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... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 2

Pages: (500) < ... 247 248 249 250 251 [252] 253 254 255 256 257 ... >

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,10:36    Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 20 2009,10:54) RB is still spanking 'em over at the Tardmine... Yes, but Jerry is asking that I apologize for doing so.   I think THEY should apologize for hurting my hand. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,10:39    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 20 2009,10:16) Woot!  DrDrD ventures back into the tardwars with a new post, commenting an an 11 year old article about the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. He wonders why they don't call it the Pontifical Academy of Evolutionists, and asks these questions     Quote Why are all 80 members of the PAS evolutionists? Is the PAS self-selecting? How much say does the Holy Father have in the selection of members? How many of these members are themselves Catholic? How many are theologically sound (i.e., can say the creeds without smirking)? Theologically sound?  The current list of members includes some folks who are probably not even Catholic, but who happen to have a Nobel Prize or some other bauble that makes them good members of an Academy of Sciences. Maybe DrDrD can do a little Wickedpedia research of his own before he posts again... All Science So Far! So, Dembski is pissed because the Catholic Church's science academy includes non-Catholic scientists, but no Baptist professors of philosophy? Imagine that. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,10:42    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 20 2009,10:36) Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 20 2009,10:54) RB is still spanking 'em over at the Tardmine... Yes, but Jerry is asking that I apologize for doing so.   I think THEY should apologize for hurting my hand. Your problem, Bill, if you're far too 'facty' And you took the off-topic off-topic by bringing it on-topic. CHANCE WORSHIPER! -------------- "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

Nils Ruhr Posts: 42 Joined: Nov. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,10:42    AmerikanInKananaskis 03/20/2009 10:30 am   Quote I’m also curious how much of the PAS is non-white. I don’t think the Catholic Church is racist, but the Darwinian establishment certainly is. So if the PAS is mostly self-selecting, I would expect to see very few people on the list who aren’t white. (Despite the fact that the Catholic Church has huge numbers in Africa.)

khan Posts: 1554 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,10:44    Quote ...Creation, can have been given “equal investigation and in-depth study” by the Pontifical Academy if there is not one expert on Creation Science included among its members! I notice no names are put forth. -------------- "It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad Frequency is just the plural of wavelength... -JoeG

Hermagoras Posts: 1260 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,10:49    An analogy from Kellogg:   Quote Let’s try a thought experiment. I have an actual weasel. It’s ugly and undistinguished, but in one respect it’s special: it can reproduce asexually. It will produce 50 offspring, some with little differences, that are capable of reproducing in the same way. Now, let’s say I want to breed a weasel that has certain targeted features: a soft, glossy coat and short claws. I get my weasel to produce 50 offspring. I pick the one that’s closest to the target and euthanize the other 49. I do this over and over again, over sixty times. Each time, I produce 50 offspring from the best weasel and kill off the 49 I don’t want. By the 63rd generation, I have a pretty nice weasel: its coat is beautifully soft and glossy, and it has tiny, tiny claws. Along the way I did something else: every tenth generation, I stuffed the best weasel after he’d produced his offspring. I keep the original and these selections, in order, in glass cases, to show the overall progress of my breeding program. One day, my friend kairosfocus comes to my house and observes the cases. He says, “there’s something odd here. From what I can see, the weasel offspring always have softer coats and shorter claws than their parents. In truth, your weasel will never produce offspring with rougher coats and longer claws.” What’s wrong with that conclusion? -------------- "I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

dmso74 Posts: 110 Joined: Aug. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,11:01    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 20 2009,10:36)     Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 20 2009,10:54) RB is still spanking 'em over at the Tardmine... Yes, but Jerry is asking that I apologize for doing so.   I think THEY should apologize for hurting my hand. you have to forgive jerry, he only has a few talking points that he rotates through with modification: 1)no evidence for macroevolution (the definition of which changes according to the current argument) 2) ad hominem attacks 3) evolution research is ID research 4) I can regurgitate some basic evolutionary principles so I understand evolution better than most evolutionists 5)  I <3 Michael Behe and want to get a sex change and bear him 10 more children. you just witnessed a combination of 1), 2) and 4).

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,11:08    Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 20 2009,10:49) An analogy from Kellogg:     Quote Let’s try a thought experiment. I have an actual weasel. It’s ugly and undistinguished, but in one respect it’s special: it can reproduce asexually. It will produce 50 offspring, some with little differences, that are capable of reproducing in the same way. Now, let’s say I want to breed a weasel that has certain targeted features: a soft, glossy coat and short claws. I get my weasel to produce 50 offspring. I pick the one that’s closest to the target and euthanize the other 49. I do this over and over again, over sixty times. Each time, I produce 50 offspring from the best weasel and kill off the 49 I don’t want. By the 63rd generation, I have a pretty nice weasel: its coat is beautifully soft and glossy, and it has tiny, tiny claws. Along the way I did something else: every tenth generation, I stuffed the best weasel after he’d produced his offspring. I keep the original and these selections, in order, in glass cases, to show the overall progress of my breeding program. One day, my friend kairosfocus comes to my house and observes the cases. He says, “there’s something odd here. From what I can see, the weasel offspring always have softer coats and shorter claws than their parents. In truth, your weasel will never produce offspring with rougher coats and longer claws.” What’s wrong with that conclusion? What is wrong?  You mean besides you evil, evo-mat athiests wantonly taking the life of members of God's Disembodied Telic Entity's The Designer's wonderous creation? -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,11:16    Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2009,07:39)   Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 20 2009,00:38)   Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 20 2009,05:13)         Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 19 2009,21:01)         Quote (Jkrebs @ Mar. 19 2009,21:48) Good job, RB, even though Joe won't get it. Jerry, Kairos and Moe have made it perfectly clear that it is ME who doesn't get it. (slap slap - poink - wooWOOwoowoowoowoowoo.) Maybe Dave's Ghost will go poke a stick at them tomorrow... Let's hope not. Dave Tards petulant sacking by UD's Elton John impersonator has made that UD thread the penultimate thread of TARD. Obama be praised. Like Elton John he plays the piano because he sucks at the organ ........and everything else for that matter. The Tard House Loonies finally got rid of their vicious gatekeeper and are now running around naked, whoopn' and a hollerin' and smearing feces on the walls, rocking in corners, opening the windows on the upper levels planning to do superman stunts with the bedsheets inscribed with honorary diplomas as capes. The jolly repression by Sgt Dave Tard ensured at least the inmates were shielded from curious onlookers walking their dogs past the front gate. His keen sense of smell detected anti ID visitors at trace levels. He knew the gossip amongst the neighborhood Tard Watch  would never reach the patients ears if he hosed the excrement off them once in a while and lined them up and told them to keep their mouths shut when he conducted a private inspection by an accredited Tard Inspector. One at a time he let the inspectors in under strict instructions not to engage the inmates in simple questions such as "what time of the day is it?" or "What did you have for breakfast?" Which always provoked long winded nonsequiturs and furious name calling creating both extreme boredom and disgust in the inspectors. Conversely when the most verbose of Tards shouted out asymmetrical discombobulations Dave Tard was there with his stout truncheon to beat them quivering into a padded cell. Now that the Maestro has the keys to the gate he leaves it open while fiddling in his Studio knowing full well that His fellow institutionalized 'geniuses' will be quite safe from visiting scholars of Tard. The Tard House as it is affectionately known to the consigneti is one of the worlds "Lights on the Hill" for Tard, a veritable Tard Heaven along with various Global Meltdown Denial and 9/11 Denial sites. It wouldn't matter if there were videos of primordial soup to man they would deny evolution and blame the whole thing on some conspiracy by some Nefarious Evil Overlord. To cap it all their own Evil Overlord who leases them the building and keeps huge Billboard Hustings plastered with various crank cures for wakefulness amongst other things pays a visit once in a while to collect his rent. However the stench is too much for even him and he quickly departs to his vestry to write sermons on flamboyant church fashion. This continuing saga delights Marine Biologists. P.S. Richards T Hughe's check is in the mail with a memo saying "Best Homo Comedian on Tard". Along with a bottle of Single Malt Whiskey...... ....ok I lied about the whiskey...and the check. P.P.S. That's the last time I'll post after "She Who Must Be Obeyed's"  Birthday nosh up and one and half bottles of wine. I was dragged away.....not enough time to do a Tard search. UD has taken on a certain Dr. Tarr and Professor Fetherish quality since DaveScot left. Yeah, but Dr. Tarr and Prof. Fether were not supposed to be the same person!   Quote ACCUMULATION is the SELECTION part. I have already explained that. Why do YOU ignore it? Also every other factor is an ACCIDENT- that is according to the cureent theory. But a few days ago:   Quote There isn’t any such thing as “cumulative selection” in nature. Cumulative selection requires a target. In nature the “target” does not (yet) exist. I've stopped counting how many times on this page Joseph says "accumulation." The only accumulation is his accumulation of the word, "accumulation." Joseph, give it up already. If it’s not adding up, it’s not adding up – and it ain’t adding up for you. You have a target, and you're not finding it, because you're not even searching for it. You "fix things" like a bookie, and you're fixed. Sheesh! RB, what patience. My bonnet is off to you. -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,11:39    Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 20 2009,12:16) Sheesh! RB, what patience. My bonnet is off to you. It's not really all that difficult. I merely post the same uncomfortable two-line question (entailments? tests?), then stand back as they writhe on the floor, handle serpents, speak in tongues, cast me out, hallucinate posts, declare victory, promulgate the preposterous, declare their expertise, and demand apologies. All we've missed lately are posts from Unpleasant Biped. I have no apologies to offer, dudes, but I do thank you for some great entertainment. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,12:04    Gordon Mullings:     Quote We must observe that the above 1986 Weasel shows a sample of 300, with 200 being in runs [thus a dominant feature of the output . . . and being of so large a number odf samples that if there is a reasonable chanve of a flick-back it should appear at least once], where never once a run appears do we see reversion away from the run. This contrasts with the 1987 outputs, which show frequent winks away from the correct letter. These observed stable characteristics of the processes — whether explicitly or implicitly latched — tell us a lot. So, again, we are simply looking at selective hyperskepticism. Perhaps, we should put it this way: Mr Kellogg you are in a dice game. Somehow the roll keeps on coming up 6’s 2/3 the time. After 200+ out of 300+ rolls, are you going to say maybe this is not a loaded die? [If so, can we meet for a little dice game; I could do with a fatter bank account.] Onlookers, see the point? Mullings apparently doesn't know how to do a probability analysis of the phenomenon at issue. What, precisely, 300 rolls of a 6-sided die have to do with the output of "weasel" is something Mullings doesn't explain. Mullings ignores the fact that one can analyze the probability of the phenomenon in question. I have already done so. The situation analyzed is the likelihood that the best candidate in a generation's correct characters are retained in a succeeding generation. That, in turn, is the complement of the probability that a generation will have all of its candidates change at least one correct base from the parent to an incorrect one. As I put it before: Probability of a candidate changing a parent's correct base to an incorrect base = PCandidate_C2I = (1 - (1 - (u * (K - 1) / K))C) Probability that a population will have at least one candidate that preserves all the correct bases from the parent of the previous generation = PPopulation_C2C = 1 - (PCandidate_C2I )N Notice the power of N in there. As the population increases, the chance that the best candidate in each generation will change a correct base to an incorrect one falls off sharply, achieving the teensy-tiny reaches of small probability otherwise beloved of IDC advocates very quickly. We don't see changes of correct characters in the output of best candidates per generation in Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" because it is by far the most probable outcome of a run of an accurate (and thus non-latching) "weasel" with a reasonable population size and a reasonable mutation rate. For the case where N=50, u=0.05, and the best candidate from the previous generation had 27 correct bases, the probability that the best candidate in the new generation still has all those bases correct is = 1.0 - (0.73614)50 = 0.999999777 That number means that we would expect to see one dropping of a correct base from the best candidate per generation in about 4,487,000 generations at the 27 correct bases level. How many generations were represented in the book? Even if all 43 best candidates per generation were there, the odds would still be less than 1 in 100,000 that we would expect to see a correct base changed to an incorrect one in the best candidate from any of those generations, and that is being generous by using the C=27 case for all generations. So anytime Mr. Mullings wants to play a betting game related to his misjudgment of probabilities for "weasel", I think I could also do with a fatter bank account. For earlier generations with fewer correct bases, the odds are even higher that the best candidate of each generation still has all the correct bases inherited from its parent intact. Here is the run showing this fact:     Quote 2000 runs, 00 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000; p_c2i calc = 0.00000, MC = 0.00000 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=0, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.00000, MC = 0.00000 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.00000)^50 2000 runs, 01 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 0.95185, MC = 0.95100; p_c2i calc = 0.04815, MC = 0.04900 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=1, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.04815, MC = 0.04872 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.04815)^50 2000 runs, 02 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 0.90602, MC = 0.89850; p_c2i calc = 0.09398, MC = 0.10150 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=2, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.09398, MC = 0.09456 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.09398)^50 2000 runs, 03 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 0.86240, MC = 0.86600; p_c2i calc = 0.13760, MC = 0.13400 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=3, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.13760, MC = 0.13723 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.13760)^50 2000 runs, 04 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 0.82088, MC = 0.81950; p_c2i calc = 0.17912, MC = 0.18050 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=4, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.17912, MC = 0.17961 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.17912)^50 2000 runs, 05 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 0.78135, MC = 0.79100; p_c2i calc = 0.21865, MC = 0.20900 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=5, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.21865, MC = 0.21848 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.21865)^50 2000 runs, 06 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 0.74373, MC = 0.74850; p_c2i calc = 0.25627, MC = 0.25150 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=6, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.25627, MC = 0.25472 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.25627)^50 2000 runs, 07 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 0.70792, MC = 0.70850; p_c2i calc = 0.29208, MC = 0.29150 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=7, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.29208, MC = 0.29111 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.29208)^50 2000 runs, 08 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 0.67384, MC = 0.68300; p_c2i calc = 0.32616, MC = 0.31700 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=8, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.32616, MC = 0.32278 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.32616)^50 2000 runs, 09 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 0.64139, MC = 0.64150; p_c2i calc = 0.35861, MC = 0.35850 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=9, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.35861, MC = 0.35874 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.35861)^50 2000 runs, 10 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 0.61051, MC = 0.61850; p_c2i calc = 0.38949, MC = 0.38150 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=10, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.38949, MC = 0.39320 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.38949)^50 2000 runs, 11 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 0.58112, MC = 0.55650; p_c2i calc = 0.41888, MC = 0.44350 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=11, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.41888, MC = 0.42112 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.41888)^50 2000 runs, 12 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 0.55314, MC = 0.55850; p_c2i calc = 0.44686, MC = 0.44150 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=12, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.44686, MC = 0.44896 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.44686)^50 2000 runs, 13 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 0.52650, MC = 0.53400; p_c2i calc = 0.47350, MC = 0.46600 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=13, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.47350, MC = 0.47845 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.47350)^50 2000 runs, 14 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 0.50115, MC = 0.50350; p_c2i calc = 0.49885, MC = 0.49650 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=14, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.49885, MC = 0.49732 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.49885)^50 2000 runs, 15 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 0.47702, MC = 0.46900; p_c2i calc = 0.52298, MC = 0.53100 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=15, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.52298, MC = 0.52338 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.52298)^50 2000 runs, 16 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 0.45406, MC = 0.44350; p_c2i calc = 0.54594, MC = 0.55650 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=16, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.54594, MC = 0.54723 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.54594)^50 2000 runs, 17 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 0.43219, MC = 0.42750; p_c2i calc = 0.56781, MC = 0.57250 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=17, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.56781, MC = 0.56722 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.56781)^50 2000 runs, 18 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 0.41139, MC = 0.39800; p_c2i calc = 0.58861, MC = 0.60200 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=18, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.58861, MC = 0.59006 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.58861)^50 2000 runs, 19 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 0.39158, MC = 0.38800; p_c2i calc = 0.60842, MC = 0.61200 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=19, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.60842, MC = 0.60830 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.60842)^50 2000 runs, 20 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 0.37272, MC = 0.35550; p_c2i calc = 0.62728, MC = 0.64450 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=20, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.62728, MC = 0.62587 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.62728)^50 2000 runs, 21 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 0.35478, MC = 0.36650; p_c2i calc = 0.64522, MC = 0.63350 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=21, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.64522, MC = 0.64732 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.64522)^50 2000 runs, 22 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 0.33770, MC = 0.35800; p_c2i calc = 0.66230, MC = 0.64200 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=22, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.66230, MC = 0.66115 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.66230)^50 2000 runs, 23 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 0.32144, MC = 0.30050; p_c2i calc = 0.67856, MC = 0.69950 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=23, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.67856, MC = 0.67947 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.67856)^50 2000 runs, 24 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 0.30596, MC = 0.30750; p_c2i calc = 0.69404, MC = 0.69250 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=24, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.69404, MC = 0.69426 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.69404)^50 2000 runs, 25 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 0.29123, MC = 0.29400; p_c2i calc = 0.70877, MC = 0.70600 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=25, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.70877, MC = 0.70712 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.70877)^50 2000 runs, 26 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 0.27721, MC = 0.27650; p_c2i calc = 0.72279, MC = 0.72350 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=26, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.72279, MC = 0.72154 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.72279)^50 2000 runs, 27 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 0.26386, MC = 0.25950; p_c2i calc = 0.73614, MC = 0.74050 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=27, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.73614, MC = 0.73585 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.73614)^50 2000 runs, 28 correct : candidate p_c2c calc = 0.25116, MC = 0.25250; p_c2i calc = 0.74884, MC = 0.74750 2000 runs, N=50, u=0.05000, K=27, C=28, p_pop_c2c calc = 1.00000, MC = 1.00000 Proportion of candidates w/C2I bases calc = 0.74884, MC = 0.74540 p_pop_c2c = 1.0 - (0.74884)^50 The 1987 video showed all the candidates, not just the best candidates per generation, which is why it is obvious that there never was any "latching" going in in the program: the complete set of candidates shows no "latching", and there is no expectation that the best candidates would show a change of a correct base. Onlookers may note the weaseling of Mullings in trying to evade the clear conclusion that he cannot bring himself to admit error. ETA: slight clarification and a little snark. Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 20 2009,13:15 -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Maya Posts: 702 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,12:13    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 20 2009,08:16) "joseph":   Quote I will be picking up a copy of “The Blind Watchmaker” today. However as I have already stated the program does indeed latch -input to output- via probabilities. That is given a target, a small enough mutation rate and and large enough sample size, the output will NEVER be farther away from mthe target than the parent. IOW latching, given the proper conditions, is inevitable. So why do David and George ignore that fact? . . . Yes, adaptive information is retained in populations meeting those two biologically-relevant criteria (reasonable population size and non-zero small mutation rate), but it is precisely the point at issue that "latching" is not done in order to achieve that. We have no evidence of a generic "latching" capability in biology, but we do have plenty of evidence concerning biological population sizes and mutation rates. So no one is ignoring the fact that "weasel" works; it is precisely to the point that argument ensues when certain people persistently misrepresent the mechanism by which it works. I wonder why they ignore that fact? It's almost physically painful to watch them get so close to understanding, then run away in fear.  Gotta keep those beliefs inviolate, otherwise they'll end up like those scientists who are always changing their theories to match the evidence.

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,12:13    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 20 2009,10:16) Woot!  DrDrD ventures back into the tardwars with a new post, commenting an an 11 year old article about the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. He wonders why they don't call it the Pontifical Academy of Evolutionists, and asks these questions     Quote Why are all 80 members of the PAS evolutionists? Is the PAS self-selecting? How much say does the Holy Father have in the selection of members? How many of these members are themselves Catholic? How many are theologically sound (i.e., can say the creeds without smirking)? Theologically sound?  The current list of members includes some folks who are probably not even Catholic, but who happen to have a Nobel Prize or some other bauble that makes them good members of an Academy of Sciences. Maybe DrDrD can do a little Wickedpedia research of his own before he posts again... All Science So Far! He wonders how "theologically sound" they are?  WTF??- who really talks like that?? I think the Dr. Dr. longeth for the halcyon days of  the Old Testament Vengeful, Wrathful God and the Spanish Inqusistion before it was a punch line in a Monty Python skit and McCarthyite Loyalty Oaths.  "Are you now, or have you ever been an Evil Evolutionist?"    "How many of your Fellow Travellers are Evil Evolutionists"? And he knows with 100% certainty, that God has annointed him, Bill Dembski, as His Tool on earth, to root out the Godless Evolutionists, and save everyone's hallowed soul, whether they want it or not - and whether it kills them or not.  IMO he would actually look forward to a litteral, not a figurative Friday Meltdown to do God's Holy Work and get rid of heretics (anyone that disagrees with him - or smirks while they say "the creed"). He is actually one pretty scarry dude.   There is just no way to communicate on an even basis with a God-Annointed True Believer. I wonder if it's worth sacrificing another puppet to find out if he's willing to publicly answer how far he is willing to go? -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,12:17    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 20 2009,08:16) "joseph":       Quote I will be picking up a copy of “The Blind Watchmaker” today. However as I have already stated the program does indeed latch -input to output- via probabilities. That is given a target, a small enough mutation rate and and large enough sample size, the output will NEVER be farther away from mthe target than the parent. IOW latching, given the proper conditions, is inevitable. So why do David and George ignore that fact? The distinction has to do with the mechanism that "weasel" instantiates. "Latching" would require an internal mechanism with knowledge of "correct" states and the ability to protect "correct" states from mutational processes. That would be counter to what we know of biology, and, indeed, Dawkins himself thought that ascribing "latching" would be didactically wrong. But if there is no protection of "correct" states, how in the world can there be a mechanism that will accumulate adaptive information over time where all individual traits are treated just the same? Especially when mutating from an adaptive to a maladaptive character is so much more probable than mutating an adaptive character to a maladaptive one. That is what the "weasel" program by Dawkins demonstrates, that given the use of cumulative selection, it becomes likely that an evolving population can be in a situation where adaptive information is retained. It does so in a way that promotes an understanding of why biological evolution happens in reasonable-sized populations with a small but appreciable rate of mutation of inherited information. Yes, adaptive information is retained in populations meeting those two biologically-relevant criteria (reasonable population size and non-zero small mutation rate), but it is precisely the point at issue that "latching" is not done in order to achieve that. We have no evidence of a generic "latching" capability in biology, but we do have plenty of evidence concerning biological population sizes and mutation rates. So no one is ignoring the fact that "weasel" works; it is precisely to the point that argument ensues when certain people persistently misrepresent the mechanism by which it works. I wonder why they ignore that fact? I honestly don’t think they’re ignoring it. IMHO, Joseph is either forgetting that selection happens in populations (i.e., that whatever it is that he thinks “accumulates” in nature does so via the removal of something else, whatever he thinks that is) and not in individuals, or more likely, he doesn’t understand that variation plus selection happens in an environment. Dawkins’ algorithm implies, but does not explicitly show, the “situation where adaptive information is retained.” Joseph and these people need to be taken by the hand and actively shown this somehow (ironic for people who claim to not be “materialist”). But because Dawkins programmed it, the program is taken by Joseph as evidence that Dawkins is the situation, and thus Dawkins assumes the role of “intelligent agent” in their minds (even though that’s like saying that because you introduced two young people to each other, you therefore are doing their backseat necking for them!. Because Joseph and the rest of them are mired in concrete thinking (“I can fix anything”), they cannot reason abstractly and thus must anthropomorphize a designer that is not there. So here we are at square one all over again: Joseph: “There is a little man in my tummy that digests my food for me.” Reciprocating Bill: “There is not.” Joseph: “Is too! I oughtta know – I eat! Don’t you ever eat anything?” Reciprocating Bill: “So who digests the food for that little man in his tummy, then?” Dembski: “Read our FAQ pages. That’s not a question allowed here.” Bleeeeaaaaahhhhhhh…! -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,12:30    Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 20 2009,10:39)     Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 20 2009,10:16) Woot!  DrDrD ventures back into the tardwars with a new post, commenting an an 11 year old article about the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. He wonders why they don't call it the Pontifical Academy of Evolutionists, and asks these questions           Quote Why are all 80 members of the PAS evolutionists? Is the PAS self-selecting? How much say does the Holy Father have in the selection of members? How many of these members are themselves Catholic? How many are theologically sound (i.e., can say the creeds without smirking)? Theologically sound?  The current list of members includes some folks who are probably not even Catholic, but who happen to have a Nobel Prize or some other bauble that makes them good members of an Academy of Sciences. Maybe DrDrD can do a little Wickedpedia research of his own before he posts again... All Science So Far! So, Dembski is pissed because the Catholic Church's science academy includes non-Catholic scientists, but no Baptist professors of philosophy? Imagine that. Dr. Dr  Dembski-doodles may want to cover up that odor of sour grapes and the stench of envy with a refreshing touch of True Religion® Perfume     Quote "It was created ... with a finish of hot wood and musk fondling your skin...embracing you in deep sensuality" much as DaveScot used to do for you, Billy. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

damitall Posts: 331 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,12:41    Jerry says   Quote You hide behind some terms as “the absolute basics of scientific epistemology.” I have had courses in the philosophy of science and read and watched videos on it and never saw anything meaningful discussed that used terminology such as this. Come down to earth. See? Jerry's watched videos, for gosh-sake! How can he be wrong? And how dare RB use words like "the", "absolute", "basics", "of", "scientific" and "epistemology"? Who knows those words? Elitism run riot!

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,12:42    An all new Tard-Thrower that hates Papists... and posits that ALL Catholics are bad Americans. Ahem... Dr. Dr. Doesn't this break maybe a couple of even the "new" moderation rules?     And if you are a puppet - PM me you magnificent bastard!  And have a virtual beer on me- that's some awesome puppetry!   From the same new Dembski post: Quote AmerikanInKananaskis 03/20/2009 10:15 am I don’t want to get into theological matters, but this is the biggest problem with Catholicism, IMO. They have an infallible king who can just tell you the way things are and the way things are supposed to be. That is NOT GOOD for independent thought. To be honest, I don’t know how any real American could be Catholic. The whole point of the revolution was to not live under kings and queens anymore. I think Catholics missed the point. My highlight - to make it easier to Break Out The Bad! Dembski's I Hate Papists Thread -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,12:47    Quote (damitall @ Mar. 20 2009,12:41) Jerry says       Quote You hide behind some terms as “the absolute basics of scientific epistemology.” I have had courses in the philosophy of science and read and watched videos on it and never saw anything meaningful discussed that used terminology such as this. Come down to earth. See? Jerry's watched videos, for gosh-sake! How can he be wrong? And how dare RB use words like "the", "absolute", "basics", "of", "scientific" and "epistemology"? Who knows those words? Elitism run riot! Is watching videos what Jerry means by     Quote and by the way I have a background in science because then, by the way, I have a background in science. (I've actually read books! Specialized ones, even! Dude, where's my flipping Ph.D.? Or do we backgrounders in science just award that to ourselves?) -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,13:03    Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Mar. 20 2009,10:42) AmerikanInKananaskis 03/20/2009 10:30 am     Quote I’m also curious how much of the PAS is non-white. I don’t think the Catholic Church is racist, but the Darwinian establishment certainly is. So if the PAS is mostly self-selecting, I would expect to see very few people on the list who aren’t white. (Despite the fact that the Catholic Church has huge numbers in Africa.) Well, if you look at the list of members of the PAS, you'll find at least 5 Indian scientists, at least two from Japan, and at least one from Egypt (which happens to still be in Africa, AFAIK). But yeah, like all things in which the Vatican has a hand, there are a lot of Italians as well. As for religions, there are a lot more Christians (if you can count Catholics) than one would like, but that's no surprise either. As for their "theological soundness), I'm not at all sure how that is relevant to their scientific credentials as members of an Academy of Sciences... -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,13:13    If DaveTard were still at UD, he might post something like this on teh Weasel Thread... Quote k.f.- Try to stay on target. This is not the islands where nobody has a schedule or a watch, and nobody has time to read your hour-long posts to glean the 10 seconds of wisdom you might spit out. joseph and jerry - Take some  computer courses and then come back and try to stay up with the class. You homos  visitors from ATBC - go back to your sandbox and don't come over hear and try to kick sand in our faces and call it a rainstorm, or we're going to close this thread to comments. dt -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

sparc Posts: 2089 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,13:22    Looking what KairosFocus aka KF aka Gordon Mullings wrote besides his FCSI rants I came across a a post on his private parts that left me disturbed (you will have to scroll down to "On "Theocracy," 12: Rom 1 - 2 & 13, liberty and the public vs. private spheres"       Quote My wife drew my attention to it, otherwise he wouldn't have realized it Quote and late one evening I took time to watch; it was really hard for him to find time for such entertainment     Quote only,  to see an informal lewdness contest by a circle of women, shocking, who would have expected women   Quote "won" by one who shocked her companions by exposing seemingly Gordon was not as shocked   Quote then pulling down her underwear KF is approaching a climax   Quote and publicly sexually manipulating her now quite plainly visible private parts and finally gets relieved   Quote in front of the now tightly focussed, pruriently watching cameras of course KF wasn't peeping it was those nasty cameras -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,13:24    Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 20 2009,10:49) An analogy from Kellogg:   Quote Let’s try a thought experiment. I have an actual weasel. It’s ugly and undistinguished, but in one respect it’s special: it can reproduce asexually. It will produce 50 offspring, some with little differences, that are capable of reproducing in the same way. Now, let’s say I want to breed a weasel that has certain targeted features: a soft, glossy coat and short claws. I get my weasel to produce 50 offspring. I pick the one that’s closest to the target and euthanize the other 49. I do this over and over again, over sixty times. Each time, I produce 50 offspring from the best weasel and kill off the 49 I don’t want. By the 63rd generation, I have a pretty nice weasel: its coat is beautifully soft and glossy, and it has tiny, tiny claws. Along the way I did something else: every tenth generation, I stuffed the best weasel after he’d produced his offspring. I keep the original and these selections, in order, in glass cases, to show the overall progress of my breeding program. One day, my friend kairosfocus comes to my house and observes the cases. He says, “there’s something odd here. From what I can see, the weasel offspring always have softer coats and shorter claws than their parents. In truth, your weasel will never produce offspring with rougher coats and longer claws.” What’s wrong with that conclusion? great.  too bad it will fly right over their heads. what a bunch of tards, arguing over things they don't understand.  thank zeus for that. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,13:53    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 20 2009,10:16) Woot!  DrDrD ventures back into the tardwars with a new post, commenting an an 11 year old article about the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. He wonders why they don't call it the Pontifical Academy of Evolutionists, and asks these questions       Quote Why are all 80 members of the PAS evolutionists? Is the PAS self-selecting? How much say does the Holy Father have in the selection of members? How many of these members are themselves Catholic? How many are theologically sound (i.e., can say the creeds without smirking)? Theologically sound?  The current list of members includes some folks who are probably not even Catholic, but who happen to have a Nobel Prize or some other bauble that makes them good members of an Academy of Sciences. Maybe DrDrD can do a little Wickedpedia research of his own before he posts again... All Science So Far! From Wikipedia: Quote The new members of the Academy are elected by the body of Academicians and chosen from men and women of every race and religion based on the high scientific value of their activities and their high moral profile. They are...officially appointed by the Roman Pontiff [NB for you slavering heretics: "Roman Pontiff" = Der Popeinator]. The Academy is governed by a President, appointed from its members by the Pope, who is helped by a scientific Council and by the Chancellor Or Dr.Dr.Billy could have strained his dainty pale wrist and sweater-smothered brain to go to the source:The Statutes of the Pontifical Academies of Sciences -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

sparc Posts: 2089 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,14:13    From those statutes Quote Candidates for a seat in the Academy are chosen by the Academy on the basis of their eminent original scientific studies and of their acknowledged moral personality, . Thus, Dr. Dembski has to disapprove them. -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,14:21    Quote (sparc @ Mar. 20 2009,14:13) From those statutes     Quote Candidates for a seat in the Academy are chosen by the Academy on the basis of their eminent original scientific studies and of their acknowledged moral personality, . Thus, Dr. Dembski has to disapprove them. Actually, I've met (even had dinner with) several of the folks on that list (Khorana, Cavalli-Sforza, Levi-Montalcini, Baltimore, Blobel), and had one of them (Paul Berg) as a teacher. I'd say that if those few are representative of the rest of the Academy, the Popenfuehrer chose well. All are indeed eminent scientists and persons of excellent moral integrity. DrDrD, on the other hand, is a plagiarizer and prevaricator. Not much chance of getting a nomination for him... -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,14:56    Quote Onlookers may note the weaseling of Mullings in trying to evade the clear conclusion that he cannot bring himself to admit error. Touché! -------------- "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

dheddle Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,15:38    Which one of you is AmerikanInKananaskis? Nobody is that stupid in real life. Nobody. Not even F1 fans. -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Amadan Posts: 1337 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,15:51    [Doctrine Slot] It takes just a few digs with a sandpit-class spade to establish that, in RC doctrine, Da Big Guy is infallible only when he speaks ex cathedra*, and then only on matters of doctrine. To the best of my knowledge (I'm a bit rusty on matters Romish) that has only explicitly been done once, in the 19th century, on the question of the assumption of Mary. Not many people know that. Pity though, it spoils all Jack Chick's really juicy lines. * 'from the seat' Don't bother, the joke is already old. -------------- "People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011 JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,16:12    Quote (dheddle @ Mar. 20 2009,15:38) Which one of you is AmerikanInKananaskis? Nobody is that stupid in real life. Nobody. Not even F1 fans. the K-K-K in the name screams puppet.  perhaps it is Davetard -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2009,16:18    Quote 297 Clive Hayden 03/20/2009 3:59 pm Joseph, Don’t tell others to shut up. I will put you under moderation if you continue. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Pages: (500) < ... 247 248 249 250 251 [252] 253 254 255 256 257 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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