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

Wednesday, February 06, 2019

Evolution debate tonight

Just a reminder that I'll be debating biologist JF Gariepy tonight at 7 PM EST on The Public Space. Place your bets; JFG's fans appear to be of the opinion that I will be, and I quote, "rekt".

I am, to the contrary, entirely confident that I will be presenting a critique of TENS that is, at the very least, an uncommon one, and possibly even a unique one, seeing as how it comes from an economics perspective. The only question, as far as I can tell, is if I am somehow failing to account for a critical component, otherwise, I see as little likelihood that orthodox biologists will be able respond to my critique any more successfully than free trade economists responded to my labor mobility argument.

UPDATE: buckle up. Here is the link to the debate.

VERDICT: It was a very interesting and useful conversation, in my opinion, more of a mutual exploration than a debate per se. JF quickly understood where I was going and correctly focused on the point that the simple statistical model does not address, which is the rate of parallel propagation of the mutations that become sufficiently fixed to become an ongoing part of the population. What I felt that he failed to grasp was that we were talking about maximum possible propagations, so even the addition of the parallel propagating is unlikely to provide enough padding to allow the theory to fit within the time limits.

And, as I noted, if the parallel propagating is happening as quickly as it is required in order to account for the necessary changes, we should be able to observe it more readily in the laboratory as well as in the wild.

I'll post the summary of the crude fixed mutation model tomorrow.

Labels: , ,

222 Comments:

1 – 200 of 222 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Josh (the sexiest thing here) February 06, 2019 11:26 AM  

Nevada has a shortage of sex workers?

Blogger DBSFF February 06, 2019 11:32 AM  

Given that JF did not respond well to your basic point about the (unproven) assumptions that undergird his syllogism, I can only imagine his response when you come at him from an entirely out-of-the-box angle. Perhaps he will have one. Should be fun.

Blogger Daniel February 06, 2019 11:32 AM  

TENS assumes that a garden hose will fill the ocean before its own well runs dry.

There is a reason why biologists avoid math.

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 February 06, 2019 11:49 AM  

I happen to support evolution, but what I will say is that the theory really has terrible advocates more often than not, and like free trade supporters they often duck away from implications of the theory that they don't like - human biodiversity, for example.

I don't know that I'd be willing to step into the ring against VD to argue for it - you've blindsided me with your insight before enough times to give me pause.

Blogger Nate73 February 06, 2019 11:58 AM  

Would things like carbon dating and what not be considered part of TENS, since I assume that's what they use to date the fossils and such?

Anyway whales had legs so you should believe (((evolution))) goy!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2015/11/17/four-famous-transitional-fossils-that-support-evolution/

Blogger FUBARwest February 06, 2019 12:01 PM  

What's the spread on the bet? I'm down for some easy money. The only real question is if JFG will sperg out or not.

Blogger David Ray Milton February 06, 2019 12:11 PM  

I am excited about this. I just hope I can follow this discussion as I am only moderately familiar with economic theories and unfamiliar with evolutionary biology. Also, after hearing JF on Monday night, I am at least moderately concerned that he might try to word-salad his way through the debate. I think the guy is smart, but I am not sure he is a fantastic communicator. And the French-Canadian accent is not going to make that easier.

Just throwing this out there, but if anyone were willing to transcribe the debate for later posting, well, that would be awesome.

Blogger Garuna February 06, 2019 12:12 PM  

What time does the debate begin?

Blogger Peaceful Poster February 06, 2019 12:12 PM  

If JF gets rekt, he already has an excuse in hand. He's sick!

To be fair, his voice did not sound great last night.

Blogger Xiety February 06, 2019 12:21 PM  

Peaceful Poster wrote:If JF gets rekt, he already has an excuse in hand. He's sick!
He didn't look or sound well at all during that SOTU stream. Legitimately sick. Hopefuly he's resting up for battle. Looking forward to this.

Blogger Gregory the Great February 06, 2019 12:22 PM  

"Rekt" might be derived from ze French word "requin" for shark.

Blogger Cataline Sergius February 06, 2019 12:30 PM  

Josh (the sexiest thing here) wrote:Nevada has a shortage of sex workers?

Dude, the economy has picked up.

Two dimensional sex workers are being out competed by the more traditional 3D market, which in turn creates a pressure on that market and so...

Blogger Seth February 06, 2019 12:51 PM  

Except all JF has to do is apply abduction and say that out of all hypotheses it is the best for explaining what we observe in life right now. In which case all attacks that don't present a different hypothesis (what intelligent design attempts to do) can be shrugged off with "the theory can be adjusted further".

The model of geocentric solar system wasn't replaced by just pointing out problems, it was replaced with a new heliocentric model.

Blogger VD February 06, 2019 12:52 PM  

Except all JF has to do is apply abduction and say that out of all hypotheses it is the best for explaining what we observe in life right now.

Please try to remember that I am smarter than you are. A LOT smarter.

Blogger Chris Fieldman February 06, 2019 12:56 PM  

@Nate73
Carbon dating can date up to a maximum of 16,000 years. After that all the radioactive carbon will be depleted. Fossils are dated purely by what soil layer they are found, which sounds to me like a pretty sketchy theory. I heard a rumor once that someone actually did carbon date a T-Rex bone once, and carbon dating dino bones is never done, and it actually registered carbon traces at around 12,000 years old. That was just a rumor though.

Blogger John Russo February 06, 2019 1:04 PM  

VD -300
JFG +225

VD by KO Even
JFG wets pants/vomits -150

Circled

Blogger Didas Kalos February 06, 2019 1:05 PM  

Soft tissue and blood proteins in TRex bones = Lots of lies to cover up truth.

Blogger Gregory the Great February 06, 2019 1:08 PM  

I hope, Vox, you will be able to rektify some of JF's most blatant errors.

Blogger 1st Earl Hardwicke February 06, 2019 1:10 PM  

So was the last discussion centred around some kind of Meta-DNA? That occurs at a quantum level, like some kind of switch? I wasn't paying too much attention, when I hear quantum I usually think of some other word for God, or putting off the question. 99.99% of people plus including me probably have no idea what quantum physics mean or how it is applicable.

I think VD will win the debate, unless JF uses his Crimson Force field. If physicists 'know' how something occurs what is there to debate? There is not anyone I consider to be smarter than VD who is a relative public figure, maybe there is? please tell.

Blogger Fargoth February 06, 2019 1:10 PM  

Based on my calculations, if I were to bet on JF, I should receive infinite dollars in the case he wins the debate.

I like how you painted yourself as the underdog early in your interview with JF; "So...what is the difference between a phenotype and genotype?"

Blogger FP February 06, 2019 1:10 PM  

FUBARwest wrote:What's the spread on the bet? I'm down for some easy money. The only real question is if JFG will sperg out or not.

If he does sperg out, will it take under an hour or up to two?

Blogger Gregory the Great February 06, 2019 1:11 PM  

Where do I place my bets, please? Where do the odds stand?

Blogger Fargoth February 06, 2019 1:14 PM  

The Anglo Christians vs the French Nihilists.....get rrrreeeeeaaaady to ruuummmmmble

Blogger Doktor Jeep February 06, 2019 1:30 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Doktor Jeep February 06, 2019 1:32 PM  

Anti-creation is the new atheism.
Or pro evolution - can't tell which came first really. But seeing people all about this as if it was some kind of war, as if their lives will improve personally, shows another problem altogether. What does it matter who "wins"? What, are the hot body 9s and 10s going to get the tingles for fat neckbearded atheists if Vox gets "rekt"? Is there a cash reward for the winning side?

Blogger David Ray Milton February 06, 2019 1:39 PM  

@Seth

And to be clear, in the grand history of the debate, Creationism has “frame” and evolution is the theory trying to replace it. I see your point, but I think the purpose of this debate is showing that TENS never provided an adequate heliocentric type model to replace creationism in the first place. It began with the presupposition that a deity did not create the cosmos and then constructed a theory as an alternative explanation.

Blogger Gregory the Great February 06, 2019 1:44 PM  

@25 The problem with debates is that in most cases all of the participants in a debate walk out with the same opinion they had before the debate. Still those of us who like convincing arguments should be allowed to point out logical flaws or logical stringency of the debating parties. And be permitted to feel joy when someone comes up with a good argument or when spotting logical flaws or seeing through wizardry, don't you think?

Blogger Wraithburn February 06, 2019 1:51 PM  

@15

Carbon dating is one of the dirty secrets of evolution. It works by knowing the decay rate of C14. If a thing doesn't have C14 you can't date it, which causes problems. You have to date something next to it and hope.

But even worse, as in physics, you can only get a vector with a velocity and a fixed point. We can see how much C14 there is now, and we know the decay rate. But we don't know how much C14 we started from! Without that value, you are just making a number up to fit what you think the should be correct.

Imagine if we have a bone with 10 C14 atoms in it. We know the decay rate, so we say that if there were 30 C14 ten million years ago we would have 10 C14 now. But what if the bones only had 12 C14? Then it couldn't have been ten million years.

So that's two problems with carbon dating, starting conditions assumptions and dating other stuff because your item has no carbon in it. Besides these, there's also the embarrassment of dates coming out "wrong" and getting adjusted to what scientists think they should be afterwards. Happens fairly often, though is rarely mentioned by scientists in the field.

Details here if you want a young earth creationist view:
https://creation.com/carbon-14-dating-explained-in-everyday-terms

Blogger MidnightSun300 February 06, 2019 1:52 PM  

My money is on Vox. After all, he has God on his side.

Blogger Resident Moron™ February 06, 2019 2:05 PM  

JFG thinks himself a speculative philosopher for pondering what the next level of evolution might be.

It has yet to occur to him to ask
himself if evolution is even possible, in principle or in practice.

He knows neither himself nor his opponent and must, therefore, be defeated.

Blogger Andre B February 06, 2019 2:31 PM  

JF creates extremely intricate science fiction, but science fiction nonetheless. It's speculative in the sense that he can conjure intriguing extrapolations based on wrong premises. He could provide a good author with a solid science fiction background for a suspense novel, but it's not science based on reality.

Blogger mike February 06, 2019 2:32 PM  

Well, my bet is on Vox x 10 simple as that

Blogger artensoll February 06, 2019 2:34 PM  

In 'The Magician's Nephew' C S Lewis had Aslan roar Narnia into existence. Good enough for me.

@7 "if anyone were willing to transcribe the debate for later posting, well, that would be awesome."

Seconded. JFG's voice makes my ears bleed.

Blogger FUBARwest February 06, 2019 2:38 PM  

"What, are the hot body 9s and 10s going to get the tingles for fat neckbearded atheists if Vox gets "rekt"? Is there a cash reward for the winning side?"

"My smart guy beat your smart guy which makes him the smartest which makes me really smart too since I follow and like my smart guy and agree with everything he says which makes me smarter than your smart guy too." That and asspats

Blogger Solon February 06, 2019 2:46 PM  

God doesn't choose sides, unless you count Good vs. Evil. He has seen fit in His wisdom to allow us the free will to be wrong.

Doesn't mean you shouldn't put your money on Vox, of course. He's a smart man. That alone is worth gold.

Side note: is anyone else seeing a shift in the sciences, where it used to be that "backwards, ignorant people" supported creationism and "smart, enlightened" people supported TENS, but now with so much evidence against it, it's almost like the TENS people are the backwards, ignorant ones?

Blogger Unknown February 06, 2019 2:54 PM  

At what time does the debate begin

Blogger Solon February 06, 2019 2:56 PM  

The opinion of the women-folk is sort of irrelevant here. This is a philosophical discussion. There haven't been any real female philosophers in the history of the world for a reason: they aren't biologically constructed to be so forward-thinking as to ponder the long-term results of abstract concepts.

Same reason there are so few women in math and sciences in general.

This discussion isn't about earning "big dick points" with women. This is the kind of discussion that would have occurred in men-only smoking clubs a century or two ago.

On that note: when are we going to see a resurgence in men-only smoking clubs? Women are great for a lot of things, but deep discussion is not one of those things, and it gets so tiresome to be surrounded by women all day whose topic of discussion never moves past sex and gossip. Lord knows I've tried to get my old lady to follow along when I discuss politics, but she gets all glassy-eyed when I go past surface-level appearances.

Then, predictably, she gets upset with me, presumably because she believes she's out of her depth and I'm only discussing deep topics to... Show off how much smarter than her I am, I suppose?

I need to constantly remind myself that women do not make good debate sparring partners.

Blogger Rickaby007 February 06, 2019 3:02 PM  

>https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2015/11/17/four-famous-transitional-fossils-that-support-evolution/
>four-famous-transitional-fossils-that-support-evolution/
>support-evolution

"Evolution is 100% true fact. Please believe me, please believe me, please believe me, please believe me! Wait -- don't go! I have some fossils to show you! They're 100% super real, they prove everything... wait!"

Blogger Passionate Observer February 06, 2019 3:02 PM  

It's been a while since I debated it, but the strongest criticism of evolution I've seen (where "evolution" is broadly defined to include the processes that generated all speciation since the origin of life on the planet) is that natural selection explains changes in frequency of expression of existing genes, but not the ex nihilo production of entirely new genes.

An argument can be made that random mutation is not sufficient as a mechanism to the degree of speciation observed in the world.

If you go down that route the critical component you'd be missing is recent discoveries in alternative ways that new information enters the genome in the form of lateral gene transfer.

Blogger MidnightSun300 February 06, 2019 3:03 PM  

I happen to know that God does choose sides Mr Solon and I also know that you are going straight down the hatch to hell!

Blogger allyn71 February 06, 2019 3:14 PM  

Prediction- Biologist suck at math....again.

Blogger 1st Earl Hardwicke February 06, 2019 3:17 PM  

Solon wrote:The opinion of the women-folk is sort of irrelevant here. This is a philosophical discussion. There haven't been any real female philosophers in the history of the world for a reason: they aren't biologically constructed to be so forward-thinking as to ponder the long-term results of abstract concepts.

So true. "Women know your limits!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

Blogger Resident Moron™ February 06, 2019 3:22 PM  

"... new information enters the genome in the form of lateral gene transfer."

This reminds me of the proposition that stars begin as the result of dust clouds shocked into coherent masses by the effects of a nearby supernova.

I'll wait.

Blogger Mocheirge February 06, 2019 3:47 PM  

Resident Moron™ wrote:"... new information enters the genome in the form of lateral gene transfer."

This reminds me of the proposition that stars begin as the result of dust clouds shocked into coherent masses by the effects of a nearby supernova.

I'll wait.


Horizontal gene transfers all the way... left? right?

Blogger William Meisheid February 06, 2019 3:54 PM  

Resident Moron™ wrote:"... new information enters the genome in the form of lateral gene transfer."

This reminds me of the proposition that stars begin as the result of dust clouds shocked into coherent masses by the effects of a nearby supernova.

I'll wait.

Sounds like shuffling a deck of cards, but no new cards are found. Same old, same old get dealt.

Blogger Sammi Hass February 06, 2019 3:57 PM  

Isn't it a form of magical thinking to hold that high intellect women are interested in similar things to high intellect men? High intellect doesn't seem to make men into different creatures so why should that change for women?

Blogger Sammi Hass February 06, 2019 4:00 PM  

A supernova can only happen to a star that is created. The beginning of stars cannot follow a supernova in that theory because there is nothing to supernova. It makes no sense. What came first, the star or the supernova?

Blogger Xiety February 06, 2019 4:07 PM  

VD, are we sure that it's to be streamed live on the "Jean-Francois Gariépy" channel, rather than JFG Livestreams?

Blogger VD February 06, 2019 4:37 PM  

We're not sure of anythign.

Blogger 1st Earl Hardwicke February 06, 2019 4:39 PM  

Sammi Hass wrote:Isn't it a form of magical thinking to hold that high intellect women are interested in similar things to high intellect men? High intellect doesn't seem to make men into different creatures so why should that change for women?

I think a high intellect impacts a woman more than a man, and is rarer. End up with some kind of Wonder Woman phenomena, where they either have no children or very few, usually the former. I think there's an element of hypergamy to it. It's not usual to have Alpha men married to women that are a lot more intelligent than them, unless they're the Eva Peron type or really attractive. And I don't think Betas would like the communication gap socially.

Sammi Hass wrote:A supernova can only happen to a star that is created. The beginning of stars cannot follow a supernova in that theory because there is nothing to supernova. It makes no sense. What came first, the star or the supernova?

There is an element of self-reference in Christopher Langan's CTMU. I've read some of his essays on Amazon(He briefly discussed the Chicken and Egg Problem), but haven't really looked at his Magnum Opus, he says something like evolution is teleological, but proceeds from God.

Blogger tublecane February 06, 2019 4:39 PM  

Is it possible the debate won't either stray from TENS or get stuck in a rut? Because there isn't much to talk about if the subject is properly restricted. Except statistics, but I doubt we're going to hear a numbers debate.

Blogger Gregory the Great February 06, 2019 4:40 PM  

Exactly, there may be a universe where 2+2=7

Blogger H8KU com February 06, 2019 4:46 PM  

I'll be watching. One thing is certain both of you will be sure you won the debate no matter how it goes.

Blogger VD February 06, 2019 4:48 PM  

Because there isn't much to talk about if the subject is properly restricted.

You could not be more wrong. How have you been here so long and yet still fail to grasp that your limitations do not necessarily apply to me?

Blogger tublecane February 06, 2019 4:53 PM  

@11- Probably not, as it comes from "wreck," meaning the remains of something ruined. "Requin" relates to showing ones teeth.

Blogger tublecane February 06, 2019 4:59 PM  

@54- I wasn't thinking about myself, honestly.

If it was you giving a lecture, it could go on til the crack of doom. But in a debate, I predict the two of you will very quickly hit a point where he'll want to stray beyond the announced subject. Then what happens? Either the subject strays, or the two of you get in a rut.

Or he stays in a rut and you soar in the original subject, if one looks at it that way. But that is more like a lecture than a debate.

Blogger tublecane February 06, 2019 5:04 PM  

@51-- My comment here could have been better expressed by saying there isn't much to talk about on the subject of the theory of evolution by natural selection in an adversarial debate between JFG and Vox.

On the other hand, there could be libraries full of material to talk about on the subject without regard to context.

Blogger Jed Mask February 06, 2019 5:12 PM  

...

GO VOX! GO VOX!

It's ya birthday! It's ya birthday!

Oh yeah!

Blogger Sammi Hass February 06, 2019 5:27 PM  

1st Earl Hardwicke,

>I think a high intellect impacts a woman more than a man, and is rarer. End up with some kind of Wonder Woman phenomena, where they either have no children or very few, usually the former. I think there's an element of hypergamy to it. It's not usual to have Alpha men married to women that are a lot more intelligent than them, unless they're the Eva Peron type or really attractive. And I don't think Betas would like the communication gap socially.

My mom doesn't want me talking about her on the internet, and she's definitely higher intellect than me. Also INTJ. Speaking for myself, tested twice in 5th grade because teacher didn't believe my IQ was so high given how low my effort was. The second time I didn't try as hard and "lost" 6 points. I was left alone having got my message across...

It.is.solitude. I simply cannot relate to most female peers, nor am I interested if I could. My parents aren't interested in their peers either. I suppose it's hard to be around people making dumb choices and be asked to morally co-sign them. My bro has an even higher IQ and he has the same problem: shallow people and sycophants.

But my interests are still domestic in nature: sewing, reading, origami, cooking, singing. If I wasn't raised in by two people married once, never divorced I think I'd be more destructive.

Idk about hypergamy in this context but my mom wanted me to apply to be a spy for CSIS, Canada FBI. Yeah no. I don't want to be a honey pot.

Blogger VD February 06, 2019 5:31 PM  

My comment here could have been better expressed by saying there isn't much to talk about on the subject of the theory of evolution by natural selection in an adversarial debate between JFG and Vox.

Again, I repeat that you are wrong.

Never, ever, make the mistake of thinking you can reasonably anticipate what I'm going to do or say, particularly in matters such as these.

Blogger pyrrhus February 06, 2019 5:35 PM  

Just don't let him dodge the irreducible complexity point..Not only is it obvious, but the fossil record bears it out, which is why Stephen Jay Gould invented a new theory of "punctuated" evolution.

Blogger S. Thermite February 06, 2019 5:42 PM  

I fully expect Vox to win, but am not sure my bathwater-temperature IQ will be nearly enough to comprehend the arguments. Should be entertaining nonetheless.

Blogger Count Nomis February 06, 2019 5:59 PM  

Wow . . . you guys are really out of touch with the field. If you want a thoroughly up to date book on the subject (which criticizes the theory of evolution on SCIENTIFIC grounds, check out the book When Evolution Stops. It is AWESOME.

Blogger Blume February 06, 2019 6:08 PM  

Go to a cigar shop and smoke. 90 isn't of the time there will be no women there. And Fubar is right.

Blogger Sammi Hass February 06, 2019 6:09 PM  

Do you even go here, Count?

Blogger VD February 06, 2019 6:26 PM  

Just don't let him dodge the irreducible complexity point..Not only is it obvious, but the fossil record bears it out, which is why Stephen Jay Gould invented a new theory of "punctuated" evolution.

I don't give a flying quantum of a damn about the irreducible complexity point. There are lots of obvious arguments that have been argued many times before. Literally none of them are necessary for me.

Will you guys PLEASE stop trying to tell me how to debate? I'm much better at this than you seem to understand and I'm not interested in what ANY of you think I should say. It is very obvious that only two or three of you even grasp where I'm coming from despite the various hints that I've dropped.

Did I need anyone's help to come up with a conclusive argument that demolished free trade? This is even easier.

Blogger Gregory the Great February 06, 2019 6:26 PM  

I was just joking

Blogger SirHamster February 06, 2019 6:48 PM  

Link to debate livestream.

Blogger Xiety February 06, 2019 6:49 PM  

Yep. Looks good to go at the link. Chat is up.

Blogger Matt February 06, 2019 6:59 PM  

Whoops...

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019/02/06/porn-actress-mercedes-carrera-producer-boyfriend-child-molestation/

Blogger David The Good February 06, 2019 7:19 PM  

The chat is filled with amazingly stupid people.

Blogger maniacprovost February 06, 2019 7:24 PM  

It is very obvious that only two or three of you even grasp where I'm coming from despite the various hints that I've dropped.

I assume some of those hints were un darkstreams. Based on the topic of the debate, you're either trying to throw JF in the wrong direction, or you plan to prove TENS is useless. That seems to tie in to the lack of predictive hypotheses from TENS, but not exactly. If I went thst route I would argue that TENS isn't science.

On the other hand, all the free trade references could be more related to a structural issue with TENS versus other sciences or the hodgepodge of quasirelated ideas encompassed in TENS. It's not easy to guess what an analogy is an analogue of.

At this point the debate may have started already. I should stick to postdicting.

Prediction is to dictation as dictation is to transcription, because it's easier to transcribe good diction than a prescription.

Blogger Rickaby007 February 06, 2019 7:40 PM  

I haven't been this excited for an internet thing in a long time. Backing Vox, who stands in the red corner, which is symbolic for the blood of his victims, I twiddle my opposable thumbs in anticipation. Let's see JF get axe-kicked through the floor.

Blogger Patrick Kelly February 06, 2019 7:42 PM  

WTF? Passing along different combinations of already existing, inherited genes is not a new mutation.

Blogger Rickaby007 February 06, 2019 7:53 PM  

Pat, even environmental factors like second-hand cigarette smoke can cause mutations. Mutation = the creation of a slightly different version of the same genes.

Blogger Salt February 06, 2019 7:54 PM  

Interesting discussion. What effect does one mutation, or twenty mutations, within an organism have on another (others) happening simultaneously? Seems rather chaotic.

Blogger 1st Earl Hardwicke February 06, 2019 7:54 PM  

@59 Sammi Hass

I would say my mother has an I.Q below average and my father slightly above average. Although on my father's side the I.Q has tended to be quite a bit higher than average. White smiths and before that Aristocrats, mostly. Tended to marry really old, like late 30's sometimes. Divorce pretty much unheard of.

No idea what my I.Q is, had the headmaster talk to me after I did my SATS. He had plotted all the scores on a chart, said something like here's you and one other boy, and here is everyone one else. I said something like is that Robin W. Head: Yes. Me: Well ok then. Head: I thought you might like to know. Me: Thank you.

I was thinking about mentioning the MBTI, one interesting thing I have observed, are that Christians seem/are impossible to categorise in the MBTI. I wouldn't take much notice of it, unless you read Psychological Types by Carl Jung(probably insane). I get INTP as a personality type.

I was backpacking once in southern France, anyway I ended up staying with an older lady for a short while. Was interesting as she worked as a freelance Engineer for aerospace and defence companies. Highly conscientious, you have to be with all the Maths and formulas. I'm pretty low in conscientiousness so tend to take a step back, ok this person is way smarter than me. She had the odd Egyptian artefact/trinket. Fond of Julius Caesar for some reason, had a bust of him. Was funny because she thought I was a spy at one point. Anyway she wasn't miserable as such(probably a front), but not having any children plus neglecting her home in the mountains(The mayorie had spent several hundred grand on an ugly elevator supposedly for disabled people.... next door), had I think left her pretty hollowed out. I remember an interview Stefan did with Milo; where Milo said that older women were pretty miserable, did quite a bit of emphasis on that point, so be careful of solitude.

Blogger Avalanche February 06, 2019 7:56 PM  

@39 An argument can be made that random mutation is not sufficient as a mechanism to the degree of speciation observed in the world.

Even "sub-speciation" shows it's 'off' somehow:

The thing that always makes me give up on this is: let's say there is a cosmic-ray forced mutation so Bob-Not-Yet-A-Giraffe has a taller neck and lives through, when all the low brush burns off after a lightning strike and the Rogan-giraffes all starve.

Assuming a few local giraffe ladies survived -- shorties all -- but oh wait, isn't that a problem? The girl-shorties survive, the rogans don't? Hmmm.

IF one/some of the local giraffe ladies think he's handsome and not just dorky-tall and a klutz, and IF some of them make babies with him; how few of those babies will GET the mutation? And where / with whom will those babies with the mutation that survive to reproductive age mate to pass on the mutation?

EVEN mutations that don't kill their mutated examplar have almost no chance at all in moving forward down a couple of generations to become the new norm.

I MAY be badly explaining a version of the math that Vox is detailing; but I don't think so. He seems to be discussing levels and rates of mutations and changes -- without discussing WHO passes the mutation on... as if ALL mutations that don't kill the host always successfully and perfectly pass on.


I always look askance at the (((genetics researchers))) who claims a bottleneck in human generations: (they claim) 'genetic drift shows' that the human population ACROSS THE PLANET got cut down to, they claim, some 10,000 breeding pairs. What is the minimal number of members of a species that can continue the species?

If across the ENTIRE globe, there were 10,000 breeding pairs -- was it random chance that they were ALL in one place? (How did that happen? How could it?) Why did some of the remainers not kill off others of the few humans - is that not normal primate/human behavior?!

How do all human groups (EXCEPT africans; but including Denisovans and Aussie aborigines) have some small percentage of Neanderthal genes? Were the 10k bottleneck humans partly CroMagnon, partly Neanderthal? Then where do the non-Neanderthal africans come from?

How do you trust the "science" being spread?

Blogger Bobiojimbo February 06, 2019 7:56 PM  

These two conversations that you've had with JF have been really great. Thanks, VD.

Blogger tublecane February 06, 2019 7:57 PM  

@60- It's not really about predicting what you're going to say. He's going to try to expand the subject is my point. Which I bet will be the case.

Blogger Lazarus February 06, 2019 7:59 PM  

did anyone keep watching after Vox left.

JF is a very droll Quebecois.

He compared the medicinal drink his Jewish wife gave him to Chinese pussy, and said, "Chinese pussy is like a poison arrow in the heart."

I'm stealin' that.

Blogger mike February 06, 2019 8:02 PM  

I code genetic algos and absolutely JF arg was correct, I was always wondering if there was enough time to evolve bacteria and viruses into such complex organisms. I'm still not convinced 100% but the algo result JF showed is consistent with my experience. Te only loophole is that its showing the fastest possible rate but this would depend on the pressures etc. However, if you consider that genetic algos ran in the biological lab can solve np-complete problems in minutes instead of many many billions of years thanks to the paralelism of billions of DNA strands working at the same time the evolution becomes doable. So far I believe Vox's argument got REKT

Blogger Torin February 06, 2019 8:05 PM  

It is not only parallel processing across the gene, it is parallel across the entire gene pool meaning you have to take into account all members of the species.

Blogger John Locke February 06, 2019 8:07 PM  

The debate was too autistic for me, Vox you should've made your case more obvious and airtight instead of relying on obscure mathematical modeling that jf can always dodge. It was supposed to be a debate not a tedious conversation in which JF can slip through your fingers...

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums February 06, 2019 8:07 PM  

mike wrote:So far I believe Vox's argument got REKT

His argument only got REKT if you can come forth with a real-world example of speciation in real-time. Or to accurately predict the genetic variance between the same group of people over several generations.

Blogger VD February 06, 2019 8:08 PM  

So far I believe Vox's argument got REKT

Not even close. You and JF are simply assuming that the end result of the parallel propagation is consistent with the high degree of parallelism required to meet the time limits. Remember, he was forced to assume generations that were vastly shorter than anything yet observed in the lab or in the wild.

"Your argument is wrecked because I'm assuming something that has never been observed" is very far from a conclusive statement.

Blogger SirHamster February 06, 2019 8:08 PM  

To deal with JF's objections about parallel mutations, adjust the model to deal with genetic copies per individual, and total genetic copies in the population.

It doesn't help as much as JF thinks because most of those genetic copies don't make it into the genitals to get passed on. Working copies of the blueprints are not the blueprints.

But you could even be generous and include it just to see what happens with unrealistically favorable assumptions.

Blogger Rickaby007 February 06, 2019 8:08 PM  

Haven't seen it yet but perhaps the reason it became more discussion oriented is his lack of desire to face off against someone who he knows is significantly more intelligent than he is. I doubt he wants a repeat of the Jay Dyer bloodbath. I like both of you though. Can't wait to watch.

Blogger VD February 06, 2019 8:09 PM  

Vox you should've made your case more obvious and airtight instead of relying on obscure mathematical modeling that jf can always dodge. It was supposed to be a debate not a tedious conversation in which JF can slip through your fingers...

I have zero interest in what you think I should have done. I accomplished exactly what I hoped to do, and his response was more potentially useful than I had anticipated. It told me that the one weakness is where I thought it was and the rest of it is solid.

Blogger Rick February 06, 2019 8:12 PM  

I think JF’s model requires that all mutations render an improvement in the organism. We do not see anything like this in nature or in man made systems. We mostly see the opposite. His model gets worse if more than one mutation is happening among many others simultaneously.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums February 06, 2019 8:14 PM  

SirHamster wrote:It doesn't help as much as JF thinks because most of those genetic copies don't make it into the genitals to get passed on. Working copies of the blueprints are not the blueprints.

But you could even be generous and include it just to see what happens with unrealistically favorable assumptions.


I was going to say the exact same thing. This must lower JF's mutation rate because not all genes that can mutate are in the gonads, and not all genes that have mutated and are present in the gonad will get transmitted to the second generation, and not all genes that have mutated and are present in the gonad and got transmitted in the second generation will get transmitted in the third generation, and so on.

Blogger SirHamster February 06, 2019 8:15 PM  

I hope JF's model is available to the public. I saw 1 page of code, that's pathetically little.

Blogger Individual 6 February 06, 2019 8:17 PM  

All the top world scientists believe in evolution, there no scientific movement against it. Unless you have like a 500 IQ it's statistically impossible for everyone else to overlook what you claim to have found. None of the brightest minds in the world could, but you did? Your arrogance is overwhelming.

Blogger Man of the Atom February 06, 2019 8:17 PM  

Individual 6 wrote:All the top world scientists believe in evolution, there no scientific movement against it. Unless you have like a 500 IQ it's statistically impossible for everyone else to overlook what you claim to have found. None of the brightest mind in the world could, but you did? Your arrogance is overwhelming.

TOP. MEN.

Blogger ReluctantMessiah February 06, 2019 8:18 PM  

A shame JF wasn't feeling well. I had a feeling Vox was about to lay down a good point before JF cut him off.

Look forward to Vox's analysis. I'm sure he will address it the same way he addressed free trade. Eventually the math doesn't add up

Blogger SirHamster February 06, 2019 8:18 PM  

Wuzzums Fuzzums wrote:I was going to say the exact same thing. This must lower JF's mutation rate because not all genes that can mutate are in the gonads, and not all genes that have mutated and are present in the gonad will get transmitted to the second generation, and not all genes that have mutated and are present in the gonad and got transmitted in the second generation will get transmitted in the third generation, and so on.

All of these factors are reasonably accounted for by Vox's model's fixed mutations per generation rate.

JF's response is a dodge. But that's where you elaborate the model to accommodate the objections, and bring more heat.

Blogger VD February 06, 2019 8:19 PM  

All the top world scientists believe in evolution, there no scientific movement against it. Unless you have like a 500 IQ it's statistically impossible for everyone else to overlook what you claim to have found. None of the brightest mind in the world could, but you did? Your arrogance is overwhelming.

And yet, I did it with the Law of Comparative Advantage, which is older and has been far more studied than TENS. Perhaps JF is right and massive parallelism is sufficient to fill the gap. But I don't think he is and it should be possible to work it out.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums February 06, 2019 8:20 PM  

Individual 6 wrote:All the top world scientists believe in evolution, there no scientific movement against it. Unless you have like a 500 IQ it's statistically impossible for everyone else to overlook what you claim to have found. None of the brightest minds in the world could, but you did? Your arrogance is overwhelming.

Vox has an IQ of 501 so...

Blogger pyrrhus February 06, 2019 8:24 PM  

It hasn't been overlooked, it has been largely ignored...Marxist Stephen Jay Gould saw some of the flaws...

Blogger Drew February 06, 2019 8:25 PM  

From a rhetorical perspective, it looked like a pretty good back-and-forth debate until 28:04 when JF gave the mutation rates from a "parallel mutation" perspective. His visuals here and at 34:54 where he shows the code to his mutational program were a rhetorical kill shot. It effectively says "here is your answer in mathematical terms."

I do not have the expertise to judge whether the answers represented in those visuals were defensible scientifically, pulled out of someone's ass, or accurate but irrelevant to Vox's challenge. I can tell you that Vox's rambling afterward shows that he was not prepared for this response, and didn't have much of an answer to it. So I think the debate was a pretty decisive victory for JF Gariépy. Rhetorically speaking, of course.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aaqec_0FPqA

Blogger pyrrhus February 06, 2019 8:26 PM  

As to "consensus", top scientists at least purported to believe in Piltdown Man, a blatant and obvious fraud, for more than fifty years because of powerful sponsorship.

Blogger Blacksmith Zeke February 06, 2019 8:28 PM  

Individual 6 wrote:All the top world scientists believe in evolution, there no scientific movement against it. Unless you have like a 500 IQ it's statistically impossible for everyone else to overlook what you claim to have found. None of the brightest minds in the world could, but you did? Your arrogance is overwhelming.

All the top world sociologists believe race doesn't exist and gender is a social construct. There is no scientific movement against it. You are so right. Checkmate, you win.

Blogger SirHamster February 06, 2019 8:30 PM  

VD wrote:Perhaps JF is right and massive parallelism is sufficient to fill the gap. But I don't think he is and it should be possible to work it out.

The massive parallelism he is relying on becomes negligible where it is most needed.

Estimate the total population of bacteria. Then get the estimates for the total population of mice, chimps, humans. Watch the exponential decline in population that accompanies the exponential increase in generation periods. The parallelism is affected by the square of generation rates. "Advanced" organisms are more stable on just a mathematical basis.

He looked at parallelism and saw big numbers. But he hasn't put deep thought into it. He gave you a millions and billions handwave instead of a real number estimate normalized to population or species.

Blogger Sammi Hass February 06, 2019 8:37 PM  

I know "where do I come from stuff" bores many people, but if you have a cool lineage that isn't boring at all. That stuff is boring to many because they don't want to put breath into their ideas, good or bad. My family are from Vikings at Sicily and in the Byzantine era, later Kings Guard and Burgermeisters and Huguenots in German lands. So quite a bit different but not at all all together dissimilar. Caring for people. That's a noble job and their people on through that line. I figure we have an innate drive to fulfill that nobility whether tptb want it or not.

I can imagine that technical work is all consuming and that for females it means a 0 or low brood. I bet your colleague didn't like working with people and preferred machines. She kind of reminds me of women I look up to in my family. But hey, we have daycare now starting at 6 months or less! Brilliant idea paying fat daycare ladies to try and mind a hive of stranger babies and call that duty executed.

Thanks for thinking of me, that's very kind. I'm happy go lucky by narure, misery soon passes in me. With family I am never lonely.

Women working so much--83% of Canadian women work, more than men--is maladaptive. Recall, we are only supposed to be working on contingency owing to world war. Like the income tax, and unfettered invasion by fiat or force, women working is supposed to be temporary.

If we can so tenuously imagine loose categories of same-similar organisms holding same-similarity across time and space--since species only applies to one time slice in one place--and call that nota persistent and pervasive mutant off a transitional form (as yet to be roughed out by JF) we can certainly call society an organism. And I definitely see Magneto's plan having merit.

Blogger Cary February 06, 2019 8:39 PM  

JF claim that VD's estimates were too low for the amount of possible change in the amount of time doesn't undermine the case because it underlines how much change is necessary given the time frame. Even if the high rates of change are really possible, as VD pointed out we should have many actual examples of significant change. But we don't have these examples. In fact in cases like Richard Lenski at MSU who has 30 years of e coli mutational history we don't see anything like it.

It is akin to the economic models that NAFTA was going to bring all this prosperity compared to the actual results.

Blogger Rick February 06, 2019 8:41 PM  

5 billion years later and they’re still bacteria.
Why?
Great pay?

Blogger Weouro February 06, 2019 8:44 PM  

"So I think the debate was a pretty decisive victory for JF Gariépy. Rhetorically speaking, of course."

I disagree. I do think JF seemed a lot more confident throughout, and Vox seemed cautious. But JF tried several times to cut Vox off and Vox parried it each time effectively enough to be able to keep explaining his idea.

Blogger Deep Thought February 06, 2019 8:44 PM  

I knew VD would win before it even started.

JF is French. They never win...

Blogger Sammi Hass February 06, 2019 8:51 PM  

The model still relies on transitional forms, in this case a form shared by all individuals extant in a not-a-specie adjusted on a curve for deviant forms in a pervasive spread across time and space. Yanno, since signifier doesn't equal signified. We've tested that! Paleontologists have not found, nor made out of whole cloth a convincing fraud, to show a transitional form.

That's why Vox talked about (what I inferred) australopithecines. Lucy represents the chimp-to-human missing link, but if you look at her pelvis and a chimp pelvis they are completely different (don't take my word for it). So, she isn't a specimen of that missing link.

This brings me to my point. TENS is a faith school. Its disciples have faith that paleontologists will find a transitional form. Why?

Blogger Passionate Observer February 06, 2019 8:54 PM  

@78 Look into paleovirology. The most interesting mutations are not the ones that originate in complex multicellular organisms and get passed on to their descendants. The most interesting mutations happen to retroviruses that infect large numbers of organisms and insert themselves into the host's germ line.

The section of the genetic code common to all placenta-producing animals reportedly shows signs of originating from a retrovirus.

Apart from horizontal gene transfer, Eugene McCarthy proposes that hybridization is possible (at low success rates) between species more distantly related than previously assumed. This creates a speciation mechanism for complex organisms that operates much more rapidly than what random mutations alone could produce.

Regarding humans, I do not believe in a single human species. Not all modern human populations descend from the exact same set of pre-human hominids.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums February 06, 2019 8:56 PM  

The more I think about it I don't think I understand fully what "mutation rate" refers to. Is it the chance of a nucleotide/gene to mutate? Or is it the chance of a nucleotide/gene to mutate and get passed on?

Because if it's the former it's a pointless measurement because DNA has safeguards (methylation) against mutations when it copies itself . If it's the latter I don't know how they can even measure such a thing but if they did then they should have a predictive model that can be tested.

Blogger VD February 06, 2019 8:56 PM  

His visuals here and at 34:54 where he shows the code to his mutational program were a rhetorical kill shot. It effectively says "here is your answer in mathematical terms."

I agree. It was fascinating that he felt the need to retreat to rhetoric.

I can tell you that Vox's rambling afterward shows that he was not prepared for this response, and didn't have much of an answer to it.

Not at all. That was the one unknown point of the case, which I discussed with SB beforehand. I don't have any answer to it and neither does JF. You failed to understand that he just waved his hand and declared that parallel propagation was sufficient to fill the gap. It's a very, very big gap to fill, and the mere act of filling it would create a whole new set of problems, which I noted.

But I'm not in the habit of arguing from ignorance.

Blogger Drew February 06, 2019 8:58 PM  

Rick wrote:I think JF’s model requires that all mutations render an improvement in the organism. We do not see anything like this in nature or in man made systems. We mostly see the opposite. His model gets worse if more than one mutation is happening among many others simultaneously.
That was my immediate reaction to JF's response. Damaging mutations vastly outnumber beneficial mutations, which is going to screw over your ability to benefit from parallel mutations.

From my reading of Fuz Rana at Reasons to Believe, parallel mutations are actually a problem in higher life forms since damaging mutations accumulate at a (vastly) higher rate than natural selection can filter them out. The worst part of this parallel mutation problem is that in animals with longer lives, lower reproduction rates, and longer genomes, it is a virtual certainty that any beneficial mutation WILL be accompanied by a number of damaging ones.

Blogger Lazarus February 06, 2019 8:58 PM  

Deep Thought wrote:JF is French. They never win...

JF is not French, he is Quebecois. Difference between Americans and English. Different branch of the language. In Canada, Quebecois are treated special by government in order to preserve the myth of 2 founding nations (which are rapidly being replaced by mud people.) Quebecois have a concept of purloin (pure wool) nationality, i.e. very nationalistic.

Blogger VD February 06, 2019 8:59 PM  

It effectively says "here is your answer in mathematical terms."

To the extent it said that, it was deceptive. And he had to know that. Do you really think it was going to fool a GAME DESIGNER?

Blogger Sammi Hass February 06, 2019 9:03 PM  

Passionate Observer,

Not sure if you were talking to me. I'm on mobile and don't see comment numbers. I hope you were. Thanks for the tip! Uhhhh, that sounds.... let's just say the bible says not to worry.

I agree that there is not one homo sapiens. Notably, caucasians and asians retain a morphology feature found in homo erectus that left Africa, shovel-shaped incisors and occipital buns. I'm definitely partial to samples that give me tactile feedback.

Blogger Sammi Hass February 06, 2019 9:05 PM  

It was deceptive to the audience and listeners. Poor sportsmanship and we couldn't have reasonably been expected to interpret that on the spot. I HATE artificial constraints on my time. I guess next time it is.

Blogger SirHamster February 06, 2019 9:06 PM  

Wuzzums Fuzzums wrote:The more I think about it I don't think I understand fully what "mutation rate" refers to. Is it the chance of a nucleotide/gene to mutate? Or is it the chance of a nucleotide/gene to mutate and get passed on?

There are two rates necessary for TENS as a theory.

One is the rate the gene pool (population x genetic copies/individuals) develops any new mutations.

The other is the rate that the gene pool accepts (fixes) new mutations.


If it's the latter I don't know how they can even measure such a thing but if they did then they should have a predictive model that can be tested.

It's less defined and measurable than GDP.

At least the GDP models generate numbers, and we do have a sense where and how living conditions are improving or not.

Blogger Daniel Babylon February 06, 2019 9:07 PM  

VD wrote:To the extent it said that, it was deceptive.

Was it deceptive because the program is faulty or some other reason?

Blogger The Deplorable Podunk Ken Ramsey February 06, 2019 9:08 PM  

It was a great debate. The ultimate question is, "Have we had enough time for evolution to have happened?" The answer is impossible to know because the theory of evolution by natural selection has NO EQUATIONS.

Until TENS has equations, it's a idea, it's a guiding or misguiding light, it's a hypothesis.

Blogger VD February 06, 2019 9:09 PM  

Was it deceptive because the program is faulty or some other reason?

To show that something could theoretically have happened faster than it is actually believed to have happened did not harm my case at all. It wasn't even relevant to it. It was just rhetoric.

Blogger Sammi Hass February 06, 2019 9:10 PM  

Lazarus, they are a seperate nation and settlement in Quebec follows the first American settlement by only one year (Quebec City and Jamestown respectively). Do you want to call Americans a made up nation? We treat Quebec different because they are a different religion. Anglos here are Protestant. It has to do with education and raising kids more than whatever you think it does. It also has to do with ceasefires.

JF is Basque btw.

Blogger VD February 06, 2019 9:10 PM  

There are two rates necessary for TENS as a theory.

And if both are fast enough to satisfy the time limits, we should be able to observe them more clearly.

Blogger Lazarus February 06, 2019 9:11 PM  

Man of the Atom wrote:TOP. MEN.

Exactly. Houston, we have Consensus. The Science (political agenda) Is Settled,

Blogger SirHamster February 06, 2019 9:12 PM  

Daniel Babylon wrote:Was it deceptive because the program is faulty or some other reason?

Because no one can evaluate the program. We can only take JF's word for it that it has any relevance. It could be non-compiling pseudo-code and we wouldn't know.

The grand reveal showsmanship is rhetoric. Dialectic would be pages of data and a report.

Blogger Kristophr February 06, 2019 9:14 PM  

Sammi Hass wrote:A supernova can only happen to a star that is created. The beginning of stars cannot follow a supernova in that theory because there is nothing to supernova. It makes no sense. What came first, the star or the supernova?

A supernova is not needed to create a star. You only need enough hydrogen in the area for gravitation to collect it into one.

A supernova is needed to create elements heavier than iron, and broadcast them ( regular novas can spread lighter elements created by on-going stellar fusion ). Supernovas also support star formation by sweeping interstellar gas together faster to form new stars, but this is not required.

Blogger Passionate Observer February 06, 2019 9:15 PM  

@116
Sammi Hass wrote:Not sure if you were talking to me.

I was.

The real smoking gun for the retrovirus-driven evolution hypothesis is the existence of the Mabuya lizard, which also has a mammal-like placenta. Its genome also contains retrovirus markers around its placenta genes just like mammals have.

Sammi Hass wrote:I agree that there is not one homo sapiens.

We could go that route, or we could upgrade homo sapiens from a species to a genus and then define a proper set of species within the genus, but that's really just a matter of nomenclature. It's hard enough to be allowed to openly talk about the existence of genetically distinct human populations, regardless of how we name the differences.

Blogger Rick February 06, 2019 9:16 PM  

JF waved his hand over the comment about eyes being different. They’re not different in function, which is why we can put them in the same category called “eye”.

Blogger Kristophr February 06, 2019 9:16 PM  

A better question would be "What created the big bang in the first place, and made all that hydrogen and helium?"

Currently, there are no probable hypotheses' out there.

( another annoying question is "Where did all the antimatter go?" )

Blogger SirHamster February 06, 2019 9:18 PM  

VD wrote:And if both are fast enough to satisfy the time limits, we should be able to observe them more clearly.

For TENS to hold true with those time limits, both rates must grow exponentially. Which should be measurable in humans, and result in super-adaptation.

The observed is just the opposite. We worry about antibiotic resistant bacteria. Don't see anyone bragging about new-type humans who are super-immune to diseases.

Blogger Patrick Kelly February 06, 2019 9:18 PM  

"we should be able to observe it more readily in the laboratory as well as in the wild"

Yes. That's the corner JF is running straight into. If he posits the parallel rate is that fast then we should be able to observe, measure and verify it.

Rickaby007 wrote:Pat, even environmental factors like second-hand cigarette smoke can cause mutations. Mutation = the creation of a
slightly different version of the same genes.


I'm skeptical.

Where is the mutation that has been reproduced and passed on to subsequent generations as a result of second hand smoke?

Is such a mutation that doesn't contain anything new, just a rearranging or new variations of the same genes, sufficient to account for what is required for TENS?

Blogger Drew February 06, 2019 9:22 PM  

VD wrote:His visuals here and at 34:54 where he shows the code to his mutational program were a rhetorical kill shot. It effectively says "here is your answer in mathematical terms."

I agree. It was fascinating that he felt the need to retreat to rhetoric.

I can tell you that Vox's rambling afterward shows that he was not prepared for this response, and didn't have much of an answer to it.

Not at all. That was the one unknown point of the case, which I discussed with SB beforehand. I don't have any answer to it and neither does JF. You failed to understand that he just waved his hand and declared that parallel propagation was sufficient to fill the gap. It's a very, very big gap to fill, and the mere act of filling it would create a whole new set of problems, which I noted.

But I'm not in the habit of arguing from ignorance.


I think that supports my point. If you were prepared for him to make that "parallel mutation" argument, you would have had a response prepared where you straight up call him on his BS hand-waving, and then give a quick explanation as to why. I don't have the background knowledge about this subject to know whether your opponent is answering your challenge with wishful speculation or not. If you don't straight up call him on it, a total layman (like me) won't know that his response is a total snow job.

Blogger Didas Kalos February 06, 2019 9:25 PM  

@93 All the world's scientists who want to fit in and not be ostracized by an evil world system, thereby securing government funding for their projects. As for the 'top' scientists, they adhere to the scientific method instead of convincing themselves that fairy-tales of billions of years and life evolving from non-life is even remotely true.

Blogger Sammi Hass February 06, 2019 9:27 PM  

Kristopher, I didn't say a supernova was needed to create a star but someone else up thread was talking about that theory. That's still a cool comment. Do you have any ideas how meteoric iron got here? I ask because a theory at the time of WWII on the Axis side was that Sweden was full of it. Uhhh... let's not get into why I know about that theory.

Passionate Observer,

Okay, curiosity piqued on both points. I don't know what to ask in follow up, other than to ask more about mabuya lizard. Is he from South Africa or by Victoria Lake to Madagascar?

Blogger VD February 06, 2019 9:28 PM  

I think that supports my point.

It doesn't.

If you were prepared for him to make that "parallel mutation" argument, you would have had a response prepared where you straight up call him on his BS hand-waving, and then give a quick explanation as to why.

You have no understanding of my purpose or my patience. I presented a straightforward dialectic case with no rhetoric at all, giving my opponent the maximum possible charity. In response, the scientist was forced to retreat to rhetoric.

That told me everything I needed to know. Remember, this is not my field. And now I know what genuinely worries them. Also, that wasn't the first time I refused to strike back rhetorically. After all, why do biologists do studies on gene fixation if fixated mutations are irrelevant? I let that one go too.

If I wanted to go all rhetoric, I could have from the start. That was never my intention.

Blogger SirHamster February 06, 2019 9:29 PM  

Drew wrote:If you don't straight up call him on it, a total layman (like me) won't know that his response is a total snow job.

Coming soon from Castalia House, by Vox Day ... "The Missing Equations: TENS and Mutation Rates"

Also coming soon, from long-suffering AoDaL fans: "Where's our finished Sea of Skulls?!"

Blogger Sammi Hass February 06, 2019 9:30 PM  

Rick,

>JF waved his hand over the comment about eyes being different. They’re not different in function, which is why we can put them in the same category called “eye”.

Good point. The hole for the optic nerve is a miracle. The size, the placement.

Blogger VD February 06, 2019 9:31 PM  

If you don't straight up call him on it, a total layman (like me) won't know that his response is a total snow job.

Why do you think that is a concern of mine? I'll discuss the debate tomorrow on the Darkstream. And if you don't believe me now, why would you have believed me then?

Blogger Passionate Observer February 06, 2019 9:34 PM  

Sammi Hass wrote:Is he from South Africa or by Victoria Lake to Madagascar?
I can't find a source for which exact species was used in the study:

https://www.pnas.org/content/114/51/E10991.abstract

Blogger Sammi Hass February 06, 2019 9:35 PM  

Few things are more obnoxious than "slow down your brain power so I can catch up". Do not ask others to do what you cannot imagine doing.

Blogger Sammi Hass February 06, 2019 9:38 PM  

Passionate observer, could the retrovirus theory explain how Justin Trudeau clearly has congenital syphilis resulting in severe delusions owing to his whore mother? Could he be not just an aberration but a whole new form? ;-) Neat link.

Blogger Passionate Observer February 06, 2019 9:41 PM  

Best explanation for Trudeau is that he's Fidel Castro's bastard.

Blogger Daniel Babylon February 06, 2019 9:44 PM  

Oh and what's the issue with arguing that something is possible? It's the first step in proving it's true, no?

Blogger Drew February 06, 2019 9:44 PM  

VD wrote:I think that supports my point.

It doesn't.


My point was that you were not prepared for JF to bring up that chart as a talking point. If JF showed us all the chart and the program on Monday, you and everyone on the chat would have immediately pointed out that both were red herrings.

Blogger Dave February 06, 2019 9:51 PM  

SirHamster wrote:I hope JF's model is available to the public. I saw 1 page of code, that's pathetically little.

After Vox signed off, JF stated the Vox Solution would be made available to everyone.


Rick wrote:JF waved his hand over the comment about eyes being different. They’re not different in function, which is why we can put them in the same category called “eye”.

He also mentioned hair is different and something else I don't recall.

Blogger Kristophr February 06, 2019 9:51 PM  

Daniel Babylon wrote:Oh and what's the issue with arguing that something is possible? It's the first step in proving it's true, no?

As long as you have a provable hypothesis to back up the claim, yes.

If not, it's not in the realm of science.

Blogger Sammi Hass February 06, 2019 9:54 PM  

Marcus Aurelius said to look things on their face to know if they're true. A good heuristic if ever there was one.

Blogger John D Alden February 06, 2019 9:59 PM  

@5
@15
@28

Carbon dating is not the only method available to geologists and paleontologists. It's rarely useful at all.

There's more to it than this, but potassium-argon dating* and logic will get you a very long way. Logic is used to determine the relative age of rock layers and things in those layers, and radiometric dating is used to establish rough timeframes. And I mean rough. Anybody telling you we can look back 100,000,000 years with fine resolution is full of shit.

*There are other useful decay paths, but potassium is extremely common in rock forming minerals.

Blogger Drew February 06, 2019 10:03 PM  

VD wrote: If you don't straight up call him on it, a total layman (like me) won't know that his response is a total snow job.

Why do you think that is a concern of mine? I'll discuss the debate tomorrow on the Darkstream. And if you don't believe me now, why would you have believed me then?


1. I assumed it. Perhaps wrongly.
2. Don't believe you? Not sure what you mean. I am skeptical about JF's claims, not yours. A second round of debate would be both awesome and educational for all of us.

Edit: and that last comment should have read "If JF showed us all the chart and the program on Monday, then in tonight's debate you and everyone on the chat would have immediately pointed out that both were red herrings."

Blogger Drew February 06, 2019 10:04 PM  

* All of us = readers of this blog and viewers of JF's stream.

Blogger Passionate Observer February 06, 2019 10:05 PM  

@141 You might like this one too:

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/science/12paleo.html

Blogger The Gentleman February 06, 2019 10:16 PM  

Very good on Vox. Assuming the numbers crunch out as expected.

I am somewhat curious as to how one can go about determining a level of parallel mutations that JF will agree to, or if this is an area with some consensus already either by species or groups of species. Wouldn't he be able to claim exponetionally higher rates out of hand? I assume VD has already determined a plan of attack and I don't have an idea what ammunition the scientific community has provided.

I think JFs greatest oversight will be underestimating Voxs track record of correctly extrapolating solutions from limited information and being able to easily then explain how he got from A to E or X or Z. Peterson being the most recent example of limited exposure leading to the correct assessment and then following that up with all of the concrete steps that he was able to bypass initially.

It would appear, to me at least, that this is a reasonable explanation for not calling JF on his rhetoric; if between his model tonight and JF exposing his flank Vox likely has the strategic advantage long term in not taking a tactical advantage for no other reason than it being available in the moment. I've followed Vox long enough to not assume I can correctly guess either his motivation or next move.

Blogger M. Bibliophile February 06, 2019 10:41 PM  

I call it a good day when I can keep up with a debate that isn't my subject and at least spot the issues and inconsistencies. These last two videos have been incredibly educational, to say nothing of interesting, and I'm looking forward tomorrow's Darkstream. Well done, Vox, this whole thing has been excellent.

Blogger H8KU com February 06, 2019 10:42 PM  

VERDICT: Nothing happened. There was no debate.

Blogger Rickaby007 February 06, 2019 10:48 PM  

>Where is the mutation that has been reproduced and passed on to subsequent generations as a result of second hand smoke?

>Is such a mutation that doesn't contain anything new, just a rearranging or new variations of the same genes, sufficient to account for what is required for TENS?

I'm just repeating what the standard definition is in science. And there is nothing wrong with it so I see problem. As for everything else, I don't really care.

Blogger Rickaby007 February 06, 2019 10:56 PM  

Just popped into JF's to watch the video. His comment section is chock full of low IQ retards who can't even grasp the basic ideas of the debate. Good performance, though, Vox. Golf clap.

Blogger Drew February 06, 2019 11:00 PM  

You might also notice that when JF criticizes fixation as a metric for evolution, he never offers an alternative.
You kinda need a metric in order for this to be real science.

Blogger WendyRaf February 06, 2019 11:21 PM  

All the top world scientists believe in evolution...

How...unscientific.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums February 06, 2019 11:27 PM  

Rickaby007 wrote:His comment section is chock full of low IQ retards

That's typical of any comment section at YouTube.

Blogger Ahnaf Habib February 06, 2019 11:36 PM  

JF's appeal to Mass Parallel Propagation filling the gap (with regard to the Macro-differences we see amongst various species) is basically (at the end of the day) an appeal to Bottom-Up Processes being sufficient as a *Scientific Explanation*.

Namely, Bottom-Up processes; via which the different Macro-differences in the various species... all supervene upon differences in the "low resolution" features (in this case, base pairs and whatnot) and you don't need the "high resolution" features ("Horseness", "Humanness", etc).

The main problem in this approach (and Vox was very close to exposing this tonight... right before JF's poor health halted the exchange) is that there are no sound *Philosophical* grounds for rejecting the "high resolution" stuff.

In the "Free Trade" issue, the vast majority of mainstream Economists rejected the "high resolution" stuff as well (such as "national character" and whatnot) in favour of the "low resolution" stuff (labour, capital, etc) and look where that got them!

Said economists were always telling us that the "low resolution" stuff was "enough". In Philosophical terms: "Free Trade supervenes upon the low resolution features; and bottom up relations are enough to provide an adequate *Explanation* of the phenomeon."

Not only were they wrong, they were wrong *decisively so*. They were never able to give adequate philosophical grounds for rejecting "high resolution" features and (ultimately) those features were decisive (as Vox noted in his "Why Free Trade is Objectively Evil" dissection video) when it came to Explanatorily Accounting for the phenomenon.

By Analogy, the TENS issue seems to be in the same ballpark; the Evolutionists are appealing to this quasi-elegant Bottom-Up stuff; but give no reasonable grounds for rejecting "High resolution" features; which tend to be more apparent (in general) to Human Reason anyway.

Prediction: TENS may (in our lifetime) go through the same sort of "collapse" in credibility that the "Free Trade" Economists went through in recent years.

Blogger Lazarus February 06, 2019 11:46 PM  

Trust The Vox people.

Blogger Up from the pond February 06, 2019 11:47 PM  

In his Culture Wars magazine, one of E. Michael Jones's writers showed that if one invested $1 at 6% annually compounded interest at the time of Christ, that investment would now be worth more dollars than the total estimated number of atoms in the known universe.

What would be the result of trillions of bacteria and other critters, 99% of whom we know nothing about, reproducing for billions of years, especially when one bears in mind the basic point that a generation doesn't begin at an arbitrarily marked interval but in fact begins with every individual act of reproduction?

I will wait to see the numbers crunched.

One thing is certain. "Missing links" have, in fact, been found. I personally spotted several of them in attendance at the SOTU last night.

Blogger allyn71 February 06, 2019 11:57 PM  

The numbers would say that you couldn't develop an eyeball among many other organs.

Blogger Unknown February 07, 2019 12:03 AM  

Just a couple of points that may not have been covered.

Blogger Emmanuel Mateo-Morales February 07, 2019 12:06 AM  

@162

Also, those 'trillions of other critters' you mentioned wouldn't be multi-celluar organisms because there aren't and never have been trillions of other species of multi-cellular organisms, so the numbers they would have to work with would be significantly less, which doesn't even get into the fact that multi-cellular animals don't have billions of years, but appear 600 million years ago and the conditions of the early earth being incredibly hostile to life to the point where chemical evolution isn't even remotely possible.

Blogger Unknown February 07, 2019 12:09 AM  

Sorry just a couple points that may not have been covered. What about viruses I think they may increase the apparent mutation rate. I mean they're popping in and out of the genome and i think may really drive evolution. And also was junk DNA considered it is not under selective pressure like alleles are.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 07, 2019 12:10 AM  

Up from the pond wrote:What would be the result of trillions of bacteria and other critters, 99% of whom we know nothing about, reproducing for billions of years, especially when one bears in mind the basic point that a generation doesn't begin at an arbitrarily marked interval but in fact begins with every individual act of reproduction?

Bad example the rate is not 6%. The rate of change is actually cited by JP in the "debate". What would the hypothetical invetor have in the bank account at 0.00000004% interest, which is the rate of change JF cited?

$1.00000004 ^ 2019 = $1.000080763 or,
1.00000004 ^ 2000000000 = 5.5406×10³⁴ after 2BB years

Not bad. But that's exponents and would not express the cululative change. Instead it express the total number of mutations in all organisms over 2BB generations, not years.
What we actually need is an arithmetic function. To simplify, take it to just mammals, which have order-of-magnitude similar generational spans and a 200MM year history and we get:

0.00000004 * 200000000 / 4.5 years per generation = 1.78%

change in the genotype over the entire existence of the mammalian order. From you to rats to whales to platypuses.

The math don't work.

Blogger Emmanuel Mateo-Morales February 07, 2019 12:10 AM  

@167

Junk DNA isn't junk.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 07, 2019 12:11 AM  

Really? Gariepy spent like an hour obsessed with the misconception that Vox was ignorant of the possibility of parallel mutations? That and the "not every mutation needs to be fixed", which isn't really a solution so much a s potential pressure release valve that may or may not function and may or may not be sufficiently efficacious.

My takeaway is that Vox spent this entire debate segment preparing the battlespace -- and even outright telling Gariepy what he was doing and where he was aiming -- and Gariepy spent about 85% of the time trying to say that Vox was misunderstanding two concepts which Vox breezed past as given leeway assumptions before even showing up.

Not sure that Gariepy ever picked up Vox's actual aim, but considering that at the end he thought he had pointed out errors of Vox's, I'm not hopeful.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 07, 2019 12:35 AM  

"A supernova is not needed to create a star. You only need enough hydrogen in the area for gravitation to collect it into one."

He's talking about the reason the matter in the universe does not have perfectly uniform distribution in the first place, Kristopher, two which some people have actually replied "supernovas" like retards.

"JF waved his hand over the comment about eyes being different. They’re not different in function, which is why we can put them in the same category called “eye”."

This is correct. Gariepy's handwave was absurd, because we do all have the same eyes. They either function or not. Differences are either purely cosmetic like iris color, or detrimental like astigmatism or blindness. You could try to argue something about women with the legendary third cone, but really it's a non-useful mutation that really does nothing but alter the distribution of perceived light slightly. Not an increase or decrease objectively, just a non-useful shift of part of the functionality of the organ, which will likely be expressed as certain kinds of colorblindness in any male offspring she may have.

"You might also notice that when JF criticizes fixation as a metric for evolution, he never offers an alternative.
You kinda need a metric in order for this to be real science."


Exactly. The entire point of speculating on fixation in the first place is to hypothesize a mechanism whereby entropy may be violated. It's almost exactly like punctuated equillibrium:

"Uh, dude, what about complex organs that don't function at all unless they're complete?"
PE: "Maybe they evolved all at once!"

"Uh, dude, fixation can't happen fast enough!"
Gariepy: "Well, you can fix a whole package of mutations at once!"
"Uh, dude, you're just pushing the problem back one remove. All of those mutations collectively have to be more beneficial than the prior form, and it's exponentially more unlikely said package could ever be produced to vie for fixation in the first place the higher the ratio of beneficial mutations over common detrimental mutations due to entropy."

Blogger Nym Coy February 07, 2019 12:37 AM  

High IQ housewife here! Can we be friends? Email me at my name one word at gmail!

Blogger Metric February 07, 2019 12:50 AM  

I can very easily believe arguments that the evolution of intelligent life is a very rare and improbable event in the universe. In fact, it has to be super-rare or else we get a nasty Fermi paradox -- a prediction that life should be everywhere doing a bunch of highly visible things.

But the universe is a big place. If you post-select on the successful outcome of an improbable sequence of events (as we must in the evolutionary picture, since we are here), the history of those events is guaranteed to look odd in places.

I agree that the history of evolution as a subject has a lot of pathologies arising from the fact that people come to it fully invested and ready to believe for reasons that are outside of science. That's a formula for weak arguments, like we see in religion.

Blogger One Deplorable DT February 07, 2019 12:53 AM  

I'm really bummed I had to miss this livestream due to work. I'm going to have to watch it ASAP, but probably too late for the bulk of the discussion here.

@162 - In his Culture Wars magazine, one of E. Michael Jones's writers showed that if one invested $1 at 6% annually compounded interest at the time of Christ, that investment would now be worth more dollars than the total estimated number of atoms in the known universe.

Nope. Unless I made a mistake in my C (and I checked it against a standard savings calculator for 10 and 20 years; also had an overflow check though that shouldn't be an issue with 64-bit doubles), $1 compounded annually at 6% for 2018 years is: 1,237,490,773,420,076,677,880,332,438,951,744,592,822,409,464,119,296.00.

That falls short of the estimated number of atoms in our universe by about 10^28.

This is a bad analogy to the mathematics required of TENS for several reasons, but keep in mind that our targets are 10^450 (very low estimate for abiogenesis) and 10^3,000,000 (low estimate for the complexity observed in modern mammals).

@167 - very eager to watch the video, hear JFG's numbers, and see his code.

@169 - If your observation is correct then JFG has fallen for one of the two classic blunders! The first being never get involved in a land war in Asia but only slightly lesser known: never debate Vox assuming that he doesn't understand a basic concept of the topic of debate.

Also: always assume Vox has poisoned BOTH skull goblets. Not a lesson to be learned the hard way.

Blogger Emmanuel Mateo-Morales February 07, 2019 1:13 AM  

@172

"But the universe is a big place."

Oh great, one of 'these' arguments.

Look: earth sprouted life about 4 billion years ago at the latest more or less. Ignoring that the conditions of the early earth are admitted to be horrible for chemical evolution to the point of it being impossible, animal life begins at 600 millions years ago. That's it. That's your window. You don't get the full 13.7 billion years or so that the universe has been around to work with (which would run into its own problem of how to develop life in a state of such comparatively high energy density as the universe had in the past). You, at most, get around 4 billion years. Your attempt to change the subject by speculating about the rest of the universe as a whole does not get you out of the conundrum of trying to explain how TENS works on the only planet that matters, the only planet confirmed to have life and for which we have any information that isn't baseless, Carl Sagan-esque wondering, earth. You talk about 'weak arguments in religion,' yet your resorting to the tried and true atheist version of God of the Gaps called 'size of the gaps' while trying to take focus away from the subject. Which is fitting since Carl Sagan, with very weak arguments himself, was stupid enough to believe in an Encyclopedia Galactica made by aliens that humanity could tap into to gain and or store knowledge or whatever.

Blogger Metric February 07, 2019 2:03 AM  

Are you arguing that the probability of intelligent life evolving on an earth-like planet over a several-billion year window is *exactly zero*? If not, what number would you be happy with? I'm happy to take a large range of uncertainty covering many orders of magnitude, to reflect my ignorance. Are you? It has to be exactly zero with full certainty for you to be happy?

If you admit the probability isn't exactly zero, the immediate question is what will natural history look like to the intelligent life that does appear somewhere. The more rare you argue that life must be, the more weird natural history is going to look to life when it does come around.

Blogger Coyotewise February 07, 2019 2:18 AM  

VD was rekt right off by JF's superior shirt game.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 07, 2019 2:22 AM  

"Are you arguing that the probability of intelligent life evolving on an earth-like planet over a several-billion year window is *exactly zero*?"

First off, much less than several billion years. Second, not impossible, merely so improbable as to be an extraordinarily weak conjecture in the face of far better ones. I can see you lining up your strawman from here. The point is, TENS requires far, far more faith in its assumptions that those "weak arguments, like we see in religion". The second point is that even without this understanding, adherence to TENS is itself a religion. Heck, all of scientific practice is religious where it can accurately called scientific at all, considering that it is by definition methodical.

When you guys disparagingly call others "religious", what you really mean is that you dislike their traditions, practices, norms, and conclusions. The reality is that your very rejection, when propagated, itself becomes a tradition, practice, norm, and proceeds to draw conclusions.

Give it up. You're not fooling anyone here. You don't actually dislike religion, you just abhor religion other than your own.

"If you admit the probability isn't exactly zero, the immediate question is what will natural history look like to the intelligent life that does appear somewhere."

Binary thinking, exactly like you just tried to strawman him with. How come it's okay for you to say "if there's a chance, you can't exclude it!" and yet at the same time "If there's a chance, you must conclude it! This says less about his mental limits and more about yours.

"The more rare you argue that life must be, the more weird natural history is going to look to life when it does come around."

No, no, no. You're assuming the conclusion. IF it comes around. IF. You can't say, "we're here, so it must have", in fact, that argument has much less logical weight than "we're here, therefore God exists" by virtue of being less than a fifty percent likelihood in a necessarily binary scenario.

Blogger Gurpgork February 07, 2019 3:07 AM  

Haven't been able to watch the debate yet but earth catastrophe cycle hypothesis suggests that our sun goes mini nova every 12k years.
Because of the vast amounts of radiation that is emitted could such a scenario produce such mutation rates that it makes TENS probable? The way I understand it it could cause speciation in a single generation.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 07, 2019 3:41 AM  

Too high a mutation rate would result in everything dying out faster than it could repopulate.

Blogger Metric February 07, 2019 3:54 AM  

If the probability for intelligent life to naturalistically appear on an earth-like planet is not exactly zero, then it will naturalistically appear on some of them, since the universe appears to be infinite.

If you want to believe something different happened on the Earth, that's your business. But the entire game of arguing the probability of life to appear on an Earth-like planet is *low* doesn't contradict naturalistic descriptions.

> How come it's okay for you to say "if there's a chance, you can't exclude it!" and yet at the same time "If there's a chance, you must conclude it!


Basic math. If you tell me what the probability is, then you've told me how often it occurs in the universe. Unless you're arguing for zero, with zero uncertainty.


>No, no, no. You're assuming the conclusion. IF it comes around. IF. You can't say, "we're here, so it must have", in fact, that argument has much less logical weight than "we're here, therefore God exists" by virtue of being less than a fifty percent likelihood in a necessarily binary scenario.


I'm assuming in the quoted sentence the naturalistic description, to illustrate the prediction. In a naturalistic description, you have to post-select on an evolutionary success, and that may require that strange/improbable things happened in the course of natural history (depending on how rare intelligent life is in the universe).

You might not want a naturalistic description, and that's perfectly easy to understand. And I'm willing to admit that I've heard a lot of lousy TENS arguments.

Blogger Gurpgork February 07, 2019 3:59 AM  

The way the mini nova works it would only increase radiation for a limited time, days to weeks, wiping out most of life on the planet. Everything that is left would be severely mutated and start to repopulate from there.

You can search youtube for 'Diehold foundation' for more info on it. I'm not sure I believe half of what he is claiming but it's a fun theory and the mini nova part at least seems plausible.

Blogger One Deplorable DT February 07, 2019 4:26 AM  

@180 - If the probability for intelligent life to naturalistically appear on an earth-like planet is not exactly zero, then it will naturalistically appear on some of them, since the universe appears to be infinite.

If you accept Big Bang cosmology then the universe is finite and we have a pretty good idea of its age, size, and mass. Both abiogenesis and TENS are impossibilities in a universe with the age, size, and mass of ours.

If Big Bang cosmology is wrong and the universe is infinite that means you would have abiogenesis. You would still never see complex life (probably not even the jump to multicellular forms) because habitable zones do not last long enough. This is a physical constraint with an upper bound not subject to random chance. A star can only 'live' so long, and the period of time when its energy output is stable and suitable for life (at some particular orbital distance) is only a fraction of that life.

Basic math. If you tell me what the probability is, then you've told me how often it occurs in the universe. Unless you're arguing for zero, with zero uncertainty.

If Big Bang is true then you would not see abiogenesis in this universe even if this universe was a sim with true random inputs and you ran this sim 10^100 times. Abiogensis would be the first of literally trillions upon trillions...upon trillions and trillions of Shannon entropy violations which would be required by TENS to get from molecules to man.

You can look at a 1 in 10^450 probability and say "but it's not zero!!!" It effectively is for our universe.

Blogger Mark Stoval February 07, 2019 4:57 AM  

I realize that abiogenesis is supposed to be separate from the theory of evolution, but without life to begin with there is nothing to evolve.

I have never seen a decent theory of abiogenesis other than the "spores from space" idea that life evolved elsewhere and ended up here. What a terrible copout that is.

Over the decades, I have seen many demolitions of the whole idea of no intelligence being involved in how we all got here. Nothing works. There had to be some intelligence in the beginning. I call that intelligence "God".

Blogger birdman February 07, 2019 4:57 AM  

@176 vox need a better shirt

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 07, 2019 5:01 AM  

"If the probability for intelligent life to naturalistically appear on an earth-like planet is not exactly zero, then it will naturalistically appear on some of them, since the universe appears to be infinite."

No. The observable universe does not appear to be infinite. It appears to be receding away from us with increasing rapidity. != infinite. As has also been pointed out, Big Bang cosmology requires a finite universe, and due to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe cannot have been eternally pre-existent under current understanding of physical laws.

"But the entire game of arguing the probability of life to appear on an Earth-like planet is *low* doesn't contradict naturalistic descriptions."

How many zeroes do you think are attached to that *low*? Yes, it does contradict. It doesn't completely defenestrate and curb stomp it, but that's because it hasn't quite had time to bleed to death out of its mouth into the gutter yet. Contradict literally = speak against, and it does.

"Basic math. If you tell me what the probability is, then you've told me how often it occurs in the universe."

Been over this already. You need to prove an infinite universe, which is impossible for you to do, and always will be, under current understanding of physics before you can posit this argument.

"I'm assuming in the quoted sentence the naturalistic description"

You are presuming no divine involvement whatsoever.

"In a naturalistic description, you have to post-select on an evolutionary success"

Post selection of this kind is an illogical absurdity. I thought along the same lines nearly a decade ago, but that outcome is not "you must assume", the outcome is "this line of thinking is logically meaningless". The result of continuing is a "just-so story".

The entire paradigm exists for no reason except that the belief that there is no God requires it.

"You might not want a naturalistic description, and that's perfectly easy to understand."

Nice try. I don't care if there's a naturalistic description or not. What I do care about is people pushing ever evolving panoplies of plainly improbable naturalistic explanations on me, not because any of them are true, but because the pushers wish they were true.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 07, 2019 5:09 AM  

"I have never seen a decent theory of abiogenesis other than the "spores from space" idea that life evolved elsewhere and ended up here. What a terrible copout that is."

It potentially contributes to a shortcut around the point that for even prokaryotic life to develop from nothing would take a period of time that would have stars burning out many times over. Anything to tip the probabilistic scales....

Blogger Metric February 07, 2019 5:10 AM  

>If you accept Big Bang cosmology then the universe is finite and we have a pretty good idea of its age, size, and mass.

The standard cosmology is both a big bang model and spatially infinite. I'm guessing you are thinking about the "observable universe," which is the portion from which we receive light -- that part is finite. But of course it's completely fine if there is less than one instance of intelligent life per Hubble volume -- that doesn't break consistency with our existence here.

The standard solutions with positive spatial curvature are finite. Solutions with zero or negative spatial curvature are infinite. Current data supports zero curvature. There is some possibility that the universe has a tiny positive curvature (too small to detect at present), but in that case it would have to be dramatically larger universe than the part we can observe. Small positive curvature means big.

For something to be broken (inconsistent with our presence here), we'd need compelling evidence that the universe is finite and that it's too small for life to ever appear naturalistically. That doesn't appear to be the case.

Blogger Man of the Atom February 07, 2019 5:20 AM  

For adherents, TENS and AGW have the same weakness as Atheism: they are faith-based.

Blogger Metric February 07, 2019 5:31 AM  

>No. The observable universe does not appear to be infinite. It appears to be receding away from us with increasing rapidity. != infinite. As has also been pointed out, Big Bang cosmology requires a finite universe, and due to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe cannot have been eternally pre-existent under current understanding of physical laws.

A big bang is a general feature of relativistic cosmologies that satisfy respectable energy conditions -- in no way do they require finite space.

Spatial curvature determines whether the universe is finite, and the standard model has zero curvature and is infinite. Maybe you are betting that it's wrong for some reason, but it sure looks like you are lining up a series of very questionable claims for non-scientific reasons.

I don't know where you guys are getting this stuff.

Blogger JAG February 07, 2019 5:42 AM  

Metric wrote:>No. The observable universe does not appear to be infinite. It appears to be receding away from us with increasing rapidity. != infinite. As has also been pointed out, Big Bang cosmology requires a finite universe, and due to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe cannot have been eternally pre-existent under current understanding of physical laws.

A big bang is a general feature of relativistic cosmologies that satisfy respectable energy conditions -- in no way do they require finite space.

Spatial curvature determines whether the universe is finite, and the standard model has zero curvature and is infinite. Maybe you are betting that it's wrong for some reason, but it sure looks like you are lining up a series of very questionable claims for non-scientific reasons.

I don't know where you guys are getting this stuff.


How do you conclude that the Standard Model proves an infinite spacetime when it does not even account for Gravity? Where do you get this stuff?

Blogger JAG February 07, 2019 5:45 AM  

Addendum to my last post - though you were referring to the standard model of particle physics. My bad.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 07, 2019 5:53 AM  

"A big bang is a general feature of relativistic cosmologies that satisfy respectable energy conditions -- in no way do they require finite space."

No on your first assertion, and no on your second as well. Neither Relativity, either special or general, or Big Bang cosmology is requisite of the other. I was going to refute your second assertion, but then I read on and couldn't stop laughing.

"Spatial curvature determines whether the universe is finite, and the standard model has zero curvature and is infinite."

Well played, that's a hella lot of bullshit in one sentence. Space does not have zero curvature, either locally (concave if sufficiently near a sufficiently massive object) or generally (convex, thus the accelerating dispersion of the observable universe). Even if it did, the expanse of the universe is not determined by the potentailly available space, but by the space occupied by the extant matter, of which the observed and even potentially observable is finite.

"but it sure looks like you are lining up a series of very questionable claims for non-scientific reasons."

Irony. This statement of yours defines and exemplifies the entire extent of your comments in this thread.

"I don't know where you guys are getting this stuff."

Yeah, that's pretty obvious.

Blogger Gregory the Great February 07, 2019 6:05 AM  

To me it seemed JF is on a learning curve. He graciously admitted that 2+3 tomatoes = 5 tomatoes (without referring to other universes or worldviews in which the sum might be 7), he also made universal truth statements, and he accepted mathematics as a valid logical method. That is a big evolutionary development since the Jay Dyer debate.

Blogger Metric February 07, 2019 6:09 AM  

Perhaps you could go to the particle data group web page, find the entry for astrophysical constants, and tell us the current best-fit value for Omega_K, the curvature parameter. Hint: it's very close to zero (zero to within uncertainty) and is not positive.

Also, you might want to look into the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems, which are extremely general and certainty do not require finite space.

It is possible that you have misread "zero spatial curvature" as "zero space-time curvature." The full space-time curvature of the universe as a whole is non-zero. But the spatial curvature is something else, and determines whether the universe is spatially compact or infinite.

Blogger Man of the Atom February 07, 2019 6:23 AM  

The virulent poison within Physics is in the mostly-unmeasurable fields, and is summed up by "Nature Is As the Mathematics Says It Is, so SHUT UP!"

Gonna need the Engineers to fill in these holes, and best to leave the pseudo-physicists, i.e mathematicians, inside the excavations while the dirt is moved.

Blogger One Deplorable DT February 07, 2019 6:32 AM  

@187 - The standard cosmology is both a big bang model and spatially infinite.

@192 Azure Amaranthine's post contains my objections to this statement. Key objection: Even if it did, the expanse of the universe is not determined by the potentially available space, but by the space occupied by the extant matter, of which the observed and even potentially observable is finite. Finite time and matter put an upper bound on your dice rolls regardless of the potential size of space.

And I will point out again that habitable zones do not last long enough for complex life to form via TENS. It's a hard barrier even if we assume abiogenesis and assume our universe is infinite not only in space, but in time and mass as well.

For something to be broken (inconsistent with our presence here), we'd need compelling evidence that the universe is finite and that it's too small for life to ever appear naturalistically.

The time during which life can exist and evolve on a planet orbiting a star is finite and far too small for complex life to evolve.

Blogger carry_bit February 07, 2019 6:54 AM  

What I felt that he failed to grasp was that we were talking about maximum possible propagations, so even the addition of the parallel propagating is unlikely to provide enough padding to allow the theory to fit within the time limits.

In the limit, where all mutations are propagating simultaneously, the differences between humans and chimps just need to be fixed once. At 9 million years and 25 years per generation, that gives 360,000 generations for the mutation to occur and become fixed in the population.

Assuming a 153e-10 mutation rate and a 1:4 chance that a given location will mutate to the right base pair, there is a 99.898% chance that the mutation occurs in a population of 10,000 if we allow just 180,000 generations (assuming my calculations are correct), leaving another 180,000 generations for the mutation to become fixed in the limit.

You have to assume a lot to reach that limit using this model though, namely that once the mutation occurs it will spread (sexual reproduction puts a damper on that), and the rate of spread won't be too negatively affected by the lack of another mutation.

Blogger Metric February 07, 2019 6:55 AM  

>@192 Azure Amaranthine's post contains my objections to this statement. Key objection: Even if it did, the expanse of the universe is not determined by the potentially available space, but by the space occupied by the extant matter, of which the observed and even potentially observable is finite. Finite time and matter put an upper bound on your dice rolls regardless of the potential size of space.

Practically all relativistic cosmologies -- including the best-fit, infinite-space standard cosmology -- are based on the observation that the distribution of matter is homogeneous throughout space (on a large scale). Infinite space means infinite worlds.

I know what you want, here. A finite universe that is too small for life to arise (and thus be inconsistent with our existence, without invoking God). But there are many steps to a conclusion like that, and you've got to make favorable tweaks at every stage from cosmology to evolution.

You can always do that, it's a free country. But don't expect it to be convincing.

Blogger maniacprovost February 07, 2019 7:22 AM  

Practically all relativistic cosmologies -- including the best-fit, infinite-space standard cosmology -- are based on the observation that the distribution of matter is homogeneous throughout space (on a large scale). Infinite space means infinite worlds.

No

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 07, 2019 7:26 AM  

"It is possible that you have misread "zero spatial curvature" as "zero space-time curvature.""

Fair enough.

"But the spatial curvature is something else, and determines whether the universe is spatially compact or infinite."

That's still a nope. Positive curvature is necessarily finite. Null curvature is potentially infinite, but not necessarily. A Poincaire Sphere would also possibly fit, off the top of my head, and IIRC at least one other.

"Also, you might want to look into the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems, which are extremely general and certainty do not require finite space."

Unnecessary abstraction. An infinite universe from a big bang would require that the things we call physical constants be variable. Potential, but unobserved. Any emergence from a singular point into an infinite universe with non-infinite past time would require dispersion of matter or energy at infinite speeds, far faster than C. Any emergence other than from a singular point would not be a big bang by definition.

It would be an Electric Universe, Eternal Inflation, Hologram, Simulation, or some other unknown or unpopular model. Black Hole Mirage wouldn't fit, Oscillating Universe and Steady State don't fit, etc. Realistically for your wishes I think you're best off with an Eternal Inflation or Hologram model. Big Bang just won't fit for your infinite universe expectation.

I would actually prefer an infinite universe model myself. It's more fun to think about. However, we have no hard evidence for one.

"I know what you want, here."

Teh ironizorz. Remember, you're not actually speaking of our expectations. Rather, you're expounding your own expectations of our expectations based on how you yourself think. Everyone does that naturally.

1 – 200 of 222 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts