|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 02/24/2012 : 07:46:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
I told you Axe was using computer simulation in his research. They all do. |
I didn't say otherwise. I said that he didn't do any computer simulations for his paper that critiqued Lynch and Abegg. Your implication, that I had claimed that Axe does no computer simulation at all, is a lie. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 08:19:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
How come no one knew chimpanzees have been showing much superior intelligence than humans in certain fields. |
Which fields would that be? Please provide evidence for your assertion, because I'm skeptical of your claim.
If was later discovered chimpanzees had a better aptitude for computers and made quantum leaps after they were introduced to it. |
That's just bullshit. Show me one single instance where a chimp have written a computer program even as simple as the classic:
10 Print "Hello World"
20 Goto 10
So much progress that they even started beating university students. |
I'm highly skeptical of your claim. And with your history of making shit up on the spot with no inclination of backing it up with linked-to evidence, I'll write this down as just so much more bullshit.
If you prove me wrong, I will of course admit so, but I'm doubtful.
What is ironical here is, humans have been using computers a lot longer than chimpanzees and yet none have been able to produce a work of Shakespeare. Strange cross over.
|
True, in a funny sort of way. Humans didn't need a computer to produce a work of Shakespeare. It was done around 400 years before the invention of the solid state micro-computer by a man named William.
If you have such superior math-skills, you should be able to tell us why a computer hasn't been able to produce a work of Shakespeare by printing out lines of random letters as of yet.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 08:23:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by jamalrapper
If was later discovered chimpanzees had a better aptitude for computers and made quantum leaps after they were introduced to it. |
Quantum leaps are very, very small. You can't even get physics correct.
|
Which, by accident, actually makes jamalrapper's statement partly true.
Who would have thought?  |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 09:44:31 [Permalink]
|
jamalrapper:
God did not make chimpanzees better or smarter than humans. It is like Americans. They were smart and then got all messed up and now ranks 25 in science, 17 in reading and 32 in math. |
First off, chimps aren’t really smarter than humans. They are as smart as they need to be to survive in their habitat. That might mean some skills on a very narrow test of speed and pattern recognition, gives them the edge in a computer game.
Also, our poor education ranking has more to do with the Republican war on education. It’s they who keep reducing funding and replacing good teaching with programs like No Child Left Behind which means schools to get funding must compete by teaching to a dumb test that teaches answers and not concepts. And then there are the dopes who keep trying to teach religion as science.
jamalrapper:
What is the point in providing all those sources when no one here understands them. |
I think it’s you who doesn’t understand them. And the point has been explained to you several times.
jamalrapper:
You all know man Adam fell from grace. That is one explanation for the downward spiral. But then there was grace restored by Jesus. We now have a way to test who never accepted that grace. Put them to the new scientific chimpanzee benchmark. |
You have to be kidding, right? Accept Jesus and pass the test? As though there is more than one species of human? WTF?
jamalraapper
Where Darwin went wrong was concluding human evolution put them at the top of the chain. What he forgot was his own theory of Natural Selection which is not biased towards any organisms. So it should not come as a surprise chimpanzees have slowly started edging out humans. |
Nonsense. Darwin did not claim that. And once again you show your lack of understanding about evolution.
jamalrapper:
Since you guys are not very familiar with science. Even at the microorganism level germs are communicating, organizing and becoming more sophisticated. They are harder to kill with traditional drugs. |
The process is natural selection and is evolution in action. It’s evolution that can be observed.
jamalrapper:
Are humans keeping pace with these developments. You have to look at the American experiment. The decadence of great empires which bring about their downfall. |
You would replace it with a theocracy. Can’t see how those kinds of governments have even done anything but bring about misery. Right now the religious right is almost indistinguishable from the Taliban. Welcome to the dark ages.
jamalrapper:
This is all science, true science unlike Darwinism. There is purpose, meaning, predictability. |
More nonsense.
jamalrapper:
Seek and you shall find. Knock and the door will open. Peace brother!!! |
I agree. You should really learn a whole lot more about that which you condem. Try cracking a few science books.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 10:23:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by jamalrapper
I told you Axe was using computer simulation in his research. They all do. |
I didn't say otherwise. I said that he didn't do any computer simulations for his paper that critiqued Lynch and Abegg. Your implication, that I had claimed that Axe does no computer simulation at all, is a lie.
|
You accept Axe used computer simulation in his research.
He only published his first 2 papers in 2010. So where do you think he used computer simulation given he only researched the two published works.
1. The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds (2010)
2. The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Population,
Is your understanding of MODEL actual experiments conducted in the lab. When you wrote Axe says he used a population size of only 109 individuals. You believe that he actually counted that many. And so did Lynch and Abegg when they used even larger sampling size. To you this was actually physical counts for the lab experiments the two parties used in their research.
Models are not actual experiments but mathematical representations of extrapolated data. The use of Island Model and Scholastic tunneling models are mathematical representation of earlier known extrapolations. The calculations are done using software and computers.
In many cases only simulation of the test can be preformed in the lab because the actual test may take millions of years, or need to be repeated millions of times, or use samples in the billions.
You will not see specific mention of the word computer simulation. It is already implied when they use statistical data, scientific algorithms, modeling.
How can you get this wrong for someone with a computer background as you say in your profile, and to mention coding, which suggest your knowledge is pretty advanced.
Explain it to us DaveW. No one will criticize you here because they don't know any better.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 11:30:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
You accept Axe used computer simulation in his research. |
Yes, but not in the one article we were discussing.| He only published his first 2 papers in 2010. |
Axe has been the author of articles since 1987. Perhaps earlier, I can't be bothered to look further.| So where do you think he used computer simulation given he only researched the two published works. |
Hey, look: a 2008 paper in which he discusses computer simulations. This stuff isn't hard to find at all.| Is your understanding of MODEL actual experiments conducted in the lab. |
No, a model is a representation of something. A mathematical model (like the Standard Model of subatomic physics) is a representation of the relationships between one or more varying phenomena (say, population size and mutations per generation), taking the form of one or more equations.| When you wrote Axe says he used a population size of only 109 individuals. You believe that he actually counted that many. |
No, I believe that in the equations he developed, he plugged in the number 1,000,000,000 for his effective population size variable when it came time to plot it on a graph. To say that I think he counted a billion of anything is a stupid lie.| And so did Lynch and Abegg when they used even larger sampling size. To you this was actually physical counts for the lab experiments the two parties used in their research. |
No, you're just compounding your idiotic lies.| Models are not actual experiments but mathematical representations of extrapolated data. |
If you'd left the word "extrapolated" out of there, you would have been correct enough for a layperson's understanding.| The use of Island Model and Scholastic tunneling models are mathematical representation of earlier known extrapolations. |
Stochastic tunneling, as your own sources demonstrated, is a method, not a model. The island model is, indeed, a model. One that Axe modified to suit his agenda.| The calculations are done using software and computers. |
Which isn't necessarily a "simulation." Mere calculation is not simulation.| In many cases only simulation of the test can be preformed in the lab because the actual test may take millions of years, or need to be repeated millions of times, or use samples in the billions. |
Duh.| You will not see specific mention of the word computer simulation. |
I do in Axe's 2008 paper. And it's in Lynch and Abegg's paper, too.| It is already implied when they use statistical data, scientific algorithms, modeling. |
No, it is not. As I already mentioned, Axe probably used a computer to create the plots of his equations in his 2010 paper, but he did no simulations for it. Kids in grade school plot functions on graphs with paper and pencil. But that's not a simulation of anything, either.| How can you get this wrong... |
I didn't get anything wrong. You, on the other hand, think that:
A) stochastic tunneling is a model,
B) Axe didn't publish anything before 2010,
C) Axe never mentioned computer simulations,
D) Axe simulated something in his "Limits" paper,
E) I think Axe had a physical population of a billion bacteria,
F) there exists a brewer's yeast that does not create pseudohyphae,
...and a whole slew of other incorrect "facts."I've already explained, more than once, why you are wrong about so many things. If you didn't understand my explanations before, what makes you think you'll understand them now?| No one will criticize you here because they don't know any better. |
Well, I have certainty that you don't have the knowledge necessary to properly criticize anything I've said. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 02/24/2012 : 14:20:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
The use of Island Model and Scholastic tunneling models are mathematical representation of earlier known extrapolations. |
Scholastic?!
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 15:37:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by jamalrapper
The use of Island Model and Scholastic tunneling models are mathematical representation of earlier known extrapolations. |
Scholastic?!
|
Ooopsy. You mean other people make those kinds of mistakes? Not just Dave?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 15:40:53 [Permalink]
|
DaveW. You must be getting mixed up with the old flight simulator program. Computer simulation are what cannot be demonstrated in a real live environment. They have to be simulated and computers are used to process the data, and simulate theoretically the results.
You cannot physically count millions of bacteria, you cannot test for results that takes millions of years. They are computer analysis and simulations.
| Dave wrote: F) there exists a brewer's yeast that does not create pseudohyphae, |
The brewers yeast Ratcliff used was Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Read your own article. Then read all the post that mentions they used Saccharomyces cerevisiae (brewers yeast). Now find out if Saccharomyces cerevisiae creates pseudohyphae. Your PNAS link they do. After all this rehashing you still don't get it.
From your own post which Halfmooner copied and posted in post page 6 Posted - 02/18/2012 : 23:06:08 OP "Yeast evolves multicellularity in lab in 60 days."
| To determine if pseudohyphae can be induced in the unicellular ancestor and snowflake yeast from replicate population 1, 14 transfers, we starved yeast by culturing them on solid YPD media for 5 d. Pseudohyphae were readily observed in both strains (C and D). We conclude that the snowflake phenotype is not the result of a mutation that made previously inducible pseudohyphal cell morphology constitutive. |
|
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 16:52:58 [Permalink]
|
| DaveW wrote: Stochastic tunneling, as your own sources demonstrated, is a method, not a model. The island model is, indeed, a model. One that Axe modified to suit his agen |
The primary model Axe tackles in his paper is stochastic tunneling, a model that is in a sense midway between the molecular saltation and sequential fixation models.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/bio-complexity_paper_shows_man042611.html |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 17:02:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
DaveW. You must be getting mixed up with the old flight simulator program. Computer simulation are what cannot be demonstrated in a real live environment. They have to be simulated and computers are used to process the data, and simulate theoretically the results.
You cannot physically count millions of bacteria, you cannot test for results that takes millions of years. They are computer analysis and simulations. |
No, no mix-up here. You just keep lying to yourself. Axe created equations to estimate the number of generations until the appearance of complex adaptations, and then plugged in some numbers (he even lists all the values that he used) and plotted the results (generations) on a graph. He did no simulations, because he didn't need to. His equations provided the results directly.
You understand the difference between an equation and a simulation, don't you?| Dave wrote: F) there exists a brewer's yeast that does not create pseudohyphae, |
The brewers yeast Ratcliff used was Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Read your own article. |
Read your own post. You claimed that there are brewers yeasts which do not create pseudohyphae which Ratcliff could have used, instead. Provide evidence to support your assertion.
Then admit your screw-ups regarding the amount of time Axe has been doing research, and whether he's ever explicitly mentioned computer simulations. Also, post the page number in his "Limits" article where he describes his computer simulation, instead of his mathematical model. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 17:05:46 [Permalink]
|
| Well it certainly sounded sciency until I got to the name of the article author and to the fact that the work had only been published in one, non-reputible, journal. This ground has already been covered in this thread. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 17:16:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by jamalrapper
DaveW. You must be getting mixed up with the old flight simulator program. Computer simulation are what cannot be demonstrated in a real live environment. They have to be simulated and computers are used to process the data, and simulate theoretically the results.
You cannot physically count millions of bacteria, you cannot test for results that takes millions of years. They are computer analysis and simulations. |
No, no mix-up here. You just keep lying to yourself. Axe created equations to estimate the number of generations until the appearance of complex adaptations, and then plugged in some numbers (he even lists all the values that he used) and plotted the results (generations) on a graph. He did no simulations, because he didn't need to. His equations provided the results directly.
You understand the difference between an equation and a simulation, don't you?| Dave wrote: F) there exists a brewer's yeast that does not create pseudohyphae, |
The brewers yeast Ratcliff used was Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Read your own article. |
Read your own post. You claimed that there are brewers yeasts which do not create pseudohyphae which Ratcliff could have used, instead. Provide evidence to support your assertion.
Then admit your screw-ups regarding the amount of time Axe has been doing research, and whether he's ever explicitly mentioned computer simulations. Also, post the page number in his "Limits" article where he describes his computer simulation, instead of his mathematical model.
|
You got to read better DaveW.
| Ratcliff and his colleagues are planning to address that objection head-on, by doing similar experiments with Chlamydomonas, a single-celled alga that has no multicellular ancestors. |
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028184.300-lab-yeast-make-evolutionary-leap-to-multicellularity.html
That is quite different from what you are saying or understood. Why is your reading so bad even when links are provided. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2012 : 03:57:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by jamalrapper
The use of Island Model and Scholastic tunneling models are mathematical representation of earlier known extrapolations. |
Scholastic?!
|
Ooopsy. You mean other people make those kinds of mistakes? Not just Dave?
|
This is still a typo. Why don't you correct people who misquote and get it wrong. They are the ones who need your help Kil.
Check this out.
| Dave wrote: F) there exists a brewer's yeast that does not create pseudohyphae, |
| jamalrapper replies: The brewers yeast Ratcliff used was Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Read your own article. |
| DaveW explodes: Read your own post. You claimed that there are brewers yeasts which do not create pseudohyphae which Ratcliff could have used, instead. Provide evidence to support your assertion. |
| jamalrapper patiently corrects DaveW: |
| You got to read better DaveW. |
| jamalrapper produces original quote: Ratcliff and his colleagues are planning to address that objection head-on, by doing similar experiments with Chlamydomonas, a single-celled alga that has no multicellular ancestors. |
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028184.300-lab-yeast-make-evolutionary-leap-to-multicellularity.html
| jamalrapper admonishes DaveW: That is quite different from what you are saying or understood. Why is your reading so bad even when links are provided. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
A disturbing trend, 'er no?
