RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (535) < ... 179 180 181 182 183 [184] 185 186 187 188 189 ... >   
  Topic: Joe G.'s Tardgasm, How long can it last?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2013,16:09   

As I thought, you aren't interested in adult conversation.  You just want to prove that you are right, no matter what the cost.

Your own quotes show that selection is non-random.

And, yes Joe, you are not getting this.  Natural selection, is NOT guided, unlike artificial selection.  You have even commented that you believe that they are the same thing.  In my blog entries on selection, you have commented that I used an example of artificial selection to show natural selection.

This seems to imply that you think all selection is the same, it's equivalent.  Selection is the result of intelligence.  Is this true?  

You still seem to think that dueling quotes is actual argument.  This is one thing that most drives me nuts about you Joe.  You cherry pick the things that people say that you think supports you.

Do you know Joe, that the quote from Starr, 5th edition, only appears on the internet as quoted by you?  

Tell you what, would you scan pages 10-12 of that edition of the text book and put them up on internet for us all to review.  It's not that I don't believe you, but I highly suspect that there is more to the story than just what you are saying.

Remember that time you quoted from the Berkley evolution site and the very next sentence refuted your claim of what the authors meant?  Good times.

Oh wait, look you quoted it again...

Here's the very next sentence
Quote
It has no goals; it’s not striving to produce “progress” or a balanced ecosystem.


That's what undirected means... IN CONTEXT.

You use the UBerkley site a lot... so let's see what they have to say about Natural Selection

Quote
Scientists have worked out many examples of natural selection, one of the basic mechanisms of evolution.
Here

and

Quote
Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.
here

There you go Joe.  Your own sources say that natural selection is a mechanism of evolution.  So which is it Joe, is it a mechanism or a result?

Or maybe... just maybe... it could be both, depending on how you look at it.

Let's see what William Provine actually says, shall we?

Quote
Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection.  Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now.  Creationists have discovered our empty "natural selection" language and the "actions" of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets.

The second major problem concerns natural selection at different levels of the evolutionary process.  The rise of understanding of molecular evolution at both the protein and DNA (or RNA) sequence level has challenged the assertion that natural selection is (almost by definition) the most important process in understanding the evolutionary outcomes at the prtein and DNA sequences levels (Kimura 1968, 1983; Ohta 1973).  The chances are small that a particular DNA sequence in mammals is "adapted through natural selection."  The chances are great that the evolution of selectively neutral factors produced the sequence.  Thus at the DNA level, explaining and random sequence invokes selectively neutral or nearly neutral factors as the null hypothesis, an amazing turnabout since the late 1960s.  I now argue that each level (phenotypic, protein, and DNA sequence) marches to different drummers.


Hmmm.... seems pretty clear from a population biology point.  He's not arguing that natural selection doesn't exist, but that certain levels (molecular) that selection isn't the most common or most important factor.  Which is something every scientist has known and pretty much agreed on for the last few decades.

However, we now have evodevo and other molecular techniques which show that maybe natural selection isn't the most important part of evolution at all.  It is a part however and no one is denying that... not even Provine.

Hey look at that... your third quote from McNeill also only exists on the internet as quoted by you.  I guess it's too much to ask for actual links to things.

I really wish you would actually read these things instead of looking for quotes to use against the evil evolutionists.

Once you actually understand what you're talking about, it will be a lot easier to talk to you about them.  Of course, I understand that you can only see things that you think helps you, which is why you don't understand how Dembski saying that ID is just the Logos theory of the Gospel of John isn't important or how Intelligent Design doesn't have any mechanism at all (as stated by Behe).

I know all you want to do is argue about evolution, because deep down, you know that there isn't a single piece of evidence to support ID.  Not a thing.

Oh you can say lots of stupid things like "every evodevo paper is pro-ID" or stuff like that.  It doesn't make it true.

Tell you what, why don't I just e-mail Dr. Provine and ask him what he meant by his statement in Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics?  I'm sure he would be thrilled to see that his words are being used by ID proponents, he is a strong critic of the Intelligent Design movement after all.  Shall I?

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

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

   
Joe G



Posts: 5459
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2013,18:33   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 28 2013,16:09)
As I thought, you aren't interested in adult conversation.  You just want to prove that you are right, no matter what the cost.

Your own quotes show that selection is non-random.

And, yes Joe, you are not getting this.  Natural selection, is NOT guided, unlike artificial selection.  You have even commented that you believe that they are the same thing.  In my blog entries on selection, you have commented that I used an example of artificial selection to show natural selection.

This seems to imply that you think all selection is the same, it's equivalent.  Selection is the result of intelligence.  Is this true?  

You still seem to think that dueling quotes is actual argument.  This is one thing that most drives me nuts about you Joe.  You cherry pick the things that people say that you think supports you.

Do you know Joe, that the quote from Starr, 5th edition, only appears on the internet as quoted by you?  

Tell you what, would you scan pages 10-12 of that edition of the text book and put them up on internet for us all to review.  It's not that I don't believe you, but I highly suspect that there is more to the story than just what you are saying.

Remember that time you quoted from the Berkley evolution site and the very next sentence refuted your claim of what the authors meant?  Good times.

Oh wait, look you quoted it again...

Here's the very next sentence
Quote
It has no goals; it’s not striving to produce “progress” or a balanced ecosystem.


That's what undirected means... IN CONTEXT.

You use the UBerkley site a lot... so let's see what they have to say about Natural Selection

Quote
Scientists have worked out many examples of natural selection, one of the basic mechanisms of evolution.
Here

and

Quote
Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.
here

There you go Joe.  Your own sources say that natural selection is a mechanism of evolution.  So which is it Joe, is it a mechanism or a result?

Or maybe... just maybe... it could be both, depending on how you look at it.

Let's see what William Provine actually says, shall we?

Quote
Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection.  Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now.  Creationists have discovered our empty "natural selection" language and the "actions" of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets.

The second major problem concerns natural selection at different levels of the evolutionary process.  The rise of understanding of molecular evolution at both the protein and DNA (or RNA) sequence level has challenged the assertion that natural selection is (almost by definition) the most important process in understanding the evolutionary outcomes at the prtein and DNA sequences levels (Kimura 1968, 1983; Ohta 1973).  The chances are small that a particular DNA sequence in mammals is "adapted through natural selection."  The chances are great that the evolution of selectively neutral factors produced the sequence.  Thus at the DNA level, explaining and random sequence invokes selectively neutral or nearly neutral factors as the null hypothesis, an amazing turnabout since the late 1960s.  I now argue that each level (phenotypic, protein, and DNA sequence) marches to different drummers.


Hmmm.... seems pretty clear from a population biology point.  He's not arguing that natural selection doesn't exist, but that certain levels (molecular) that selection isn't the most common or most important factor.  Which is something every scientist has known and pretty much agreed on for the last few decades.

However, we now have evodevo and other molecular techniques which show that maybe natural selection isn't the most important part of evolution at all.  It is a part however and no one is denying that... not even Provine.

Hey look at that... your third quote from McNeill also only exists on the internet as quoted by you.  I guess it's too much to ask for actual links to things.

I really wish you would actually read these things instead of looking for quotes to use against the evil evolutionists.

Once you actually understand what you're talking about, it will be a lot easier to talk to you about them.  Of course, I understand that you can only see things that you think helps you, which is why you don't understand how Dembski saying that ID is just the Logos theory of the Gospel of John isn't important or how Intelligent Design doesn't have any mechanism at all (as stated by Behe).

I know all you want to do is argue about evolution, because deep down, you know that there isn't a single piece of evidence to support ID.  Not a thing.

Oh you can say lots of stupid things like "every evodevo paper is pro-ID" or stuff like that.  It doesn't make it true.

Tell you what, why don't I just e-mail Dr. Provine and ask him what he meant by his statement in Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics?  I'm sure he would be thrilled to see that his words are being used by ID proponents, he is a strong critic of the Intelligent Design movement after all.  Shall I?

Yes Kevin, I know what evos say- that natural selection is non-random, but reality refutes that.

So what if the Starr quote comes back to me- READ THE FUCKING BOOK ASSHOLE. I have.

And I have already been over natural selection being both a result and a process- the process I have already described- differential reproducition DUE TO heritable chance variations. It doesn't do anything.

And again I never said Provine said natural selection doesn't exist. I SAID IT DOES EXIST YOU IGNORANT FUCK. I DESCRIBED HOW IT WORKS. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

And you can ask Allen McNeil- he has a blog.

That said Intelligent Design has mechanisms, moron. DESIGN IS A MECHANISM, kevin. So is a targeted search and directed mutations.

However we do NOT have to know the mechanism used BEFORE determining an object was designed or not. You figure out the mechanism by studying the design, duh.

But anyway, email away. And once YOU actually understand what the fuck you are talking about I will be too old to care.

BTW evodevo has been a bust and I am sure that bothers you- or most likely you are too ignorant to understand.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

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

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
Joe G



Posts: 5459
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2013,18:37   

Quote
I know all you want to do is argue about evolution, because deep down, you know that there isn't a single piece of evidence to support ID.  Not a thing.


You don't know what evidence is.

You can't even grasp the fact that the theory of evolution posits accumulations of genetic accidents as its mechanism. And you sure as hell can't grasp the fact that said mechanism can't even muster a testable hypothesis.


You are just a sad-sack of a person

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

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

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
Joe G



Posts: 5459
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2013,18:38   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 28 2013,15:51)
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,17:33)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 15 2013,19:27)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 13 2013,00:10)
     
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 09 2013,04:43)
Joe, on the 'WJM - atheists are dishonest, thick and/or irrational' thread
             
Quote
I know how to test Intelligent Design evolution. And no one appears to know how to test blind watchmaker evolution.

Strange, that…

Care to reveal your methodology?

Already have- more than once, too.


How to test and falsify ID

That's bullshit, Joe. Dembski's Explanatory Filter - Newton's First Rule, for that matter - are no help to you here. You don't 'test ID' by attempting to demonstrate 'blind and undirected processes' doing evolution, regardless whether that attempt succeeds or fails.

You need a method of reliably distinguishing ID causes from 'natural' ones in biological history. You haven't got one.

Fuck you soapy sam. Your position doesn't have any methodology beyond "it ain't designed no matter what!"

Fuck yourself, old bean. You think that is all evolutionary theory amounts to, so you will forever rail helplessly against it, with your convincing counterargument: "it is, I tells ya".

Whatever asshole. It's a fact that you cannot produce any positive evidence tat accumulations of genetic accidents didit.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

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

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2013,18:53   

As I thought.  Not interested in an adult discussion and can't produce evidence to support his claims.

Bye Joey

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

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

   
Woodbine



Posts: 1211
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2013,20:24   

Hey Joe, where you goin' with that flagellum in your hand?

  
Henry J



Posts: 5060
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2013,20:27   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 26 2013,15:03)
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 26 2013,11:38)
Quote
Oh, and would there be ghosts without electromagnetic force? Is electromagnetic force what holds ghosts together?

Only if they had magnetic personalities while alive.

Henry

gluons, man... it's all about the gluons

Well, maybe in the absence of duck tape.

(I quack me up sometimes! :p )

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 2744
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2013,21:44   

Meanwhile at Corny's place, JoeTard continues to show what a true ID scientist is made of:

   
Quote
Joe G: I am anti-abortion. However if thorton, troy, oleg or TWT got someone pregnant, I would agree that an abortion would be the best solution.

link


 
Quote
Joe G: No, kicking his ass would be the best way to respond.

link


All science all the time from JoeTard.  :p

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2013,14:58   

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 29 2013,00:38)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 28 2013,15:51)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,17:33)
     
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 15 2013,19:27)
     
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 13 2013,00:10)
         
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 09 2013,04:43)
Joe, on the 'WJM - atheists are dishonest, thick and/or irrational' thread
                 
Quote
I know how to test Intelligent Design evolution. And no one appears to know how to test blind watchmaker evolution.

Strange, that…

Care to reveal your methodology?

Already have- more than once, too.


How to test and falsify ID

That's bullshit, Joe. Dembski's Explanatory Filter - Newton's First Rule, for that matter - are no help to you here. You don't 'test ID' by attempting to demonstrate 'blind and undirected processes' doing evolution, regardless whether that attempt succeeds or fails.

You need a method of reliably distinguishing ID causes from 'natural' ones in biological history. You haven't got one.

Fuck you soapy sam. Your position doesn't have any methodology beyond "it ain't designed no matter what!"

Fuck yourself, old bean. You think that is all evolutionary theory amounts to, so you will forever rail helplessly against it, with your convincing counterargument: "it is, I tells ya".

Whatever asshole. It's a fact that you cannot produce any positive evidence tat accumulations of genetic accidents didit.

Did what? What is your evidence that a designer did "it"? Are we back to the Explanatory Filter again?

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

  
JohnW



Posts: 3049
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2013,16:13   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 28 2013,19:44)
Meanwhile at Corny's place, JoeTard continues to show what a true ID scientist is made of:

     
Quote
Joe G: I am anti-abortion. However if thorton, troy, oleg or TWT got someone pregnant, I would agree that an abortion would be the best solution.

link


   
Quote
Joe G: No, kicking his ass would be the best way to respond.

link


All science all the time from JoeTard.  :p

Joe G: The Oscar Wilde of creationism.

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

  
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2013,08:04   

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,14:01)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2013,13:59)
So Ronrey.

LoL! I am sure that you are, cupcake.

You can always count on a cling-on attack when a fellow clingy is getting his ass handed to him.

So you're saying you want a little ass handing too? Oh Joey baby, I love it when you talk nasty.

  
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2013,08:10   

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,14:18)
Quote
contacting the admin of my blog network and accusing me of lying, threatening to attack me, threatening my family, stealing images of me and using them for your own avatar, for example


1- You do lie

2- You deserve to have your ass kicked for all the lies you spew

3- I never threatened your family

4- I didn't steal your picture. YOU made it public. YOU posted it on the intertubes

The "I didn't do it but if I did you totally deserved it" defense.

:(

  
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2013,08:29   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 29 2013,14:58)
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 29 2013,00:38)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 28 2013,15:51)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,17:33)
     
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 15 2013,19:27)
       
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 13 2013,00:10)
         
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 09 2013,04:43)
Joe, on the 'WJM - atheists are dishonest, thick and/or irrational' thread
                 
Quote
I know how to test Intelligent Design evolution. And no one appears to know how to test blind watchmaker evolution.

Strange, that…

Care to reveal your methodology?

Already have- more than once, too.


How to test and falsify ID

That's bullshit, Joe. Dembski's Explanatory Filter - Newton's First Rule, for that matter - are no help to you here. You don't 'test ID' by attempting to demonstrate 'blind and undirected processes' doing evolution, regardless whether that attempt succeeds or fails.

You need a method of reliably distinguishing ID causes from 'natural' ones in biological history. You haven't got one.

Fuck you soapy sam. Your position doesn't have any methodology beyond "it ain't designed no matter what!"

Fuck yourself, old bean. You think that is all evolutionary theory amounts to, so you will forever rail helplessly against it, with your convincing counterargument: "it is, I tells ya".

Whatever asshole. It's a fact that you cannot produce any positive evidence tat accumulations of genetic accidents didit.

Did what? What is your evidence that a designer did "it"? Are we back to the Explanatory Filter again?

The Explanatory Filter got plugged up with tard so they went to the Backup EF then it blew up with dogmite* so I think there's no Filter of any kind left, it's just all science** all the time.

*dogma laced with thermite

**for certain values of science

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2013,03:53   

joey is barfing up his usual IDiotic chunks, here:

http://skepticink.com/azathei....-wedgie

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2013,06:46   

Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 12 2013,09:53)
joey is barfing up his usual IDiotic chunks, here:

http://skepticink.com/azathei....-wedgie

Like a broken record, down to the familiar pops and crackles. Joe - do you ever get bored with yourself?

[The ad that popped up was "Test your knowledge of the Bible! Take the trivia challenge!"]

--------------
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: 5459
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2013,07:51   

EvoTARDs are so clueless it is pathetic. Kevin ReTARD McCarthy is still sounding the horn for Lenski's E. coli. The moron doesn't understand what happened, even though it has been explained to him several times now.

For those who do not know Lenski, at MSU, has an ongoing experiment with E. coli- 50,000+ generations.

In all of those generations one plate produced E. coli that could get to and use citrate in the presence of oxygen-> E. coli have the ability to use citrate, if available, under anaerobic- ie the lack of oxygen- conditions.

Got that? All that happened was the gene for the citrate transport protein, which its promoter is under control of oxygen, was duplicated such that the second copy is now under the control of another promoter which is ON in the presence of oxygen, ie not controlled by the presence of oxygen.

No new proteins and no new functions. We have the same protein doing the same function, just in a different scenario.

The point is that Kevin seems to be totally ignorant of all of that- meaning he didn't know that E. coli could utilize citrate under anaerobic conditions. And he seems to think, without support, that the mutations that brought about the change were random.

But then again Kevin thinks that natural selection actually selects.

So, no new proteins and no new functions- and that is supposed to be great evidence for blind watchmaker evolution?

LoL!

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

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

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
Joe G



Posts: 5459
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2013,08:10   

EvoTARDs are such a clueless lot-&nbsp; I blame it on Shannon and others for causing confusion over the word "information". Now evoTARDs have taken that confusion to a new level by saying IDists confuse information with meaning.
Hellooooo!!! Information and meaning go hand in hand 99% of the time. Only physicists and Shannonites don't get what information means. For example:
 
Quote

The word <em>information</em> in this theory is used in a special mathematical sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, information must not be confused with meaning.- Warren Weaver, one of Shannon's collaborators

That means Shannon was the one who "redefined" information and IDists use the word in its normal/ regular/ ordinary/ sense.
Is what Weaver said so difficult to understand?
Kolmogorov complexity deals with, well, complexity. From Wikipedia
Quote

Algorithmic information theory principally studies complexity measures on strings (or other data structures)

Nothing about meaning, content, functionality, prescription. IOW nothing that Information Technology cares deeply about, namely functional, meaningful, and useful information. Not only Information Technology but the whole world depends on Information Technology type of information, ie the type of information Intelligent Design is concerned with.
And both Creationists and IDists make it clear, painfully clear, that when we are discussing "information" we are discussing that type of information
And without even blinking an eye, the anti-IDists always, and without fail, bring up the meaningless when trying to refute the meaningful. “Look there is nature producing Shannon Information, you lose!”- ho-hum.<br />
Pathetic little losers can't grasp the concept of information even though without it communication would be impossible and information technology wouldn't exist.
What does wikipedia have to say about information:
Quote

Information, in its most restricted technical sense, is a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence" title="Sequence"]sequence[/url] of a class of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbols" title="Symbols"]symbols[/url] that can be interpreted as a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message" title="Message"]message[/url]. Information can be recorded as [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_(semiotics)" title="Sign (semiotics)"]signs[/url], or transmitted as a class of[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(electronics)" title="Signal (electronics)"]signals[/url]. Information is any kind of a class of [url="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/event" title="wikt:event"]event[/url] that affects the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_state" title="Thermodynamic state">state</a> of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_system" title="Dynamical system">dynamic system</a>. Conceptually, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_content" title="Information content">information is the message</a> (utterance or expression) being <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conveyed_concept" title="Conveyed concept">conveyed</a>. The meaning of this concept varies in different contexts.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Floridi_0-0"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information#cite_note-Floridi-0">[1]</a></sup> Moreover, the concept of information is closely related to notions of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constraint_(information_theory)" title="Constraint (information theory)">constraint</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication" title="Communication">communication</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_system" title="Control system">control</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data" title="Data">data</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form" title="Form">form</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education" title="Education">instruction</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge" title="Knowledge">knowledge</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_(linguistics)" title="Meaning (linguistics)">meaning</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding" title="Understanding">understanding</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulation" title="Stimulation">mental stimuli</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_theory" title="Pattern theory">pattern</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception" title="Perception">perception</a>, <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_representation" title="Knowledge representation">representation</a>, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)" title="Entropy (information theory)">entropy</a><br />
&nbsp;

Ooops, they use the "m" word in relation to information.
<br />
And in an article on Data
<br />
<br />
Quote

For data to become information, it must be interpreted and take on a meaning

Oh no, who would have thought!

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

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

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
Joe G



Posts: 5459
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2013,08:12   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 29 2013,14:58)
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 29 2013,00:38)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 28 2013,15:51)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,17:33)
     
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 15 2013,19:27)
       
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 13 2013,00:10)
         
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 09 2013,04:43)
Joe, on the 'WJM - atheists are dishonest, thick and/or irrational' thread
                 
Quote
I know how to test Intelligent Design evolution. And no one appears to know how to test blind watchmaker evolution.

Strange, that…

Care to reveal your methodology?

Already have- more than once, too.


How to test and falsify ID

That's bullshit, Joe. Dembski's Explanatory Filter - Newton's First Rule, for that matter - are no help to you here. You don't 'test ID' by attempting to demonstrate 'blind and undirected processes' doing evolution, regardless whether that attempt succeeds or fails.

You need a method of reliably distinguishing ID causes from 'natural' ones in biological history. You haven't got one.

Fuck you soapy sam. Your position doesn't have any methodology beyond "it ain't designed no matter what!"

Fuck yourself, old bean. You think that is all evolutionary theory amounts to, so you will forever rail helplessly against it, with your convincing counterargument: "it is, I tells ya".

Whatever asshole. It's a fact that you cannot produce any positive evidence tat accumulations of genetic accidents didit.

Did what? What is your evidence that a designer did "it"? Are we back to the Explanatory Filter again?

Umm I have already told you what the evidence is that a designer did it. It is the same class of evidence that archaeologists, forensic scientists and SETI researchers use. And it can be refuted in the same manner that those venues' design inference can be refuted.

Go figure...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

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

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2013,08:13   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 01 2013,13:51)

Got that? All that happened was the gene for the citrate transport protein, which its promoter is under control of oxygen, was duplicated such that the second copy is now under the control of another promoter which is ON in the presence of oxygen, ie not controlled by the presence of oxygen.

No new proteins and no new functions. We have the same protein doing the same function, just in a different scenario.


Who says evolutionary change is only significant if it leads to a 'new' protein (whatever that really would mean - what's the threshold for newness)?

There was a genetic change that proved beneficial in the environment, and natural selection - the thing that 'does nothing' - resulted in takeover by descendants of the mutant due to increased relative replication rate. The mutants are random with respect to the environment, since they do not re-occur in reanimated frozen samples despite precisely the same environmental conditions.

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

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2013,08:14   

double post

Edited by Soapy Sam on Mar. 01 2013,14:15

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

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2013,08:18   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 01 2013,14:12)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 29 2013,14:58)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 29 2013,00:38)
   
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 28 2013,15:51)
     
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,17:33)
       
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 15 2013,19:27)
         
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 13 2013,00:10)
           
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 09 2013,04:43)
Joe, on the 'WJM - atheists are dishonest, thick and/or irrational' thread
                   
Quote
I know how to test Intelligent Design evolution. And no one appears to know how to test blind watchmaker evolution.

Strange, that…

Care to reveal your methodology?

Already have- more than once, too.


How to test and falsify ID

That's bullshit, Joe. Dembski's Explanatory Filter - Newton's First Rule, for that matter - are no help to you here. You don't 'test ID' by attempting to demonstrate 'blind and undirected processes' doing evolution, regardless whether that attempt succeeds or fails.

You need a method of reliably distinguishing ID causes from 'natural' ones in biological history. You haven't got one.

Fuck you soapy sam. Your position doesn't have any methodology beyond "it ain't designed no matter what!"

Fuck yourself, old bean. You think that is all evolutionary theory amounts to, so you will forever rail helplessly against it, with your convincing counterargument: "it is, I tells ya".

Whatever asshole. It's a fact that you cannot produce any positive evidence tat accumulations of genetic accidents didit.

Did what? What is your evidence that a designer did "it"? Are we back to the Explanatory Filter again?

Umm I have already told you what the evidence is that a designer did it. It is the same class of evidence that archaeologists, forensic scientists and SETI researchers use. And it can be refuted in the same manner that those venues' design inference can be refuted.

Go figure...

A completely meaningless answer. You have simply told me that there are methodologies in those various fields used to (attempt to) detect agency. You don't say what they are nor how they can be applied to fields other than those in which they are used. Such as biology.

Edited by Soapy Sam on Mar. 01 2013,14:19

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2013,08:24   

What's the matter Joe, no one coming to your blog anymore?

We've been over this a dozen times.  You haven't said anything new for over two years.  Here's a hint... no one cares what you think.

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

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

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2013,08:27   

Very little evolution in metazoans involves new proteins. In fact new proteins are extremely rare. Only a few thousand in the history of life.

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

  
Joe G



Posts: 5459
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2013,08:31   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 01 2013,08:24)
What's the matter Joe, no one coming to your blog anymore?

We've been over this a dozen times.  You haven't said anything new for over two years.  Here's a hint... no one cares what you think.

I get over 100 hits each day, Kevin. OTOH the only reason people visit your shit is because I send tehm there to read you ignorant spewage.

No cares what YOU think, Kevin and everything you post is easily refuted- and yes we have been over that dozens of times.

So fuck of you ignorant pice of shit

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

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

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2013,08:32   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 01 2013,08:31)
[quote=OgreMkV,Mar. 01 2013,08:24]
So fuck of you ignorant pice of shit

Really?

And you call ME ignorant?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

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

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

   
Joe G



Posts: 5459
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2013,08:32   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Mar. 01 2013,08:18)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 01 2013,14:12)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 29 2013,14:58)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 29 2013,00:38)
     
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 28 2013,15:51)
     
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,17:33)
         
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 15 2013,19:27)
         
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 13 2013,00:10)
             
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 09 2013,04:43)
Joe, on the 'WJM - atheists are dishonest, thick and/or irrational' thread
                     
Quote
I know how to test Intelligent Design evolution. And no one appears to know how to test blind watchmaker evolution.

Strange, that…

Care to reveal your methodology?

Already have- more than once, too.


How to test and falsify ID

That's bullshit, Joe. Dembski's Explanatory Filter - Newton's First Rule, for that matter - are no help to you here. You don't 'test ID' by attempting to demonstrate 'blind and undirected processes' doing evolution, regardless whether that attempt succeeds or fails.

You need a method of reliably distinguishing ID causes from 'natural' ones in biological history. You haven't got one.

Fuck you soapy sam. Your position doesn't have any methodology beyond "it ain't designed no matter what!"

Fuck yourself, old bean. You think that is all evolutionary theory amounts to, so you will forever rail helplessly against it, with your convincing counterargument: "it is, I tells ya".

Whatever asshole. It's a fact that you cannot produce any positive evidence tat accumulations of genetic accidents didit.

Did what? What is your evidence that a designer did "it"? Are we back to the Explanatory Filter again?

Umm I have already told you what the evidence is that a designer did it. It is the same class of evidence that archaeologists, forensic scientists and SETI researchers use. And it can be refuted in the same manner that those venues' design inference can be refuted.

Go figure...

A completely meaningless answer. You have simply told me that there are methodologies in those various fields used to (attempt to) detect agency. You don't say what they are nor how they can be applied to fields other than those in which they are used. Such as biology.

Fuck you asshole- I went over everything already and you choked on it.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

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

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
Joe G



Posts: 5459
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2013,08:33   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 01 2013,08:32)
[quote=Joe G,Mar. 01 2013,08:31]
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 01 2013,08:24)

So fuck of you ignorant pice of shit

Really?

And you call ME ignorant?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Really- you are ignorant

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

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

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
Joe G



Posts: 5459
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2013,08:35   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Mar. 01 2013,08:13)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 01 2013,13:51)

Got that? All that happened was the gene for the citrate transport protein, which its promoter is under control of oxygen, was duplicated such that the second copy is now under the control of another promoter which is ON in the presence of oxygen, ie not controlled by the presence of oxygen.

No new proteins and no new functions. We have the same protein doing the same function, just in a different scenario.


Who says evolutionary change is only significant if it leads to a 'new' protein (whatever that really would mean - what's the threshold for newness)?

There was a genetic change that proved beneficial in the environment, and natural selection - the thing that 'does nothing' - resulted in takeover by descendants of the mutant due to increased relative replication rate. The mutants are random with respect to the environment, since they do not re-occur in reanimated frozen samples despite precisely the same environmental conditions.

Nope- natural selection had nothing to do with it. Two potentiating mutations were required and no advatange was had by getting them.

And no, no one can say the mutations were random in any sense of the word.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

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

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
Joe G



Posts: 5459
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2013,08:37   

OK so Kevin choked on Lenski's load and he also choked on information. And in his "defense" he attacks me- or tries to anyway.

Only an ignorant piece of shit would do that and here is kevin...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

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

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2013,08:37   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 01 2013,08:10)
EvoTARDs are such a clueless lot-&nbsp; I blame it on Shannon and others for causing confusion over the word "information". Now evoTARDs have taken that confusion to a new level by saying IDists confuse information with meaning.
Hellooooo!!! Information and meaning go hand in hand 99% of the time. Only physicists and Shannonites don't get what information means.

Joe, go read Shannon's original paper. That might knock some sense into you (although that is hardly certain). Shannon explains, at the very beginning, that he is concerned with a specific problem of communicating information. Transmission of information is completely unrelated to its meaning.

In language that you might understand, a postman is concerned with delivery of a letter to your home, not with its contents. So he weighs the letter in ounces. The weight of the letter has nothing to do with what the letter means to you.

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

  
  16045 replies since Feb. 24 2010,12:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (535) < ... 179 180 181 182 183 [184] 185 186 187 188 189 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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