RichTard Hughes Tries to Design an Experiment- Huge DickFAIL
-
File this under the dumber than dirt evotard:
RicTard Hughes designs an experiment:
BWAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAHHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAA (breathe) BWAAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAHAAAA
OK so I rolled snake-eyes and the experiment shut-down.
Tried again- rolled a 6 & 3 kept the 6, no need to continue as I will never keep anything besides the 6 and if I roll another 6 the experiment stops.
Tried again rolled double-twos- experiment stopped at step one, again.
Tried again, rolled a 5 & 2. Kept the 5. Rolled another dice, as directed by step 2 and rolled a 1. Kept the five. Rolled under 5 for 5 more tries than rolled a 5. Experiment stopped.
What is the purpose of this "experiment" again?
File this under the dumber than dirt evotard:
RicTard Hughes designs an experiment:
Here's an experment.
1. Roll 2 dice, keep the highest.
2. roll another and compare - keep the highest
3. repeat step 2 50 times.
This has a random component. The average 'ftiness' of a die is 3.5. What fitness do you think you'll get from the above experiment?
BWAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAHHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAA (breathe) BWAAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAHAAAA
OK so I rolled snake-eyes and the experiment shut-down.
Tried again- rolled a 6 & 3 kept the 6, no need to continue as I will never keep anything besides the 6 and if I roll another 6 the experiment stops.
Tried again rolled double-twos- experiment stopped at step one, again.
Tried again, rolled a 5 & 2. Kept the 5. Rolled another dice, as directed by step 2 and rolled a 1. Kept the five. Rolled under 5 for 5 more tries than rolled a 5. Experiment stopped.
What is the purpose of this "experiment" again?
posted by Joe G @ 8:57 PM
156 Comments:
At 11:31 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
" Rolled under 5 for 5 more tries than rolled a 5. Experiment stopped."
It shows you can't follow instructions.
At 7:00 AM,
Joe G said…
I followed your stupid/ ignorant instructions.
At 7:10 AM,
Joe G said…
RichTard's instructions
1- 1. Roll 2 dice, keep the highest.
OK I did that- kept the 5
Next
2. roll another and compare - keep the highest
Yup, did that too
3. repeat step 2 50 times.
Couldn't do that as the instructions suck- they do NOT allow for a tie, ie the same number showing up on both die.
At 8:19 AM,
oleg said…
This exchange reminded me of the old joke wherein the blonde spent 25 minutes staring at the Orange juice box because it said "concentrate."
Joe, follow Yogi Berra's advice. When you come to a fork in the road, take it.
At 8:28 AM,
Joe G said…
oleg- you remind me of a joke- the saddest joke in town.
Unfortunately not even oleg's menstrual problems can save Richtard's stupidty.
At 8:36 AM,
Joe G said…
oleg:
This exchange reminded me of the old joke wherein the blonde spent 25 minutes staring at the Orange juice box because it said "concentrate."
If the blonde knew what "concentrate" means then she is one up on both you and RichTard....
At 8:43 AM,
oleg said…
I see that even Yogi Berra is unable to help Joe. The situation seems hopeless.
Whatever shall we do, Rich? The success of the experiment is in considerable doubt.
At 8:48 AM,
Joe G said…
I see that you are still a fucking low-life moron oleg. You and Richtard are hopeless.
The alleged experiment is in considerable doubt. As is your mental capacity...
At 8:52 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Well, you stopped the experiment before you were supposed to, so you can't follow instructions.
Even with 'halting' for doubles, what is the mean fitness for 50 trails vs. the mean expectation of 50 dice?
(This is probably the closest to science you'll ever get).
Next take the two data sets, pick a reasonable confidence level and run an ANOVA. H0 will be your suggestion that " And it is also a given that variation is allegedly totally random, heritability also has a random component, as does differential reproduction." is an impediment to better fitness.
At 8:53 AM,
oleg said…
Joe, I am trying to help you, I really am! The Yogi Berra advice is solid. Follow it and the experiment will succeed. Even if you don't understand its purpose.
At 8:58 AM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
Well, you stopped the experiment before you were supposed to, so you can't follow instructions.
That is a lie. Obviously you cannot follow your own instructions.
RichTard:
Even with 'halting' for doubles, what is the mean fitness for 50 trails vs. the mean expectation of 50 dice?
So now you admit there will be a halting for doubles. And again fitness = reproductive sucess so there isn't any fitness when rolling dice.
IOW Richtard, you are still and ignorant fuck.
At 8:59 AM,
Joe G said…
oleg:
Joe, I am trying to help you, I really am!
You, Richtard and all the other evotards need the help.
At 9:01 AM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
H0 will be your suggestion that " And it is also a given that variation is allegedly totally random, heritability also has a random component, as does differential reproduction." is an impediment to better fitness.
Except that isn't what I said- I did not say it was an impediment to better fitness.
You are also a low-life loser.
At 9:03 AM,
oleg said…
Rich,
Don't waste your time. The old dog can't learn new tricks. Zachriel has tried to teach him nested hierarchies for a couple of years. He still doesn't understand the subject. Forget it.
At 9:23 AM,
Joe G said…
Translation-
Neither oleg nor RichTard can support their claims so they are forced into making false accusations.
You are a piece of shit oleg. Probably a good time to start a letter campaign to John Hopkins...
At 9:25 AM,
Joe G said…
Oleg Tchernyshyov is turning out to be one hell of a low-life loser.
Trying to get him to support his claims is close to useless.
But that isn't even the worst of it.
When discussing nested hierarchies oleg was shown the following website with definitions of hierarchies, including nested hierarchies:
Summary of the Principles of Hierarchy Theory
Does oleg address any of the content?
No
oleg attacks the owners of the website- the organization ISSS.
Did you get that? He attacks the organization!
What a little pussy.
Does he ever provide a valid reference as to what nested hierarchies are and what rules must be followed in their construction? No.
Does he ever give any indication he knows something about nested hierarchies? No.
But he did expose his ignorance of nested hierarchies when he agreed with Zachriel that a nested hierarchy can be constructed without calling on characteristics to do so.
He never did provide a valid example. He did try to defend Zachriel's misuse of set theory.
IOW oleg will say anything and help anyone who disagrees with me.
Case in point- oleg links to UC Berkley Understanding Phylogenies which says that:
Clades are nested within one another—they form a nested hierarchy.
The site never defines nested hierarchy nor does it say why clades form a nested hierarchy.
But that doesn't matter because oleg thinks they disagree with me so that is good enough for him.
Pathetic- and this asshole is a professor at a US university.
So I found another website hosting the Summary of the Principles of Hierarchy Theory- the University of Wisconsin (Botany dept).
I asked oleg if the university was also full of crackpots.
He didn't respond. And he still has not demonstrated any knowledge of what a nested hierarcy is.
Yet he "knows" I am wrong and sez that I am unable to learn.
Working with frustrated magnets must have turned his brain into mush...
At 10:01 AM,
oleg said…
A crackpot is a crackpot, Joe. Even if he happens to be a professor at the University of Wisconsin.
At 10:50 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"So now you admit there will be a halting for doubles."
Did I ever suggest otherwise?
"And again fitness = reproductive sucess so there isn't any fitness when rolling dice."
But the higher number gets reproduced for the next round...
Again "Its a very quickly thought up toy example, but like weasel,it highlights your miscomprehension beautifully."
Bless.
At 11:00 AM,
Joe G said…
oleg:
A crackpot is a crackpot, Joe.
And you are a crackpot, low-life and loser.
At 11:04 AM,
Joe G said…
"So now you admit there will be a halting for doubles."
RichTard:
Did I ever suggest otherwise?
Yes, when you said I couldn't follow instructions because i halted due to a double.
"And again fitness = reproductive sucess so there isn't any fitness when rolling dice."
RichTard:
But the higher number gets reproduced for the next round...
It doesn't get reproduced. It survives to the next round just as parents survive to the next generation.
RichTard:
Again "Its a very quickly thought up toy example,
Again it doesn't appear to have any thought behind it at all, which means you put everything you had into it.
At 12:45 PM,
oleg said…
Joe,
If hints aren't helping, here is the answer. When you throw a double, record that value. That is, if 5 and 5 come up then the outcome of the trial is 5.
Continue your experiment and let us know the outcome.
At 1:20 PM,
Joe G said…
oleg,
You are changing the experiment. And Rich never said to record anything.
IOW oleg you are proving that you are a crackpot.
At 1:31 PM,
oleg said…
* Facepalm *
Joe, what do you think Rich meant by "keeping the highest number?" You need to record the outcomes of each trial so that later you could evaluate the mean value! Which you will then compare to the average of 3.5 for single-die rolls.
If you don't like breaking ties, you may discard the trials where the dice come up the same. Just do the experiment.
At 2:22 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"You are changing the experiment. And Rich never said to record anything."
How unexpected, recording experimental results. Oh wait, IDist, right.
At 2:23 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Yes, when you said I couldn't follow instructions because i halted due to a double."
what I actually said:
"" Rolled under 5 for 5 more tries than rolled a 5. Experiment stopped."
It shows you can't follow instructions."
You rolled 5 times and should have rolled 50. You didn't follow instructions. I never mentioned doubles. Again, you reading comprehension needs work.
At 4:41 PM,
Joe G said…
oleg:
Joe, what do you think Rich meant by "keeping the highest number?"
You let that die stay.
oleg:
You need to record the outcomes of each trial so that later you could evaluate the mean value!
He didn't say anything about that. Read the instructions- obviously you cannot and have to read something into them.
At 4:42 PM,
Joe G said…
"You are changing the experiment. And Rich never said to record anything."
RichTard:
How unexpected, recording experimental results.
Don't blame me because you are too stupid to properly write down what you want.
At 4:45 PM,
Joe G said…
Richtard:
You rolled 5 times and should have rolled 50.
The experiment halts when there are doubles you moron.
RichTard:
You didn't follow instructions.
Yes, I did. Your instructions do not allow for doubles. Don't blame me because you are too stupid to understand that.
Richtard:
I never mentioned doubles.
I know and you needed to as your "experiment", as it stands, halts when doubles come up.
And you even said "Even with 'halting' for doubles.."- you seem to be typically confused.
At 5:05 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Don't blame me because you are too stupid to properly write down what you want."
Don't you think there are certain expections that come with an experiment?
"But you didn't tell me to keep my eyes open"
Try it (50 times), record it. we'll have some fun and alayze it.
At 5:06 PM,
oleg said…
What a laugh riot!
Rich has clearly stated that he wants to compare the average "fitness" obtained with a single die to that with two dice. To compute the average fitness, you add the results from all trials and divide by the number of trials. How would you accomplish the addition without recording the values?
At 5:10 PM,
Joe G said…
"Don't blame me because you are too stupid to properly write down what you want."
RichTard:
Don't you think there are certain expections that come with an experiment?
It's YOUR experiment which means it is up to YOU to tell me what to do. Why the hell did you write any instructions?
Richtard:
Try it (50 times), record it. we'll have some fun and alayze it.
You do it. Have fun.
At 5:13 PM,
Joe G said…
oleg:
Rich has clearly stated that he wants to compare the average "fitness" obtained with a single die to that with two dice.
No, he didn't. And neither dice nor a die has any fitness. You are a moron.
oleg:
To compute the average fitness, you add the results from all trials and divide by the number of trials.
Again fitness is defined as reproductive success, not just survival.
You two seem to be too stupid to grasp that.
At 5:29 PM,
oleg said…
I just whipped up a code that simulates the experiment. Here are the results.
Single die: 3 6 3 3 2 6 1 4 1 3 5 1 6 1 1 4 4 4 2 3 2 5 2 1 3 6 6 4 6 1 3 4 5 2 6 2 4 4 2 6 2 1 3 3 4 5 4 4 3 4
Two dice: (3,6) (3,3) (2,6) (1,4) (1,3) (5,1) (6,1) (1,4) (4,4) (2,3) (2,5) (2,1) (3,6) (6,4) (6,1) (3,4) (5,2) (6,2) (4,4) (2,6) (2,1) (3,3) (4,5) (4,4) (3,4) (2,6) (3,6) (1,4) (2,1) (4,2) (6,1) (2,2) (6,3) (5,2) (6,5) (3,6) (5,3) (2,3) (2,5) (5,4) (5,3) (5,6) (2,6) (3,4) (1,6) (6,5) (3,5) (5,3) (1,3) (2,6)
Can you compute the averages as prescribed by Rich, Joe? What does the result tell you?
At 5:31 PM,
Joe G said…
The results tell me that you are a moron. You didn't follow the instructions dumbass.
You have serious issues oleg. Do the US a favor and stay in Russia.
At 5:32 PM,
Joe G said…
oleg:
I just whipped up a code that simulates the experiment.
You couldn't find any dice? Shit I could just make up any numbers then.
At 5:34 PM,
Joe G said…
Here are the instructions oleg- try again:
1. Roll 2 dice, keep the highest.
2. roll another and compare - keep the highest
3. repeat step 2 50 times.
You only roll two dice the first time. And if you roll a six on the first roll then that six never changes.
At 5:55 PM,
oleg said…
Joe wrote: You only roll two dice the first time. And if you roll a six on the first roll then that six never changes.
Joe, you're really that dense, aren't you? "Keep the highest" refers to the highest score, not to the die itself. You keep rolling the pair of dice 50 times recording the highest score each time.
At 6:24 PM,
Joe G said…
oleg:
"Keep the highest" refers to the highest score, not to the die itself.
Not according to the instructions. Ya see in step 2 it says to "roll another", meaning 1 die. If he wanted me to roll both dice then he should have said:
1- 1. Roll 2 dice, record the highest value.
2- repeat 50 times.
oleg:
You keep rolling the pair of dice 50 times recording the highest score each time.
Not according to the instructions presented.
At 6:35 PM,
oleg said…
No Joe, I am afraid you misunderstood Rich's instructions. Rich can tell us whether my numerical experiment was performed according to his idea.
Meanwhile, you can compute the averages in the two experiments. Here are the highest numbers from the double rolls: 6 3 6 4 3 5 6 4 4 3 5 2 6 6 6 4 5 6 4 6 2 3 5 4 4 6 6 4 2 4 6 2 6 5 6 6 5 3 5 5 5 6 6 4 6 6 5 5 3 6
At 7:42 PM,
Joe G said…
oleg:
No Joe, I am afraid you misunderstood Rich's instructions.
Only if RichTard doesn't understand English and cannot convey his meaning properly.
However taken literally RichTard's instructions mean roll two dice at step 1 and then only one die after that.
Here it is AGAIN:
1. Roll 2 dice, keep the highest.
2. roll another and compare - keep the highest
3. repeat step 2 50 times.
If you were right then RichTard should have said:
1- Roll two dice, record the highest number
2- Repeat step one 50 times
He didn't. So either he is a moron or you are a moron. The safe bet is both of you are morons.
Now it appears you are too stupid to add and divide. No surprise there either..
At 7:48 PM,
Joe G said…
1. Roll 2 dice, keep the highest.
2. roll another and compare - keep the highest
3. repeat step 2 50 times.
OK children, how many numbers should there be?
HINT: what is 50 + 1?
At 9:22 AM,
Joe G said…
No RichTard to oleg's rescue?
That must mean that I am right...
At 10:37 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Hi Joe, I did the experiment as IDists seem not to be able to do any. I tried to do it per your understanding - but I only did 50, not 51 generations. Ready to discuss when ever you are:
http://tinyurl.com/4yuka6u
Oleg, please join us!
At 11:24 AM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
Hi Joe, I did the experiment as IDists seem not to be able to do any.
EvoTards seem incapable of doing any relevant experiments.
Your thing deals with ARTIFICIAL selection and is irrelevant to anything I have been discussing.
RichTard:
I tried to do it per your understanding - but I only did 50, not 51 generations.
I understand it the way YOU wrote it. Don't blame me because you have communication issues.
And why only 50 generations? Your instructions clearly call for 51, make that 52:
1. Roll 2 dice, keep the highest.
That would be 1 (generation).
2. roll another and compare - keep the highest
That would be (generation) 2
3. repeat step 2 50 times.
Add 50.
RichTard:
Ready to discuss when ever you are:
Here I am. But your bullshit has already been exposed and it is now time to move on.
At 11:31 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Wouldn't you agree, given halting, that generations past 50 are moot, anyways?
I get this:
Generation / Odds of being halted
1 / 16.667%
10 / 83.849%
20 / 97.392%
30 / 99.579%
50 / 99.989%
51 / 99.991%
52 / 99.992%
what do you get?
At 11:37 AM,
Joe G said…
RichTard,
It has nothing to do with biology. Nothing to do with the theory of evolution. And it is an example of ARTIFICIAL selection.
IOW your "experiment" is just an another example of evotard deception/ dishonesty.
At 11:38 AM,
Joe G said…
But anyway you don't even know how many trials your experiment should yield.
Here's laughing at you, moron...
At 11:42 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
No, let's discuss the results. You said 'You do it': (you didn't seem able) so I did.
Did you see how I ruled out the chance hypothesis as variation between samples - and yet we used chnace (random variation) to create the inputs. What were your thoughts on that again?
I thought ID was all about the science John Paul?
At 11:42 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
I'd still be interested to see your halting odds, to check my results. Thanks, Jim.
At 12:06 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
No, let's discuss the results.
Why? The results are meaningless, ie do not pertain to anything I was discussing. So what is the point?
RichTard:
Did you see how I ruled out the chance hypothesis as variation between samples - and yet we used chnace (random variation) to create the inputs.
ARTIFICIAL SELECTION.
RichTard:
What were your thoughts on that again?
My thoughts on ARTIFICIAL SELECTION?
Or my thoughts on your dishonesty?
I thought your positioin was all about the science and yet all you have are deception and dishonesty.
At 12:07 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
I'd still be interested to see your halting odds, to check my results.
And I am still interested in positive evidence that supports the claims of your position.
But obviously that ain't ever going to happen...
At 12:08 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard,
It has nothing to do with biology. Nothing to do with the theory of evolution. And it is an example of ARTIFICIAL selection.
IOW your "experiment" is just an another example of evotard deception/ dishonesty.
Thank you for continuing to make my case and prove my point.
At 12:20 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Joe - we're examining your claim that:
"Actually only our ignorance sez all mutations are random."
Richtard:
Fortunatley, selection is not.
Only ARTIFICIAL selection is not. Natural selection, a result, is based on random inputs. Results follow their inputs."
Now we're not selecting for anything other than fitness, which is what natural selection selects for. Again this is a toy example, we could create a more comprehensive example -
a population on dice with sides a,b,c,d,e,and f that start with numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 (1 on a, 2 on b, etc) we could then have random mutations change the mapping of faces, so a=3 for example0 and have the dice breed so that the contents of a face get chosen randomly from either parent. the dice could then be rolled, with the top 50% surviving to create a new generation. Do you think fitness would improve over time? Consider in this model, we can even embed negative mutations (1's on multiple faces) - how do you think this model would fair. I'd be happy to work through it with you, but you get all sulky and want to move on when we get to actual, specific experiments. I guess ID isn't about that.
At 12:26 PM,
Joe G said…
ARTIFICIAL SELECTION- and in your "experiment" you are NOT selecting for fitness as the concept does not exist in non-biological things.
So as I have claimed, and your "experiment" demonstrates, artificial selection is indeed as I claimed.
thank you.
At 12:35 PM,
Joe G said…
BTW there isn't anything in anything I have claimed that says random inputs cannot cause an increase in fitness.
You are tilting at windmills, again.
At 2:07 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"BTW there isn't anything in anything I have claimed that says random inputs cannot cause an increase in fitness."
So do you now agree that natural selection can increase fitness?
I'd also like you to tell us what a natural selection experiment looks like, as you have very specific ideas.
Don't keep running away from experiments.
At 2:17 PM,
Joe G said…
"BTW there isn't anything in anything I have claimed that says random inputs cannot cause an increase in fitness."
Richtard:
So do you now agree that natural selection can increase fitness?
What do you mean by "now"?
RichTard:
I'd also like you to tell us what a natural selection experiment looks like, as you have very specific ideas.
No wonder the vast majority of people understand your position to be a joke- you can't even figure out how to test it.
But anyway see- Kingsolver, "The Strength of Phenotypic Selection in Natural Populations"
Richtard:
Don't keep running away from experiments.
Never have. But obviously you need to run away from supporting your position- coward.
At 2:20 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
My apologies:
let me amend -
"So do you agree that natural selection can increase fitness?"
"Never have" - The CSI of cake not withstanding.
At 2:27 PM,
Joe G said…
Richtard:
"So do you agree that natural selection can increase fitness?"
Increased fitness is part of the fucking definition of natural selection you moron.
It's probably best if you just run away now...
At 2:29 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Increased fitness is part of the fucking definition of natural selection you moron."
But I've seen IDists argue that it can't do that, usually along the lines of genetic entropy or conservation of information.
What are your thoughts, Joe??
At 2:34 PM,
Joe G said…
"Increased fitness is part of the fucking definition of natural selection you moron."
Richtard:
But I've seen IDists argue that it can't do that, usually along the lines of genetic entropy or conservation of information.
Liar. A loss of information can lead to increased fitness.
At 2:39 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Liar."
I'm sorry, have you seen every converstaion that I've seen. Your pissyness is amusing.
"A loss of information can lead to increased fitness"
Can natural selection increase information?
At 3:10 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
I'm sorry,
Yes, I know.
Richtard:
have you seen every converstaion that I've seen.
Produce it- your say-so is meaningless.
Richtard:
Your pissyness is amusing.
Your projections are amusing.
"A loss of information can lead to increased fitness"
Richtard:
Can natural selection increase information?
That is what the world has been waiting to see. And waiting, and waiting.
Yet all we see is a wobbling stability.
Strange how neither observation nor experimentation support your position's claims.
At 3:38 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"So even the slightest change changes multiple functions so if a change causes one positive function the odds are the same change will also cause multiple negative functions which will reduce fitness and likely information overall so in the longrun this is not beneficial."
Is one, that I just googled, pissy-pants.
"That is what the world has been waiting to see. And waiting, and waiting."
What does ID theory predict? Can it predict?
At 3:50 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard's quote-mine:
"So even the slightest change changes multiple functions so if a change causes one positive function the odds are the same change will also cause multiple negative functions which will reduce fitness and likely information overall so in the longrun this is not beneficial."
That doesn't say natural selection can never increase fitness.
RichTard:
What does ID theory predict?
Obviously more than your position does.
At 4:31 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Obviously more than your position does."
WRONG
I believe that random mutation and natural selection can increase fitness. As do evolutionists.
Again, what does ID predict?
At 4:38 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
http://tinyurl.com/3w6xfmn
:-D
At 6:42 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Reading this thread was like watching a Laurel and Hardy skit.
Rich, no offense, but your directions were terrible. Did Oleg do it right? If so, why didnt you just say roll 2 dice 52 times, recording the highest each time? Step 2 appears to be identical to step 1. Couldnt we have repeated both steps 1 & 2 25 times? Just kidding!
You said nothing about averaging the higher numbers. Saying "keep the highest" indicates that is a die you dont roll again. So is this what you would have said if you werent a Darwinist:
1. Roll a pair of dice 52 times.
2. Record the highest number each time. If a tie, record that number.
2. Total and average the recorded numbers.
Is that your "experiment"?
And what was it you were trying to prove?
At 7:09 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Rich, of course you can intelligently set up a set of circumstances where you know you will get positive results, add a slight element of randomness within the confines of assuring those positive results remain, and then pick the best of the positive results. No surprise you will get happy results.
Your experiment reminds me of those carnival games with the floating duckies that the kiddies pick and see what cheap prize awaits them. Every kid goes away a "winner".
Then the kid comes to a carny game where the prize is a huge teddy bear, but the basketball hoop is smaller in diameter than the ball. Every kid goes away a loser.
You see, Rich, it is all about whether or not random chance can get you what you want. If it can, and you can keep on trying long enough, you will eventually win. If it cant, then selection has nothing to select and you lose.
So it all boils down to probabilities. Can random luck get you your "prize"?
At 7:14 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Thus, Rich, the failure of your experiment is that you set it up so that half of the possibilities are above average, and all results are peachy. Do you think that if a random change happens genetically, the chance of a beneficial trait is about 50/50?
There are quadrillions of possible messy, useless and really bad results for any incredibly lucky gee-just-what-we-needed result.
At 8:03 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
I believe that random mutation and natural selection can increase fitness. As do evolutionists.
We KNOW ARTIFICIAL selection can increase fitness. We also know artificial selection is a design mechanism.
At 8:07 PM,
Joe G said…
Richtard's bald ink:
http://tinyurl.com/3w6xfmn
So what? When did I ever claim beneficial mutations do not occur? Loss of function mutations can be beneficial.
Man, Richtard, you just don't understand a fucking thing.
At 8:11 PM,
Joe G said…
IntelligentAnimation,
Ya see RichTard equated the average value of one die- 3.5 (sum up all the numbers from 1-6 and divide by 6= 21/6=3.5) as the average fitness.
Then if you roll two dice- ie random inputs- and artificially select the highest of the two- over X amount of rolls, the average of those numbers will be greater than the average of one die.
And that means something to RichTard.
At 8:14 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Again folks, show us what an experiment for natural slection would look like under your criteria.
ID really is a science-stopper.
IA - we can do an expermiment where fitness degredation can happen. It's been done many times before. Want to try, or are you also scared of experimenets?
At 8:15 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"And that means something to RichTard."
Wow - it's almost like selection can take random inputs and perform better than average...
At 8:15 PM,
Joe G said…
And we are still waiting on the predictions RichTard's position makes...
At 8:19 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
Wow - it's almost like selection can take random inputs and perform better than average...
ARTIFICIAL selection can, just as I said.
At 8:20 PM,
Joe G said…
Richtard:
Again folks, show us what an experiment for natural slection would look like under your criteria.
I gave you a paper.
Richtard:
ID really is a science-stopper.
Just like archaeology and forensic science is.
Strange how your position isn't a science stopper but doesn't have any science to support it.
At 8:21 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
Wow - it's almost like selection can take random inputs and perform better than average.
That still doesn't have anything to do with anything I nor ID has claimed.
You are a fucking dishonest prick.
At 8:24 PM,
Joe G said…
As for who is afraid of experiments, strange that RichTard's position doesn't have any experimental support. Strange, that...
At 8:35 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Rich, I know how we can make your experiment a bit more like nature and evolution. Instead of dice, go get two rocks from your yard.
1. Roll the rocks. Record the highest number.
2. Roll the rocks. Record the highest number.
3. Repeat step 2... no step 1... 50 times.
Wait... what? Whats the problem? You dont have any numbers? Well, unlike your dice game, where it was mostly intelligently arranged with a dose of prescribed randomness, we are doing nearly 100% random for realism.
Dont worry, Im sure random chance will soon give you numbers to record. All you need is some type of pigmentation to form on the rock in the shape of numbers.
Once you master this experiment, then instead of your numbers representing "fitness", we will look for true fitness. How many times do you think you and your friends will need to roll rocks around before you get a functional golgi apparatus? A mitochondrion?
You see, Rich, random particle collision cant create reproduction of any kind. It is much more probable to roll a 6 on dice than it is to randomly form a cardio-pulmonary system on the same planet that we lucked out and got sexual differentiation.
And remember, selection cant select what luck cant create. This is why your luck theory fails.
At 8:41 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"I gave you a paper. "
I mess it. you could you link again, please?
"That still doesn't have anything to do with anything I nor ID has claimed."
Dembksi:
"But the problem is even worse. It follows by a combinatorial argument that for any partition of the phase space into pieces none of which has probability more than the probability of the target (which by assumption is less than 1 in 10^150), for the vast majority of these partition elements the probability of the evolutionary algorithm E entering them is going to be no better than pure random sampling. It follows that the vast majority of fitness functions on the phase space that coincide with our original fitness function on the target but reshuffle the function on the partition elements outside the target will not land the evolutionary algorithm in the target (this result is essentially a corollary of the No Free Lunch theorems by Wolpert and Macready). Simply put, the vast majority of fitness functions will not guide E into the target even if they coincide with our original fitness function on the target"
"As for who is afraid of experiments, strange that RichTard's position doesn't have any experimental support. Strange, that..."
hey - I'm try to get you to do one with me. But you are a parasite, 'wah wah calculate the CSI of a cake for me'.
At 8:45 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Instead of dice, go get two rocks from your yard."
Evolution <> Abiogenesis. You're upset with something you clearly don't understand.
At 8:46 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Rich, ID is science at its best. Darwinism is essentially, a shoulder shrug saying "Just lucky I guess". Now THAT is a science stopper.
I love experiments, but please stop using intelligently guided experiments to show what random chaos supposedly accomplishes. You are the one who claimed that intelligence is caused by random accident. please understand what 100% unguided, directionless accident does. It creates nothing more complex and functional than a mud pie.
Of course none of those experiments will ever work, but that is because your theory sux. Dont like experiments that accurately represent your teory?
At 8:49 PM,
Joe G said…
"I gave you a paper. "
RichTard
I mess it.
The paper is discussed here:
The Strength of Natural Selection in the Wild
However it is still funny that you cannot test the claims of your position.
RichTard:
Wow - it's almost like selection can take random inputs and perform better than average.
That still doesn't have anything to do with anything I nor ID has claimed.
RichTard quote-mines Dembski-
Nope that doesn't help.
"As for who is afraid of experiments, strange that RichTard's position doesn't have any experimental support. Strange, that..."
RichTard:
hey - I'm try to get you to do one with me.
Hey I have expsoed your experiment as a dishonest attempt at deflecting attention away from the fact that your position is total nonsense.
RichTard:
But you are a parasite, 'wah wah calculate the CSI of a cake for me'.
And might as well end with more bullshit lies and a false accusation.
Parasite? All YOU do is suck on others because you are too stupid to fend for yourself.
At 8:59 PM,
oleg said…
Ah, we have another idiot who thinks that a computer simulating a random process (and its software) must be subject to random errors.
At 9:06 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"The paper is discussed here:"
No, can you link to the paper, please.
"RichTard quote-mines Dembski-"
Really? How did I change or distort the meaning?
Quotemine <> Something Joe doesn't like.
At 9:07 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"but please stop using intelligently guided experiments to show what random chaos supposedly accomplishes"
So tell me how to set up an 'non-intelligently guided" experiment, then.
At 9:41 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Rich, running scared from abiogenesis too? I thought you had faith in your luck theory religion to produce everything from nothing.
So your big "experiment" to prove random chaos can cause life to animate, reproduce and think, is to show that if you roll dice to try to get a number higher than a three it can sometimes happen?
Do you NOT see the difference in the probabilities, Darwinist? Do you really not see how much intelligent control you put into your "experiment" and how little of it was "random"?
Start at a mud puddle or at any point in the evolutionary chain, and the moment you remove the intelligent agency and apply random chaos it will all turn to cow manure and quickly. There will be no progress or improvement.
The number 6 on a dice is not really fitness. You do know this, dont you? "Fitness" can not happen by luck. A 6 can. Thats the rub.
At 10:00 PM,
Joe G said…
"The paper is discussed here:"
Richtard:
No, can you link to the paper, please.
I gave you the name of the author and paper already. The link I provided did the same.
You are a piece of shit loser.
"RichTard quote-mines Dembski-"
Richtard:
Really? How did I change or distort the meaning?
You are trying to use it to do something that it doesn't- meaning it doesn't support your claim and you think it does.
At 10:01 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
So tell me how to set up an 'non-intelligently guided" experiment, then.
Stop asking us how to test the claims of your position. But it does highlight the whole problem- your position is untestable.
At 10:05 PM,
Joe G said…
So to recap- RichTard sets up an "experiment" that proves my claim about artificial selection.
Richtard proved to be ignorant of how many trials his experiment expected.
RichTard then blames us for not telling him how to test the claims of his position.
At 10:10 PM,
Joe G said…
The strength of phenotypic selection in natural populations:
Abstract:
How strong is phenotypic selection on quantitative traits in the wild? We reviewed the literature from 1984 through 1997 for studies that estimated the strength of linear and quadratic selection in terms of standardized selection gradients or differentials on natural variation in quantitative traits for field populations. We tabulated 63 published studies of 62 species that reported over 2,500 estimates of linear or quadratic selection. More than 80% of the estimates were for morphological traits; there is very little data for behavioral or physiological traits. Most published selection studies were unreplicated and had sample sizes below 135 individuals, resulting in low statistical power to detect selection of the magnitude typically reported for natural populations. The absolute values of linear selection gradients |beta| were exponentially distributed with an overall median of 0.16, suggesting that strong directional selection was uncommon. The values of |beta| for selection on morphological and on life-history/phenological traits were significantly different: on average, selection on morphology was stronger than selection on phenology/life history. Similarly, the values of |beta| for selection via aspects of survival, fecundity, and mating success were significantly different: on average, selection on mating success was stronger than on survival. Comparisons of estimated linear selection gradients and differentials suggest that indirect components of phenotypic selection were usually modest relative to direct components. The absolute values of quadratic selection gradients |gamma| were exponentially distributed with an overall median of only 0.10, suggesting that quadratic selection is typically quite weak. The distribution of gamma values was symmetric about 0, providing no evidence that stabilizing selection is stronger or more common than disruptive selection in nature.
Then there was this study using fruit flies and after 600 generations no new traits became fixed- and that was in a lab.
At 10:37 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"We tabulated 63 published studies of 62 species that reported over 2,500 estimates of linear or quadratic selection"
LOL - its a metastudy! How were the origionals performed? 2/10, bluffer.
"Then there was this study using fruit flies and after 600 generations no new traits became fixed- and that was in a lab.
"
uh-huh, great citation. BUT WAIT. In a lab, you say. lab = design for you no numbskulls. no traits fixed you say? therefore design can't so anything according to JOELOGIC(c).
600 generations? what was the population?
At 11:21 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Rich, is it your belief that all you need do is show that random chance can cause some things, therefore random chance can cause ANYthing?
Dont like my example of the rocks because it reminds you of one of the weakest parts of your theory? How about using your dice, but you need a 7 at some point to evolve to a higher life form. What percentage of throws gets you a 7, rather than a 6 being your "fittest"?
If you get the 7, you can select it, right? Does that increase your odds of a 7? Wasnt selection the steering wheel? Can "selective pressure" steer you in your quest for a 7?
Nope, you cant select anything until random particle collision gives it to you. Guess selection isnt the creative force you thought it was.
At 11:38 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Rich, like any artifical selection in biology, your experiment seems to stay within the limited range of the available numbers on the dice as species stay within the genome. Likewise, as soon as you stop the intelligent interference of artificial selection, the results go right back to the mean.
I also see that the selection filter cant cause anything that you want, but it can eliminate what you dont want, just like in biological life forms. If random chance gives you what you want, you can select it. If random chance cant give you what you want, selection cant get it for you or help you at all.
So, what was it you were trying to prove again?
At 8:42 AM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
its a metastudy!
Yes, I know. Do you have a point?
RichTard:
How were the origionals performed?
Do teh research you coward.
"Then there was this study using fruit flies and after 600 generations no new traits became fixed- and that was in a lab.
"
RichTard:
uh-huh, great citation
I forgot that you were ignorant of science:
Burke, M. K. et al. 2010. "Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila", Nature. 467 (7315): 587-590.
RichTard:
BUT WAIT. In a lab, you say. lab = design for you no numbskulls.
Wrong again asshole. No one said a lab = design-> that is your strawman. But that is moot. If it can't happen in a lab with controlled conditions then it ain't happening in the real world when conditions flutuate.
Total evoFAIL.
Dumbass.
At 8:43 AM,
Joe G said…
So to recap- RichTard sets up an "experiment" that proves my claim about artificial selection.
Richtard proved to be ignorant of how many trials his experiment expected.
RichTard then blames us for not telling him how to test the claims of his position.
At 11:01 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Joe, it must be hard to get science as wrong as you do - you have a gift!:
http://tinyurl.com/42htzhe
At 11:03 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Do teh research you coward."
To support your claim? Sorry bluffer, we've already been through your CSI of cake fiasco. Even in this thread, you show no willingness to do work. That's ID for you..
At 11:13 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
" is it your belief that all you need do is show that random chance can cause some things, therefore random chance can cause ANYthing?"
No.
At 11:42 PM,
Joe G said…
"Do teh research you coward."
RichTard:
To support your claim?
The research pertains to YOUR position, coward.
RichTard:
Sorry bluffer, we've already been through your CSI of cake fiasco.
You choked on the cake you ignorant fuck. And as for bluffing you STILL haven't presented any positive evidence for your position.
At 11:43 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
Joe, it must be hard to get science as wrong as you do - you have a gift!:
http://tinyurl.com/42htzhe
There isn't anything at that link which demonstrates I am wrong about anything.
At 11:44 PM,
Joe G said…
So to recap- RichTard sets up an "experiment" that proves my claim about artificial selection.
Richtard proved to be ignorant of how many trials his experiment expected.
RichTard then blames us for not telling him how to test the claims of his position.
At 11:45 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"You choked on the cake you ignorant fuck"
Oh, that is precious! should I count the letters in the recipe again, Joe? truly one of your funnier moments. It always makes me smile!
"There isn't anything at that link which demonstrates I am wrong about anything"
...apart from science. Duh!
At 11:51 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
Oh, that is precious! should I count the letters in the recipe again, Joe?
No you dumbass faggot. The recipe is just a capturing of the ACTIONS. The information flows from designe=r to design via the ACTIONS of the designer. I provided a reference to support that, asshole.
"There isn't anything at that link which demonstrates I am wrong about anything"
RichTard:
...apart from science.
Liar.
At 12:00 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Internet tough guy:
"Given the following recipe:
• 1 cup cornmeal
• 3 cups all-purpose flour
• 1 1/3 cups white sugar
• 2 tablespoons baking powder
• 1 teaspoon salt
• 2/3 cup vegetable oil
• 1/3 cup melted butter
• 2 tablespoons honey
• 4 eggs, beaten
• 2 1/2 cups whole milk
• Preheat oven to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C), and grease a 9x13 inch baking dish.
• Stir together the cornmeal, flour, sugar, baking powder, and salt in a mixing bowl. Pour in the vegetable oil, melted butter, honey, beaten eggs, and milk, and stir just to moisten.
• Pour the batter into the prepared baking dish and bake in the preheated oven for 45 minutes, until the top of the cornbread starts to brown and show cracks.
A simple character count reveals there are over 650 characters.
Therefor the minimum information that cake will contain is just over 650 bits if each character is a bit."
DUR DUR DUR
At 12:02 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Liar."
Now,now - when you throe that word around, it ends in tears for you, hypocrite.
At 1:13 AM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Rich asks: "So tell me how to set up an 'non-intelligently guided" experiment, then."
I just gave you one earlier in the thread and you didnt like it. Non-intelligent guidance is going on all around you every day. Trouble is, none of the random accidents cause anything even remotely complex and functional.
Honestly Rich, your claim that random chaos creates functional order is a crock, so you will never find an experiment that can make it work.
At 1:33 AM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Rich, your experiment shows us that selection does not improve fitness. 5 is pretty high up on your fitness scale, so lets see from oleg's dice rolls if he gained more 5's by selection.
He rolled a 5 a total of 14 times by my cursory count. Lets see how many he gains when he applies his selection filter: Only 12! You lost two fit rolls and gained none. Surely you can gain 6's, since they cant be beat, especially if we count both in a 6-6 tie. You had 19 before selection, and 19 after.
So not only cant selection get you a 7, but it cant even add a single 6 roll. It seems that slection does absolutely nothing beneficial at all. The best it can do is to not hurt you. I thought you said your subtractive filter adds something. Gee, it seems as if selection cant create anything that wasnt already created, as I have been telling you.
At 1:49 AM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Rich, all you have done in your experiment is to (as with biological selection) decrease the lower (unfit) numbers. You had no increase to fitness, just a decrease to the percentage that are lower numbers, which increases the percentage that are higher.
A woman hangs a string of red & green beads on a Christmas tree and asks her husband how he likes it. He says that it needs more red.
Not having more red beads and knowing her husband is a Darwinist, the woman just subtracts green beads. Her husband responds: "All those extra reds really improve the fitness."
A subtractive filter can never add anything, even if the percentages make it seem like it did. No amount of selection, for example, can add gold or silver beads to the decoration. Selection cant and never will create something from nothing, or even add a little.
At 2:01 AM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Rich Hughes, how about making some money off of your brilliance?
Go to the bank and withdraw your entire life savings. Ask the teller to give it to you in 1's, 5's, 10's, 20's, 50's and 100's, with equal quantities of each denomination. Now use selection to improve your wealth.
I am willing to accept from you all of your 5's, a pile of your 1's and most of your 10's too. You lucky dog will now have a higher average number on your bills.
Your gain is my loss. I had only a couple of 20's in my pocket, so my average size dollar bill is considerably less. I guess you really got one over on me this time, eh? Serves me right for insisting that subtractive filters cant add anything.
Using the same principles of your experiment, you can now feel better about most of the bills in your possession. If you believe that lowering the percentages of lower numbers increases fitness, then this should work for you.
So do we have a deal?
At 2:28 AM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
So what, then, have we learned by this little exercise?
1. There are few things funnier than a Darwinist attempting to do experiments.
2. Selection can not improve or add anything at all, even a little. The selection filter can either decrease fitness (as it did with the 5's) or it can not make things worse, but it cannot imrpove anything or create anything at all.
3. Randomness can get you a 6 on a dice, but it cant get you a 7, just as Darwinism cant add any new species or novel traits.
4. Actual fitness is a lot harder to achieve than a roll of the dice.
5. You need intelligent agency to get to the point of having dice, you need intelligent agency to carry out your experiment and you will need intelligent agency to improve from 6 to 7.
Thank you for playing. You were right. It WAS fun.
At 9:28 AM,
Joe G said…
"Liar."
RichTard:
Now,now - when you throe that word around, it ends in tears for you, hypocrite.
Hasn't yet you piece of shit liar.
At 9:29 AM,
Joe G said…
RichTard posts a recipe and chokes on it.
What the fuck Richtard- you just don't care that everyone knows that you are an ignorant faggot.
At 9:30 AM,
Joe G said…
The recipe is just a capturing of the ACTIONS. The information flows from designer to design via the ACTIONS of the designer. I provided a reference to support that, asshole.
At 9:31 AM,
Joe G said…
So to recap- RichTard sets up an "experiment" that proves my claim about artificial selection.
Richtard proved to be ignorant of how many trials his experiment expected.
RichTard then blames us for not telling him how to test the claims of his position.
At 12:07 PM,
oleg said…
IA,
Of course selection improves fitness. You just can't count, I suppose.
Here is the histogram for my rolls of a single die:
1 8
2 8
3 10
4 12
5 4
6 8
There should be 50/6 = 8.33 values for every value and they are close to that for most of the values. The 4 and 5 deviate from that, but that's a reflection of a small sample size.
Now look at the histogram for the rolls of two dice, with the higher value selected:
1 0
2 2
3 6
4 10
5 11
6 19
There is an unmistakable upward trend. Not a single 1, lots of 6. And that's just simple selection, not even cumulative.
At 12:19 PM,
Joe G said…
oleg,
Dice have nothing to do with fitness. You are a moron.
At 12:24 PM,
oleg said…
How's the dice experiment coming along, Joe? Still stuck at step 2? Concentrate!
At 12:31 PM,
Joe G said…
oleg- you and RichTard are so stupid neither of you knew how many trials to expect!
Morons...
At 12:33 PM,
oleg said…
Still not working out? I sympathize.
As to me and Rich, we understand the statistics of the trials. It's very simple. We have discussed it at AtBC, a site where you are afraid to show up.
At 1:18 PM,
Joe G said…
Dude you were both too stupid to understand how many trials RichTard's example expected.
And in the end it was an example of ARTIFICIAL slection and it supported my claim.
And it figures that you are both too stupid to understand that.
Also I have shown up at atbc- nothing there but a bunch of whining loser cowards. You need each other for support.
At 1:30 PM,
oleg said…
Joe, there can be any number of trials before a double comes up. From 1 to infinity. Here are the stats.
At 2:03 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Hi Intelligent Animation (or is it Joe ;-) )
"1. There are few things funnier than a Darwinist attempting to do experiments."
Maybe Idists avoiding experiments is one of them?
"2. Selection can not improve or add anything at all, even a little. The selection filter can either decrease fitness (as it did with the 5's) or it can not make things worse, but it cannot imrpove anything or create anything at all."
Untrue. Mean fitness rose from 3.7 (random) to 5.54.
"3. Randomness can get you a 6 on a dice, but it cant get you a 7, just as Darwinism cant add any new species or novel traits."
Actually it can. In our simple model we were just testing selection against random inputs. That's obviously not complete evolution. If we were to add gene duplication (the ability to roll 2 dice), 7 is trivially easy.
"4. Actual fitness is a lot harder to achieve than a roll of the dice."
Agreed? so?
"5. You need intelligent agency to get to the point of having dice, you need intelligent agency to carry out your experiment and you will need intelligent agency to improve from 6 to 7."
You need intelligent agency for all experiments and observations. Does this mean if I were to study cloud formations, clouds must be designed?
"Thank you for playing. You were right. It WAS fun."
I agree!
At 2:05 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Hasn't yet you piece of shit liar."
Oh please Joe, your 'meet me in a parkignlot, I'm Joe / Jim ? John teh creationist muslim DONT MENTION MY DAD!' Meltdown was epic. Internet history!
At 2:05 PM,
Joe G said…
oleg:
Joe, there can be any number of trials before a double comes up.
So what? Richtard's is still an example of artificial selection and supports my claim.
At 2:06 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
Hi Intelligent Animation (or is it Joe ;-) )
Not unless I am also from the midwest...
At 2:11 PM,
oleg said…
"So what?" I'll tell you what. It shows that Rich and I understand the process in and out. It also shows that you do not understand what is happening. If you did you wouldn't ask how many trials there should be before halting. It could be 1, it could be 50, even 100. With different probabilities.
At 2:17 PM,
Joe G said…
oleg:
I'll tell you what. It shows that Rich and I understand the process in and out.
And seeing it supports my claim obviously so do I.
oleg:
It also shows that you do not understand what is happening.
Liar- I know artificial selection when I see it.
oleg:
If you did you wouldn't ask how many trials there should be before halting.
I didn't ask that.
I just observed that the first time I rolled I hit doubles and was forced to stop. I then said any double would cause a stoppage.
IOW you are a fucking liar and an asshole.
At 2:20 PM,
Joe G said…
"Hasn't yet you piece of shit liar."
RichTard:
Oh please Joe,
Thank you for proving my point.
At 7:30 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Oleg, rolling two dice instead of one is going to give you more large numbers (duh), but the selection filter is about eliminating low numbers. Eliminating the low numbers does NOT increase the high numbers.
I should also note that Rich's laughable directions never mentioned comparing the roll of one die to rolling two dice. Apparently you cant read directions. Of course rolling more dice gets more high numbers. Roll a hundred dice and get even more.
The selection filter involves the death and extinction of less fit creatures, or in this experiment, the elimination of lower numbers. The elimination of lower numbers does NOT increase the amount of high numbers rolled. In fact, it decreases anything less than a 6. And the 6's stay the same.
You are confusing adding dice (which increases high numbers) with eliminating lower numbers (which does not).
Do you believe that eliminating the lower numbers added any high numbers?
At 7:42 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Hi Rich! (or is it oleg ;-) )
IA: "1. There are few things funnier than a Darwinist attempting to do experiments."
Rich: Maybe Idists avoiding experiments is one of them?
IA: Avoiding? I love this stuff. Its a great way to show the flaws of the Darwinian Fallacy.
IA: "2. Selection can not improve or add anything at all, even a little. The selection filter can either decrease fitness (as it did with the 5's) or it can not make things worse, but it cannot imrpove anything or create anything at all."
Rich: Untrue. Mean fitness rose from 3.7 (random) to 5.54.
IA: Eliminating lower numbers does not increase the quantity of high numbers. It does increase the average and the percentages, but only by default, not by actually increasing fitness. This is a central failure of Darwinists and important for you to understand.
There is no magic fitness creator in a subtractive filter. But if you really still dont get it, do you want to take me up on my offer to increase your fiscal fitness?
At 7:56 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
IA: "3. Randomness can get you a 6 on a dice, but it cant get you a 7, just as Darwinism cant add any new species or novel traits."
Rich: "Actually it can. In our simple model we were just testing selection against random inputs."
IA: And selection failed to add anything whatsoever. Gee, subtracting doesnt add. Who would have thunk it?
Rich: "That's obviously not complete evolution."
No, but it does show you the futility of using selection for anything positive or additive. Which is why you cant get a 7 from random chance dice rolls.
Rich: "If we were to add gene duplication (the ability to roll 2 dice), 7 is trivially easy."
IA: Thats a mighty big "if", son. And still not trivially easy until you demonstrate how it could happen. I'm guessing you havent found the dice yet that can reproduce? Maybe if you play some soft music into your monopoly game set, it might happen?
Your task is to show how random chaos causes reproduction.
Otherwise dont use intelligently caused actions as your bail out.
At 1:15 AM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Surprisingly both Richard and oleg believe that by decreasing the number of unfit, they increase fitness. They think Rich's experiment shows this. Eliminating the unfit can make the AVERAGE fitness higher by default, but it does NOT increase fitness.
A President of an auto company, upset that his cars are rated poorly for rates of acceleration, tells his VP to get his engineers to improve this problem.
The VP, a Darwinist, does not contact engineering but instead tells his production team to identify the models which are the worst at acceleration, and then he tells them to stop producing and selling those vehicles.
He then reports back to his boss that the average acceleration rate of their cars is now higher, a true statement. The Prez orders advertising stating faster rates of acceleration, a false statement.
Later he finds their cars still rated as just as poor at acceleration as they were before, with zero improvement. He fires the VP but has egg on his face.
What went wrong? They made the same error oleg and Rich are making. Decreasing the least fit can increase overall average by default, but it can NOT increase fitness. They didnt improve a single car, just as Rich didnt improve a single dice throw.
At 1:56 AM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Rich: "Wow - it's almost like selection can take random inputs and perform better than average..."
Joe G: "ARTIFICIAL selection can, just as I said."
No, neither artificial nor natural selection can "perform better" than any sampling will BEFORE a selective filter is applied.
Even your own simplistic experiment proves it. 6 is your fittest and yet selection did not increase the number of 6's. 5 is your second fittest and yet selection actually DECREASED those.
At 2:04 AM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Selection is the most useless and vapid term in the history of science. It is nothing more than saying something that already exists was not eliminated. Selection can not and never will accomplish anything positive.
Failure to die is not an explanation for why we live.
At 8:27 AM,
oleg said…
IA: Surprisingly both Richard and oleg believe that by decreasing the number of unfit, they increase fitness.
It's trivially true. When a population gets fewer members with low fitness, the average fitness in that population gets higher. It can only be surprising to someone who has no idea about statistics.
Selection is not a source of novelty in evolution. Variation is. The role of selection is to promote novelty by putting organisms with higher fitness at an advantage.
There is no point in repeating this, of course. Rich has already said that before.
At 8:34 AM,
Joe G said…
oleg:
The role of selection is to promote novelty by putting organisms with higher fitness at an advantage.
Except it doesn't do that and you cannot support that claim.
NS eliminates those that are not "good enough". Ask Mayr- I will take Mayr over RichTard and oleg any and every day.
At 8:43 AM,
oleg said…
I fail to see how what I said is different from what Mayr said. Explain?
At 8:45 AM,
Joe G said…
Explain how it is similar.
At 8:49 AM,
Joe G said…
Mayr said that individuals with a lower fitness will be removed from the population. He didn't say NS helps increase fitness.
At 9:29 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Thats a mighty big "if", son"
Not really, dad, if you know your science:
http://tinyurl.com/43awy8b
And I think mean fitness increase is the key measure, if a popoulation wants to survive..
At 9:37 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Otherwise dont use intelligently caused actions as your bail out."
I can understand how IDists such as yourselves might think they can instigate activities requiring no intelligence, but normal people can't, because we have to think.
At 9:42 AM,
Joe G said…
Richtard- there isn't any evidence that gene dupications are random events.
IOW you don't know your science.
At 12:57 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
So lets apply Rich's experiment to living things and see if his hypothesis proves out or not.
He takes a hundred cheetahs into captivity and ranks them 1 through 6 in terms of speed or fitness. He then pairs them up randomly and then shoots and kills the lower ranking cheetah in each pair. He finds that the average speed of the remaining cheetahs is higher than the original group, but not a single cheetah has become faster.
Analysis: Not even a single cheetah improves fitness through artificial selection. Rich's hypothesis (Darwinism) disproven.
And he killed some very fast cheetahs.
At 1:12 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Rich: "And I think mean fitness increase is the key measure, if a popoulation wants to survive."
Not when average fitness is only increasing because the weakest among them are dying. Large numbers of a species dying off is not a good sign for survival of the species.
Overall fitness, not mean fitness, is the key. If you could actually improve fitness, as oleg falsely claimed, then overall fitness, survivability and the average fitness would all be increased.
But selection can not select things that dont already exist. It cant increase fitness. Unfortunately for the Darwinists, eliminating the weak does not strengthen the strong.
At 2:45 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Erm, faster cheaters have more chance of catching prey, so more chance of surviving to reproduce.
At 3:01 PM,
Joe G said…
Richtard:
Erm, faster cheaters have more chance of catching prey, so more chance of surviving to reproduce.
They do? A cheetah that runs 71 mph will outreproduce a cheetah who runs only 70 mph?
Any evidence for that, cry-baby?
At 3:38 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"have more chance" - stochastic system supported by causal narrative.
Do you think that slow cheaters catch more food than fast ones?
If speed isn't an issue - why bother running at all.
I love it when you make yourself (more) ridiculous just to have an argument.
But Don't cry, Joe. I wont mention your dad.
At 6:18 PM,
Joe G said…
Richtard:
Do you think that slow cheaters catch more food than fast ones?
I don't know of any cheaters that catch food. Could you provide an example?
Richtard:
If speed isn't an issue - why bother running at all.
Sure, become a tree- poof those magic mutations.
RichTard:
I love it when you make yourself (more) ridiculous just to have an argument.
So the ridiculous moron...
At 7:39 PM,
Joe G said…
Let's see, every other species of cat on this planet is slower than the cheetah.
By RichTard's "logic" they should have all perished by now.
Moron...
At 9:37 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Joseph, Joseph, Jim, John-paul, Let's examine all the ways you are wrong.
"Let's see, every other species of cat on this planet is slower than the cheetah."
WOW - curve ball, Joe is I believe correct!
" By RichTard's "logic" " - actually it was IA who suggested this example. "they should have all perished by now." This shows your profound misunderstanding in many dimensions:
1) Differential reproductive advantage just increases an organisms chances, it doesn't make others extinct
2) Many cats live outside of the very specialized environment a cheetah lives in.
3) I'm sure lots of species of cat who had poor organism / environment fit are now extinct.
Keep being wrong, Joe. But don't cry.
At 11:10 AM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
1) Differential reproductive advantage just increases an organisms chances, it doesn't make others extinct
I know that. It appears you just figured that out.
Richtard:
2) Many cats live outside of the very specialized environment a cheetah lives in.
I know that too. Apparently you have just figured it out.
RichTard:
3) I'm sure lots of species of cat who had poor organism / environment fit are now extinct.
I am sure there are plenty of organisms taht had a good fit that are now extinct.
And I am also very sure that your example proved my claim about artificial selection.
Thank you, moron.
At 11:16 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"I know that. It appears you just figured that out."
Care to support that? I doubt it.
"I know that too. Apparently you have just figured it out."
Care to support that? I doubt it.
"I am sure there are plenty of organisms taht had a good fit that are now extinct."
Oooooh! this will be fun! So why did they go extinct?
At 11:26 AM,
Joe G said…
"I know that. It appears you just figured that out."
RichTard:
Care to support that?
Your posts support the claim that you are a moron.
"I am sure there are plenty of organisms taht had a good fit that are now extinct."
RichTard:
Oooooh! this will be fun!
Dealing with evotards isn't any fun at all.
Post a Comment
<< Home