Author Topic: Episode #650  (Read 5810 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4204
  • mooh
Re: Episode #650
« Reply #120 on: January 10, 2018, 07:50:59 PM »
Wait, you guys think natural selection is a mechanism?  Oh is it? Which part is the mechanism, the dying part?

So, life may well be directed development, totally planned and teleological, but as long as some die more than others, than the biologists agree. 

Well, more IDists here than I realized.  Welcome!

Ehm...



I'm not even sure how to decipher that. If you were trying to say "I don't really know how natural selection works", I guess it got the message across... sorta... but I'd suggest working on the way you phrase things. But that's fine, we can explain it if that is the case. If not, please clarify.
Mooohn!

Offline phooey

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
Re: Episode #650
« Reply #121 on: January 10, 2018, 08:24:02 PM »
Wait, you guys think natural selection is a mechanism?  Oh is it? Which part is the mechanism, the dying part?

So, life may well be directed development, totally planned and teleological, but as long as some die more than others, than the biologists agree. 

Well, more IDists here than I realized.  Welcome!

Ehm...



I'm not even sure how to decipher that. If you were trying to say "I don't really know how natural selection works", I guess it got the message across... sorta... but I'd suggest working on the way you phrase things. But that's fine, we can explain it if that is the case. If not, please clarify.

Sorry, your "I am a skeptic, so I am going to explain the world to you" schtick won't work with me.  If you need help understanding what natural selection means, I would be happy to explain it to you though, its not very hard.  Its not a mechanism.  Its a thought concept.  Its a notion that things reproduce and die at varying rates.  No rational person should call that a mechanism.  The mechanism, if there is one in the development of life, is what causes the changes to genes in the first place- NOT which ones live or die.  First you need to get that straight before you try to argue about evolution.

Now if the mechanism of change is debated, unknown, teleological, planned, or pre-loaded, that is most definitely NOT Neo-Darwinian evolution.  Am I am sorry to throw your worldview for a loop, but most biologists these days don't believe in (Neo)Darwinian evolution.  It is just far too inadequate.  Perhaps you should go read up on the subject, find out what Project Steve is, and what it isn't, stop relying on your little skeptic response notebook, and try to find out what you are talking about. 

Do you use the same level of un-critical thought to analyze conspiracy beliefs? 
« Last Edit: January 10, 2018, 08:41:27 PM by phooey »

Offline Jeremy's Sea

  • Kintsukuroi, baby.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4726
  • 667 - Neighbor of the beast.
Re: Episode #650
« Reply #122 on: January 10, 2018, 08:32:24 PM »
Come on guys, don't let Ep 650 become self driving cars debacle #2. Let's show the world we can learn and grow from our errors!
Knowledge is power. France is bacon.

Offline Mr. Beagle

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4328
    • When God Plays DIce
Re: Episode #650
« Reply #123 on: January 10, 2018, 09:27:06 PM »
Project Steve:
https://ncse.com/project-steve

Phooey needs to read what the NCSE says about it.

Natural selection is simply math, a probability problem, and easily simulated. Tiny differential levels of fecundity yield very different populations over time.

It's the math version of "If your parents had no children, then neither will you."

Is Phooey a member of a fundamentalist Christian Church?  If so, his sect is determining his very incorrect view of scientists.

Is he a scientist at a reputable school or research facility? If not, he is just talking shit.


Mister Beagle
The real world is tri-color
now blogging at http://godplaysdice.com

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4204
  • mooh
Re: Episode #650
« Reply #124 on: January 10, 2018, 09:39:32 PM »
Its a notion that things reproduce and die at varying rates.  No rational person should call that a mechanism.

Unless of course you understand what the implications are, and why. Which turns out to be kind of hard, which is why scientists have been working on it for well over a century and a half.

The mechanism, if there is one in the development of life, is what causes the changes to genes in the first place- NOT which ones live or die.

First you need to get that straight before you try to argue about evolution.

I am really enjoying the irony of a person who seems to be lacking an information filter not recognizing the importance of such a filter in evolution.

Don't take my word for that, try it out for yourself: program a genetic algorithm and then compare it to when you make the fitness function a random number generator. You have just removed natural selection from the equation. Let me know how well that goes (although tbh I know the answer already, because I have actually done this several times). And before you start, the fitness function in nature is simply (to a first approximation) "how many fit offspring I reproduce" (it's a recursive function, in other words). That works just fine in computer programs too, in case you're wondering. The enormous complexity of the patterns of evolution and all the rest of life appears, at least so far, to be basically just a consequence of that function, applied to random variation (through random mutations, sexual recombination, the laws of probability, and so on, and constrained only by the laws of physics and, by extension, chemistry).

Now if the mechanism of change is debated, unknown, teleological, planned, or pre-loaded, that is most definitely NOT Neo-Darwinian evolution. 

Which, of course, it is not. At least, not according to 87% of scientists (even back in 2009), who say (human) evolution is "due to natural processes, such as natural selection" as opposed to "guided by a suppreme being". "Scientists" is not "evolutionary biologists", btw, or even "biologists" (it was a general sample of 2533 scientists of various fields belonging to the AAAS); for them the percentage would likely be much higher. There are some additional mechanisms of change, such as genetic drift, epigenetic control mechanisms and maybe some form of self-organization (for example, see Stuart Kauffman for that last one), but they all rely on purely naturalistic (and typically probabilistic) arguments, none deny the importance of natural selection, and none of them are "teleological, planned, or pre-loaded" in any sense of those terms that you seem to be implying.

Am I am sorry to throw your worldview for a loop, but most biologists these days don't believe in (Neo)Darwinian evolution.  It is just far too inadequate.  Perhaps you should go read up on the subject, find out what Project Steve is, and what it isn't, stop relying on your little skeptic response notebook, and try to find out what you are talking about. 

I am going to need you to be more cryptic in your critique of skepticism, because I just can't deal with all these specific points you raise in defense of your argument.  ::)
Mooohn!

Offline Belgarath

  • Forum Sugar Daddy
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 11672
Re: Episode #650
« Reply #125 on: January 11, 2018, 05:47:53 AM »
Thank Steve we aren’t on JFK anymore. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
#non-belief denialist

Offline phooey

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
Re: Episode #650
« Reply #126 on: January 11, 2018, 09:10:45 AM »
Its a notion that things reproduce and die at varying rates.  No rational person should call that a mechanism.

Unless of course you understand what the implications are, and why. Which turns out to be kind of hard, which is why scientists have been working on it for well over a century and a half.

The mechanism, if there is one in the development of life, is what causes the changes to genes in the first place- NOT which ones live or die.

First you need to get that straight before you try to argue about evolution.

I am really enjoying the irony of a person who seems to be lacking an information filter not recognizing the importance of such a filter in evolution.

Don't take my word for that, try it out for yourself: program a genetic algorithm and then compare it to when you make the fitness function a random number generator. You have just removed natural selection from the equation. Let me know how well that goes (although tbh I know the answer already, because I have actually done this several times). And before you start, the fitness function in nature is simply (to a first approximation) "how many fit offspring I reproduce" (it's a recursive function, in other words). That works just fine in computer programs too, in case you're wondering. The enormous complexity of the patterns of evolution and all the rest of life appears, at least so far, to be basically just a consequence of that function, applied to random variation (through random mutations, sexual recombination, the laws of probability, and so on, and constrained only by the laws of physics and, by extension, chemistry).

Now if the mechanism of change is debated, unknown, teleological, planned, or pre-loaded, that is most definitely NOT Neo-Darwinian evolution. 

Which, of course, it is not. At least, not according to 87% of scientists (even back in 2009), who say (human) evolution is "due to natural processes, such as natural selection" as opposed to "guided by a suppreme being". "Scientists" is not "evolutionary biologists", btw, or even "biologists" (it was a general sample of 2533 scientists of various fields belonging to the AAAS); for them the percentage would likely be much higher. There are some additional mechanisms of change, such as genetic drift, epigenetic control mechanisms and maybe some form of self-organization (for example, see Stuart Kauffman for that last one), but they all rely on purely naturalistic (and typically probabilistic) arguments, none deny the importance of natural selection, and none of them are "teleological, planned, or pre-loaded" in any sense of those terms that you seem to be implying.

Am I am sorry to throw your worldview for a loop, but most biologists these days don't believe in (Neo)Darwinian evolution.  It is just far too inadequate.  Perhaps you should go read up on the subject, find out what Project Steve is, and what it isn't, stop relying on your little skeptic response notebook, and try to find out what you are talking about. 

I am going to need you to be more cryptic in your critique of skepticism, because I just can't deal with all these specific points you raise in defense of your argument.  ::)

You are writing to tell me how important you feel natural selection is?  Why?  is that easier than addressing what I wrote? 

Here, take a look again:

Quote
Right, like not to be confused with the non-consensus on Darwinian evolution you mean?  Since no one can agree on what the mechanisms are anymore.  There is basically no biologists working today that believe that random mutations and natural selection are the creative forces of life.

"But, but, 87% percent of scientists believe that evolution is due to natural processes, so..."

So every scientist on Earth has been polled then huh?  And the question they were asked was, "Is evolution due to natural processes?"  And 87% said Yes! 

Exactly how much more laughable can this claim of your be? 

Did they ask social scientists?  Sports scientists?  Metallurgists?  Meteorologists?  Quantum Field theorists?  Criminologists?  Machine Vision experts? 

Do you know what the percents were in Samoa? 

Did they say what natural means? 

Of the 13 percent who said it was unnatural, were Filipinos over-represented? 

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4204
  • mooh
Re: Episode #650
« Reply #127 on: January 11, 2018, 01:59:57 PM »
Alright, it's been fun, but I'm done banging my head against this brick wall for now. I wish you the best of luck as you fly side saddle on your rainbow farting unicorn* out into shadowy conspiratorial realms, dodging second shooters to your left and selective forces to your right, in search of more of these Revealed Truths that are hidden from the rest of us mere mortals, who are just down here doing this silly meaningless science and skepticism thing. Destiny awaits!

* Evolved by some supernatural selection, no doubt.
Mooohn!

Offline phooey

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
Re: Episode #650
« Reply #128 on: January 11, 2018, 02:53:57 PM »
Metallurgists and Cryptobovinologists for Darwin!

Everyone else...meh. 

Offline MTBox

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 228
  • "The last best place" to be, in or out of a box
Re: Episode #650
« Reply #129 on: January 12, 2018, 05:53:50 PM »
This topic now, is why I don't embed quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes, and stop reading when I see a surfeit of Exclamation points.

Offline gebobs

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 480
  • Me like hockey!
Re: Episode #650
« Reply #130 on: January 17, 2018, 09:13:25 AM »
So every scientist on Earth has been polled then huh?  And the question they were asked was, "Is evolution due to natural processes?"  And 87% said Yes! 

That's not how polls work. If you can't grasp something so simple as sampling and statistics, then it's no wonder you're confused about evolution.

Quote
Did they ask social scientists?  Sports scientists?  Metallurgists?  Meteorologists?  Quantum Field theorists?  Criminologists?  Machine Vision experts? 

The methods, data, and results are all available at the link provided.

Speaking of polling the experts, what's your line? What's your take? Is it an ID angle?
« Last Edit: January 17, 2018, 09:16:14 AM by gebobs »