RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (919) < ... 250 251 252 253 254 [255] 256 257 258 259 260 ... >   
  Topic: Joe G.'s Tardgasm, How long can it last?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2014,20:12   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 11 2014,17:22)
Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 11 2014,16:15)
LoL! What a dipshit. Internet trends are not scientific evidence for the strength of ID.

Well Chubs, then what is scientific evidence for the strength of ID?  The number of bullshit-filled ranting messages you post at Amazon?   :D

Timmy you are too stupid to assess evidence and you have proven to be totally ignorant of science. So perhaps you should just stick with cruising the men's rooms at the malls.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2014,20:17   

Quote
no Joe, Your IDism does no science.


Of course it does. However your evolutionism does no science. No one uses the blind watchmaker thesis for anything. No one uses natural selection for anything other than misrepresenting it, as you do.


Quote
All it does is get upset with other people's science


And all you do is lie like a losing bitch. It must suck to have to be such a pathetic and pathological liar in order to make yourself feel big or something.

ID would fade away if evolutionism could just come up with something. Yet ID is here to stay in part due to the total failure of evolutionism to have any influence other than cultural.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2014,20:46   

Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 11 2014,16:20)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 11 2014,16:17)
Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 11 2014,16:15)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 11 2014,16:11)
Sig for Sale:


Chubbs: ID is going stronger than ever

http://www.google.com/trends.....0design

LoL! What a dipshit. Internet trends are not scientific evidence for the strength of ID.

How fucking desperate are you? Or is it ignorance?

ID is a cultural movement, always has been, always will be. It does no science, so it would be hard to show a decline in its scientific output. It has been found to be wanting by the public, its champions running from their big day in court and its followers exposed as  dishonest cretins.

ID is twitching Joe. Your inability to do anything scientific killed it.

Richie, you don't know what science is. ID makes scientifically testable claims, unlike evolutionism. The public only knows a cartoon version of ID and it definitely doesn't understand evolutionism nor the evidence. As for dishonest cretins, that fits you and all evolutionists.

You are twitching Richie and you couldn't understand science if your life depended on it. Evolutionism definitely doesn't have any science behind it. So fuck off.

It's funny, I've asked you to explain this dozens of times and you absolutely never have.

Oh, you say lots of things like "I already have" (yet never provide the link... or the link to your specified information in "aardvark" post, that was so precious) or "You're too stupid" (well, that's a matter of opinion, but I could be the second stupidest person on the planet and I'd still be smarter than you Joey).

So, Joe, why don't you slam out that ID curriculum you've been working for the last few years? Sure if you can explain it to a high school biology student, then you can explain it to us.

But no, we all know you won't. It doesn't matter if you can't or you're scared or whatever, the result is the same. You being loud and obnoxious and us laughing at you.

You know what, maybe others don't agree with me.  I'm fine with that. I'm not an expert in GAs... you aren't an expert in anything. If Wes says I'm wrong, fine, I'm wrong. Doesn't make you right. And, let's face it, if you said that it was raining outside, I still wouldn't believe you.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2014,20:47   

Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 11 2014,20:17)
Quote
no Joe, Your IDism does no science.


Of course it does. However your evolutionism does no science. No one uses the blind watchmaker thesis for anything. No one uses natural selection for anything other than misrepresenting it, as you do.


Quote
All it does is get upset with other people's science


And all you do is lie like a losing bitch. It must suck to have to be such a pathetic and pathological liar in order to make yourself feel big or something.

ID would fade away if evolutionism could just come up with something. Yet ID is here to stay in part due to the total failure of evolutionism to have any influence other than cultural.

I thought ID wasn't Anti-evolution.

If all we have to do to get rid of ID is support evolution, then doesn't that mean that ID is the opposite of evolution?

Own goal.. again! Same own goal for almost two years. Never learns.

Tell me Joey, name one ID principle and tell us what it is used for.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2014,21:28   

Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 11 2014,20:12)
I'm so fat I need an arm extender just to wipe my ass

That's nice Chubs, but you forgot to tell us what is scientific evidence for the strength of ID?

Seems there is none.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2014,22:37   

Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 11 2014,14:31)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 11 2014,14:29)
     
Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 11 2014,13:51)
Genetic Algorithms and Heuristic Search

Even wikipedia says that GAs are search heuristics abnd then they say it mimics natural selection, which everyone knows isn't a search heuristic.

You are stunningly dumb.

The abstract in that link
     
Quote
Genetic algorithms GAs and heuristic search are shown to be structurally similar. The strength of the correspondence and its practical consequences are demonstrated by considering the relationship between fitness functions in GAs and the heuristic functions of AI.
By examining the extent to which fitness functions approximate an AI ideal a measure of GA search difficulty is defined and applied to previously studied problems. The success of the measure in predicting GA performance illustrates the potential advantages of viewing evolutionary search from a heuristic search perspective and appears to be an important step towards answering a question that has been the subject of much research in the GAs community: what makes search hard or easy for a GA?


But I guess wikipedia is the ultimate authority. We should ignore all the other things you say then.

Oh wait, Wikipedia says that ID is stupid and evolution is correct.

Problem solved. Thanks Joe.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Kevin I read the entire paper. It supports my claim and refutes yours.

And ID still isn't anti-evolution. Your willful ignorance, while amusing, means nothing.

Jones and Forrest were not interested in establishing inviolable categories. What they set out to do was to make an analysis that explained the "hardness" of certain problems for solution by genetic algorithms.

The paper makes the argument that there are useful analogies between genetic algorithms and heuristic state space search (HSSS), with the intent that analytical tools developed for HSSS can be applied to analysis of GAs.

Jones and Forrest usefully set out six points of disanalogy between GAs and HSSS (see section 4), something that would be odd if these are the authorities who supposedly deliver an absolute classification of GAs as being HSSS and nothing other than HSSS. Jones and Forrest do state that the similarities between the two approaches are more important and the presence of similarities makes "possible the transfer of knowledge between the fields". As they put it,

Quote

The central claim of this paper is that the similarities between the fields are well worth attending to.


"Well worth attending to" is not the same thing as "this one thing is always and everywhere just the same as this other thing".

The basis upon which their analysis of interest is made is given in section 5.2, and the circumstances under which this applies directly is when the GA fitness function is a metric giving the absolute distance to the target. In other words, "weasel" operates exactly as Jones and Forrest indicate is optimal in HSSS. The central point, though, was about whether the values found by the fitness function actually used in a GA problem run correlated with the corresponding values of distance from the global solution.

You pretty much need the other Jones and Forrest paper to get the whole picture. The point (for Jones and Forrest, anyway) is the utility of their post-hoc evaluation of the suitability of the fitness function to the problem. If the fitness function does not correlate well with the distance to the optimal solution, the GA has more difficulty in finding the optimal solution. They found "fitness distance correlation" (FDC) to be a good, but not perfect, tool for understanding the hardness of problems for solution by GA.

Jones and Forrest certainly do not set aside any of the correspondences between biological evolution and evolutionary computation that have been noted already. And Jones and Forrest explicitly acknowledge that correspondence, which is at odds with Joe G.'s (mis)interpretation.

   
Quote

GAs were introduced by Holland as a computational analog of adaptive systems. They are modeled loosely on the principle of evolution via natural selection, employing a population of individuals that undergo selection in the presence of variation-inducing operators such as mutation and recombination (crossover). A fitness function is used to evaluate individuals, and reproductive success varies with fitness. [...]


Note in the quote that Joe's own cited source completely agrees with me on the role of the fitness function, and also nicely shows Joe's ignorance of the stuff he presumes to criticize.

Joe G. failed to show any selection going on in this code:

Code Sample

# This function is the evaluation function, we want
# to give high score to more zero'ed chromosomes
def eval_func(chromosome):
 score = 0.0

 # iterate over the chromosome elements (items)
 for value in chromosome:
    if value==0:
       score += 1.0

 return score


Mainly because the fitness function is not where selection happens. Joe G. apparently can't wrap his head around the difference between code that establishes a metric that gets *used* by selection functions from the selection functions themselves. And I'm OK with that.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2014,01:34   

Joe G. at Hunter's blog:

Quote

Joe GDecember 3, 2012 at 4:30 AM

Well Dr Hunter, given eons of time for illions of trial and error tests, birds are an inevitable outcome, just as long as they don't also have gills. That would wreck their alleged objective nested hierarchy (which their position doesn't expect anyway).


Wikipedia:

Quote

The most fundamental heuristic is trial and error, which can be used in everything from matching nuts and bolts to finding the values of variables in algebra problems.


What Joe's "search heuristic" objection boils down to is that evolutionary computation is deployed by humans to a purpose, and biological evolution is not, which is banal enough, but not anything that would bar noting the points of correspondence in operation between the computational and biological systems. Those correspondences continue to exist, though Joe finds them inconvenient. And I'm OK with that.

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

    
RumraketR



Posts: 19
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2014,05:19   

Why is Joe so angry anyway? I can practically feel the spittle here on the other side of the atlantic.

  
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2014,06:34   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 11 2014,20:47)
Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 11 2014,20:17)
Quote
no Joe, Your IDism does no science.


Of course it does. However your evolutionism does no science. No one uses the blind watchmaker thesis for anything. No one uses natural selection for anything other than misrepresenting it, as you do.


 
Quote
All it does is get upset with other people's science


And all you do is lie like a losing bitch. It must suck to have to be such a pathetic and pathological liar in order to make yourself feel big or something.

ID would fade away if evolutionism could just come up with something. Yet ID is here to stay in part due to the total failure of evolutionism to have any influence other than cultural.

I thought ID wasn't Anti-evolution.

If all we have to do to get rid of ID is support evolution, then doesn't that mean that ID is the opposite of evolution?

Own goal.. again! Same own goal for almost two years. Never learns.

Tell me Joey, name one ID principle and tell us what it is used for.

LoL! Kevin you are such a fucking simpleton. Evolutionism has specific entailments. Evolution is more general.

If you have descent with modification you have evolution. OTOH evolutionism says that differing accumulations of genetic accidents produced the diversity of life starting with prokaryotic-like organisms.

Thank you for continuing to prove that you are an ignorant fuck

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2014,06:36   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 12 2014,01:34)
Joe G. at Hunter's blog:

 
Quote

Joe GDecember 3, 2012 at 4:30 AM

Well Dr Hunter, given eons of time for illions of trial and error tests, birds are an inevitable outcome, just as long as they don't also have gills. That would wreck their alleged objective nested hierarchy (which their position doesn't expect anyway).


Wikipedia:

 
Quote

The most fundamental heuristic is trial and error, which can be used in everything from matching nuts and bolts to finding the values of variables in algebra problems.


What Joe's "search heuristic" objection boils down to is that evolutionary computation is deployed by humans to a purpose, and biological evolution is not, which is banal enough, but not anything that would bar noting the points of correspondence in operation between the computational and biological systems. Those correspondences continue to exist, though Joe finds them inconvenient. And I'm OK with that.

Wes, you are just fucked-up. Please deal with the fact that you just don't understand what natural selection is:

Clueless evoTARDs think nature selects because the word "selection" is part of natural selection.

From "What Evolution Is" page 117:
Quote
What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination.


Page 118:
Quote
Do selection and elimination differ in their evolutionary consequences? This question never seems to have been raised in the evolutionary literature. A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the “best” or “fittest” phenotype. Only a relatively few individuals in a given generation would qualify and survive the selection procedure. That small sample would be only to be able to preserve only a small amount of the whole variance of the parent population. Such survival selection would be highly restrained. {genetic algorithms are in this category}

By contrast, mere elimination of the less fit might permit the survival of a rather large number of individuals because they have no obvious deficiencies in fitness. Such a large sample would provide, for instance, the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection. This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions. {natural selection is in this category}


With biology fitness is determined by reproductive success. It is an after-the-fact assessment. With GAs fitness is determined before reproduction.

page 281: On natural selection being a pressure or force

Quote
What is meant, of course, is simply that a consistent lack of success of certain phenotypes and their elimination from the population result in the observed changes in a population

On the role of chance:
Quote
The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Chance plays an important role even at the second step, the process of elimination of the less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction.


It's funny watching evos continue to misunderstand the very idea they are supposed to be defending.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2014,06:38   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 11 2014,20:46)
Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 11 2014,16:20)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 11 2014,16:17)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 11 2014,16:15)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 11 2014,16:11)
Sig for Sale:


Chubbs: ID is going stronger than ever

http://www.google.com/trends.....0design

LoL! What a dipshit. Internet trends are not scientific evidence for the strength of ID.

How fucking desperate are you? Or is it ignorance?

ID is a cultural movement, always has been, always will be. It does no science, so it would be hard to show a decline in its scientific output. It has been found to be wanting by the public, its champions running from their big day in court and its followers exposed as  dishonest cretins.

ID is twitching Joe. Your inability to do anything scientific killed it.

Richie, you don't know what science is. ID makes scientifically testable claims, unlike evolutionism. The public only knows a cartoon version of ID and it definitely doesn't understand evolutionism nor the evidence. As for dishonest cretins, that fits you and all evolutionists.

You are twitching Richie and you couldn't understand science if your life depended on it. Evolutionism definitely doesn't have any science behind it. So fuck off.

It's funny, I've asked you to explain this dozens of times and you absolutely never have.

Oh, you say lots of things like "I already have" (yet never provide the link... or the link to your specified information in "aardvark" post, that was so precious) or "You're too stupid" (well, that's a matter of opinion, but I could be the second stupidest person on the planet and I'd still be smarter than you Joey).

So, Joe, why don't you slam out that ID curriculum you've been working for the last few years? Sure if you can explain it to a high school biology student, then you can explain it to us.

But no, we all know you won't. It doesn't matter if you can't or you're scared or whatever, the result is the same. You being loud and obnoxious and us laughing at you.

You know what, maybe others don't agree with me.  I'm fine with that. I'm not an expert in GAs... you aren't an expert in anything. If Wes says I'm wrong, fine, I'm wrong. Doesn't make you right. And, let's face it, if you said that it was raining outside, I still wouldn't believe you.

Kevin, fuck off. Why don't YOU slam out a blind watchmaker curriculum? Why don't YOU point to blind watchmaker research? Why don't YOU point to where blind watchmaker processes are used for something?

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2014,06:40   

Quote
Note in the quote that Joe's own cited source completely agrees with me on the role of the fitness function, and also nicely shows Joe's ignorance of the stuff he presumes to criticize.


Umm natural selection doesn't select. That means the quote agrees with your strawman version of natural selection.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2014,06:42   

Quote (RumraketR @ Sep. 12 2014,05:19)
Why is Joe so angry anyway? I can practically feel the spittle here on the other side of the atlantic.

Why are evolutionists such lying fuck-heads?

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2014,06:45   

Quote
What Joe's "search heuristic" objection boils down to is that evolutionary computation is deployed by humans to a purpose, and biological evolution is not, which is banal enough, but not anything that would bar noting the points of correspondence in operation between the computational and biological systems. Those correspondences continue to exist, though Joe finds them inconvenient. And I'm OK with that.


LoL! I am OK with the fact that you are ignorant of natural selection. I am also OK with the fact that you are forced to ignore my arguments and have to misrepresent my position.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2014,06:50   

Joe G
Quote
Clueless evoTARDs think nature selects because the word "selection" is part of natural selection.


No they don't. Clueless ID blowhards think that's what evolutionists think. Most evolutionists are intelligent enough to appreciate that NS is about a differential in reproductive success, and the involvement of the word 'selection' is historic, through Darwin's analogy with breeding.

Impoverishing a breeding pool wrt A is functionally identical to enriching it with not-A - ie, discrimination against A has the same effect as discrimination in favour of not-A.

Not that I think you'll ever get it; I'm just waiting for the kettle to boil. Pheeeeep! Back in a tick.

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2014,07:01   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Sep. 12 2014,06:50)
Joe G  
Quote
Clueless evoTARDs think nature selects because the word "selection" is part of natural selection.


No they don't. Clueless ID blowhards think that's what evolutionists think. Most evolutionists are intelligent enough to appreciate that NS is about a differential in reproductive success, and the involvement of the word 'selection' is historic, through Darwin's analogy with breeding.

Impoverishing a breeding pool wrt A is functionally identical to enriching it with not-A - ie, discrimination against A has the same effect as discrimination in favour of not-A.

Not that I think you'll ever get it; I'm just waiting for the kettle to boil. Pheeeeep! Back in a tick.

Well Richardthughes told me that ns does select because selection is a word in natural selection. And as Mayr explained there is a huge difference between a process of elimination and a selection process. That means your "impovershing blah blah" is refuted before you even posted it.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2014,07:04   

If genetic algorithms simulate anything they simulate evolution by design, ie Intelligent Design Evolution. GAs actively search for a solution or solutions to the problem or problems they were designed to solve.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2014,07:13   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 11 2014,21:28)
Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 11 2014,20:12)
I'm so fat I need an arm extender just to wipe my ass

That's nice Chubs, but you forgot to tell us what is scientific evidence for the strength of ID?

Seems there is none.

So Timmy needs an extender to wipe his ass and he is proud of it?

Fine, but what does that have to do with anything? As for the scientific evidence for ID, well I have said what it is, as have others. OTOH no one has said what the scientific evidence for unguided evolution is. Strange

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2014,07:52   

Kevin sez that he is smarter than I am yet he is too stupid to know there is a difference between evolution and evolutionism. He was also too stupid to understand that if humans have 46 chromosomes and the alleged common ancestor with chimps had 48 that there must have been organisms with 47- it took him a long time to finally grasp that concept.

I could go on and on about Kevin's stupidity- for example he claims that ID says DNA is like a computer! He even quotes someone who says otherwise but Kevin switches it anyway- stupidity and dishonesty are Kevin's good traits.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2014,08:11   

Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ July 30 2014,14:59)
For the curious, I've finally nailed down exactly what's wrong about design theory here.

LoL! You are a moron and a liar:

Quote
The ID argument rests on an equivocation, where “design” means both “the purposiveness manifestly exhibited by living organisms” and “the intended purpose of that kind of living organism”.


No, ID doesn't do any such thing. So if lying about ID = finding what is wrong, you would have a point.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2014,08:49   

Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 12 2014,06:36)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 12 2014,01:34)
Joe G. at Hunter's blog:

   
Quote

Joe GDecember 3, 2012 at 4:30 AM

Well Dr Hunter, given eons of time for illions of trial and error tests, birds are an inevitable outcome, just as long as they don't also have gills. That would wreck their alleged objective nested hierarchy (which their position doesn't expect anyway).


Wikipedia:

   
Quote

The most fundamental heuristic is trial and error, which can be used in everything from matching nuts and bolts to finding the values of variables in algebra problems.


What Joe's "search heuristic" objection boils down to is that evolutionary computation is deployed by humans to a purpose, and biological evolution is not, which is banal enough, but not anything that would bar noting the points of correspondence in operation between the computational and biological systems. Those correspondences continue to exist, though Joe finds them inconvenient. And I'm OK with that.

Wes, you are just fucked-up. Please deal with the fact that you just don't understand what natural selection is:

Clueless evoTARDs think nature selects because the word "selection" is part of natural selection.

From "What Evolution Is" page 117:
 
Quote
What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination.


Page 118:
 
Quote
Do selection and elimination differ in their evolutionary consequences? This question never seems to have been raised in the evolutionary literature. A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the “best” or “fittest” phenotype. Only a relatively few individuals in a given generation would qualify and survive the selection procedure. That small sample would be only to be able to preserve only a small amount of the whole variance of the parent population. Such survival selection would be highly restrained. {genetic algorithms are in this category}

By contrast, mere elimination of the less fit might permit the survival of a rather large number of individuals because they have no obvious deficiencies in fitness. Such a large sample would provide, for instance, the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection. This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions. {natural selection is in this category}


With biology fitness is determined by reproductive success. It is an after-the-fact assessment. With GAs fitness is determined before reproduction.

page 281: On natural selection being a pressure or force

 
Quote
What is meant, of course, is simply that a consistent lack of success of certain phenotypes and their elimination from the population result in the observed changes in a population

On the role of chance:
 
Quote
The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Chance plays an important role even at the second step, the process of elimination of the less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction.


It's funny watching evos continue to misunderstand the very idea they are supposed to be defending.

Joe says nothing relevant to anything I've argued here. But somehow he seems to think he is being informative. Weird.

Maybe Joe thinks any point of non-correspondence between evolutionary computation and biological evolution totally obviates the points of correspondence, but given that he relied upon a paper advocating use of an analogy between EC and HSSS in spite of the authors noting six points of disanalogy, he'd be a hypocrite to take that line.

Nor does Joe address his own correspondence of biological evolution to a heuristic. Not, of course, that I would expect him to; I have low expectations for Joe.

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

    
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2014,09:15   

Wes, you have said nothing pertaining to what I have argued. Yopu have not addressed my arguement at all

Quote
Nor does Joe address his own correspondence of biological evolution to a heuristic.


Umm I was saying what evos think it is.

Do you, Wes, think that GAs are search heuristics?

Do you think that natural selection is a search heuristic?

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2014,09:18   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 12 2014,08:49)
Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 12 2014,06:36)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 12 2014,01:34)
Joe G. at Hunter's blog:

     
Quote

Joe GDecember 3, 2012 at 4:30 AM

Well Dr Hunter, given eons of time for illions of trial and error tests, birds are an inevitable outcome, just as long as they don't also have gills. That would wreck their alleged objective nested hierarchy (which their position doesn't expect anyway).


Wikipedia:

     
Quote

The most fundamental heuristic is trial and error, which can be used in everything from matching nuts and bolts to finding the values of variables in algebra problems.


What Joe's "search heuristic" objection boils down to is that evolutionary computation is deployed by humans to a purpose, and biological evolution is not, which is banal enough, but not anything that would bar noting the points of correspondence in operation between the computational and biological systems. Those correspondences continue to exist, though Joe finds them inconvenient. And I'm OK with that.

Wes, you are just fucked-up. Please deal with the fact that you just don't understand what natural selection is:

Clueless evoTARDs think nature selects because the word "selection" is part of natural selection.

From "What Evolution Is" page 117:
   
Quote
What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination.


Page 118:
   
Quote
Do selection and elimination differ in their evolutionary consequences? This question never seems to have been raised in the evolutionary literature. A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the “best” or “fittest” phenotype. Only a relatively few individuals in a given generation would qualify and survive the selection procedure. That small sample would be only to be able to preserve only a small amount of the whole variance of the parent population. Such survival selection would be highly restrained. {genetic algorithms are in this category}

By contrast, mere elimination of the less fit might permit the survival of a rather large number of individuals because they have no obvious deficiencies in fitness. Such a large sample would provide, for instance, the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection. This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions. {natural selection is in this category}


With biology fitness is determined by reproductive success. It is an after-the-fact assessment. With GAs fitness is determined before reproduction.

page 281: On natural selection being a pressure or force

   
Quote
What is meant, of course, is simply that a consistent lack of success of certain phenotypes and their elimination from the population result in the observed changes in a population

On the role of chance:
   
Quote
The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Chance plays an important role even at the second step, the process of elimination of the less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction.


It's funny watching evos continue to misunderstand the very idea they are supposed to be defending.

Joe says nothing relevant to anything I've argued here. But somehow he seems to think he is being informative. Weird.

Maybe Joe thinks any point of non-correspondence between evolutionary computation and biological evolution totally obviates the points of correspondence, but given that he relied upon a paper advocating use of an analogy between EC and HSSS in spite of the authors noting six points of disanalogy, he'd be a hypocrite to take that line.

Nor does Joe address his own correspondence of biological evolution to a heuristic. Not, of course, that I would expect him to; I have low expectations for Joe.

BTW my post refutes your claims. I can see that you wouldn't think that is informative but to people without an agenda it is very informative.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2014,09:25   

Quote
Maybe Joe thinks any point of non-correspondence between evolutionary computation and biological evolution totally obviates the points of correspondence,


Nope, keep fishing. Perhaps Wesley thinks there since there may be points of correspondence between evolutionary computation and biological evolution that there is a total 100% correspondence between the two.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2014,09:40   

The difference between GAs and natural selection is obvious:

From "What Evolution Is" page 117:


Quote
What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination.



Page 118:


Quote
Do selection and elimination differ in their evolutionary consequences? This question never seems to have been raised in the evolutionary literature. A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the “best” or “fittest” phenotype. Only a relatively few individuals in a given generation would qualify and survive the selection procedure. That small sample would be only to be able to preserve only a small amount of the whole variance of the parent population. Such survival selection would be highly restrained. {genetic algorithms are in this category}

and
Quote
By contrast, mere elimination of the less fit might permit the survival of a rather large number of individuals because they have no obvious deficiencies in fitness. Such a large sample would provide, for instance, the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection. This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions. {natural selection is in this category}



With biology fitness is determined by reproductive success. It is an after-the-fact assessment. With GAs fitness is determined before reproduction.

GAs are actively searching for a solution to the problem they were designed to solve. Natural selection isn't searching for anything.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2014,10:04   


  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2014,10:04   

Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 12 2014,06:38)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 11 2014,20:46)
Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 11 2014,16:20)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 11 2014,16:17)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 11 2014,16:15)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 11 2014,16:11)
Sig for Sale:


Chubbs: ID is going stronger than ever

http://www.google.com/trends.....0design

LoL! What a dipshit. Internet trends are not scientific evidence for the strength of ID.

How fucking desperate are you? Or is it ignorance?

ID is a cultural movement, always has been, always will be. It does no science, so it would be hard to show a decline in its scientific output. It has been found to be wanting by the public, its champions running from their big day in court and its followers exposed as  dishonest cretins.

ID is twitching Joe. Your inability to do anything scientific killed it.

Richie, you don't know what science is. ID makes scientifically testable claims, unlike evolutionism. The public only knows a cartoon version of ID and it definitely doesn't understand evolutionism nor the evidence. As for dishonest cretins, that fits you and all evolutionists.

You are twitching Richie and you couldn't understand science if your life depended on it. Evolutionism definitely doesn't have any science behind it. So fuck off.

It's funny, I've asked you to explain this dozens of times and you absolutely never have.

Oh, you say lots of things like "I already have" (yet never provide the link... or the link to your specified information in "aardvark" post, that was so precious) or "You're too stupid" (well, that's a matter of opinion, but I could be the second stupidest person on the planet and I'd still be smarter than you Joey).

So, Joe, why don't you slam out that ID curriculum you've been working for the last few years? Sure if you can explain it to a high school biology student, then you can explain it to us.

But no, we all know you won't. It doesn't matter if you can't or you're scared or whatever, the result is the same. You being loud and obnoxious and us laughing at you.

You know what, maybe others don't agree with me.  I'm fine with that. I'm not an expert in GAs... you aren't an expert in anything. If Wes says I'm wrong, fine, I'm wrong. Doesn't make you right. And, let's face it, if you said that it was raining outside, I still wouldn't believe you.

Kevin, fuck off. Why don't YOU slam out a blind watchmaker curriculum? Why don't YOU point to blind watchmaker research? Why don't YOU point to where blind watchmaker processes are used for something?

There already is a curriculum on evolution, dozens of them, including lab experiments and demonstrations that show the principles involved.

As far as "Blind watchmaker" evolution, you continue to attack a strawman. You use YOUR definition of Blind Watchmaker Evolution and then expect all of us to follow it. As if JoeG is THE authority on what words mean.

Joe, You're not even an authority on toaster repair.

But that's all ignoring the central question. YOU said you were developing a curriculum. IIRC (and, no I don't actually care) that you were also teaching a course in ID in Sunday School or something.

I'll even give you a break. Produce an ID curriculum that ANYONE is using that shows a SINGLE principle of ID.

You can't because it doesn't exist.

Almost Friday meltdown time. Does your prescription run out on Thursdays or something?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2014,10:09   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 12 2014,10:04)
Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 12 2014,06:38)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 11 2014,20:46)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 11 2014,16:20)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 11 2014,16:17)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 11 2014,16:15)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 11 2014,16:11)
Sig for Sale:


Chubbs: ID is going stronger than ever

http://www.google.com/trends.....0design

LoL! What a dipshit. Internet trends are not scientific evidence for the strength of ID.

How fucking desperate are you? Or is it ignorance?

ID is a cultural movement, always has been, always will be. It does no science, so it would be hard to show a decline in its scientific output. It has been found to be wanting by the public, its champions running from their big day in court and its followers exposed as  dishonest cretins.

ID is twitching Joe. Your inability to do anything scientific killed it.

Richie, you don't know what science is. ID makes scientifically testable claims, unlike evolutionism. The public only knows a cartoon version of ID and it definitely doesn't understand evolutionism nor the evidence. As for dishonest cretins, that fits you and all evolutionists.

You are twitching Richie and you couldn't understand science if your life depended on it. Evolutionism definitely doesn't have any science behind it. So fuck off.

It's funny, I've asked you to explain this dozens of times and you absolutely never have.

Oh, you say lots of things like "I already have" (yet never provide the link... or the link to your specified information in "aardvark" post, that was so precious) or "You're too stupid" (well, that's a matter of opinion, but I could be the second stupidest person on the planet and I'd still be smarter than you Joey).

So, Joe, why don't you slam out that ID curriculum you've been working for the last few years? Sure if you can explain it to a high school biology student, then you can explain it to us.

But no, we all know you won't. It doesn't matter if you can't or you're scared or whatever, the result is the same. You being loud and obnoxious and us laughing at you.

You know what, maybe others don't agree with me.  I'm fine with that. I'm not an expert in GAs... you aren't an expert in anything. If Wes says I'm wrong, fine, I'm wrong. Doesn't make you right. And, let's face it, if you said that it was raining outside, I still wouldn't believe you.

Kevin, fuck off. Why don't YOU slam out a blind watchmaker curriculum? Why don't YOU point to blind watchmaker research? Why don't YOU point to where blind watchmaker processes are used for something?

There already is a curriculum on evolution, dozens of them, including lab experiments and demonstrations that show the principles involved.

As far as "Blind watchmaker" evolution, you continue to attack a strawman. You use YOUR definition of Blind Watchmaker Evolution and then expect all of us to follow it. As if JoeG is THE authority on what words mean.

Joe, You're not even an authority on toaster repair.

But that's all ignoring the central question. YOU said you were developing a curriculum. IIRC (and, no I don't actually care) that you were also teaching a course in ID in Sunday School or something.

I'll even give you a break. Produce an ID curriculum that ANYONE is using that shows a SINGLE principle of ID.

You can't because it doesn't exist.

Almost Friday meltdown time. Does your prescription run out on Thursdays or something?

Kevin, blind watchmaker evolution is not a strawman you ignorant ass. Evolutionary biologists defined the blind watchmaker thesis, Kevin. And your ignorance means nothing to them.

I don't use my definition of the blind watchmaker thesis. Kevin is just being a lying asshole, as usual.

And again, ID is not anti-evolution. You are so fucking ignorant that you have no idea what is being debated. It's pathetic that you have allegedly been at this debate for over a decade and still don't have a clue.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2014,10:10   

BTW ID principles are used in genetic and evolutionary algorithms.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2014,10:11   

Quote (Woodbine @ Sep. 12 2014,10:04)

And the point?

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
  27552 replies since Feb. 24 2010,12:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (919) < ... 250 251 252 253 254 [255] 256 257 258 259 260 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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