ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, February 08, 2019

The retreat begins

Torin was trying to cover JF's intellectual surrender and his retreat from math, science, and logic in our debate earlier this week:

You seem quick to dismiss JF but what he said made perfect sense to me. If you want to create your own model OK. But if he is not comfortable with your assumptions also fine. I am confused a bit by the attacks but I guess this is just play. Yet the attribution of "fleeing" and "don't call it science" are things I would not say unless I was damn sure. And since I have expertise in some fields I know how hard it is to be damn sure

Sir Hamster was having none of it:

"seem" - I watched the debate, and I saw JF making objections to the model that were already accounted for in the model. I knew it the moment he said it in the debate, and Vox confirmed it in tonight's Darkstream. 

"comfortable" - JF's feelings as a biologist are not very interesting or relevant when we can demonstrate his objections are irrelevant.  Having watched the debate, JF fled the moment he retreated to rhetorical plays, like when he claimed he was crushing Vox's dreams. 

Vox was stepping through the construction of a model using generous assumptions favorable to TENS. That's not a dream, nor was it crushed. TENS advocates should have built their own model. They haven't, nor do they want to. At this point, the reasonable conclusion is that they don't want to deal with the questions such a model would bring. 

If you want to call what I said, "attacks", you should recognize that JF resorted to rhetorical attacks in the debate. It was intellectual surrender. 

Torin tried to maintain a fighting withdrawal:

I saw two different models because of a disagreement on assumptions. Sure there was some rhetoric. But a lot of rhetoric is going on here. This is why I stopped playing team sports. Have a good one.

But Owen Benjamin had the last word in his analogical description of the debate:

Vox: We can measure how tall the trees are. And we know how old they are. So, what is the annual rate of growth?

JFG: No, no, it is time for me to crush your dreams. Can you not see all zee seeds zat are scattered around zee forest? Zere are so many of zem! Meellions and beellions! Now look at zis picture, do you not see how zee acorns, zey have zee different sizes? Zoot alors! Croissant!

The amusing thing is some of JF's fans are demanding that I debate him again, not 12 hours after insisting that he crushed me.
The reason you don't want a second debate is clearly because you are a terrible loser and dishonest intellectual. You really think that biologists haven't gone over these theories of yours before? If you are so certain that all of this is satanic gamma talk perpetuated by 110 IQ mid wits then why not destroy JF and the rest of us in a second debate. Because you are afraid of losing even more face, nobody is fooled by your stammering retort in this video. Man up and put your ideas to the test or admit defeat!
Of course I'm not going to debate him again. As I observed in the Darkstream last night, there is no point, since he's either too dumb to understand the issue or too dishonest to address it directly. I gave him the chance to refute my case, he whiffed more completely than his followers are even able to understand, and I was able to learn what I needed to learn. Let's not forget, this was the second time I've spoken to him about something that wasn't his book, and the second time he has completely failed to understand a perfectly straightforward argument.

I'm beginning to wonder if Downe's Syndrome might be sexually transmitted.

Labels: ,

184 Comments:

Blogger Mr.MantraMan February 08, 2019 8:09 AM  

Put me down for the book.

Blogger DJT February 08, 2019 8:13 AM  

As I'm coming to understand your position, the stronger the case it appears to be.

But as a partaker of both of your work, I would also like to see a second round. JF was clearly sick and not totally with it (should have postponed the debate), and based on yesterday's episode his girlfriend is clearly going through a severe emotional disturbance that is affecting JF. Not to see one or the other get owned, but to see the issues get explored,because it's interesting.

In any case, I continue looking forward to future updates here on your counter-theories.

Blogger pyrrhus February 08, 2019 8:25 AM  

What's to debate? Even just looking at a simple mutation model, there's not enough time for complex life to evolve..The fixation issue just amplifies the point..Even more so since most life on Earth was periodically wiped out by various collisions and catastrophes.

Blogger Robin February 08, 2019 8:27 AM  

Owen almost got it right, he just should have said “Poutine!” at the end. But nobody’s perfect.

Except poutine itself, that might just be perfect, after five beers at 3 in the morning.

Blogger pyrrhus February 08, 2019 8:28 AM  

The reality is that most biologists aren't very bright, and a major attraction of biology has always been the lack of math requirements.

Blogger VD February 08, 2019 8:36 AM  

as a partaker of both of your work, I would also like to see a second round.

I don't talk to the media because they are dishonest. I see no reason to talk to JFG again, particularly when his followers are so dumb that they actually believe that he trounced me in that debate. I played it straight and didn't call him out on any of his BS. He actually prepared a rhetorical stunt ahead of time.

I will never talk to him again.

Blogger Xellos February 08, 2019 8:36 AM  

>This is why I stopped playing team sports.

The fuck? What do team sports have to do with a debate? What do team sports have to do with rhetoric? Why should anyone give a shit about whether [random dude on the 'net] did or didn't do something? What a loser.

Blogger Quiet Poetic February 08, 2019 8:42 AM  

I knew the Big Bear would interpret this to us normies. I watched the debate twice and the Darkstream last night - then Vox slowly got to the point and I finally got his question - which JF didn't answer. Fixed mutation is the starting point if they want to prove the humans came from monkeys (did I get the question right, Vox?) No point in debating. However, I think Vox could have elaborated the question to JF - he seem not to understand it. Or if he did, he was dodging.

Blogger dumnonia-watchman February 08, 2019 8:50 AM  

Amazing to see Jehovah working through Vox, as He works through me.
The market crash cycle has begun, the divine ratio said 'no more' to the rally this year. The signs I've been shown are amazing.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 08, 2019 8:56 AM  

Vox says it straight. Gariepy repeatedly tried to fire shots down the line of parallel mutation and fixation, which were accounted for long before he ever objected to them. He then got stuck on those two objections, forever, until he started to look -- more -- physically ill, at which point he whipped out his prepared yet irrelevant surprise program in a gotcha attempt.

Blogger daddynichol February 08, 2019 8:58 AM  

"... JF and the rest of us ..." Us? I didn't realize Vox was taking on an entire debate team all by himself. Is your name Legion?

Blogger Manuel February 08, 2019 9:05 AM  

"This is why I stopped playing team sports" aaand GAMMA. secret Kangz win again!

Blogger Michael February 08, 2019 9:07 AM  

Gammas don't seem comfortable about no future debate.

Blogger Peaceful Poster February 08, 2019 9:08 AM  

The gloves are off.

Blogger Rick February 08, 2019 9:12 AM  

They wouldn't want a 2nd debate if it was an obvious win for their side. Deep down, they know it was "not good."

By the way, great job finding this yuge problem with their math, VD. Or rather, lack of math. I always sensed there was a problem with their math, since Berlinski's book, but I had no idea it was this bad. It's also a novel discovery within the mathematical approach to the TENS -- one I think Berlinski might find interesting as well. And mathematics is his thing.

Fixed mutation is not just one stone among others, as you pointed out, it's THE CORNERSTONE.
I hope you name the book that.

Blogger Rick February 08, 2019 9:17 AM  

One other thing, speaking of cornerstones, Berlinski always includes in The Theory that there are 2 aspects to it:
1) Natural selection
plus
2) Random variation

I think the 2nd is as important as the first, maybe more so, otherwise, there is no evolving into something else.

Oh, 2nd other thing, you mentioned a newborn has 60 - 70 mutations (copying errors). Maybe they're not errors.

Blogger David The Good February 08, 2019 9:17 AM  

No team sports? That sounds familiar.

Blogger Wraithburn February 08, 2019 9:25 AM  

Just listening to the darkstream, and it sounds like the guy who mentioned Haldane's Dilemma in a comment before the debates was spot on. It's all about the cost for fixing a mutation in the population, whether you approach it from a cost perspective or a generational perspective.

Blogger Blunt Force February 08, 2019 9:26 AM  

We can accept the genome embracing radical mutation because gene therapy is so easily accomplished.

Tests suggest scientists achieved 1st ‘in body’ gene editing

“It’s not discouraging, it’s just early and on a small amount of people,” he said. “This is definitely a novel and innovative treatment” but it’s not clear if it’s going to help.

Blogger The Deplorable Podunk Ken Ramsey February 08, 2019 9:34 AM  

I expected JF to have big problems accounting for the math. All evolutionists do, frankly it seems they can't even understand the problem most of the time. That's why TENS remains a quite old theory by now, yet somehow one totally lacking of equations. That's quite odd for theory that calls itself scientific and is taken seriously so broadly.

The really disappointing thing to me was the recurrence of this notion that well there's no such thing as a species anyway. Talk about moving the goalposts! What in the hell has this all been about for so long then? Why did Darwin title his book, _On The Origin Of Species_?

Blogger Dangeresque February 08, 2019 9:38 AM  

People asking you to debate him again is like people asking for a second Brexit vote. That's not how any of this works, kids.

Blogger VD February 08, 2019 9:39 AM  

it sounds like the guy who mentioned Haldane's Dilemma in a comment before the debates was spot on

Exactly. And that's why people like Kimura and Desai are the only biologists who merit much attention outside the genetics engineers.

Blogger tz February 08, 2019 9:39 AM  

Happens every time. I have an old book from the Evolution debates from the 1970s and 80s called "from fish to Gish" after Dr. Gish who with Morrison were the debaters contra evolution. This was also before Intelligent Design, but those have generally been the same.

Except for one or two of a dozen, the anti-Evolution side talked 100% science, and the Evolutionists used rhetoric, but typically things like "the bible is not science" when the contra evolutionist side never mentioned it.

I have not finished listening to the debate, but it is already at the point where it is clear it is going to end in the same way.

Beyond that, you can't have replicators selected until you get the first replicator. We are spending lots of engineering effort just to get a strand of RNA to self-replicate. And again, don't ask if it could exist in "primordial soup", much less come to exist within 10^17 years. And what its mutation rate might be. Even if that could exist, it doesn't code for anything, it can only make copies. Well then extra strands that do interesting things might be added... That is far from the complex protein synthesis with metadata, epigenes, ribosomes, DNA, mRNA, tRNA, and a 64 state code with error correction and redundancy.

With the redundancy, we should be able to measure the rate of mutation because in the places where changing the base doesn't change the amino acid, therefore no actual mutation, we should see in any large population lots of these non-mutation changes. I don't think the number is large enough.

Blogger tz February 08, 2019 9:41 AM  

@8, technically it was monkeys and humans diverging from a common ancestor.

Blogger Dave B February 08, 2019 9:48 AM  

A "debate" is totally the wrong format to investigate this idea. It is not remotely realistic to expect convergence on the correct mathematical model in 45 minutes! VD admitted that his model based on fixation had some major shortcomings, so I am not sure exactly how JF was supposed to react, or be able to accurately quantify the scale of those shortcomings instantly on the spot.

One possible reaction by JF would be to give up and say "Vox, you are almost certainly wrong, but I can't generate a proof without taking several hours/days to generate a quantitative model of how wrong your model is, and until then in order to be scrupulously intellectually honest I will have to admit the possibility, however remote, that you are correct".

Instead what he went with was just to say that parallel action allows a rate which is "billions" of times faster which frankly sounds plausible to me as a 5 second answer (given that there are tons of exponentials involved in this stuff). And rhetorically much better of course, which seems to be what VD is upset about? And given that VD's model admittedly is majorly flawed, at this point the onus is now on him to try to fix his model - not on JF to prove (in real time, which is practically impossible) that the scale of error in VD's model is too great to disprove TENS.

Just because JF used a small bit of rhetoric in a _debate_ doesn't make him dishonest in my view, and never talking to him again based on this seems like an incredibly extreme overreaction.

At the end of the day neither side actually proved anything, but JF is more convincing (almost by default) because all he really had to do was generate reasonable doubt. That is the extra burden of challenging the consensus position. (And yes I'm aware that scientific consensus isn't science, that's just the reality of the game of convincing minds)

Blogger Gregory the Great February 08, 2019 9:54 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger VD February 08, 2019 9:55 AM  

I am not sure exactly how JF was supposed to react, or be able to accurately quantify the scale of those shortcomings instantly on the spot.

He could have very easily not claimed that a concurrent-mutations study was a successional-mutations study. That would have not only been easy, but consistent with reality.

Instead what he went with was just to say that parallel action allows a rate which is "billions" of times faster which frankly sounds plausible to me as a 5 second answer.

It doesn't. What part of "the parallel action was already built into the model" do you not understand? No wonder you found JF convincing. He's dishonest. You're just dumb.

Just because JF used a small bit of rhetoric in a _debate_ doesn't make him dishonest in my view, and never talking to him again based on this seems like an incredibly extreme overreaction.

He didn't use a small bit of rhetoric. He used nothing but rhetoric, except for when he was just factually wrong.

Blogger GK Chesterton February 08, 2019 10:06 AM  

I haven't watched the debate yet VD as I usually do these things in the car during the commute and have just read your explanation. Is the idea in the model you cited that larger populations take more time to fix the mutations since they are larger? That is that population size and fixing rate per an individual are inversely proportional?

Blogger FUBARwest February 08, 2019 10:07 AM  

"Just because JF used a small bit of rhetoric in a _debate_ doesn't make him dishonest in my view,"

Preparing a rhetoric flourish before the debate to "rek" someone you are debating is not a small piece of rhetoric. Its premeditated. That's the difference between murder and manslaughter. He's not someone who is interested in the truth. If it wasn't clear before this debate it certainly is clear after this debate.

Mind you, JF's situation is worse when you include his statements from the Jay Dyer debate. Theres no point in debating JF again. His audience isnt smart enough to get it and JF either isnt smart enough or too dishonest to talk about it.

Maybe another biologist will show up and Vox can talk to him about it. Either way Vox's model is really fascinating and I'm looking forward to its development.

Blogger Nate February 08, 2019 10:15 AM  

I mean we shouldn't be surprised that he didn't understand your argument Vox. I mean... if he was good at math... he would've gone into Physics.

Blogger Nate February 08, 2019 10:18 AM  

"Instead what he went with was just to say that parallel action allows a rate which is "billions" of times faster which frankly sounds plausible to me as a 5 second answer."

ah yes... the ever popular appeal to the midwit. it makes sense to me therefore it must be true... the downfall of literally every midwit ever.

Blogger Nate February 08, 2019 10:19 AM  

its interesting that "it sounds good to me so it must be true" is only the working assumption for the midwit... Both the very smart.. and the very dumb.. worry about things that make to much sense to them. The dumb because they have been surprised by something they didn't anticipate many times... and the very smart... because they have been surprised by something they didn't anticipate many times.

Blogger Achilles February 08, 2019 10:22 AM  

JF is "dating" a retarded girl. I don't care what his views on evolution are.

https://youtu.be/jUUG7wWvWUA

Blogger Gregory the Great February 08, 2019 10:29 AM  

Let me shatter your dreams: If rabbits would just grow their necks by on thousandth of a micrometer per generation they would become giraffes after 2 billion generations. And I mean everybody knows that 1 micrometer is already extremely small, let alone one thousandth of it. So this is entirely plausible and probable according to TENS.

Blogger Sammi Hass February 08, 2019 10:29 AM  

The only time I would honor a rhetorical flourish to destroy someone is if that enemy showed no willingness or ability to deal above the table. What's stunning is that Vox has the honor caché at the moment to do exactly that, but won't. Vox is being merciful to JF, not that JF "it depends what meaning means" Garipéy would notice.

Blogger Slagenthor February 08, 2019 10:39 AM  

"if he was good at math... he would've gone into Physics"

This ++.

The basic issue us that biological systems are much much more complex than anyone ever realized up until relatively recently. Darwin himself acknowledged that he was making basic assumptions regarding the simplicity of biological systems.

Turns out the computing analogies were correct: the information storage, the execution engines, and the information itself in biological systems are very complex. Too complex for TENS models to explain within the time allotted.

TENS proponents engage in aot of collective handwaving to explain away the intuitive nature of how complexity of that order can arise without direction, always appealing to muh millions of years and muh mutations and muh feedback.

The hard numbers that genetics modeling is finally providing to the numerophobes are putting hard time constraints that haven't really sunk I yet.

Much like the impact of dialectic on those only swayed by rhetoric, the hard science and math won't penetrate an opinion held for personal philosophical/emotional/spiritual reasons: giving up on TENS sets back the materialist a century by taking away their fig leaf explanation for the complexity around us. If there's one thing gammas hate, it's being called out on error and being told their emperor has no clothes.

Blogger Mocheirge February 08, 2019 10:45 AM  

things I would not say unless I was damn sure.

"And as secret philosopher king with expertise in some fields, there are no things knowable by others that are not already known by me!"

Blogger Warunicorn February 08, 2019 10:50 AM  

"JFG: No, no, it is time for me to crush your dreams. Can you not see all zee seeds zat are scattered around zee forest? Zere are so many of zem! Meellions and beellions! Now look at zis picture, do you not see how zee acorns, zey have zee different sizes? Zoot alors! Croissant!"

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Blogger wEz February 08, 2019 10:56 AM  

Man, you're making me hungry. Poutine is phenomenal.

Blogger Danelle Blackman February 08, 2019 10:59 AM  

Rick wrote:One other thing, speaking of cornerstones, Berlinski always includes in The Theory that there are 2 aspects to it:

1) Natural selection

plus

2) Random variation

Isn't that model pretty outdated by now though? I'm just a casual reader of this stuff, but it seems that your 2) has been expanded to:

random variation(mutations) + horizontal gene transfer + epigenetics + hybridization

Did the debate go any further than just proving that mutations aren't the whole story?

Blogger The Deuce February 08, 2019 10:59 AM  

Nate wrote:its interesting that "it sounds good to me so it must be true" is only the working assumption for the midwit

And that's what the entire theory is based on. That's why the estimate for the time since the split between humans and apes can jump from 7 years to 14 years and back again without anybody going "Wait, why did the changes take so long? It should've happened in half the time" or "How did it happen so fast? It should have taken twice as long."

The reality is, they have no idea how long the evolution of biological features "should" take, or how any of it actually works in a practical, quantifiable, sense. They just gesture vaguely at large numbers like 7 million, and people go "Wow, 7 million is a big number. I guess you could do a lot with 7 million of something. Sounds good to me so it must be true."

Since they haven't bothered quantifying the events that supposedly took place, they can squeeze them or stretch them into any time frame in their minds (provided it's an intuitively "big" number) without skipping a beat, based on whatever the latest revised estimate from archaeology or molecular clocks says. Darwinian theory isn't doing any real scientific work here. It just serves as a philosophical assurance that the genetic changes between apelike ancestor and man, whatever they were and however long they took, were purely the result of some combination of blind chance and selective pressure.

And the moment you actually even BEGIN to try to quantify evolution from a practical, nuts-and-bolts perspective, you start running into intractable problems with even the most basic prerequisites, such as accounting for the necessary number of mutations at all, much less for how those mutations managed to add up to the biological function that we actually see. And they respond, as JF did, by again gesturing vaguely at arbitrarily large numbers like "billions and billions" rather than making any serious effort to quantify the problem themselves.

Blogger Dave B February 08, 2019 11:04 AM  

If your model already accounts for the parallel action, then why didn't you argue that during the debate?

Look, I'm not even saying you're wrong, just commenting on why I wasn't convinced during the debate. JF created a reasonable doubt that your numbers might be off by a factor of billions, and I didn't hear any real rebuttal to that.

As I said before, this whole thing even being in a debate format makes little sense to me. Why does this have to be adversarial? I think it would make way more sense if you guys worked together to create a better model. Instead you seem to be more concerned with trashing JF and creating internet drama than with proving your theory.

Blogger tz February 08, 2019 11:07 AM  

Parallelism? Then why did Darwin and most TENS talk about the Galapogos and Hawaii which were isolated - that might help fix genes faster because the disadvantages of the four irrelevant or harmful until combined can happen more easily.

Basically, Parallelism comes up against the Irreducible Complexity. What JF is suggesting is that the common ancestors accumulated a large number of mutations then suddenly there were humans at one end, chimps at the other, and the middle died out.

Basically you accumulate and fix a lot of junk until that junk becomes useful, e.g. larger birth canals and larger skull sizes at the same time.

Blogger birdman February 08, 2019 11:08 AM  

That's kind of a good reason for it

Blogger FUBARwest February 08, 2019 11:12 AM  

"As I said before, this whole thing even being in a debate format makes little sense to me. Why does this have to be adversarial? I think it would make way more sense if you guys worked together to create a better model. Instead you seem to be more concerned with trashing JF and creating internet drama than with proving your theory."

Vox states it would be better for it to be a discussion at the beginning of the video... JFG hand waves away a fundamental building block of speciation by saying fixed mutations dont matter which he has to know is false seeing hes a trained biologist... he then shows a preplanned graph that doesnt address the point Vox is making and you're takeaway is Vox is the one trashing JFG for trivial matters?

Come on guy, try harder. If you dont get what happened you're too short for this ride.

Blogger birdman February 08, 2019 11:12 AM  

Yeah i just thought about it. If they really convinced that their guy won then they wouldn't insist for another round, because they know that their guy gonna won again

Blogger Vessimede Barstool February 08, 2019 11:14 AM  

Haven't caught the debate yet, but it sounds like it went as expected. Debating autists never ends well, in that they always take a fixed position and sperg out when they're pushed to challenge their own precepts, which being autistic is all the fucking time.

"JF is "dating" a retarded girl. I don't care what his views on evolution are."


He previously dated a girl from Texas who suffered from severe autism (he denies she was functionally retarded, and claimed she had an above average IQ). Her family however were clear that she had a severe intellectual impairment and took legal action to end the relationship which they viewed as inappropriate. JF's justification for his degeneracy was to state a preference for these kinds of girls as they're easier to impregnate.

There's speculation that his current girlfriend is also retarded. She certainly has some kind of speech impediment, which combined with a thick accent may explain why everyone thinks she's special needs. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until I saw clips from his livestream yesterday where she's seen jabbering hysterically at his stream guest about how he'd been trying to kill her and had previously raped her (it was hard to make out due to her window licking speech patterns). Goes without saying that JF's guest was completely innocent. Not that it has anything to do with him being right or wrong about natural selection but if nothing else he remains an entertaining lol cow.



Blogger S. Misanthrope February 08, 2019 11:15 AM  

Come off it, Dave B. Vox repeatedly said he sought conversation not debate. He published his model in advance, while JF sprung his “Voxolution” mid-debate with cringy rhetorical flourish. Vox took the polite route every turn instead of smacking JF’s misunderstandings down harshly, and somehow all that adds up to *Vox* wanting eDrama?

You are much too short for this ride.

Blogger birdman February 08, 2019 11:18 AM  

And i they're insist that their guy won, they wouldn't pushing another one because they know how it will end like the first time

Blogger allyn71 February 08, 2019 11:21 AM  

"If your model already accounts for the parallel action, then why didn't you argue that during the debate?"

Why does Vox have to explain what is obvious o the expert in the field?

Ask yourself why did JF immediately go to rhetoric to obfuscate a dialectic argument. Hint: It isn't because he didn't understand what Vox was pointing out.

Blogger Xiety February 08, 2019 11:22 AM  

DJT wrote:JF was clearly sick and not totally with it (should have postponed the debate), and based on yesterday's episode his girlfriend is clearly going through a severe emotional disturbance that is affecting JF.
Not postponing allowed him to justify an abrupt exit. He opened and closed with mention of his health.

Blogger birdman February 08, 2019 11:24 AM  

EXACTLY! and he should long time ago lol

Blogger The Greay Man February 08, 2019 11:25 AM  

@31 Nate, I have tried to contact you in some way (fellow AL citizen, resident, American, and Roll Tide!) - commented on your blog to get your attention a few months back and I ended up texting with Stilicho

Let me know best way to get in touch. Vox has my e-mail but I can reach out any way you want (just don't want to post everything publicly.)

Sorry for the off topic, Vox.

Blogger The Greay Man February 08, 2019 11:28 AM  

@31 - Nate, anonymous email here: thegreayman@outlook.com

Blogger The Greay Man February 08, 2019 11:32 AM  

@47 -
He previously dated a girl from Texas who suffered from severe autism (he denies she was functionally retarded, and claimed she had an above average IQ). Her family however were clear that she had a severe intellectual impairment and took legal action to end the relationship which they viewed as inappropriate. JF's justification for his degeneracy was to state a preference for these kinds of girls as they're easier to impregnate.



Wow. That is absolutely disgusting and weird. What is wrong with leftists?

Blogger M. Bibliophile February 08, 2019 11:37 AM  

Ahh, this is why I wait for the recap. The cited study already accounting for parallel mutation was the key that I was waiting for. Dodging, handwaving, and resort to rhetoric I could spot, so I knew something was very wrong, but it wasn't until you confirmed that JF was either ignoring or not understanding that key piece of data that I could grasp the whole picture. Vox, your argument I got, but not being well versed in the minutiae of this topic, I wondered if I'd missed something in JF's. Now I understand that I didn't miss something, he did.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 08, 2019 11:39 AM  

"JF created a reasonable doubt that your numbers might be off by a factor of billions, and I didn't hear any real rebuttal to that."

No he didn't. If you can seriously think he did, your powers of reason are lacking.

Blogger Jeroth February 08, 2019 11:40 AM  

In one of his streams, J.F. said he spent an entire year working on Goldbach's conjecture, fully expecting to prove it. It takes a special kind of autistificated Dunning–Kruger to think you are going to solve a 300 year old open problem as an amateur mathematician.

Blogger Sam February 08, 2019 11:40 AM  

@43
"Parallelism? Then why did Darwin and most TENS talk about the Galapogos and Hawaii which were isolated - that might help fix genes faster because the disadvantages of the four irrelevant or harmful until combined can happen more easily."

Darwin needed to show how islands got the creatures they have on them.

"Basically, Parallelism comes up against the Irreducible Complexity. What JF is suggesting is that the common ancestors accumulated a large number of mutations then suddenly there were humans at one end, chimps at the other, and the middle died out."

The middle is Sub-Saharan Africans. He can't say it because he doesn't actually believe in evolution- he is just regurgitating program. If you can't talk about human traits and behavior, you can't talk about evolution without speaking nonsense.

Blogger VD February 08, 2019 11:42 AM  

If your model already accounts for the parallel action, then why didn't you argue that during the debate?

Because it wasn't necessary to the model. Ironically, the observed parallel action was the SLOWEST rate that I utilized. I was utilizing other generation-rates that were up to 102 times more favorable to TENS than the e. coli study.

JF created a reasonable doubt that your numbers might be off by a factor of billions, and I didn't hear any real rebuttal to that.

That doubt was not reasonable. It wasn't even relevant. I had no reason to rebut that because it was nonsense that wasn't even related to the subject.

Instead you seem to be more concerned with trashing JF and creating internet drama than with proving your theory.

You have it entirely backwards. I have no interest in trashing JF and none in creating Internet drama. But I'm also not going to permit people to lie to my face on my own blog.

Blogger VD February 08, 2019 11:43 AM  

You're banned, Wild Man. Please stop cyberstalking and harassing the blog community here.

Blogger Dangeresque February 08, 2019 11:47 AM  

Achilles wrote:JF is "dating" a retarded girl. I don't care what his views on evolution are.

https://youtu.be/jUUG7wWvWUA


Woooooooooowwwww... Yeah, that is fucking weird.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 08, 2019 11:49 AM  

"JF's justification for his degeneracy was to state a preference for these kinds of girls as they're easier to impregnate."

Moral nihilist, atheist, evolutionist. Somewhat autistic himself. Really, other than the higher chance of seriously autistic children, perfectly in line with his beliefs. Not sure why anyone's surprised. Disgusted, sure.

"The middle is Sub-Saharan Africans."

No. You could try for an argument that they're on the inside track, but there's nothing in the middle.

Blogger Torin February 08, 2019 11:55 AM  

"Torin was trying to cover JF's intellectual surrender and his retreat from math, science, and logic in our debate earlier this week"

How woke to media propaganda tactics are you if you fall for them when applied to your team and biases? Yes let me be a gamma and focus on understanding rather than tribal fighting. I heartily support any and all tactics on issues you consider worth dying for. So if this is your hill to die on against the globalist enemy I wish you well.

Blogger Gregory the Great February 08, 2019 11:57 AM  

Fear of the upcoming debate was the primary or rather the only reason for JF ever developing this clearly psychosomatic disease.

Blogger SAPPER February 08, 2019 11:59 AM  

I keep saying, he is French. They can't win at anything.

Blogger VD February 08, 2019 12:07 PM  

I repeat, you are banned, Wild Man. Do not comment here again.

Also note that I will never respond to any request of yours.

Blogger Gregory the Great February 08, 2019 12:07 PM  

The English always suspected that the French were from a different multiverse.

Blogger VD February 08, 2019 12:08 PM  

How woke to media propaganda tactics are you.

Enough to know not to talk to them. I don't talk to people interested in playing rhetorical games for an audience.

Blogger Fargoth February 08, 2019 12:10 PM  

You can tell evolution as a theory is a pile of shit just by looking at the fruits of its study. What do I mean by this?

Take other biological specialties. Neurobiology research, for example, has produced high-resolution pharmacology and neuronal electrophysiology experimentation. Cardiac biology has produced pacemakers and dozens of medical procedures. Genetics, perhaps the most important, has produced the entire molecular biology revolution in laboratory research (PCR, cloning, etc.).

What are the fruits of "evolution research"? The application of its fruits have been entirely sociological. The only effect it has had is to change culture.

Neurobiology scientists can be found in a dark room, hunched over microelectrodes inserted into live brain slices. Evolution "scientists" can be found on the quad, wandering around with a butterfly net.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 08, 2019 12:11 PM  

"Yes let me be a gamma and focus on understanding rather than tribal fighting."

You have been selected by nature as unfit for that understanding. You're here for tribal fighting where you don't have to put your body at risk. Really, of what use are you?

"So if this is your hill to die on against the globalist enemy"

Dat ass! So spacious! Seriously though, why are you assuming this has anything to do with globalists? What are you, concerned?

Blogger Northpal February 08, 2019 12:12 PM  

Bwahahahahaha "parallel mutation" ........Gee what other unreliable, unprovable, non observant "theories" can he pull out of his ass.

Blogger Damelon Brinn February 08, 2019 12:18 PM  

parallel action allows a rate which is "billions" of times faster which frankly sounds plausible to me as a 5 second answer.

Really? I guess I'm going to have to read up on this a bit, because it sounds like a shameless handwave to me. Reminds me of articles I've read about quantum computing.

Blogger Torin February 08, 2019 12:19 PM  

@71

>> "Yes let me be a gamma and focus on understanding rather than tribal fighting."

>> >> You have been selected by nature as unfit for that understanding. You're here for tribal fighting where you don't have to put your body at risk. Really, of what use are you?

>> >> "So if this is your hill to die on against the globalist enemy"

>> Dat ass! So spacious! Seriously though, why are you assuming this has anything to do with globalists? What are you, concerned?

I share your meta goal. I look at the world and I see serious problems with (1) sense making (2) community alliance. On a more practical level this means (1) academia-media-government are liars (2) church-nation-ethnicity-culture-people are broken traitors. If you have found a team and sense making process against the current mainstream one then good for you. I am still looking

Blogger Patrick Kelly February 08, 2019 12:22 PM  

This was a case study in how rhetoric *appears* to defeat superior dialectic to the nominal audience of a given debate.

Vox's stuttered cadence and perplexed expressions were wrongly, but understandably, interpreted by many as him doubting his dialectic critique of TENS and losing the debate.

As for me, my mid-wit brain could barely make out the blurry figures shadow boxing behind a sheet. I had to really focus to understand what both were saying and why.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 08, 2019 12:22 PM  

"On a more practical level"

Why are you in this thread instead of one about the subjects you're talking about?

Blogger Patrick Kelly February 08, 2019 12:25 PM  

Torin wrote:@71

... (2) church-nation-ethnicity-culture-people are broken traitors. If you have found a team and sense making process against the current mainstream one then good for you. I am still looking


Traitors to who/what? "church-nation-ethnicity-culture" are what define a nation. The more they have in common the stronger they are.

Blogger Sam Sutherland February 08, 2019 12:27 PM  

"I'm beginning to wonder if Downe's Syndrome might be sexually transmitted."

Only if pan-genes are a real thing.

Blogger VD February 08, 2019 12:30 PM  

You are banned, Wild Man. Go the fuck away and stop cyberstalking this blog. You are not permitted to comment here.

Blogger Northpal February 08, 2019 12:32 PM  

Humans and chimps also have differences in their individual genes that are far bigger than the differences between any two unrelated humans.

These are big obstacles, but not necessarily insurmountable. Other animals with comparable genetic differences, such as zebras and horses, have bred successfully in the past, although the offspring are always sterile.

A mule is the offspring of a male donkey (a jack) and a female horse (a mare). A horse has 64 chromosomes, and a donkey has 62. The mule ends up with 63. Mules can be either male or female, but, because of the odd number of chromosomes, they can’t reproduce.

There are documented cases of Soviet (Hmmm....who else would need to prove 'evolution") experiments in the 1920s where artificial insemination was attempted using female chimps and human sperm. However, none of these experiments resulted in a pregnancy, much less the birth of a ‘humanzee’.

Blogger Torin February 08, 2019 12:33 PM  

@77

>> Traitors to who/what? "church-nation-ethnicity-culture" are what define a nation. The more they have in common the stronger they are.

Turning nation-states into a multi cultural-states is traitorous. It steals the state since demographics owns democracy. And it subjects the previous majority ethnic group to constant tribal battle within its borders making pointless all the money spend on military defense.

Blogger VD February 08, 2019 12:33 PM  

You are banned, Wild Man. Stop trying to comment here. Your comments will always be deleted.

Blogger VD February 08, 2019 12:41 PM  

You are banned, Wild Man. Stop trying to comment here. Your comments will always be deleted.

Blogger Torin February 08, 2019 12:41 PM  

You can access free/stolen versions of articles on https://sci-hub.se

Blogger Wraithburn February 08, 2019 12:49 PM  

"JF could imagine how a gene could fix in 3 generations. Boom."

Given the equations Mr. ReMine worked out, we can actually look at the substitution cost for that. In his paper, he even has an example for 3 generations over a population of 1 million. Total cost was 587, with the 1st gen being 499, 2nd gen being 39, and 3rd gen being 49.

I don't know about you, but requiring 499 babies from every individual who has the gene you need to fix in your first generation is just a *tad* implausible.

Blogger justaguy February 08, 2019 1:12 PM  

The theory, TENS, had irrefutable data about the extreme complexity of life "discovered" by science over 50 years ago. Lots of scientists recognized the impacts to the TENS and have been avoiding it ever since. What is left in TENS as opposed to say molecular biologists who are really chemists, is those not smart enough to see that their discipline is dying, having already been dealt a mortal blow. Now the low/long feedback loop imposed by government control of science through grants, prestige and such as delayed the death-- but the science is only getting more certain about the complexity.

We need people to push at the walls of propaganda to expose how decrepit most of the leftist science actually is. Keep pounding, please VD. Let's see he has pounded on social sciences and helped enlighten the non-replicability of the non-science sciences, and now he goes after some of the other soft sciences like TENS. Luckily I am confident that engineering, at least as practiced in the US, is solid so VD can't demolish that too. I suggest medicine-- as a combination of art and science it too is susceptible to progressive meddling.

Blogger Sam February 08, 2019 1:27 PM  

@70
"What are the fruits of "evolution research"? The application of its fruits have been entirely sociological. The only effect it has had is to change culture. "

Our society ignores the sociological implications of evolution to the point of ignoring basic hereditary.

As for fruits... it is the general theory. For outputs, you are going to need the parts that are quantitative- mutation rates to estimate time of last common ancestor and the like. Given the constraints dealing with living organisms, the most advanced current stuff is programming.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums February 08, 2019 1:37 PM  

Vessimede Barstool wrote:He previously dated a girl from Texas who suffered from severe autism (he denies she was functionally retarded, and claimed she had an above average IQ). Her family however were clear that she had a severe intellectual impairment and took legal action to end the relationship which they viewed as inappropriate. JF's justification for his degeneracy was to state a preference for these kinds of girls as they're easier to impregnate.

If you take into account the fact that JF is also severely autistic it will put this whole thing into a completely different light. The guy still has feelings for that girl. I know I've stated before that he does not hold grudges but if you insult that particular girl in any way he snaps and will never forget and forgive. If people keep attacking him on those grounds they will lose because it's an open and shut case. The guy was even brought to court and found innocent. During the trial he even said incredibly autistic stuff like he's more than qualified to deliver a baby at home because he works with monkeys all day at the lab and has the experience.

I guess I'm trying to run some interference for JF here. I don't know of any other YT biologist who has as much clout as JF and I would really love to see what his reaction will be after Vox's model is complete and there are no other rhetorical corners to retreat in. I would also love to see JF's face when Vox tells him that his favorite movie, Fight Club, is actually about gay bathhouses.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums February 08, 2019 1:50 PM  

justaguy wrote:We need people to push at the walls of propaganda to expose how decrepit most of the leftist science actually is.

It's not "leftist science" it's all science. Even Taleb mentions this. The job of "scientists" is to get grants, whether they do actual science or not is a bonus. The science done in market research or figuring out a new fragrance for a shampoo is on par with most of academia.

justaguy wrote:I suggest medicine-- as a combination of art and science it too is susceptible to progressive meddling.

Medicine is not a science, it's a trial and error type of trade. Because of this it is strongly linked with laws. Medical protocols exist not because they're scientific but because they're a legal device to help the doctor not get sued for the instances when the protocol does not work. If you change the law in order to force a doctor to do something that goes against his training he will conform because he does not want to get sued even though he knows he's making a mistake. Laws have already been altered by progressives therefore it's already too late for medicine.

Blogger Emmanuel Mateo-Morales February 08, 2019 1:52 PM  

@89

Whatever. Hope he burns in hell for his beliefs and his manipulation of really stupid chicks just so he can be french and 'libertine'.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 08, 2019 1:57 PM  

"and there are no other rhetorical corners to retreat in."

It's dialectic. The rhetorical corners will be with us forever.

Blogger SirHamster February 08, 2019 2:07 PM  

Sammi Hass wrote:What's stunning is that Vox has the honor caché at the moment to do exactly that, but won't. Vox is being merciful to JF, not that JF "it depends what meaning means" Garipéy would notice.

Where you see honor, I see contempt. Not worth a reaction.

For Vox, it was Wednesday.

Blogger Jack Low February 08, 2019 2:38 PM  

Someone in a super chat brought up antibiotic resistance. Vox acted like he didn't understand the relevancy, like it was some weird non-sequitur that came out of left field. The point is that once antibiotics are introduced into a patient's system then very quickly the only bacteria that are left are the ones that carry the resistance gene. In other words sudden environmental catastrophe can rapidly fix genes.

Blogger Sammi Hass February 08, 2019 2:39 PM  

SirHamster, I defer to you because you appear to follow Vox longer than me and have a better calibrated analysis. However, I think Vox garnered honour for himself by holding JF in contempt. That is, Vox refused to deal with him any more. But SDL is a mystery to me, being myself the titular tactician.

Blogger VD February 08, 2019 2:41 PM  

You are banned, Wild Man. Stop trying to comment here. Your comments will always be deleted.

Blogger VD February 08, 2019 2:43 PM  

In other words sudden environmental catastrophe can rapidly fix genes.

No, INTELLIGENT INTERVENTION can rapidly fix genes. Declining populations decreases beneficial mutations. You're not up on the science.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums February 08, 2019 2:46 PM  

Jack Low wrote:In other words sudden environmental catastrophe can rapidly fix genes.

Ok. Would the black plague be considered an environmental catastrophe?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 08, 2019 2:50 PM  

Jack Low wrote:Someone in a super chat brought up antibiotic resistance. Vox acted like he didn't understand the relevancy, like it was some weird non-sequitur that came out of left field. The point is that once antibiotics are introduced into a patient's system then very quickly the only bacteria that are left are the ones that carry the resistance gene. In other words sudden environmental catastrophe can rapidly fix genes.
And when the environmental pressure is removed,the bacteria revert back to lack of that gene. This has been determined experimentally, and is theorized to be due to the metabolic cost of the gene conferring resistance. And probably relates to the simplicity of the specific mutation, probably a single allele. This is an example of reversion to the mean.

So fixed? Well, perhaps. If "fixed" means "not really fixed". It is conceivable that if the environmental pressure were kept up long enough, that the fallback gene the bacteria is using when it drops the mutation, could be lost, and perhaps it would escape the selecting environment and be unable to drop the mutation. That's more than a few generations though, for that coincident mutation to fix the selected one.

Blogger Jack Low February 08, 2019 3:10 PM  

VD wrote:In other words sudden environmental catastrophe can rapidly fix genes.

No, INTELLIGENT INTERVENTION can rapidly fix genes. Declining populations decreases beneficial mutations. You're not up on the science.


You are quite correct. I am not up on the science. I freely admit that I'm a casual observer of this topic. Could you help me by providing a citation for your assertion that "declining populations decreases beneficial mutations"?

Blogger SirHamster February 08, 2019 3:12 PM  

Sammi Hass wrote:SirHamster, I defer to you because you appear to follow Vox longer than me and have a better calibrated analysis. However, I think Vox garnered honour for himself by holding JF in contempt. That is, Vox refused to deal with him any more. But SDL is a mystery to me, being myself the titular tactician.

It can be both. You are focused on how correctly Vox is acting. I am more attuned to how pathetically JF is behaving.

The latter is more relevant to men, because we are in the arena and need to pick our opponents and battles wisely to avoid catastrophe.

Tactical wins cannot come at cost of strategic loss. That is what happened with JF's rhetorical ploys.

Blogger Kuraudo February 08, 2019 3:14 PM  

That's too bad. I greatly enjoyed the first round. I hope another opportunity comes around to perhaps have the two of you talk about something else perhaps.

Blogger 1st Earl Hardwicke February 08, 2019 3:18 PM  

I thought Vox slaughtered JF; I think JF realised that he had lost, but rather than fight on, or concede and put a torch to all the time and presumably faux credibility he has invested. Chose to resort to rhetoric instead. Personally would like to see more blood, or productive philosophical discussions, have at it.

Was reading through Jordanetics yesterday, and the gargoyle labyrinth riddle/Liar's paradox stood out to me. Is that effectively the same as Karl Poppers comment on demarcation, that science can only falsify it can not prove? I don't know what the correct base to philosophy is, but tend to think analytical philosophy might be more correct. Stefan Molyneux seems to be more around logical positivism.

Blogger SirHamster February 08, 2019 3:25 PM  

@ Wuzzums

Don't feed banned posters any attention.

It's impolite to step in poop and spread it on your host's floor.

Blogger Sammi Hass February 08, 2019 3:29 PM  

Thanks, Sir. You correctly evaluated myself and the situation. It's a testament to why women, even if smart, are not so good at judging conflict, its mediation, or outcome.

Blogger Sammi Hass February 08, 2019 3:30 PM  

>Could you help me by providing a citation for your assertion that "declining populations decreases beneficial mutations"?

Lol wut

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums February 08, 2019 3:32 PM  

SirHamster wrote:Don't feed banned posters any attention.

It's impolite to step in poop and spread it on your host's floor.


Don't tell on me! Please!

Blogger Fargoth February 08, 2019 3:33 PM  

@87 Fair point, but surely you'd admit that evolutionary theory has been at least PARTIALLY applied, sociologically. The general sentiment that "we're just animals" is more widespread now than before Darwin. That's been one effect.

Blogger Torin February 08, 2019 3:34 PM  

@104

>> There are 7x more bacteria in the human body (or any body) than cells in the human body with each bacteria being able to reproduce. How come bacteria has so far only evolved into developing just antibody resistance and not a new lifeform?

Gene evolution is mediated based upon the ecological niche the genes are in and associated selection pressures. If selection pressures are relatively constant you would not expect massive changes

>> the greater the mutation rate the greater the chance of the base pair to mutate back to its original form.

If 100,000 things can mutate; and then one mutates. The chance of it changing back versus something else changing is improbable.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums February 08, 2019 3:51 PM  

Torin wrote:>> the greater the mutation rate the greater the chance of the base pair to mutate back to its original form.

If 100,000 things can mutate; and then one mutates. The chance of it changing back versus something else changing is improbable.


Like I've said: base pair. I'm not talking about 100 000 "things", I was talking about base pairs which that article was referencing. If you roll the dice and get snake eyes, the more rolls of the dice you make the chances of getting snake eyes again tends towards 100%.

Blogger SirHamster February 08, 2019 3:54 PM  

Torin wrote:If 100,000 things can mutate; and then one mutates. The chance of it changing back versus something else changing is improbable.

That's what Natural Selection and Death are for.

That's how pathetically underdeveloped evolutionary models are. They cannot account for the mass genetic extinctions TENS believes happened through Natural Selection.

Blogger Torin February 08, 2019 4:00 PM  

@112

>> Like I've said: base pair. I'm not talking about 100 000 "things", I was talking about base pairs which that article was referencing. If you roll the dice and get snake eyes, the more rolls of the dice you make the chances of getting snake eyes again tends towards 100%.

If you keep rolling you will keep getting different values. If you are thinking of some static-ish state that makes things fix; that is mediated by how the gene expresses and selection more than random mutation. I don't see how your framing of a single base pair is helpful in regards to DNA changing over time based on mutation and selection

Blogger Torin February 08, 2019 4:04 PM  

@113

>> That's how pathetically underdeveloped evolutionary models are. They cannot account for the mass genetic extinctions TENS believes happened through Natural Selection.

Do you understand the difference of modeling (1) gene mutation (2) all selection pressures applied to genes? Did you read the hitchhikers guide galaxy where the entire planet earth was the computer trying to answer the answer to life the universe and everything. Do you understand why we cannot predict weather more than a few days in the future? Models are not magic

Blogger SirHamster February 08, 2019 4:10 PM  

Torin wrote:

Do you understand the difference of modeling (1) gene mutation (2) all selection pressures applied to genes?


Duh. Where are your models for both? There have been 150 years.

Don't give me the Petersonian "We've been trying so hard and thinking really hard about this" dodge.


Did you read the hitchhikers guide galaxy

Citing science fiction proves what?


Do you understand why we cannot predict weather more than a few days in the future?

Weather predictors are trying and they use all the variables they can. And they are able to give us best guesses of X% chance of rain.

Evolutionists aren't trying. Ex: JF.

Blogger Torin February 08, 2019 4:21 PM  

@113

We have really good models to predict weather a couple days in the future. Challenge to you: extrapolate that model to predict weather for 23 days in the future with close to same accuracy. Maybe as a fellow technology person you need to actually do it yourself to understand how things work.

Blogger Sammi Hass February 08, 2019 4:29 PM  

A farmer's almanac can predict weather months ahead. I don't know how their models work but they're reliable enough to be used year in and out.

Blogger Xiety February 08, 2019 4:37 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger SirHamster February 08, 2019 4:40 PM  

Torin wrote:We have really good models to predict weather a couple days in the future. Challenge to you: extrapolate that model to predict weather for 23 days in the future with close to same accuracy. Maybe as a fellow technology person you need to actually do it yourself to understand how things work.

Rhetorical dodge detected. You questioned my understanding, and when answered, continue to cast shade on my understanding.

I answered your questions. You dodged my questions.


1. Where are your models for both [(1) gene mutation (2) all selection pressures applied to genes]?
2. Citing science fiction proves what?

Blogger JimR February 08, 2019 4:46 PM  

I find no small amount of amusement in watching gamma posters getting slapped down.

Blogger Crusader Memetics February 08, 2019 4:46 PM  

Hi Vox, I appreciate your effort to reason intelligent intervention into the evolutionary paradigm. You're going to need to start with some basic didactic models though, you can't expect JF or anyone on the opposite spectrum to be able to argue in good faith until you've made adequate rudimentary models to be studied in advance of any debate.

Also, cheap shots on who someone loves is generally alienating. The Christians have redefined love from what it objectively meant in 1John5 to some ad-hoc subjective meaning -- a speck in your own eye!

Blogger Torin February 08, 2019 5:21 PM  

@118

1. The gene mutation rates are a decent model
2. There is not a decent model for selection because:
3. The hitchhikers guide example and weather are to show you that sometimes the only accurate model is to actually run it in real life and even then you would get widely different results. Perhaps I should have just pointed you directly to chaos theory from the start; but if you researched anything I said it would have lead you to this. In fact Vox mentioned chaos theory in lead up to evolution debate to show the impossibility to create certain predictive models.

"Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focusing on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. "Chaos" is an interdisciplinary theory stating that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, self-organization, and reliance on programming at the initial point known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The butterfly effect describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state, e.g. a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a hurricane in Texas.[1]

Small differences in initial conditions, such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation, yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general.[2][3] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[4] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[5][6] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:[7]

Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

Chaotic behavior exists in many natural systems, such as weather and climate.[8][9] It also occurs spontaneously in some systems with artificial components, such as road traffic.[10] This behavior can be studied through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps. Chaos theory has applications in several disciplines, including meteorology, anthropology,[11][12] sociology, physics,[13] environmental science, computer science, engineering, economics, biology, ecology, and philosophy. The theory formed the basis for such fields of study as complex dynamical systems, edge of chaos theory, and self-assembly processes."

Blogger S. Thermite February 08, 2019 5:32 PM  

Also, cheap shots on who someone loves is generally alienating. The Christians have redefined love from what it objectively meant in 1John5 to some ad-hoc subjective meaning -- a speck in your own eye!

Concern troll is concerned. Not only is your statement incoherent, but it’s ridiculous to assert that atheist JF loves the woman he’s sexing...and then immediately turn around and assert that Christians have re-defined the meaning of love. A speck in your eye indeed!

Blogger Roger Hill February 08, 2019 6:11 PM  

At the risk of sounding like a pathetic sideline quarterback.... Reading Vox as much as I have, when he employs rhetoric, it is damn fun. Something in me wishes he would have let loose a rhetorical kill shot in that debate. I suppose it's because I hate smug a-holes who pretend to be right when they are clearly wrong. It is one thing to save face. It is another thing entirely to feign victory in the jaws of just being plain wrong.

Maybe it's the chimp in me.

Blogger SirHamster February 08, 2019 6:15 PM  

Torin wrote:2. There is not a decent model for selection because:

3. The hitchhikers guide example and weather are to show you that sometimes the only accurate model is to actually run it in real life and even then you would get widely different results. Perhaps I should have just pointed you directly to chaos theory from the start; but if you researched anything I said it would have lead you to this. In fact Vox mentioned chaos theory in lead up to evolution debate to show the impossibility to create certain predictive models.

Citing science fiction proves what?

It's absurd to say that weather shows that the only accurate model is to run it. Waiting for the actual weather is not a model. Weather models exist and are useful for short term predictions.

Most importantly, the point of these models isn't to predict the future of genetic mutations. The point of these models is to quantify the mutations that are claimed to drive evolution.

"It's impossible to predict the weather" doesn't preclude you from measuring the rainfall and sunny days for 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015 ...

"It's impossible to predict evolution" doesn't preclude you from measuring and estimating the evolutionary rate in the past.

Blogger Torin February 08, 2019 6:49 PM  

@124

>> Citing science fiction proves what?

I did not say proves, do not lie or use the oh so bad "rhetoric". I said it was an example to help you to understand

>> It's absurd to say that weather shows that the only accurate model is to run it. Waiting for the actual weather is not a model.

Yes chaos theory is absurd from the standpoint of our limited minds that want things to be easy and predictable. But the problem is with your mind and wanting a good model rather than reality itself as you can see from various examples of chaos theory

>> Weather models exist and are useful for short term predictions.

Yes exactly and they break down for long term predictions because of complexity so you need to know specifics to understand what the limitations are

>> Most importantly, the point of these models isn't to predict the future of genetic mutations. The point of these models is to quantify the mutations that are claimed to drive evolution.
>> "It's impossible to predict the weather" doesn't preclude you from measuring the rainfall and sunny days for 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015 ...
>> "It's impossible to predict evolution" doesn't preclude you from measuring and estimating the evolutionary rate in the past.

And here are some of those specifics. We have good measurements for past temperatures by drilling into the permafrost. We do not have easy ways to get readings for each creature alive for past years to measure DNA. So we have decent models for DNA mutation (which we can measure) but not for selection (a very complex process which we cannot measure for the past)

Dude you do not understand complexity. And you don't understand specifics of genetics and selection. And you are taking the much harder stance of trying to say how evolution is wrong. Vox has a good approach of trying to model things. You are just trying to rely on facts and logic and your understanding but failing horribly. Let Vox do his model and try not to act like the ignorant JF sycophants people on this blog are calling out.

Blogger M Cephas February 08, 2019 7:40 PM  

I watched JF explain some of his debate tactics in a video once before. His goals in the debate were very different from yours.

Blogger SirHamster February 08, 2019 7:41 PM  

Torin wrote:I did not say proves, do not lie or use the oh so bad "rhetoric". I said it was an example to help you to understand

I didn't say you said "proves".

So what does citing science fiction prove?

Am I supposed to interpret your non-answer as, "Nothing at all"?

Who knew that satirical fiction is not useful for a scientific discussion?


Torin wrote:But the problem is with your mind and wanting a good model rather than reality itself ...
Torin wrote:Dude you do not understand complexity. And you don't understand specifics of genetics and selection. And you are taking the much harder stance of trying to say how evolution is wrong.
Torin wrote:You are just trying to rely on facts and logic and your understanding but failing horribly.

Hey Gamma boy, you're a terrible mind-reader, and all of your bad rhetoric is intellectual surrender like JF.

Blogger Avalanche February 08, 2019 8:42 PM  

@90 "his manipulation of really stupid chicks just so he can be french and 'libertine'."

If "he's severely autistic" is accurate; then he may NEED a mentally incomplete female as a mate; because a normal female will not, or will not be able to, put up with him. Generally, broken people find (not always intentionally, but they usually KEEP) the one whose brokenness matches theirs; someone who meshes comfortably with them. So, e.g., a person who needs a lot of focused attention (see: attachment disorders), will be more successful with someone who wishes to BE 'centered' on that person. Both are broken -- but neither would fit successfully with a normal.

Lucky are those of us who FIND their missing half; the broken puzzle piece that fits. Normals may find there are a lot more possible 'puzzle pieces' -- but the broken ones mostly don't.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums February 08, 2019 8:43 PM  

Torin wrote:If you keep rolling you will keep getting different values. If you are thinking of some static-ish state that makes things fix; that is mediated by how the gene expresses and selection more than random mutation. I don't see how your framing of a single base pair is helpful in regards to DNA changing over time based on mutation and selection

The argument was about an article that was talking about mutation rates of base pairs. I was trying to say that mutation rates and fixation don't necessarily go hand in hand therefore that article doesn't say much.

Blogger Torin February 08, 2019 8:46 PM  

@126

>> Hey Gamma boy, you're a terrible mind-reader, and all of your bad rhetoric is intellectual surrender like JF.

Because you have given up on facts regarding modeling complexity/chaos and specifics of evolution:

Look at you holding onto my science fiction example as "proof" because you do not understand and/or want to avoid what really matters: chaos/complexity and specifics of evolution. How gamma like and such an intellectual surrender.

Rhetoric has infected your mind. You are not open to understanding new things like chaos theory and specifics of evolution. You are locked into your own biased models of how you think the world works and thus fail but are too stupid and/or gamma-like to realize

As for the hitchhikers guide example; I can explain it in more detail but your mind seems closed but perhaps someone else might be interested.

The answer to life the universe and everything is calculated to be "42" but even though the answer is known the question is unknown. This is like us in present day knowing our current state but not all the past events that created us (what is the model). To calculate the answer they used the entire planet earth as a computer to generate the question. The analogy is that somethings are so complex things that they are insanely difficult to model and calculate so one can consider our entire world running as the model. The earth and its history is the model and equation to generate the question/answer.

Blogger Avalanche February 08, 2019 8:49 PM  

@98 "And when the environmental pressure is removed,the bacteria revert back to lack of that gene. This has been determined experimentally..."

The so-called Darwin's Finches (although HE paid almost no attention to them on the voyage or in his process of developing his theories; merely bringing home dead specimens. AFTER he began to hone this theories -- and trying to get the jump on his rival(s); he looked again at the finches.

Also; the finches' beaks changed during a strong drought (that is: those with a beak shape NORMAL TO THE RANGE of beak shapes, whose outer-edge of the Bell Curve beak shapes allowed preferential survival); AFTER the drought ended, the normal range of beak shapes came back. Not nearly as cut-and-dried (or dead, stuffed, and brought home) as we're taught!

Blogger Avalanche February 08, 2019 8:56 PM  

@109 "If you roll the dice and get snake eyes, the more rolls of the dice you make the chances of getting snake eyes again tends towards 100%."

Does it? Shouldn't every single roll of (unconnected) dice ALWAYS have the same 'chance' of any roll? There is no increased probability of some later roll somehow relating to to any preceding roll.

No matter how many times you roll the dice; the 'chances' of getting the same number always and forever remains the same / doesn't increase towards 100% -- or would buying lots and lots of lottery tickets begin to approach a 100% chance of winning?

(My stats are weak, but I think I've understood this bit...)

Blogger Crusader Memetics February 08, 2019 9:03 PM  

@121

Criticism taken, let me make it painfully coherent then.
Love is an abstract concept that means something different to each person you ask. Trying to assert your ptolemaic understanding is a low hanging fruit that endangers christianity. Why?

Look how the bible objectively defines this abstract concept:
1 John 5:3 ►
In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome,

What commands aren't burdensome?
Deuteronomy 30:11 These commands aren't burdensome

Loving God and your neighbor (1 John 5:2) means stoning them to death if they break the sabbath, blaspheme YHWH, or practice witchcraft.

However, of course you'll say that isn't love, because its outside this weak strawman meaning you've setup for it to bash JF.

Blogger Rickaby007 February 08, 2019 9:13 PM  

His comment section is filled with retards who don't know the difference between rhetoric and dialectic. They don't even know what a contradiction actually is. Sad! It's pretty much: "I'm team JF, therefore JF won. Stupid Vox, evolution denier!" What a mess.

Blogger birdman February 08, 2019 9:59 PM  

Also he isn't even a denier just very skeptic about it

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener February 08, 2019 10:09 PM  

"I'm beginning to wonder if Downe's Syndrome might be sexually transmitted."

The second debate should focus on this.

Blogger Thad tuiol February 08, 2019 11:01 PM  

Slightly OT, but I've long wondered how these Frenchy types have such atrocious accents when speaking English even though they clearly have a high command of the language in terms of grammar and vocabulary. Surely if you know a language to such a high degree you'd at least also be able to make some vowel sounds that weren't laughable?

Blogger Meng Greenleaf February 08, 2019 11:40 PM  

*I'm beginning to wonder if Downe's Syndrome might be sexually transmitted*
OMG

Is the inclination then to conclude directed evolution? Why do that if you needn't?

Blogger Watcher of the skies February 08, 2019 11:48 PM  

That moment when JF whispers ouch....

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 09, 2019 12:31 AM  

"but surely you'd admit that evolutionary theory has been at least PARTIALLY applied, sociologically. The general sentiment that "we're just animals" is more widespread now than before Darwin."

That's not application. That is propaganda and/or delusion. Show me a functional and useful technique derived from it. Preferably, that isn't something straight out of Faustus.

"If 100,000 things can mutate; and then one mutates. The chance of it changing back versus something else changing is improbable."

The chance is 100% of the chance of it mutating in the first place over the same amount of time.

"Do you understand the difference of modeling (1) gene mutation (2) all selection pressures applied to genes? Did you read the hitchhikers guide galaxy where"

He means that the selection pressures required to drive the supposed rates of fixation would require literally hundreds or thousands of offspring per individual, continuously. Where are the fossils? We'd be drowning in corpses. The Earth would be an ocean of bones.

Are you trying to be a comedian?

"There is not a decent model for selection because:"

Argument form:

TENS must have happened because:
We can't provide evidence for anything.

"Dude you do not understand complexity."

Complexity may preclude over-specifics, but if you're general enough it doesn't matter, particularly with things that have been observed following exactly the same patterns repeatedly over hundreds or thousands of years. You do not understand chaos theory. Stop.

"Because you have given up on facts regarding modeling complexity/chaos and specifics of evolution:"

What the fuck, you slimy little liar. That what you have done and argued for.

"Love is an abstract concept that means something different to each person you ask."

In current English, "affinity" covers half of the landscape, and "service" covers the other.

Everything falls on a two dimensional gradient composed of both these axes. It does not mean entirely different things to different people unless you are disingenuously taking mechanical euphemisms into account.

"However, of course you'll say that isn't love, because its outside this weak strawman meaning you've setup for it to bash JF."

JF himself literally thinks that loving is a mechanical euphemism, though perhaps not of exactly the same sort, to the best of what I have observed of him. It's very difficult to put that in a more negative light than it already is. He's a moral nihilist. He doesn't even care.

None of this is relevant to the current discussion. Cut the rhetoric already, it's not going to work.

Blogger Monotonous Languor February 09, 2019 12:48 AM  

One thing's for sure: VD is no teacher. A teacher has to constantly analyze responses from a student in order put himself in the student's place, determine why that student does not understand, then modify teaching accordingly until something is successfully learned. This feedback loop is a necessary and integral part of being a teacher, regardless of whether the student is a midwit, a fullwit, or a halfback on the 30-yard line. In addition, most teachers are forced to deal with multiple students having different learning capabilities.

The teacher keeps trying as long as he's in charge of a student's education. He doesn't opt out with jabs about gammas, 'just do it', 'sink or swim', midwits, etc., which essentially amounts to ducking responsibility. If that feedback loop is ignored, then the teacher is not a teacher, instead he's a lecturer. Any prospective student should be aware of the difference and act accordingly.

Is VD ducking responsibility? No, not unless he's declared himself to be a teacher somewhere along the line.

Blogger Torin February 09, 2019 12:53 AM  

@139

JF quickly dispatched with the faulty premise of "fixation rates" as applied to historic human evolution on his most recent livestream

https://youtu.be/yU61VBlHZLw?t=283 from 5 minute mark to 13 minute mark.

>> "Dude you do not understand complexity."

>> Complexity may preclude over-specifics, but if you're general enough it doesn't matter, particularly with things that have been observed following exactly the same patterns repeatedly over hundreds or thousands of years. You do not understand chaos theory. Stop.

OK then explain to me then why (1) we cannot predict weather several weeks in the future but can several days in the future. And explain to me (2) how evolution "have been observed following exactly the same patterns repeatedly over hundreds or thousands of years". Please describe EXACTLY these same patterns because then we would have an excellent model we could use.

Here is a bit of rhetoric so you can focus on it to hide from facts like a Scientologist calling someone outside the cult "suppressive": you are not as smart as you think you are.

Blogger FUBARwest February 09, 2019 12:58 AM  

"JF quickly dispatched with the faulty premise of "fixation rates" as applied to historic human evolution on his most recent livestream"

You realize even if what he says is true, which I doubt on its face, that doesn't have any effect on Vox's point right? It literally does not matter.

Blogger Torin February 09, 2019 1:09 AM  

@143

>> >> "JF quickly dispatched with the faulty premise of "fixation rates" as applied to historic human evolution on his most recent livestream"

>> You realize even if what he says is true, which I doubt on its face, that doesn't have any effect on Vox's point right? It literally does not matter.

No, please explain it to me clearly and literally. Explain to me how Vox applying the fixation rates of bacteria to humans would not matter if the that application is invalid.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 09, 2019 1:48 AM  

"OK then explain to me then why (1) we cannot predict weather several weeks in the future but can several days in the future."

Irrelevant. Heck, I use this same argument all the time to point out that science is not a be-all-end-all.

"And explain to me (2) how evolution "have been observed following exactly the same patterns repeatedly over hundreds or thousands of years"."

I didn't make that claim. Read better. Stop trying to strawman.

"You just divided an abstract concept into two more."

Neither of which is even slightly vague.

"Look its disingenuous for Vox to whine about JF's rhetorical dismissals and then ad hominem attack him"

Vox did no such thing. You're cruising for a banning aren't you?

Your target is Achilles. Leave VD out of that.

Blogger Torin February 09, 2019 2:09 AM  

@147

>> >> "OK then explain to me then why (1) we cannot predict weather several weeks in the future but can several days in the future."

>> Irrelevant. Heck, I use this same argument all the time to point out that science is not a be-all-end-all.

How exactly is this irrelevant to the limitations of models bases on complexity? What is this word "Irrelevant" doing other than "rhetoric" when you admit that you agree with me and make the same arguments. State this clearly I guess I am not as high IQ as you

>> >> "And explain to me (2) how evolution "have been observed following exactly the same patterns repeatedly over hundreds or thousands of years"."

>> I didn't make that claim. Read better. Stop trying to strawman.

We are discussing the possibility to create models for evolution for the selection of traits on top of mutational rate. Vox has a fixation model. You say how easy it is based on "have been observed following exactly the same patterns repeatedly over hundreds or thousands of years".". Are you now conceding that you do not see these patterns repeat such that we can make a good model based on them? Please explain clearly how you will generate this mathematical model of selection.

>> >> "Look its disingenuous for Vox to whine about JF's rhetorical dismissals and then ad hominem attack him"

>> Vox did no such thing. You're cruising for a banning aren't you?

He did not "ad hominem attack" him because he did not link it to veracity of his arguments. He just slurred his girlfriend. Vox, "I'm beginning to wonder if Downe's Syndrome might be sexually transmitted."

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 09, 2019 2:21 AM  

"Of course they are vague"

No, they are not.

"abstract concepts have no scientific meaning whatsoever"

And now you're just ignorant and proud of it.

"to endear a democracy fallacy."

You're gonna need some extraordinary evidence for that.

"Well Vox did say:"

None of his arguments are predicated upon it, thus there is no ad-hominem.

"I'm really just criticizing you guys for being contrary to the gospel of Christ"

No, you're criticizing us for being contrary to your conception of it.

Blogger SirHamster February 09, 2019 2:33 AM  

Torin wrote:The analogy is that somethings are so complex things that they are insanely difficult to model and calculate so one can consider our entire world running as the model. The earth and its history is the model and equation to generate the question/answer.

Using fiction to "prove" how the real world works is backwards and retarded.

Argument from imagination.

Torin wrote:Because you have given up on facts regarding modeling complexity/chaos and specifics of evolution:

I'm not the one appealing to a work of fiction and expecting to be treated seriously.

Try Harry Potter.

Anonymous Anonymous February 09, 2019 2:39 AM  

I love it when the self-righteous come right out and tell us how they’re better than us because we tell unbelievers they’re wrong.

Arrogance and ignorance is the funniest combination

Blogger Torin February 09, 2019 2:50 AM  

@151

>> Using fiction to "prove" how the real world works is backwards and retarded.

Where did I say this to "prove", why do you continue to lie? You are not too dumb to understand a thought experiment so you are just a pathetic "gamma" who has "given up on facts regarding modeling complexity/chaos and specifics of evolution" and has to resort to "rhetoric". "backwards and retarded" agreed

Blogger Crusader Memetics February 09, 2019 3:46 AM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote


"to endear a democracy fallacy." You're gonna need some extraordinary evidence for that.

Well look at a space-time. Space is an abstract concept of distance, time is an abstract concept of distance between moving objects.

Putting these two concepts together doesn't make an object, yet they'll claim its warped, which is a reification fallacy the average heathen is too stupid to detect the sleight of hand.

When you challenge this utter stupidity they just gishgallop with more abstract concepts; black holes, dark matter, waves fields..and wells, some nice inconsistent strawmen to give the illusion of physicality to this false-religion.

Any employment of concepts is just an appeal to the favor a of a jury, science is about objectivity, which none of the above listed nor "love" has.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 09, 2019 4:16 AM  

I will agree that love is commonly used in a very misleading manner, often intentionally.

I tend to think all of this obfuscation boils down metaphysically to Satan bad-touching people while whispering in their ears "this is love", and the varying degrees to which people fall for it.

If a different term is used, the same tactics will be applied to it over time.

Regardless, abstractions are not unscientific. Every single number is an abstraction, as is all of mathematics, for example.

Affinity and service are not in any way vague. Your either have affinity or not. You either perform service or not. Affinity is what you yourself perceive of yourself while loving. Service is the action you perform as the entelechy of your love, which can be observed by others.

Blogger VD February 09, 2019 5:10 AM  

I'm really just criticizing you guys for being contrary to the gospel of Christ, who spent his entire mission railing against ad-hoc moralism.

You're very close to being banned for lying. And you're completely wrong about what Jesus Christ's mission was. Jesus used rhetoric all the time.

He just slurred his girlfriend.

If you opt for rhetoric, don't be surprised when people throw rhetoric back at you. And if you don't want to be known as a man who sexually preys on retards, don't pursue retards.

Ma chere, it iz zo hot when you cannot figure out zee door! Sacre bloo! Croissant!

JF was retarded enough himself to go rhetorical with two men who are much, much better at rhetoric than him. His choice. Everyone else can just sit back and enjoy.

Anonymous Anonymous February 09, 2019 5:17 AM  

I’d say that the Bible knows nothing of the concept of love as a positive feeling or sentiment, although these are often associated with love.

By my reading, love IS service, and vice versa. I don’t mean obedience, although that can apply in the right circumstances and with the right person, but I mean to serve the life of the beloved. To maintain, to prolong, to improve, the life of another is to love them.
To do any of the opposites of these is to hate.

We are too consumed by our emotions; even when we try to think we think too much about and of our emotions. Blech!

It’s disgusting.

When God mentions his love for us He describes exactly what that means in terms of literal action in real history:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son”

And to what purpose?

That we not die but have eternal life.

Can it get any plainer?

Anonymous Anonymous February 09, 2019 5:32 AM  

Everyone else can just sit back and enjoy.

The dark lord is kind. What a show it is. The whole thing has been vastly entertaining.

We are grateful.

Blogger FUBARwest February 09, 2019 6:11 AM  

"No, please explain it to me clearly and literally. Explain to me how Vox applying the fixation rates of bacteria to humans would not matter if the that application is invalid."

Vox's argument isn't limited to there not being enough time for only the human fixation rate but any fixation rate given the timeline we have to work with. The fixation has to be fast enough to fit the timeline of life on earth + account for speciation + be slow enough so we can't currently see any effect of this process now.

Blogger FUBARwest February 09, 2019 6:13 AM  

And that is the fixation rate for every species on the planet, not just human beings.

Blogger sammibandit February 09, 2019 7:11 AM  

People who ask for citations, spoon-fed documentation, any and all charity they would themselves not give are surely losers. Do your own research. I'm not good at math and I was able to figure out using a simple exercise with punnet squares that the descent of man into the past cannot fit the parameters of TENS. I used Genesis 6:2 as a model: sons of god and daughters of man. By the third generation, assuming an even boy and girl offspring set the original father only ever shows up in the god-sons. Not by any means a good model but it shows that sexual reproduction has an impact on fixation. Let me know if you want to see the punnet square/family diagram and I'll post it on SoGal-chan.

Blogger Crusader Memetics February 09, 2019 7:26 AM  

Resident Moron™ wrote
I’d say that the Bible knows nothing of the concept of love as a positive feeling or sentiment

The bible rigorously defines the concept of love as careful obedience to the mosaic law. You can see this in 1 John 5, the entire tanakh... Jesus told his followers the same, as did Paul when you solve his paradox:

Matthew 23 ►2“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So you must be careful to do everything they tell you

Azure Amaranthine wrote I will agree that love is commonly used in a very misleading manner, often intentionally.

Well yeah you guys stopped obeying the Mosaic Law as Jesus demanded, now love just means whatever you want, whatever makes you feel better about living in a perpetual state of disobedience


Regardless, abstractions are not unscientific. Every single number is an abstraction, as is all of mathematics, for example.

This is the original sin of science. Math can only provide quantitative descriptions of size and speed. Science is about qualitative explanations. Notice how gravity is explained as a field, a well, and a wave; all three are incompatible with each other, the current state of theoretical physics is a complete joke.

Blogger Zeroh Tollrants February 09, 2019 7:29 AM  

Don't do a 2nd debate. I fell asleep 3xs trying to slog through the first one & left wishing for a Earth cleansing nuke fire.
You two are not dynamic together, in any way. I'd rather hear you debate some looney tranny like Contra Points or Blair White.

Blogger Torin February 09, 2019 7:36 AM  

>> Vox's argument isn't limited to there not being enough time for only the human fixation rate but any fixation rate given the timeline we have to work with. The fixation has to be fast enough to fit the timeline of life on earth + account for speciation + be slow enough so we can't currently see any effect of this process now.

>> And that is the fixation rate for every species on the planet, not just human beings

Ah your confusion makes sense you are assuming that even though a fixation rate does not apply to humans it does to others. Apply the specific reasons for problems with fixation rates regarding humans to other species and you will understand. And you are assuming we don't see changes now

Blogger RC February 09, 2019 8:34 AM  

@109 "If you roll the dice and get snake eyes, the more rolls of the dice you make the chances of getting snake eyes again tends towards 100%."

Avalanche responded, "Does it? Shouldn't every single roll of (unconnected) dice ALWAYS have the same 'chance' of any roll? There is no increased probability of some later roll somehow relating to to any preceding roll."

You are correct that each and every roll has the same probability for snake eyes as any other roll with fair dice; however, in a sufficiently long series of rolls, the chance of eventually rolling snake eyes is 100%.

To ask the question, what is my chance for heads on a single fair coin flip has a different answer than what are my chances for flipping heads if I flip the same fair coin ten times in a series.

Blogger wreckage February 09, 2019 8:58 AM  

"random variation(mutations) + horizontal gene transfer + epigenetics + hybridization"

Not really, no. Epigenetics don't change the genome. Hybridization doesn't change the genome. Horizontal transfer is only relevant once you've got a variation to transfer. It largely only accounts for movement of novelties within the population, not for their emergence.

Ultimately, mutation needs to generate new data, and selection needs to winnow out junk data, or you don't get evolution.

Blogger SirHamster February 09, 2019 11:40 AM  

Torin wrote:Where did I say this to "prove", why do you continue to lie? You are not too dumb to understand a thought experiment so you are just a pathetic "gamma" who has "given up on facts regarding modeling complexity/chaos and specifics of evolution" and has to resort to "rhetoric". "backwards and retarded" agreed

You tried to prove a point with fiction, because Gamma boy wants everyone to know he read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Doesn't that just make him oh so clever? Gamma boy read a book!

Now he is qualified to redefine words and call the thing the real model of itself. He read about talking secret-king rats! And if people don't accept this as relevant, keep doubling down and call it a thought experiment, which sounds super science-y.

You're a wizard, Harry.

Now take your pathetic poetry elsewhere, space slug.

Blogger Torin February 09, 2019 12:41 PM  

@167

All rhetorical slurs to avoid responding to content

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 09, 2019 5:19 PM  

Torin wrote:You are not too dumb to understand a thought experiment so you are just a pathetic "gamma" who has "given up on facts regarding modeling complexity/chaos and specifics of evolution" and has to resort to "rhetoric".
A "thought experiment" is neither thought not experiment. It is an exercise in story telling. As is the entire theory of evolution, now that I consider it.
The simple fact that you are unable to understand the relationship of the various numbers and categories being discussed demonstrate that "you're not as smart as you think you are."
Torin wrote:Ah your confusion makes sense you are assuming that even though a fixation rate does not apply to humans it does to others.
And why would it not apply to humans? Because you assert it? Because the survival of your faith requires it?
You simply are not capable of getting it, and are incapable of understand that you don't understand.

Blogger Torin February 09, 2019 5:29 PM  

@169

JF quickly dispatched with the faulty premise of "fixation rates" as applied to historic human evolution on his most recent livestream

https://youtu.be/yU61VBlHZLw?t=283 from 5 minute mark to 13 minute mark.

Tell me what is wrong with the argument. Based on your comments I doubt you have even the intelligence to tell me what his objections to using fixation rates are.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 09, 2019 6:04 PM  

Torin wrote:JF quickly dispatched with the faulty premise of "fixation rates" as applied to historic human evolution on his most recent livestream

I have no intention of going to his retarded anti-intelligent stream. I'm old and need all my remaining IQ points.
You should follow the rules of the blog? "...providing links in lieu of answers is not acceptable. "
Why not use that giant brain of yours and summarize JF's brilliant response that ABSOLUTELY DESTROYS the idea of gene fixation?

Blogger Torin February 09, 2019 6:22 PM  

@171

The fixation rates (Generations per fixed mutation) of bacteria cannot be applied to humans because

1. We do not know the various population sizes of humans over last 9 million years

2. The fixation rates of bacteria are not the same as for mammals because sexual reproduction allows much faster transfer of mutated genes between organisms (gene pool). Instead of waiting for all other organisms to die we can mate with them and share the mutation

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 09, 2019 6:42 PM  

"Well yeah you guys stopped obeying the Mosaic Law as Jesus demanded"

Now you're just being a disgustingly perverse liar. You have no idea what I'm doing.

"This is the original sin of science."

You're seriously that stupid? I can't meaningfully talk to you. Peace out.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 09, 2019 6:45 PM  

"JF quickly dispatched with the faulty premise of "fixation rates""

No. You're a native rhetoric speaker with no appreciable grasp of dialectic. Just stop. You can't learn anything here. Your time is wasted here. Seriously, go deal with you other concerns than on this topic. Everyone will be better off.

Blogger Torin February 09, 2019 6:51 PM  

@174

You purposefully ignored the facts presented and instead engaged in rhetoric to try and claim victory. Do other people not call you out when you act so transparently hypocritically? Address the points.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 09, 2019 6:54 PM  

Torin wrote:1. We do not know the various population sizes of humans over last 9 million yearsi
The fxation rate would not be seriously affected by this. To the extent that a gene becomes fixed, it is because of the rate or gene transfer through the population. That is much more affected by externalities such as geographic distribution than on the size of the population.
2. The fixation rates of bacteria are not the same as for mammals because sexual reproduction allows much faster transfer of mutated genes between organisms (gene pool). Instead of waiting for all other organisms to die we can mate with them and share the mutation
The point is that it is fixation of genes that leads to speciation, if you accept the idea that mutations lead to speciation. Mutations occur all the time, most often as cancer. It's only when the gene is spread through a population, or fixed, that it is of importance to the phenotype. Since we have NO EXAMPLES AT ALL of mutations becoming fixed within a mammalian population, we have to take the examples we have.
As to the addition gene transference via sex, how much does it speed up fixation? What's that? You don't know? The only calculation you have is back reckoning from events that you assume happened? That's on you.

You really don't understand the argument, and now it's clear that either JF doesn't, or that he's a dishonest weasel looking to mislead those stupid enough to follow him.

Blogger Torin February 09, 2019 7:42 PM  

@176

>> Since we have NO EXAMPLES AT ALL of mutations becoming fixed within a mammalian population, we have to take the examples we have.

No you don't "have to" you are purposefully choosing to do this. So your results are inaccurate because the premise is faulty

>> As to the addition gene transference via sex, how much does it speed up fixation? What's that? You don't know?

Shifting the burden of proof, if you want to have a somewhat accurate fixation rate then do the research to find a somewhat accurate range. It might be possible to calculate variation in gene pool of sexual reproducing mammals versus bacteria.

>> You really don't understand the argument, and now it's clear that either JF doesn't, or that he's a dishonest weasel looking to mislead those stupid enough to follow him.

The argument is simple and understood by all, you want to use the bacteria fixation rate. And the counter is that using it is a faulty premise because of unknown population sizes and that the fixation rate for bacteria is not the same as it is for mammals. You can proceed with faulty premise or attempt to correct it. There is no dishonesty. Improve your model, that is how science works

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 10, 2019 3:37 AM  

"You purposefully ignored the facts presented and instead engaged in rhetoric to try and claim victory."

You don't have any. Normally I wouldn't call your communication rhetoric, but it's not based on real information, so it is rhetoric, regardless of your intention. I know you're going to cry about ad-hominem again, but if the argument is of form:

X's example of Y is irrelevant to the argument.
X's irrelevant examples are repetitive regardless of correction.
Therefore X is mentally incapable of making arguments in Y area.

There is no rhetoric and no fallacy. I don't care why you're mentally incapable. You just are.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 10, 2019 3:40 AM  

You are not capable of communicating dialectically on this topic, therefore if I wish to affect you, I must communicate rhetorically.

Hence: Go away retard, you're embarrassing yourself.

Blogger VD February 10, 2019 8:34 AM  

You clearly don't grasp the problem, Torin. Neither does that degenerate moron JF.

The fixation rates (Generations per fixed mutation) of bacteria cannot be applied to humans because

1. We do not know the various population sizes of humans over last 9 million years

2. The fixation rates of bacteria are not the same as for mammals because sexual reproduction allows much faster transfer of mutated genes between organisms (gene pool). Instead of waiting for all other organisms to die we can mate with them and share the mutation.


First, the fixation rates among mammals and humans may well be slower than bacteria. Neither you nor JF understands the significance of the lower fitness advantage available to more advanced species in comparison to bacteria, probably because neither of you understand how math works or are capable of hypothesizing multiple variables.

Second, I already applied a MUCH faster fixation rate based on the minimum viable population variable which was 102x faster in generational terms than the bacterial fixation rate and the numbers still remained totally improbable.

You are both in well over your heads.

Blogger Torin February 10, 2019 11:34 AM  

@176

Vox, your first model should be how you transfer fixation rates of bacteria to mammals rather than hand waving at "multiple variables". If you want to say there are multiple variables then show them and how your assumptions are reasonable based on correspondence to known reality. Show how your transfer model takes into account the real world differences of how the gene pools change at different rates based on mammal sexual reproduction versus bacterial replication.

1. Show your work rather than hand wave at "multiple variables"
2. Adjust your model and assumptions when others bring up subject matter expertise on how the model's assumptions do not correspond to reality

Also show how you will model historic and variable population sizes of the pool of organisms that descended to present day humans.

Blogger Torin February 10, 2019 12:05 PM  

Was just reading about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_hypothesis in response to something else.

Has some interesting ideas on sexual reproduction "the advantage of sexual reproduction (as opposed to asexual reproduction) at the level of individuals ... In all cases, sexual reproduction confers species variability and a faster generational response to selection by making offspring genetically unique"

Blogger VD February 10, 2019 1:53 PM  

Vox, your first model should be how you transfer fixation rates of bacteria to mammals rather than hand waving at "multiple variables".

I ALREADY did that, Torin. Did you truly not grasp that's what I was addressing with regards to "Minimum Viable Populations" and "maximum fitness advantage"?

In all cases, sexual reproduction confers species variability and a faster generational response to selection by making offspring genetically unique

First, it's a HYPOTHESIS. That is less of an established fact than the idea that an observed bacterial rate applies to mammals. Second, keep in mind that it has to be at least 108 times faster in order to STILL be too slow.

You guys really are innumerate. It's astonishing how you simply do not grasp the relevant quantification aspects involved.

Blogger VD February 10, 2019 1:54 PM  

Also show how you will model historic and variable population sizes of the pool of organisms that descended to present day humans.

I am very far ahead of you on this Torin. You're literally explaining the need for me to consider the stuff that I'm already very obviously contemplating.

Blogger Torin February 10, 2019 4:35 PM  

@179

>> I ALREADY did that, Torin. Did you truly not grasp that's what I was addressing with regards to "Minimum Viable Populations" and "maximum fitness advantage"?

I re-read http://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/02/maximum-mutations.html to see where you include "Minimum Viable Populations" and "maximum fitness advantage" in your model and don't see it ...

>> >> In all cases, sexual reproduction confers species variability and a faster generational response to selection by making offspring genetically unique

>> First, it's a HYPOTHESIS. That is less of an established fact than the idea that an observed bacterial rate applies to mammals. Second, keep in mind that it has to be at least 108 times faster in order to STILL be too slow.

... I did however see posts of David Fenger who has already has done some of this work for you in attempting to create a model for calculating a human fixation rate based on observed data of how the mutation rate is different for humans versus bacteria. So "HYPOTHESIS" and "less of an established fact" are just dodges to the observed rates of variation in genes due to human sexual reproduction . Glad to see this David Fenger guy is helping out with getting a reasonable model for human fixation rate. That is how good science works

Blogger SirHamster February 10, 2019 10:22 PM  

Torin wrote:I re-read http://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/02/maximum-mutations.html to see where you include "Minimum Viable Populations" and "maximum fitness advantage" in your model and don't see it ...

That's because that first model doesn't have those.

VD wrote:Second, I already applied a MUCH faster fixation rate based on the minimum viable population variable which was 102x faster in generational terms than the bacterial fixation rate and the numbers still remained totally improbable.

Still remained -> Vox built a new model, crunched the numbers, and it still doesn't work.

There's many orders of magnitude numbers for a TENS-based model overcome, and most of the responses evolutionists throw out can't even help with a single order of magnitude.

Ex: JF's retort of parallelism helped by 0 orders of magnitude because it was already in the model.

Blogger Torin February 11, 2019 10:54 AM  

@182

Where is this new model, is it just in the debate where he multiplied the rate to be generous? That is not taking into account domain specifics it is merely extending an error bar. An important piece of parallelism is via sexual reproduction since it allows sharing between organisms. I don't see how you tech guys don't see how this turns isolated CPUs into a networked super computer.

Blogger SirHamster February 11, 2019 2:31 PM  

Torin wrote:Where is this new model

If you don't have the reading comprehension to understand that Vox was talking about a new model, nor the logical capacity to recognize that it's obviously a private model he's been working on post-debate, you are not tall enough for this ride.

Which is why you were name-dropping Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and chaos theory.

Chaos! Croissant!

Torin wrote:I don't see how you tech guys don't see how this turns isolated CPUs into a networked super computer.

Of course you don't see. Because you are a rhetoric speaker easily swayed by labels.

You see SUPER COMPUTER and you are awed. Tech guys know what it takes to design a networked super computer from isolated CPUs. It takes special hardware, software, and a lot of careful thought on operation timing.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts