Random, with Respect to Evolution- What does it Mean?
-
In the evolutionism debate you hear/ read the word random quite often. But what does it mean to be random?
With respect to evolutionism, random means two things:
1- With respect to mutations/ genetic changes and variations, it means chance/ happenstance/ accidental, ie unplanned and unguided. Meaning all changes are just whatever happened to happen. And to a much lesser extent it means that not all nucleotides have the same probability of changing. Mutations are constrained randomness
2- With respect to natural selection it means that not all individuals have the same probability of being eliminated. That is what makes natural selection non-random. Natural selection being an eliminative process (Mayr, "What Evolution Is") will tend to eliminate the deficient, the deformed, and whatever cannot hack it in the environment it finds itself.
OK that's it. Have a good day
In the evolutionism debate you hear/ read the word random quite often. But what does it mean to be random?
With respect to evolutionism, random means two things:
1- With respect to mutations/ genetic changes and variations, it means chance/ happenstance/ accidental, ie unplanned and unguided. Meaning all changes are just whatever happened to happen. And to a much lesser extent it means that not all nucleotides have the same probability of changing. Mutations are constrained randomness
2- With respect to natural selection it means that not all individuals have the same probability of being eliminated. That is what makes natural selection non-random. Natural selection being an eliminative process (Mayr, "What Evolution Is") will tend to eliminate the deficient, the deformed, and whatever cannot hack it in the environment it finds itself.
OK that's it. Have a good day
posted by Joe G @ 11:59 AM
90 Comments:
At 5:00 PM,
Unknown said…
"With respect to evolutionism, random means two things:
2- With respect to natural selection it means that not all individuals have the same probability of being eliminated. Natural selection being an eliminative process (Mayr, "What Evolution Is")
will tend to eliminate the deficient, the deformed, and whatever cannot hack it in the environment it finds itself."
I'm not sure what "evolutionism" means.
Natural selection is NOT random.
But, a random process would mean that all have an equal chance of being selected. Not an aspect of natural selection where clearly not all individuals have an equal chance of being selected. As your quote from Mayr indicates.
At 5:36 PM,
Joe G said…
Mayr discusses evolutionism in "What Evolution Is". It is blind watchmaker evolution- unguided evolution.
Yes natural selection is non-random in that not all individuals have the same probability of being eliminated.
I see I didn't make that clear.
At 9:33 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Cross post as Joe's a cowardly creationist who doesn't promote all comments.
Joe: "2- With respect to natural selection it means that not all individuals have the same probability of being eliminated. That is what makes natural selection non-random"
Joe, randomness does not require all outcomes to be equal. That is equiprobable, a subset of random that has a uniform probability distribution.
The odds of any outcome of the summation of two dice is not equiprobable (some are more likely that others) but is random.
And thus Joe fails at probability.
At 2:54 AM,
Unknown said…
That's better!!
At 6:59 AM,
Joe G said…
Richie the coewardly and ignorant evoTARD- According to Ernst Mayr (What Evolution Is) natural selection is non-random in that not all individuals have the same probability of being eliminated. I will side with Mayr over a proven cowardly liar like Richie Hughes.
Richie Hughes fails at everything except being a dick.
At 7:12 AM,
Joe G said…
Richie fuckhead sed:
Joe, randomness does not require all outcomes to be equal.
random:
Statistics. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.
Fuck you Richie ReTARDo
At 7:13 AM,
Joe G said…
I wonder if Richie will cross post the refutation?
At 8:23 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
I don't need to cross post, Joe - You can post there. Creationists are the censors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness
"Applied usage in science, mathematics and statistics recognizes a lack of predictability when referring to randomness, but admits regularities in the occurrences of events whose outcomes are not certain. For example, when throwing two dice and counting the total, we can say that a sum of 7 will randomly occur twice as often as 4. This view, where randomness simply refers to situations where the certainty of the outcome is at issue, applies to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy. In these situations, randomness implies a measure of uncertainty, and notions of haphazardness are irrelevant."
Proven wrong, with an example.
At 8:35 AM,
Joe G said…
LoL! @ the ignorant Richie ReTARDo- I proved my case already. You need to actually address that. But you can't because you are an ignorant asshole.
Strange that your example doesn't even address what I posted. And I will go with Mayr and accepted dictionary definitions over Richie's ignorant spewage.
At 8:39 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Do you think that " when throwing two dice and counting the total, we can say that a sum of 7 will randomly occur twice as often as 4", Joe?
At 8:44 AM,
Joe G said…
What does that have to do with anything I have said, Richie? Why are you such an ignorant asshole?
Why can't you actually address what I and Ernst Mayr said? Please tell us how you know more about evolution than Mayr and why anyone should listen to you?
At 8:47 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Well as you're telling people what random means (regarding 'evolutionism'(?)') you might want to understand it first. You don't. again:
Do you think that " when throwing two dice and counting the total, we can say that a sum of 7 will randomly occur twice as often as 4", Joe?
At 8:49 AM,
Joe G said…
LoL! Please make your case that I don't understand "random". In my OP I am using the word as everyome else does, and by the accepted definitions.
So your cowardly false accusation means nothing.
Why are you such a piece of shit loser, Richie? That is the more important question.
At 8:51 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
So, if you're using the word correctly:
Do you think that " when throwing two dice and counting the total, we can say that a sum of 7 will randomly occur twice as often as 4", Joe?
Its a simple, easy question. Young Children can answer it.
At 8:53 AM,
Joe G said…
So Richie cannot make his case and is forced to flail around like a little faggot.
Life is good.
Again I supported my usage of "random" by citing Mayr and an accepted dictionary definition. I don't need to do anything else, Richie. That you can't deal with that proves that you are just a little child.
At 8:59 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Joe is scared of a very simple (trivial) math exercise. We learn a few things about him
- Its unsurprising he can't understand evolution, basic mathematical concepts are beyond him.
- He wants to protect dogma not discover truth, as evidence of his avoidance by actual, hands-on research into the problem. The math is easy, but he can't bring himself to do it. Typical tragic YEC.
At 9:04 AM,
Joe G said…
LoL! Richie the faggot coward cannot make his case so he is forced to flai away.
My understanding of math, evolution and biology excede Richie's by many orders of magnitude.
Richie is just a lying loser who is totally ignorant of science.
At 9:05 AM,
Joe G said…
Again I supported my usage of "random" by citing Mayr and an accepted dictionary definition. I don't need to do anything else, Richie. That you can't deal with that proves that you are just a little child.
At 9:06 AM,
Joe G said…
And Jerad/ unknown, is a math guy. He doesn't have an issue with my usage of the word.
Go figure...
At 9:08 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Keep hiding from the math, Joe. That's what IDists do. They talk about math, but do no math.
Everyone can enjoy the ID side being unprepared or unable to perform the most basic of math.
Apart from choo-choo math, Which Joe made up, because he disagreed with real math.
At 9:13 AM,
Joe G said…
How am I hiding seeing that I supported my claim and already refuted you?
YOU are just upset because I was easily able to refute your nonsense.
Your position doesn't care about math. It doesn't have any math to support it and your math skills rival that of first graders. So perhaps you should just shut up.
At 9:15 AM,
Joe G said…
Richie's "math" is irrelevant to the points I made and supported. Eichie's wiki reference is also irrelevant to the points I made and supported.
So why is Richie harping on it? Because he is upset that I easily refuted his pap.
At 9:20 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
LOL@ID
So afraid of doing the work, testing their ideas, math, etc.
Of course I shouldn't judge ID by Joe. He's an ID nobody.
At 9:29 AM,
Joe G said…
LoL @ Richie's ignorance! IDists have done the math. We have tested our ideas and we have done the work.
In contrat to evolutionism which doesn't have any math, doesn't have a testable model, doesn't make any predictions based on its proposed mechanisms and is a totally useless research heuristic.
Life is good
At 9:38 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
In that case:
Do you think that " when throwing two dice and counting the total, we can say that a sum of 7 will randomly occur twice as often as 4", Joe?
At 9:41 AM,
Joe G said…
Richie's "math" is irrelevant to the points I made and supported. Richie's wiki reference is also irrelevant to the points I made and supported.
So why is Richie harping on it? Because he is upset that I easily refuted his pap.
At 9:45 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
I'm not the one refusing to do basic math, cupcake.
;-)
At 9:54 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
And now we learn an new ID term:
ID "irrelevant" - Joe doesn't want to look at that because it hurts his argument and makes him look (more) stupid.
At 9:57 AM,
Joe G said…
The math is irrelvant. I will prove it:
. For example, when throwing two dice and counting the total, we can say that a sum of 7 will randomly occur twice as often as 4.
This is true because there are 6 ways to make a 7 and only 3 ways to make a 4. 6/3 = 2
And as I said it has NOTHING to do with anything I have said and already supported.
How does it hurt my argument Richie? Care to make your case now?
At 9:59 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
So is that a random process, then?
At 10:08 AM,
Joe G said…
Is what a random process? Rolling dice is an intentional process. How the dice come up is random, ie a chance event.
Why can't you just make your posint? Why do evos have to "argue" like little children?
At 10:10 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
So is the summation of two rolled dice "random"?
When I roll a 7, is that outcome "random"?
At 10:15 AM,
Joe G said…
Yes, it is random in that it was a chance event. CONTEXT is important and always ignored by Richie as if his ignorance means something.
At 10:35 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
But wait. You said, "With respect to natural selection it means that not all individuals have the same probability of being eliminated. That is what makes natural selection non-random."
So you say the condition that does not allow something to be random is if the outcomes don't "have the same probability". That's pretty much full context, no?
At 10:37 AM,
Joe G said…
But wait. You said, "With respect to natural selection it means that not all individuals have the same probability of being eliminated. That is what makes natural selection non-random."
That is what Ernst Mayr said in "What Evolution Is". And I cited him.
As I said, CONTEXT is important and always ignored by Richie the ignorant asshole.
At 10:38 AM,
Joe G said…
So you say the condition that does not allow something to be random is if the outcomes don't "have the same probability".
Nope.
At 10:39 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
You cited Mayr. Do you agree with him?
At 10:41 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Also, can you provide the original Mayr quote?
At 10:59 AM,
Joe G said…
Richie, go to your local library, get the book and read it. That is what I did and will have to do again to satisfy your ignorance.
As for agreeing with Mayr, on that point, seeing that it is basically meaningless, sure. That was one of my reasons for posting it- so people could see how meaningless it is to say that NS is non-random, duh.
At 11:41 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
LOL@Chubs, falling over his fat self.
At 1:41 PM,
Joe G said…
How does hat work? Ru=ichie is ignorant of what evolution is and I am falling over myself? Really?
But anyway, page 118 of "What Evolution Is":
To be fit means to possess certain properties that increase the probability of survival. This interpretation is equally applicable to the “nonrandom survival” definition of natural selection. Not all individuals have an equal probability for survival because the individuals that have properties making survival more probable are a restricted nonrandom component of the population.
I said:
With respect to natural selection it means that not all individuals have the same probability of being eliminated.
Richie loses, again.
At 1:51 PM,
Joe G said…
page 120:
The fundamental difference between the first and second steps of natural selection should now be clear. At the first step, that of the production of genetic variation, everything is a matter of chamce. However, chance palys a much smaller role at the second step, that of differential survival and reproduction, where the "survival of the fittest" is to a large extent determined by genetically based characteristics. To claim natural selection is entirely a chance process reveals a total misunderstanding.
Yes chance plays a much smaller role but much smaller in relation to 100% is what 70%? 50%?
Fitness can be from any number of characteristics, it all depends.
At 2:48 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
So do you agree with Myer?
At 3:14 PM,
Joe G said…
As for agreeing with Mayr, on that point, seeing that it is trivial, vague and meaningless, sure. That was one of my reasons for posting it- so people could see how meaningless it is to say that NS is non-random, duh.
To say natural selection is nonrandom because it has a small nonrandom component, is laughable. And to then think that it means something to call natural selection nonrandom is even more so.
Now I am curious- why did/ do you think natural selection is nonrandom?
At 4:12 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
I don't think selection is equiprobable. It clearly has stochastic components, though.
At 5:11 PM,
Joe G said…
So you agree with what I posted in the OP and yet had a hissy-fit over it for several hours.
Strange...
At 8:17 PM,
Joe G said…
For fuck's sake...
Rihie has sed that my choice of words was poor- his opinion and that he bet Ogre $5 he could get me to meltdown.
Well the meltdown was all Richie's, as usual and my word choicer is only poor to ignorant assholes. My word choice is definitely much better than Richie's.
At 8:20 PM,
Joe G said…
I lost Richie's last comment. But don't worry, it was substance-free as usual.
At 8:48 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Actually cupcake, your best word choices are when you copy mine.
At 2:58 AM,
Unknown said…
"Well the meltdown was all Richie's, as usual and my word choicer is only poor to ignorant assholes. My word choice is definitely much better than Richie's."
When discussing mathematical matters it's confusing if you don't use terms in the same way that mathematicians use them. I'm not talking about dictionary definitions, I'm talking about more precise and limited mathematical usage. Just like in any field, terms are more narrowly used than by the general public. In computer science a register has a particular meaning that most members of the public won't understand.
Part of what Rich was trying to see was if you got an aspect of random behaviour. I don't know why it took you so long to answer his question. You two like to slag each other off more than you like to get to the point sometimes.
And, I agree that in the past at least, your grasp of "random" in the mathematical sense has seemed to be shaky. It's in the stricter mathematical sense that Mayr used the term so your understanding of the term affects how you interpret his statement.
At 7:21 AM,
Joe G said…
Richie, you are too ignorant to copy. This thread exposed your ignorance- well all my posts do.
At 7:23 AM,
Joe G said…
When discussing mathematical matters it's confusing if you don't use terms in the same way that mathematicians use them.
Whatever. I was discussing biology. So I used the word in the same way biologists do.
And Jerad, everything you post is shaky- past and present. So fuck you and your false accusations.
At 7:25 AM,
Joe G said…
So to recap- Richie had no idea what nonrandom meat wrt natural selection. This is evidenced by his hissy-fit with my usage which is almost exactly how Ernst Mayr used it to the point that there isn't any difference between Mayr and what I posted.
EvoTARDs not grasping evolution- not surprising at all.
At 7:27 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad:
I don't know why it took you so long to answer his question.
Because it was irrelevant, just as I said. Thanks for proving tat you are a dumbass for only a dumbass would say what you said.
At 10:31 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, Richie has troubles with word definitions. For example he doesn't seem to know what the words censor and censorship mean.
At 11:36 AM,
Unknown said…
"And Jerad, everything you post is shaky- past and present. So fuck you and your false accusations."
Is that why you continual to respond to my posts?
"So to recap- Richie had no idea what nonrandom meat wrt natural selection. This is evidenced by his hissy-fit with my usage which is almost exactly how Ernst Mayr used it to the point that there isn't any difference between Mayr and what I posted."
Regarding mutations . . . would you categorise the state of a genome as a Markov chain? Or could you model it as a Markov chain?
"Because it was irrelevant, just as I said. Thanks for proving tat you are a dumbass for only a dumbass would say what you said."
My pleasure.
"Jerad, Richie has troubles with word definitions. For example he doesn't seem to know what the words censor and censorship mean."
Not something I'm concerned with. I'll keep out of your fascination with Rich. You seem to care a lot about what he says. You follow him closely so you must care.
At 1:33 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
" only a dumbass would say what you said." - another 'fact' pulled out of Joe's ample behind. Joe's in a little reality of his own..
At 2:13 PM,
Joe G said…
Well Richie, YOU have been unable to say how your little math question was relevant. That alone makes my case.
At 2:27 PM,
Joe G said…
Is that why you continual to respond to my posts?
Yes, to expose your ignorance.
Regarding mutations . . . would you categorise the state of a genome as a Markov chain?
Nope.
Or could you model it as a Markov chain?
Nope. You would have to ask evos because I don't accept tat all mutations are random in any sense of teh word.
There are markov models of DNA evolution but they do not explore random myutations nor natural selection.
And yes I care what liars spew about me, ID and science. That is why I expose Richie so much- he is one proloific liar wrt me, ID and science- Kevin McCarthy also.
At 4:40 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
LOL @ Chubs.
It was just a safe bet you'd fall over equiprobable = random. And you did.
Mutation isn't equiprobable, nor is selection. They both have a stochastic component.
Joe then engages in weasel words: " I don't accept tat all mutations are random in any sense of teh word." Well, "all" is a big ask. You'd have to be everywhere at all times, my chubby miracle seeker.
At 6:20 PM,
Joe G said…
Richie:
It was just a safe bet you'd fall over equiprobable = random.
I didn't equiprobable = random. Just because you are an ignorant ass doesn't reflect on me.
Mutation isn't equiprobable, nor is selection.
I never said they were.
They both have a stochastic component.
Well according to Mayr, chance rules supreme at the variation step. And selection is just elimination, but yes it has stochastic component. Did you have a point besides repeating what I said in the OP using different words?
Joe then engages in weasel words:
Translation- Richie is willfully ignorant of what is being debated wrt biology and evolution.
Well, "all" is a big ask.
Then evolutionists shouldn't be making the claim, asswipe.
Richie Hughes, willfully ignorant asshole and proud of it.
At 2:20 AM,
Unknown said…
"There are markov models of DNA evolution but they do not explore random myutations nor natural selection."
Well, the JC69 model (for one) assumes equal mutation rates. Based on observed random mutations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_DNA_evolution
At 7:08 AM,
Joe G said…
Which mautations have been observed to be random? How, besides ignorance, was it determined that mutations are random? Please be specific and show your work.
BTW in biology not all mutation rates are equal.
At 7:17 AM,
Joe G said…
From Jerad's link:
These Markov models do not explicitly depict the mechanism of mutation nor the action of natural selection.
And there isn't any mention of random mutations in the JC69 model- Jerad is a liar.
At 12:49 PM,
Unknown said…
"Which mautations have been observed to be random? How, besides ignorance, was it determined that mutations are random? Please be specific and show your work."
Well, with no mechanism detected for dictating mutations and with their occurrence not being predictable . . .
"BTW in biology not all mutation rates are equal."
It's just a model. Model makes simplifications in order to understand certain behaviour. Just as in physics and chemistry. Electrons don't really 'live' in shells for example but it's useful first step in understanding their behaviour.
"These Markov models do not explicitly depict the mechanism of mutation nor the action of natural selection. "
Nope, that's not their point. What do you mean by 'mechanism of mutation'? Something that causes mutations.
"And there isn't any mention of random mutations in the JC69 model- Jerad is a liar."
It's part of the assumptions. A VAST majority of people accept that mutations are random but occur at a fairly predictable rate.
At 3:24 PM,
Joe G said…
Well, with no mechanism detected for dictating mutations and with their occurrence not being predictable .
So ignorance it is. The ones and zeros on a computer buss are not predictable and their is a known mechanism for dictating mutations.
A VAST majority of people accept that mutations are random but occur at a fairly predictable rate.
That isn't science but it is ignorance.
At 3:36 PM,
Joe G said…
Also JC69 is not a genome...
At 5:06 PM,
Unknown said…
"So ignorance it is. The ones and zeros on a computer buss are not predictable and their is a known mechanism for dictating mutations."
Not ignorance. It's a matter of the best model for the system. That's what science is about. You're ignorant about who your designer was and their methods and motivations but you still insist there was one.
Given the known functions for any given computer and the range of data being handled the ones and zeroes are NOT random. There's a high probability that only certain patterns will appear.
" 'A VAST majority of people accept that mutations are random but occur at a fairly predictable rate.'
That isn't science but it is ignorance."
I'm sure it appears that way to someone who doesn't understand the mathematics.
"Also JC69 is not a genome..."
Well DUH!! Who said it was? Try and keep up.
At 6:56 PM,
Joe G said…
It's a matter of the best model for the system.
Except unguided evolution cannot be modelled. You lose.
You're ignorant about who your designer was and their methods and motivations but you still insist there was one.
That is how it goes with archaeology, forensic science and SETI. Without designer input or direct observation all design centric venues are ignorant wrt the designer and the methods. THAT IS SCIENCE, dipshit.
Heck your position is the mechanistic position yet it can't say anything about the how.
I'm sure it appears that way to someone who doesn't understand the mathematics.
Unguided evolution doesn't have any mathematics for support and Coyne sez it doesn't need any because dogma doesn't care about math.
"Also JC69 is not a genome..."
Well DUH!! Who said it was?
Umm YOU were talking about Markov and GENOMES, asshole.
YOU SAID:
Regarding mutations . . . would you categorise the state of a genome as a Markov chain?
Fuck you, asshole - Try to keep up- moron.
At 2:30 AM,
Unknown said…
"Except unguided evolution cannot be modelled. You lose."
Funny that it has predictive power then. Sounds like a pretty good model to me.
"That is how it goes with archaeology, forensic science and SETI. Without designer input or direct observation all design centric venues are ignorant wrt the designer and the methods. THAT IS SCIENCE, dipshit."
Archaeology is all about HUMAN agents. Designer known. Forensic science is about human agents. Designer known. SETI is about physical alien agents with similar capacities to ours. Agent assumed to be within certain parameters.
"Heck your position is the mechanistic position yet it can't say anything about the how."
Universal common descent via modification. What's wrong with that? You only say that because you want mutations to be non-random, for which there is no empirical evidence.
"Unguided evolution doesn't have any mathematics for support and Coyne sez it doesn't need any because dogma doesn't care about math."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH I'm sure he does. :-)
"YOU SAID:
Regarding mutations . . . would you categorise the state of a genome as a Markov chain?
Fuck you, asshole - Try to keep up- moron."
So? It's like asking if the suspension system in your car is a first or second order linear differential equation. It doesn't mean they're the same thing! It means the dif eq is a model of the system.
JC69 is a MODEL. A mathematical approximation.
At 7:22 AM,
Joe G said…
LoL! Unguided evolution doewsn't have any predictive power- you are a fool or dishonest.
Archaeology is all about HUMAN agents.
Could be but so what? Saying hiumans does not saty who- humans is a generalization. The same with forensic science. If a fdorensic scientist went to his/ her boss ands said a human did it they would be fired. The same for archaeology.
IOW you are just an ignorant asshole and scientifically illiterate. Nice job.
So by Jerad's logic saying the designer of living organisms on earth is not from earth is good enough. And saying the designer of humans was not human is good enough.
Thanks Jerad.
Universal common descent via modification.
What got modified? Be specific or admit that you are a faggot. Without specifics your mechanistic position is a failure because it cannot be tested.
There isnb't any empirical evidence that mutations are blind and undirected.
JC69 is not a model of genomes. Jerad was asking about modelling genomes.
At 7:23 AM,
Joe G said…
And Coyne sewd that his position doesn't need math because he declared natural selection is a designer mimic and can do what Darwin said. That is dogma as there isn't any evidence that NS is a designer mimic.
At 7:47 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerry Coyne, Liar for Evolutionism
No math required- by declaration.
At 8:27 AM,
Unknown said…
"LoL! Unguided evolution doewsn't have any predictive power- you are a fool or dishonest."
It can predict what type of fossils you're likely to find at certain geologic layers.
" 'Archaeology is all about HUMAN agents. '
Could be but so what? Saying hiumans does not saty who- humans is a generalization. The same with forensic science. If a fdorensic scientist went to his/ her boss ands said a human did it they would be fired. The same for archaeology.
IOW you are just an ignorant asshole and scientifically illiterate. Nice job."
The point is we KNOW the type of agent in archaeology, forensics and SETI. They are not only plausible but we have experience of them.
"So by Jerad's logic saying the designer of living organisms on earth is not from earth is good enough. And saying the designer of humans was not human is good enough.
Thanks Jerad."
What? I'm not saying anything. You're the one who's postulating some unknown, undetected and undefined agent. You won't/can't even say what that agent did or when.
" 'Universal common descent via modification.'
What got modified? Be specific or admit that you are a faggot. Without specifics your mechanistic position is a failure because it cannot be tested."
The genomes got modified!! Which changed morphologies. Which led to differential survival rates.
"There isnb't any empirical evidence that mutations are blind and undirected."
With no mechanism or agent to modify them what else is there? You've got no evidence that says they aren't random.
"JC69 is not a model of genomes. Jerad was asking about modelling genomes."
I'm sorry the vocabulary and the mathematics are beyond you.
"And Coyne sewd that his position doesn't need math because he declared natural selection is a designer mimic and can do what Darwin said. That is dogma as there isn't any evidence that NS is a designer mimic."
In you link Dr Coyne points to some basic truths that don't require mathematics. It doesn't mean the deeper analysis doesn't require mathematics.
You really are grasping at straws. There are hundreds, thousands of mathematical models of biological systems and evolutionary trends. Dr Coyne knows that.
At 8:48 AM,
Joe G said…
It can predict what type of fossils you're likely to find at certain geologic layers.
Liar.
The point is we KNOW the type of agent in archaeology, forensics and SETI. They are not only plausible but we have experience of them.
Nope, we don't have any experience with ancient humas building Stonehenges.
You're the one who's postulating some unknown, undetected and undefined agent.
It has been detected. And I defined it. And it is as known as the designers of Stonehenge
The genomes got modified!!
No specifics- Jerad is a faggot.
With no mechanism or agent to modify them what else is there?
Design is a mechanism. A Targeted search is a mechnism.
I'm sorry the vocabulary and the mathematics are beyond you.
LoL! The vocabulary is definitely beyond you and the math is irrelevant.
And Coyne's is almost all lies- evidence-free spewage.
There are hundreds, thousands of mathematical models of biological systems and evolutionary trends.
Liar- nothing that supprts unguided evolution or you would have presented it.
It is very telling that all your posts are evidence-free.
At 10:14 AM,
Unknown said…
" 'It can predict what type of fossils you're likely to find at certain geologic layers.'
Liar."
That's the extent of your response? Are we back on the playground again?
"Nope, we don't have any experience with ancient humas building Stonehenges."
You really don't get it do you? We know it was humans and we know what humans can do and we have good, plausible guesses about how they did things for which we lack direct evidence.
" 'You're the one who's postulating some unknown, undetected and undefined agent.'
It has been detected. And I defined it. And it is as known as the designers of Stonehenge"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Are you saying your designer was a human then? :-)
This is one of the big errors in ID: they say "all the example of complex specified (functional) information have come from design. But the only examples we have are of human agents. So, if you think DNA was 'designed' then are you postulating a human designer?
" 'The genomes got modified!! '
No specifics- Jerad is a faggot."
Well look at the work being done with genome sequencing. Good lord you expect the whole world to come and lay its work down in front of you.
" 'With no mechanism or agent to modify them what else is there?'
Design is a mechanism. A Targeted search is a mechnism."
Design does not create the object, just the plan. What targeted search? Are you saying your human(oid) designer didn't know what kind of protein folds they were looking for so they did a targeted search? Interesting. I wonder how they searched through the kerjillions of possibilities?
"LoL! The vocabulary is definitely beyond you and the math is irrelevant."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH If you can't understand it, you dismiss it. Lovely!
"And Coyne's is almost all lies- evidence-free spewage."
Well, at least he has the balls to stand up and say what he really thinks, on the internet and in papers and books. And his papers are peer reviewed. He talks to other people in his field. He listens to those who know about the work being done. You've got a crappy little blog that almost no one reads. AND you disagree with Dr Behe.
" 'There are hundreds, thousands of mathematical models of biological systems and evolutionary trends.'
Liar- nothing that supprts unguided evolution or you would have presented it."
They are MODELS!! Just like a differential equation of an electrical circuit it tells you something about the behaviour of the system. Or Newton's laws. It doesn't 'support' the theory. But, when a model explains the data and predicts future behaviour and discoveries then you know you're getting closer.
"It is very telling that all your posts are evidence-free."
Telling that you think that being a merchant of doubt in your little bubble of books and true believers is having any effect on the ongoing science.
At 10:48 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, Since you are lying it is OK to call you a liar. And seeing that you just spew shit without evidentiary support it is safe to say that you are lying.
We know it was humans and we know what humans can do and we have good, plausible guesses about how they did things for which we lack direct evidence.
You don't get it. Saying "humans" does NOT answer the who question. What the fuck is wrong with you? And if we don't know how then we can't say who.
This is one of the big errors in ID: they say "all the example of complex specified (functional) information have come from design. But the only examples we have are of human agents. So, if you think DNA was 'designed' then are you postulating a human designer?
No asshole. If it matches all of the criteria, which it does, and humans could not have done it, we infer it was some other intelligent agency. Mother nature doesn't magically get the power just because humans weren't around.
As I said you are a complete moron.
Well look at the work being done with genome sequencing.
So what? Again nothing supports your cowardly claims.
Design does not create the object, just the plan.
Dumbass- design is both. We build houses by design, ie by the plan.
What targeted search?
The one that drives our immune system.
And look, don't say I can't understand something just because you are too retarded to actually amke your case.
Well, at least he has the balls to stand up and say what he really thinks, on the internet and in papers and books.
So because he lies publically it's all OK? I post and stand up for what I really think. And I ca refute Coyne- easily.
Again there aren't any models for unguided evolution or you would just present them.
You are such a piece of shit liar Jerad. You are ignorant and scientifically illiterate.
Behe sez that God guided universal common descent. I guess you agree with that.
At 11:03 AM,
Unknown said…
"Jerad, Since you are lying it is OK to call you a liar. And seeing that you just spew shit without evidentiary support it is safe to say that you are lying."
Sorry I don't have the time to link to hundreds of research papers and textbooks and web sites explaining things.
"You don't get it. Saying "humans" does NOT answer the who question. What the fuck is wrong with you? And if we don't know how then we can't say who."
It's a lot more specific than you can be about your designer. We've got a when, we've got a good idea of how AND we know something about the generic who, i.e. the kind of agent we're talking about.
"No asshole. If it matches all of the criteria, which it does, and humans could not have done it, we infer it was some other intelligent agency. Mother nature doesn't magically get the power just because humans weren't around."
If you only have human examples to draw upon and you think it was designed then you can really only say it must have been something very human like. So, aliens?
" 'Well look at the work being done with genome sequencing. '
So what? Again nothing supports your cowardly claims."
Of course it does!! Even Dr Behe admits there is genomic evidence that humans and chimps have a common ancestor!!
" 'Design does not create the object, just the plan.
Dumbass- design is both. We build houses by design, ie by the plan."
You need an agent, which you don't have. Stonehenge has agents which we know were around with the abilities and, since we think we know why they built it, the motivation.
" 'What targeted search?'
The one that drives our immune system."
What are you talking about? How the immune system works or how it came into existence?
" 'Well, at least he has the balls to stand up and say what he really thinks, on the internet and in papers and books.'
So because he lies publically it's all OK? I post and stand up for what I really think. And I ca refute Coyne- easily."
You don't listen to your critics. You don't submit your work to a forum where it is scrutinised by people who know the field. You publish nothing of substance. I'd love to see you in an academic forum when the questions start coming fast and furious. Would you just tell people to 'fuck off' when you can't answer their questions?
The point is that Dr Coyne has proven over and over again that he is knowledgable about his field. His work is reviewed over and over and over again (and sometimes criticised) by others in the field.
"Behe sez that God guided universal common descent. I guess you agree with that."
Not entirely. That's the point. He thinks that unguided processes can explain at least some parts of evolution.
At 12:47 PM,
Joe G said…
Sorry I don't have the time to link to hundreds of research papers and textbooks and web sites explaining things.
Translation- Jerad is bluffing and equivocating.
"You don't get it. Saying "humans" does NOT answer the who question. What the fuck is wrong with you? And if we don't know how then we can't say who."
It's a lot more specific than you can be about your designer.
Not really.
We've got a when, we've got a good idea of how AND we know something about the generic who, i.e. the kind of agent we're talking about.
AGAIN- everything that you think we have came from centuries of investigation.
If you only have human examples to draw upon and you think it was designed then you can really only say it must have been something very human like. So, aliens?
As I said if someone can step forward, produce a testable model for blind processes producing what we say is designed, and actually tests it, then we can talk. Until then all you are is a loser.
As I said we wouldn't even be talking about ID if evolutionism and materialism had some actual supporting models. But how can you model millions of improbable coincidences?
Of course it does!! Even Dr Behe admits there is genomic evidence that humans and chimps have a common ancestor!!
Behe says God did it. That doesn't support your position, asshole.
You need an agent, which you don't have.
We don't need an agent. We infer one from the evidence. And if your position had something then we wouldn't be discussing the need for intelligent agencies.
Coyne is a lying asshole who has never published anything wrt bwe producing complex protein machinery. He has never published anything wrt natural selection designing something.
He thinks that unguided processes can explain at least some parts of evolution.
Me too.
Models for unguided evolution, 0
Blind watchmaker research, 0
You are just a liar for evolutionism, Jerad. You have been used and apparently you are OK with that.
At 12:58 PM,
Joe G said…
How science works:
1- Determine design exists
2- Look for a designer
How Jerad thinks:
1- Look for a designer
2- If you can't find one then it isn't designed
Jerad is anti-science
At 4:41 PM,
Unknown said…
" 'Sorry I don't have the time to link to hundreds of research papers and textbooks and web sites explaining things.'
Translation- Jerad is bluffing and equivocating."
:-) You couldn't even read and understand one web-based reference.
" 'We've got a when, we've got a good idea of how AND we know something about the generic who, i.e. the kind of agent we're talking about.'
AGAIN- everything that you think we have came from centuries of investigation."
So have you! And what have you got after all that? "This stuff looks designed." No when. No how. NO why. After centuries of the design paradigm reigning supreme. Nothing.
"As I said if someone can step forward, produce a testable model for blind processes producing what we say is designed, and actually tests it, then we can talk. Until then all you are is a loser."
It's being tested every day. A fossil in the wrong place, a life form being discovered with no possible antecedents. The real science is always vulnerable.
"As I said we wouldn't even be talking about ID if evolutionism and materialism had some actual supporting models. But how can you model millions of improbable coincidences?"
Gee, I guess you have to understand the mathematics. hahahahahahahahah
" 'Of course it does!! Even Dr Behe admits there is genomic evidence that humans and chimps have a common ancestor!!'
Behe says God did it. That doesn't support your position, asshole."
So, you think Dr Behe says 'God did it'. If you agree with him then you say the same thing. If you disagree with him then what are you saying? 'Gpd didn't do it'? 'Natural processed did it'? 'Some unknown, undetected and undefined intelligence did some of it at some time which I'm not going to be specific about'? What are you saying Joe?
"We don't need an agent. We infer one from the evidence. And if your position had something then we wouldn't be discussing the need for intelligent agencies."
You infer one. You need one. And, if there wasn't one around at the time . . . you're dead in the water. Kaput.
"Coyne is a lying asshole who has never published anything wrt bwe producing complex protein machinery. He has never published anything wrt natural selection designing something."
Dr Coyne is much braver than you. HIs intellectual reputation is on the line every day. He has put himself up for scrutiny from his peers. You don't even agree with Dr Behe. Or KF. You can't even be clear about what you do believe.
" 'He thinks that unguided processes can explain at least some parts of evolution.'
Me too."
Well, you should be much more clear about what you do think. Spell it out. Be specific
"You are just a liar for evolutionism, Jerad. You have been used and apparently you are OK with that."
You have no idea what intellectual journey I've been through.
"How science works:
1- Determine design exists
2- Look for a designer
How Jerad thinks:
1- Look for a designer
2- If you can't find one then it isn't designed
Jerad is anti-science"
You cannot "magic' or 'logic' a designer out of nothing. You know it. When you stop trying to push the party line and get on with standing up for what you really believe then you will achieve something.
At 5:46 PM,
Joe G said…
You couldn't even read and understand one web-based reference.
Liar.
It's being tested every day.
Liar.
A fossil in the wrong place, a life form being discovered with no possible antecedents.
More of nothing to do with bwe. It's as if you are just unable to think and learn.
Gee, I guess you have to understand the mathematics.
BWE doesn't have any math to understand. Again you are lying.
So, you think Dr Behe says 'God did it'.
I know he does.
Dr Coyne is much braver than you.
LoL! I would love to see him take an unarmored SUV from Baghdad north to Balad along unprotected roads. I would love to see him in Colombia chasing FARC and narcos.
Put me in front of Coyne and I bet he shits himself.
Well, you should be much more clear about what you do think. Spell it out. Be specific
I have. Just because you are an ignorant asshole doesn't mean anything to me.
You have no idea what intellectual journey I've been through.
I know that you spew bullshit and cannot support bwe. I know that you are a liar and a loser.
You cannot "magic' or 'logic' a designer out of nothing.
We don't. The design is evidence for a designer. That is how science works, moron.
At 5:47 PM,
Joe G said…
Models for unguided evolution, 0
Blind watchmaker research, 0
Mathematics for bwe, 0.
At 7:09 AM,
Joe G said…
Poor cowardly crybaby Jerad. His position has nothing- no models, no predictions, no math and no use. And he is so scientifically illiterate, willfully so, for not understanding Newton’s four rules of scientific investigation which say if necessity and chance can explain X then we do not infer X was designed. That means that if Jerad’s position had some support, besides all of the lying evos, ID would be a non-starter. Heck it’s even in ID’s premises that necessity and chance are not sufficient.
He is so pathetic and desperate that he has to magic natural selection into a designer mimic
At 7:11 AM,
Unknown said…
"I would love to see him take an unarmored SUV from Baghdad north to Balad along unprotected roads. I would love to see him in Colombia chasing FARC and narcos."
I take it to mean you have done those things and I'm assuming as a member of the armed or the intelligence services and I'd just like to say:
That I admire, applaud and appreciate what you and others like you have done for their country and the world. I am not a peacenik, I accept that sometimes it's necessary to go to war or to intervene in foreign countries. There is no higher honour than to volunteer your own life to protect family and country. I could not do what you've done and I salute you. I sincerely hope that the recent round of budget cuts, etc have not affected the support your government should be giving you.
I disagree with you on many things but you've earned my respect in a way much more important.
At 9:35 AM,
Unknown said…
I give you compliments and show you some true respect and you respond with more abuse.
Are you always such a jerk?
At 11:56 AM,
Joe G said…
Well Jerad, I posted before I read your post and then didn't remove my post because I had to go.
BTW I wasn't military- I was a technical advisor. And I am also older than you so my days of romping in the jungles and deserts are over.
At 3:45 PM,
Unknown said…
It's a good thing to be to old to do.
Anyway, my respect and appreciation still stand. There are many ways to serve your country. And what you did counts for the good. I think.
Being older than me you remember the FUBARs that happened in the 70s and 80s. It's a shame that the US didn't support it's people more in some things they sent them out to do. "Go and take care of this thing. We won't acknowledge your effort or reward you. And if you fuck up . . . you're on your own." I suppose some of it had to be that way but it still sucks.
At 4:05 PM,
Joe G said…
Plausible deniability:
"Yes he is American but we have no idea what he was doing there."
1996 I was picked up in Colombia and the US didn't come for me. The Colombian forces I was working with did. They needed me.
At 1:43 AM,
Unknown said…
Shouldn't be that way. Too bad politicians didn't worry more about people and principles instead of votes.
Post a Comment
<< Home