Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 861 of 1429 (899193)
10-09-2022 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 857 by xongsmith
10-09-2022 6:38 PM


Re: Dredge tries with Re: what did it?
Sorry, don't know banjo so the number of strings mean little to me. Though I studied a bit about the guitar notes, so I assume something similar. Hands getting too arthritic now so I'll just stick to keyboard.
Back in the late 1960's, folk singer Pete Seeger was on a variety show with a banjo. He described playing it as picking out one melody at the bottom and another melody at the top, all at the same time; (from memory):
quote:
It's as easy as walking. 'Course then, it took you a few years to learn how to walk.
Just thought you might enjoy that one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 857 by xongsmith, posted 10-09-2022 6:38 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 862 of 1429 (899194)
10-09-2022 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 851 by Dredge
10-09-2022 6:05 PM


Re: Dredge tries with Re: what did it?
Found any whales with a fused sacrum yet? LOL!
I already gave that info to you, you fucking idiot.
You claim to have found something different? So what? Battling links? Really?
Let's face it: you are a creationist. That immediately makes you evil (by your own admission!) and everybody even remotely familiar with this kind of discussion knows that creationists lie all the time! -- how could creationists not lie all the time since their entire thing is to deny reality?
 
Do please make some kind of attempt at some kind of actual argument. Your persistent idiocy is so tiresome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 851 by Dredge, posted 10-09-2022 6:05 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 919 by Dredge, posted 10-19-2022 12:54 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 863 of 1429 (899196)
10-10-2022 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 850 by xongsmith
10-09-2022 6:05 PM


Re: Dredge tries with Re: what did it?
but i was saying that none of us humans can comprehend or grok what BILLIONS actually means. we use math, but we have no feel for these gigous numbers.

this means that when you wonder how a tooth could ever get hollow, you are showing that you are not really understanding BILLIONS of years.
I take you to be a mathematical kind of guy. Darwin wrote regarding the evolution of the eye that our ability to imagine how that could happen fails us, but when we apply reason we can work it out. The same is true whenever we try to work with higher diimensions: while we cannot visualize 11 dimensions, we can still work with them rigorously through mathematics.
Back shortly before 1990 I read Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker", including the first half of his Chapter Three, "Accumulating Small Changes" (as I recall). He described a simple program, WEASEL, which randomly generated an arbitrary string from Shakespeare, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL". Rather than a model for evolution (which he never claimed it to be) it still did illustrate the difference between single-step selection (a series of generating a random string that, should it fail to any degree, sent you back to starting entirely from scratch -- ie, the typical "probability model of creationists") and cumulative selection in which you'd produce a population of possible solutions and then select the closest one from which to "spawn" the next population of possible solutions (with each new contestant differing from the selected parent by only one letter).
He never provided example code (as I recall, he had written it in BASIC on a Mac, so an interpretive program (always slower than compiled code) that he left running over lunch -- the single-step selection solution would take a far greater time to succeed than the age of the universe). So I took his description of the program as a specification and developed my own code which I called MONKEY (for Eddington's infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters banging out Shakespeare completely at random). Years later, my code was added to the collection at a web site devoted to these programs where it was deemed to be the one most faithful to Dawkins' (of course, since I used his description as my spec).
I could not believe Dawkins' claim, so I wrote my own version of his program in Pascal, my working language at the time. When I ran it and it worked incredibly well (produced the alphabet in alphabetical order in about 20 seconds on a Norton Factor 2 IBM XT clone), I still couldn't believe it nor trust it (completely opposite of a creationist's reaction, BTW). What was the trick? As an engineer, I had to know, so I analyzed the probability math involved, which involved Markov chains (something that "Little Man" (AKA "Kleinman") was harping on elsewhere to make himself look more important -- basically, you construct a finite state machine -- I did it all the time at work, especially for working out the serial protocol for a new GPS receiver, such that I basically became the specialist for that (*) -- and you would progress from step to step in accordance with the probability of taking either step.
Basically for every step in the MONKEY Markov chain, there was a probability that you would progress to the next state, a probability that you would stay at the current state, and a probability that you would regress to the prior state. BTW, each state involved choosing a single position in the string at random and replace it with a random letter.
Here's the thing, though. The closer you approached the target string, the greater the probability of choosing a location with a correct letter and replacing it with a wrong letter (BTW, this completely negates typical ID discussion of this experiment, which falsely assumes "locking rings" that lock in any correct letter -- sorry, not in the original spec and nowhere to be found in my own MONKEY (I have posted my source code in both Pascal and in C, so show me those "locking rings!" They do not exist!)).
Alexander Graham Cairns-Smith FRSE (he was an organic chemist and molecular biologist at the University of Glasgow) wrote in Seven Clues to the Origin of Life (1985):
quote:
If you have things that are reproducing their kind; if there are sometimes random variations, neverhtless, in the offspring; if such variations can be inherited; if some such variationscan sometimes confer an advantage on their owners; if there is a competition between the reproducing entities -- if there is an overproduction so that not all will be able to survive to produce offspring themselves -- then these entities will get better at reproducing their kind. Nature acts as a selective breeder in these circumstances: the stock cannot help but improve.
Well, why does MONKEY and WEASEL work so incredibly well? Even in the Markov-chain probability figures, the probability of any individual progressing towards that target string is still very low
But the secret is that MONKEY, WEASEL, and evolution itself working through cumulative selection are progressing along many parallel paths. Also, cumulative selection uses small steps starting from a previous point as opposed to single-step selection which attempts it all in one swell foop (like Dredge's stupid typical creationist belief in individuals acquiring a new complex characteristic in a single instant, AKA saltationism). It would take single-step selection, creation ex nihilo's method, trillions of years to generate my alphabet target string (assuming an impossibly fast super-computer running continuously), yet it only took my XT no more than 30 seconds (depending on population size) using cumulative selection, which is evolution's method.
What is the probability of any single path succeeding? Small and it gets smaller as you approach the target string (ie, the probability of replacing a correct letter with a wrong one increases). But what is the probability of every single individual attempt failing every single time for generation after generation after generation? Vanishingly small, which makes an eventual success inevitable.
Ever play Lotto or SuperLotto or even Powerball? Ever worked out the probability that you individually might win? Very low. But with so many millions playing that same game, what is the probability that somebody, anybody in the entire US population might win? Very likely! Parallel paths within a population. Sounds like something custom-made for evolution!
Basically, the "evolution lottery" boils down to a matter of the probabilities of the needed changes not happening becoming vanishingly small as to become impossible. So the probability of them happening becoming inevitable.
That is why evolution works! And why it works so well.

* FOOTNOTE:
Engineering sea story (we used to call them "war stories" when I was in the Air Force).
One of the GPS receivers used in its serial communications protocol a very different floating-point format, ones from DEC computers instead of the now ubiquitous IEEE 754.
Binary floating-point format involves a string of bits divided into three fields: a sign bit, a binary exponent field in two's complement, and a binary mantissa. This also usually comes in single-precision (C's float datatype) and double-precision (C's double). The problem was that the exponent and mantissa fields in the DEC formats were a different size than in IEEE 754.
My task was to write conversion functions to convert incoming DEC numbers to IEEE 754 for internal use and then from IEEE 754 to DEC for commands to the receiver. Not only did that involve a lot of bit fiddling with no room for error, but on top of that the DEC numbers were big-endian while our device was little-endian, so I had to switch those bytes around as well. This was a non-trivial task that required a lot of concentration and rigorous attention to detail.
At the time, I assisted a West Coast Swing teacher, including in her ladies styling class. I quickly realized that having a guy sit there watching women learning styling would seem rather creepy to them, so I developed the habit of bringing something to read or to work on so that I wouldn't be watching. So I brought in my notes and scratch paper and within one 45-minute class I not only worked out all the bit fiddling, field resizing, byte reversal, etc and even started writing the code. Next Monday all I had to do was type in and complete the code, test it (worked perfectly), and schedule the code review.
Going into the code review, I told everybody the circumstances under which I had written it, which perked everybody up. I have never seen a room full of programmers work harder than they did to find a fault, any fault, in my code. Not only could they not find any fault, but it had come very close to the Holy Grail of Programming: a program that not only compiles clean the first time, but also works perfectly the first time.
 

This message is a reply to:
 Message 850 by xongsmith, posted 10-09-2022 6:05 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 865 of 1429 (899198)
10-10-2022 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 864 by Dredge
10-10-2022 12:54 AM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
OK, I'm calling "bullshit" on your nonsense.
When an electrical engineer designs a circuit, how much does he directly depend on quantum mechanics?
Answer: none.
Does what he does do ultimately depend on quantum mechanics? Yes, of course!
Basically, why would you ever require generation after generation of electrical engineers constantly reinvent the wheel?
Does that electrical engineer ever have to think ALL THE TIME about the foundations of everything that he does and think? Of course not!, you fucking idiot! He already know what works!
I forget the actual quote or its source, but: We can see so far because we stand upon the shoulders of giants.
Every medical researcher and medical tech knows the theoretical basis of their work. Do they have to think of that basis all the time and base everything they ever do on those fundamental principles? Of course not! Those fundamental principles are basic knowledge, basically a given for them. No need to question any of it.
IOW, your "weak questions and vague bullshit" are nothing but meaningless bullshit meant only to try to distract them from their far more important work.
If you cannot lead or follow, then do please get the fuck out of the way!
You fucking stupid idiot!
 

This message is a reply to:
 Message 864 by Dredge, posted 10-10-2022 12:54 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 866 by Dredge, posted 10-10-2022 2:53 AM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 867 by Dredge, posted 10-10-2022 6:47 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 887 of 1429 (899330)
10-12-2022 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 886 by ringo
10-11-2022 10:31 PM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
Finally, I realized that I still had the Sharon Stone graphic, so I switched back.
Yeah, switch it up, keep it interesting.
Like River Song talking about the lovers she had taken (before recognizing who the Twelfth Doctor was). One was from the Nestene Consciousness but she made sure that he had a few different heads just to keep it interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 886 by ringo, posted 10-11-2022 10:31 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 888 of 1429 (899331)
10-12-2022 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 885 by Dredge
10-11-2022 6:28 PM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
Why are you using my girlfriend's image as your avatar?
Girlfriend? Really?
I've been taking you for an incel (involuntary celibate), the type of guy who gets bent out of shape because girls won't have anything to do with them (and for good reason -- your troll characteristics would most definitely be a turn-off leading any female to seek all possible exits). I was thinking that it's a very good thing for that Kindergarten down the street from you that Australia has gun control laws.
Are you one of those guys who is genuinely surprised to find that girls don't have staples in their navel? Or have I spoiled the surprise? Sorry. Spoilers!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 885 by Dredge, posted 10-11-2022 6:28 PM Dredge has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 889 of 1429 (899332)
10-12-2022 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 856 by Dredge
10-09-2022 6:30 PM


Re: Dredge tries with Re: what did it?
So your best scientific explanation for how a venomous snake came to have hollow fangs is ... wait for it (drum roll) ... "billions of years done it"?
Oh, you went there! To one of the absolutely stupidest creationist "arguments".
Classically, it goes something like:
quote:
Evolutionist fairy-tale: frog plus lots of time equals prince
castle2 did something similar (don't want to waste my time hunting it down again) that went something like: "How long does my bicycle need to wait to become a mountain motorbike?"
It's not just time, you fucking idiot! But rather that what actually happens requires time, time which you insist on eliminating.
A simpler response would be baking a cake. We mix the ingredients together and put them into a cake pan or form (I'd been making Pineapple Upside Down Cake, so it was my skillet, though my earlier Apfelkuchen would use a pie pan). Put all that into an oven and take it out immediately and expect a cake. Instead, you have uncooked batter. What went wrong? Oh! As a creationist you eliminated time. It takes time for a cake to bake. But what about just mixing everything together and give it time by waiting an hour? Why didn't that work, Atheist!? Sigh! You need both the proper heat (ie, properly heated oven) and time. But still it does take time!
Not convinced? OK, I've been thinking about another analogy, one that more closely fits your own misrepresentations of evolution. Hope you enjoy the ride, because it's a road trip from Sydney to Perth (or Perth to Sydney in case there's some cultural thingee with you).
According to Google Maps, the distance from Sydney to Perth (or vice versa) is 3932 km (2442.23153 miles) along National Highway 1 and National Highway A1 and the entire journey by car will take 41 hours (so then, average speed of 95.9 kph, or 60 mph). Assuming driving 8 to 12 hours per day, the entire trip should last 5 to three and a half days.
OK according to your various messages here, you reject the idea that that journey would be anything but instantaneous (eg, all evolutionary change must occur within a single generation). So your car is parked in Perth, you get into it, close the door, then open the door and get out and expect to be in Sydney. And because you don't find yourself in Sydney, you declare that travel from Perth to Sydney is impossible!
OK, it takes 3.5 to 5 days to get there from here (old Maine joke ("Ye can't get the'a from he'a!")). So you get in your car and sit there for 41 hours (or 3.5 to 5 days), get out and you're still in Perth?. Well that proves that it's impossible!
Uh, Dude, you gotta start the car. OK, you repeat the experiment and start the car. But the experiment fails when you run out of petrol (AKA gasoline, AKA gas, AKA Benzin) the first day as you sat there still parked in Perth with your engine running. Oh! That definitely proves that it's impossible!
Uh, Dude, you gotta actually drive there. I mean, that's how it works, ... Dude.
 
That kind of complete and utter stupidity is exactly what we see you doing with this BS nonsense. And you wonder why we have so little patience with your willful stupidity and trollness?
The entire evolutionary process of generation after generation reproducing, each generation being very similar to yet slightly different from the previous, the way that they have to survive mutating slowly over each generation, the more beneficial mutations becoming more predominant in the population because the parents with those beneficial mutations produced more offspring and hence became more represented in the next population, etc, etc, etc over many subsequent generations. Each generation takes a finite amount of time, so many generations take many such amounts of time. Time is not the agent, but rather time is the enabler of many generations of life doing what life does, the net result of which is the best definition for evolution that I can think of.
When you get a response of "lots of time", what they are actually saying is "lots of generations" -- lots of generations are needed and lots of generations do require lots of time. And a helluva lot of can happen in that many generations.
Remember the actual probabilities. It is very unlikely for something to happen for one individual in one generation, [i]but for it to be unable to happen for the entire population for generation after generation after generation becomes so unlikely as to be virtually impossible, so the inverse, that it could happen at least once, becomes inevitable. And once it happens, it can be inherited and then spread throughout the population from there.
 
I'm still waiting for you to follow up on your mention of the vertebrate eye (OK, you said the human eye, but we did inherit that fully formed from other mammals). It should prove to be ineresting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 856 by Dredge, posted 10-09-2022 6:30 PM Dredge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 893 by ringo, posted 10-12-2022 3:25 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 892 of 1429 (899353)
10-12-2022 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 891 by Theodoric
10-12-2022 7:41 AM


Re: Dredgings: google confirms my guess
Yeah, it's a numbers game. For a new trait to outcompete the old trait does not require those with the old trait to die out because they were unable to survive (though I have no doubt that that is part of creationists' misunderstanding of evolution, as in "Then why are there still monkeys?"). Rather, a larger and growing part of the population would have the new trait and a shrinking part the old trait. From there, if the older trait subpopulation became separated then they could form a new species, but I would think a more likely outcome would be that all members of the population would eventually have the new trait.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 891 by Theodoric, posted 10-12-2022 7:41 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 903 of 1429 (899445)
10-13-2022 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 902 by Dredge
10-13-2022 8:58 PM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
You knew what you were doing to cause those superscripts, but claimed you didn't know what was causing it. Now you have confessed that you did indeed know.
Withholding necessary information in order to increase acrimony is troll behavior. Because of that, you do not deserve an apology, but we do deserve one from you.
You should be trying to build a reputation for acting in good faith rather than digging your troll hole even deeper.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 902 by Dredge, posted 10-13-2022 8:58 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 904 by Dredge, posted 10-13-2022 9:23 PM dwise1 has replied
 Message 905 by nwr, posted 10-13-2022 9:25 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 906 of 1429 (899450)
10-13-2022 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 904 by Dredge
10-13-2022 9:23 PM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything

This message is a reply to:
 Message 904 by Dredge, posted 10-13-2022 9:23 PM Dredge has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 915 of 1429 (899468)
10-14-2022 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 914 by ringo
10-14-2022 12:11 PM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
How many feet can you get in your mouth at once?
All depends. He's from Australia, so maybe he's part Tasmanian Devil? I saw a photo of one and its mouth went from shoulder to shoulder. I had a dog like that once.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 914 by ringo, posted 10-14-2022 12:11 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1051 of 1429 (901185)
11-05-2022 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1049 by Phat
11-05-2022 11:44 AM


Re: If Spideys Exist
God could be imaginary and no matter how many people believe it would be irrelevant.
OR...
God could actually exist, in which case no amount of science, philosophy, or supposed human evidence could wave Him away.
Third possibility:
Some powerful supernatural entity that could qualify as "God" actually exists, but there is no evidence of it.
Lacking any evidence of that entity to be able to learn anything about it (Situation Normal whenever we try to deal with the supernatural), so people just do what they always do when they don't know what they're talking about: they make sh*t up.
Hence it's the same as the first possibility that the "God" people have made up is imaginary despite the supernatural existence (not sure how that would work) of a likely candidate for the title of "God".
This would be like ringo's point in Message 1050 about the existence of unicorns (the National Animal of Scotland, BTW -- check out the UK Coat of Arms):
ringo writes:
Unicorns could actually exist, in which case no amount of science, philosophy, or supposed human evidence could wave them away. But if there is no evidence that unicorns exist, they are irrelevant for any practical purpose.
Fourth possibility is a weakness of your second possibility:
So God exists, but the very nature of God is so incredibly far beyond the ability of our puny fallible human minds that we cannot understand it. As a result, we puny humans just make up sh*t about it based on what little we know (which is far less than we think).
Given how extremely little evidence we can find (if any) of it, the many thousands of different gods we have made up and continue to make up all the time are no better than the first possibility that they are imaginary, all made up from our own imagination.
For your second possibility to have any effect at all, your god would need to make itself manifestly apparent. Since that has not happened (independently of the ingestion of certain substances like bad burritos), [language=body]slight head movement with raised eyebrows and gesture with both hands to signify, "Nu?"[/language].
End result is that everybody "knows" what "God" is and disagrees with everybody else about it. The US Supreme Court has even ruled in church-state separation cases that government references to "God" are pretty much devoid of meaning and hence do not violate the separation clause of the First Amendment (I have errands to run so I'll have to hunt down that quote for you later).
 
So, harking back to my earlier topic about why believers approaching atheists are so fixated on "Why don't you believe God exists?" (corollary: "What is you absolute proof that God doesn't exist?").
Whether any of the gods exist or not is really of no importance and very little interest. My own reason for leaving Christianity and becoming an atheist had absolutely nothing to do with God. Rather, I looked at what I was being required to believe and realized that I simply could not believe it.
And as believers have tried to convert me over the subsequent more-than-half-a-century they have consistently failed not because of any "I don't believe in God" position, but rather because I don't believe them. God has nothing to do with any of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1049 by Phat, posted 11-05-2022 11:44 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 1055 of 1429 (901194)
11-05-2022 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1053 by Dredge
11-05-2022 6:44 PM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
You cannot find your own ass with both hands and a flashlight.
Does that mean that it doesn't exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1053 by Dredge, posted 11-05-2022 6:44 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1057 by Dredge, posted 11-05-2022 7:22 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1082 of 1429 (901391)
11-08-2022 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1057 by Dredge
11-05-2022 7:22 PM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
Sorry, I don't follow.
Why am I not surprised?
All I did was to toss your own argument back at you. And, of course, you didn't understand it. Which is so sadly typical of creationists.
Why am I not surprised?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1057 by Dredge, posted 11-05-2022 7:22 PM Dredge has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(3)
Message 1158 of 1429 (902645)
11-26-2022 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1156 by Dredge
11-25-2022 8:31 PM


Re: UCD evidence
AZPaul3 writes:
Can you cite any papers attesting to this indifference by medicine to the descent of life?
​That's like asking me to cite papers attesting to the indifference by medicine to the Tooth Fairy
Actually, he just presented a very good point there. You're just too stubbornly stupid -- and naturally stupid as well -- to realize it.
Why publish scientific papers at all? Well, it's part of research.
What do most scientists and medical researchers want to research? Examples would be:
  • To discover something new.
  • To work on a solution (or find a likely direction to take on a solution) to a particular problem.
  • To test somebody else's research in order to either find support for it or to find problems with it, maybe even to refute it. In science, that is a very important use of research.
  • To find problems in existing practices or procedures.
  • To find problems with existing theory.
One reason for research that you will almost never see is to constantly reinvent the wheel. Why? Because it would be a completely unnecessary waste of time, effort, and money (doing research does cost money). Because doing so would be like expecting me to completely rederive all the proofs of mathematics leading up to and including the proofs for finding a derivative every time I do a problem in differential calculus (though recently, half a century after having gone through that proof before, just for fun I did perform the proof for the derivative of the term xn -- after you've proven that, the derivative of axn is trivial). Or to perform all the experiments for deriving Ohm's Law and the power equation every time I use them in the design of an electrical circuit.
Having to reinvent the wheel every time you need to use one is utterly stupid. The only time that one should need to go through all the proofs of mathematics is when you are learning mathematics. Same with all the formulas of physics, or with using the Periodic Table of Elements in chemistry, or with all kinds of lab procedures. Go through how they were developed and proven out in school while you are learning them, but once you have learned them then just use them. Until it is your turn to teach someone else.
The fact of common ancestry of species and the resultant relationships between species because of that has already been established. No further research is needed -- except for exploring certain specific relationships, but that would not be done within the field of medical research. We already know that, so we can just simply use it.
That means that the lack of explicit reinventing the wheel of common descent of species in medical research papers is they have more important things to do in that paper than to spend many of pages (hundreds, even, to do a complete job of it) to rederiving something that we already know.
However, if one could do scientific research to try to refute common ancestry. Or to show that it has no use in medical research. So why hasn't that been done yet?
That was AZPaul3's question to you. Your only answer was that such research would be so useless that it wouldn't even have any reason for existing, like medical research into the influence of the Tooth Fairy.
So again, where are the papers attesting to your asserted indifference by medicine to the descent of life?
 
Of course, you are far too stubbornly stupid (and also naturally stupid) to have understood any of that. To paraphrase Marcus Lycus, because of your extreme disinterest in improving yourself you are a eunuch and you will always be a eunuch.
Of course it's wasted on you, but it's not a waste since at least everybody else can benefit from it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1156 by Dredge, posted 11-25-2022 8:31 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1163 by ringo, posted 11-26-2022 11:44 AM dwise1 has replied
 Message 1272 by Dredge, posted 12-12-2022 9:48 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024