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

Saturday, August 24, 2019

Statistical analysis is not Intelligent Design

Reading the Z-man can be mildly frustrating at times, because he not infrequently starts off on the right path, but then fails to make the vital distinctions that are necessary in order to reach the correct conclusions.
Whenever the subject of Intelligent Design turns up, it is always in the context of believers in ID attacking evolutionary biology. The ID’ers have a list of claims about “Darwinism” that they insist make evolution impossible. A popular one now, for example, is that there is not enough time for natural selection to produce enough gene mutations to explain the fossil record. 
This is incorrect on two levels. First, the popular idea is something that I first articulated some time ago before more recently making my case in detail concerning the time required to account for the fixed genetic mutations that have been observed, and it is not necessarily related to the fossil record. In fact, the fossil record is now almost entirely irrelevant to the TENS debate, in which genetic science is rapidly demolishing the last credible vestiges of Neo-Darwinism.

Second, this specific event-based criticism of Neo-Darwinism is not Intelligent Design and has nothing whatsoever to do with Intelligent Design. I pay no attention to Creationists or Intelligent Design advocates. Their meanderings are of little interest to me. I am but a humble game designer with an educational background in economics, which combination tends to alert me to various statistical anomalies and mathematical improbabilities and impossibilities when I happen to come across them for one reason or another.

Since scientists and political commentators alike seem to struggle with the basic concept, I will attempt to put it into terms simple enough for even a sportsball player to follow.

If we are told that a sportsball team has gained 1,500 yards on the ground and that it averages three yards per rushing play, and we know that the maximum number of offensive plays per game is 84, then we know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the yards reported were not gained in a single 60-minute game. They could not have been. It is impossible.

The math is inexorable. The maximum number of yards that could have been gained on the ground in a single game is 252. It does not matter if a desperate proponent of Neo-Schembechlerism proposes the idea that perhaps the team ran a hurry-up wishbone offense, or that the quarterback was a dual-threat as a runner, or that the team played in a league known for its terrible run defenses, or that one of the halfbacks once ripped off a 99-yard gain, or that NCAA teams have been known to play up to seven overtime periods, or that perhaps five different players touched the ball on the same play. The math is inexorable. The assertion that a sportsball team which averages three yards per carry gained 1,500 yards on the ground in a single game is flat-out impossible. We can say with certainty that it never happened.

In like manner, the number of fixed mutations that are presently observed to distinguish two species, whether we contemplate Man and the Chimpanzee–Human last common ancestor (CHLCA) or the dog and one of the therapsids, are considerably - CONSIDERABLY - in excess of the maximum amount of time that could have passed since the speciation process is believed to have begun. There is only one defense against this straightforward mathematical observation, and that is the idea that enough parallel mutations happened very, very quickly to significantly reduce the average time per fixed mutation to permit it to happen in the intervening time period.

The problem here, of course, is that the numerical gap that needs to be filled is so large that if that were the case, then these mutations would be have to be happening so rapidly, and fixing in parallel so quickly, that we could observe evolution by natural selection happening in real time all the time. Except we don't, so the Neo-Darwinian is forced to retreat to the absurd scientific equivalent of claiming that he does too have a girlfriend, it's just that she lives in Canada, and you wouldn't know her anyhow.

This is not a defense of intelligent design. It is a defense of math and logic, both of which have to be abandoned if one is still to take Neo-Darwinism or the theory of evolution by natural selection seriously.

Labels: ,

183 Comments:

Blogger James Dixon August 24, 2019 11:10 AM  

> and we know that the maximum number of offensive plays per game is 84

Then it's even simpler than that. 1500/84 = 17.857 yards/attempt. Yeah, that sounds likely.

Your example isn't the only problem with his analysis, but it is a devastating one.

Blogger Unknownsailor August 24, 2019 11:15 AM  

I made much the same argument as you did over there in the comments.

Blogger The Cooler August 24, 2019 11:21 AM  

Observe: The appropriate use of the term "sportsball".

Blogger FUBARwest August 24, 2019 11:28 AM  

One day people will realize belief in Science is a belief like most other beliefs, and like most other beliefs it can be difficult to break away from them.

Blogger Sambuca_Ford August 24, 2019 11:29 AM  

Neo-Schembechlerism. Z-man = Meeshegan man.

Blogger Nathan Bruno August 24, 2019 11:35 AM  

Yea, the speaker of truth came, and he entered into the Brown Jug, the stench of the quad still upon him, and he spake his peace. But, lo, the Neo-Schembechleri would not have it, for it was their faith in the Indomitable Bo, and the promise he would one day return, and, on that day, he would restore victory over the hated "O-high-O", which would be done with a blistering offensive display exceeding 100 yards per play. They would not hear the speaker, and so they stoned him. "Anything is possible with the Love of Bo and the Alumni checkbook!"

Some claimed the Bo would return only when the Wolverines were ranked below I-U, but such doomsayers were also not welcome in the Brown Jug. "Next year in Ann Arbor!"

Blogger Lone wolf August 24, 2019 11:37 AM  

"These mutations would be have to be happening so rapidly, and fixing in parallel so quickly, that we could observe evolution by natural selection happening in real time all the time."

Yeah ((("they"))) tried that again in the sci-fi movie Annihilation using parallel universes/reality or something, anything but God of course.

Magical thinking, it isn't just for Churchians.

Blogger Gregory the Great August 24, 2019 11:42 AM  

No wonder many mathematicians regard mathematics as proof of God`s existence and as proof that there is undisputable truth in this world. Mathematics is most certainly proof that the origin of species by evolution through mutation is nonsense.

Blogger doctrev August 24, 2019 11:47 AM  

But- but I do have a Canadian girlfriend that you don't know about!

Anyways, great point about the math. It occurs to me that most scientists don't have the same commitment to logic and education that you could find in an average Inquisitor. The real ones, not the Hollywood ones.

Blogger Manuel August 24, 2019 11:50 AM  

For a midwit like me, that analogy cleared up so much. Thanks.

Blogger Dave August 24, 2019 11:53 AM  

Vox your prose today is lit and it's not even noon EST yet. Please save some for your books.

Blogger Archimedes2017 August 24, 2019 11:56 AM  

I found this very edifying on the subject
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE
"Has Darwinism really failed? Peter Robinson discusses it with David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer, who have raised doubts about Darwin’s theory in their two books and essay, respectively The Deniable Darwin, Darwin’s Doubt, and “Giving Up Darwin” (published in the Claremont Review of Books).
"

Blogger Taqiyyotomist August 24, 2019 12:11 PM  

Vox, you might be amused at who may be responsible for the first crime in space. Drudge has it up. I'm certainly not shocked.

Blogger Daniel August 24, 2019 12:16 PM  

But you don't grasp that the Neo-Schembechlerians have employed the Quasi-Switzerian Coachspeak Field Theory of Punctuated Lateral Yardage, which states quite clearly that: "in a game of inches, it is always one step forward, two steps back" and therefore yardage gained per game approaches infinity prior to kickoff.

Blogger pyrrhus August 24, 2019 12:24 PM  

>This is not a defense of intelligent design. It is a defense of math and logic, both of which have to be abandoned if one is still to take Neo-Darwinism or the theory of evolution by natural selection seriously.

Indeed! But this basic logic seems to bounce right off Z-man, Derbyshire, and a lot of other commentators...Maybe they aren't as smart as we had hoped....

Blogger pyrrhus August 24, 2019 12:27 PM  

Math rules the physical world, but most conservatives (Steyn is another example) don't want to admit it...Brainwashing or stupidity?!

Blogger Dave August 24, 2019 12:37 PM  

Taqiyyotomist wrote:Vox, you might be amused at who may be responsible for the first crime in space. Drudge has it up. I'm certainly not shocked.

In Space, No One Can Hear You Honk

https://news.infogalactic.com/

Blogger Colin Flaherty's baby momma August 24, 2019 12:43 PM  

As a former sportsballer who took too many major blows to the head, and wasn't all that tall to begin with, I need help figuring this out.

If the assumed overall mutation rate is 30, based on estimated total variation over total time, and we have only observed a rate of 5 in our tiny glimpse of the whole timeline (has observed rate been constant?), is it not possible that at certain periods past the rate could be as high as 20,000?

For example, if a population were colorblind, and a tiny percent are born "mutants" with color vision at a time when conditions severely disadvantage colorblindness, such that the vast majority of population die off, but those with color vision thrive then become predominant type.
Doesn't mean man descend from fish, but this would be a major change caused by natural selection.

What is wrong with this reasoning?

Blogger CS August 24, 2019 12:48 PM  

Whether or not the theory of evolution by natural selection has to be abandoned, the fossil record leaves no doubt that evolution by some means occurred, unless that is, the Lord id a practical joker who created the fossil record simply to fool us.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine August 24, 2019 12:48 PM  

"It is a bit of rhetorical sleight of hand to avoid the central problems of Intelligent Design, which of course is that it can never be proven."

Against infinite cognitive bias, nothing can ever be humanly proven, Z-man. The only recourse is the cessation of the biased mind's operation.

"Obviously, this is ridiculous. The result of a sports match is not random and it is not predetermined or fixed."

Oh, so now life is a sports match with set rules.

Set how?

"Evolution is not an argument in favor of chance."

Entropy would disagree.

"The Sphynx cat exists and we know why. The ID’ers would argue that it is an example of design, but that presupposes the breeders were either directed by God or compelled by God to create the breed. That means man has no agency and that sin cannot truly exist."

Ok, now he's just a willful flaming retard. This is bafflegarble bullshit. He's saying that in order for something designated by humans to be designed, humans would have to be unable to design. What the actual f?

Blogger urthshu August 24, 2019 12:50 PM  

"Do you know how the Orcs first came into being? They were Elves once, taken by the dark powers. Tortured and mutilated…"

Blogger Dirk Manly August 24, 2019 12:57 PM  

@11

"Vox your prose today is lit and it's not even noon EST yet. Please save some for your books."

In the history of his public writing, has Vox ever been illiterate?
Do you commend your college profs for also having a PhD in their field?

Blogger Gregory the Great August 24, 2019 1:03 PM  

@CS
Unless the Darwinists created whatever little there is of a fossil record just to fool us.

Blogger Wraithburn August 24, 2019 1:08 PM  

@18

As ReMine's paper expanding Haldane's Dilemma shows, the Cost of Substitution "...is set by the
substituting genotype’s growth rate, and is not reduced by environmental change or the type of selection process (soft or hard)."

Basically, "A speed limit occurs because the population growth rate is limited to the species’ available excess reproduction rate. Once again, the focus on ‘elimination of the old-type’ created confusion by focusing on the wrong thing. The issue is not elimination of the oldtype, but rather the growth of the new-type."

It doesn't matter how quickly the old versions die off, what matters is how quickly the new version grows. Take for example human generation speed. Say you have a mutation for night vision in the eyes in 1 person in a population of 1 million. The 1 million die off and the 1 person gives birth to kids. How many children do they need, and how many children do those kids and so on need to get back to 1 million?

As it turns out we can work out the math for that. With infinite time so we have an infinite number of generations, to get from 1 person to 1 million people, every single person has to have 13.8155 kids. I don't know about you, but we never see that anywhere and we don't have infinite time anyway.


ReMine's paper with the math:
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_1/j19_1_113-125.pdf

Blogger Azure Amaranthine August 24, 2019 1:08 PM  

"Whether or not the theory of evolution by natural selection has to be abandoned, the fossil record leaves no doubt that evolution by some means occurred"

Else, the opposite of what you said is true. The fossil record rules out universal common descent evolution, over and over and over.

If by "evolution" you just mean "change", then sure. Nearly everything changes over time.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine August 24, 2019 1:10 PM  

"the Lord id a practical joker who created the fossil record simply to fool us."

The people who taught you that the fossil record supports universal common descent are liars. See, isn't that easier?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine August 24, 2019 1:11 PM  

"In the history of his public writing, has Vox ever been illiterate?"

Literacy != prose, but let's get back on topic, k?

Blogger pyrrhus August 24, 2019 1:21 PM  

@19 Wrong...Darwin was well aware that the fossil record did not support his theory of gradual evolution for all species, and said so in his books, being an honest man...It still doesn't..Many species have no fossil precursers, of which most notorious are the long necked giraffe and the octopus....

Blogger Zander Stander August 24, 2019 1:21 PM  

Meshugge Man?

Blogger VD August 24, 2019 1:51 PM  

If the assumed overall mutation rate is 30, based on estimated total variation over total time, and we have only observed a rate of 5 in our tiny glimpse of the whole timeline (has observed rate been constant?), is it not possible that at certain periods past the rate could be as high as 20,000?

In the hypothetical sense, certainly. You could theorize that for one magic year, the rate was eleventy million if you like. However, you cannot credibly make that sort of argument if you are also going to claim that c is a constant or utilize radiocarbon dating for anything.

And from a practical sense, it's a complete non-starter.

Blogger Silent Draco August 24, 2019 1:56 PM  

Perhaps the Z-man is waiting for an explanation from Dr. Cornelius and Dr. Zaius, of "Planet of the Apes".

If a low variance, thus a small value for standard deviation compared to average is allowed, then the result is as probable as a Neo-Schembeclerian waving a "Gophers!" pennant. If the variance is high enough to allow the possibility of Vox's example, the the data set is FUBAR'ed so that Rutgers is the titleist of record.

Heat death of the universe don't allow enough time. Massive lies and bribes on a diabolic scale are required.

Blogger Avalanche August 24, 2019 1:56 PM  

@19 "the fossil record leaves no doubt that evolution by some means occurred, unless that is, the Lord id a practical joker who created the fossil record simply to fool us."

Yeah, I used to defend with that too, till I read "Icons of Evolution" and "More Icons of Evolution" -- which have left me entirely adrift, having lost the anchor of pretty much EVERY example that "evolution relied on" in all my growing-up years. And I was a devotee and avid reader of orthodox evolution! Orthodox.... oh, yeah, there's a problem!

Learning that, e.g., the "evolving" moths during England's black fogs, which were caused by coal-soot, were in fact a-1) NOT evolving but rather the darker moths were within the normal color ranges of the species, and a-2) after the coal-soot period ended the moths RETURNED to the normal color variations of the species; and b) the counting of lighter vs darker moths and bird predation was done by the counting-scientist gluing or pinning both types of moths (alive and dead) to the TOP sides of branches and in the open on the trunks, low down, within easy reach for the guy with the pins or glue, which turn out to be places free-living moths essentially never landed. It was not actual fraud, because it was before the firming up of the scientific method, but it serves the same purpose. And despite this 'not-quite-fraud' being entirely known in the modern day; these moths are STILL taught to every school child as proof of evolution!

Learning that the new claddist method of creating and connecting lines of descent by body shape and apparent function is being taught and pushed -- except it sometimes causes such amazing results as: one species of archeopterix is designated a FOREBEAR of a different species, despite it living a MILLION YEARS AFTER the one allegedly down-evolved from the "forebear"!

Oh yeah, and Darwin's finches, whose beaks tell such tales? First, Darwin did NOT pay any real attention to them when he sailed the Beagle; he just took specimens and boxed 'em and took 'em home. Only looked at them much later. And we're always-taught: finches on this island learned to crack these seeds, so 'evolved' bigger stronger beaks, while the finches on this other island retained the less strong beaks for easier seeds. Except 'we' now have much proof that, during droughts or other hard times, some local birds -- again, within normal species parameters -- with stronger beaks come into the preponderance, but once the hard times end the normal range of beak shape and hardness returns.

I'm not ready to give up evolution with its genetics, epigenetics, sexual selection and so on... but I'm unhappily being forced to give up speciation and evolution creating wholly new animals. Try those books; they're a great read but a rough ride!

So, yeah, the fossil record absolutely DOES give us HUGE and warranted doubts about how the academic are filling in out of wishes and whole cloth all the massive holes with their version(s) of evolution! Really: they identify an entire new species on the basis of ONE finger bone? One tooth?!

Blogger Avalanche August 24, 2019 1:57 PM  

Is that kind of post gamma if I'm a girl? Or is it just "annoying and cut it out"?

Blogger Iggyb August 24, 2019 1:57 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger The Cooler August 24, 2019 1:57 PM  

If y'all are ever bored, go ask a TENS devotee to explain the Cambrian Radiation; particularly the Tommotian and Atdabanian stages.

Those of you at all familiar with alchemy are in for a real treat.

Blogger Iggyb August 24, 2019 2:04 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Rex Leroy King August 24, 2019 2:05 PM  

Wraithburn wrote:As ReMine's paper expanding Haldane's Dilemma shows

Bingo. And isn't it curious how no one ever actually engages with ReMine's arguments?

Blogger Iggyb August 24, 2019 2:10 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Lone wolf August 24, 2019 2:12 PM  

"This is bafflegarble bullshit."

If Jordan Peterson had a son...

Blogger Scuzzaman August 24, 2019 2:22 PM  

Used to be that when you questioned TENS/Darwinism the True Believers would point and shriek and call you a creationist.
Now they point and shriek and call you a creationist and/or an IDer.

As Vox implies, this says nothing about either subject except identifying who they’re feeling most threatened by at any particular moment.

Blogger VD August 24, 2019 2:24 PM  

is it just "annoying and cut it out"?

Yes, because you clearly didn't understand a word of the original post and took the opportunity to talk about yourself.

No one cares what you are prepared to give up with regards to your belief in evolution. And it's entirely off-topic, since the math of genetic mutation has literally nothing to do with you or your beliefs.

Blogger VD August 24, 2019 2:27 PM  

Basically, "A speed limit occurs because the population growth rate is limited to the species’ available excess reproduction rate. Once again, the focus on ‘elimination of the old-type’ created confusion by focusing on the wrong thing. The issue is not elimination of the oldtype, but rather the growth of the new-type."

Yes, I ended up stumbling across that when utilizing my approach. I thought of it as minimum time to fixation.

Blogger pyrrhus August 24, 2019 2:28 PM  

No matter whether there's variation in the mutation rate, the fact that less than one mutation in 10,000 is even slightly beneficial tells you that improving the species that way is going to take a very long time...In general, mutations are harmful...

Blogger Iggyb August 24, 2019 2:37 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Iggyb August 24, 2019 2:42 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger The Cooler August 24, 2019 2:45 PM  

Man the guns, Very Smart Boy alert.

Blogger Wraithburn August 24, 2019 2:48 PM  

Clearly, Iggyb has never heard of Lambda Calculus.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 24, 2019 2:49 PM  

No, Math is not "an attempt at an approximation." That honor goes to the physical sciences.
Math is the underlying structure of reality.
Yo are right, math does not rule the Universe. But math reflects the Universe. Reflects the Universe exactly.

Blogger Nostromo August 24, 2019 2:51 PM  

I'm sure his mother could provide some amusing anecdotes.

Blogger Iggyb August 24, 2019 2:54 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Trinian August 24, 2019 2:58 PM  

Colin Flaherty's baby momma wrote:For example, if a population were colorblind, and a tiny percent are born "mutants" with color vision at a time when conditions severely disadvantage colorblindness, such that the vast majority of population die off, but those with color vision thrive then become predominant type.

Doesn't mean man descend from fish, but this would be a major change caused by natural selection.


This example discusses the rate at which beneficial mutations propagate throughout the species, not the rate at which beneficial mutations occur.

Blogger Nostromo August 24, 2019 2:59 PM  

For some having difficulty with ditching Darwin, quit focusing on the macro, and look to the micro. A cell can be viewed as an organic machine. Each part has to perform its function perfectly, or the machine doesn't work. Now throw in one random change, mutation. Is the cell part still capable of performing its stated function? If not, kaput. Dis-assemble a car and toss the parts into a box. Shake the box. Keep shaking. Lemme know when your car is back together.

Blogger Iggyb August 24, 2019 3:05 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 24, 2019 3:05 PM  

Iggyb wrote:Because when I put my absolute clarity hat on - and stop taking things on any kind of faith ---- I have trouble believing numbers exist in reality...
That's not your "absolute clarity" hat. That's your "pretentious psuedo-philosopher" hat.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 24, 2019 3:09 PM  

OK. I told him - you know - we can put a point on each side of the door frame and connect a line to them ---- but --- obviously --- there isn't infinite space between the two points...right?
You are correct that you don't understand math. You are incorrect that you have any basis to even think about commenting on it. You're a fucking moron who missed an extremely excellent opportunity to keep his ignorant and frankly stupid trap shut before everyone figured out what a fool he is.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 24, 2019 3:12 PM  

Iggyb wrote:#54 insults are always the best way to engage in a discussion. How else can a person prove they are absolutely correct...?
I'm not here to discuss your idiotic prattle. I'm here to insult you until you break down or go away. I prefer a full screaming flouncing breakdown, but your going away also achieves my purpose.

Blogger Wraithburn August 24, 2019 3:15 PM  

Iggyb wrote:I highlighted the terms that stood out to me in relation to my own thinking and discussions about this in the past.

...and Plato's allegory of the Cave came back to mind.



Of course it did, everything there went completely over your head.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 24, 2019 3:17 PM  

Don't you realize I don't give a single fuck what you think, since you are obviously incapable of thought beyond dorm-room bullshit session levels? That you're a steaming pule of smug with an inordinate and completely unearned idea that you are somehow, contrary to any and all evidence, the smartest guy in the room? That your lackwit posting of crap like "I question the reality of numbers" reveals to all the world that you've never had a single original thought, nor followed a borrowed thought from premise to conclusion in your entire pathetic intellectual life?
That's okay bro. Lots of 'tards lead kick-ass lives.

Blogger VD August 24, 2019 3:20 PM  

Shut up, Iggyb. No one is here to read about your thinking.

I'm not a math guy. So I could be completely off...

You are. Now stop commenting.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 24, 2019 3:20 PM  

Iggyb wrote:Is this how things are run here? I'm new to the site.
Can't stand the heat, don't say stupid intellectual poseur shit on the internet.

Blogger VD August 24, 2019 3:22 PM  

Is this how things are run here? I'm new to the site.

Yes. I have a very low tolerance for stupidity, ignorance, and pseudo-intellectual posturing.

And you hit the trifecta. Now, stop commenting on this post or you will be banned.

Blogger The Cooler August 24, 2019 3:23 PM  

Flawless victoly.

Blogger Jason August 24, 2019 3:24 PM  

Pyrrhus wrote:
No matter whether there's variation in the mutation rate, the fact that less than one mutation in 10,000 is even slightly beneficial tells you that improving the species that way is going to take a very long time...In general, mutations are harmful...

Thank you for this. Evolutionists want us to believe that a nearly infinite number of positive and beneficial random mutations occurred in just the perfect sequential order to produce hearing....sight....a circulatory system...etc., when there is no driving force to develop anything that isn't FULLY developed. If it would be more beneficial for a species to grow lungs, that doesn't mean it would be more beneficial for that species to carry around a useless respiratory system, or a useless heart, etc., that is slowly getting around to being functional and useful for thousands or millions of years. Lungs are useful only when they are functional. A heart is useful only when it is fully formed and functional.

If that really happened, where are all the half formed organs and systems in every species now that show no current purpose or function, but are on their way to be very useful somewhere down the road? We should be seeing third lungs or blobs of tissues slowing taking shape over generations.

Blogger VD August 24, 2019 3:32 PM  

If this is the level of tolerance you have in a discussion --- fine. I'll leave....

Good, I think that would be for the best.

Blogger Iggyb August 24, 2019 3:37 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd August 24, 2019 3:37 PM  

CS wrote:... unless that is, the Lord id a practical joker who created the fossil record simply to fool us.

God created everything. He created the fossil record, and He gave us an account of His creation. Why would you ignore the second to speculate about the first? What you do with the information He gives is on you.

Blogger Iggyb August 24, 2019 3:39 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 24, 2019 3:44 PM  

Iggy,
"Don't comment any more on this post" means exactly that. You weren't banned, yet. Although, after that flounce and refusal to shut up, it wouldn't take much.

I'd suggest you go to Alphgameplan.blogspot.com and read up on the socio-sexual hierarchy and the "graduating gamma" series.

Blogger carnaby August 24, 2019 3:53 PM  

My fake girlfriend only lived one town over, and that was just 8th grade.

Blogger doctrev August 24, 2019 3:58 PM  

If anyone wants to, I'm pretty interested in the idea that some mutations are SO beneficial that they could crop up early and spread very quickly. For instance:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6397001.stm

90% of Europeans have the gene required to produce lactase, which supposedly provided an astonishing evolutionary advantage. But DNA testing of skeletons from the Neolithic period show an absence of lactase. All well and good, but if lactase is this much of an advantage, why haven't the genes spread throughout India? There is an even more obvious advantage to Indians being able to properly metabolize milk than for white people, yet the advantage never developed. In fact, no one seeks the genetic advantage, though Indians happily utilize sex-selective abortion and would gladly seek genetic advantage for intelligence.

So the case for lactase might actually become a strong rebuttal against evolution.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 24, 2019 4:02 PM  

Because, generally speaking, spreading of genetic traits reuires interbreeding.

Blogger Unknown August 24, 2019 4:03 PM  

Infinite division does not mean infinite space.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine August 24, 2019 4:04 PM  

Math is the most unambiguous discipline that might be called science.

You can say that it's possibly an approximation, but the endpoint of thinking that recognized patterns are fundamentally only apparent rather than actual is to be without any knowledge or understanding. This describes madness.

Certainly our pattern recognition is far from perfect, but that doesn't mean we're seeing nothing. Rather, it means that we're seeing something even if we do not yet fully understand it. Does math rule the universe? No, but it has the potential to reveal to us a pale outline of the one who does. Because we are limited we see God through his works.

Blogger Iggyb August 24, 2019 4:09 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Blogger Colin Flaherty's baby momma August 24, 2019 4:11 PM  

@30 VD
Thanks for reply, though I still don't get it.

Not to bother the Dark Lord, would appreciate learning from anyone.


@24 Wraithburn
How would they quantify night vision vs light vision in order to get these numbers/rates?
Why does population size matter in a genetic/trait comparison? Isn't a new type based on its distinct features, whether 10 million or only 10 individuals? The old type might extinct slowly or quickly, remain or transform.

Is radioactive dating reliable?
Many claims of faulty methods, esp at high values, and errors such as samples from living animals being dated thousands of years old.

Blogger Robert What? August 24, 2019 4:12 PM  

@Vox, maybe I'm slow today but are you saying that statistical analyses is irrelevant when pointing out holes in Darwinism?

Blogger Damelon Brinn August 24, 2019 4:15 PM  

She has no morals. I don't like that in a girl.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine August 24, 2019 4:22 PM  

Not all criticism of Darwinism is brand-name Intelligent Design. Statistical analysis can stand on its own, and is more than sufficient in this case.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd August 24, 2019 4:23 PM  

doctrev wrote:I'm pretty interested in the idea that some mutations are SO beneficial that they could crop up early and spread very quickly.

ReMine's paper, linked above, suggests that it doesn't matter how beneficial a mutation might be, it can't spread any faster than the mutants can breed. Going from 1 mutant to one million mutants in 1,000 generations would require the mutants to have more than a dozen children per generation, per his table 2. Double that to account for half being male. Is it plausible that stone age humans could average 24 surviving children per couple, generation after generation?

This whole mutation thing is looking more and more bogus.

Blogger Wraithburn August 24, 2019 4:35 PM  

Colin Flaherty's baby momma wrote:How would they quantify night vision vs light vision in order to get these numbers/rates?

Why does population size matter in a genetic/trait comparison? Isn't a new type based on its distinct features, whether 10 million or only 10 individuals? The old type might extinct slowly or quickly, remain or transform.



The rates are for the growth of any trait at all, the particular trait in question is irrelevant to the growth of the population.

Population size matters in as much as you are moving from a species without trait X to a species with trait X. If you start with 1 million people and end up with 10 people hiding in that number with the trait, you have not done what you set out to do. This is most obvious if you pick whatever the minimum size is for a viable population. I think it's a several thousand or so. You must have that number or your species dies out.

It is irrelevant what happens to the originals as you note, what matters is whether or not the current population can grow to a sufficient size. So again, you end up with infinite generations to get to your chosen population size, and you discover the minimum rate of babies every generation from every single member of your species with X trait must be 13.8155 or you are not growing. You are shrinking. Losing ground in the fight to reach your stable size.

We see this with dog breeds. You have to be careful when breeding specific traits to prevent it from getting subsumed by the original population.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine August 24, 2019 4:42 PM  

Something can fall into more than one category at the same time.

The parable says "because this is all we understand, this is all that is", which is a lie.

By the same logic you can say that a concept is comprised of several distinguishable functions of a mind, and so a concept is not a real thing. To be ironic, it would be stated that a concept "is nothing more than a concept". See the problem? By this argument understanding does not exist. Observation does not exist, categorization does not exist, memory does not exist, etc. The thing is self-refuting.

Blogger Wraithburn August 24, 2019 4:42 PM  

Ominous Cowherd wrote:it can't spread any faster than the mutants can breed.

That is the core of Haldane's Dilemma and the most damning point about evolution. To go from chimps to humans, you have to go over a thousand distinct mutation steps. Each time, they have to climb that hill of over 24 babies per couple. And the combinatoric effects! If mutation X and mutation Y start independent of each other, to get them into the same species you need to cross breed and get a new baby with mutation XY who then has to grow at that 24 baby rate.

You have to postulate magic and infinite time to get it to work.

Blogger Crew August 24, 2019 4:52 PM  

I think Vox has come up with a strong argument because if we know the number of coding gene differences between the last common ancestor of Chimps and Humans and either of those species and there has not been enough time for those differences to accumulate, then Natural Selection has a big problem.

However, I do not think we do know that number and Vox did not specify what he thinks the number is (although perhaps he has in the past.) Indeed, I do not think we have an estimate to within an order of magnitude.

It is not good enough, I believe so simply look at the number of base-pair differences between Chimps and Humans because of two things:

1. Viruses that have inserted their DNA into ours but not Chimps (and vice versa). See for example: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160322100714.htm. There are, I believe a number of stretches of our DNA that contains what is now junk inserted by viruses and Humans and Chimps are affected by different viruses.

2. When a gene is no longer useful, like the gene that switches off Lactase production in many humans (but not all) and in all Chimps, the Human version of that gene is free to mutate without consequence, thus increasing the count of differences (that mean nothing).

Perhaps I am wrong that we do not have a good estimate for the number and am willing to put the effort into reading the relevant material.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine August 24, 2019 4:56 PM  

You'll have to backtrawl the blog a bit, Crew. It's all there.

Blogger VD August 24, 2019 4:59 PM  

@Vox, maybe I'm slow today but are you saying that statistical analyses is irrelevant when pointing out holes in Darwinism?

You're welcome to read and comment here, but please don't ever ask me a question again.

Blogger VD August 24, 2019 5:02 PM  

However, I do not think we do know that number and Vox did not specify what he thinks the number is (although perhaps he has in the past.) Indeed, I do not think we have an estimate to within an order of magnitude.

We do. And beyond that, we know the number has to be considerably greater than the range of fixed mutations observed within the range of current humanity.

To the extent we don't have an accurate picture, that actually disfavors the Neo-Darwinian position because our best estimates almost certainly underestimate the total.

Blogger James Dixon August 24, 2019 5:09 PM  

> If the assumed overall mutation rate is 30, based on estimated total variation over total time, and we have only observed a rate of 5 in our tiny glimpse of the whole timeline (has observed rate been constant?), is it not possible that at certain periods past the rate could be as high as 20,000?

First, the math involved is out there. Read it.

Second, sure. Now, why would that be the case and why have we never observed it? What is the mechanism involved that we've never discovered?

Third, my understanding is that your figures don't begin to approach the magnitude of change required. Others here know more than I do about it though.

> the fossil record leaves no doubt that evolution by some means occurred,

The fossil record shows replacement of one set of species by others. It does not show evolution.

> Is radioactive dating reliable?

We don't know for certain. If the assumptions made are correct, probably. If not, no.

Blogger PJW Gent August 24, 2019 5:12 PM  

One could argue that math and logic are part of the intelligent design of the universe...

Blogger God Emperor Memes August 24, 2019 5:20 PM  

What's wrong is that you seem to be under the impression that mutations are beneficial, when in fact most mutations are either harmful or non-beneficial, as well as being recessive.
No NEW genetic information is ever added to the gene pool. What we see is either phenotypical variation within a species (the extant genetic information allows adaptation to environmental changes) or a few unfortunate mutants. The mutants never become an improved version of their ancestors; they're analogous to the car Homer Simpson designed for his half brother.

Blogger God Emperor Memes August 24, 2019 5:22 PM  

It does no such thing. The fossil record shows an explosion of life in massive variety, most of which was wiped out in a global cataclysm.
Where have I read a story like that?

Blogger Matt August 24, 2019 5:25 PM  

Evolution is simply a non-started if you are coming from a Christian worldview.

Evolution puts death before humanity and before the fall.

The Bible tells us the order was the opposite and that through one man sin and death entered the world and through another man, Christ, death was overcome.

If there is no Adam I don't see why anyone would need Christ.



Blogger God Emperor Memes August 24, 2019 5:26 PM  

I remember being taught about those damned moths and thinking "But they're still moths..."
That was purely an example of existing genetic variation within a species yet children are lied to over and over again.

Blogger doctrev August 24, 2019 5:31 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:Because, generally speaking, spreading of genetic traits reuires interbreeding.

Right, and there was certainly some of that among all colonial powers, everywhere. The East India Company was promoting mixed marriages as far back as 1688! (For a small population of men that never planned to see a white woman for decades, but still.) The British presence in India has been there since the 17th century: even if people can point to intermediate stages of eye development like simple pigments on fish, lactase is held up as a specific example of a gene that apparently spread through all of European society very quickly. If that's true, you should see at least some spread of the gene in societies colonized by Europeans.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine August 24, 2019 5:34 PM  

@Crew pretty much everything is easy to find from

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/02/evolution-debate-tonight.html?commentPage=1

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( every man who walked on the moon was a honkey, WhiteManBad ) August 24, 2019 5:36 PM  

19. CS August 24, 2019 12:48 PM
unless that is, the Lord id a practical joker


the Lord of This World is a liar and deceiver and is entirely opposed to Yahweh and his Son the Redeemer.

you have other questions? which are actually relevant?

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( every man who walked on the moon was a honkey, WhiteManBad ) August 24, 2019 5:42 PM  

87. James Dixon August 24, 2019 5:09 PM
We don't know for certain. If the assumptions made are correct, probably. If not, no.



foremost amongst these being the assumption that conditions meelions and beelions of years ago had the same ratios of isotopes in the environment that we have today.

which we know for a fact is a false assumption, the radioactives are far less numerous today than they would have been that long ago. that's why the Oklo reactor no longer functions.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

Blogger God Emperor Memes August 24, 2019 6:26 PM  

Ken Ham has made that point many times, and he is correct.

Blogger Mark Stoval August 24, 2019 6:36 PM  

I can recall when "the big bang" was just religion sneaking God in the back door according to the university professors. Regardless of your belief or not in "the big bang", we saw the atheists have a cow over it for a long time.

Why? The biggest problem in the evolution debate is that we need space, matter, time, and heat to get started. Hell, we need an environment for the life to "evolve". We need matter and space to even start. Where did that come from?

In my view, God created the heavens and the earth. If God wanted to use evolution as his tool to create man, then fine. If He did some other style of creation, fine. But some intelligence started everything and I call that God.

Blogger Iggyb August 24, 2019 6:40 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Blogger MJ Meyers August 24, 2019 6:57 PM  

Is TENS even science? If so, which definition does it fit?

Scientistry: belief in the scientist based on authority of the profession (she blinded me with science!).
Scientody: the process of experiment, from hypothesis to theory, and ability to replicate the experiment.
Scientage: the knowledge base we assume is true based the work of the scientists (as in, "I F'ing LOVE SCIENCE!").

Blogger James Dixon August 24, 2019 7:11 PM  

> Is TENS even science? If so, which definition does it fit?

Yes. It's a theory. But it's stuck at the theory stage, because replicating the experiment has proven beyond our capabilities. Fortunately, genetics is allow us an alternative path which will probably eventually replace TENS with a more rigorous and testable theory.

Blogger Dirk Manly August 24, 2019 7:33 PM  

@93

"I remember being taught about those damned moths and thinking "But they're still moths..."


My first thought was: "and how do we know that during the "sooty period" the moths weren't just darker due to HAVING SOOT ON THEIR WINGS?

No bio or science teacher ever had an answer for that OBVIOUS question.

Blogger Dirk Manly August 24, 2019 7:49 PM  

@101

"Yes. It's a theory. But it's stuck at the theory stage, because replicating the experiment has proven beyond our capabilities."

Then it's not a theory. To be a theory, it has to be testable.
Since it's not testable, it's only a hypothesis.

The above relationship is even held up in the wacky world of law and court rooms.

Blogger Unknown August 24, 2019 9:11 PM  

Is this analysis correct?

"If we are told that a sportsball team has gained 1,500 yards on the ground and that it averages three yards per rushing play, and we know that the maximum number of offensive plays per game is 84, then we know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the yards reported were not gained in a single 60-minute game. They could not have been. It is impossible.

The math is inexorable. The maximum number of yards that could have been gained on the ground in a single game is 252."

252 is the maximum number of plays times the average yards. What if every play was a rush for what I assume to be a 100 yard field? 8400 yards? Am I missing something here? Anyhow, enjoyed the article.

Blogger Dirk Manly August 24, 2019 9:13 PM  

He's saying that the maximum number FOR THAT particular three-yards-per-play-average team is 252. Because if they got more, then their average wouldn't be 3 yards per play.

Blogger billo August 24, 2019 9:13 PM  

The criticism that evolution could not have happened due to the time issue is based on the idea that mutations are random. I happen to be a so-called "superdeterminist". Like Einstein, I think that everything that has ever happened, and will ever happen, was encoded in the boundary conditions of the establishment of the universe -- the so-called "static interpretation of time." Like chaotic dynamics, actions are deterministic, but they can only be predicted in a probabilistic manner as you go farther out. Randomness is a mirage, and is a reflection of ignorance of hidden variables.

For instance, from the perspective of the dinosaurs, the asteroid that hit the Yucatan (if you hold to that idea of why the dinosaurs died) was a random event. However, that asteroid was destined to hit the earth right where it did at exactly that time from the moment of the Big Bang (or equivalent). There was nothing random about it. Worse, for almost all cases, for any stochastic process, there is a deterministic process that can also describe it, and vice versa. The universality of this is not provable right now, but work in stochastic-deterministic equivalence is moving along. Thus there is no mathematical way to "prove" that something is "random." One can only show that one description has more utility.

Moving to evolution, if mutations were *not* random, but are deterministic and encoded in the boundary conditions of the universe, then there is no reason that evolution cannot follow any timeline that is thus encoded.

Blogger Damelon Brinn August 24, 2019 9:15 PM  

@104, You missed that he said the team averages three yards per carry. In other words, the statistical analysis has already been done. All the numbers are known; all that's left is to plug them into the equation and see if it's true.

Blogger Unknown August 24, 2019 9:17 PM  

My bad,

" then we know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the yards reported were not gained in a single 60-minute game."

Definitely true. The vino is flowing. Good evening you evil alt right bastards.

Blogger James Dixon August 24, 2019 9:37 PM  

> To be a theory, it has to be testable.

In theory or in practice? In theory it's testable. We just need to create a new universe to test it in and give it several billion years for the test to run. In practice...

But your point is valid. It's a stretch to even call it a theory.

Blogger Unknown August 24, 2019 10:15 PM  

The problem with Biology is that it's very complex system. Even its simplest, the cell, there's a lot of moving parts. Like the climate it is difficult to model. I'm breaking in on this discussion at the end but I wonder if the role of viruses was discussed. They pop in and out of our genome. I've often thought that they play a large role in evolution. 2 point it may not be simple point mutations the drive evolutionary changes.

Blogger The Cooler August 24, 2019 10:17 PM  

@106 Boundary conditions of a universe having hidden variables would necessarily include variable randomness (and thus probability): Incalculability is not an argument against randomness, but for it; stochastic processes do not contradict a mechanistic universe whose scale can accommodate 'room to move' within the machine. Whether or not this liberty is a "mirage" is ultimately nugatory: We cannot unplug from this particular Matrix.

Moving to evolution, if mutations were *not* random, but are deterministic and encoded in the boundary conditions of the universe, then there is no reason that evolution cannot follow any timeline that is thus encoded.

Philosophically interesting but unfalsifiable/untestable. Just like TENS.

Blogger Robert What? August 24, 2019 10:37 PM  

Not sure what I did wrong, but ok.

Blogger Wraithburn August 24, 2019 10:50 PM  

Unknown wrote:Even its simplest, the cell, there's a lot of moving parts.

As it happens, this is very true. Dr. Behe discovered the flagellum of bacteria is run by the world's smallest electric motor complete with stators that can "shift gears". You know they hate him when wikipedia has "..advocate of the pseudoscientific[2] principle of intelligent design" in the very first sentence.

He has claimed, based upon his research into how cells construct this tiny motor, there are no less than 16 parts that cannot function independently nor even get constructed properly if you mess with any of the RNA trying to find smaller reproducible subsets. You get the whole complex motor at once, or you get a gloop of protein strands.

Blogger God Emperor Memes August 25, 2019 12:18 AM  

Fascinating. And thus Romans 1:20.

Blogger PG August 25, 2019 12:30 AM  

How many mutations would it take to send humans into a world where they behaved similar to monkeys. An animal with no novel creativity, no music, no purpose beyond existing, no human soul?

Zero mutations. From what I can work out we already have what it takes. Unlike us, Monkeys don't have the genetic capacity to come forward to where we are, but that doesn't mean we can't go backwards.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 25, 2019 2:19 AM  

billo wrote:Like chaotic dynamics, actions are deterministic, but they can only be predicted in a probabilistic manner as you go farther out. Randomness is a mirage, and is a reflection of ignorance of hidden variables.
Heisenberg says you're a moron. He only called Einstein wrong, but you've had 80 years to learn from his mistakes.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine August 25, 2019 2:42 AM  

"Moving to evolution, if mutations were *not* random, but are deterministic and encoded in the boundary conditions of the universe, then there is no reason that evolution cannot follow any timeline that is thus encoded."

You're saying that Darwin's evolution can be saved if only the universe were intricately programmed for the outcome. Really?

Darwin himself objected to being saved by God, and I suspect he'd have felt the same about this. Probably because it violates his work by definition.

"Heisenberg says you're a moron."

Yep, and Dirac would be tap dancing on his face.

Blogger God Emperor Memes August 25, 2019 4:43 AM  

Yes, and many subgroups of humans devolved, for lack of a better word, Post Flood.

Blogger wahr01 August 25, 2019 4:44 AM  

The case against evolution is not something I'm well-read on.

Does anyone have a summary of the counter-points offered to the theory that mutation proliferation accelerates in reduced/bottle-necked populations?

Blogger PG August 25, 2019 5:26 AM  

@ 106. billo

Sam Harris would approve.

Blogger PG August 25, 2019 5:55 AM  

@ 106. billo

Unlike your big, flashy "superdeterminism", there is well over half a century of scientody on run of the mill humble determinism/behaviourism. However, it's not well received and probably never will be, possibly was never meant to be, but you might find it interesting.

Blogger Dirk Manly August 25, 2019 6:04 AM  

@112

"Not sure what I did wrong, but ok."

Question the issue, not the person.
This is a VERY common rule with anybody who does a lot of computer work.
We don't say , "What you did here is computing XYZ instead of ABC"... because that leads to wasted time fingerpointing and blameshifting
Instead, coders say, "This section here is computing XYX instead of ABC"

You'll find that anybody who is involved in computer programming (even "idea guys" like Vox, who just want to define the overall behavior, and who let the coding be done by someone else) pick up on that problem-solving method/ethic.

Also, Vox doesn't want the comments to be ABOUT HIM. He wants them to be about the subject.

So, that's why he told you not to question him.

Don't question him .... question the statement.

I know it sounds trivial, but it really is a huge difference.

Blogger Scott August 25, 2019 6:23 AM  

The written equivalent of a Mortal Kombat Fatality. The only thing missing was the announcer voice at the beginning.

FINISH HIM

Blogger VD August 25, 2019 6:33 AM  

Does anyone have a summary of the counter-points offered to the theory that mutation proliferation accelerates in reduced/bottle-necked populations?

Three words: minimum viable population.

Blogger Cloudbuster August 25, 2019 8:32 AM  

PG wrote:How many mutations would it take to send humans into a world where they behaved similar to monkeys. An animal with no novel creativity, no music, no purpose beyond existing, no human soul?


You don't need any new mutations for that, just a plane ticket.

Blogger lynnefoghart August 25, 2019 8:32 AM  

I feel part of the problem is the paucity of actual lifelong evolutionary biologists working in the nitty gritty of research speaking on the subject. In any debate or discussion where evolution is advocated, it’s almost always just rhetoricians who clearly aren’t well read on all the latest or most relevant research and findings who argue for the theory. I came across a site that appeared to be run by actual researchers and it wasn’t nearly so dogmatic, was constantly using caveat phrases like “we believe” or “we lack the ability to determine”, and interestingly had a trend of insisting “evolution” is not synonymous with “adaptation” (saying adaptation is only one element among many and is not the singular driving element in the theory). Also funnily enough, they had a passionate hatred of evolutionary psychology, said it was pure gibberish, and said that psychologists seemed not to understand that adaptation includes both “adaptedness” and “adaptability,” whereas the psychologists seem to think all behavior is accounted for only in “adaptedness.”

Can’t say I have a fixed opinion on the subject personally but I can say I wish that more actual researchers would be the ones spreading their theory if the theory must be spread. They seem more grounded in the actual demands of science.

Blogger xevious2030 August 25, 2019 9:06 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger xevious2030 August 25, 2019 9:28 AM  

For TENS to work, bottlenecks or not, enhanced conditions or not, without necessitating design, the amount of time available would have to be increased considerably. By a lot. Which is then a conversation with the people that swear the science behind current Earth and universe age. A discussion that make them look like six day creationists.

Blogger billo August 25, 2019 10:35 AM  

PG wrote:

Unlike your big, flashy "superdeterminism", there is well over half a century of scientody on run of the mill humble determinism/behaviourism. However, it's not well received and probably never will be, possibly was never meant to be, but you might find it interesting.


Yes, and Calvinism has longer history, and the Classical Greek concept of the Fates before that, and the Chinese concept of "ming," and on, back to the beginning of human thought. It's not the "flashy" that's important, it's the derivation. Calvinism is does not address issues of probability because it begs the question, as does classical Fate. More important, both of these assume intervention *in time* by the forces that dictate fate. Thus, the classic Greeks had the daemons to stop humans from breaking out of their roles, and they would intervene to do that. Thus, fate controlled outcomes but not specific acts -- else daemons would not be necessary.

The behavioral stuff boils down to "nature vs nurture" and cannot be used to address mutation rates or natural phenomena; because it ignores the larger picture, it mistakenly makes behavior a special case. While it makes responses to stimuli deterministic, it does not address the origins of the stimuli. How one reacts to a tragedy may be determined by your past and your neurophysiology, but the tragedy itself may be a stochastic event. New atheists like Sam Harris pick and choose their determinism. Behavior is deterministic, but evolution is not.

More importantly, superdeterminism is God-neutral. It does not demand a God or gods the way Calvinism and Greek fate do, The only thing it does is push the question back to the beginning of time -- which is its proper place, in my opinion.

Thus, for instance, superdeterminism allows miracles, because such events are hard-coded in, and whatever physical constraints necessary to allow it to happen were also coded in. Thus, God did not "break" the laws of nature to perform miracles, He simply constructed them as special cases when He coded the entire script. Or, if one does not want to believe in a God, then whatever happened was determined by the unknown circumstances that dictated the boundary conditions of the creation, and what people of faith call miracles are simply outliers.

The idea of fate is not new. The casting of it in these terms that directly address such things a evolution (and quantum issues) is. Addressing the problem of stochastic-determist equivalence from a formal mathematical perspective is also new.

Blogger Gregory the Great August 25, 2019 10:58 AM  

@billo. You wrote "Moving to evolution, if mutations were *not* random, but are deterministic and encoded in the boundary conditions of the universe, then there is no reason that evolution cannot follow any timeline that is thus encoded."
You mean someone encoded the boundary conditions? If so he did a good job of it, seems to have been omniscient and in his time omnipotent. However who is he and can his omniscience and powerful encoding skills be explained by having originated from some kind of evolution prequel?

Blogger Trinian August 25, 2019 10:58 AM  

billo wrote:
I think that everything that has ever happened, and will ever happen, was encoded in the boundary conditions of the establishment of the universe

First an observation: Man! Those are some boundary conditions! They are responsible for everything that happened and will happen including your belief and my disbelief in their exixtence.

Second, a question: If everything that happened and will happen was encoded in the boundary conditions at the establishment of the universe, Who did the encoding?

Third, a request for information: Every man lives his life as if he had free will. It is impossible for him not to do so. What reason & evidence do you have to contradict the universal experience of man?

Blogger wreckage August 25, 2019 11:36 AM  

A universe that arrives at intelligence via strict determinism as an inevitable outcome of its starting conditions can be distinguished from an universe designed by an intelligence .... how?

Can you really be claiming that it is "god-neutral" for religion to be a fundamental feature of the deepest underlying structure of the universe? And how is this universe that only LOOKS LIKE it has variation, that only LOOKS LIKE it features decisions and volition, that only LOOKS LIKE it features non-deterministic events, at least at the quantum level, different from one in which those things are real?

It is pointless and horribly bad science to posit a thing that is completely and totally indistinguishable from another thing apart from an untestable adherence to the theorists' preferences.

Everything from whether thought is purely deterministic, to the nature of causality at a meta-level, has been discussed by philosophers for a thousand years and largely pretty well hashed out at the theoretical level. I suggest going over to Edward Feser's blog and reading the entire damn thing in sequence, since he has a particular interest in will, thought, and causality. And if you read him saying "AI is impossible" and immediately go into sperg-victory-rage spasms, slap yourself in the face, take a mild sedative, and KEEP READING, because as I said there is a thousand years of scholarship on these issues and their viability as ideas in larger comprehensible systems, of which any universe understandable by material science is a SUBSET.

Blogger wreckage August 25, 2019 11:42 AM  

"Moving to evolution, if mutations were *not* random, but are deterministic and encoded in the boundary conditions of the universe, then there is no reason that evolution cannot follow any timeline that is thus encoded."

No, no, no NO NO. because the boundary conditions of the universe so encoded make the universe look EXACTLY like one that can be understood via probability, so the mutation code would violate the probabilistic code and you'd crash the entire thing. You can't propose encoded substructures that violate observation, because what we expect from observation must, in a purely deterministic universe, be dictated by the substructures themselves, so they either can't happen, or would have been observed and accounted for in the observations!

Blogger Robert What? August 25, 2019 12:03 PM  

@Dirk Manly,

Thanks for the clarification. But in this case i wasn't questioning Vox, I was just asking for clarification to make sure I understood what he was saying. Anyway, I thought Vox's full time job was answering my questions, isn't it? Har!

Blogger Curt August 25, 2019 12:43 PM  

SORRY ALL BUT, NO.

(a) mutation rate != yardage (or any other linear measure)
(b) some mutations (cortical scale) are profoundly differentiating - just one gene. (20% of neurons in the cortex are regulatory That number increases by region. The same is true for genes. It certainly appears that the vast majority are either dead (not expressed) or regulatory. We don't know what percent are expressed. So all mutation rate tells us is time difference it does not tell us difference in genetic expression.
(c) some are profoundly consequential (delay in maturity : neoteny - just hormonal development is largely what varies between human races)
(d) Genes do not produce linear effects (machine parts) but are causally dense (program code) with anything from zero consequence (noise, or regulatory), some of tiny consequence (rates of expression), and some profound.
(e) One Single Additional Protein (molecular machine) may cause billions of consequences.

So;
(f) Of our evolutionary history, regardless of the RATE of migration, it could be only .001% of those mutations that cause 99.999% of competitive evolutionary variations.
(g) we make a big deal out of 3% difference from chimpanzees but we have no idea the scale of difference provided by each of those variations. intelligence appears to be affected by hundreds if not thousands (a concert problem). Neoteny appears not to be (a small number of hormonal channels). Yet together the effect of these two sets is profound with just small changes.
(h) As far as I know almost all evolutionary change is driven by:
- demand for success in the local environment (ie: black resistance to malaria).
- failure in the local environment (loss of height in southeast islands, loss of fire making, tool making, by austronesians.)
- utility (white consumption of milk adding 40% more calories to the diet)
- social animal sortition (variations in demand for competitive traits)
- age of the carriers (rate of mutation or degradation)
- errors in replication (genes - which happen all the time - cancer etc )
- conflicts in integration (male and female genes)
- random mutations.
- combinations of all of the above.

On statistics:
There isn't much evidence that we are capable of using statistics on any causally dense phenomenon with any greater precision than a single regression. Period.
YOU CAN'T AVERAGE AN AVERAGE, and STATISTICS MUST BE OPERATIONALLY EXPLICABLE OR THEY'RE MEANINGLESS. (correlation is not causation, and operations produce correlations)

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute

Blogger billo August 25, 2019 2:18 PM  

Gregory the Great wrote:You mean someone encoded the boundary conditions?

Superdeterminism does not address that. It simply proposes that everything is deterministic. Speculation about how those conditions came about is external to this.

Since I am a Christian, I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and that everything is playing out according to His plan. However, that is a statement of faith, and is completely outside of the purview of any non-faith-based cosmology. I supposed one could posit an evolution-based origin of the universe, but it would also be faith-based.

Blogger Robert What? August 25, 2019 2:28 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger billo August 25, 2019 2:37 PM  

Trinian wrote:First an observation: Man! Those are some boundary conditions! They are responsible for everything that happened and will happen including your belief and my disbelief in their exixtence.



Boundary conditions are just boundary conditions. It's not the boundary conditions that are impressive -- it's the function that they are the conditions for.

As to it dictating belief, that is exactly the case. In the Book of Exodous, there is a great example of this, where God tells the Israelites that he will force the Pharoah of Egypt to deny Israelites their freedom. He states:

"... I will cause Pharaoh to stubbornly refuse, and I will multiply my miracles in the land of Egypt. Yet even then Pharaoh won’t listen to you; so I will crush Egypt with a final major disaster and then lead my people out. The Egyptians will find out that I am indeed God when I show them my power and force them to let my people go.”

And that's exactly what He did -- he *forced* Pharoah's decisions that lead to the deaths of thousands in order to make a demonstration of His power.

I addressed your second point in my response to #130, Gregory the Great.

Trinian wrote:Third, a request for information: Every man lives his life as if he had free will. It is impossible for him not to do so. What reason & evidence do you have to contradict the universal experience of man?

That's actually not the universal experience of man. Many cultures and many philosophers have taken a deterministic view of life, or to a significant degree. I noted the Fates of classical Greece, the Ming of China, etc.

It's primarily an issue of framing and perspective. In the Bible, it often seems that there is a contradiction when this kind of thing is discussed. Sometimes it seems that things are predetermined, and at others there is absolute free will. If you look closely, however, the difference is in perspective. The Bible speaks in deterministic terms when talking about God and His relationship to man. It speaks in terms of free will when discussing man's obligation to God.

Since stochastic and deterministic perspectives are essentially interchangable, the thing that makes the most sense is to use the one that has the most utility for any particular task. In essence, there is free will when it is useful, and there is not when it is not useful. It seems like a reasonable thing for God to do.

Blogger PG August 25, 2019 3:36 PM  

@ 129. billoWhile

"it makes responses to stimuli deterministic, it does not address the origins of the stimuli. How one reacts to a tragedy may be determined by your past and your neurophysiology, but the tragedy itself may be a stochastic event. New atheists like Sam Harris pick and choose their determinism. Behavior is deterministic, but evolution is not"

Incorrect, no Behavioural Scientist thinks like that. Sam Harris is Pseudoscientist, as are all cognitive psychologists and cognitive neuroscientists. In reality, JP would know more on the subject, but for some reason he keeps his mouth shut.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 25, 2019 3:43 PM  

@Robert What?
Ignore Dirk Manly.
This is a good general rule, but I specifically mean ignore what he say above in response toy your question.

Robert What? asked:are you saying that statistical analyses is irrelevant when pointing out holes in Darwinism?

VD's point is that this is the exact and diametric opposite of what he wrote. You could not have gotten it more backwards if you were Dirk Manly. This led him to the conclusion that he never wants to read another comment from you ever again, and he usually reads comments directed specifically at him.

Blogger Gregory the Great August 25, 2019 4:18 PM  

@135 Curt Doolittle from
The Propertarian Institute.
Curt, all you did here is repeat old arguments and create a list of goal posts that can be moved as required whenever the facts or the math contradict the theory. There is a reason that you keep using expressions like " we don't know", "could" or "appears to be", the reason being that these are all "targeted speculations" that have been invented to save the theory. Why did you not mention the infinite number of parallel universes that all contributed to evolution through portals that allowed free gene interchange?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 25, 2019 4:29 PM  

The current state of evolutionary theory has been the state of Celestial mechanics pre-Copernicus. Epicycles within epicycles within epicycles, and the math still doesn't work.
Now the ID argument and the statistical analysis argument have reduced it to the state of the same science after the publication of De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium. The establishment theory has been disproven, but the establishment, for religious reasons, is unable to accept the proof.

Blogger Robert What? August 25, 2019 4:49 PM  

@Snidely Whiplash, well Vox didn't say don't comment, he said don't ask him any questions. So I guess I better be on my toes so the ban hammer doesn't come down on me. I've been reading and very occasionally commenting here for years. I would not have guessed my dim witted but honest question would ruffle feathers so.

Blogger Damelon Brinn August 25, 2019 5:39 PM  

(a) mutation rate != yardage (or any other linear measure)

The analogy lines mutation rate up with yards per carry, another ratio, not a linear measure. Based on this sloppiness, I'm gonna go ahead and skip the rest.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 25, 2019 5:41 PM  

You're not in danger of being banned. That pretty much takes a gamma flameout like Iggy Pip did yesterday.

Blogger Robert What? August 25, 2019 5:51 PM  

Well that's good. I have great respect and admiration for Vox and what he has accomplished.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine August 25, 2019 8:03 PM  

"SORRY ALL BUT, NO."

Caps lock smaht boii detected.

"Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute"


is the person who provided a point by point and intricate refutation of a straw man that doesn't match a single point of what is actually being argued, and is actually so far off that it is readily apparent he did not do so much as a cursory skimming.

Thanks for providing the name of your workplace so that we know where to avoid people who failed to fire your surpassing degree of willful incompetence.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 25, 2019 8:10 PM  

https://www.facebook.com/thepropertarianinstitute

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I wish I had followed that up earlier. What a crock!

Blogger PG August 25, 2019 8:27 PM  

@ 135. Curt

Hi Curt, I've watched some of your videos on youtube and also seen one of your advocates speaking with James Fox Higgins on The Rational Rise.

I found your explanations difficult to understand, something akin to Jordan Peterson's style. I also found your representative talking with his identity masked by a motorcycle helmet, somewhat off putting.

Will you be doing any literature that is designed for those like myself who require things to be spelled out in a simple fashion? Also, what's with that helmet!

Blogger Dirk Manly August 25, 2019 10:01 PM  

Curt wrote:SORRY ALL BUT, NO.

(a) mutation rate != yardage (or any other linear measure)



Hear the whooshing sound going over your head....

That's the point that you completely missed.

The analogy is mathematically valid. That's all that matters for the point of the illustration.

Blogger Dirk Manly August 25, 2019 10:08 PM  

@138

"That's actually not the universal experience of man. Many cultures and many philosophers have taken a deterministic view of life, or to a significant degree. I noted the Fates of classical Greece, the Ming of China, etc."

And yet the advocates of such STILL behave as if they have free will.

Blogger Dirk Manly August 25, 2019 10:35 PM  

LOL... .doing a little searching:

apparently staff and faculty of The Propertarian Institute consists of

1. Founder, Curt Doolittle
2. There is no 2.

And apparently, all of those old, stately buildings shown on the website... are all owned by other entities.

Blogger Wraithburn August 25, 2019 10:37 PM  

@135

Curt, the about page of your site claims you just to the side of autistic. After that comment, I believe it.

Blogger Crew August 26, 2019 12:29 AM  

@86: Actually, I was looking at the wrong side of the equation, although I would appreciate pointers to the actual numbers.

The best I have come up with are the approximately 1.4 or so percentage of base pairs that are different between Chimp and Humans which amounts do some 42M base pairs.

Contrary to what I stated earlier, we do have to explain that difference.

Now, we probably only have to account for half of that number down each path, but it is still around 21M base pair difference.

While there are some 3M SNPs in the human genome, only around 500,000 of those are unique to humans. Another 500,000 base pairs could be associated with retroviruses that have inserted DNA into humans but not Chimps.

Together this only brings us down to 20M base pairs that have gone to fixation.

However, Larry Moran estimates that "we would expect to see about 50 million new mutations in the human lineage" and that the actual number is "about 22.5 million."

His conclusion was that Neutral Theory should be accepted as the null hypothesis:

https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/01/whats-difference-between-human-and.html

So, I don't see what the problem is. Maybe I need some help.

Here is Larry's posting:

https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/01/whats-difference-between-human-and.html

Blogger VD August 26, 2019 8:17 AM  

(a) mutation rate != yardage (or any other linear measure)

(laughs)

You're too short for the ride, Curt. The statistical train is fine.

Blogger Trinian August 26, 2019 11:05 AM  

billo wrote:That's actually not the universal experience of man. Many cultures and many philosophers have taken a deterministic view of life, or to a significant degree. I noted the Fates of classical Greece, the Ming of China, etc.



I am sorry I phrased my question without sufficient clarity. I am not interested in man's beliefs but in man's experience. Whether a man believes in determinism or free will, he lives ... he experiences life ... in a world of free choice. He chooses to get up in the morning (or not); he chooses to get dressed (or not); he chooses to go to work (or not).

Whether this free choice is an illusion, the mere appearance of free will, or not, a man has to make choices. It is impossible for him to live without making choices. These choices may be illusions; his choices may be determined; but he still has to make them.

The obvious conclusion from this is that man lives in a world of free choice. For an intelligent man to believe that there is no free will and everything is determined asks for an explanation.

What evidence and reason has convinced this man to abandon his own experience of life to come to the conclusion that everything is determined?

Many very smart men have come to this conclusion. You cite Einstein as an example. What is the convincing evidence and reason?

Blogger James Dixon August 26, 2019 11:29 AM  

> (laughs)

https://www.audiosparx.com/sa/archive/Radio/Radio-shows/The-Shadow-Laughter/14161

Blogger SirHamster August 26, 2019 3:49 PM  

Crew wrote:So, I don't see what the problem is. Maybe I need some help.
It's the same line of argument of that one guy in the previous evo thread. It relies on untested assumptions.

" The mutation rate in humans is about 130 mutations per generation based on our knowledge of the biochemistry of DNA replication"

"In an evolving population the rate of fixation of neutral alleles is equal to the mutation rate"


But that's not based on an observation of a population's fixation rate, which is acknowledged here:

"The actual mutation rate may be lower than we calculate."


The equation uses the entire Earth's population of humans to boost the estimated mutation rate, but never uses that same fact against it. Think about how hard it is for a mutation in an African to propagate to an American in 1, 10, 100 generations.

Everything that an equation ignores is added an error to the result. In everything TENS related, the errors are measured in orders of magnitude. The math is junk.

Blogger Curt August 26, 2019 4:32 PM  

@PG
I dont make videos for neuro-commoners so to speak. Not my goal. Subject matter is similar to mathematics and programming in that it's more suitable for written exposition. John does address normies. And he protects his anonymity. I don't even know his name.

@Dirk Manly: the vast majority of foundations and think tanks are operated by one to three people - thats the economics of the market. Foundations provide a legal vehicle for donations and taxation without conflating personal assets. There are a very small number of foundations with 1m+ revenues and a very large number of those that pay part time salaries.

@Azure Amaranthine
Depends on which argument you are making. I made the one I intended to. That being that mutation rate and volume does not tell us functional or morphological rates of adaptation.

---"that there is not enough time for natural selection to produce enough gene mutations to explain the fossil record."---

Which is why someone asked me to respond. Unlike football, a gene can run 1m yards in a single play, and an individual's genes can run a thousand balls in a single play - random mutations are not nor need be evenly distributed in time, to be evenly distributed over time. The simple act of isolating many small populations will produce greater variations.

That said at 50% of anticipated rate, we are still close enough. The rate of change is quite high but the rate of correction quite high and the majority of dna is suppressed (garbage).

Which results in my point: if you cant enumerate the sets of operations that cause variation and rely on aggregates you will end up with junk math. The function of statistics is to narrow down the possibilities for operational construction of causes. Otherwise it's just nonsense.

This is what we learn in economics, in genetics, and in the dirty work of writing software.

Blogger Dirk Manly August 26, 2019 5:07 PM  

@159

"
@Dirk Manly: the vast majority of foundations and think tanks are operated by one to three people - thats the economics of the market. "

1) So, you're one guy, pretending to be a large group of people, like a university or institute, but really, you're not even the Union of Concerned Scientists, which turned out to be a husband-and-wife team of Marxists with a fax machine and the fax line telephone number for the NYT and a couple other newspapers.

2) This must explain why the output of so many think tanks is so low -- consisting of position papers with such glaring holes in their arguments.

3) "Everybody else in the business is pulling this same con" is not a valid excuse.

Blogger Dirk Manly August 26, 2019 5:09 PM  

"Foundations provide a legal vehicle for donations and taxation without conflating personal assets. There are a very small number of foundations with 1m+ revenues and a very large number of those that pay part time salaries."

So, basically, it's nothing more than a tax dodge, on top of the chicanery that pretends to the public that your organization is a collection of great minds, when, in fact, it's just you, with a set of blind spots as large as most any other individual.

Color me unimpressed.

Blogger Dirk Manly August 26, 2019 5:14 PM  

"a gene can run 1m yards in a single play, and an individual's genes can run a thousand balls in a single play - random mutations are not nor need be evenly distributed in time, to be evenly distributed over time. The simple act of isolating many small populations will produce greater variations."


Look, idiot. The "yardage model" is the BEST CASE SCENARIO model for genetic mutation leading to a new species. In actual biochemistry, it's MUCH MUCH WORSE. However, for the purposes of showing that the "randumb mutations creates new species" claim is complete BS, using the absolute, most favorable model to the "randumb mutations" claim, and showing that even THAT model fails the laugh test once you plug in the numbers, it is more than sufficient. There is literally no need to go into all of the complexity of an accurate model, which only makes the "randumb mutation" model look even... dumber.

Blogger Dirk Manly August 26, 2019 5:17 PM  

Curt... you're obviously a smart guy... when you're in a group of 30-60 people when a 115 IQ is all it takes to be the smartest guy in the room.

Realize that, this is not the typical room, and you're not going to find ANYBODY with an IQ even as low as 110 who comments here regularly. And the 110's participate only rarely.

Blogger SirHamster August 26, 2019 6:39 PM  

Curt wrote:This is what we learn in economics, in genetics, and in the dirty work of writing software.

Linking the process of intelligently designed yet dirtily written software to random genetic mutation and propagation is a category error.

Truth doesn't need to steal credibility.

The actual lessons of writing software speak against random mutation as a process capable of building sophisticated and highly functional systems.

Blogger The Cooler August 26, 2019 7:16 PM  

Self-consistent models are self-consistent. This, and only this, is proven by TENS.

random mutations are not nor need be evenly distributed in time, to be evenly distributed over time.

That follows. And the math still doesn't work, which explains why TENS grows ever-more inelegant.

The inelegance of TENS, alone, disqualifies it as a science. It is the final stage of Materialistic Monism as that transmogrifies into a techno-religious goo.



Blogger billo August 26, 2019 7:33 PM  

Trinian wrote:Many very smart men have come to this conclusion. You cite Einstein as an example. What is the convincing evidence and reason?

There is, of course, a literature on this that has continued for at least two millenia.

Your argument is simply that "There must be free will because it feels like there is free will. My experience is thus, and it must be thus."

It turns out that your experience is *not* universal. Throughout history people have observed that decisions are often obviously forced on people, or are determined by events, and experienced it so. It is the basis of classic Greek tragedy. It is the basis of much of Confucius' philosophy, He notes " Death and life have their determined appointments; riches and honors depend upon heaven. " Aristotle noted " ... nothing is or takes place fortiutiously, either in the present or in the future, and there are no real alternatives; everything takes place of necessity and is fixed." The Hindu-related sect of Ajivika explicitly denied free will among its aherents. The "experience" of determinism is historic and widespread.

Moreover, as I noted in my original post, it is not, in fact, an "either/or" position. It is not "either fate is deterministic, or there if free choice" because it may be determined that you will freely make a choice. In my life, I have, for instance known a person who was an enthusiastic heroin addict -- who eventually died with a needle in his arm. If, when he was alive, I were to offer him a fix when he was drug sick, he would shoot up. Now, he had "free will" about using drugs, but he had no intention of stopping use, he enjoyed heroin, he used heroin all the time, and if he had heroin available he would use it. In other words, he *both* had free will, *and* his use of the drug was determined by his condition.

Moreover, this idea of free will versus determinism begs the question of what you mean by free will. For some reason, people seem to believe that free will means that people do things in a random manner. They don't. And if it's not stochastic, it's deterministic.

As I noted in my original comment, determinism does not preclude the "experience" of free will, either as a subjective experience, or as a functional event. Free will, meaning that a decision is made by the subject without duress and is based on the internal motivations and life of the subject, exists regardless of whether or not the choice is predetermined. Peole are not random number generators. The choice you make is a function of your circumstances and your history. Each step along your life, the same is true, and the later steps are the product of the previous steps. At no time do you just "randomly" make choices.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 26, 2019 7:46 PM  

@billo, determinists are not serious people. Determinists are desperate to deny the reality of their lives.

Blogger chuckhough August 26, 2019 9:07 PM  

Can someone please link to an earlier post or an article where this concept is covered in detail? Thanks. I'd love to see the numbers on what some assume to be the average fixed rate and how this would fall apart given the timeframe. Thanks.

Blogger Edward Isaacs August 26, 2019 9:51 PM  

I'm not going to be bothered no matter what the truth of TENS actually turns out to be, but I didn't see this addressed anywhere:

Wraithburn wrote:@18

As it turns out we can work out the math for that. With infinite time so we have an infinite number of generations, to get from 1 person to 1 million people, every single person has to have 13.8155 kids. I don't know about you, but we never see that anywhere and we don't have infinite time anyway.

ReMine's paper with the math:

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_1/j19_1_113-125.pdf


This is a good read, thanks for linking it!

However, I think you've misunderstood the meaning that table. I'm not finished reading the paper yet but Table 2 is giving the TOTAL cost of substitution, which is the sum of all the individual generational costs. It is not the cost PER generation, but all of the individual minimum generational costs summed together.

You can most easily see this is so if you consider the 2-generation case. To go from 1 to 1000000 in 2 generations, you clearly need, at minimum, the 1 to reproduce 1000 in gen 1 and then each of the 1000 to reproduce 1000 more to get 1000*1000=1000000.

Of each of those 1000 children, the first is just the cost of replacement, replacing the parent. So that leaves 999 children per mutant per generation paying the cost of substitution. And if you look at the table 2 in that paper, you can see under the 2-generation entry for substitution duration, the figure he gives is 1,998. Which is 999+999.

Blogger Dirk Manly August 26, 2019 10:23 PM  

@billo

A determinist would say that the roll of a pair of dice has been determined before you even picked up the dice. What you're talking about isn't anywhere close to what a determinist believes.

Blogger PG August 27, 2019 2:26 AM  

@159. Curt

"I dont make videos for neuro-commoners so to speak."

Thanks for clearing that up, I had thought you just didn't know what you were talking about.

I look forward to hearing, not seeing of course, "John" when he translates into normie speak, how you intend on completing the scientific method.

Blogger billo August 27, 2019 9:25 AM  

Dirk Manly wrote:

A determinist would say that the roll of a pair of dice has been determined before you even picked up the dice. What you're talking about isn't anywhere close to what a determinist believes.


No, that is exactly what I am saying.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine August 27, 2019 12:55 PM  

"Depends on which argument you are making. I made the one I intended to. That being that mutation rate and volume does not tell us functional or morphological rates of adaptation.

---"that there is not enough time for natural selection to produce enough gene mutations to explain the fossil record."---

Which is why someone asked me to respond."


I've searched the thread. No one made the argument or asked the question you claim to be responding to. So, which are you, dumb, delusional, or a liar?

In addition,

"SORRY ALL BUT, NO."

Isn't a response to one statement, argument, or person, so you're at least a liar.

You don't understand the argument being made, so you're dumb as well.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine August 27, 2019 1:10 PM  

billo, here is what we do know about determinacy:

-It is proven that it is impossible to prove that the universe is deterministic. (Heisenberg, as well as others.)

-From the tendencies we do understand, such as entropy, that the pre-universal "boundary conditions" were by chance ordered such as to increase order and intricacy so repeatedly and reliably in some places while decreasing them so staunchly and inviolably in all others, including the observable present and recorded history, is beyond astronomically improbable.

All your appeal to determinism does is to shift the entire problem back to the beginning of the universe. The entire problem is still both present and a problem.

Blogger James Dixon August 27, 2019 4:24 PM  

> Throughout history people have observed that decisions are often obviously forced on people, or are determined by events, and experienced it so. It is the basis of classic Greek tragedy.

That's a misstatement of the basis of Greek tragedy.

It's not that decisions are forced on you. It's that the outcome is predetermined no matter what decisions you make.

Blogger Wraithburn August 27, 2019 4:49 PM  

Edward Isaacs wrote:You can most easily see this is so if you consider the 2-generation case. To go from 1 to 1000000 in 2 generations, you clearly need, at minimum, the 1 to reproduce 1000 in gen 1 and then each of the 1000 to reproduce 1000 more to get 1000*1000=1000000.

Right, it is for the total cost across all generations. ReMine states just before the table, "For a substitution of a given duration, a simple proof shows that the lowest total cost is achieved when the cost per-generation remains constant (see Appendix). Table 2 summarizes this point."

He reiterates this point after the table as well. An inconsistent growth rate makes the total cost higher than this minimum. You are correct that I was misinterpreting the total cost for individual generational costs.

Blogger wreckage August 28, 2019 5:03 AM  

Being somewhere about 115-119 IQ I can confirm that around here we are the valued staff, not the esteemed leaders.

Blogger Curt August 28, 2019 10:32 AM  

REGARDING ANTI-DETERMINISM - DETERMINISTIC VS DETERMINABLE

A common Misunderstanding: (

a) we cannot determine (measure) without interfering with what we are measuring

(b) the fact that even if we measure probabilistically the universe is still deterministic within the limits of our measurement

(c) the universe is Determin-ISTIC in that it follows non arbitrary general rules, but it is Indetermin-ABLE despite being determin-ISTIC.

(d) so far as we know, it's only causal density and interminability that prevent our present discovery of the universe's determinism at higher levels of resolution than we are capable of with current technology.

In other words, the Early 20th, under influence of mathematical idealism, and early postmodernism, engaged in pseudoscientific GRAMMAR (speech) when making scientific claims. This is in no small part Bohr's influence, and is the reason for 'woo woo' in scientific discourse.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine August 29, 2019 11:21 AM  

Curt, you are an imbecile.

"prevent our present discovery of the universe's determinism"

So you have decided that it's deterministic even though it is not possible to prove. And no, this is not a current technology barrier. This is not a barrier that can be removed by us, ever.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine August 29, 2019 7:22 PM  

Here's the trick. Analyze from purpose.

Watching, recording, collating, hypothesizing, testing, and compiling. What is the purpose of the scientific method? The purpose is to grant power in the form of understanding to the user.

However, built into the tool is the proper understanding that tests are forever repeated, and recompilations necessary, because the understanding granted is only an approximation of knowledge, rather than actual knowledge. To say that absolute certainty is possible by this method is to deceive ourselves.

If you would push for unlimited power through science, you must assume that its potential precision is ultimately unlimited as well. Thereby, you must assume that the approximate understanding had so far is to some extent identical to perfect knowledge, else how can the two ever be collapsed into one for the attainment of ultimate knowledge?

As soon as you allow yourself to think that imperfection is perfection, there you go and are gone.

It is the Faustian bargain. Your soul for all knowledge? Very well, have knowledge that your soul does not exist, because infinite functions are not finitely knowable. Thus you have been lied to that you can contain all knowledge, and that you have received it, and that you never had a soul to begin with.

"Because all that I can understand is determinism, all that I am is deterministic."

Next logical step? In a deterministic universe you don't exist. You are nothing more than an arbitrarily defined set of functions pulled from the machine. You have no self-essence, no soul, no spirit.

Blogger Curt August 30, 2019 11:52 AM  

@Azure Amaranthine

You really aren't up to this category of arguments - or concepts. Let me help you.

1 - The culmination of 20th century investigation into the scientific method was that there is no via-positiva scientific method - nor is there any via-positiva logic. Instead, the scientific method consists of producing testifiable testimony regardless of via positiva method of investigation, and the logics test the consistency of constant relations from given premises.

2 - In case you didn't grasp it the first time: Determinism(ideal), Deterministic(within limits), Determinable (within limits), just as Truth (ideal), Truth (within limits of speech), and Truthful (within limits of testimony).

3) The universe is deterministic (describable by rules of arbitrary precision), but not does not fit determinism (the scale of the universe and causal density at lowest scales makes a general rule of infinite precision (at present) unlikely, whereas we can, and have, produced (identified) many general rules of arbitrary(scale within paradigm) precision.

So gain, Please. Dispense your sophims upon those who are impressed, by your desperate search for dominance expression, and leave those of us who are adults (and men) to do our duty: protecting the informational commons from overconfident men and solipsistic women.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine August 30, 2019 3:15 PM  

Curt, good example of Dunning-Kruger.

1: Irrelevant.

2: Determinism: system of thought declaring that something's end-state is precisely predictable from its beginning. Deterministic: the state of something that behaves in a precisely predictable fashion. Determinable: what can be said with absolute accuracy and precision before it has happened.

You're trying to be sophistic and claim that what you said didn't carry the weight that we both know it did. Stop.

3: To say that the universe is deterministic does not mean that it is describable to some extent, it means that it is completely predictable, from the smallest to the largest. Stop lying, Curt.

You are the only sophistic one here. I'm using words for what they mean. You're trying to distort them to justify the lies you've already told. Slime, scum, dishonest sack of shit that you are. Of course you would claim the inversion of everything that is true. Satanic by definition.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine August 30, 2019 3:38 PM  

Also you obviously don't understand what via-positiva and via-negativa mean contextually.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts