Intelligent Reasoning: And More Ignorance from TSZ

Saturday, February 25, 2017

And More Ignorance from TSZ

-
EvoTARDs love to claim that they are defenders of science but when push comes to shove they prove that they don't understand what science entails. You can tell by how few posts about science they have. And when asked to defend their position they just ban you for doing so. But I digress. Enter well known ignoramus acartia, aka William Spearshake: Acartia spews-

If your alternative to evolution is scientifically based, supported by tons of evidence, and is testable, you will have little difficulty getting permission to teach it in the science class.

Dumbass, ID is not anti-evolution. Also you and yours have proven that there isn't any science behind evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. OTOH ID is testable as it makes testable claims. ID is also potentially falsifiable. Both of those qualities demonstrate that ID is a scientific enterprise.

So seriously only a total asshole, ignorant coward would say what acartia posted

87 Comments:

At 5:12 PM, Jerad said…

But, of course, ID is anti-evolutionary theory.

ID does not believe non-directed processes could have 'done it' which runs counter to evolutionary theory.

ID does not believe in universal common descent via non-directed variations which runs counter to evolutionary theory.

Some versions of ID believe in a front loaded initial organism which runs counter to evolutionary theory.

Some ID proponents believe in a young earth which runs counter to evolutionary theory and just about every other science.

What you should say is that ID believes there has been changes in organisms and genomes over time. But I'm not sure that is true for all ID proponents though. Which brings up an interesting questions which no ID proponents can answer:

When was design implemented? Was it all at the beginning or in small steps over the history of life?

Many ID proponents say that if evolutionary theorists cannot address the origins of life then they haven't proved their case. But ID proponents never, ever address that issue themselves. If they're cowards like Joe they claim they haven't had time to examine the design they've detected to draw any meaningful conclusions. And they will also say that they are not subject to anyone else's agenda. The truth is no one in the ID community is trying to answer the 'when' question because that would split the ID community into feuding groups which would kill the whole movement.
At 6:04 PM, Joe G said…

And more willful ignorance. ID is not anti-evolution. Period, end of story. If you think otherwise then show that ID argues against descent with modification and a change in allele frequency over time, or shut up. I can't make you learn about ID, Jerad. All I can do is continue to point out your willful ignorance.

I never said ID was not anti-evolution theory- well because there isn't any scientific theory of evolution in the first place.

It is true and has been said that ID is anti- evolution by means of blind and mindless processes having sole domino over evolutionary processes. But that scenario is untestable and therefor unscientific anyway.

And if evolutionists would just step up and support their claims then ID would be a non-starter. But evos are all intellectual and physical cowards. They have no intention of ever supporting their claims. They don't even know where to start. No one uses the heuristic of blind watchmaker evolution. It is useless- worse- it is impeding progress.

Jerad, like all anti-ID morons, thinks ID needs to have all the answers even when his position has none. Jerad, like all anti-ID morons, thinks IDists need to heed his asinine agenda, even when his position has absolutely nothing. Only cowards attack ID when all they have to do to falsify ID is step up, figure out to test their claims, test and confirm them.

All Jerad the imp coward can do is say that I am denying something. Yet if that were true then all Jerad would have to do is ante up but he never does. Jerad is the coward's coward
At 6:51 PM, Joe G said…

Here Jerad, just click on the words Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution- address the argument or better yet just understand it. Because it is more than stupid to argue against Intelligent Design when you obviously don't know anything about it.
At 1:44 AM, Jerad said…

If you think otherwise then show that ID argues against descent with modification and a change in allele frequency over time, or shut up.

ID argues against unguided modification which is at the heart of evolutionary theory and to pretend otherwise is just a clumsy and blatant attempt to wrong-foot opponents. One of the reasons Darwin was so reluctant to publish his ideas was because he knew that he was undercutting theological views. Evolutionary theory has always been about unguided processes. So yes, ID is anti-evolutionary theory.

But that scenario is untestable and therefor unscientific anyway.

Mutations have been shown to be random with respect to fitness despite a couple of non-peer reviewed books you've read. Which is why there is so much waste in the evolutionary process. Here's an example: somewhere between one-quarter to one-third of human pregnancies are spontaneously aborted, usually in the first trimester. How do you explain that from an ID point of view? Without just waving your hands about and claiming you don't fully understand the designer's goal. ID has to explain something not just say: oooh, that looks designed and walking away.

If you think mutations are guided then come up with the evidence. Do some work! Some work that will stand up to scrutiny. I know you personally are not capable of such work, you can't even do Sophomore level calculus. But surely someone in the ID community could manage it. And yet . . . no one is even working on that.

Jerad, like all anti-ID morons, thinks IDists need to heed his asinine agenda, even when his position has absolutely nothing.

ID doesn't have an agenda at all. Oh, I forget, you all are spending hours and hours, years and years studying the design so you can say something significant about it. Right? How long will we have to wait for that then? Another ten years? It's been longer than that since the Dover trial and yet . . . nothing. Even Dr Dembski has left ID. Does that sound like an active and ongoing research field to you?

Only cowards attack ID when all they have to do to falsify ID is step up, figure out to test their claims, test and confirm them.

Already done.
At 6:12 AM, Joe G said…

Jerad can't even read. You are one pathetic imp, Jerad.

ID argues against unguided modification

WRONG!

which is at the heart of evolutionary theory

I never said anything about any alleged evolutionary theory. Learn how to read

Mutations have been shown to be random with respect to fitness

That is not only false it is meaningless. According to evolutionism all mutations are random as in happenstance occurrences.

If you think mutations are guided then come up with the evidence.

If you think they are unguided ten you have to come up with the evidence. You can't even come up with a testable hypothesis

Only cowards attack ID when all they have to do to falsify ID is step up, figure out to test their claims, test and confirm them.

Already done.

Liar. I know you may think that is has been done but that is a lie. You can't even say how evolution by means of blind and mindless processes produced ATP synthase. You don't even have a testable hypothesis for such a thing.

You are just a willfully ignorant and gullible imp, Jerad. Over 150 years and you can't even answer basic questions. And no one even uses blind watchmaker evolution for anything.
At 11:59 AM, Jerad said…

WRONG!

Well, you argue against unguided mutations anyway. In truth, no one really can say what ID says since there are different versions. No one can agree on which one is correct. Funny that.

I never said anything about any alleged evolutionary theory. Learn how to read

Whatever. I'm reading between your lines.

That is not only false it is meaningless. According to evolutionism all mutations are random as in happenstance occurrences.

What is meaningless with the statement: mutations are random with respect to fitness? You really do not understand evolutionary theory. Or mathematics. It's nice for you to exhibit your lack of understanding for the readers though.

If you think they are unguided ten you have to come up with the evidence. You can't even come up with a testable hypothesis

Mathematical analysis has been done. Of course, you don't understand it. But that doesn't mean it hasn't been done.

Besides, unguided is a more parsimonious explanation than some unknown and undefined and undetected designer created some undetected and undefined extra coding in the cell in order to influence biological development. So you have to prove that mutations are guided. Too bad you can't do that. Follow all the data. And you haven't got any. Too bad.

You can't even say how evolution by means of blind and mindless processes produced ATP synthase. You don't even have a testable hypothesis for such a thing.

Not every question has been answered it's true. But people are doing research into such questions. But NO ONE in the ID community is even attempting to figure out when or how the designer implemented ATP synthase. No one.

Evolutionary theory can answer a lot of questions, more all the time. ID isn't even trying to answer anything since its proponents have decided the designer did. it. No research agenda. You haven't even tried to pretend there is one.

And I noticed that you didn't even try to explain why such a high percentage of human pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions from a design perspective. You aways ignore questions you can't answer. You are a lot like President Trump; you've picked your version of reality and anything that contradicts it you ignore. Is that how science is done then? Cherry pick results that agree with your predetermined answers?

Everyone uses blind watchmaker evolution except for people who deny the research. People like you who do no research, have no pertinent academic background, don't teach, don't even write books about the subject. People who are denialists. Deniers for God.

Who is the designer Joe? Some alien who has left no material traces of their presence except for DNA? No signals, no labs, no landing pads, no facilities . . . nothing. How is that different from God then?
At 1:12 PM, Joe G said…

Well, you argue against unguided mutations anyway.

Nope. Again you just have no fucking idea. You didn't read my essay on ID is not anti-evolution.

In truth, no one really can say what ID says since there are different versions.

LoL! As if all evos agree on everything

I'm reading between your lines.

Just read what I write. You are too stupid to "read between the lines".

What is meaningless with the statement: mutations are random with respect to fitness?

1- They all are not so

2- Only those not so well versed in evolution make such a claim.

You really do not understand evolutionary theory.

Which one? There isn't a scientific theory of evolution and there are several versions of evolutionism.

Again I will side with what Mayr said about it over what you spew.

Mathematical analysis has been done.

So what? What does the mathematical analysis of one's and zero's on a computer buss tell you?

Besides, unguided is a more parsimonious explanation...

But it cannot be tested. Also numerous just-so genetic accidents is hardly parsimonious.

Not every question has been answered it's true.

Not any. No one even knows how to test the claim that blind and mindless processes did it.

And I noticed that you didn't even try to explain why such a high percentage of human pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions from a design perspective.

Genetic entropy- the effects of truly random mutations on a good design. Yours can't even explain sexual reproduction, dipshit. You have to be given starting populations of prokaryotes because yours cannot explain the origin of life.

To date nothing has contradicted ID. To date Jerad doesn't know how science is done. To date no one uses blind watchmaker evolution for anything. Jerad cannot show any instance of anyone using it to guide their research.

Jerad is just another pathetic loser and liar for evolutionism. All bluff and bluster.
At 1:14 PM, Joe G said…

And again- genetic algorithms are examples of Intelligent Design Evolution. There aren't any such examples for BWE.
At 5:23 PM, Jerad said…

You didn't read my essay on ID is not anti-evolution.

You didn't make sense.

LoL! As if all evos agree on everything

ID proponents can't even agree as to when design was implemented.

1- They all are not so

That doesn't mean the statement is meaningless. And, again, it shows that you are anti-evolutionary theory.

So what? What does the mathematical analysis of one's and zero's on a computer buss tell you?

Thanks for admitting that you don't understand the mathematical analysis. That means we don't have to take your opinion seriously regarding the randomness of mutations.

But it cannot be tested. Also numerous just-so genetic accidents is hardly parsimonious.

And you think that some undefined, undetected designers at some undefined time did some undetermined things which determined the course of biological development on earth is a better explanation? Too funny.

No one even knows how to test the claim that blind and mindless processes did it.

Said by someone who doesn't understand the mathematical analysis.

enetic entropy- the effects of truly random mutations on a good design.

Really? So, if there was a big initial uploading of design how it it that humans arose after millennia of degradation and decline? What determines which mutations are random and which are guided? Is there a goal for biological development? Who decided that goal?

Explane how design affected biological development. And how it failed.

And again- genetic algorithms are examples of Intelligent Design Evolution. There aren't any such examples for BWE.

I didn't say they were. I never brought them up.

Jerad cannot show any instance of anyone using it to guide their research.

All evolutionary research follows that paradigm. Joe is just a denialist. But, since no one takes him seriously, it doesn't matter.

So, who is the designer Joe? Can't say? Won't say? Denier for God?

Why do so many human pregnancies end up as spontaneous abortions?

You keep not answering questions Joe.

You keep not publishing peer reviewed articles.

You keep not doing any research at all.

You keep not doing anything at all except to blather a lot on a free blog.
At 6:10 PM, Joe G said…

You didn't make sense

Or you are just too stupid to understand it. Make a case, I dare you

ID proponents can't even agree as to when design was implemented.

So what? You guys can't even test your claims

That doesn't mean the statement is meaningless. And, again, it shows that you are anti-evolutionary theory.

Please show me this alleged theory and where it says what you claim. Ernst Mayr doesn't agree with you. He says mutations are random as in happenstance occurrences.

Thanks for admitting that you don't understand the mathematical analysis

You didn't present any.

And you think that some undefined, undetected designers at some undefined time did some undetermined things which determined the course of biological development on earth is a better explanation?

That is not true. The designer has been detected. Look, moron, all you have is sheer dumb luck all the way down. That includes the laws that govern nature. You don't have anything that can actually be tested.

But I digress, when Stonehenge was first being studied as an artifact guess what they had? some undefined, undetected designers at some undefined time did some undetermined things which determined the course of the structure.

Said by someone who doesn't understand the mathematical analysis.

Listen, dipshit, there isn't any mathematical analysis for the evolution of ATP synthase via blind and mindless processes. Stop being such a cowardly asswiper

genetic entropy- the effects of truly random mutations on a good design.

Really?

Yes, really. We have been over this before. All blind and mindless processes are good for is disease and deformities

And again- genetic algorithms are examples of Intelligent Design Evolution. There aren't any such examples for BWE.

I didn't say they were.

Too funny, you can't even understand English. Evolution by means of guided mutations has been demonstrated via genetic algorithms. BWE has nothing

All evolutionary research follows that paradigm

That is your ignorant opinion and it is easily refuted:

Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology

But it doesn't matter as we have covered this already and all you can do is continue to lie and bluff. You have never presented anything that supports anything you post.

Attacking me and lying like a little bitch isn't going to provide support for your position.
At 2:17 AM, Jerad said…

So what?

It shows that ID hasn't even figured out what it's saying except for: we think DNA was designed.

Explain the difference between Mayr's definition and 'random with respect to fitness' in the context of DNA mutations. That doesn't mean just saying 'they are saying different things'. Explain what the difference is and what it implies.

You didn't present any.

It's easy enough to find . . . unless you're a lazy denier.

That is not true. The designer has been detected

That has not been widely accepted. And even if I grant you that you don't know when or how design was implemented. You can't say precisely what was designed or influenced. Your idea is one giant case of special pleading.

all you have is sheer dumb luck all the way down.

Not true. Only mutations are random. Natural selection (for one) is not. Just like all the other deniers for God you don't really understand evolutionary theory.

But I digress, when Stonehenge was first being studied as an artifact guess what they had? some undefined, undetected designers at some undefined time did some undetermined things which determined the course of the structure.

Not undefined: human beings. Not undetected: we found their habitats and tools. The time can easily be established to within a few decades. We even know the site was built in phases and those phases have been dated.

What have you got in comparison? Diddly squat. AND no one is even trying to get more.

there isn't any mathematical analysis for the evolution of ATP synthase via blind and mindless processes.

I didn't say there was. There is plenty of mathematical analysis of mutations and their rates.

All blind and mindless processes are good for is disease and deformities

So . . . are you saying that random mutations can never come up with something positive?

If yes then how can you tell the difference between directed mutations and random mutations that have a positive affect?

Evolution by means of guided mutations has been demonstrated via genetic algorithms. BWE has nothing

Oooo, you think a computer model is an accurate representation of what actually happened? That's like saying a video game of the civil war proves how it happened.
At 10:31 AM, Joe G said…

Nope, no science in that bit of lies and bluffs. Nope, no support for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes, either. It's as if Jerad knows that I am right and he is nothing but a bluffing coward.

Jerad doesn't think computers accurately model the weather

Not undefined: human beings

That's a what, not a who.

Not undetected: we found their habitats and tools.

And how did you determine those were the houses of the designers and builders?

The time can easily be established to within a few decades

And yet it keeps changing.

But I digress. Jerad obviously cannot read:

when Stonehenge was first being studied as an artifact guess what they had? some undefined, undetected designers at some undefined time did some undetermined things which determined the course of the structure.

You must be proud to be a moron, Jerad.

Only mutations are random. Natural selection (for one) is not.

Dumbass. NS is only non-random in a very trivial sense- that being not all variants have the same probability of being eliminated. NS is still whatever is good enough to survive. It is still just contingent serendipity. And seeing tat yours cannot explain living organisms NS is a non-factor as it only applies to living organisms. You lose because you are too stupid to understand anything. And you are too much of a coward to support your position's claims.

Look find support for your saying "random with respect to fitness"- find it in a textbook where it isn't being chastised as ignorance.
At 10:57 AM, Jerad said…

Looks like you failed to even attempt to compare and contrast Mayr's definition with 'random with respect to fitness'. Figures.

Looks like you failed to address the issue of distinguishing random mutations with positive effects and direct mutations. Figure.

Looks like you continue to display your ignorance of archaeological and biological research. Figures.

We know humans designed and built Stonehenge and we know approximately when. You can't even come close to any such conclusions regarding your 'designer' and no one is even trying. Figures.

Computers are getting better at PREDICTING the weather in the short term, much less than a year. But they're shit at running the algorithms backwards even a decade or two and telling us what was happening then.

You continue to deny research and data that points away from your conclusions. You continue to ignore questions you can't answer. You don't understand basic probability and statistics. You can't tell me ID's research agenda. You can't even tell me which version of ID is 'correct'. And you really don't even understand the basics of evolutionary theory which you claim to be arguing against. Figures.

I was listening to an audio version of Dr Meyers book Signature in the Cell. Even he thinks there is a theory of evolution. You don't even agree with some of the big names in the ID movement. No wonder they don't even take you seriously. Figures.
At 11:06 AM, Jerad said…

By the way:

Mutation as a Random Process,

pages 178 and 179 of Evolution by Douglas Futuyma, copyright 2005.

Part of Chapter 8: The Origin of Genetic Variation.

In fact, Futuyma discusses and experiment that helped justify that which you deny is true that was done in 1952.

Deny, deny, deny. And without even trying to find out what has already been done and established.
At 12:15 PM, Joe G said…

LoL! Jerad cannot support his claim about "random with respect to fitness". Figures

We know humans designed and built Stonehenge and we know approximately when.

Look moron, everything we "know" came AFTER Stonehenge was determined to be an artifact and AFTER many, many years of investigation

You continue to deny research and data that points away from your conclusions.

Liar

And you really don't even understand the basics of evolutionary theory which you claim to be arguing against.

I know more about it than you ever will.

Look, Jerad, no one can link to the scientific theory of evolution. Why is that?

Also that experiment Futyma mentions doesn't do what you think it does.

And again Jerad refuses to post any science.
At 12:24 PM, Joe G said…

Lenski's long term evolutionary experiment had the only gene that encodes for the citrate transport protein become duplicated and put under the control of a different promoter. This new promoter was not turned off in the presence of O2. That mutation was not random with respect to fitness and it only makes sense if it was directed by something, ie it didn't just happen. Dr Minnich duplicated the feat and it took his populations just two weeks to find the solution.
At 12:31 PM, Joe G said…

Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed
At 2:37 PM, Joe G said…

Fully Random Mutations?:
At 5:10 PM, Jerad said…

LoL! Jerad cannot support his claim about "random with respect to fitness". Figures

I gave you a reference to a textbook as you requested.

Look moron, everything we "know" came AFTER Stonehenge was determined to be an artifact and AFTER many, many years of investigation

Bitch and moan. When are you going to get around to . . . or even PLAN to investigate the design you claim has been detected? Just answer this question instead of running away as usual. No one, including you, is even trying. Address that issue instead of hiding.

And, guess what, people always knew Stonehenge was built by men. Except for dopes like von Daniken.

Also that experiment Futyma mentions doesn't do what you think it does.

Please be specific. What in particular are you saying is incorrect. No hand waving. Address particular issues of the research.

That mutation was not random with respect to fitness and it only makes sense if it was directed by something, ie it didn't just happen

Then why didn't it happen in all the strains that Lenski was developing? It was clearly isolated to a limited number. Please explain that from your ID point of view.

Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed

A non-peer reviewed blog post. With very few comments. In fact, what is Science in Society? It's hard to tell from their website who they are or what their criteria are. But you gotta love their argument that green tea might protect against radioactivity

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Green_Tea_Compound_for_Radioprotection.php

A bit of searching on their website turns up gems like this:

"Treating turbulence as a continuum of discrete eddies or cycles with Penrose tiling pattern of growth captures key features of organic spacetime."

Fully Random Mutations?:

Oh that is lovely. Really insightful:

"The third culture consists of those scientists and other thinkers in the empirical world who, through their work and expository writing, are taking the place of the traditional intellectual in rendering visible the deeper meanings of our lives, redefining who and what we are.

It is a large enough umbrella to also include the "digerati," the doers, thinkers, and writers, connected in ways they may not even appreciate, who have tremendous influence on the emerging communication revolution surrounding the growth of the Internet and the Web.

Edge is a living document on the Web that displays "the third culture" in action. The "content" of Edge is the group of people who connect in this way. Edge is a conversation."

And this:

"There is a new set of metaphors to describe ourselves, our minds, the universe, and all of the things we know in it, and it is the intellectuals with these new ideas and images, those scientists and others doing things and writing their own books, who drive our times."

Is that really the kind of 'scientists' you are betting your farm on? Really?

"Edge encourages people who can take the materials of the culture in the arts, literature, and science and put them together in their own way. We live in a mass-produced culture where many people, even many established cultural arbiters limit themselves to secondhand ideas, thoughts, and opinions. Edge consists of individuals who create their own reality and do not accept an ersatz, appropriated reality. The Edge community consists of people who are out there doing it rather than talking about and analyzing the people who are doing it."

Good call Joe. I'm getting all cosmic on how you do science now. Groovy.
At 7:33 AM, Joe G said…

I gave you a reference to a textbook as you requested.

It didn't support your claim, moron

And, guess what, people always knew Stonehenge was built by men.

LoL! "Men" are not a who, dumbass.

The Lederberg research does not show that mutations are chance events. All it shows is that the change that caused the antibiotic resistance was already there when the antibiotics were administered

Then why didn't it happen in all the strains that Lenski was developing?

Because that is stupid to have all individuals with the same phenotype. Variation is the key.

Is that really the kind of 'scientists' you are betting your farm on?

As opposed to your "scientists" who do nothing but make bald declarations?

Where are the testable hypotheses for blind and mindless processes? Where is the research that is guided by it?
At 4:22 PM, Jerad said…

It didn't support your claim, moron

In your opinion. Strange that so many people with much better academic credentials than you, people who have done the research and understand the mathematics, disagree with you.

LoL! "Men" are not a who, dumbass.

Ah, you are trying to find some, very small point that you think you can win at. Okay fine. We know the type of designer who built Stonehenge. Can you tell us the type of designer who did the things you claim the designer did? Maybe there was a whole bunch of them. Maybe then they needed a whole base to support them. Maybe they needed toilets and food resources and stuff to breathe and fuel and on and on and on.

Your designer(s) somehow managed to design and implement a fantastical system without leaving any trace except for their design. Something which is NOT true for the humans who built Stonehenge.

The Lederberg research does not show that mutations are chance events. All it shows is that the change that caused the antibiotic resistance was already there when the antibiotics were administered

But why in only some of the population? Are you saying that the designer(s) figured out a way to program cells to reproduce with a broad spectrum of variation without that programming being obvious and easy to see in the cell?

Because that is stupid to have all individuals with the same phenotype. Variation is the key.

Where did the variation come from then? Is the variation planned so that lots of different environmental changes would be exploited? How would that kind of planned adaptation be encoded in the cell? Where would it exist? How would it interact with cell reproduction?

As opposed to your "scientists" who do nothing but make bald declarations?

Interestingly enough, when I have asked you to point out specific errors in published works you have always failed.

Where are the testable hypotheses for blind and mindless processes? Where is the research that is guided by it?

Prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that something could not have happen without guidance. There is no credible evidence of that. If you can't prove it then you'd better do some work.

I don't mean you in particular. We all know you don't actually do any scientific work. You don't research, you don't publish, you don't even get people in the ID community commenting on your free blog.
At 10:30 AM, Joe G said…

Strange that so many people with much better academic credentials than you, people who have done the research and understand the mathematics, disagree with you.

Not on this. Mutations are said to be random, as in happenstance occurrences, period. No need to the "with respect to fitness" as some changes actually affect fitness, duh

Ah, you are trying to find some, very small point that you think you can win at.

Just stating the facts, asshole. I know facts and you don't mix but stop being so pathetic.

Your designer(s) somehow managed to design and implement a fantastical system without leaving any trace except for their design.

That we know of. And that is still enough as yours doesn't have anything to explain it.

Something which is NOT true for the humans who built Stonehenge.

Speculation, Jerad. We don't know if the villagers from around the structure designed and built it.

But why in only some of the population?

Because you don't want all in the same basket. Do all students in the same class get all the same questions right?

Where did the variation come from then?

The organism. How many times do I have to tell you?

Interestingly enough, when I have asked you to point out specific errors in published works you have always failed.

You have never posted anything that supports evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.

Prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that something could not have happen without guidance

Science isn't about proof you ignorant fuck. And it is up to you and yours to support your claims. Tat is how science works, Jerad. You don't have anything- not even testable hypotheses.

You are just an ignorant troll, Jerad
At 2:00 AM, Jerad said…

Not on this. Mutations are said to be random, as in happenstance occurrences, period. No need to the "with respect to fitness" as some changes actually affect fitness, duh

You clearly don't understand the statement. Radom with respect to fitness doesn't mean they don't affect fitness for good or bad.

That we know of. And that is still enough as yours doesn't have anything to explain it.

At least I'm not denying for God. No workshops, no machinery, no living quarters, no landing pads, no waste dumps . . . what kind of designer leaves no detritus? OH, I KNOW. God did it.

Speculation, Jerad. We don't know if the villagers from around the structure designed and built it.

Right, living quarters near the structure with broken tools and such lying about don't mean shit. Got it.

Because you don't want all in the same basket. Do all students in the same class get all the same questions right?

Right, so your extra programming created some variation but not enough after 70,000 generations for the bacteria to become something else. So your extra programming can't do it either. Right? So your extra programming is different in different organisms correct? Which means your extra programming 'evolves' as well. Yes?

OR your designer(s) are hanging about tweaking things so that big changes can occur. And they are doing that without being seen or heard or otherwise detected. What kind of designer(s) can do that I wonder . . . .Oh, of course . . . it's God. Stupid me.

The organism. How many times do I have to tell you?

But not enough variation to become something beyond a bacteria so the designer(s) are tweaking things. Got it.

I do get it now, you are just like all the other ID proponents. Some very God-like designers are managing the whole thing without us being able to see them or communicate with them. They leave no waste or structures or used equipment. Except for some unfound extra programming (which has to be tweaked sometimes) they leave no evidence of their presence at all. And they've been around for millions if not billions of years. And they're mucking about with life on our planet because . . . gee, that is a good question . . . why would they do that? In the Bible it says God loves us so maybe that's it. They spent billions of years developing intelligent beings via a long and laborious process so that we would learn to worship them. Wow, that is pretty amazing.
At 12:36 PM, Joe G said…

Radom with respect to fitness doesn't mean they don't affect fitness for good or bad.

Random wrt fitness is an unnecessary waste of words.

Right, living quarters near the structure with broken tools and such lying about don't mean shit.

Umm, people use tools even if they aren't designing and building Stonehenge.

Right, so your extra programming created some variation but not enough after 70,000 generations for the bacteria to become something else.

That isn't what the programming is for.

I do get it now

Nope, you are just a willfully ignorant asshole, Jerad. If you could only step up and produce testable hypotheses for your position. If you could only find a way to test the claims of your position. If you could only find someone using evolutionism for something.

But you can't. You are just a sorry loser
At 1:24 PM, Jerad said…

Random wrt fitness is an unnecessary waste of words.

Only to the ignorant.

Umm, people use tools even if they aren't designing and building Stonehenge.

Stone working tools? Give it up. You don't know or understand the research.

That isn't what the programming is for.

Typical cowardly Joe answer. Denial with no specifics.

So what is the extra programming for? Where is it? How does it affect mutations? Why is it is CLEARLY different from cell to cell? Does it 'evolve' along with DNA?

Or are your undefined and unknown designers just hanging about messing with life on earth? In fact, why did they decided to mess with life on earth in the first place? Just bored? Some asshole college students who decided to have some fun?

Oh, oh, or is it God? S/He/It can do stuff without leaving traces and you can't questions S/He/It's purposes because S/He/It is all knowing and all powerful. Even though S/He/It had to spend billions of years to come up with human beings who end up getting cancer and viruses which kill them.

Yeah, it's all making sense to me now . . .

Nope, you are just a willfully ignorant asshole, Jerad. If you could only step up and produce testable hypotheses for your position. If you could only find a way to test the claims of your position. If you could only find someone using evolutionism for something.

Deny and misdirect. Liars for God are so predictable. Don't answer questions just do your best to flag up perceived weaknesses in your opposition.

Explain what the unfound and undefined extra programming in the cell is supposed to do. It would be nice if you also found it and explained how it affects mutations and biological development. I'm not holding my breath.
At 1:29 PM, Joe G said…

Random wrt fitness is an unnecessary waste of words.

Only to the ignorant.

According to Mayr and the other experts it is.

Stone working tools?

Why not? Ever hear of walls for houses?

So what is the extra programming for?

I have blog posts that deal with that, Jerad. Unlike you I actually do make claims and support them. You don't even understand how science works.

If you could only step up and produce testable hypotheses for your position. If you could only find a way to test the claims of your position. If you could only find someone using evolutionism for something.

ID still exists because you and yours are total failures. Thank you
At 1:32 PM, Joe G said…

Voles, trouble for Common Descent

The special pleading is that the voles didn't get the right mutations. Too bad no one can say what those are
At 2:32 AM, Jerad said…

According to Mayr and the other experts it is.

Uh huh. Enjoy your misinterpretation. Anyway, a waste of words or not it makes perfectly good sense.

Why not? Ever hear of walls for houses?

Did they live in stone houses Joe? You don't know do you? Do you what kind of tools I'm talking about or how they were used? You're just saying shit because you don't know the research.

I have blog posts that deal with that, Jerad. Unlike you I actually do make claims and support them. You don't even understand how science works.

You think it's like some computer software. What a joke. You don't do science at all. You just make stuff up.

ID still exists because you and yours are total failures. Thank you

ID is dying. Dr Dembski has given up on it. Dr Behe isn't doing any real research. Only the clowns at the Discovery Institute are making any money on it and that's from their fellow deniers for God. Trump isn't going to save ID, he's going to make it look bad just as Ben Carson did. The rest of the world is laughing at you and them.
At 10:53 AM, Joe G said…

Random with respect to fitness is nonsense if the mutations affect fitness. Obviously you are a moron.

Did they live in stone houses Joe?

It is a possibility. You don't know.

You think it's like some computer software.

You think it all just happened- tat is a joke. You don't even understand science

ID is dying.

Only to the willfully ignorant. Only science can kill ID and your position doesn't have any

BTW most of the world is OK with ID. Blind watchmaker evolution is the minority on this planet
At 6:12 PM, Jerad said…

Random with respect to fitness is nonsense if the mutations affect fitness. Obviously you are a moron.

You are so wrong. Random with respect to fitness means the mutations sometimes convey greater fitness and sometimes don't. You really don't even have the slightest clue.

It is a possibility. You don't know.

Well why don't you check the data then instead of just spouting? Isn't that what scientists are supposed to do? Why don't you spend some time and find out??

You think it all just happened- tat is a joke. You don't even understand science

No, I don't. But I don't think it's the same as a computer. Because it's not the same mechanism. So, please, spell out what the extra programming does and how. Since you're sure it exists. What does it do? How does it do it? Where is it?

Only to the willfully ignorant. Only science can kill ID and your position doesn't have any

ID was dead before it started.

BTW most of the world is OK with ID. Blind watchmaker evolution is the minority on this planet

Who is most of the world then? Really poor uneducated people living in Bangladesh and South Sudan? Is that your criteria? I guess that's the 'it feels right' criteria. How very scientific.
At 9:26 AM, Joe G said…

Random with respect to fitness means the mutations sometimes convey greater fitness and sometimes don't.

That doesn't even make any sense. If they do as you say then they are not random with respect to fitness

No, I don't.

Your entire position is " it just happened"

ID was dead before it started.

And yet it's claims can be tested whereas your cannot.

Who is most of the world then?

The rest are those who are not evoTARD cowards.

Look, moron, science requires the claims to be testable. Yours are not. You are a scientifically illiterate assmuncher.
At 4:23 PM, Jerad said…

That doesn't even make any sense. If they do as you say then they are not random with respect to fitness

Sigh.

Random with respect to fitness means that mutations are unpredicably beneficial for fitness. That means that some are detrimental and some are beneficial AND some are neutral for fitness.. As it turns out with our knowledge oF DNA.

This is basic statistical lingo. Perhaps you should explain your view of mutations. Just to be clear.
At 1:59 AM, Jerad said…

That doesn't even make any sense. If they do as you say then they are not random with respect to fitness

Of course it makes sense. Mutations are not guided so some of them convey benefits, some are neutral and some are deleterious as far as fitness is concerned.

That's opposed to random with respect to genomic position (there is some research that suggests there are mutation 'hot spots'). Or random with respect to environmental conditions (life forms in highly radioactive environments might experience a different rate or kind of mutation).

If you don't understand 'random with respect to fitness' then you really don't understand evolutionary theory.
At 9:47 AM, Joe G said…

Random with respect to fitness means that mutations are unpredicably beneficial for fitness.

Reference please. That doesn't even make any sense

If you don't understand 'random with respect to fitness' then you really don't understand evolutionary theory.

Show me the theory and where it makes that statement. Or admit that you are just making it up. Mayr doesn't use it in "What Evolution Is" so methinks you are making it up, as usual.

So provide the reference from the alleged theory
At 2:27 AM, Jerad said…

You'll just deny anything I post but . . .

Page 74 of An Introduction to Molecular Evolution and Phylogenetics by Lindell Bromham

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hFI2CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=%22mutations+are+random+with+respect+to+fitness%22&source=bl&ots=Rw5q5SHVQr&sig=alHAsTEJIN_GbTYOMmvTptWhtys&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_mKalr8bSAhXGC8AKHREUDUEQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=%22mutations%20are%20random%20with%20respect%20to%20fitness%22&f=false

I found many online references that download documents or powerpoint presentations. Search for "mutations are random with respect to fitness".

Oh look, some blogger used the term and didn't say it was meaningless:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/the-lederberg-experiment-again.html
At 9:55 AM, Joe G said…

So you cannot reference the theory of evolution saying it. Figures.

Oh look, some blogger used the term and didn't say it was meaningless

Context is important and you ignored it. I used it because Zachriel was using it to describe the experiment.

If it isn't in the theory of evolution then people saying it are making it up. But seeing that there isn't any scientific theory of evolution people can say basically whatever they want and no one can refute them.
At 11:10 AM, Joe G said…

Mutations are said to be neutral, detrimental or beneficial with respect to fitness. And if that is true then they cannot be random with respect to fitness if they are correlated with it.
At 11:45 AM, Jerad said…

Mutations are said to be neutral, detrimental or beneficial with respect to fitness.

Yes.

And if that is true then they cannot be random with respect to fitness if they are correlated with it.

They are random in that you cannot predict if the next one will be neutral, detrimental or beneficial with respect to fitness. They are NOT 'correlated' with fitness, they affect fitness. Correlation doesn't mean what you think it means AND correlation does not imply causation. Only that they appear temporally linked. For some reason.

You ALSO cannot predict when the next one will occur because they are (mostly) random with respect to time as well.

Also, you cannot predict where in the genome mutations will occur so they are (mostly) random with respect to genome location.

I include the modifier 'mostly' in the above because, as I mentioned before, there seems to be some research suggesting that some environmental triggers MAY increase the prevalence of SOME mutations in certain locations. But I am not up on that work so I'm merely trying to acknowledge that it exists.

If you want to simplify that and just say they are random that's fine but you lose some of the finer points of meaning.
At 11:52 AM, Joe G said…

They are random in that you cannot predict if the next one will be neutral, detrimental or beneficial with respect to fitness.

They are random in that they are all allegedly accidents, errors and mistakes, period. That is according to the evolutionary experts.

They are NOT 'correlated' with fitness, they affect fitness.

That's correlation- mutual relationship between two or more things. Obviously you don't know what correlation means.

Also no one can predict what any designer will design next. That doesn't mean designers act randomly.
At 11:55 AM, Joe G said…

There is a mutual relationship between mutations and fitness. That means they are correlated. And seeing that said mutual relationship exists that is enough to show that mutations are not random with respect to fitness.
At 12:00 PM, Jerad said…

They are random in that they are all allegedly accidents, errors and mistakes, period. That is according to the evolutionary experts.

That's according to mathematical analysis.

That's correlation- mutual relationship between two or more things. Obviously you don't know what correlation means.

You seem determine to misunderstand so I'll just leave it.

Also no one can predict what any designer will design next. That doesn't mean designers act randomly.

I think you need to work on being able to state, clearly, which observed mutations are the cause of design and which aren't. Given that even some random mutations convey benefits.

There is a mutual relationship between mutations and fitness. That means they are correlated. And seeing that said mutual relationship exists that is enough to show that mutations are not random with respect to fitness.

What about the neutral mutations? They occur with no affect on fitness. How can you tell if they're designed or random? What is the mutual relationship? Are 'bad' mutations random, something breaking? Are 'good' mutations the result of design? If so then they come about via different causes.

You haven't worked out your hypothesis yet.
At 12:40 PM, Joe G said…

That's according to mathematical analysis.

Reference please

You seem determine to misunderstand so I'll just leave it.

Nice projection, coward.

And now the tard comes shining through:
'
Also no one can predict what any designer will design next. That doesn't mean designers act randomly.

I think you need to work on being able to state, clearly, which observed mutations are the cause of design and which aren't.

That doesn't have anything to do with what I said. I was just making a point that being unable to predict something doesn't make it random.

Also "Not By Chance" (1997) has at least attempted to do what you request. As does "Evolution: A View from the 21st Century".

There is a mutual relationship between mutations and fitness. That means they are correlated. And seeing that said mutual relationship exists that is enough to show that mutations are not random with respect to fitness.

What about the neutral mutations?

What about them? The relationship between neutral mutations and fitness is that there is no effect on it. Again you don't seem to be able to follow the discussion.

And on top of it all you don't even have a hypothesis.
At 4:33 PM, Jerad said…

That doesn't have anything to do with what I said. I was just making a point that being unable to predict something doesn't make it random.

With regard to mutations you need to decide and state clearly which mutations you think are random and which are guided. And what your criterium are.

What about them? The relationship between neutral mutations and fitness is that there is no effect on it. Again you don't seem to be able to follow the discussion.

You said there was a correlation. I'm trying to figure out what you meant. You need to spell it out.
At 5:27 PM, Joe G said…

With regard to mutations you need to decide and state clearly which mutations you think are random and which are guided. And what your criterium are.

What's a "criterium"? What's your criteria for saying mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes?

You said there was a correlation.

And I said what that is. You agreed.

Mutations are said to be neutral, detrimental or beneficial with respect to fitness. And if that is true then they cannot be random with respect to fitness if they are correlated with it.
At 2:02 AM, Jerad said…

What's your criteria for saying mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes?

Mathematical analysis and decodes of observations.

And I said what that is. You agreed.

I agreed that mutations could be neutral, detrimental or beneficial. I am asking you how they are correlated with fitness.

For example: my age correlates with the distance between London and New York City. But that's no saying how they are correlated. The correlation is: they are both getting larger in a numerical sense. BUT that doesn't imply any kind of causation, it's a spurious correlation which means nothing (except that time is marching on).

You say mutations are correlated with fitness and I'm asking you how.

Also, I am asking you how you determine which mutations are random occurrences and which are 'guided'. You are avoiding answering that question but clearly it's an important point and one you should be able to answer because clearly you don't think they're all random nor do you think they're all guided. So . .. what's the difference?
At 10:12 AM, Joe G said…

Mathematical analysis and decodes of observations.

What mathematical analysis and what observations?

I agreed that mutations could be neutral, detrimental or beneficial. I am asking you how they are correlated with fitness.

That's how, dumbass. Are you really that dense, Jerad?

You say mutations are correlated with fitness and I'm asking you how.

Mutations are said to be neutral, detrimental or beneficial with respect to fitness. That is how they are correlated.

Also, I am asking you how you determine which mutations are random occurrences and which are 'guided'.

Read "Not By Chance" and "Evolution: A view from the 21st Century", for starters- just as I have been telling you for years. Your willful ignorance is not an argument, Jerad
At 12:12 PM, Jerad said…

I'm going to guess you won't be able calculate an appropriate correlation coefficient since you clearly don't really understand correlation.

If you can't tell me the basics of how to tell which mutations are random and which are guided then maybe you don't understand that either.

Oh well. I don't mind if you can't backup your own statements.
At 1:06 PM, Joe G said…

Fuck you, Jerad. I defined how I was using the word "correlation" and it is the standard definition. I also stated what the correlation is. So clearly I understand the concept and you clearly don't have any idea.

And if you are too lazy to read what has been published for over a decade, two decades for "Not By Chance" and several since McClintock's papers on TEs, don't blame me. Everything you ask of me has been done on this blog. I have backed up all of my statements. You never have backed up anything.

First step, Jerad, buy a dictionary and look up the word "correlation". Then apply it to mutations that can be detrimental with respect to fitness, neutral with respect to fitness or beneficial with respect to fitness. I bet even you could figure out the correlation after that. Maybe not though as you have yet to show that you can follow any argument. Just look at your first comment in this thread...
At 9:49 PM, Jerad said…

I defined how I was using the word "correlation" and it is the standard definition.

Clearly not the case. Especially since you can't calculate a correlation coefficient.

I also stated what the correlation is. So clearly I understand the concept and you clearly don't have any idea.

Clearly you don't. It doesn't matter to me that you don't get it.

First step, Jerad, buy a dictionary and look up the word "correlation".

Yup, did that.

Then apply it to mutations that can be detrimental with respect to fitness, neutral with respect to fitness or beneficial with respect to fitness.

Okay, what is the mathematical link then?

I bet even you could figure out the correlation after that.

But you are the one claiming there is a correlation and I'm just asking what it is. That's all you have to do. Show what it is.

Maybe not though as you have yet to show that you can follow any argument. Just look at your first comment in this thread...

Be that as it may, you just have to back up your statements: show the mathematical correlation between mutations and fitness.

OH and explain how you can determine which mutations are guided and which are unguided. You always ask that people provide the evidence for their arguments so I'm asking you to do the same. If you've done it before then a simple link will do.

You still need to find the relative cardinality of the primes which you said exists.
At 9:03 AM, Joe G said…

Jerad, Obviously you do not know what "correlation" means- you are clearly just an ignorant asshole. I told you what the correlation is. It isn't my fault that you are too stupid to understand it. Not every mutation will have the same effect so that means the coefficient will be different. Also you can just google it and there are plenty of papers that discuss what you are looking for. But that is moot here as all I have to do is show there is a mutual relationship between mutation and fitness, which I have dome and you agreed to. A mutual relationship is a correlation you ignorant fuck

The evidence for my claims is in the books I referenced. OTOH you have failed to provide any references for your claims about the mathematical analysis that says mutations are random, even though you have claimed it several times.
At 9:09 AM, Joe G said…

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/correlation

: the state or relation of being correlated; specifically : a relation existing between phenomena or things

Mutation is a phenomena and fitness is also a phenomena- although that too may be way over Jerad's head. And there is a relationship between mutations and fitness. And that means there is a correlation.
At 9:10 AM, Joe G said…

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/correlate

Definition of correlate
1
: either of two things so related that one directly implies or is complementary to the other (as husband and wife) brain size as a correlate of intelligence
2
: a phenomenon that accompanies another phenomenon, is usually parallel to it, and is related in some way to it
At 4:46 PM, Jerad said…

Not every mutation will have the same effect so that means the coefficient will be different.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

So clearly you don't understand what a correlation coefficient is. Thanks for confirming that. Too funny.

Correlation coefficients are based on a population. You know what? I'm just going to stop and let you hang yourself again with your inability to do the math.

But that is moot here as all I have to do is show there is a mutual relationship between mutation and fitness, which I have dome and you agreed to. A mutual relationship is a correlation you ignorant fuck

But not enough to find a correlation coefficient. :-) Something you clearly don't understand.

Mutation is a phenomena and fitness is also a phenomena- although that too may be way over Jerad's head. And there is a relationship between mutations and fitness. And that means there is a correlation.

But you can't say what the mathematical relationship is. I'm loving this. Just keep talking, you're digging your own grave nicely.

a phenomenon that accompanies another phenomenon, is usually parallel to it, and is related in some way to it

Too bad you can't say what the numerical relationship is between mutations and fitness. Guess you fucked that one up.

Along with not being able to calculate the relative cardinality of the primes.

Or being able to find the extra programming in the cell which you claim must exist.

Or being able to say how that extra programming is encoded. Or being able to say chemically how that extra programming affects biological development.

Which is just a small part about how you and the ID community in general cannot specify when design was implemented. Just can't do it.

And the dirty ID secret is: no one in the ID community cares. Cause it was God was did it. So they don't have to say. And they don't give a fuck about being 'scientific' about that.

If I'm wrong show me some research into that. Go on . . . . .Some peer reviewed research. Stuff that has passed at least some scrutiny as opposed to books published to stir up the true believers.
At 5:31 PM, Joe G said…

Too bad you can't say what the numerical relationship is between mutations and fitness.

That's irrelevant dumbass. It is just a strawman of your own humping. You have already admitted there is a correlation, moron. I never said I could calculate any coefficient. That was all your strawman.

All I said is that there is a correlation and thanks to you I proved it exists.

The evidence for the programming has been presented. That you are too ignorant to understand it and too stupid to refute it is your problem not mine.

Yours cannot say anything about how proteins and protein machinery arose. Yours is all about the how but has nothing about the how. No one is trying to figure it out. They would have a better chance of figuring out how nature produced Stonehenge.

If I am wrong then show me some research into ATP arising by means of blind and mindless processes. How about a testable hypothesis for such a thing?

Heck you still can't find the elusive scientific theory of evolution- not that you would know if you had...
At 5:38 PM, Joe G said…

And to prove that Jerad is an ignorant asshole:

correlation coefficient:

A correlation coefficient is a statistical measure of the degree to which changes to the value of one variable predict change to the value of another. In positively correlated variables, the value increases or decreases in tandem. In negatively correlated variables, the value of one increases as the value of the other decreases.

And guess what? Different mutations have different correlation coefficients wrt fitness. And there is more than one variable. For example sickle-cell anemia is better tolerated in malaria-stricken areas which means the correlation coefficient changes with the environment.

So clearly Jerad is just an asshole who cannot support his claims and thinks cowardly attempts at ridicule suffice as an argument.
At 2:28 AM, Jerad said…

That's irrelevant dumbass. It is just a strawman of your own humping. You have already admitted there is a correlation, moron. I never said I could calculate any coefficient. That was all your strawman.

If there's a correlation there must be a numerical relationship. Unless you meant to say 'relationship' instead of 'correlation'.

The evidence for the programming has been presented. That you are too ignorant to understand it and too stupid to refute it is your problem not mine.

Where is it then? How is it encoded? How does it affect development? How does it decide which mutations to 'create' and when? Where is all that on ID's agenda?

Yours cannot say anything about how proteins and protein machinery arose. Yours is all about the how but has nothing about the how. No one is trying to figure it out. They would have a better chance of figuring out how nature produced Stonehenge.

Can you say how it was done other than just God did it? Can you?

If I am wrong then show me some research into ATP arising by means of blind and mindless processes. How about a testable hypothesis for such a thing?

You've been shown some of the work but you just deny, deny, deny.

Heck you still can't find the elusive scientific theory of evolution- not that you would know if you had...

Deny, deny, deny. But God still loves you so that's okay I guess.

A correlation coefficient is a statistical measure of the degree to which changes to the value of one variable predict change to the value of another. In positively correlated variables, the value increases or decreases in tandem. In negatively correlated variables, the value of one increases as the value of the other decreases.

Yup, it's a mathematical measure of how two variables are related. There are easily followed formulas for computing them.

And guess what? Different mutations have different correlation coefficients wrt fitness. And there is more than one variable.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You don't have different correlation coefficients for each mutation!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

So, what are the variables then?

For example sickle-cell anemia is better tolerated in malaria-stricken areas which means the correlation coefficient changes with the environment.

When you get tired of blowing smoke out of your ass see if you can compute something.

So clearly Jerad is just an asshole who cannot support his claims and thinks cowardly attempts at ridicule suffice as an argument.

I can compute correlation coefficients. You don't even know what one is.

You haven't found the relative cardinality of the primes which you claim exists.

You haven't found the extra programming in cells that somehow manages to 'create' some beneficial mutations but you don't know how.

You can't even say which mutations are random and which are guided. Your whole stance is built on assumptions which you can't support.

You do no research, you publish nothing, you teach nothing, you can't do basic mathematics and NO ONE takes you seriously.
At 1:06 PM, Joe G said…

Jerad, You and I have already agreed there is a mutual relationship between mutations and fitness. And that means there is a correlation. And that is all that I claimed. It is not my fault that you are too stupid to understand that even though I provided the definitions of correlation that support it.

And now you continue to prove that you are ignorant of relativity. You are also ignorant of science and you sure as hell cannot assess the evidence.

YOU don't do any research. All you do is whack off and think that means something. You don't publish anything and no one takes you for anything but an ignorant coward.

The correlation between mutations and fitness is summed by: some are neutral wrt fitness, some are detrimental wrt fitness and some are beneficial wrt fitness.

The mathematics is moot.
At 1:07 PM, Joe G said…

You don't have different correlation coefficients for each mutation!!

Why not? I dare you to actually make a case. Or shut the fuck up and admit that you are an ignorant coward.
At 4:12 PM, Jerad said…

Jerad, You and I have already agreed there is a mutual relationship between mutations and fitness. And that means there is a correlation. And that is all that I claimed.

So what is the mathematical relationship? You haven't been able to answer that.

It is not my fault that you are too stupid to understand that even though I provided the definitions of correlation that support it

It's your inability to provide the mathematical support for your claims that is the problem.

The mathematics is moot.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This is how Joe does science. Fuck the mathematics. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Why not? I dare you to actually make a case. Or shut the fuck up and admit that you are an ignorant coward.

I'm not the one who made a claim that can't be supported. it's up to you to support the shit you spout.

Can you find a correlation coefficient between mutations and fitness or not? No making up shit about how the coefficient changes for each mutation, account for that.

For someone who claims to understand science and has an IQ of over 150 this should all be easy.
At 4:23 PM, Joe G said…

So what is the mathematical relationship?

I never said anything about that. It isn't part of any claim that I made. Obviously you are just a confused baby.

It's your inability to provide the mathematical support for your claims that is the problem.

I provided definitional support and that is all that I am required to do. Obviously you are just an ignorant wanker.

And look, moron, blind watchmaker evolution doesn't have any mathe to support it. It doesn't give a shot about math. It doesn't give a shit about science or evidence. So shut the fuck up.

I'm not the one who made a claim that can't be supported. it's up to you to support the shit you spout.

Umm, YOU agreed with the correlation, Jerad:

Mutations are said to be neutral, detrimental or beneficial with respect to fitness.

Jerad:
Yes.

That's it, Jerad. It's too late now as you have already agreed to the correlation between mutations and fitness.

Not only t5hat you have failed to support your claims in this thread. You have failed to support the claim that mathematical analysis shows that mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes. And you have failed to understand English. You are so fucking stupid that you can't even understand what I post nor the definitions of common words.
At 4:24 PM, Joe G said…

The correlation between mutations and fitness is summed by: some are neutral wrt fitness, some are detrimental wrt fitness and some are beneficial wrt fitness.

Jerad is too stupid to understand that. And he thinks his stupidity is an argument.
At 4:49 PM, Jerad said…

I never said anything about that. It isn't part of any claim that I made. Obviously you are just a confused baby.

So you don't understand correlation. Got it.

I provided definitional support and that is all that I am required to do. Obviously you are just an ignorant wanker.

Joe thinks a dictionary is all he needs. Noted.

Umm, YOU agreed with the correlation, Jerad:

Another denial for God.

That's it, Jerad. It's too late now as you have already agreed to the correlation between mutations and fitness.

hahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahaahhaahahahah

You are really struggling now.

Not only t5hat you have failed to support your claims in this thread. You have failed to support the claim that mathematical analysis shows that mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes. And you have failed to understand English. You are so fucking stupid that you can't even understand what I post nor the definitions of common words.

Deny, deny, deny for God. Since a vast majority of biological scientists agree with me then I think I'll just leave it.

You haven't got the academic support.

You can't address lots of questions.
At 8:39 PM, Joe G said…

The correlation between mutations and fitness is summed by: some are neutral wrt fitness, some are detrimental wrt fitness and some are beneficial wrt fitness.

Jerad is too stupid to understand that. And he thinks his stupidity is an argument.

Noted.

Jerad also thinks all correlations have to have a mathematical representation or else they aren't correlations. Strange that no one else agrees with that bit of nonsense.

And yes when discussing definitions dictionaries are the way to proceed.

I will also note that your alleged vast majority can't test the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.
At 8:49 PM, Joe G said…

Inferring the correlated fitness effects of nonsynonymous mutations
at the same site using triallelic population genomics

And guess what? They use the same correlation characteristics as we agreed upon
At 4:35 AM, Jerad said…

Inferring the correlated fitness effects of nonsynonymous mutations
at the same site using triallelic population genomics

Well, they carefully and specifically defined exactly what they were looking at. Something I asked you to do but you couldn't.

They also found a mathematical relationship that they could then use to generate data points. Something else you couldn't do.

AND they calculated some correlation coefficients, which you couldn't do.

The authors didn't just say: mutations are correlated with fitness and leave it at that. They picked a narrow and specific way of defining a correlation. You think you can just blather on, throwing words about when you haven't got a clue of what to do.

Can you even understand a paragraph like this:

"We worked at the codon level to assess the correlation in selection coefficients for nonsynonymous muta- tions, so a triallelic locus could arise from two mutations at the same nucleotide or at different nucleotides in the same codon. We extended our inferred one-dimensional DFE to two dimensions, fixing the parameters μ,σ,γ+, and p+, so that the correlation coefficient ρ was the only free parameter of the bivariate lognor- mal distribution, along with a single parameter for ancestral misidentification. Fitting to 10,471 mutually nonsynonymous triallelic loci (Fig. 3A), we inferred ρ = 0.51 (Fig. 3B, Table 1). Selection coefficients for nonsynonymous mutations at the same codon are thus somewhat but not completely correlated, so location and identity play roughly equal roles in determining mutation fitness effects."

Anyway, thanks for finding something that shows clearly that you don't know the first thing about doing real statistics.
At 11:10 AM, Joe G said…

LoL! YOU couldn't do it, Jerad. You can't even understand English nor dictionaries.

Anyway, thanks for finding something that shows clearly that you don't know the first thing about doing real statistics.

LoL! Spoken like a cowardly shit-eater. I proved that you are wrong. I proved that you can't even understand English. I proved that you are totally ignorant.

You're just an ignorant shit-eating baby
At 2:47 PM, Jerad said…

LoL! Spoken like a cowardly shit-eater. I proved that you are wrong. I proved that you can't even understand English. I proved that you are totally ignorant.

You're just an ignorant shit-eating baby

You can always tell when you win an argument with Joe because the invectives and abuse are front and centre.

You couldn't spell out the correlation between mutations and fitness.

Your couldn't represent that correlation mathematically.

You couldn't compute a correlation coefficient for that correlation.

AND you still haven't been able to:

compute the relative cardinality of the primes.

Find the extra coding in the cell you claim exists.

Explain how that extra coding is stored or encoded chemically.

Explain how that extra programming affects development.

Presented a clear way of determining which mutations are random and which are guided.

You'll probably ignore all these questions as you have in the past but there are still pending. And you can't answer them. And they are not based on someone else's agenda, they are based on your claims which you haven't been able to support.

If you and your deniers for God buddies want to be taken seriously then you'll have to do some real work. Some of it will be complicated and difficult, most of it will be something you can't just pull out of your ass after reading a couple of books. I should have to explain this to someone who claims to have an iQ of 150 and understands science better than just about anyone. But, sadly, you can't seem to produce anything resembling real academic work to support your view.

The reason no one takes you seriously is because you don't produce anything worth considering.
At 4:36 PM, Joe G said…

You couldn't spell out the correlation between mutations and fitness.

And yet I did

Your couldn't represent that correlation mathematically.

I could have if that was part of my argument, but it never was. tat is your straw man so hump it, loser.

AND you still haven't been able to do anything but whine like a little shit-eating baby. You and yours can't answer anything- not the hows not the whens, heck you can't even figure out how to test your claims.

On top of all that you can't even understand the implications of set subtraction. All you can do is cling to others because you sure as hell cannot think for yourself
At 6:02 PM, Jerad said…

And yet I did

You waved your hands and were unable to express your correlation in any kind of mathematical language. You were unable to calculate any kind of correlation coefficient for your supposed correlation. When it comes down to it, you couldn't do the work. As nicely shown in the paper you referenced.

I could have if that was part of my argument, but it never was. tat is your straw man so hump it, loser.

That's what a scientific correlation means. Deny, deny, deny.

AND you still haven't been able to do anything but whine like a little shit-eating baby. You and yours can't answer anything- not the hows not the whens, heck you can't even figure out how to test your claims.

Typical that the abuse follows. You are so predictable. And you keep denying work that exists. Otherwise you'd have to admit you were wrong. Which you will never do. Even if it's handed to you on a silver plate.

On top of all that you can't even understand the implications of set subtraction. All you can do is cling to others because you sure as hell cannot think for yourself

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH You're right and everyone else is wrong. Of course, how stupid could we all be. Thank God Joe came around to save us all from our collective stupidity. Too bad you haven't published your work or even tried to disseminate it in any kind of academic situation. Oh well, that's just a trivial formality, soon the world will recognise your brilliance and rewrite the mathematical history books. Over a century of work and research will have to be scrapped but that's okay when a new and better paradigm is discovered. It's all about the truth after all. What you can demonstrate. And, in mathematics, what you can prove. Speaking of which . . .

I hate to be pesky but can you find a fault in Cantor's work which contradicts your ideas? Because if you can't then . . . well, we have a problem. It will be hard to overthrow the existing regime if you can't comprehensively take down the old edifice..

So, can you do that? Find a mistake in all the work done in the last century. 'Cause that's what it will take. I hope you're up to it. It's gonna be a hard task.

Seriously, no one is going to take you seriously unless you come up with the goods. Like I said it will be hard and tricky so you'd best get all your ducks in order.
At 6:27 PM, Joe G said…

You waved your hands and were unable to express your correlation in any kind of mathematical language.

You are unbelievably dense or willfully stupid. I never said anything about mathematics- tat was never part of my claim. Obviously you have issues and should seek help.

That's what a scientific correlation means.

I doubt that and I never said anything about a "scientific correlation". All you are doing is exposing your desperation by erecting straw man after straw man.

And you keep denying work that exists.

Liar. But I understand that is all you can do.

As for Cantor I have found the mistake. You are too stupid to understand it. That is because you are too stupid to think for yourself.

Also every time I ask for a use of Cantor's concept that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality you just lie and bluff because you are an ignorant ass. There isn't any work that uses that concept.

Now reach into your diaper and get yourself a snack.
At 6:32 PM, Joe G said…

As nicely shown in the paper you referenced.

I referenced the paper to prove that you were wrong. I don't know why you are so happy about that.

So to recap- Jerad was willfully ignorant of the correlation of mutations to fitness even though it was spelled out for him and he agreed. For some reason Jerad had his head up his ass erecting straw man after straw man and pretending they were relevant. Then when Jerad continued to deny the correlation exists and could not be mathematically represented I easily refuted that nonsense with a peer-reviewed paper.

AND now that the correlation is accepted that means the phrase "mutations are random with respect to fitness" is nonsense and used by people who just don't understand what they are saying.
At 2:38 AM, Jerad said…

You are unbelievably dense or willfully stupid. I never said anything about mathematics- tat was never part of my claim. Obviously you have issues and should seek help.

When doing science a correlation implies a mathematical relationship as shown in the paper you linked to.

I doubt that and I never said anything about a "scientific correlation". All you are doing is exposing your desperation by erecting straw man after straw man.

It's not my fault you can't do science. If you're talking about mutations, it's science. You're the one who's backing away from your claim.

As for Cantor I have found the mistake. You are too stupid to understand it. That is because you are too stupid to think for yourself.

Strange that you've never been able to point to it specifically.

Also every time I ask for a use of Cantor's concept that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality you just lie and bluff because you are an ignorant ass. There isn't any work that uses that concept.

Deny, deny, deny. I told you: Fourier Series used by lots and lots and lots of engineers.

Now reach into your diaper and get yourself a snack.

Abuse again.

I referenced the paper to prove that you were wrong. I don't know why you are so happy about that.

Because it showed, clearly, that a correlation between mutations and fitness has to have a mathematical expression for it to have any meaning. Something you were unable to do. You exhibited your own inability.

So to recap- Jerad was willfully ignorant of the correlation of mutations to fitness even though it was spelled out for him and he agreed. For some reason Jerad had his head up his ass erecting straw man after straw man and pretending they were relevant. Then when Jerad continued to deny the correlation exists and could not be mathematically represented I easily refuted that nonsense with a peer-reviewed paper.

The paper exhibited a level of mathematics you could not possibly come up with on your own. The paper dealt with some very specific mutations at particular locations and not just all mutations. The relationship to fitness was carefully defined, something else you couldn't do. AND what you said about a correlation coefficient was clearly shown to be false by the work exhibited.

AND now that the correlation is accepted that means the phrase "mutations are random with respect to fitness" is nonsense and used by people who just don't understand what they are saying.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA You are so clueless. But keep up showing the world you can't actually do the science. I love it.

Mutations, overall and in general ARE random with respect to fitness. The paper you cited does not contradict that. Because you think it does just, again, shows off how little you understand. Deny, deny, deny for God. And look foolish.
At 7:34 AM, Joe G said…

Jerad is a total dipshit. There can be a correlation without the mathematics. And don't talk about science, Jerad. You have already proven to be ignorant of it.

I pointed to Captor's mistake.

Also every time I ask for a use of Cantor's concept that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality you just lie and bluff because you are an ignorant ass. There isn't any work that uses that concept.

Fourier series doesn't use that concept, loser. It's as if you are proud to be a lying coward.

Because it showed, clearly, that a correlation between mutations and fitness has to have a mathematical expression for it to have any meaning.

No, it didn't and it doesn't. There isn't anything in the definition tat says it must be mathematical. You are just making shit up again

The paper exhibited a level of mathematics you could not possibly come up with on your own.

No Jerad, YOU couldn't. You are the ignorant ass here, moron

Mutations, overall and in general ARE random with respect to fitness.

Only a moron would say that. Mutations are correlated with fitness- every knowledgeable person knows that.

This is unbelievable- Jerad is scientifically illiterate- proven many times over. Jerad clearly doesn't understand what "correlation" means and cannot support his claims about it. If one phenomena is directly correlated with another then it cannot be random with respect to it. But then again Jerad doesn't understand English

Jerad is nothing bit a coward who wants to try to make this personal. Too bad he cannot support anything he says and he sure as hell cannot point to any science to support his claims nor support his position.

Look, Jerad, you are just an ignorant liar
At 7:42 AM, Joe G said…

And we are still waiting for that mathematical analysis that shows mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes. Jerad was clearly lying about that. And like a little baby who cannot think for itself Jerad just blindly accepts Cantor, who, like Jerad, didn't understand relativity and who also blindly accepts tat some alleged vast majority of biologists accept a position they cannot test. But that is OK because science is irrelevant and superfluous wrt evolutionism.

Jerad cannot test the claims of his position
Jerad cannot do the math to determine correlation coefficients for various mutations
Jerad cannot grasp the implications of set subtraction
Jerad cannot say the how's and when's different organisms appeared
Jerad cannot read
Jerad cannot form a coherent argument
Jerad is scientifically illiterate
At 5:28 PM, Jerad said…

Jerad is a total dipshit. There can be a correlation without the mathematics. And don't talk about science, Jerad. You have already proven to be ignorant of it.

From the glossary in Evolution by Douglas J Futuyma, copyright 2005

"Correlation - A statistical relationship that quantifies the degree to which two variables are associated." And some more.

'[S]tatistical' and 'quantifies' means mathematical. Appealing to a dictionary will also get you a meaning for theory which doesn't apply to science. Stick to the science meanings when discussing science.

I pointed to Captor's mistake.

Not specifically. You just claimed that 'set subtraction' trumps Cantor's work. Which has ZERO academic support. You've never been able to establish that your notions have any academic traction at all. It's dead unless you can support it. Like calculating the relative cardinality of the primes. Which you cannot do.

Fourier series doesn't use that concept, loser. It's as if you are proud to be a lying coward.

They look like a countable infinite series to me.

Only a moron would say that. Mutations are correlated with fitness- every knowledgeable person knows that.

SOME localised mutations might be correlated with some specific measures of fitness in a particular mathematical way.

Explain how neutral mutations are correlated with fitness and how you can tell the difference between the guided and unguided mutations. Something you have not been able to do. You have cowardly avoided admitting you can't do this.

And we are still waiting for that mathematical analysis that shows mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes. Jerad was clearly lying about that.

From Evolution by Douglas J Futuyma, copyright 2005 again, page 179

"Indeed, it is hard to imagine a mechanism whereby most environmental factors could direct the mutation process by dictating that just the right base pair changes should occur.

The argument that adaptively directed mutation does not occur is one of the fundamental tenets of modern evolutionary theory. If it did occur, it would introduce a Lamarckian element into evolution, for organisms would then acquire adaptive hereditary characteristics in response to their environment. Such "neo-Lamarckian" ideas were expunged in the 1940s and 1950s by experiments with bacteria in which spontaneous, random mutations followed by natural selection, rather than mutation directed by the environment, explained adaptions."

Look at the references. Or just do an internet search instead of just being a cowardly denialist for God.

I can do the math.

Set subtraction for determining cardinality has no academic support. Anywhere.

Look at the fossil record to get a rough idea of when different organisms appeared. Or figure out what the 'designer' was doing. Which you can't and won't do.

You claimed that some mutations were guided and some were random but you can't say which.

You can't compute a simple correlation coefficient.

You cannot find the 'relative' cardinality of the primes.

You quote scientific papers which do not support your claims. Overall, mutations are random with respect to fitness even if some specific location limited mutations can be correlated with some specific measures of fitness. But it's all done with careful mathematics and not just had waving and trying to score points making up shit about stuff you don't understand.

You can't do the mathematics so stop making claims about it.
At 6:04 PM, Joe G said…

Appealing to a dictionary will also get you a meaning for theory which doesn't apply to science.

Evolutionism isn't science and YOU said there wasn't a correlation. Not only that you said the correlation coefficient would be the same for all mutations when it clearly isn't.

So to be clear when discussing evolutionism no one is discussing science. And a correlation can exist without any mathematical representation.

You just claimed that 'set subtraction' trumps Cantor's work.

What work?

Like calculating the relative cardinality of the primes

I did that. You are too stupid to understand relativity.

They look like a countable infinite series to me.

What a dick you are. That is irrelevant, dipshit. The point pertains to the concept of all countably infinite sets having the same cardinality. Fourier series doesn't even use that concept. Clearly you are just a desperate ass.

SOME localised mutations might be correlated with some specific measures of fitness in a particular mathematical way.

And now you are trying to prove that evolution is impotent wrt the diversity of life.

Explain how neutral mutations are correlated with fitness

Look up the word "neutral" dumbass. From that you should be able to figure it out for yourself- well if you could think for yourself.

"Indeed, it is hard to imagine a mechanism whereby most environmental factors could direct the mutation process by dictating that just the right base pair changes should occur.

That isn't even an argument.

The argument that adaptively directed mutation does not occur is one of the fundamental tenets of modern evolutionary theory.

There isn't a modern evolutionary theory and those types of mutations have been found.

If it did occur, it would introduce a Lamarckian element into evolution

No, it wouldn't. Clearly you don't understand Lamarkism.

Look at the references.

What references? You have FAILed to provide any that support your claim.

I can do the math.

Doubtful.

Set subtraction for determining cardinality has no academic support.

Prove it

Look at the fossil record to get a rough idea of when different organisms appeared.

That doesn't help. It cannot say when they appeared nor how.

You claimed that some mutations were guided and some were random but you can't say which.

Read the references you willfully ignorant ass

You can't compute a simple correlation coefficient.

You can't, Jerad. you denied such a thing existed for mutations and fitness.

You cannot find the 'relative' cardinality of the primes.

And yet I found it.

You quote scientific papers which do not support your claims.

Liar

Overall, mutations are random with respect to fitness even if some specific location limited mutations can be correlated with some specific measures of fitness.

Spoken like a desperate loser.

But it's all done with careful mathematics

Mathematics that you cannot reference. Strange, eh

You can't do the mathematics so stop making claims about it.

Nice cowardly projection. And too bad you cannot stop me nor show that I am wrong. All you can do is make false accusations because that is all babies can do.

Too bad you won't be testifying in any trials involving IDc and evolutionism.
At 2:56 AM, Jerad said…

Evolutionism isn't science and YOU said there wasn't a correlation. Not only that you said the correlation coefficient would be the same for all mutations when it clearly isn't.

I said there was an overall correlation. I never said there was a single correlation coefficient.

I did that. You are too stupid to understand relativity.

You gave a vague answer with no mathematical justification. You could prove that it was correct. That doesn't count.

What a dick you are. That is irrelevant, dipshit. The point pertains to the concept of all countably infinite sets having the same cardinality. Fourier series doesn't even use that concept. Clearly you are just a desperate ass.

Fourier analysis uses infinite series which have an index set (the integers) and an infinite number of functions. If the two sets didn't have the same size, the same number of elements then you couldn't use the integers to count with without running the risk of missing one of the functions.

And now you are trying to prove that evolution is impotent wrt the diversity of life.

No, I'm just explaining the basis of the paper you referenced.

Look up the word "neutral" dumbass. From that you should be able to figure it out for yourself- well if you could think for yourself.

So, you can't explain it then?

There isn't a modern evolutionary theory and those types of mutations have been found.

Deny, deny, deny for God.

No, it wouldn't. Clearly you don't understand Lamarkism.

That was a quote from the book, not from me.

Prove it

Find me some academic support for set subtraction with infinite sets. It's your claim you have to defend it. YOU have to do the work.

That doesn't help. It cannot say when they appeared nor how.

It says we know a given life form existed by a certain time.

Read the references you willfully ignorant ass

So, you can't explain it then?

And yet I found it.

You gave a vague and unsupported answer. Please prove your answer is correct.

Nice cowardly projection. And too bad you cannot stop me nor show that I am wrong. All you can do is make false accusations because that is all babies can do.

If I'm the baby then why do you always resort to being abusive?

Too bad you won't be testifying in any trials involving IDc and evolutionism.

I wouldn't expect or want to be in such a position. I'm not an expert. I'll leave the testifying to people a) involved in the case and b) who are known experts in the pertinent field.
At 8:52 AM, Joe G said…

I said there was an overall correlation.

When?

I never said there was a single correlation coefficient.

Bullshit. Go back and read your responses. When this first came up and you erected your straw man I said there is more than on CC and you laughed and said I don't know what I am talking about. Clearly you were wrong

You gave a vague answer with no mathematical justification.

That is your uneducated opinion

Fourier analysis uses infinite series which have an index set (the integers) and an infinite number of functions. If the two sets didn't have the same size, the same number of elements then you couldn't use the integers to count with without running the risk of missing one of the functions.

Reference- your word is meaningless.

No, I'm just explaining the basis of the paper you referenced.

As I said you cannot think for yourself

So, you can't explain it then?

Already have, moron. You can't even follow along

There isn't a modern evolutionary theory and those types of mutations have been found.

Deny, deny, deny

LoL! If I am denying something then it should be easy for you to refute me but you never do. That means you are just a cowardly liar

Find me some academic support for set subtraction with infinite sets.

Find one that forbids it

It says we know a given life form existed by a certain time.

Not when it arose. That was the question that needed an answer

If I'm the baby then why do you always resort to being abusive?

LoL! You are the abusive dick, Jerad. All I do is make observations.

BTW there aren't any experts wrt evolutionism. No one knows how to test its claims.

All that and Jerad still hasn't posted the reference to the math he thinks shows mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes. And he is too proud of his willful ignorance to read the references that say otherwise
At 3:16 AM, Jerad said…

When?

I meant to say NO overall correlation. My mistake.

Bullshit. Go back and read your responses. When this first came up and you erected your straw man I said there is more than on CC and you laughed and said I don't know what I am talking about. Clearly you were wrong

Yes but you said it would change for each mutation. The paper you cited looked at a class of mutations and came up with correlation coefficients for that group.

That is your uneducated opinion

No, that is true. You said the relative cardinality of the evens was half that of the whole numbers. You made several definite statements of that type. But about the primes you just guessed it was between two other relative cardinalities but with no proof.

Reference- your word is meaningless.

Just look up Fourier analysis, Wikipedia will do. Look at the section on discrete-time Fourier transforms. There are infinite series.

LoL! If I am denying something then it should be easy for you to refute me but you never do. That means you are just a cowardly liar

You always deny whatever is presented because you think some mutations are guided even though you can't explain how to determine which ones are guided and which are random.

Find one that forbids it

So, you can't find any support which is what I've been saying all along. There isn't any.

LoL! You are the abusive dick, Jerad. All I do is make observations.

More abuse.

BTW there aren't any experts wrt evolutionism. No one knows how to test its claims.

Deny, deny, deny for God.

All that and Jerad still hasn't posted the reference to the math he thinks shows mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes. And he is too proud of his willful ignorance to read the references that say otherwise

Do you, instead, think they are all guided? If not how can you tell the difference?

You are aware that mutations occur at somewhat predictable rates which is how biologists use a biologic clock. If they weren't mistakes could you do that?
At 8:22 AM, Joe G said…

Yes but you said it would change for each mutation.

Yes, not all mutations have the same correlation coefficient. That is because not all mutations have the same benefit or detriment.

But about the primes you just guessed it was between two other relative cardinalities but with no proof.

Only an ignoramus would say that I guessed. And if you were smart enough you could have refuted my answer- or confirmed it. But instead you whined like a little baby

Just look up Fourier analysis, Wikipedia will do. Look at the section on discrete-time Fourier transforms. There are infinite series.

My you are dense. The wiki article doesn't say anything about Fourier analysis requiring/ proving countably infinite sets have the same cardinality.

Clearly you are too stupid to understand the argument

You always deny whatever is presented because you think some mutations are guided even though you can't explain how to determine which ones are guided and which are random.

Liar. You have never presented anything tat A) shows mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes and B) That they can accumulate in such a way as to produce complex protein machines

So, you can't find any support which is what I've been saying all along.

YOU can't moron.

Deny, deny, deny

And yet you cannot refute my claim. It's as if what I said is true. Go figure

You are aware that mutations occur at somewhat predictable rates which is how biologists use a biologic clock. If they weren't mistakes could you do that?

If they are mistakes how could they do that?

Look, asshole, YOU said there was some mathematical analysis and yet you have FAILed to produce any. Clearly you are just a liar for evolutionism.
At 8:25 AM, Joe G said…

Take two counters, counter A that counts every second and counter B that counts every other second.

Counter A will ALWAYS have more elements in it than counter B. Every time someone looks counter A will be at least double the elements of counter B. Always and forever.

That alone refutes Cantor's concept that countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. And I invite you or anyone else on this planet to prove that I am wrong.
At 4:19 PM, Jerad said…

Yes, not all mutations have the same correlation coefficient. That is because not all mutations have the same benefit or detriment.

Yes but a single mutation cannot have a correlation coefficient with respect to fitness.

Only an ignoramus would say that I guessed. And if you were smart enough you could have refuted my answer- or confirmed it. But instead you whined like a little baby

If you make a claim you have to defend it.

My you are dense. The wiki article doesn't say anything about Fourier analysis requiring/ proving countably infinite sets have the same cardinality.

What do you think the infinite series in the definition means? It means there is a one-to-one correspondence between the positive integers and the pertinent functions. Which means the sets are the same size.

Liar. You have never presented anything tat A) shows mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes and B) That they can accumulate in such a way as to produce complex protein machines

If they are not random then why do they occur at predictable rates? Would guided mutations come along at a predictable rate?

YOU can't moron.

Look, it is clear that there is absolutely NO academic support for your notion of set subtraction for infinite sets. You can't find any. You've never been able to find any. I don't have to find anyone saying it's rubbish, you have to find support for it. Academics don't spend their time disproving every stupid idea that comes along. People who propose alternatives have to prove their case. Something you haven't been able to do.

So it's finished. Set subtraction as a way of establishing cardinality is dead.

And yet you cannot refute my claim. It's as if what I said is true. Go figure

Enjoy your fantasy.

If they are mistakes how could they do that?

Because what drives them is an unguided process which presents an overall, long term rate of occurrence.

Look, asshole, YOU said there was some mathematical analysis and yet you have FAILed to produce any. Clearly you are just a liar for evolutionism.

I am trying to explain it to you.

Take two counters, counter A that counts every second and counter B that counts every other second.

Counter A will ALWAYS have more elements in it than counter B. Every time someone looks counter A will be at least double the elements of counter B. Always and forever.

If you only consider the result at a particular moment.

That alone refutes Cantor's concept that countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. And I invite you or anyone else on this planet to prove that I am wrong.

No, it doesn't prove Cantor wrong. It shows that you can't take the next step into the infinite. You can only think in the finite. At any given step, such and such will be true. But that doesn't apply in the infinite case. That is the point. What works in the finite case doesn't work in the infinite case.
At 10:45 AM, Joe G said…

Yes but a single mutation cannot have a correlation coefficient with respect to fitness.

And yet they do- see sickle-cell anemia

If you make a claim you have to defend it.

I have

What do you think the infinite series in the definition means?

Look, Jerad, it doesn't mean what you think and you cannot support the claim that it does. If you make the claim YOU have to support it.

If they are not random then why do they occur at predictable rates?

Random and predictable do not mix.

Look, it is clear that there is absolutely NO academic support for your notion of set subtraction for infinite sets.

It is clear that you cannot find any the says it cannot happen

Set subtraction as a way of establishing cardinality is dead.

Only in your little-bitty mind.

Because what drives them is an unguided process which presents an overall, long term rate of occurrence.

LoL! Keep fishing.

I am trying to explain it to you.

The reference, Jerad. Your word is meaningless

and again Jerad proves that he cannot read:

Counter A will ALWAYS have more elements in it than counter B. Every time someone looks counter A will be at least double the elements of counter B. Always and forever.

If you only consider the result at a particular moment.

EVERY MOMENT FOREVER, dumbass

No, it doesn't prove Cantor wrong.

Of course it does. But you are ignorant of infinity so you are choking.

It shows that you can't take the next step into the infinite.

Bullshit. It is all about the infinite. What do you think "forever" means?

At any given step, such and such will be true.

No moron, AT EVERY GIVEN STEP IT WILL BE TRUE. EVERY STEP ALONG THE JOURNEY, FOREVER.

But that doesn't apply in the infinite case.

It is the infinite case, moron. Look clearly you do not understand infinity

What works in the finite case doesn't work in the infinite case.

That is also false. The set {1,2,3....} is an infinite set that says what follows is the same pattern as what came before. That alone refutes you.
At 7:13 PM, Jerad said…

And yet they do- see sickle-cell anemia

A single mutation can have a beneficial effect but that's not the same thing as a correlation coefficient. A correlation coefficient relates many data points, not just one.

I have

Not really. Not in an publications or any kind of academic environment where other people in the same field have a chance to critique your ideas. And, in fact, not in any great detail ever.

Look, Jerad, it doesn't mean what you think and you cannot support the claim that it does. If you make the claim YOU have to support it.

IF you're going to add together an infinite number of functions to get a certain result AND you use an index, the positive integers, to keep track of the functions AND you need to make sure you don't miss a function then there has to be a one-to-one correspondence between the set of the functions and the set of the whole numbers. And if there is a one-to-one matching then the sets have to be the same size. They are both countably infinite.

Random and predictable do not mix.

Absolutely they do. Flip a fair coin, the outcome is random, that is, it's unpredictable. But if you flip the same fair coin 1000 times you will get approximately 50% head. There is a predictable rate of heads in the long run even though each individual outcome is random.

It is clear that you cannot find any the says it cannot happen

You have no academic support for preferring set subtraction over Cantor's work for infinite sets. You can't find any, it doesn't exist.

The reference, Jerad. Your word is meaningless

You deny references so I thought I'd try and explain it to you. I thought I'd try and have a reasoned discussion. But, if you blanket don't trust what I say what is the point?

Counter A will ALWAYS have more elements in it than counter B. Every time someone looks counter A will be at least double the elements of counter B. Always and forever.

Again, Cantor showed that for infinite sets you need to have a different method. If you stop at any given point they you are still dealing with a finite case.

Bullshit. It is all about the infinite. What do you think "forever" means?

I'm sorry you don't understand Cantor's work. It doesn't mean you are right.

No moron, AT EVERY GIVEN STEP IT WILL BE TRUE. EVERY STEP ALONG THE JOURNEY, FOREVER.

At any given step is a finite point. Not infinity. That's the difference.

It is the infinite case, moron. Look clearly you do not understand infinity

You are looking at a step along the journey. A step is not the whole.

That is also false. The set {1,2,3....} is an infinite set that says what follows is the same pattern as what came before. That alone refutes you.

No, again you are fooled by a given step along the way. Cantor realised that you got unworkable results using that kind of thinking. So he, independently and bucking the trend of his colleagues, thought of something new.

He should be your hero, he bucked the establishment and proved his case. And yet you diss him. He should be one of your best examples of someone who was outside the accepted paradigm and yet won but you cut him down all the time.

You complain all the time that your views are discriminated against but when discussing someone like Cantor, whose mathematics were hotly contested for a while, who spent the last years of his life in an asylum possibly because of the opposition to his ideas, you hammer the stake into his heart.

Cantor changed the way mathematics was assumed to be built. Fundamentally. He was the maverick who altered the system. For you to slam him is clearly ludicrous for many reasons. I guess your own views count more than anything else. It's Joe's way or no way. Even if you have to drag through the mud a man who suffered greatly for his work which changed the mathematical landscape in the same way you want to change the modern paradigm. Shame on you.
At 7:21 PM, Jerad said…

Counter A will ALWAYS have more elements in it than counter B. Every time someone looks counter A will be at least double the elements of counter B. Always and forever.

But what are those counters measuring? The number of seconds compared with the number of double seconds? Well, sure those counters will be half or double each other at any given step.

What if you just compared the number of clicks total at the 'end'. Not per time period but just the number eventually.

You get hung up with the number of clicks or whatever per time period or distance or whatever. That is NOT looking as the size of the individual sets.

What is true at the end of time? At infinity?
At 10:44 AM, Joe G said…

But what are those counters measuring? The number of seconds compared with the number of double seconds? Well, sure those counters will be half or double each other at any given step.

At every given step, forever.

What if you just compared the number of clicks total at the 'end'.

Infinity doesn't have an end

What is true at the end of time? At infinity?

Clearly you don't understand infinity.
At 10:51 AM, Joe G said…

A single mutation can have a beneficial effect but that's not the same thing as a correlation coefficient.

Irrelevant to the point I was addressing.

As for Cantor he didn't do any work on infinity. His method for declaring there are two different infinities is the SAME as what I use to say the cardinalities of countably infinite sets are not necessarily the same.

Look, you clearly don't understand infinity and neither did cantor. That's OK for him as he was unaware of relativity.

My counter example proves he was wrong and your inability to understand it proves that you can't think for yourself. And you can't even fucking read:

No moron, AT EVERY GIVEN STEP IT WILL BE TRUE. EVERY STEP ALONG THE JOURNEY, FOREVER.

At any given step is a finite point.

EVERY POINT, DUMBASS. LEARN HOW TO READ. There will NEVER be a point in which the two counters have the same number.

You really should buy a dictionary and learn what words mean

Intelligent Reasoning

Saturday, February 25, 2017

And More Ignorance from TSZ

87 Comments:

About Me

Previous Posts