Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

[Gnug215]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity

Good for you Jimmy, today you learned how to link to web sites! Tommorow we'll learn how to draw with crayons!

Surprise, a snarky comment instead of any kind of courtesy or respect. You won't be surprised, I take it, if you get the same.

Now, you didn't even get the point of why I linked to that page. Not a big surprise there, either.

Let me spell it out for you, then, since you don't get it:

That short Wikipedia article briefly mentions some of the criticisms of Dembski's work and CSI. I'm sure Dembski himself has seen them, and perhaps even adressed, or tried to, most of them. Or even fixed the problems with his broken theory. Something. ANYthing.

But not you. Here you are, spouting the old broken nonsense that has already been so damningly criticized. We're not in any way impressed or interested in that. You might as well have linked us to that Wikipedia page and saved us the trouble of having to wade through your nonsense.

So basically, get with the program. If you haven't bothered to read even what Wikipedia has to offer, don't bother at all - and don't bother us with this trite drivel.

 

[ProcInc]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

No definition? Which part of a pattern that conforms to an independently given pattern and is too improbable to occur by chance, do you have problem grasping? Which word in that sentence do you not comprehend? Which letter can you not read?

As I explained that is not a definition because it doesn't explain anything there is no way of determining either of those criteria in principle because they are both subjective.

Surely you realise this and your insistence it is an apt definition can only stem from your commitment to pious fraud.

Painfully false.

There is such a thing called Kolmogorov complexity that can tell us which sequences among the whole sequence space is more probable than others.

Here are two sequences.

1000010111101001011111001100001000011111
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111

Both have the probability of 1: 2^40 to occur by chance, according to the standard probability distribution. But if we measure their compressibility we will see that this is what we get:

"1" * 1 + "0" *4 + "10" * 1 + "1" * 4 + "01" * 1 + "0" * 2 + "10" * 1 + "1" * 5 + "0" * 2 + "1" * 2 + "0" * 4 + "1" * 1 + "0" * 4 + "1" * 5
"1" * 40

As you can see, the second pattern can be described much easier. Therefore, it has a lot less entropy. Therefore it's much harder for it to be produced by chance. Not only that, but this also means that there are a lot more of the patterns that have the same complexity signature as the first sequence. And there are a lot less seqeunces from all possible sequences of 40 bits length that have a complexity signature like the second one. The only other sequence is all zeros, which is ~0" * 40. So the number of those sequences is 2, that is all ones, and all zeros. Which makes such low entropy sequences less probable apriori than other high entropy sequences.

The same thing goes for a coin tossing experiment. If someone told you he flipped a coin 40 times and told you he got a sequence of heads and tails that was the same as the first sequence you would have no reson not to believe him. But if he told you he got the second sequence, that is, all heads, you would either tell him he is lying or the coin was not fair. So yeah, we can calculate probabilities aposteriori.

Or imagine a box with 20 identical balls. The only difference is that 19 of them are white, and 1 is red. They are all identical and the chance of getting any ball by chance from the box is 1 : 20. Yet it is much more probable that it's going to be a white, than a red ball.


What's worse is that this is just the case with actual events determined statistically as a random event. Evolution is not random, it is deterministic. Natural forces and mechanisms can and do account for all of the novelty and variety we see in biological organisms.
Dear God no. I don't believe you said that. It's deterministic? Wow, just wow. Then you will have ZERO problem of presenting me with an equation for evolution since its deterministic. Go on, present it.

But since I know you won't since you can't, since evolution is not deterministic, I'll explain to you that evolution is a stochastic process. Which means that it's a mix of both deterministic forces like natural laws, and non-deterministic forces like chance.

This is in no way a rebuttal to the point made. It is simply something you copied an pasted form an earlier reply (and presumable some other source without understanding or caring about the content). Learn what you are arguing with and what you are arguing before you decide to give big blocks of text that ultimately do not support you.

By people who don't know how to define CSI properly.

Dembski himself has used this definition. In fact creationists in general are liberal with the definition because there is no one definition, as I said it is a blanket term to redefine already rebutted arguments.

There is. You just have to show that the probabilistic resources were not enough to bring about a pattern in question.

Yet nobody has ever explained what this means and how it does so.

What kind of workable definition do you have for a "probabalistic resource"? Evolution certainly has all of the material resources necessary, very little "probabalitic resources" are required for what is essentally the opposite of the consequence of probability.

I like to use teh new number of 400 bits, but yeah it's all teh same to me. 500 is close to 400 so there is no problem if you want to use 500.

As I demonstrated below either are wrong.

.

He calculated it. You can find it in his book The Design Inference on page 309. Let me present you with the calculation since I have the book.
Estimate of the number ofparticles in the universe - 10^80 particles
Smallest amount of time for an action to take place, 10^-45 hz
Billion times more then the age of the universe, 10^25 seconds

So we get the UPB by multiplying all those numbers 10^80 * 10^45 * 10^25 = 10^150

And to convert this to bits, we do teh following,log2(1 : 10^150) = 500

Exactly my point. This calculation is an absolute joke and a testament to exactly how incompetent Dembski is in information theory. Why do you think only he an internet randoms like you employ it? It can't even be expanded upon by those with a vested interest in buttressing their religious biases because there is nothing repeatable nor testable in the calculations.

None of those qualities are in any way relevant to each other

Also number of "particles"?

atoms, molecules, specks of dust? A mixture of all of the above? See how ridiculous this is?

Umm... no. That's not production of 250 bits of information.

By definition my example was a production of 250 because by only descriptions was an event of 250 bits. 250 bits of information are easily produced for this event and just as easy to calculate via REAL information theory calculations.

Actually that was produced by a single frame shift mutation, not a 2^2352 shifts. So basicly that's half a bit.

a. Even if that was true you have still set a precedent for 500 bits to be reasonably compiled via 1000 frame shift mutations (this number is easy enough to acquire even without taking into account the sheer timescale at work and number of mutations per single generation)

b. The single frame shift produced 2352 bits of information. I don't know how you could think you could nullify that by stating it was a single frame shift would change this (if the same result occurred within MORE frame shifts then the increase in information would have equated to a series of smaller increases and yet to the same end)

In the single frame shift mutation 392 new amino acids are produced

The number of potential nucleotides is obviously 4

We can determine the log base 2 of the number of possibilities

the equation being Log2(4)=2bits

The number of nucleotides per amino acid is 3: 2*3 is obviously 6 bits.


Already we have calculated using REAL information theory that if a single amino acid had changed you were wrong by a factor of 12.

However the total was not one amino acid, but 392.

392*12 is the total number of bits.

If it's to improbable to have came about by chance and it conforms to an independently given pattern.
Because of the lack of probabilistic resources

Neither of these explain anything

a. Evolution produces things too improbable to come about by chance all the time
b. What is an example in nature of something conforming to an "independently given pattern"? What even is an independently given pattern, that appears to be purely retrospective.
c. How many probabalistic resources is required for a nonrandom natural process? How can you determine/test that amount?

A pattern that is to improbable to come about by chance and that conformas to an independently given pattern.

In short, you are a testament to my earlier demonstration that there is no definition. Just buzzwords you can't define.

Rule one in science: You can't attempt to define a rhetorical device with two more rhetorical devices.

You create the impression of the saddest example of creationists, a wasted mind.

 

[ProcInc]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

No, I'm saying that a pattern that conforms to an independently given pattern, exhibits some other pattern that can not be derived from itself.

This is a tautology. You disagreed with my definition and then reworded the same definition.

Your definition appears to only be hinting at replication. However biota have the ability at performing self replication by a number of different mechanisms (from cell division to sexual reproduction) and is a driving force for evolution.

What example can you give of this weird definition applying to any kind of Design theory let alone the supernatural one you are trying to plug?

You can't use evolution to predict anything.

Wow. You have very little regard for the medical science industry. Without evolution we would be in the dark over the cutting edge of AIDS research, cancer and other aspects of embryology.

Please show me the equation that predicts people.

In the context of the example I gave simply line up the sequences of the closest relatives of humans and look at which sequences are preserved and which aren't and from there you can predict the sequence expected in humans to a stunning degree of accuracy already.

The sequenced genomes of every species we have done so far conforms to the pattern demanded by evolutionary theory.

Whatever else we may discover about the origins of life it is confirmed beyond any doubt that all terrestrial life is related.

Natural selection doesn't produce anything

This is an outright factual error from which there is very little that can be said.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

Surprise, a snarky comment instead of any kind of courtesy or respect. You won't be surprised, I take it, if you get the same.

Now, you didn't even get the point of why I linked to that page. Not a big surprise there, either.

Let me spell it out for you, then, since you don't get it:

That short Wikipedia article briefly mentions some of the criticisms of Dembski's work and CSI. I'm sure Dembski himself has seen them, and perhaps even adressed, or tried to, most of them. Or even fixed the problems with his broken theory. Something. ANYthing.

But not you. Here you are, spouting the old broken nonsense that has already been so damningly criticized. We're not in any way impressed or interested in that. You might as well have linked us to that Wikipedia page and saved us the trouble of having to wade through your nonsense.

So basically, get with the program. If you haven't bothered to read even what Wikipedia has to offer, don't bother at all - and don't bother us with this trite drivel.

Do you really think, I haven't already been shown that page a trillion times? Please hop over to the other topic I'm at and see all the points addressed...

 

[lrkun]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

Surprise, a snarky comment instead of any kind of courtesy or respect. You won't be surprised, I take it, if you get the same.

Now, you didn't even get the point of why I linked to that page. Not a big surprise there, either.

Let me spell it out for you, then, since you don't get it:

That short Wikipedia article briefly mentions some of the criticisms of Dembski's work and CSI. I'm sure Dembski himself has seen them, and perhaps even adressed, or tried to, most of them. Or even fixed the problems with his broken theory. Something. ANYthing.

But not you. Here you are, spouting the old broken nonsense that has already been so damningly criticized. We're not in any way impressed or interested in that. You might as well have linked us to that Wikipedia page and saved us the trouble of having to wade through your nonsense.

So basically, get with the program. If you haven't bothered to read even what Wikipedia has to offer, don't bother at all - and don't bother us with this trite drivel.

Do you really think, I haven't already been shown that page a trillion times? Please hop over to the other topic I'm at and see all the points addressed...

If you're a real scientist, you'll check the information, test it, see if relevant studies related to such provides a similar result, and cross-reference it with your bible... I mean weee, something. ^_^

 

[ProcInc]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

Do you really think, I haven't already been shown that page a trillion times?

Yet you haven't corrected yourself.

You are basically proudly declaring yourself to be intellectually dishonest, is that intended?

 

[Gnug215]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

Surprise, a snarky comment instead of any kind of courtesy or respect. You won't be surprised, I take it, if you get the same.

Now, you didn't even get the point of why I linked to that page. Not a big surprise there, either.

Let me spell it out for you, then, since you don't get it:

That short Wikipedia article briefly mentions some of the criticisms of Dembski's work and CSI. I'm sure Dembski himself has seen them, and perhaps even adressed, or tried to, most of them. Or even fixed the problems with his broken theory. Something. ANYthing.

But not you. Here you are, spouting the old broken nonsense that has already been so damningly criticized. We're not in any way impressed or interested in that. You might as well have linked us to that Wikipedia page and saved us the trouble of having to wade through your nonsense.

So basically, get with the program. If you haven't bothered to read even what Wikipedia has to offer, don't bother at all - and don't bother us with this trite drivel.

Do you really think, I haven't already been shown that page a trillion times? Please hop over to the other topic I'm at and see all the points addressed...

Evidently, you've disregarded it a trillion times, too. You keep repeating a lot of the stuff that's been rebutted as if it hasn't even been addressed. Please, move on already.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

As I explained that is not a definition because it doesn't explain anything there is no way of determining either of those criteria in principle because they are both subjective.

Take a look at this picture. Can you name me some patterns the mountain in this picture exhibits. Name more than one if you can.

This is in no way a rebuttal to the point made. It is simply something you copied an pasted form an earlier reply (and presumable some other source without understanding or caring about the content). Learn what you are arguing with and what you are arguing before you decide to give big blocks of text that ultimately do not support you.

Which part of, some sequences are more probable than otehrs do you not understand?

If you have a box with 20 identical balls in shape, yet 19 of them are white, and 1 is red, is it more probable that by chane a white ball will be drawn and not the red one? Or are the probabilities the same that a red ball will be drawn just as for the white one?

Dembski himself has used this definition. In fact creationists in general are liberal with the definition because there is no one definition, as I said it is a blanket term to redefine already rebutted arguments.

Show me where are those multiple definitions. Who used them?

Yet nobody has ever explained what this means and how it does so.

What kind of workable definition do you have for a "probabalistic resource"? Evolution certainly has all of the material resources necessary, very little "probabalitic resources" are required for what is essentally the opposite of the consequence of probability.

Dude, probabilistic resources are not someting that has been invented by ID proponents, it's a standard definition used by mathematicians. Its simply a number for how many times you had to produce a chance based event.

If you say you are going to throw a coin 10 times, then your probabilistic resources are 10.

Exactly my point. This calculation is an absolute joke and a testament to exactly how incompetent Dembski is in information theory. Why do you think only he an internet randoms like you employ it? It can't even be expanded upon by those with a vested interest in buttressing their religious biases because there is nothing repeatable nor testable in the calculations.

None of those qualities are in any way relevant to each other

Also number of "particles"?

atoms, molecules, specks of dust? A mixture of all of the above? See how ridiculous this is?

It's teh number of elementary particles. And you haven't actually shown why the method is wrong. There is a peer review article that uses the same method and even comes to a smaller number.

http://www.tbiomed.com/content/6/1/27

By definition my example was a production of 250 because by only descriptions was an event of 250 bits. 250 bits of information are easily produced for this event and just as easy to calculate via REAL information theory calculations.

Okay then, calculate it.

a. Even if that was true you have still set a precedent for 500 bits to be reasonably compiled via 1000 frame shift mutations (this number is easy enough to acquire even without taking into account the sheer timescale at work and number of mutations per single generation)

No. 100 frameshift mutations is log2(1000) = 9.96 bits.

b. The single frame shift produced 2352 bits of information. I don't know how you could think you could nullify that by stating it was a single frame shift would change this (if the same result occurred within MORE frame shifts then the increase in information would have equated to a series of smaller increases and yet to the same end)

How can one mutation produce 2352 bits of information. And what measure of information are we talking about?

In the single frame shift mutation 392 new amino acids are produced

The number of potential nucleotides is obviously 4

We can determine the log base 2 of the number of possibilities

the equation being Log2(4)=2bits

The number of nucleotides per amino acid is 3: 2*3 is obviously 6 bits.


Already we have calculated using REAL information theory that if a single amino acid had changed you were wrong by a factor of 12.

However the total was not one amino acid, but 392.

392*12 is the total number of bits.

So you are using Shannon definition of information. That's ok, since Shannon inforamtion can increase over time by chance.

Neither of these explain anything

Why not?

a. Evolution produces things too improbable to come about by chance all the time

How?

b. What is an example in nature of something conforming to an "independently given pattern"? What even is an independently given pattern, that appears to be purely retrospective.

I gave you an example in the picture above.

c. How many probabalistic resources is required for a nonrandom natural process? How can you determine/test that amount?

This is a meaningless question.

This is a tautology. You disagreed with my definition and then reworded the same definition.

Your definition appears to only be hinting at replication. However biota have the ability at performing self replication by a number of different mechanisms (from cell division to sexual reproduction) and is a driving force for evolution.

What example can you give of this weird definition applying to any kind of Design theory let alone the supernatural one you are trying to plug?

Where exactly is the tautology?

Wow. You have very little regard for the medical science industry. Without evolution we would be in the dark over the cutting edge of AIDS research, cancer and other aspects of embryology.

Explain how evolution has anything to do with that.

In the context of the example I gave simply line up the sequences of the closest relatives of humans and look at which sequences are preserved and which aren't and from there you can predict the sequence expected in humans to a stunning degree of accuracy already.

You haven't predicted anything. If all sequences exist then you aren't predicting anything. Ca you predict in what people will evolve in a billion years? No, obviously you can't. Because you have nothing to align the human sequences with. So you need do show me some sequence, and explan what equation will derive human sequence from that sequence. Placing them side by side doesn't predict anything, it just compares them. I can compare two cars, that does not mean I can predict one from the other.

The sequenced genomes of every species we have done so far conforms to the pattern demanded by evolutionary theory.

What pattern is demanded by evolutionary theory?

Whatever else we may discover about the origins of life it is confirmed beyond any doubt that all terrestrial life is related.

Evidence please?

This is an outright factual error from which there is very little that can be said.

Show me some counter examples if you will.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

Evidently, you've disregarded it a trillion times, too. You keep repeating a lot of the stuff that's been rebutted as if it hasn't even been addressed. Please, move on already.

Which part of, please hop over to the other topic I'm at did you not understand? I already addressed all the points of that article.

 

[ProcInc]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

Take a look at this picture. Can you name me some patterns the mountain in this picture exhibits. Name more than one if you can

In this mountain we see a replication of facial contours. The mechanism is though a series of human designing processes. This couldn't be less relevant to anything to do with biology

Which part of, some sequences are more probable than otehrs do you not understand?

The part in which how that relates to the context

If you have a box with 20 identical balls in shape, yet 19 of them are white, and 1 is red, is it more probable that by chane a white ball will be drawn and not the red one? Or are the probabilities the same that a red ball will be drawn just as for the white one?

The chances of drawing the red ball are equal to any specified white ball. The chance of any old while ball drawn is greater.

This is a total nonsequiter to the subject.

Show me where are those multiple definitions. Who used them?

Everywhere. Look at any creationist attempt to use ID jargon to buttress their silliness and they all have their own definition of the terms.

What's funny is from the offset you have attempted to paint Dembski as some kind of authority. He isn't, I mean he REALLY isn't

Dude, probabilistic resources are not someting that has been invented by ID proponents

No, merely something misdefined and ultimately bastardised by ID creationists to the point it has no running meaning whatesoever.

If you say you are going to throw a coin 10 times, then your probabilistic resources are 10.

But in that case the probabalistic resource quotient of evolution increases with every generation. This is essentially evolution working by definition.

Exactly my point. This calculation is an absolute joke and a testament to exactly how incompetent Dembski is in information theory. Why do you think only he an internet randoms like you employ it? It can't even be expanded upon by those with a vested interest in buttressing their religious biases because there is nothing repeatable nor testable in the calculations.

Okay then, calculate it.

Before you give silly challenges like this it would pay for you to read the whole message since in a few words later I do just this hence below.

No. 100 frameshift mutations is log2(1000) = 9.96 bits.

The mutations are not the information, they are the SOURCE of the information! the information was contained in the new sequence of amino acids.

Geez, how could you make such a rudimentary error?

Also, the base of log two is the number of potential outcomes, not the number of mutations!

How can one mutation produce 2352 bits of information.

This is a bit of a silly question since...it did.

The frame shift caused a change in 392 amino acids by shifting every subsequent nucleotide over.

So you are using Shannon definition of information. That's ok, since Shannon inforamtion can increase over time by chance.

So now you are admitting that information can increase over time by chance.

How?

By mutations, selection and all of the other lesser known mechanisms entaled therein. If you don't know the first thing about evolution, why do you feel qualified to describe its limitations?

I gave you an example in the picture above.

No you didn't. You showed something known to be designed specifially to artistically replicate something and tried to pass this off as a general rule for objectively determining design.

c. How many probabalistic resources is required for a nonrandom natural process? How can you determine/test that amount?
This is a meaningless question.

It is a meangingless question in the realm of real science yet since you think your weird religious beliefs count as science and you want to buttress it with silly arguments then it is a perfectly apt question.

Where exactly is the tautology?

Are you serious?

Explain how evolution has anything to do with that.

You mean recap the the entire recent history of development of all of these fields over the past century?

You haven't predicted anything. If all sequences exist then you aren't predicting anything.

You didn't understand me. We can predict the placement of these sequences when we understand the sequences of related animals before we analyse the sequences.

I can compare two cars, that does not mean I can predict one from the other.

That's a difference between designed and evolved things. We can predict the placement of humans and animals because they evolved. We can't do it with cars because they were manufactured from scratch each time.

QED

What pattern is demanded by evolutionary theory?

Seriously? Take a look into phylogenetics

Evidence please?

Any and every field of biology relevent to this and the summation of each of these fields together. To deny that all life on Earth is related is to cloud yourself from the single unifying principle of biology that is relied on in understanding what we see in it

Show me some counter examples if you will.

You mean examples of evolution by Natural selection resulting in novel features? A simple google search would suffice.


You've asked me about three times to basically recap all of biology (How evolution is relevent to medicine, what natural selection has been shown to produce, how we know all life is related).

If you know so little about biology OF COURSE you're going to invoke silly arguments in support of an even sillier and consistently shown to be outright dishonest campaign (ID creationism)

I couldn't make up a more stunning example of creationist incompetence. Except of course for Dembski himself whom you feel is authoritative enough to emulate the examples of

Dembski!

The renowned charlatan who actually believed taking his family to a faith healer would help them! THAT Dembski!

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

In this mountain we see a replication of facial contours. The mechanism is though a series of human designing processes. This couldn't be less relevant to anything to do with biology

In other words, you recognize teh pattern named ~facial contures". Tell me, if I showed you that mountain before that structure was chisled, could you formulate the same pattern ~facial contures" by looking at the mountain then?

The part in which how that relates to the context

You said that we can't calculate probability aposteriori. I'm showing you how we can.

The chances of drawing the red ball are equal to any specified white ball. The chance of any old while ball drawn is greater.

So the probability of drawing a white ball is higher. Which means that some items have higher rpobability than others by virtue of their higher numbers within the whole sequence space. Which means that out of all possible patterns matter could form in the universe, biological patterns are a small subset. Within those biological patterns, the flagellum is yet again a small subset. Which means that the flagellum has a small probability of occuring than some other structure in the universe.

Everywhere. Look at any creationist attempt to use ID jargon to buttress their silliness and they all have their own definition of the terms.

Show me where.

What's funny is from the offset you have attempted to paint Dembski as some kind of authority. He isn't, I mean he REALLY isn't

I have no authorities. I think for myself.

No, merely something misdefined and ultimately bastardised by ID creationists to the point it has no running meaning whatesoever.

Explain why.

But in that case the probabalistic resource quotient of evolution increases with every generation. This is essentially evolution working by definition.

Unless you take into account all matter in the observable universe from the big bang till now. Then the amount of probabilistic resources is fixed to 10^150.

The mutations are not the information, they are the SOURCE of the information! the information was contained in the new sequence of amino acids.

Geez, how could you make such a rudimentary error?

Also, the base of log two is the number of potential outcomes, not the number of mutations!

But mutations haven't searched the whole space so you can't say they produced that information. Information is only what they searched. And that is 1000 operations.

This is a bit of a silly question since...it did.

The frame shift caused a change in 392 amino acids by shifting every subsequent nucleotide over.

But that was produced by physical interactions together with the chance event of a random mutation. Since physical interactions come from natural laws, they can't produce any information. And chance can only be attributed to 500 bits of information. So that means that natural laws have in this case simply transformed already existing information.

So now you are admitting that information can increase over time by chance.

Shannon information yes, CSI no.

By mutations, selection and all of the other lesser known mechanisms entaled therein. If you don't know the first thing about evolution, why do you feel qualified to describe its limitations?

But mutations are a random process which can't produce more than 500 bits of information. And selection is a deterministic process which produces no uncertainty, and thus zero information. So no, you can't produce anything that would require more than 500 bits with evolution.

No you didn't. You showed something known to be designed specifially to artistically replicate something and tried to pass this off as a general rule for objectively determining design.

Yeah, by showing you that it was designed, and that we can tell it's designed by looking at it.

It is a meangingless question in the realm of real science yet since you think your weird religious beliefs count as science and you want to buttress it with silly arguments then it is a perfectly apt question.

It's very meaningful. If it wasn't then we could explan EVERYTHING by chance. Which would mean the end of science, since every event could be explained by chance. A building that burned down could be explained by molecules of air hitting it by chance and causing it to combust from friction. Do you think that's reasonable?

Are you serious?

Yes.

You mean recap the the entire recent history of development of all of these fields over the past century?

No. Just the AIDS part.

You didn't understand me. We can predict the placement of these sequences when we understand the sequences of related animals before we analyse the sequences.

You can't predict what kind of animal will evolve from another animal. Placing them on by the other gives you no prediction what will evolve next.

That's a difference between designed and evolved things.

No there isn't. What's the difference?

We can predict the placement of humans and animals because they evolved.

You assume tehy evolved. You have shown no evidence of that. And you haven't predicted anything yet.

We can't do it with cars because they were manufactured from scratch each time.

Probably the same way as humans and animals were.

Seriously? Take a look into phylogenetics

Since when is my job to produce evidence for you?

Any and every field of biology relevent to this and the summation of each of these fields together. To deny that all life on Earth is related is to cloud yourself from the single unifying principle of biology that is relied on in understanding what we see in it

Evidence please.

You mean examples of evolution by Natural selection resulting in novel features? A simple google search would suffice.

That's not a counter example. Why would it be?

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

@Царь Славян
And if you have 100 bags with 19 white balls and 1 red ball, you have a large chance of getting a red ball. You seem to be willfully ignoring large sample size in this. If you have a large population stretching many generations, you will get beneficial mutations and you will get bad mutations, but these bad mutations are filtered out because of natural selection.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

@Царь Славян
And if you have 100 bags with 19 white balls and 1 red ball, you have a large chance of getting a red ball. You seem to be willfully ignoring large sample size in this. If you have a large population stretching many generations, you will get beneficial mutations and you will get bad mutations, but these bad mutations are filtered out because of natural selection.

If you mean 100 bags with 19 white balls and 1 red ball in each bag, then the probabilites stay exactly identical.

int he first case you have the probability of 1 : 19, and in the second you have 100 : 1900. Please use your calculator and tell me the probability.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

@Царь Славян
And if you have 100 bags with 19 white balls and 1 red ball, you have a large chance of getting a red ball. You seem to be willfully ignoring large sample size in this. If you have a large population stretching many generations, you will get beneficial mutations and you will get bad mutations, but these bad mutations are filtered out because of natural selection.

If you mean 100 bags with 19 white balls and 1 red ball in each bag, then the probabilites stay exactly identical.

int he first case you have the probability of 1 : 19, and in the second you have 100 : 1900. Please use your calculator and tell me the probability.

Ummm, you do know that we are not talking about a series but rather parallel drawing of the balls. The chance of drawing one red ball is pretty much one if I have 100 bags of 19 white balls and 1 red. I even think the chance is 1 for at least one red ball.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

Ummm, you do know that we are not talking about a series but rather parallel drawing of the balls.

Painfully irrelevant. How does that in any way shape or form influence the probabilities?

The chance of drawing one red ball is pretty much one if I have 100 bags of 19 white balls and 1 red.

No it's 1:19.

I even think the chance is 1 for at least one red ball.

No, the chance is 1:1 for any ball.

 

[lrkun]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

Ummm, you do know that we are not talking about a series but rather parallel drawing of the balls.

Painfully irrelevant. How does that in any way shape or form influence the probabilities?

The chance of drawing one red ball is pretty much one if I have 100 bags of 19 white balls and 1 red.

No it's 1:19.

I even think the chance is 1 for at least one red ball.

No, the chance is 1:1 for any ball.

:/ show us your equation for solving such. ^-^

 

[Pulsar]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

@Царь Славян
And if you have 100 bags with 19 white balls and 1 red ball, you have a large chance of getting a red ball. You seem to be willfully ignoring large sample size in this. If you have a large population stretching many generations, you will get beneficial mutations and you will get bad mutations, but these bad mutations are filtered out because of natural selection.

The chance of drawing a white ball from every bag is (19/20)^100 = 0.00592.
So, the chance of drawing at least one red ball is 1 - (19/20)^100 = 0.99408.

 

[Mycernius]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

I see Царь Славян has now truned up here after having his arse throughly handed to him over on Ratskep and banned for being a troll. Lying on another forum is still lying.
For anyone interested in his arse whipping here is the link.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/discussion-from-calilasseia-creationists-read-this-t18769.html
By warned there are 52 pages.

 

[lrkun]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

I see Царь Славян has now truned up here after having his arse throughly handed to him over on Ratskep and banned for being a troll. Lying on another forum is still lying.
For anyone interested in his arse whipping here is the link.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/discussion-from-calilasseia-creationists-read-this-t18769.html
By warned there are 52 pages.

I suppose he relies to much on his own version of logic. His premise, as he often posted on the other thread has, for most of the time, has no real basis, and if it has, such premise has already been debunked by experts on the field. :/

If he only took the time to google things, he would have avoided the consistency of making errors.

 

[Gnug215]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

Evidently, you've disregarded it a trillion times, too. You keep repeating a lot of the stuff that's been rebutted as if it hasn't even been addressed. Please, move on already.

Which part of, please hop over to the other topic I'm at did you not understand? I already addressed all the points of that article.

Aah, you mean that thread where you carefully explain everything in detail, support it with experimnts and evidence, and don't repeat any of the old and debunked arguments that Dembski proposed?

Oh, wait...