a variable.
>
> Natural selection has no true single meaning, are you referring to
> DArwin's concept that the dinosaurs were less improved because they
> are dead?
You were caught with this lie about Darwin and dinosaurs before. Your
defense was a quote that did not support you.
You are trying to avoid the issue. I said exactly what I said.
Address what I wrote, without lying about it, not what Darwin wrote.
> What concept are you referring to with NS.
You are avoiding the issue, again. I said what I said. Address what
I wrote, without lying about it.
> The outcome of
> everything in the material world depends on the environment as a
> variable , this is a truism.
What I wrote was true. Why would this be an excuse for you to lie
about what I wrote?
> > Any given mutation may be deleterious to an organism in one
> > environment, neutral in another environment, beneficial in yet
> > another.
>
> Covering all your bases as discussed elsewhere. Everything, every
> thought and material effect is either because of harmful, neutral or
> positive. There are no other possibilities.
Then why do you deny that it is true? Why did you lie about what I
wrote? Why are you lying right now, and refusing to address the
actual point?
Address the point. Mutations are deleterious or not depending on a
given environment.
> Your sentence is truistic,
It's true, moron. Why would this be an excuse for you to lie about
what I wrote?
> it explains everything in every context for any condition and thus
> explains nothing, your control of the facts is an illusion.
Why would this be an excuse for you to lie about what I wrote? What
you say isn't true, because we can specify the environment.
> > The probability of that given mutation becoming fixed in
> > that organism's population therefore depends on its environment.
>
> What an amazing insight.....
Actually, it is. Why, if it is so simple, do you deny it takes
place? Denying it is pretty much all you do here. If it is so
simple, why did you lie about what I wrote and exclude it?
Mitchell Coffey
wf3h
>
> > > Everything that is in existence is in some sort of relationship with
> > > an environment. IF not with respect to its environment what else then,
> > > stating the obvious borders on truisms.
> > Cut the crap. There isn't just one environment in this world, and the
> > outcome of natural selection depends on environment as a variable.
>
> Natural selection has no true single meaning,
?? why does it have to have a SINGLE meaning? where did you learn your
science? at fundie camp?
it has to have a TESTABLE meaning. and it does.
are you referring to
> DArwin's concept that the dinosaurs were less improved because they
> are dead? What concept are you referring to with NS. The outcome of
> everything in the material world depends on the environment as a
> variable , this is a truism.
uh, no it's not. it's testable. that's how science works. again and
again you ask the same questions. the answers, as you yourself admit,
can not be understood within your religious framework. that's a
problem for YOU not for evolution.
Geode
> I've seen several scientists from way back, and several scientists
> from now say the same thing. It is mathematically impossible that
> evolution in general occurs through random mutations and natural
> selection. The numbers just don't add up, the ratio of working
> mutations and non working mutations is simply too small.
>
> mutation in the laboratory to prove random mutation / selection is
> true, because:
> 1. it is possible the mutation in the laboratory is not random but
> instead chosen in an informed and reasoned way
> 2. there is not sufficient basis to generalize to all nature based on
> a few mutations in the laboratory.
>
> working changes occur in very few generations, indicating this is not
> random mutations and natural selection at work, because natural
> selection is expected to work much slower then that. Randomness has a
> certain pattern, so to prove random mutations are true it is not
> sufficient to note that a mutation has taken place, you actually have
> to show that the mutation coincedes with a pattern of randomness,
> instead of that it conincides with a pattern of reasoned and informed
> decisionmaking. The facts show the mutations coincide more with a
> pattern of reasoned and informed decisionmaking, rather than with a
> pattern of randomness.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Mathematics have no anything to analyze in this case, for we don't
know yet how it functions the genetic mechanism. So far we dont know
yet, what part of the genes rule the development of an organism. So
this argument about mathematics calculating the probabilities of
random mutations are distiled horsemanure.
Leopoldo
nando_r...@yahoo.com
generally for Darwinists people are the masters of the universe. Most
Darwinists dont even pray to God, the creator of the universe.
It is just a matter of fact whether or not people were likely to be at
the start of the universe, and the evidence indicates it was the case.
But ofcourse the Darwinists are fearful of any evidence of creation of
man, whom they hold to be the master of nature and the universe.
I have learned that some cancer research is proceeding along the lines
like I said would be productive, studying the autonomous behaviour of
cells and body, producing variation in results through decision. Its
good to hear not all science is awash with atheists, that some still
believe freedom is real and believe that things originate through a
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Generally for creationists God is the master of the universe, and
> generally for Darwinists people are the masters of the universe.
Um, where do you get the idea that "Darwinist" (Those that accept the
ToE as a valid scientific theory) think humans are the "Masters of the
Universe"?
> Most
> Darwinists dont even pray to God, the creator of the universe.
You're confusing "Those who accept the ToE as a valid scientific
theory" with atheists.
>
> It is just a matter of fact whether or not people were likely to be at
> the start of the universe, and the evidence indicates it was the case.
What evidence would that be?
> But ofcourse the Darwinists are fearful of any evidence of creation of
> man, whom they hold to be the master of nature and the universe.
And I suppose you have valid evidence to support that claim, also?
>
> I have learned that some cancer research is proceeding along the lines
> like I said would be productive, studying the autonomous behaviour of
> cells and body, producing variation in results through decision.
Whatever the researchers are studying, it's not likely that it has
anyhing more than a passin resemblence to you usual innane and insane
blathercrap.
> Its
> good to hear not all science is awash with atheists, that some still
> believe freedom is real and believe that things originate through a
> decisionprocess.
Which only demonstrates that you are again deluding yourself into
thinking that what they ae doing has anything to do with the lunacy of
your warped little imaginary world.
Boikat
nando_r...@yahoo.com
power of freedom, choosing, consequently they believe people are the
masters of the universe.
A predator that behaves freely has the advantage of surprise in
attack, and a prey that behaves freely has the advantage of
unpredictability in escape. A decision can turn out one way or
another, hence surprise and unpredictability. Often in nature
comporable hostile organisms engage in a mutual stare. The chances of
fight or flight fluctuate wildly during such engagements due to their
decisionmakingcapability, but outwardly nothing much seems to be
happening, the creatures often standing very still.
Go ahead Darwinist and acknowledge the power of freedom in animals.
But most Darwinist will just stuff the animal meat into their mouths
without saying a prayer.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Dr.Gary Hurd
> http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/
>
> fnord
R. Webster Kehr is a major loon. Thanks for the link.
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> A Darwinist like wf3h and Boikat believe that only people posses the
> power of freedom,
Depending on your context and definition of "freedom".
> choosing, consequently they believe people are the
> masters of the universe.
Being able to make choices does not make one "master of the universe".
>
> A predator that behaves freely has the advantage of surprise in
> attack, and a prey that behaves freely has the advantage of
> unpredictability in escape.
Yes. So?
> A decision can turn out one way or
> another, hence surprise and unpredictability.
Yes. So?
> Often in nature
> comporable hostile organisms engage in a mutual stare.
Big deal.
> The chances of
> fight or flight fluctuate wildly during such engagements due to their
> decisionmakingcapability, but outwardly nothing much seems to be
> happening, the creatures often standing very still.
That's part of the game, stupid.
>
> Go ahead Darwinist and acknowledge the power of freedom in animals.
Yes, certain *animals* have a degree odf freedom, in *that* context.
Did you have some other contextual point in mind?
> But most Darwinist will just stuff the animal meat into their mouths
> without saying a prayer.
What in the hell does that have to do with your "freedom" blathercrap?
Boikat
nando_r...@yahoo.com
their behaviour with it. You are the first Darwinist on the newsgroups
ever to do so.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Boikat
Nobody has *ever* denied that sort of freedom in animals, you mindless
twit.
> explaining
> their behaviour with it. You are the first Darwinist on the newsgroups
> ever to do so.
Wrong. The problem in the past is you applied the same context as
above to *FUCKING ROCKS*.
Boikat
Woland
> On Jul 17, 9:16 pm, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> > > Everything that is in existence is in some sort of relationship with
> > > an environment. IF not with respect to its environment what else then,
> > > stating the obvious borders on truisms.
> > Cut the crap. There isn't just one environment in this world, and the
> > outcome of natural selection depends on environment as a variable.
>
> Natural selection has no true single meaning, are you referring to
> DArwin's concept that the dinosaurs were less improved because they
> are dead? What concept are you referring to with NS. The outcome of
> everything in the material world depends on the environment as a
> variable , this is a truism.
Which means that the theory is true by definition. You may now go back
to speaking gibberish while furiously masturbating in your own filth.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
supporting the hypothesis that animals can behave freely. There is no
science paper that establishes the physics of choosing.
Darwinists dont consider choosing to be related to alternatives, but
to the calculation of an optimal value.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
Just depending on which way the decisions turn out. So can a fucking
cell do that, or should these fucking cancer researchers give up
trying to understand that way.
regards,
Mohamnad Nur Syamsu
Woland
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You have not been paying attention Boikat, you are out on a limb here
> supporting the hypothesis that animals can behave freely.
Everyone knows that animals behave freely.
>There is no
> science paper that establishes the physics of choosing.
That's because it doesn't exist.
Rich Mathers
Boy are you fucking confused. Or are you confused about fucking? Or
is it that you have confused fucking? Do you have kids?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
including human consciousness.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu