RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (500) < ... 236 237 238 239 240 [241] 242 243 244 245 246 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 2, general discussion of Dembski's site< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,17:22   

Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 16 2009,17:19)
I promised Carlsonjok a pic today but couldn't have been arsed to transform Densye into WWF wrestler. It would have been an intellectual mismatch anyway.

No worries, friend. Any rassling pictures probably would have brought Ghost of Paley back out of the wordwork anyways.

--------------
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!)

  
GCUGreyArea



Posts: 180
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,17:36   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 16 2009,15:24)
David,

I don't think I asserted that the parameters were exactly the same between the TBW runs and the Horizon video runs, but I do disagree with the canard that using different parameters is the same thing as having a different program. Letter-level latching is the thing asserted by Dembski and others on no evidence whatsoever. Saying that the parameters might be different doesn't even bear on that issue.

I agree, I just can't quite believe that by changing the font size in Word means it has become a different program, or even a different version of a program.  What happens if a parameter is adjusted by the program its self?

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,17:37   

Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 16 2009,15:31)
I'm clueless, therefore design.          
Quote
I also find it interesting that he admits in the video to aiming for a specified target but that evolution doesn’t do this,but then just glosses over this distinction as if it isn’t all that important. I’ve never understood why this ‘weasel’ program tells us anything about how evolution is supposed to work.

DonaldM, you can’t understand why layering sand in a bottle would simulate the structure of geological strata as opposed to just playing in a sandbox, even though geological are not really laid down by hand-dropping?

You can’t understand why creating a vortex in a wind tunnel would simulate the behavior of a hurricane even though hurricanes are not really formed in a wind tunnel?

You can’t understand why creating wave interference patterns in a water tank would simulate the behavior of waves in the ocean, even though waves in the ocean are not really formed in a water tank? (I guess no more experiments about how the Titanic sunk, then.)

You can’t understand why actors on a stage can simulate the behavior of real people even though you were not delivered a script—oops, it seems that some poor players who strut and fret their hour think they do have a script.

Kristine - If they could understand it... they wouldn't be IDists!

Seriously, somebody could do some serious science about why they are the way they are.

--------------
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. 16 2009,17:51   

Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 16 2009,17:36)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 16 2009,15:24)
David,

I don't think I asserted that the parameters were exactly the same between the TBW runs and the Horizon video runs, but I do disagree with the canard that using different parameters is the same thing as having a different program. Letter-level latching is the thing asserted by Dembski and others on no evidence whatsoever. Saying that the parameters might be different doesn't even bear on that issue.

I agree, I just can't quite believe that by changing the font size in Word means it has become a different program, or even a different version of a program.  What happens if a parameter is adjusted by the program its self?

Not to mention what might happen to statistics if you plug in a different survey sample - whoops!

Oh DEAR GOD* what have I done!


No go, J-Dog, I has done screwed up teh statistics!

*Going Out for Dinner. It doesn't exist. (But that's okay because I don't need it anyway.)

--------------
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

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,18:05   

Wes, I retract my disagreement on weasel params, book vs video. R0b's point (over at UD)on the word "tries" has opened my eyes.

--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,18:21   

Quote (JLT @ Mar. 16 2009,10:23)

   
Quote
46

Oramus

03/15/2009

11:36 pm

Mikev6, dinosaurs are still with us: the shark, the elephant, the hippo, the gilo monster,

47

Oramus

03/15/2009

11:40 pm

Madsen,

If you have trouble with the concept of kind, you oughta have even more trouble understanding what a species is.

Oh, I dunno, I’ll give it a shot.

Kinds: bacteria, insects, reptiles, fish, mammals.


He should call himself IGNoramus.

Poe?


Reptiles are para-kindic, or in less technical language: parabaraminic.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,18:34   

Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 16 2009,19:20)
HOW TO SPOT A HIDDEN RELIGIOUS AGENDA

I just found this article on New Scientist - and read it because it has been pulled from the online edition due to "legal complaints" - suspected to be a Densee O'Leary minion or lacky.

How To Spot A Hidden Religious Agenda

I think the author does a nice job - and BOO! to pulling the article!

I read this at the New Humanist Blog:
 
Quote
Last week we had Turkey's leading science magazine being forced to spike a story on Darwin, but could we now have a similar story somewhat closer to home? The blogosphere is awash with news that the New Scientist have pulled a piece from their website entitled "How to Spot a Hidden Religious Agenda", in which their book reviews editor Amanda Gefter explains the key signs she looks out for when deciding if a "science" book is in fact a creationist tract. At the URL where the article was, all that remains is the message, "New Scientist has received a complaint about the contents of this story. It has temporarily been removed while we investigate. Apologies for any inconvenience", along with the 643 comments the article must have received before it was pulled.
[...]
Could the New Scientist really be catering to creationist whims? Could it really have reacted to a few creationist complaints by pulling an article? Let's be honest, this has to be seen as pretty unlikely. Anyone out there accusing them of cowardice or suggesting that the creationist hordes now hold sway over one of the world's most respected science magazines (and people are suggesting this – just Google blog search "New Scientist creationism", and look at posts like this) should probably stop and think for a moment. Perhaps the complaint was of a legal nature, in which case the magazine will have a policy of removing the piece while it is investigated. By a "complaint about the contents of this story", the New Scientist won't just mean that someone wrote in and said they disagree because creationism is actually right. In all likelihood the "complaint" will have had legal implications that will have had to have been addressed by removing the article, at least temporarily. It's what any publication would have to do.

Anyhow, if the New Scientist is so scared of creationists, why is it currently carrying this article on the Turkish magazine controversy?

Update: The message at the article's URL has actually changed now to:

   "New Scientist has received a legal complaint about the contents of this story. At the advice of our lawyer it has temporarily been removed while we investigate. Apologies for any inconvenience."


As I said earlier - less a case of caving in to creationism, more a case of sensibly heeding legal advice.


So, they might put it back online if and when the lawyers give their ok.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,18:45   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Mar. 17 2009,00:21)
   
Quote (JLT @ Mar. 16 2009,10:23)

         
Quote
46

Oramus

03/15/2009

11:36 pm

Mikev6, dinosaurs are still with us: the shark, the elephant, the hippo, the gilo monster,

47

Oramus

03/15/2009

11:40 pm

Madsen,

If you have trouble with the concept of kind, you oughta have even more trouble understanding what a species is.

Oh, I dunno, I’ll give it a shot.

Kinds: bacteria, insects, reptiles, fish, mammals.


He should call himself IGNoramus.

Poe?


Reptiles are para-kindic, or in less technical language: parabaraminic.

Thanks for the explanation. Baramanalology is SOOO sciency-like with all this long words and stuff.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Marion Delgado



Posts: 89
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,19:19   

You atheocrats somehow managed to get DaveScot Expelled from Uncommon Descent. Hope you're satisfied.

Behavioratheists just lost the best friend there they never thought they had!

  
Jkrebs



Posts: 590
Joined: Sep. 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,19:19   

This is great.  

Quote


68

R. Martinez

03/16/2009

7:04 pm

Sparc (#51): “I will miss DaveScot who has been banned from here just because he tried to keep UD connected with reality.”

Once again, you have misunderstood.

I am sorry to have to tell you that DaveScot was a double agent who forgot his mission (misrepresent ID). His intellectual inferiority caused him to lose composure and lash out against his Christian opponents with very ugly slander.

Ray


Link

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,19:35   

Hey, boys and girls:
   
Quote
Do you mean to say that just by virtue of living and reproducing, mutating and evolving, that the English sentence is being crafted? one evolutionary step at a time?

I have a question for you.

Under what family is the "species" English classified?  And what is its particular branch of evolution called? And what are the closest neighbors to English on this branch (its evolutionary cousins)? Think now.

And what language is this? Think HARD.


--------------
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

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,19:54   

Quote (Jkrebs @ Mar. 16 2009,19:19)
This is great.  

 
Quote


68

R. Martinez

03/16/2009

7:04 pm

Sparc (#51): “I will miss DaveScot who has been banned from here just because he tried to keep UD connected with reality.”

Once again, you have misunderstood.

I am sorry to have to tell you that DaveScot was a double agent who forgot his mission (misrepresent ID). His intellectual inferiority caused him to lose composure and lash out against his Christian opponents with very ugly slander.

Ray


Link



--------------
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!)

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,20:41   

Quote (Jkrebs @ Mar. 17 2009,01:19)
This is great.  

     
Quote


68

R. Martinez

03/16/2009

7:04 pm

Sparc (#51): “I will miss DaveScot who has been banned from here just because he tried to keep UD connected with reality.”

Once again, you have misunderstood.

I am sorry to have to tell you that DaveScot was a double agent who forgot his mission (misrepresent ID). His intellectual inferiority caused him to lose composure and lash out against his Christian opponents with very ugly slander.

Ray


Link

AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I propose we refer to Ray as Ray Tardinez from now on. He clearly deserves it.
And UD deserves Ray Tardinez. A guy who constantly equates IDists with Christians and design with creation, denies evolution and common descent, and denounces Behe as a heretic. Probably the most honest person at UD. They should give him posting rights.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,20:57   

Reciprocating_Bill asks the obvious scientific question. How do we test ID?

Quote
Reciprocating_Bill: Describe an entailment unique to ID that, were there sufficient funding, could be subject to empirical test. Something that follows from ID such that were we to fail to observe it, ID or a major tenet of ID would be falsified.

In reply, Jerry links to a previous comment.

Quote
jerry: Make believe I am a scientist.

Gulp.

Quote
jerry: I do work mapping the genomes of bovid mammals because many of these animals are domesticated and I get support for this from the government. I find a lot of similarities between them and with the aid of a lot of colleagues who do not know my ID leanings, determine that nearly all members of the group could have descended from a population of bovids that existed 10-15 million years ago.  

Yes, the evidence generally supports bovidae being monophyletic.

Quote
jerry: In other words there is fairly conclusive proof that this family has descended from a population with a gene pool much larger than any of the genera gene pools through micro evolution processes.

Not 'in other words'. The conclusion doesn't follow from the previous statement.

Quote
jerry: And in this time period of 10-15 million years they did not develop any new functional systems or any proteins that could not be reasonably be due to small changes to a proceeding protein that was in the original population.

That is the orthodox expectation.

Quote
jerry: In other words all 130+ species developed by simple Darwinian processes that could be replicated much quicker artificially if the scientists had access to the original gene pool and with an occasional mutation or two.

Not 'in other words'. Again, that doesn't follow. And we *know* it requires more than a mutation or two to account for the evolutionary diversity of bovidae.

Quote
jerry: In other words while the work supported basic Darwinian processes, it also supported Behe’s edge of evolution concept.

No, it doesn't. It fully supports that a large variety of bovids can evolve by small changes from a common ancestor. That's the whole point about evolution.



Quote
jerry: I am a hero to the evolutionary biology crowd but smile inwardly as they are really celebrating their down fall.

No, you're not a hero because ...

Quote
jerry: Not one person in the science community would say I wasn’t doing science. And yet we should all agree that I was doing ID science too.

You reached all sorts of unsupported conclusions, but you forgot the distinguishing test, the hypothesis, the potential falsification!

--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Ptaylor



Posts: 1180
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,21:00   

Quote (JLT @ Mar. 17 2009,15:41)
AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I propose we refer to Ray as Ray Tardinez from now on. He clearly deserves it.
And UD deserves Ray Tardinez. A guy who constantly equates IDists with Christians and design with creation, denies evolution and common descent, and denounces Behe as a heretic. Probably the most honest person at UD. They should give him posting rights.

Ha - or maybe just RayTard. However, Atom's next comment is confusing...
 
Quote
Ray Martinez wrote:

   I am sorry to have to tell you that DaveScot was a double agent who forgot his mission (misrepresent ID). His intellectual inferiority caused him…

Why hasn’t this guy been bannedgiven posting rights  yet? All he does it insult people.

Atom

...so I've fixed it for him.

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.†We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.â€
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,21:19   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 17 2009,03:00)
 
Quote (JLT @ Mar. 17 2009,15:41)
AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I propose we refer to Ray as Ray Tardinez from now on. He clearly deserves it.
And UD deserves Ray Tardinez. A guy who constantly equates IDists with Christians and design with creation, denies evolution and common descent, and denounces Behe as a heretic. Probably the most honest person at UD. They should give him posting rights.

Ha - or maybe just RayTard. However, Atom's next comment is confusing...
   
Quote
Ray Martinez wrote:

   I am sorry to have to tell you that DaveScot was a double agent who forgot his mission (misrepresent ID). His intellectual inferiority caused him…

Why hasn’t this guy been bannedgiven posting rights  yet? All he does it insult people.

Atom

...so I've fixed it for him.

Clearly, Atom is just another double agent.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
steve_h



Posts: 544
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,21:24   

Quote
And what are the closest neighbors to English on this branch (its evolutionary cousins)?

Easy peasy, in order of increasing verbosity:
Unwinese, Pig Latin, Eggy Peggy, Worzelese and the sadly now unreadable Mullinseze with its weird
a->(3.Q.IIIIIIIIIX) constructions and whatnot.

  
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,21:55   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 15 2009,19:00)
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 15 2009,15:25)
Should we be sending DaveScot a formal invitation to join us here in the forum of the banned?

I have no use for D'Tard at all. Nor he for me.

I think we should start a pool for when DS stages a return to the warm pile of manure that is UD.

I do not like thee David Scot

The reason why I ain't quite got

But this I know I ain't forgot

I do not like thee David Scot

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,22:26   

Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 16 2009,21:57)
 
Quote
jerry: I am a hero to the evolutionary biology crowd but smile inwardly as they are really celebrating their down fall.

Christ, I was waiting for the full-figured girl - shy, virginal, yet obviously built to make babies - to emerge from the adoring crowd and put her hand in his.

--------------
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

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,22:31   

A dumb, random comment.
Quote
The target search string is contained in the code. Therefore, no search is required.

That’s the end of that. Why would a computer programmer search for something that he included in his code?

I’ll tell you the answer: So he can dupe people into thinking that dumb, random searches can produce interesting, innovative results. Which they can’t.

Show me where Dawkins conducted a "dumb, random search" with the weasel.

Moreover, GilDodgen, since you're so smart, you could run that program with any of the codes typed by Dawkins' 11-month-old daughter on page 46. But I guess you haven't read the book.

--------------
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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,22:32   

jerry minus a rib.  and a few other things.

--------------
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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,22:48   

BWAAAAA


clive is such a sad kweef, really

Domoman soaks himself in the oily hay
Quote


“The mentality Murray describes is true, because . . .” if life is only chemicals simply activating and then deactivating, then life serves no true purpose. If this is all there is, whatever enjoyment we might get out of life, whether by helping the poor or molesting little children, is all pointless. And yes, you did read that right. I believe that, if atheism is true, then whether you get enjoyment out of, say, giving money to the poor, or raping somebody, both actions are of equal worthlessness and thus have no moral value. In fact, I believe that if atheism is true, then nothing matters at all and there can be no such thing as morals. All life, all human beings, will end in death, so everything is equal to just that: death. So all actions equal the same thing. There is no better, or higher way of life. Perhaps there is a way that prolongs life (the things that most consider “good”), but death is still inevitable, so nothing matters. So, “good” = death, and “bad” = death. You might as well do what you want, whether its deemed by society to be “good” or “bad”. This of course, does ultimately lead to the conclusion that such actions, such as those of Hitler, were not really bad or good, they simply just were. They were amoral.

And yes, I absolutely believe, and have felt myself, that when life is looked upon as a mere fluke or accident, just about all of my joy is literally sucked away. So, if those Europeans happen to find themselves privileged, as far as their general life goes, but can find no justification for existing in the first place (that is, they view life as the result of an accident), I can surely see how they are not satisfied.

Nihilism is lame. lol


god it feels so good to soak it in some oily hay.  but then comes some smart aleck and points out his nakedness, breaking the simple rule handed out from on high "start your comments with the following canard statement [snip wanking].  Obviously, what you write after “because” will the only interesting part of your comment."

On the Rock
Quote

8

Domoman, by your reasoning, a good person who is moral and cares, cannot be an atheist, and is actually lying if they say that they are. Is this what you think?

9

On The Rock

03/16/2009

8:48 pm

.. or does it mean that if you lost your faith, you think that you’d lose your morals, and act completely differently?


roflmao.  here comes the sad cunt Clive
Quote
Barry, would you like me to delete every comment that doesn’t start with your introductory directive?


Barry [sotto voce] You'd have to stop doing what you are doing in order to do that, Clive.  Just shut up and don't stop.

David Kellogg
Quote
That would include deleting yourself, Clive.


BWAAAA

--------------
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

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,22:51   

(Someone, somewhere, softly knocks upon a door)

Davetard (whispering):  Hey, man, c'mon, open the door, it's me. . . Dave!  I got the stuff, man, but I think the cops saw me. . .

UD:  Dave?

Davetard:  Yes, it's me, Dave; now come on and open the door, man. . . .

UD:  Dave!?

Davetard:  Yes, it's Dave, man, you gotta let me in, I got the stuff. . . .

UD:  Dave!!?

Davetard:  Yes, it's ME, DAVE; now hurry up and let me in!

UD:  DAVE'S NOT HERE, MAN!

:)      :)      :)       :)       :)

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,22:51   

Oh, there's another post. This must therefore be an entirely new blog!
 
Quote
Clive Hayden, 03/16/2009, 8:52 pm
Barry, would you like me to delete every comment that doesn’t start with your introductory directive?

 
Quote
David Kellogg, 03/16/2009, 8:53 pm
That would include deleting yourself, Clive.

 
Quote
hazel, 03/16/2009, 8:55 pm
Domoman, you added an “if” to the described “mentality” that isn’t there. The statement does not ask IF the second statement follows from the first. It asks if the two statements are true. And, as both DanSLO and I have pointed out, it is not clear at all what kind of “truth” the two statements are asking about. How do you go about determining whether someone’s “purpose” is true or not? If someone say this is what I believe my purpose is, in what way can you say that isn’t? You can say that you don’t think that they have a good purpose, which is a value judgment; or you might say you don’t think they really know what their purpose is, in which case you have a psychological issue about the person’s self awareness.

So I still think that Barry’s issue, as stated, is unclear.

 
Quote
Pendulum, 03/16/2009, 9:22 pm
I googled the phrase “well lived life” in an attempt to answer the question. I got a book from House and Garden, Tuscan recipes, hynobirthing, great pastrami, gestalt therapy, and this post. So I’m going to have to ask for a little more clarity on what Murray thinks a well lived life is.

(But I’m sure great pastrami is part of it!;)

Ham certainly is.

--------------
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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,22:56   

set me straight if i am right.  lol

Poe?
Quote


Can someone help me understand this:

What exactly does this model purport to simulate? What exactly (specifically) does the METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL represent?

If it represents a “completed” evolution of an organism, wouldn’t each successive generation have to have to have some natural advantage to the previous one? An advantage so great that the previous generation genetic makeup eventually dies out? If not, why does that generation keep going and not the others? Without these steps the model simulates design, not randomness. But just how big does an advantage have to be that it is to the detriment to rest of the gene pool? Isn’t that what each step represents?

This is also something I haven’t quite understood: does the model account for the variability of survival that has nothing to do with this natural advantage? In other words, the chance the organism will die before it is able to even take advantage of the mutation?

As you can tell, I am not a scientist, but I am having trouble getting my head around these things.*



*call me skeptical.  the recent wave of new UD puppets and hell maybe an honest commenter or two has changed the rhetorical landscape a bit.  i dont recognize new tards from old tards, puppets from poes and strangest of all there is no dave tard.

where is davetard?  i'm sure he is running around on the interwebz somewheres.

--------------
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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,23:04   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 17 2009,06:26)
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 16 2009,21:57)
   
Quote
jerry: I am a hero to the evolutionary biology crowd but smile inwardly as they are really celebrating their down fall.

Christ, I was waiting for the full-figured girl - shy, virginal, yet obviously built to make babies - to emerge from the adoring crowd and put her hand in his.

Here's why, Jerry is at rear ......of photo.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,23:09   

Moderation policy at UD. A review:

- No defamatory or profane comments.
- No vicious personal attacks.
- Comments that fail to adequately conform to introductory directives may be deleted.
- Double Secret Probation awaits contributors who fail in their duty to consult the Party Manifesto before posting.

You have been warned, and you know who you are.

--------------
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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,23:11   

Dill Rodgering is what we used to call a shitty back

Quote
The target search string is contained in the code. Therefore, no search is required.

That’s the end of that. Why would a computer programmer search for something that he included in his code?

I’ll tell you the answer: So he can dupe people into thinking that dumb, random searches can produce interesting, innovative results. Which they can’t.


Just play it, sam, don't say it.  You are not getting paid to speculate son, you are getting paid to play the fucking pink panther so PLAY IT AGAIN GODDAMMIT SON

R0b can't resist stomping the poor little baby seal

Quote


Gil:

   
Quote
Why would a computer programmer search for something that he included in his code?


To illustrate cumulative selection. That’s a no-brainer for anyone who has read the relevant section of TBW.

   
Quote
I’ll tell you the answer: So he can dupe people into thinking that dumb, random searches can produce interesting, innovative results. Which they can’t.


Apparently it’s okay on this board to divine nefarious motives without offering a speck of evidence.

And I don’t know what you mean by “random searches”, but genetic algorithms most certainly produce interesting and innovative results. Dawkins’s algorithm, of course, produces no useful results, as the target is defined in the domain of the objective function. Useful genetic algorithms, on the other hand, find elements in the domain that meet desired criteria in the codomain.


R0b I know you have to dropkick a little tard every once in a while but Dill is special.




He's a big hairy ivory tickler from way back, and I hear he also plays the piano

--------------
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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,23:12   

Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 16 2009,23:04)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 17 2009,06:26)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 16 2009,21:57)
   
Quote
jerry: I am a hero to the evolutionary biology crowd but smile inwardly as they are really celebrating their down fall.

Christ, I was waiting for the full-figured girl - shy, virginal, yet obviously built to make babies - to emerge from the adoring crowd and put her hand in his.

Here's why, Jerry is at rear ......of photo.

you know i made a comment about palpating a heifer the other day and i can't find it.  i bet carlson ran off with it and hid for a few minutes.

--------------
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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,23:15   

Quote
If this is all there is, whatever enjoyment we might get out of life, whether by helping the poor or molesting little children, is all pointless. And yes, you did read that right. I believe that, if atheism is true, then whether you get enjoyment out of, say, giving money to the poor, or raping somebody, both actions are of equal worthlessness and thus have no moral value. In fact, I believe that if atheism is true, then nothing matters at all and there can be no such thing as morals. All life, all human beings, will end in death, so everything is equal to just that: death. So all actions equal the same thing. There is no better, or higher way of life.


Domoman NO CHILDREN FOR YOU!





--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
  14997 replies since July 17 2008,19:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (500) < ... 236 237 238 239 240 [241] 242 243 244 245 246 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]