stevestory
Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Quote | 1 DionisioJuly 18, 2017 at 3:57 pm Well, there’s no free lunch.
In case they finally find it and agree on it, let them know it has to pass the evo-devo test to answer the most important question: where’s the beef?
Here’s a brief summary of the test:
Given any case of known macro-evolutionary divergence, it could be described as: Dev(d1) = Dev(ca) + Delta(d1) Dev(d2) = Dev(ca) + Delta(d2) Where Dev(x) is the developmental process of any given biological system x Delta(x) is the whole set of spatiotemporal procedural differences required to produce Dev(x). d1 and d2 are two descendants of their common ancestor (ca). Assuming the Dev(x) are well known, what hypothetical Delta(d1) and Delta(d2) could be suggested for their missing link case?
Just point to the literature that explains this in details. The explanation must be comprehensive, logically coherent and it must hold water under any kind of thorough examination.
This test was suggested @1026 & 1090 in the thread “A third way of evolution?” |
Quote | 2 rvb8July 18, 2017 at 6:57 pm Dio,
this equation looks positively scientific. Can you tell me where you got it from? I’d like to examine the original author’s thoughts on the various factors, and his/her take on them.
Please don’t self-referrance to comment 1296.66 on thread BB-GT.
I want the original creators of this equation please!
Thanks:)
The Last Common Ancestor is theorised to be the one where we diverged from chimps, 6 to 7 million years ago.
How it looked would be something similar to a chimp. How it acted can only be guessed at. But by looking at primate behaviour today, some informed guesses can be made.
This is all speculation you say, and you are right. Here’s a question; What’s the alternative? Throw up our hands as the ID community and creationists do?
No thank you. |
Quote | 4 DionisioJuly 18, 2017 at 7:50 pm Apparently the message was not received clearly… maybe there’s noise in the surrounding environment… 🙂
Ok, let’s reiterate it: Quote | Well, there’s no free lunch.
In case they finally find it and agree on it, let them know it has to pass the evo-devo test to answer the most important question: where’s the beef?
Here’s a brief summary of the test:
Given any case of known macro-evolutionary divergence, it could be described as: Dev(d1) = Dev(ca) + Delta(d1) Dev(d2) = Dev(ca) + Delta(d2) Where Dev(x) is the developmental process of any given biological system x Delta(x) is the whole set of spatiotemporal procedural differences required to produce Dev(x). d1 and d2 are two descendants of their common ancestor (ca). Assuming the Dev(x) are well known, what hypothetical Delta(d1) and Delta(d2) could be suggested for their missing link case?
Just point to the literature that explains this in details. The explanation must be comprehensive, logically coherent and it must hold water under any kind of thorough examination.
This test was suggested @1026 & 1090 in the thread “A third way of evolution?” | Maybe this time the message will get through…
🙂 |
Quote | 5 rvb8July 18, 2017 at 9:05 pm Dionisio,
the problem in comprehension is not mine.
Who created this series of psudo-mathemamatical notation; Dev(d1), Dev(ca), Dev(x), Delta(x) etc?
I want to be able to read the source not your second hand interpretation of this mathematical like, notation;
The source please, the author, the origins. |
Quote | 8 rvb8July 18, 2017 at 11:36 pm Local and Dio;
RM+NS=Evo. This is really basic, common stuff. So much so even the most ardent creationist will recognise and sneer.
But this, Dev(d1)=Dev(ca)+Delta(d1) Dev(d2)=Dev(ca)+Delta(d2)
I submit is less, ‘really common stuff.’
Local says; “hence s/he is not aware of the source.” ‘He’, actually.
Is it, ‘really common stuff’? Where exactly can I find these exact same equations please?
I don’t mind apologising if I’m wrong, I will readily do so. I would like to know the source however, if you would be so kind.
Thanks:) |
Quote | 9 Jon GarveyJuly 19, 2017 at 2:26 am Dear me – I’m not a mathematician nor an analytic philosopher, but a little logical examination showed me that Dionisio has simply expressed an obvious problem symbolically. One doesn’t need an “exact source” for that: it’s as valid to make up a symbol sequence as to write a sentence.
Let me translate into cumbersome prose. A common ancestor produces two different outcomes. The start point in both cases being the same, it must be the process in each case that is different. But it’s trivial and completely non-explanatory to say “Things would be the same if only they weren’t different”, so what are the actual differences that produce the different outcomes, so that one can understand and predict anything?
A parallel would be a twin study in which one separated identical twin becomes a Nobel Peace Prize Winner, and the other a serial child molester. A theory that probably the first did some luckier things and lived in some different place would at best be considered, shall we say, “provisional”, and at worst a waste of words. |
Quote | 13 rvb8July 19, 2017 at 8:00 pm Jon,
thanks for the condescension.
This waffle intrigues: ‘A common ancestor produces two different outcomes.’ Aha.
Do you mean that random mutation in the genome produces, ‘two different phenotypes’? I agree, we are in agreemnet.
Then you do the famous ID ‘Gish gallop’, with;
‘The start point in both cases being the same, (parents?), it must be the process (process? random mutation) that is different.’ Sorry, the ‘process’ is the same, and can even be seen, we can actually see mutation from parent to offspring, these mutations produce the silly convoluted Dio’s (d1), (d2)
The ‘process’, must be ‘different’? ‘So what are the actual differences that produce the different outcomes?’
Well, random muttion produces Dio’s silly (Dev1) and (Dev2), and selection by the environment produces the rest.
Jon,
In answer to you Nobel twin versus Nutbag twin; Parents died, they were adopted, one by nutbags, other by, geniuses; different environments is indeed the answer.
Jon,
you and ID generally should refrain from patronizing language, because of the state of ID research at the moment; it does not exist.
Dio,
if you have an idea and want to invent your own ‘scientific’ notation try not to use the simpleton’s x+y=z. Where ‘x’ can be anything the hell I like, ‘y’ can be anything the hell like, and therefore the outcome ‘z’ cofirms that, ‘whatever the hell I like’, is the answer.
Dear me Jon, next time get the equations confirmed, and don’t pretend they are obvious, because Dios endless posts are almost invariably the ramblings of a wannabe.
Dio has been caught mid gallop. Dio please admit these silly contortions are your own effort at sciency stuff, and that they exist nowhere else but in your electro/chemical meat package. |
Quote | 14 DionisioJuly 19, 2017 at 9:59 pm It seems like some politely dissenting interlocutors didn’t get the memo or didn’t read it… 🙂
Ok, let’s say it again: Quote | Well, there’s no free lunch.
In case they finally find it and agree on it, let them know it has to pass the evo-devo test to answer the most important question: where’s the beef?
Here’s a brief summary of the test:
Given any case of known macro-evolutionary divergence, it could be described as: Dev(d1) = Dev(ca) + Delta(d1) Dev(d2) = Dev(ca) + Delta(d2) Where Dev(x) is the entire developmental process of any given biological system x Delta(x) is the whole set of detailed spatiotemporal procedural differences –compared to Dev(ca)– required to produce Dev(x). d1 and d2 are two descendants of their common ancestor (ca). Assuming the Dev(x) are well known, what hypothetical (theoretical) Delta(d1) and Delta(d2) could be suggested for their missing link case?
Just point to the literature that explains this in details. The explanation must be comprehensive, logically coherent and it must hold water under any kind of thorough examination.
This test was suggested @1026 & 1090 in the thread “A third way of evolution?” | Perhaps now they’ll get it right… 🙂 |
Quote | 15 rvb8July 19, 2017 at 11:34 pm Dio,
I have read of a particular definition, of a particular ailement that is charachterised by, ‘saying/doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.’
The particular ailement’s name escapes me for the moment. Perhaps you could repeat your profound mathematical insight several more times (Heh:), and the illness’s name will spring to mind. Heh:) |
Dionisio goes full retard. Never go full retard.
Edited by stevestory on July 20 2017,13:06
|