|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..." | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8533 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Whatever reason you have for believing in universal common descent, you will have to find another explanation because universal common descent is not true. We don't believe you. We know better.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4413 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
I found a lot of information about ERVs in this Wikipedia: Endogenous Retrovirus article.
quote: quote: quote: Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
He's a creationist, so what can you expect?
In my four decades of experience, I've learned that almost no creationist ever knows what he is talking about. All they know is what creationists have told them, which they memorize and are able to spout off at the drop of a hat (which is why I never wear a hat -- old Woody Allen joke about an ex-wife: "She'd have sex at the drop of a hat, but the marriage failed because I wouldn't wear a hat"). Basically, they learn scripts of encounters which they play out all the time without ever understanding anything behind the script -- I saw this half a century ago with the proselytizing training materials for the Jesus Freaks and it hasn't changed the least bit since then (which is why I love to go off-script with them). That is why the worst thing you can do to a creationist is to try to discuss his claims with him (he has no response because he doesn't understand anything about his own claims except that he was taught that just uttering those magic words would cause "evolutionists" to shrivel up before his eyes) but far worse than that would be to ask him, "What are your talking about?" In decades of engaging online with creationists, none have ever even tried to answer that question honestly. Now, the YECs were easy. Their bogus claims were so transparently bogus that we could refute them immediately and with no effort (just think of candle2 and radiocarbon dating methods). But this new breed is a bit more difficult. The Old School creationists would assume authority far outside their fields of expertise and so made themselves very vulnerable -- of course so many of them had no expertise at all (eg, Kent Hovind), but some did have some expertise somewhere yet always pontificated far outside of it. They were and are so easy to refute. This new breed is a bit of a tougher nut to crack. They have acquired some degree of expertise, often in a field that most people find to be esoteric, and they try to stay close to that field. While even the most basic knowledge of science allows you to refute a YEC, this new breed requires you to be conversant in information theory and higher math in order to refute them. IOW, while they are still slinging basically the same old bullshit, their bullshit appears to be of a much finer quality (maybe at the peak of Mount Bandini instead of at its base). In all debates/encounters with creationists, we can immediately see that their claims are nonsense, but it's so much easier to show that a YEC's nonsense is nonsense than to show that for an IDiot's nonsense. IOW, it's nothing more than they old college maxim (especially for essay exams that you hadn't properly prepared for): "If you can't blind them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit." Yes, that is directly related to doing a "snow job" (I have been in a North Dakota blizzard; no howling wind but rather a dead silence as tons of snow dropped down upon you). Like the typical know-nothing creationist who only knows his script, LittleMan (auf deutsch heißt "little", "klein") keeps harping on the very small number of studies in his script, even though their math models of asexual reproduction are far insufficient to apply to sexual reproduction (as has been pointed out to him over and over again for so many times). All he knows is his script, so he is incapable of dealing with anything that goes off-script for him ... such as sexual reproduction. That is why he cannot deal with Taq nor with anybody else who tries to take him off-script. He keeps bragging about being such a mathematical genius, but if so then why doesn't he realize that mathematics are absolutely worthless unless applied properly. I am a retired software engineer. In addition, I pursued gaming on the side -- entering into a military career (which I ended up continuing in the reserves) I looked to wargaming as a way to analyze military operations ("Amateurs study battles; professionals study organization and logistics."). Almost every single program depends on a math model. There's some real-world situation or system that you need to represent and work with, which means that you need to create a math model of the situation or system. What are the input data, how to process them, and how to present the output? One approach I learned was to start with the output, figure out what inputs we needed, then figure out that middle ground of how to process the inputs to generate the outputs. On an even lower level, the issue of data representation would always come up (it was a much lower-level issue than Wikipedia would have it now). How do you represent all these factors in a computer program? Whatever else you can say, every single computer program depends on formulating a mathematical model. In MultiMate/excel I've created spreadsheets for the schedule of mortgage payments (in that example, it wasn't until year 26 of a 30-year mortgage that you've paid off half of the balance -- sickening, isn't that?) and much more recently federal income tax estimates. So Littleman wants to apply the math models for asexual reproduction to models for sexual reproduction. That makes as much sense as applying my mortgage spreadsheet models as being essential to estimating my federal income tax. Speaking as a retired software engineer with 36 years professional experience, I have that many years plus another 5 years of schooling of experience in that programming practice of modeling the data. LittleMan's hyper-attention to the mathematics at the expense of the math models they are supposed to support exposes a very serious vulnerability in his creationist bias. Linguistically, math is a language. Much as algebra is also a language (which serves as a very good teaching tool if applied properly). In English you can say things that are very true and profound, but also things that are very foolish and idiotic. The language is the same while the underlying argument is totally bogus. Similarly, math is dependent on the underlying math model. In formal logic, a logically valid argument is valid, but it can only lead to true conclusions if all its premises are true. Similarly, mathematics can only lead to true conclusions if the math model itself is true. So the proof is not so much in the math itself as it is in the math model itself. Set up an utterly false math model and the mathematics based on that model will prove it out conclusively. But base those calculations on a truer math model and you will get very different results. For example, the probability models that most creationists use for "evolution" are hopelessly hopeless. Make every change happen all at once out of nowhere. This is known as "single-step selection". The probability of that is astronomically small such that to so produce the alphabet in alphabetical order with a million attempts every second, would require multiple trillions of years to accomplish. Yet using cumulative selection in each generation in which the closest individual to the goal is selected to generate the next generation of attempts results in a solution in much under a minute of time. Such is the power of evolution (the cumulative selection model was patterned after how life itself and also evolution work). I have personally seen creationist "evolution models" which were quite literally based on coin tosses: "Evolution requires ten coin tosses to come up heads", "No it doesn't you idiot!" Until someone comes up with a proper math model for evolution, none of your BS applies, LittleMan. models (or
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 357 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Tanypteryx:It's about time. Shouldn't you have done your homework before making claims about endogenous retroviruses? So, Wikipedia answers some of my questions from Message 478 1. What percentage of the human and chimpanzee genome is made up of what you call ERVs?Humans 5-8%, chimpanzee? 2. How did humans and chimpanzees or your primate progenitor acquire these ERVs? Infection, either somatic or germline cells. But, Wikipedia:So you have a problem here, how do somatic cell retroviral infections make it into germ cell lines? 3. When did humans and chimpanzees or your primate progenitor acquire these ERVs? Millions of years 4. How many bases are in a typical retrovirus? Not given in your reference but in this reference: Retrovirus - Wikipedia Wikipedia:5. Are ERVs biologically active and perform some type of genetic activity for the cell or are they what biologists like to call "junk" DNA? Some may be yes, others no. So, let's start by doing some simple analysis. 5% of the human genome is 150,000,000 bases. And if each retrovirus is about 10,000 bases long, That would mean about 15,000 rare germline infections that don't kill the offspring in the lineage that leads to humans and chimps. But we still don't know the percentage of the chimp genome that is ERVs. And since we are trying to answer these questions, are these stretches of DNA which are being called ERVs really retroviruses, or are they simply stretches of host DNA that control its own gene transcription? And if these are retroviruses, what happened to the genes from the virus that code for its own proteins such as capsules, binding proteins, and enzymes necessary to replicate itself using the host's microanatomy? Tany, I think you have a problem with your claim that these ERVs show that humans and chimps descended from a common ancestor. But if you think you can still make your case, I'll listen and consider whether it is consistent with what I've learned about retroviruses in my biochemistry course, pathology course, and other studies. I suspect what was done by the researchers that made this claim is the same problem that is made by the researchers doing inferential phylogenetics, they are not random sampling their data.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Kleinman writes:
And yet you keep replying.
Just because you are a nitpicker doesn't make you interesting. Kleinman writes:
They already know. Where do you think we get our information?
Tell it to the biologists so that AZPaul3 can have a chance to win his bet with Dredge. Kleinman writes:
And you keep replying to them.
Sixty-four posts filling space... Kleinman writes:
I don't think I've ever started a topic. It isn't what I do. Why don't you start a topic on abiogenesis? YOU are the one who claims to have the goods on abiogenesis and you claim I know nothing. Put your money where your mouth is."Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Do you understand the difference between "improbable" and "impossible"? The former is impossible... Unless the probability is ZERO, it is possible."Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
I said, "google it." Action? What action?"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
One thing at a time. Are you going to take me up on my offer to school you in chemistry or not? While you're at it, give me a kindergarten-level in spelling. "panick"?"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Put up or shut up. Start a topic. ringo writes:
An atheist fairy tale. Abiogenesis is practically inevitable"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
ringo writes:
The probability of life arising naturally from inanimate matter would be LESS than zero ... that's how IMPOSSIBLE it is (cf. the probability that Christ will return is 1 ... ie, a certainty). Do you understand the difference between "improbable" and "impossible"? Unless the probability is ZERO, it is possible. ringo logic: "The probability of me winning the lottery one thousand times in row is not zero ... therefore it could happen." LOL!! "A statistical impossibility is a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 10−50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a rational, reasonable argument."Forbidden - Stack Exchange. Leave your embarrassing, anti-science, atheist fairy-tale behind and grow up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
The probability of life arising naturally from inanimate matter would be LESS than zero No probability is less than zero. Study a bit of maths.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
vimesey writes:
The value of P can be less than zero ... just as IQ can be less than zero.
No probability is less than zero. Study a bit of maths.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
You really do know how to put your foot in it, don't you. Try reading this and educate yourself:
Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 357 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
dwise1:Why does it gall you so much that DNA adaptive evolution is a binomial probability problem? The random trial is a replication and the two possible outcomes are a beneficial mutation occurs or a beneficial mutation does not occur. A perfect example of the simple things confounding dwise1.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 357 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Dredge:It's good to see that vimesey has some understanding of probability theory. I wonder if vimesey knows how to use the "at least one rule" to compute the probability of at least one adaptive mutation occurring depending on the number of replication trials of a particular variant. It would really help dwise1 in his quest to understand DNA adaptive evolution.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024