RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (501) < ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 3, The Beast Marches On...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,11:24   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 20 2009,12:21)
I'm confused. What is it that wanders?

is the flag moving, or the wind?

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3544
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,11:34   

Is it gravity, or water following the curvature of the toilet bowl?

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,11:35   

PaV judges evolution via (It seems to me) popular science articles for the layperson
 
Quote
This WAS standard orthodoxy. It’s changing. It NOW looks like the first mammals appeared all at the same time. I don’t remember the article, but it came out earlier this year.


Hmmm. And he's a moderator as well. Don't these people realise how utterly pathetic they are?
 
Quote
Of course not. There NEVER is ANYTHING incompatible with the theory of evolution. That’s the problem. It’s unfalsifiable. [But, of course, there really are problems; Darwinists simply wave them away.]

I guess if we ask PaV what those problems actually are he'll simply claim to have forgotten the article they were detailed in, but to trust him, there are problems!

And this guy's a moderator at UD.An "official" spokesperson for ID.

Richie tries to set him straight, but it'll be futile
Quote
I have no idea why you accept such a ludicrous assertion.

Do read the rest of his comment, it'll be interesting to see if PaV is able to respond or will just pretend it does not exist (they do alot of that).

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2593
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,12:52   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 20 2009,11:21)
I'm confused. What is it that wanders?

The target migrates by mutation. It's defaults to 1%, so each letter in the target has a 1% chance of mutating, meaning the target will change about every four generations. You'll see the target for each generation in column J (blanks for no change). Here's the first 18 targets of a typical run.

METHINKS@IT@IS@LIKE@A@WEASEL



METHINKS@AT@IS@LIKE@A@WEASEL

METTINKS@AT@IS@LIKE@A@WEASEL

MET@INKS@AT@IS@LIKE@A@WEASEL
MET@INKS@AG@IS@LIKE@A@WEASEL




MET@INKS@AG@@S@LIKE@A@WEASEL
MET@INKS@AG@@S@LIKE@A@WESSEL
MET@INKS@AG@@SXLIKE@A@WESSEL
MET@INKS@AG@@SXMIKE@A@WESSEL


The 60th generation it reached a fitness of 28 and stopped. There were 6 fitness stepbacks, and 1 letter reversion. This was the final target.

MET@INKT@AGCMSXMIKE@QOGCSSEL

Wandering Weasel is set to stop when fitness reaches 28, but if you set Wandering too high, it will (almost) never stop. (Use the escape key to interrupt the process.)

--------------
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3544
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,13:11   

That's pretty cool I might steal it. It needs labels and a brief description of what's going on.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
DiEb



Posts: 228
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,14:03   

At the moment, there are at least three of my comments held in moderation - for up to one day. Here's one of them
Quote


23

DiEb

09/20/2009

12:41 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

– Andrew Freedman
I calculated the expected number of runs for some combination of population size and mutation probability (in brackets the standard deviation) Sorry about the format

size — 4% ———- 5% ——— one mut.
10 1305 (924) 12,461 (12,140) 477,456 (477,303)
20 326 (121) 341 (140) 754 (652)
30 222 (80) 223 (84) 168 (90)
40 170 (60) 170 (63) 101 (38)
50 139 (49) 140 (51) 79 (25)
60 119 (41) 120 (42) 67 (19)
70 105 (35) 105 (37) 60 (16)
80 93 (31) 94 (32) 54 (14)
90 85 (28) 86 (29) 50 (13)
100 79 (25) 79 (26) 48 (12)
200 49 (14) 49 (14) 35 (8)
300 40 (10) 40 (10) 32 (6)
400 35 (8) 35 (9) 30 (6)
500 32 (7) 32 (8) 30 (6)

1: 4% – 5% is the best rate of mutation, values outside this interval will produce longer runs
2: For his interview, Dawkins needed the program to run for ~ 2000 generations. This could be achieved by the combination (10 children, 4% mutation rate) But I suppose that Dawkins just fooled around a little bit with his program to get an optimal number of runs, i.e., the program was running during the length of his interview…
3: I’m glad to see that your numbers agree with mine…
4: For the book, the number of children was 100-200, not fifty, as I said earlier. Sorry. That is, if Dawkins used the algorithm which most people think he described…

   
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,14:27   

Analogy.  Barry does it wrong.


  
Zachriel



Posts: 2593
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,14:44   

Quote (DiEb @ Sep. 20 2009,14:03)
2: For his interview, Dawkins needed the program to run for ~ 2000 generations. This could be achieved by the combination (10 children, 4% mutation rate) But I suppose that Dawkins just fooled around a little bit with his program to get an optimal number of runs, i.e., the program was running during the length of his interview…

Is that correct? Dawkins seems to be showing all the children, not just the parents. It's slower because it takes time to display on the antique system he's using. It looks much like this version of Weasel.

http://www.zachriel.com/weasel/attitudeweasel.xls

Look at cell J1. J1 is each child, J2 is the parent.

With Dawkins' display of "Random", "tries" is an entirely new sequence. But with "Darwin", "tries" is a new child. This would be a consistent comparison of "tries" between "Random" and "Darwin".

--------------
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3544
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,14:50   

Quote
Therefore, the fuss and the disagreement is about whether “intelligent cause” must be ruled out from the beginning as a possible causal factor for why things are different now than they were in the past.


Actually, the debate is about whether an event can be explained by known causes.

Death by accident and death by murder are both death by known causes.

What is generally ruled out by police investigations is death by ghosts, invisible pink unicorns, sky pixies, psychokinesis vampires and such. (Although Holmes was known to dabble in vampires, and his author was notoriously fond of pixies).

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,16:46   

James Bond, no less, asks Barry the obvious question:  
Quote
This is a great post, because it’ll let me ask what is really my biggest question about Intelligent Design: What is the current consensus among ID propenents:

Did the designer act ONCE, at some point during (I guess the beginning of) life, setting up the starting conditions intelligently, and then microevolution has brought us the rest of the way?

Or does the designer act continuously, effecting change step by step in life, much like evolution, but with an intelligent agent at the helm?

Or is there some other intermediate model of interaction with life that the designer adopts that I haven’t grasped?
I suspect he won't even get a "just so" story in reply.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,16:49   

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 20 2009,14:44)
Quote (DiEb @ Sep. 20 2009,14:03)
2: For his interview, Dawkins needed the program to run for ~ 2000 generations. This could be achieved by the combination (10 children, 4% mutation rate) But I suppose that Dawkins just fooled around a little bit with his program to get an optimal number of runs, i.e., the program was running during the length of his interview…

Is that correct? Dawkins seems to be showing all the children, not just the parents. It's slower because it takes time to display on the antique system he's using. [...]

I think the number 2485 comes up at the end of the video as the number of individuals. If that is the case, Dawkins likely did have to find fairly particular parameters in order to terminate in the short time of the video sequence, and the slow display system likely did have an impact on that. I think I posted some numbers here before on the likely parameter space the video run's parameters were taken from.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Henry J



Posts: 3999
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,16:56   

Quote
Simple demonstrations that any 12 year old can follow are works of genius. And very dangerous to the opposition.


I guess there's never a 12 year old around when ya need one, huh? :p

Henry

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 877
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,18:11   

I see that Joseph has been working overtime on Barry's Evolution is a Fact! thread, forcefully driving home the point that ...um...err...

--------------
“To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.” - Isaac Asimov

"Grow up, assface" - Joe G., grown up ID spokesperson, Sandwalk, April 2014

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3544
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,18:41   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 20 2009,16:56)
Quote
Simple demonstrations that any 12 year old can follow are works of genius. And very dangerous to the opposition.


I guess there's never a 12 year old around when ya need one, huh? :p

Henry

Mental age, I meant.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,19:05   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Sep. 20 2009,18:11)
I see that Joseph has been working overtime on Barry's Evolution is a Fact! thread, forcefully driving home the point that ...um...err...

Joseph is the one entity at UD that I have never suspected of being a sock.  He's also, not coincidentally, the one that makes me most cynical about humanity.


  
CeilingCat



Posts: 1648
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,23:33   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 19 2009,12:34)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/the-original-weasels/

 
Quote
...Unless Richard Dawkins and his associates can show conclusively that these are not the originals (either by providing originals in their possession that differ, or by demonstrating that these programs in some way fail to perform as required), we shall regard the contest as closed...


Unless Dembski can show here conclusively he wasn't bumming Barry Arrington last month then he is a homosexual.

Or at least we shall regard him as such.

--------------
Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities.   Edward Feser

‘Anything is a “real possibility” in the mind of one seeking to deny the obvious.’ – William J Murray

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,02:14   

from Barry-Holes latest pile of shite

Quote
19
Mark Frank
09/21/2009
1:10 am
Finally, I note the presence of a bloody club near the body, and on that club are the fingerprints of the dead person’s worst enemy who swore to kill him only two days ago

How it helps when you have a theory as to who, how and when.

To me it is more like this. An old body is found at the bottom of a quarry.

C: looks like an accident. The victim fell into the quarry.

H: – ah but what are the chances that it should fall in exactly this position so near the bottom of the quarry when there are a billion other positions it might have fallen in. This outcome is so implausible as to be negligible. Therefore, it was not natural. Therefore it must have been murder.

C: I think the accident is more plausible.

H: Plausible! Tell me exactly when and how the victim fell, the path it took in its descent to this spot, and the probability of each point on that path.

C: Well no – that would be difficult. But tell me who do you think did it? How? And why?

H: Ah that is for future enquiry. The important thing is we have overwhelming evidence of murder.


lololololololololoololo

what a bunch of dumb asses they are.  mark frank you are tossing pearls before stumps

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

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,02:29   

Quote
C: Well no – that would be difficult. But tell me who do you think did it? How? And why?

I don't have to match your pathetic level of detail.
 
Quote
H: Ah that is for future enquiry. The important thing is we have overwhelming evidence of murder.

Although the identity of the murderer is irrelevant.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,03:06   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 20 2009,21:14)
from Barry-Holes latest pile of shite

Quote
19
Mark Frank
09/21/2009
1:10 am
Finally, I note the presence of a bloody club near the body, and on that club are the fingerprints of the dead person’s worst enemy who swore to kill him only two days ago

How it helps when you have a theory as to who, how and when.

To me it is more like this. An old body is found at the bottom of a quarry.

C: looks like an accident. The victim fell into the quarry.

H: – ah but what are the chances that it should fall in exactly this position so near the bottom of the quarry when there are a billion other positions it might have fallen in. This outcome is so implausible as to be negligible. Therefore, it was not natural. Therefore it must have been murder.

C: I think the accident is more plausible.

H: Plausible! Tell me exactly when and how the victim fell, the path it took in its descent to this spot, and the probability of each point on that path.

C: Well no – that would be difficult. But tell me who do you think did it? How? And why?

H: Ah that is for future enquiry. The important thing is we have overwhelming evidence of murder.


lololololololololoololo

what a bunch of dumb asses they are.  mark frank you are tossing pearls before stumps

Quote
Finally, I note the presence of a bloody club near the body...


Mark Frank neatly demonstrates the superiority of the rapier as a murder weapon.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,03:20   

Cabal has a moment of insight!

Quote
Very few of us are “einsteins”.

  
Quack



Posts: 1746
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,05:06   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 21 2009,03:20)
Cabal has a moment of insight!

   
Quote
Very few of us are “einsteins”.

But plenty of "them"

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,06:25   

Just got email from Bill Dembski to a laundry list of critics, asking Richard Dawkins to confirm or repudiate the programs Dembski is holding to be perhaps the original "weasel".

I sent a response to a few of the folks on the list, including Dembski and Dawkins:

Quote

The first seems unlikely due to the section following:

"              (* Each Copy Gets a Mutation *)"

Putting mutation on a per-copy basis rather than per-base would be rather unlike the biology.

The second shares the same fault, though coded somewhat differently:

"
   (* Darwin *)
   OFFSPRING := CURRENT;
   OFFSPRING[ 1 + RANDOM(LENGTH(OFFSPRING)) ] := RANDOMLETTER;
"

The fact remains that "weasel" implementations were not based on "partitioned search" as claimed in Dembski and Marks' recent paper, a point that Dembski implicitly concedes by his attempted elevation of these two programs without provenance, and further, that other "weasel" style programs can illustrate the point at argument in "The Blind Watchmaker" while allowing a small finite chance of mutation at every base or symbol in the generation of new candidates.

Wesley


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,07:08   

Joseph:
 
Quote
The computer code on a disc is hard to see under a microscope.

Indeed. I also understand it's quite hard to smell also.

But would it not depend on what sort of disc you mean Joseph? I mean, a CD-ROM shows the "computer code" quite nicely with a microscope.

 
Quote
Design is natural.


And so is Joseph.



--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
OWKtree



Posts: 16
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,08:26   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 20 2009,16:46)
James Bond, no less, asks Barry the obvious question:    
Quote
This is a great post, because it’ll let me ask what is really my biggest question about Intelligent Design: What is the current consensus among ID propenents:

Did the designer act ONCE, at some point during (I guess the beginning of) life, setting up the starting conditions intelligently, and then microevolution has brought us the rest of the way?

Or does the designer act continuously, effecting change step by step in life, much like evolution, but with an intelligent agent at the helm?

Or is there some other intermediate model of interaction with life that the designer adopts that I haven’t grasped?
I suspect he won't even get a "just so" story in reply.

of course there won't be a straight answer since Admiral Akbar has already detected the question as a trap.

The first option is simply theistic evolution.  That's surrendering on all points barring abiogenesis issues.  And, note, that this is surrendering the point on "we ain't descended from no monkey" issue that seems to get so many folks in a lather about evolution in the first place.

The second option makes the designer responsible for lots of nasty critters; malaria, tapeworms, parasites, etc.  Not to mention a bunch of inept design decisions.  Not what you expect from a omnipotent all-loving being who sent an avatar down to die for our sins.

In addition the big tent must be left complete.  So no answer that would serve to alienate either side of the Young Earth vs Old Earth split.*

- Kurt

*- And remember that the Book is right despite what the rocks tell you.  And the rocks are much more entertaining in their description of a much more interesting world.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,08:44   

Check out Joseph and his impression of a spoilt 5 year old.

Its classic Joseph.

Hey, Clive. Don't you get it yet? People see Joseph as an official spokesperson for ID. You allow him to harangue posters with questions you'd expect from a child
     
Quote
   A fast cheetah is one with an advantage.

Prove it.

   But a cheetah who is bigger than average is not.

Prove it.

and by default he's one of the "Voices of ID".

Har de har har. Joseph asking for "proof". Even if you supplied "proof" he's ignore it and be asking for the same "proof" in the next thread.

Sumpthin serious wrong with that 'un.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,08:58   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 21 2009,09:44)
Check out Joseph and his impression of a spoilt 5 year old.

Its classic Joseph.

Hey, Clive. Don't you get it yet? People see Joseph as an official spokesperson for ID. You allow him to harangue posters with questions you'd expect from a child
       
Quote
   A fast cheetah is one with an advantage.

Prove it.

   But a cheetah who is bigger than average is not.

Prove it.

and by default he's one of the "Voices of ID".

Har de har har. Joseph asking for "proof". Even if you supplied "proof" he's ignore it and be asking for the same "proof" in the next thread.

Sumpthin serious wrong with that 'un.

if by "serious wrong" you mean "just like the rest of them"

something about Joetard is seriously like the rest of the tards

don't expect Clive,baby to get it.  he has not so much drank the koolaid as he has sniffed the shitty undies

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

  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,08:59   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 21 2009,08:44)
Hey, Clive. Don't you get it yet? People see Joseph as an official spokesperson for ID.

Actually, I see Joseph as the epitome of the Intelligent Design Creationism target demographic:  ignorant, uneducable, and proud of it (with a dash of violent fantasies, in his case).
Quote
Sumpthin serious wrong with that 'un.

I'm worried that there are more like him out there.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10064
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,09:23   

Cakeboy is cranking out the TARDcake over there double fast. Will UD's moderation:

(1) quietly tell him he's an idiotic blowhard they don't need
(2) Promote him - He is a much less smart DT
(3) Even notice
(4) Ask him to 'sell their book!' ©

--------------
"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

  
KCdgw



Posts: 367
Joined: Sep. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,09:58   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 21 2009,08:44)
Check out Joseph and his impression of a spoilt 5 year old.

Its classic Joseph.

Hey, Clive. Don't you get it yet? People see Joseph as an official spokesperson for ID. You allow him to harangue posters with questions you'd expect from a child
     
Quote
   A fast cheetah is one with an advantage.

Prove it.

   But a cheetah who is bigger than average is not.

Prove it.

and by default he's one of the "Voices of ID".

Har de har har. Joseph asking for "proof". Even if you supplied "proof" he's ignore it and be asking for the same "proof" in the next thread.

Sumpthin serious wrong with that 'un.

The only proof that would satisfy cakeboy is videocamera  footage from the Cambrian.

--------------
Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it-- Confucius

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,10:13   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 21 2009,10:23)
Cakeboy is cranking out the TARDcake over there double fast. Will UD's moderation:

(1) quietly tell him he's an idiotic blowhard they don't need
(2) Promote him - He is a much less smart DT
(3) Even notice
(4) Ask him to 'sell their book!' ©

(5)  give him mod privileges?

Oh, make it so!

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

  
  15001 replies since Sep. 04 2009,16:20 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (501) < ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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