RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 424 425 426 427 428 [429] 430 431 432 433 434 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2015,16:39   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 16 2015,17:15)
Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 16 2015,11:08)
Falsification remains critically important in many areas of science.  It is, for example, how geology got past biblical interpretations and why those remain wrong.

If this were true (which it is not) then no scientific evidence at all for an old Earth ever needed to be presented, just a philosophical argument like "finding a rabbit in the Cambrian would falsify geology theory too" was all that was ever presented.

I'm shocked that a false-flag operation that is making a mockery out of science goes on and on and on while the so called science defenders go along with a warm and fuzzy scam that is taking them (and science) down.

How would you know?  You've never taken a science course.  You've never comprehended a lick of science as a process.
You've never come to grips with what counts as evidence, how it's used, why it matters, and what role it plays in falsification.  The gods know, as does everyone who's encountered your effluent, that your 'work' contains nothing at all by way of evidence.
You are literally the last person on earth to pontificate about either evidence or falsification.

Nice job of trying to distract from your recent smack downs.
But we all know your routine, it's even more stale than the rest of your nonsense.
Telle me, do you move your lips when you look at pictures?

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2015,18:00   

Quote
If this were true (which it is not) then no scientific evidence at all for an old Earth ever needed to be presented, just a philosophical argument like "finding a rabbit in the Cambrian would falsify geology theory too" was all that was ever presented.

I'm shocked that a false-flag operation that is making a mockery out of science goes on and on and on while the so called science defenders go along with a warm and fuzzy scam that is taking them (and science) down.


It is sometimes difficult to believe how completely clueless you are.  No, a philosophical argument would not have ended the era of "biblical geology", and that's not what Popper's falsifiability consists of.  With respect to Noah's flood alone, the idea of Noah's flood was falsified by detailed studies of "The Drift", which turned out to be inexplicable as deposits of floods or floating icebergs, but which matched known glacier-related deposits in all their details.  There turned out to be multiple layers of "drift" deposits, not just one.  Stratigraphic studies also showed that these were restricted to northern latitudes on the margins of the areas of scouring by accumulation of great ice sheets.  Fossil distributions disagreed in many ways with the expectations of distributions of fossils left by a global flood.  And so on.  That's extensive falsification of bible-based expectations, which ultimately caused the rejection of bible-based geological theories.

Just to spell out the procedure, because you really don't seem to grasp it, a lot of science proceeds by considering multiple, mutually exclusive, potentially falsifiable, hypotheses; then considering logically valid implications of those various potential explanations (making predictions), and then gathering evidence that allows us to reject the inferior explanations.  Ideally, the rejected ideas are rejected because they have been disproved, but at times they are merely abduced to be significantly worse fits to the available evidence.  

You aren't even providing any relevant evidence, let alone assessing it properly.

The only scam going on around here that is trying to make a mockery of science is you and your reeking pile of crap.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2015,18:13   

Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 16 2015,16:00)
Quote
If this were true (which it is not) then no scientific evidence at all for an old Earth ever needed to be presented, just a philosophical argument like "finding a rabbit in the Cambrian would falsify geology theory too" was all that was ever presented.

I'm shocked that a false-flag operation that is making a mockery out of science goes on and on and on while the so called science defenders go along with a warm and fuzzy scam that is taking them (and science) down.


It is sometimes difficult to believe how completely clueless you are.  No, a philosophical argument would not have ended the era of "biblical geology".  With respect to Noah's flood alone, the idea of Noah's flood was falsified by detailed studies of "The Drift", which turned out to be inexplicable as deposits of floods or floating icebergs, but which matched known glacier-related deposits in all their details.  There turned out to be multiple layers of "drift" deposits, not just one.  Stratigraphic studies also showed that these were restricted to northern latitudes on the margins of the areas of scouring by accumulation of great ice sheets.  Fossil distributions disagreed in many ways with the expectations of distributions of fossils left by a global flood.  And so on.  That's extensive falsification of bible-based expectations, which ultimately caused the rejection of bible-based geological theories.

Just to spell out the procedure, because you really don't seem to grasp it, a lot of science proceeds by considering multiple, mutually exclusive, potentially falsifiable, hypotheses; then considering logically valid implications of those various potential explanations (making predictions), and then gathering evidence that allows us to reject the inferior explanations.  Ideally, the rejected ideas are rejected because they have been disproved, but at times they are merely abduced to be significantly worse fits to the available evidence.  

You aren't even providing any relevant evidence, let alone assessing it properly.

In addition: this is an example of a specific hypothesis being falsified without being replaced by an equally specific one.

"The Earth is about 6000 years old." -> fossil record, unconformities, aeolian deposits and other non-marine sediments, understanding of time requirements for lithification -> "No it isn't.  It's much, much older than that."

YEC was rejected long before we knew how old the Earth was.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2015,21:36   

Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 16 2015,18:00)
No, a philosophical argument would not have ended the era of "biblical geology", and that's not what Popper's falsifiability consists of.  With respect to Noah's flood alone, the idea of Noah's flood was falsified by detailed studies of "The Drift", which turned out to be inexplicable as deposits of floods or floating icebergs, but which matched known glacier-related deposits in all their details.  There turned out to be multiple layers of "drift" deposits, not just one.  Stratigraphic studies also showed that these were restricted to northern latitudes on the margins of the areas of scouring by accumulation of great ice sheets.  Fossil distributions disagreed in many ways with the expectations of distributions of fossils left by a global flood.  And so on.

Or in other words: A testable geological model to explain how geological processes work was (after genuine testing) found to better explain all the available evidence.

To be taken seriously in the ID debate and science you need a testable model for intelligence and intelligent cause. Otherwise you are just another apologist for your religion.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2015,22:59   

Quote
To be taken seriously in the ID debate and science you need a testable model for intelligence and intelligent cause. Otherwise you are just another apologist for your religion.


Total BS.  

1) I don't have a religion.  

2) I don't need a testable model for intelligence and intelligent cause to know that yours is crap.  See JohnW's excellent point about falsification of a young age for the earth prior to establishing a specific alternate age.  

3) Actually, the biblical flood model was conclusively disproven long before the geological model was fully developed, similar to the age of the earth.  Critics of John Woodward in 1695 correctly critiqued his version of flood geology without much knowledge of the real situation.  Around 1700, Vallnisieri recognized that widespread marine deposits conflicted with the idea of a biblical flood.  Hutton's unconformities also offered disproof of both a young age of the earth and non-flood interpretations of stratigraphy, without a good understanding of the actual age and the details of stratigraphy.  Cuvier's very incomplete knowledge of stratigraphy nonetheless required him to posit multiple catastrophes rather than a single flood.  Silliman, Fleming, von Humboldt, Sedgwick, Lyell, and even finally Buckland changed their opinions, partly as geological models improved in the way you describe, but also as evidence accumulated that disproved biblical accounts.

4) You don't have a testable model, in part because you lack adequate definitions and operational definitions for intelligence and intelligence cause.  Your attempt at a definition excludes stuff that everyone agrees is the epitome of intelligence, and fails to exclude autofocus mechanisms and Neato vacuum cleaners.  Which has more intelligence - a mushroom or an oak tree or a Neato, and by how much?

5) To be taken seriously, YOU need a testable model. You would also benefit from the afore-mentioned definitions, comprehensible writing, supporting evidence that documents the reality of the mechanisms, processes, and phenomena that you assert, potentially falsifiable predictions, and having your model actually be relevant to the inanities that you are asserting.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2015,23:24   

Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 16 2015,22:59)
1) I don't have a religion.  

That myth only works on your choir.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2015,23:45   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 16 2015,23:24)
Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 16 2015,22:59)
1) I don't have a religion.  

That myth only works on your choir.

The difference between the way reality is and the way you insist on seeing it is why your entire body of work is doomed to failure and irrelevancy.  Go do something useful for yourself and your family.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2015,00:26   

Explain the cause of the human desire to force their views on others.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2015,03:00   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 17 2015,00:26)
Explain the cause of the human desire to force their views on others.

Look in the mirror - you are the one demanding that we accept your assertions.  I'm merely asking you for evidence to support your as-yet unsupported (and as far as I can see, unsupportable) assertions.

And, by the way, following your own standards, why is your stuff not made obsolete by Edgar Postrado's more recent, more comprehensive, and more published stuff?

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2015,03:33   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 17 2015,03:36)
To be taken seriously in the ID debate and science you need a testable model for intelligence and intelligent cause. Otherwise you are just another apologist for your religion.

So explain why nobody takes you seriously, Gary?

???

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2015,07:26   

Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 17 2015,03:33)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 17 2015,03:36)
To be taken seriously in the ID debate and science you need a testable model for intelligence and intelligent cause. Otherwise you are just another apologist for your religion.

So explain why nobody takes you seriously, Gary?

???

I predict Gary will respond with one or more of the following:

A) Trotting out the handful of people from Planet Sourcecode that voted for his video game, and pretending they represent a vast number of people using his ideas to revolutionize the world.

B) References to large numbers of scientists who really support him, but who are too afraid of the EAC* to step forward yet.  This response might include insinuations that Heiserman or Trehub would have approved of his ideas.  It might also make reference to all the other ID enthusiasts out there; ignoring, of course, that they also think his ideas are crap.

C) Allegations of a conspiracy of Big Science, the religious**, the intelligent, educated part of the culture, and possibly the Illuminati, all bent on suppressing his genius and preventing him from getting healthcare.

D) Insults hurled at those who have pointed out the holes in his notions, along with demands to get out of "his" thread.

* The Evil Atheist Conspiracy***

** Which in Gary's world means the nonreligious, even when he's talking to religious people who accept science.  But, really, they're all just part of the EAC**** to Gary.

*** Which doesn't exist.

**** Which still doesn't exist.  Ignore the black helicopters circling your tracksite, Gary.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2015,07:34   

E) Irrelevant music video
F) Massive irrelevant detail regarding latest "advance" in model
G) Irrelevant medical complaints
H) Unjustified insult, likely including language justifiably charged against him a couple of pages back (OK, that's more or less the same as D).
I)  Something entirely unpredictable about a completely irrelevant detail, like his mouse, written in excruciatingly hideous English    
Quote
(You are an annoying pest, to add to the mouse on the loose in the house that is smart to how the cage mousetrap works, was surprisingly able to with their feet wet with olive oil get out of an almost upright 1800mL glass boiling flask I lured them into with a peanut butter cracker that was bigger than its head, that it stole, and the balancing tube idea that gives it four feet to jump after tipping over from its weight isn't working either)
.

Who says this guy is not versatile???

Quote
Ignore the black helicopters circling your tracksite, Gary.
 Particularly the extremely tiny drone helicopters that are getting really hard to distinguish from flies, unless you look very close, preferably with a large magnifying glass.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2015,07:47   

As far as mice go, some of us have forgone intelligently designed traps, and have elected to rely on natural selection.  The cat, who randomly showed up at our doorstep looking for food, does quite a good job of keeping all sorts of vermin out of our home.  He doesn't even need to kill them in the house, as most non-suicidal mice can smell a house with a cat in it and move on.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2015,11:11   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 17 2015,00:26)
Explain the cause of the human desire to force their views on others.

I'm still waiting.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2015,11:51   

From the very first page of this whole thread:
Quote
You say "best explained". Does that mean there is a competing explanation that you've ruled out?

Care to explain how you did that?

Also if only "certain features" of living things are designed, where did the rest come from?

What's the difference between a feature that evolved and a feature that was designed and how do you tell?

Can you give an example of where you have made that determination and more importantly, show your working?


And we are still waiting too.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2015,12:18   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 17 2015,11:11)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 17 2015,00:26)
Explain the cause of the human desire to force their views on others.

I'm still waiting.

If Gary doesn't know our answer to this (regardless of whether he agrees with it), he really hasn't paid even the tiniest bit of attention to all the people who've tried to interact with him.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2015,12:48   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 17 2015,11:11)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 17 2015,00:26)
Explain the cause of the human desire to force their views on others.

I'm still waiting.

I'm still waiting..

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2015,14:17   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 17 2015,12:48)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 17 2015,11:11)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 17 2015,00:26)
Explain the cause of the human desire to force their views on others.

I'm still waiting.

I'm still waiting..

Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 17 2015,12:18)
If Gary doesn't know our answer to this (regardless of whether he agrees with it), he really hasn't paid even the tiniest bit of attention to all the people who've tried to interact with him.

You're still pathetic and sad.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2015,18:52   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 17 2015,14:17)
You're still pathetic and sad.

That's nice. Now try to keep up with the rest of us sad and pathetic people who ironically have state and federal control over sad and pathetic science teachers like you:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-542431

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-542576

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-542584

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-542603

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2015,20:09   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 17 2015,18:52)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 17 2015,14:17)
You're still pathetic and sad.

That's nice. Now try to keep up with the rest of us sad and pathetic people who ironically have state and federal control over sad and pathetic science teachers like you:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-542431

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-542576

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-542584

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-542603

I thought we were literally killing you by preventing you from getting dental care.  Could you please make up your mind?

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2015,18:23   

I have to say that cryptoguru has done an excellent job muddling their adversaries who apparently missed what they actually said, which I will highlight to make what is most important to notice easier to find in the rest of the text.
From: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y240783

Quote (cryptoguru @ Jan. 18 2015,14:39)
final point to N. Wells

Natural Selection is about death. It doesn't matter what the reasons are for advantage, whether it's because some are stronger, or shorter, or bluer, or have better ovaries, or avoid nightclubs .. whatever. The selective agent is death. If an organism dies before it can reproduce it will be removed from the gene pool. Things that haven't died yet compete for resources, eventually a hereditary line will die off removing it from the competition (death again).

The whole premise of natural selection can be simplified to be death. Differential reproduction is a misleading concept, because the preservation of an advantageous trait can only occur when eventually all other competing hereditary lines are extinct. (death). Otherwise you evolutionists would expect to see millions of intermediate evolutionary stages living now alongside the "favoured" one ... and you don't believe that, so all other lines must become extinct to allow the favoured line to become the parent to the next stage. (I obviously think this is crackers ... I'm just explaining that the evolutionary concept of natural selection is very simple)

My point is that the evolutionary concept of natural selection is easy to model, you just set natural conditions and environments for the organisms to live and compete in and see which survive, you shouldn't be measuring the advantages and rewarding them ... nature does not do that, it just provides conditions for death, those who survive it are considered "selected".

I don't see what all the fuss is about ... just trying to demystify the Natural Selection deity.

Bye for now


--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2015,23:47   

Quote
eventually a hereditary line will die off removing it from the competition (death again).
 That can happen, but yet that's often not what happens.  Because of recombination over generations, genes can get removed without "hereditary lines" going extinct.  (Genes can be removed from your lineage while your lineage continues.)  Natural selection is more about differential reproductive success than differential mortality rates.

You are absolutely determined to showboat your cluelessness, aren't you?

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2015,03:49   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 18 2015,18:23)
I have to say that cryptoguru has done an excellent job muddling their adversaries who apparently missed what they actually said, which I will highlight to make what is most important to notice easier to find in the rest of the text.
From: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y240783

 
Quote (cryptoguru @ Jan. 18 2015,14:39)
final point to N. Wells

Natural Selection is about death. It doesn't matter what the reasons are for advantage, whether it's because some are stronger, or shorter, or bluer, or have better ovaries, or avoid nightclubs .. whatever. The selective agent is death. If an organism dies before it can reproduce it will be removed from the gene pool. Things that haven't died yet compete for resources, eventually a hereditary line will die off removing it from the competition (death again).

The whole premise of natural selection can be simplified to be death. Differential reproduction is a misleading concept, because the preservation of an advantageous trait can only occur when eventually all other competing hereditary lines are extinct. (death). Otherwise you evolutionists would expect to see millions of intermediate evolutionary stages living now alongside the "favoured" one ... and you don't believe that, so all other lines must become extinct to allow the favoured line to become the parent to the next stage. (I obviously think this is crackers ... I'm just explaining that the evolutionary concept of natural selection is very simple)

My point is that the evolutionary concept of natural selection is easy to model, you just set natural conditions and environments for the organisms to live and compete in and see which survive, you shouldn't be measuring the advantages and rewarding them ... nature does not do that, it just provides conditions for death, those who survive it are considered "selected".

I don't see what all the fuss is about ... just trying to demystify the Natural Selection deity.

Bye for now

The stuff about heritable lines dying out has been ably critiqued. The target of that assertion is less like "natural selection" and more like "fixation". That, by the way, occurs via non-selective evolution (genetic drift) all the time. So the great insight Gary highlighted fails to accurately describe the process it claims to describe, and is found to happen in processes that have nothing to do with natural selection. It seems, in retrospect, to be entirely predictable that Gary would think it a wonderful thing.

Other stuff from Gary's new hero, Cryptoguru:

Quote

This is equivalent to having a chemistry set with 26 elements, you combine them randomly and select combinations of chemicals that produce interesting reactions, you optimise over those. You will NEVER create a new chemical element from this process. The elemental level in AVIDA is the function (command), these should therefore be evolved, not prescribed.


Cryptoguru's schtick was that biology and computation are analogous or equivalent, so the import of the above is that new chemical elements are created by biological organisms. Otherwise, there is no basis for claiming that is what a computational model of biology should be doing. Even without taking the step of looking back to what the claim implies for biology, the assertion that chemistry should be evolved is laughable on its face.

Cryptoguru the baraminologist:

Quote

the point I'm making about experiments (e.g. Lenski's) is that all they have shown is that variation within a kind has occurred ...


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

    
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2015,11:54   

'Twas writ above:  
Quote
With respect to Noah's flood alone, the idea of Noah's flood was falsified by detailed studies of "The Drift", which turned out to be inexplicable as deposits of floods or floating icebergs, but which matched known glacier-related deposits in all their details.  


As a matter of fact, some of us (well, one at least) have ACTUALLY BEEN PUBLISHED IN A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL WRT this particular subject.  

Gadzooks, Goo Goo, take a high school philosophy and/or science course, and actually learn what science is (and isn't).  Because you sure are wrong-headed in your current view.

NO WONDER YOU'RE A HOOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :)  :)  :)

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2015,07:18   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 18 2015,19:23)
I have to say that cryptoguru has done an excellent job muddling their adversaries who apparently missed what they actually said, which I will highlight to make what is most important to notice easier to find in the rest of the text.
From: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y240783

 
Quote (cryptoguru @ Jan. 18 2015,14:39)
final point to N. Wells

Natural Selection is about death. It doesn't matter what the reasons are for advantage, whether it's because some are stronger, or shorter, or bluer, or have better ovaries, or avoid nightclubs .. whatever. The selective agent is death. If an organism dies before it can reproduce it will be removed from the gene pool. Things that haven't died yet compete for resources, eventually a hereditary line will die off removing it from the competition (death again).

The whole premise of natural selection can be simplified to be death. Differential reproduction is a misleading concept, because the preservation of an advantageous trait can only occur when eventually all other competing hereditary lines are extinct. (death). Otherwise you evolutionists would expect to see millions of intermediate evolutionary stages living now alongside the "favoured" one ... and you don't believe that, so all other lines must become extinct to allow the favoured line to become the parent to the next stage. (I obviously think this is crackers ... I'm just explaining that the evolutionary concept of natural selection is very simple)

My point is that the evolutionary concept of natural selection is easy to model, you just set natural conditions and environments for the organisms to live and compete in and see which survive, you shouldn't be measuring the advantages and rewarding them ... nature does not do that, it just provides conditions for death, those who survive it are considered "selected".

I don't see what all the fuss is about ... just trying to demystify the Natural Selection deity.

Bye for now

And I've bolded and italicized the part where he goes completely wrong.  He may be slightly better at English than you are, but he's every bit as big a loon.  I've underline the next bit where he goes completely wrong.
We do, in fact, see exactly that.  It's obscured in the present because we do not yet have the next stages with respect to which everything now alive is an 'intermediate'.  And within any species (an artificial distinction, entirely conceptual) we see a wide variety of traits -- cats, cows, rats, rutabagas, none are cookie-cutter identical to all other members of the species.  His conception is that a 'species' is a set of identical clones, which is ludicrous.  And yes, some might go extinct, something new may arise.
But it is all part of one life, endlessly proliferating and changing over time, with death, the horrifying "natural selection", removing those variations less suited to the current state of the, gasp, ever-changing, environment.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2015,12:18   

Quote
Otherwise you evolutionists would expect to see millions of intermediate evolutionary stages living now alongside the "favoured" one ... and you don't believe that...


Seems to represent the most critical error.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2015,18:48   

Who is "mahuna"?
http://www.uncommondescent.com/fine-tu....-542861
I think I know, but in this case it's a good idea to get a second opinion.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2015,21:46   

On publishing (in the ID science journal):

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-543162

I was under the impression that all were welcomed to contribute. But after considering doing so (again) I found out I was wrong.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2015,22:16   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 20 2015,21:46)
On publishing (in the ID science journal):

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-543162

I was under the impression that all were welcomed to contribute. But after considering doing so (again) I found out I was wrong.

Well there's always, uhm, regular science journals.  PLOS ONE seems to welcome 'citizen science'.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2015,23:07   

Quote (socle @ Jan. 20 2015,22:16)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 20 2015,21:46)
On publishing (in the ID science journal):

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-543162

I was under the impression that all were welcomed to contribute. But after considering doing so (again) I found out I was wrong.

Well there's always, uhm, regular science journals.  PLOS ONE seems to welcome 'citizen science'.

Thanks for the advice socle. Due to the politics of the situation I first had to give the leadership of the ID movement and their existing resources all the benefit of doubt possible. But it looks like I'm only weeks away from rightfully and understandably having to completely give up on them.

It is not in my best interest (or science) to divide the movement. It would be better to work with it, towards something real. But unfortunately the only thing I ended up demonstrating so far is that the leadership of the ID movement seriously is too busy promoting religion to even care about their own theory.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
  18634 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (622) < ... 424 425 426 427 428 [429] 430 431 432 433 434 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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