Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Joe G.'s Tardgasm

Pages: (919) < ... 229 230 231 232 233 [234] 235 236 237 238 239 ... >

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:54    Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:52) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:46) Seeing that Kevin the retard McCarthy is still choking on his ignorance of genetics and wants positive evidence for ID, I figure we can start with the basics- again: Yes, Intelligent Design is both testable and falsifiable. Intelligent Design relies on Newton's First Rule, meaning agencies are only added when REQUIRED. Therefor to refute ID and any given design inference all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can account for it. IOW all evotards have to do to stop ID cold is to actually step up and A) produce a tyestable hypothesis for their position and B) produce positive, supporting evidence. However all evotards can do is cry foul and say "blind, undirected processes is a strawman!"- yet it is a given that natural selection, genetic drift and HGT are all blind, purposeless processes and all mutations are undirected-> that is given the current theory of evolution. IOW evotards are so clueless they don't even understand the theory they try to defend! So there you have it ole ignorant and cowardly evotards- just start supporting your position and ID will go away. How is ID tested? As in positive evidence? 1- See above as the way to the design inference is THROUGH the blind watchmaker 2- The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.” So if nature, operating freely cannot account for it AND it meets that criteria, some agency is required and we infer design (or at least agency involvement). The prediction is Kevin won't understand any of that because he is scientifically illiterate So, no actual evidence of design or a designer. Got it. Thanks BTW: I told you that if you mention evolution, you fail.  And you did... fail that it. Kevin proves that he is a fucking moron! That post was just to show how to test and possibly falsify ID. Also your "condition" proves that you are ignorant of science- I even explained it to you. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:55    Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:53) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:51) Supporting ID I'm not going to your blog.  You can state it here or admit you can't. Three things. It's taken you more time and effort to avoid the question than just answer it. Then fuck yourself you willfully ignorant coward You are just another fucking liar coward piece of shit Kevin wallow in your ignorance -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:56    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:53) Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:50) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:46)   Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:44)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:43) Fuck you asshole- that is exactly how they do it. Can't have a crime if the wind blew the papers out the window Is it a crime if termites are the murders?  After all termites are intelligent agents. It could be a crime. It all depends. I can't believe that he actually considers this a valid question. Kevin, I get it you are a moron. Say someonme tied someone down and put something on them that termites liked. Then they put thousands of termites on tghe person and the termites killed the person. Yes that would be a crime, dumbass. You just love trying to justify your own idiocy.  Why don't you do a blog post about how termites can be tried for murder. I didn't say someone PUT the termites on a person, but that the termites actually committed the crime.  Read for comprehension please. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:56    Kevin crybaby: "I'm not going to your blog" wah, wah, wah -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:56    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:50) No oleg the first sentence is the definbition: Quote In the computer science field of artificial intelligence, a genetic algorithm (GA) is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural selection darwinian evolution is not a search heuristic. LOL. It's not a definition, Joe. It is merely an introduction. This would like saying "Joe is a human who lives in the United States." It gives some idea about who Joe is, but does not you unambiguously. But even the introduction mentions natural selection, which is surely a Darwinian process. -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:57    Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:56) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:53) Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:50)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:46)   Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:44)     Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:43) Fuck you asshole- that is exactly how they do it. Can't have a crime if the wind blew the papers out the window Is it a crime if termites are the murders?  After all termites are intelligent agents. It could be a crime. It all depends. I can't believe that he actually considers this a valid question. Kevin, I get it you are a moron. Say someonme tied someone down and put something on them that termites liked. Then they put thousands of termites on tghe person and the termites killed the person. Yes that would be a crime, dumbass. You just love trying to justify your own idiocy.  Why don't you do a blog post about how termites can be tried for murder. I didn't say someone PUT the termites on a person, but that the termites actually committed the crime.  Read for comprehension please. Hey asshole- you didn't say anything about any conditions. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:58    Quote (olegt @ Jan. 09 2014,11:56) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:50) No oleg the first sentence is the definbition:   Quote In the computer science field of artificial intelligence, a genetic algorithm (GA) is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural selection darwinian evolution is not a search heuristic. LOL. It's not a definition, Joe. It is merely an introduction. This would like saying "Joe is a human who lives in the United States." It gives some idea about who Joe is, but does not you unambiguously. But even the introduction mentions natural selection, which is surely a Darwinian process. oleg "gas are a search heuristic" is the definition. And no they do NOT use natural selection. OInly a moron would think that they do and here you are -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:59    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:54) Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:52) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:46) Seeing that Kevin the retard McCarthy is still choking on his ignorance of genetics and wants positive evidence for ID, I figure we can start with the basics- again: Yes, Intelligent Design is both testable and falsifiable. Intelligent Design relies on Newton's First Rule, meaning agencies are only added when REQUIRED. Therefor to refute ID and any given design inference all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can account for it. IOW all evotards have to do to stop ID cold is to actually step up and A) produce a tyestable hypothesis for their position and B) produce positive, supporting evidence. However all evotards can do is cry foul and say "blind, undirected processes is a strawman!"- yet it is a given that natural selection, genetic drift and HGT are all blind, purposeless processes and all mutations are undirected-> that is given the current theory of evolution. IOW evotards are so clueless they don't even understand the theory they try to defend! So there you have it ole ignorant and cowardly evotards- just start supporting your position and ID will go away. How is ID tested? As in positive evidence? 1- See above as the way to the design inference is THROUGH the blind watchmaker 2- The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.” So if nature, operating freely cannot account for it AND it meets that criteria, some agency is required and we infer design (or at least agency involvement). The prediction is Kevin won't understand any of that because he is scientifically illiterate So, no actual evidence of design or a designer. Got it. Thanks BTW: I told you that if you mention evolution, you fail.  And you did... fail that it. Kevin proves that he is a fucking moron! That post was just to show how to test and possibly falsify ID. Also your "condition" proves that you are ignorant of science- I even explained it to you. So, you wasted a bunch of time to deal with something I didn't even ask. I'll try again.  I'll type slowly for you. State three (3) pieces of EVIDENCE for intelligent design. Provide a reference (actual scientific literature, blogs don't count unless they are research blogging) to support each of those three pieces. We both know you can't do it.  But it's fun watching you squirm. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,12:00    http://www.wordiq.com/definit....gorithm Quote A genetic algorithm (GA) is an algorithm used to find approximate solutions to difficult-to-solve problems through application of the principles of evolutionary biology to computer science -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,12:01    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:55) Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:53) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:51) Supporting ID I'm not going to your blog.  You can state it here or admit you can't. Three things. It's taken you more time and effort to avoid the question than just answer it. Then fuck yourself you willfully ignorant coward You are just another fucking liar coward piece of shit Kevin wallow in your ignorance Meltdown. And hypocritical calling others a coward, parking-lot Chubs. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,12:02    Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:59) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:54) Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:52)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:46) Seeing that Kevin the retard McCarthy is still choking on his ignorance of genetics and wants positive evidence for ID, I figure we can start with the basics- again: Yes, Intelligent Design is both testable and falsifiable. Intelligent Design relies on Newton's First Rule, meaning agencies are only added when REQUIRED. Therefor to refute ID and any given design inference all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can account for it. IOW all evotards have to do to stop ID cold is to actually step up and A) produce a tyestable hypothesis for their position and B) produce positive, supporting evidence. However all evotards can do is cry foul and say "blind, undirected processes is a strawman!"- yet it is a given that natural selection, genetic drift and HGT are all blind, purposeless processes and all mutations are undirected-> that is given the current theory of evolution. IOW evotards are so clueless they don't even understand the theory they try to defend! So there you have it ole ignorant and cowardly evotards- just start supporting your position and ID will go away. How is ID tested? As in positive evidence? 1- See above as the way to the design inference is THROUGH the blind watchmaker 2- The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.” So if nature, operating freely cannot account for it AND it meets that criteria, some agency is required and we infer design (or at least agency involvement). The prediction is Kevin won't understand any of that because he is scientifically illiterate So, no actual evidence of design or a designer. Got it. Thanks BTW: I told you that if you mention evolution, you fail.  And you did... fail that it. Kevin proves that he is a fucking moron! That post was just to show how to test and possibly falsify ID. Also your "condition" proves that you are ignorant of science- I even explained it to you. So, you wasted a bunch of time to deal with something I didn't even ask. I'll try again.  I'll type slowly for you. State three (3) pieces of EVIDENCE for intelligent design. Provide a reference (actual scientific literature, blogs don't count unless they are research blogging) to support each of those three pieces. We both know you can't do it.  But it's fun watching you squirm. Follow the link or shut the fuck up you piece of shit coward. OR provide three pieces of evidence that supports unguided evolution producing multi-protein complexes. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,12:02    LOL. First Joe writes (quoting Wikipedia): Quote In the computer science field of artificial intelligence, a genetic algorithm (GA) is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural selection Then he pedals back furiously: Quote oleg "gas are a search heuristic" is the definition. And no they do NOT use natural selection. OInly a moron would think that they do and here you are Well, Joe, you wrote that GAs use natural selection. Therefore you are a moron. -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,12:02    Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 09 2014,12:01) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:55) Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:53)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:51) Supporting ID I'm not going to your blog.  You can state it here or admit you can't. Three things. It's taken you more time and effort to avoid the question than just answer it. Then fuck yourself you willfully ignorant coward You are just another fucking liar coward piece of shit Kevin wallow in your ignorance Meltdown. And hypocritical calling others a coward, parking-lot Chubs. Yes Richie, your meltdown is ongoing and you are also a coward. So what? -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,12:02    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:57) Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:56) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:53)   Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:50)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:46)     Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:44)     Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:43) Fuck you asshole- that is exactly how they do it. Can't have a crime if the wind blew the papers out the window Is it a crime if termites are the murders?  After all termites are intelligent agents. It could be a crime. It all depends. I can't believe that he actually considers this a valid question. Kevin, I get it you are a moron. Say someonme tied someone down and put something on them that termites liked. Then they put thousands of termites on tghe person and the termites killed the person. Yes that would be a crime, dumbass. You just love trying to justify your own idiocy.  Why don't you do a blog post about how termites can be tried for murder. I didn't say someone PUT the termites on a person, but that the termites actually committed the crime.  Read for comprehension please. Hey asshole- you didn't say anything about any conditions. Try reading.  Geez you are thick. mur·der ?m?rd?r/Submit noun 1. the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. "the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer" synonyms: killing, homicide, assassination, liquidation, extermination, execution, slaughter, butchery, massacre; More informal a very difficult or unpleasant task or experience. "my first job at the steel mill was murder" synonyms: hell, hell on earth, a nightmare, an ordeal, a trial, misery, torture, agony More verb verb: murder; 3rd person present: murders; past tense: murdered; past participle: murdered; gerund or present participle: murdering 1. kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation. Oh and I'm not crying about going to your blog. If it wasn't for Rich, no one would go there. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,12:03    Quote (olegt @ Jan. 09 2014,12:02) LOL. First Joe writes (quoting Wikipedia):   Quote In the computer science field of artificial intelligence, a genetic algorithm (GA) is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural selection Then he pedals back furiously:   Quote oleg "gas are a search heuristic" is the definition. And no they do NOT use natural selection. OInly a moron would think that they do and here you are Well, Joe, you wrote that GAs use natural selection. Therefore you are a moron. No dumbass- wikipedia sed GAs use natural selection. That means the person/ people who wrote the article of dishonest losers, like you -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,12:04    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:53) Say someonme tied someone down and put something on them that termites liked. Then they put thousands of termites on tghe person and the termites killed the person. Yes that would be a crime, dumbass. ROFL!  So to Detective JoeTard the termites are the murderers!     Hey JoeTard, is AVIDA a genetic algorithm variation? -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,12:05    Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,12:02) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:57) Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:56)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:53)   Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:50)     Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:46)     Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:44)       Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:43) Fuck you asshole- that is exactly how they do it. Can't have a crime if the wind blew the papers out the window Is it a crime if termites are the murders?  After all termites are intelligent agents. It could be a crime. It all depends. I can't believe that he actually considers this a valid question. Kevin, I get it you are a moron. Say someonme tied someone down and put something on them that termites liked. Then they put thousands of termites on tghe person and the termites killed the person. Yes that would be a crime, dumbass. You just love trying to justify your own idiocy.  Why don't you do a blog post about how termites can be tried for murder. I didn't say someone PUT the termites on a person, but that the termites actually committed the crime.  Read for comprehension please. Hey asshole- you didn't say anything about any conditions. Try reading.  Geez you are thick. mur·der ?m?rd?r/Submit noun 1. the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. "the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer" synonyms: killing, homicide, assassination, liquidation, extermination, execution, slaughter, butchery, massacre; More informal a very difficult or unpleasant task or experience. "my first job at the steel mill was murder" synonyms: hell, hell on earth, a nightmare, an ordeal, a trial, misery, torture, agony More verb verb: murder; 3rd person present: murders; past tense: murdered; past participle: murdered; gerund or present participle: murdering 1. kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation. Oh and I'm not crying about going to your blog. If it wasn't for Rich, no one would go there. I get 200 hits a day from all over the world. OTOH you are still a piece of shit coward -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,12:05    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,12:03) Quote No dumbass- wikipedia sed GAs use natural selection. That means the person/ people who wrote the article of dishonest losers, like you And you repeated that while countering my definition, which means that you agreed with Wikipedia. -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,12:06    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,12:05) I get 200 hits a day from all over the world. OTOH you are still a piece of shit coward People coming to look at a train wreck. -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,12:06    Quote (olegt @ Jan. 09 2014,12:05) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,12:03) Quote No dumbass- wikipedia sed GAs use natural selection. That means the person/ people who wrote the article of dishonest losers, like you And you repeated that while countering my definition, which means that you agreed with Wikipedia. No, that bisn't what it means, oleg. OTOH you tried to paas off the methodology as a definition. You are a total moron. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,12:07    Quote (olegt @ Jan. 09 2014,12:06) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,12:05) I get 200 hits a day from all over the world. OTOH you are still a piece of shit coward People coming to look at a train wreck. evoTARDS are too cowardly to post so there aren't any train wrecks there... -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,12:08    Still waiting for oleg to demonstrate that GAs use darwinian processes... -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,12:11    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,12:06) Quote (olegt @ Jan. 09 2014,12:05) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,12:03)   Quote No dumbass- wikipedia sed GAs use natural selection. That means the person/ people who wrote the article of dishonest losers, like you And you repeated that while countering my definition, which means that you agreed with Wikipedia. Quote No, that bisn't what it means, oleg. OTOH you tried to paas off the methodology as a definition. You are a total moron. So, what is your definition of a genetic algorithm, Joe? I have given mine, you disagree with it. What's yours? -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,12:15    Joe, I'm asking a very simple question.  If I was to ask this of any scientist, they could (from memory) provide it. Three statements that support ID (again, if the word evolution is ever present, it's a fail). Three references that support those claims. That's all. I'm not going to wade through all the cursing and crap on your blog to find them. You've spent way more words yelling at me for being stupid than you would have to just type up what I asked. We both know why that is Joe.  There isn't any.  You can't even make ONE (1) positive statement regarding intelligent design and support it with evidence.  Not a single one. Keep flailing though.  One day, you might accidentally stumble upon a piece of evidence. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,12:16    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,12:08) Still waiting for oleg to demonstrate that GAs use darwinian processes... Some guy named Joseph at UD posted this a while back     Quote Joseph at UD: AVIDA:  The avida system creates an artificial (virtual) environment inside of a computer. The system implements a 2D grid of virtual processors which execute a limited assembly language; programs are stored as sequential strings of instructions in the system memory. Every program (typically termed cell, organism, string or creature) is associated with a processor, or grid point. Therefore, the maximum population of organisms is given by the dimensions of the grid, N× M, and not by the size of the total genome space of the population, as in tierra. For purposes of Artificial Life research, the assembly language used must support self-reproduction; the assembly language instructions available are described in the Virtual CPU section. The virtual environment is initially seeded with a human-designed program that self-replicates. This program and its descendents are then subjected to random mutations of various possible types which change instructions within their memory; resulting in unfavorable, neutral, and favorable program mutations. Mutations are qualified in a strictly Darwinian sense; any mutation which results in an increased ability to reproduce in the given environment is considered favorable. While it is clear that the vast majority of mutations will be unfavorable—typically causing the creature to fail to reproduce entirely—or else neutral, those few that are favorable will cause organisms to reproduce more effectively and thus thrive in the environment. Over time, organisms which are better suited to the environment are generated that are derived from the initial (ancestor) creature. All that remains is the specification of an environment such that tasks not otherwise intrinsically useful to self-reproduction are assimilated. A method of altering the time slice, or amount of time apportioned to each processor, is described in the Time Slicing section. While avida is clearly a genetic algorithm (GA) variation (to which nearly all evolutionary systems with a genetic coding can be reduced), the presence of a computationally (Turing) complete genetic basis differentiates it from traditional genetic algorithms. In addition, selection in avida more closely resembles natural selection than most GA mechanisms; this is a result of the implicit (and dynamic) co-evolutionary fitness landscape automatically created by the reproductive requirement. This co-evolutionary pressure classifies avida as an auto-adaptive system, as opposed to standard genetic algorithms (or adaptive) systems, in which the creatures have no interaction with each other. Finally, avida is an evolutionary system that is easy to study quantitatively yet maintains the hallmark complexity of living systems I guess that Joseph must be a real moronic asshole to think AVIDA is a GA that uses Darwinian processes like natural selection.  Maybe it's Jim or ID_guy or one of the other people that use the same login account. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,12:26    But morning overtook Shahrazad, and she lapsed into silence. -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

Tony M Nyphot Posts: 491 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,12:46    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,10:53)       Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:50)         Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:46)         Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:44)           Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:43) Fuck you asshole- that is exactly how they do it. Can't have a crime if the wind blew the papers out the window Is it a crime if termites are the murders?  After all termites are intelligent agents. It could be a crime. It all depends. I can't believe that he actually considers this a valid question. Kevin, I get it you are a moron. Say someonme tied someone down and put something on them that termites liked. Then they put thousands of termites on tghe person and the termites killed the person. Yes that would be a crime, dumbass. What if the murderer used a hailstone (that is not made of water) the same size (and weight) as a baseball to bash in someone's puss-filled head in a New England parking lot while they were eating a caek containing the same amount of CSI as an aardvark? -------------- "I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK "You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,13:20    And he's done. Can we model Joe's behavior in terms  Ronrey vs. getting pwned? Ronrey is a function of no blag comments, I think. Interactions here decrease ronrey but increase pwnage. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Freddie Posts: 371 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,14:32    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:46) Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:44) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:43)   Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 09 2014,11:35)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:23)       Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 09 2014,11:22) "However the design inference has to eliminate chance and necessity therefor it" - That looks like a positive case to me!  :O Yes, moron, the first parts are to eliminate necessity and chance- that is how forensic science and archaeology do it. Only then can you see if design is warranted. Wrong again dumbass.  That's not how forensic science and archaeology do it. Forensic science and archaeology both start with the hypothesis that humans did it, then look for evidence of human involvement - tool marks, source of the raw materials, other outside indicators of human presence.  They try to identify the humans involved. Stick to wolfing cheeseburgers chubs.  Play to your strength. Fuck you asshole- that is exactly how they do it. Can't have a crime if the wind blew the papers out the window Is it a crime if termites are the murders?  After all termites are intelligent agents. It could be a crime. It all depends. Any1 of them merdering turmites comes neer my family and I swear ill do time. -------------- Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy. Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people. Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,14:40    Quote (Freddie @ Jan. 09 2014,14:32) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:46) Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:44)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:43)   Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 09 2014,11:35)     Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:23)       Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 09 2014,11:22) "However the design inference has to eliminate chance and necessity therefor it" - That looks like a positive case to me!  :O Yes, moron, the first parts are to eliminate necessity and chance- that is how forensic science and archaeology do it. Only then can you see if design is warranted. Wrong again dumbass.  That's not how forensic science and archaeology do it. Forensic science and archaeology both start with the hypothesis that humans did it, then look for evidence of human involvement - tool marks, source of the raw materials, other outside indicators of human presence.  They try to identify the humans involved. Stick to wolfing cheeseburgers chubs.  Play to your strength. Fuck you asshole- that is exactly how they do it. Can't have a crime if the wind blew the papers out the window Is it a crime if termites are the murders?  After all termites are intelligent agents. It could be a crime. It all depends. Any1 of them merdering turmites comes neer my family and I swear ill do time. Termite vs. Turd-might. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Pages: (919) < ... 229 230 231 232 233 [234] 235 236 237 238 239 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard