RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (117) < ... 101 102 103 104 105 [106] 107 108 109 110 111 ... >   
  Topic: Telic Thoughts Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Quack



Posts: 1751
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2010,04:51   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 15 2010,13:47)
   
Quote
People want to be creationists; the alternative is too frightening.


I reckon the innate desire to believe in some supernatural deity is a heritable trait. And one that could conceivably have had a survival value. for instance, it may have been an avenue, or at least support for that avenue, for social integration beyond the family group and thus possibly critical for the development of civilisation.

Which should make us all the more aware for our propensity to gullibility!  ;)

ETA or is it "propensity for gullibility"?

Indeed a very relevant and important point. Matter of fact, during my morning chores I got to thinking about just that aspect and made up the title for my next essay: If evolution is true, why are there still creationists?

It may prove too difficult for me to write, but the short version would be about how growing up is, among other things, also the process of programming our brains.

Programming of the brain is just about creating structures to enable the brain to do it's intended job: everything we need to function in a society, to establish and maintain meaningful relationships and so on. And part of that is just what you mention: propensity for gullibility.

We need to hold certain things to be true, we need a firm foundation.  That foundation is established in our early years.

Anyone remember the frustration of discovering that Santa Claus was not real? We believed, we wanted to believe, but reality eventually got the upper hand.

We need to have trust, we need to believe, cooperation is impossible without trust. A pet subject of Ron Okimoto's is scam (Although a more modern version.)

I also have a Hitler card. Hitler had no problem identifying how effective child programming may be. The Hitlerjugend was created with characteristic German thoroughness, and I believe Stalin also had programs for the creation of  faithful, enthusiastic communists.

Faith in a father figure, developed to near perfection by Stalin still lingers on in Russia.

--------------
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.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2010,11:09   

Quote
Anyone remember the frustration of discovering that Santa Claus was not real?

I think people can figure out Santa Claus because it doesn't require losing their family and friends.

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

Pat Robertson

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2110
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2010,12:05   

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 19 2010,02:51)
Faith in a father figure, developed to near perfection by Stalin still lingers on in Russia.

Well, it's worked for pretty much every monotheistic religion. If it ain't broke...

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2010,00:19   

At the Australian Atheists Conference a lot of the ex-creationists do describe that deconverting is like finally growing up.

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2010,11:21   

Quote
Salvador T. Cordova: If individual A is fast and individual B is intelligent, but individual A lives because he outruns predators, then selection selects against an otherwise good and favorable trait. This is interference selection.

That works in non-recombining organisms or traits, but if A mates with B, then there is a good chance that some of their offspring will be fast and intelligent.

Quote
Salvador T. Cordova: His claim of sexual selection is mostly advocated by Evolutionary Psychologists, not population geneticists, and several think it is wrong (since it would contradict natural selection).

Population geneticists are quite comfortable with sexual selection, and it is as easy to model as other types of selection.

Quote
Salvador T. Cordova: The fact that Darwinism is a minor element in biological and medical training is very telling.

Doctor to youth: Don't worry. You'll evolve out of it.

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2010,17:40   

My understanding is that chemistry is also being downgraded in medical schools. No need for it.

Therefore it must be wrong.

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

Pat Robertson

  
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2010,09:42   

And here I thought chemistry was elementary*...

*(118 of them at last count)

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2010,07:04   

More open discussion on Telic Thoughts. On a thread where ID guy posts unmolested.

Quote
nullasalus: olegt, ... Go be stupid somewhere else.

Heh. But it did make us wonder what the brouhaha was all about.

Quote
olegt: Here is a link to an article discussing them: L. M. Cook, "The rise and fall of the Carbonaria form of the peppered moth," The Quarterly Review of Biology 78, 399 (2003)). doi:10.1086/378925. It is a good idea to read the article (or at least skim this Wikipedia entry) before taking a misguided swipe at the theory.

Quote
nullasalus: olegt,

I made it clear that my questions were not intended as a "swipe" at evolutionary theory, and that my hypothetical was – wait for it – hypothetical. At no point did I suggest that this was "really what happened" in the peppered moth story – in fact, I linked to the wikipedia entry where Cook is mentioned. I even pointed out that my question was not at all directed at challenging the results of the experiment whose details I linked to.

But here's the real issue: All of this is clear in the thread. I have very little patience for, let's be blunt here – Goddamn idiots with poor reading comprehension. I've tried to be patient with your apparent learning disability in the past, but that's at an end.

Go be stupid somewhere else.

Olegt posted updated research on the topic, so that alone makes the comment a worthy contribution to the discussion. Of course, if Telic Thoughts didn't have a habit of banning and making contributors unwelcome, he might have his other answers.

Quote
nullasalus: But let's say that it just so happens that moths with darker wings are getting snuffed out through various series of unfortunate events unrelated to their having dark wings.

What if the rock fell upward?!

It depends on what you mean by "unfortunate events," but seems to imply happenstance, rather than some linked trait.

Quote
nullasalus: First question: It would be incorrect to say that moths with lighter wings were selected for, wouldn't it?

That's correct. They are selected against.

Quote
nullasalus: Second question: If the lighter wings were not a result of natural selection, then what do we call the evolutionary events that resulted in lighter wings in this scenario?

If it is due to random sampling of alleles from a small population, then it would be genetic drift. Otherwise, it might be due to contingent circumstances.

Quote
nullasalus: Is it just 'luck'?

If a population is small, then selection can be inefficient, and drift can be more important. If the population is large, and drift is not a plausible explanation, then we might look for other factors, such as linked traits, or kids with butterfly nets.

-
Had to reconstruct comment. Added stuff back in that was lost.


--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2010,09:24   

Quote
nullasalus: I'll settle for any paper you think does a good job of identifying natural selection in a given population, and which is available online in full.

Most anything by Peter or Rosemary Grant.

Boag & Grant, Intense natural selection in a population of Darwin's Finches (Geospizinae) in the Galápagos, Science 1981: In this report we demonstrate directional natural selection in a population of Darwin's finches and identify its main cause... Our results are consistent with the growing opinion among evolutionary ecologists that the trajectory of even well buffered vertebrate species is largely determined by occasional "bottlenecks" of intense selection during a small portion of their history.

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
olegt



Posts: 1386
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2010,10:06   

My "misguided swipe" comment was directed at Sal, not an nullasalus.

Null's post was silly nonetheless. If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2010,22:20   

Quote
In this report we demonstrate directional natural selection in a population of Darwin's finches and identify its main cause...

Butte there stilled birds!!111!!!eleven!!!!

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2010,06:56   

Quote
nullasalus: Alright then – does that mean that absolutely any scenario with reproduction and variance taking place whatsoever is 'natural selection' of a sort?

It's not natural selection unless there is a tendency towards differential reproductive success due to heritable variations.

Quote
nullasalus: And if not, can you give a scenario (totally hypothetical is fine) where there is reproduction and variance, but no natural selection whatsoever?

As KC explained in the previous comment on the thread, when variations are selectively neutral, such as the case for many synonymous substitutions. Even with strictly neutral variation, populations will evolve, with some alleles becoming more frequent (sometimes to fixation), and others less so (sometimes to extinction), according to some fairly basic arithmetic.

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2010,07:12   

You have to wonder if they are finally realising that their understanding of what they claim to have been critiquing all these years is woefully inadequate.

I'm just an interested amateur, but it seems to me that if null took a course or three, or even just studied a couple of text books, he'd not be asking the questions that he's asking.

They are having more trouble with terminology then anything else it seems!

And luckily Slimey Sal is there to shed some light on the issues

Quote
So I hope this posts provides some enlightenment to the subtleties of what it means "to select for". If you perceive the equivocation, you'll be far ahead of a lot of biologists in these matters.


Hey, Sal, is that why you are studying physics and not biology? He's nothing left to learn in biology I guess, he knows it all. That must be it...

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

  
Raevmo



Posts: 235
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2010,10:14   

Quote
It's not natural selection unless there is a tendency towards differential reproductive success due to heritable variations.


Minor point, but *evolution* by NS requires the variation to have a heritable basis - NS per sé just requires differential reproductive success due to phenotypic variations.

dR = h^2 dS

--------------
After much reflection I finally realized that the best way to describe the cause of the universe is: the great I AM.

--GilDodgen

  
Raevmo



Posts: 235
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2010,10:35   

OM:
Quote
Hey, Sal, is that why you are studying physics and not biology? He's nothing left to learn in biology I guess, he knows it all. That must be it...


Is Sal really still studying physics? Haven't seen him bragging about it for a while. Wouldn't be surprised at all if he flunked...

--------------
After much reflection I finally realized that the best way to describe the cause of the universe is: the great I AM.

--GilDodgen

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2010,12:05   

Quote (Raevmo @ Oct. 23 2010,10:14)
 
Quote
It's not natural selection unless there is a tendency towards differential reproductive success due to heritable variations.


Minor point, but *evolution* by NS requires the variation to have a heritable basis - NS per sé just requires differential reproductive success due to phenotypic variations.

dR = h^2 dS

Good point, actually. Selection works on phenotype, so it depends on what proportion of the variation is due to the genotype, that is, the heritability of the trait.

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2010,09:35   

Joe thinks he's beeing all clever:

http://telicthoughts.com/god-of-the-gaps-analysis/#comment-262698

Quote
ID guy Says:
October 25th, 2010 at 7:39 am When someone tells me I am using the God-of-the-gaps and shows:

(1) X
(2) I can’t explain X
Therefore,
(3) God is the explanation for X

I just re-write it for them in the correct format

1- We observe X

2- Everytime we have observed X and knew the cause it has ALWAYS been via agency interaction

3- We have NEVER observed blind, undirected (chemical) processes producing X

4- Therefore when we observe X and don't know the cause we can safely infer it was via agency interaction

5- And to refute that inference all one has to do is show that blind, undirected (chemical) processes do indeed suffice.

Then I sit back and let the flailing begin…  


Comment by ID guy — October 25, 2010 @ 7:39 am


Hmm, what number should "I smuggle some question-begging bad analogy in there, because we've never seen 'agency interaction' ACTUALLY DESIGN THIS THING"?

I think he's left it out.

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2010,12:25   

Quote
3- We have NEVER observed blind, undirected (chemical) processes producing X

Nor have we ever observed x in the process of being designed (although we have observed x being incrementally modified through mutation and selection).

That should help.

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

Pat Robertson

  
olegt



Posts: 1386
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2010,21:54   

Anyone looking for a signature should seriously consider this gem from Bradford:

Quote
Christianity does not entail subjective assessments.


--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2010,13:18   

Quote
kornbelt888: If aliens started life on earth and intervened from time to time, how would we be able to detect it scientifically if they didn't intend for us to detect it scientifically?

Find a monolith.

This is a typical, disembodied hypothetical. Without some hypothesis concerning the intervention, there is no way to answer the question.

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2010,03:53   



The question then is will Bilbo be demanding that Salvador Cordova apologise for his next quote mine?

What kind of Christian does quote-mining make Sal then?

http://telicthoughts.com/open-letter-to-darrel-falk/

--------------
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: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2010,09:35   

{sniff}

It's nice to be remembered.

Quote
Thought Provoker: BTW, Zachriel's high crime was "Trolling and Insipidity"?
He had been posting on TT for over three years. Did you guys just finally get tired of him? Or was it that Zachriel's extracurricular activities over at ATBC that finally got to be too much for Bradford?

See The Banned List.

Quote
Guts: Pretty much everyone who has debated Zachriel had the same complaint, including me. It's rather unlikely that this is a coincidence. Thats why we banned him.

No. No, it's not a coincidence! Not at all!

As for insipidity, Zachriel always tried to add new content to a thread. It can be difficult when the same fallacies are constantly introduced, but it was certainly our intention. For instance, this is from our last thread on Telic Thoughts.

Quote
Quote
Daniel Smith: Here's a prediction I made back in 2007 …

Quote
Embedded and overlapping coding will be found to be more prevalent than previously thought.

Zachriel: Way back in 2007. That's probably where these researchers picked up the idea.

Blencowe, Alternative Splicing: New Insights from Global Analyses, Cell 2006.

Modrek & Lee, A genomic view of alternative splicing, Nature Genetics 2002.

Smith, Patton & Nadal-Ginard, Alternative Splicing in the Control of Gene Expression, Annual Review of Genetics 1989.

Chow et al., An amazing sequence arrangement at the 5' ends of adenovirus 2 messenger RNA, Cell 1977.

Snarky, yes. But not trolling. And to the point.

We made several other comments on the thread, cited additional literature, and it became increasingly apparent that their inability to comprehend Deciphering the splicing code was due to equivocation on the word 'code.' Indeed, the authors of the paper used scare-quotes around 'code' to avoid any confusion on their use of the term.

What they fail to realize is that commenting in detail requires effort and time, especially when trying to remember and locate appropriate support. It is a sign of respect to take the time to answer their queries, especially when their views are so soundly rejected by the vast majority of scientists, and their arguments were hackneyed a century or millennium or more ago.

Here's our last comment:

Quote
Quote
fifth monarchy man: Do you expect at least two codes? multiple codes within codes? No expectations one way or the other?

Zachriel: We expect a hierarchy of relationships, similar to terrestrial life. It is doubtful that the depths of those complex relationships has been fully plumbed in terrestrial life.

Fifth monarchy man can't understand this, because —even after it was explained to him— a code normally just means a (x-to-one) correspondence between sets. As there may be something akin to a power-law distribution of gene relationships, you wouldn't measure it with a simple scalar.

Despite our best efforts, fifth monarchy man became frustrated and confused. Hence, the accusation of trolling.

But it's still nice to be remembered.




--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2010,09:47   

Meanwhile, ID guy shows how NOT to be an insipid troll.

Quote
ID guy: Is it just me or has The "Thought Provoker" turned into a whiny baby?


--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2010,12:36   

Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 06 2010,07:35)
See The Banned List.

Those incompetents thought I was 'frostman'?

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2010,13:01   

Poor Guts is still trying to defend biblical slavery.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2010,07:36   

Quote
Thought Provoker: It was no secret you, and especially Bradford, regularly checked what was written over at ATBC.

Commenting about Telic Thoughts on this thread is on-topic. For instance, in April, when chunkdz was blatantly trolling Thought Provoker's thread, we pointed it out here, because to point it out there would be to feed the troll and further derail the thread.

Quote
Pez: Zach{riel} was inherently dishonest. That much was obvious from any discussions with him.

What you mean is that we treated your views as if they were worthy of a respectful response, but wouldn't simply cower to the force of your certainty, even as we watched others being banned for the same.

Quote
Pez: I would ban persistent and regular critics after about two years no matter their demeanour. By then they have asked every question they have and posed every challenge.

The simplest and most direct solution is to ignore people who don't contribute in a positive manner, but are otherwise comporting themselves civilly. On the other hand, a two year rule is probably much too long. Frankly, everything ID has had to say has been said. These arguments were old when Aristotle was young. There's no reason to have any posts on an ID blog.

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2010,15:01   

Oh well, I tried. Link

I agree with those who suggest Joe/ID Guy may be one of the best weapons against the ID Movement we could possibly have.

It looks like those in the TT "pantheon" are comfortable with their unjustifiable actions.  After all, they are the TT gods and critics should be thankful for whatever time-limited tolerance they grant and always be respectful guests.

Guts and Bradford are now on record they aren't checking on AtBC... maybe in the past... and they have "informants"... but not they aren't looking any more.

I guess they will have to rely on JoeG's... err... umm... veracity to let them know what is going on here. (While he insists he isn't ID Guy).

The other possibility is one or both will continue to read the comments of this and other blogs because it appears they can't help themselves.  Complaining about critics is what they do best.

Once Bilbo gives up, there will be little to no difference between Telic Thoughts and Uncommon Descent.

Oleg, you are one stubborn physicist.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2010,08:31   

If history teaches is anything its that insular, jingoistic societies without freedom of expression or an open dialogue with critics are usually right and end up being vindicated in the end. Or being poisoned waiting for the spaceship behind the comet.

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

  
Acipenser



Posts: 35
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2010,00:16   

Quote
nullasulas: ""Venturing an ignorant guess" based on the paucity of data provided is the goal of the game. This isn't about making a credible, airtight hypothesis based on adequate data – in fact, that's expressly not the point. Nor is it to offer a correct explanation, because the key bit of data is not only missing, but contains a conclusion that is expressly verboten.


Verboten?  Are your sure about that?

Quote
nullasalus:Yes, I am well aware that GE organisms are common knowledge. Yes, I know that the hypothetical is unrealistic.


I guess I missed the point of his game since he banned me from the thread.  I'm crushed.

  
KCdgw



Posts: 368
Joined: Sep. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2010,06:06   

Quote (Acipenser @ Nov. 10 2010,00:16)
Quote
nullasulas: ""Venturing an ignorant guess" based on the paucity of data provided is the goal of the game. This isn't about making a credible, airtight hypothesis based on adequate data – in fact, that's expressly not the point. Nor is it to offer a correct explanation, because the key bit of data is not only missing, but contains a conclusion that is expressly verboten.


Verboten?  Are your sure about that?

Quote
nullasalus:Yes, I am well aware that GE organisms are common knowledge. Yes, I know that the hypothetical is unrealistic.


I guess I missed the point of his game since he banned me from the thread.  I'm crushed.

There's a reason why he suggested that only IDers participate.

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

  
  3492 replies since Sep. 22 2007,13:50 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (117) < ... 101 102 103 104 105 [106] 107 108 109 110 111 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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