|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2012 : 15:04:39 [Permalink]
|
| That is where you are wrong again. Axe used the Island Model(he mentioned it in his paper) which is a model for such calculations. He had to modify it to calculate cell population and adaption. |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2012 : 15:24:51 [Permalink]
|
jamalrapper:
Again you guys have the foggiest idea about what Dawkins says in his work about random chance mutations and junk DNA. |
So now you are assuming that we haven't read "The Blind Watchmaker?" What Miller is talking about is his view, based on his religion, that there is a purpose to everything. Dawkins doesn't agree with that view. Niether do I. But it doesn't matter. Evolution by way of natural selection is NOT random. Mutations are random. But the mutations that are selected for happen because they provide a species with an advantage. Most mutations do nothing. But filling an open niche, is not random. Because the niche exists, and because of a random mutation, the organism can take advantage of the niche, natural selection itself is not random.
| The belief that Darwinian evolution is 'random' is not merely false. It is the exact opposite of the truth. Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is cumulative (natural) selection which is quintessentially nonrandom. (The Blind Watchmaker, p. 49) - Richard Dawkins |
ACCUMULATING SMALL CHANGE: Chapter 3, The Blind Watchmaker
Jammalrapper:
Natural selection and adaptation is not stable, uniform, predictable. |
Sure it is. An open niche will inevitably be filled. That is predictable. And it's usually by way of extinction, which I talked about in last weeks Skeptic Summary, is how niches open up. Extinction is one of the drivers of evolution. For example, the die off of the dinosaurs allowed mammals more space and more niches to occupy. We are here because dinosaurs aren't. And by the way, it's more than "millions of speicies." it's pretty much over 99% of every species that has ever lived on this planet. Extinct.
The Cambrian explosion wasn't well understood in Darwins time. Soft bodied organisms were much less likely to fossilize. About the time of the early Cambrian, shell fish and later in the Cambrian chordates show up. Fish with spines and bones that are more likely to fossilize than soft tissue. Precambrian Fossils are still rather rare, but here:
| Although the Precambrian contains some seven-eighths of Earth's history, its fossil record is poor, with the majority of fossils being the stromatolites that are often heavily metamorphosed or deeply buried. However, preserved cells have been discovered at selective sites, such as the 2.0 billion yar old Gunflint Formation. The earliest life forms were prokaryotes (eubacteria or archaea) that evolved in the seas, possibly as early as 3.8 Ba. The first were possibly chemotrophs existing in an anoxic world and producing H2S or CO2, which were followed by photosynthetic cyanobacteria before the end of the Archaean some 2.5 billion years ago. When the Eukaryotes (single-celled organisms with a nucleus) evolved through Endosymbiosis is disputed, with claims as early as 3.4 billion years ago, but with less equivocal fossils dating from 1.8 to .8 billion yars ago. With the eukaryotes comes sexual reproduction, enabling genetic diversity and the concomitant ability to adapt to and survive environmental changes. Multi-celled, soft-bodied marine fossil organisms (the metazoans), the so-called Ediacara fauna, are found in strata dating between 590 to 700 million years ago. The first mineralized fossils appear after the Ediacaran, but before Cambrian begins at around 580 - 590 my; they comprise ambiguous parts, possibly denticles and plates and tubes of unknown affinity and putative calcareous algae. Many of the genes and the proteins they encode are found to be conserved across geologic time from the Precambrian, especially those involved in the most basic cellular functions. |
What Darwin was offering is what any theorist must offer, and that was a way to falsify his theory. But that didn't happen. We now have enough pre Cambrian fossils to demonstrate that the theory is not in any danger.
| You will have to use your own research material. I am not going to spoon feed you anymore. You are old enough to reach out and such my dick. |
So you can't be bothered to copy a url, but you can copy text, is that it? You really are a petulant brat. As it is, I know your shit came from wiki. Once again I looked.
We're looking at you, jammalrapper |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 02/22/2012 : 15:25:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
That is where you are wrong again. Axe used the Island Model(he mentioned it in his paper) which is a model for such calculations. He had to modify it to calculate cell population and adaption. |
You claimed they "...calculate this randomness to demonstrate gene drift, complex evolutionary adaption" (my bold). Douglas Axe's entire point was that genetic drift cannot be responsible complex evolutionary adaptations. So either your claim is correct, and the models can demonstrate such a thing, or Axe is correct, and the models demonstrate that no such thing was possible. You and Axe cannot both be correct on this point, since your positions are diametrically opposed about what the models show.
Or, you left something out of your sentence, like "...calculate this randomness to demonstrate the impossibility of gene drift, complex evolutionary adaption." It's not grammatically elegant, but it would agree with Axe a whole lot more than your original statement. |
- 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 - 02/22/2012 : 18:47:47 [Permalink]
|
Once again quotes go unreferenced or improperly attributed.
First quote is correctly attributed to Halfmooner. But he didn't write the second or the third quote. Those come from somewhere else. The proper way would have been to include something which clearly and un-ambiuously indicate you stopped quoting him and started quoting someone else.
Now, you've already edited your post once. Why not do it angain and this time link to where-ever you find your stuff.
Originally posted by jamalrapper
| Halfmooner wrote: I don't see anything like that in any of your three options, jamalrapper. You seem to be trying to force something like a false dilemma (except you give three choices, not the usual two). |
True, there are two prevailing camps
1. Developmental Evolution as a Mechanistic evolutionary theory
Quote attribution missing here, Halfmooner didn't write this. It should read something like "Terry Prattchet, 'The colour of Magic' page 33:"
Or by just adding a link like this: From Wikipedia.
The most distinctive contribution offered by DE to evolutionary biology, however, is the elucidation of the role of developmental mechanisms in the origin of evolutionary innovations. To date, explanations of evolutionary innovations have remained beyond the reach of classical evolutionary genetics, because such explanations require detailed information on the function of genes and the emergent developmental dynamics of their interactions with other genetic factors. |
2. Deterministic theory.
| A multi-national team of biologists has concluded that developmental evolution is deterministic and orderly, rather than random, based on a study of different species of roundworms. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2012 : 09:36:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by jamalrapper
That is where you are wrong again. Axe used the Island Model(he mentioned it in his paper) which is a model for such calculations. He had to modify it to calculate cell population and adaption. |
You claimed they "...calculate this randomness to demonstrate gene drift, complex evolutionary adaption" (my bold). Douglas Axe's entire point was that genetic drift cannot be responsible complex evolutionary adaptations. So either your claim is correct, and the models can demonstrate such a thing, or Axe is correct, and the models demonstrate that no such thing was possible. You and Axe cannot both be correct on this point, since your positions are diametrically opposed about what the models show.
Or, you left something out of your sentence, like "...calculate this randomness to demonstrate the impossibility of gene drift, complex evolutionary adaption." It's not grammatically elegant, but it would agree with Axe a whole lot more than your original statement.
|
All I was responding to was the use of Modeling by Axe. Island models are used in several different disciplines and Axe used it as he mentioned in his papers in his research. You should go back to his paper which is what is being referenced rather than take my paraphrased version which only mentioned some of the uses for the Island Model as examples and not all the different applications.
I already mentioned in the original thread Mathematical models are used in several disciplines engineering, science,etc. You should know Scientific algorithms are developed to calculated many varied studies in biology from human genes to bacteria etc.
Surprisingly for a computer literate person you just haven't grasped the application of computers in the field of statistical modeling and the different models developed.
I have already listed a few of the mistakes you made in your other posts and both happen to be in a lack of understand in science. I will did up more because I am beginning to suspect you are a lot dumber that I previously thought. I take no delight in embarrassing someone lacking the education that would qualify him to tackle the irreducible complexity of both science and organisms.
DaveW, What computer languages do you program in? Let us work on your strengths for a change. |
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/23/2012 09:42:21 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2012 : 10:06:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
All I was responding to was the use of Modeling by Axe. |
No, you said something very specific, and I responded to it. All your talk about island models and how I allegedly don't understand computer modeling is irrelevant and thus unresponsive to my argument.| I have already listed a few of the mistakes you made... |
No, you listed a few of your strawmen. In no way have to listed any mistakes I made in any thread you've been involved with.| I will did up more because I am beginning to suspect you are a lot dumber that I previously thought. |
It takes a lot of balls to call someone else dumb in a sentence where you wrote "I will did up more."| I take no delight in embarrassing someone lacking the education that would qualify him to tackle the irreducible complexity of both science and organisms. |
You haven't offered any evidence in favor of the irreducible complexity of anything.| DaveW, What computer languages do you program in? Let us work on your strengths for a change. |
How is this relevant in any way? It isn't. You're just trying to avoid admitting that you made another mistake. It's a classic coward's pattern: make a mistake, get called on it, then run away by changing the subject. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2012 : 11:48:04 [Permalink]
|
You are comparing my typo mistakes with your serious comprehension mistakes. You cannot be that desperate.
You are again mistaken in the point you are making about Axe's use of the Island model. He is using it to prove Lynch Abegg made a mistake in their calculations.
What you are getting confused about is Axe concluding Lynch Abegg made errors in their calculation and by using the Island model to prove it cannot be possible, he is contradicting himself. He is not disputing the Island model. He is using it to prove Lynch and Abeggs calculations are wrong and there for not conclusions are also wrong. Again it could not happen the way Lync and Abegg presented their work according to Axe.
I don't know how you came to the conclusion he is challenging the Island model which he used along with the stochastic tunneling. Both are standards for such modeling.
Why do you continue to pick at straws when Axe's work has not been refuted, rebutted or even counter challenged by the people (Lynch and Abegg) who are qualified peers in this field.
I am willing to wait for peer responses to all 3 parties. Behe, Lynch/Abegg and Axe. As a skeptic that is the right approach....you have to leave it to the experts.
I am not changing the subject here. Your profile says you like coding So you must know what language you code in. Do you have knowledge of a programming language?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2012 : 12:23:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
You are comparing my typo mistakes with your serious comprehension mistakes. You cannot be that desperate. |
You're the one who started pointing out typos as if they were errors of understanding.| You are again mistaken in the point you are making about Axe's use of the Island model. He is using it to prove Lynch Abegg made a mistake in their calculations. |
No, Axe built a model different than Lynch and Abegg's to try to demonstrate that neutral mutations cannot (through stochastic tunneling) add up to a selectively advantageous complex adaptation. The differences Axe built into the model make the model more "realistic," according to him. One of my criticisms (which you haven't addressed) is that he is completely wrong in that assessment.| What you are getting confused about is Axe concluding Lynch Abegg made errors in their calculation and by using the Island model to prove it cannot be possible, he is contradicting himself. |
That's not my position at all. Why do you constantly feel the need to make stuff up? Is it because your own arguments are so poor?| He is not disputing the Island model. |
I never claimed that he was.| He is using it to prove Lynch and Abeggs calculations are wrong and there for not conclusions are also wrong. Again it could not happen the way Lync and Abegg presented their work according to Axe. |
Which means that your declaration that Axe used it "to demonstrate gene drift, complex evolutionary adaption" is flat-out wrong, since you now claim that he used it to prove "it could not happen."| I don't know how you came to the conclusion he is challenging the Island model... |
I never once did any such thing. You're just making shit up to avoid having to make a substantive response (of which you are clearly incapable).| ...which he used along with the stochastic tunneling. Both are standards for such modeling. |
"Both are standards for such modeling?" No. Stochastic tunneling is not a standard for modeling. It is the name of an evolutionary process that can be modeled. You're getting the models confused with the real-life phenomena.| Why do you continue to pick at straws when Axe's work has not been refuted, rebutted or even counter challenged by the people (Lynch and Abegg) who are qualified peers in this field. |
Why don't you (my peer) respond to my criticisms of Axe?| I am willing to wait for peer responses to all 3 parties. Behe, Lynch/Abegg and Axe. As a skeptic that is the right approach....you have to leave it to the experts. |
No, that's an argument from authority, and thus diametrically opposed to a proper skeptical stance.| I am not changing the subject here. Your profile says you like coding So you must know what language you code in. Do you have knowledge of a programming language? |
Yes, but it's irrelevant to any subject you've engaged with here. That's why it's just you trying to change the subject away from your failures of logic and fact. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2012 : 13:10:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
My typing did instead of dig is closer to a typo than your phenotypes is to phylogeny. Even here you cannot admit your logic is very convoluted. |
It's not convoluted at all. When it was pointed out to me that I'd written "phylogeny," I was genuinely surprised. Your argument about that word requires that I just be confused. You cannot read my mind, and so just assume that I'm lying when I say it was a typo. Nice Christian charity you've got there, bub.| DaveW wrote:No. Stochastic tunneling is not a standard for modeling. It is the name of an evolutionary process that can be modeled. You're getting the models confused with the real-life phenomena. |
Read the different stochastic tunneling methods and applications.
Read Stochastic tunneling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_tunneling |
Yes, as it is used in global optimization. The Wikipedia entry is a definition from a different field than evolutionary biology. Assuming the term means the same thing in two entirely different fields is dumb.And this is still a different use of the term.The authors of this paper named a wholly different process "stochastic tunneling."Yes, I've already dealth with global optimization, above.Yes, another group using stochastic tunneling within a model. Thanks for supporting my argument.
Good grief, man. Lynch and Abegg specifically described what was meant by "stochastic tunneling," but you can't come close to the correct definition in context, and so instead you vomit Google results as if they supported your mistaken idea that stochastic tunneling is "a model." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2012 : 13:12:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
My typing did instead of dig is closer to a typo than your phenotypes is to phylogeny. Even here you cannot admit your logic is very convoluted.
|
First off, it's a simple mistake. I know after all of these years that Dave knows the difference between those two words. I have made the same kinds of mistakes. Everyone has. Dave did one thing that you haven't done once since you arrived and that was to admit a mistake. And I have to tell you. It takes a whole lot more honesty to admit a mistake than it does to make one. So knock it off. You have no ethical leg to stand on.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2012 : 13:30:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by jamalrapper
My typing did instead of dig is closer to a typo than your phenotypes is to phylogeny. Even here you cannot admit your logic is very convoluted.
|
First off, it's a simple mistake. I know after all of these years that Dave knows the difference between those two words. I have made the same kinds of mistakes. Everyone has. Dave did one thing that you haven't done once since you arrived and that was to admit a mistake. And I have to tell you. It takes a whole lot more honesty to admit a mistake than it does to make one. So knock it off. You have no ethical leg to stand on.
|
What kind of mistake is it? Do you see it as a typo. I wrote somewhere about the dexterity of skeptics with their fingers.
Even where there is no typo as in the H in HPV is human. Again that is seen as an error.
BTW that was a nice picture of Dawkins. I heard he is having those memory lapses quite frequently.
| So Mr 'Atheist' Dawkins, what's the full title of your hero Darwin's seminal work? '... erm, oh God!' |
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2101289/Richard-Dawkins-unable-remember-Charles-Darwins-seminal-work.html |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2012 : 13:38:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Even where there is no typo as in the H in HPV is human. Again that is seen as an error. |
No, you see it as an error because you're refusing to place the comment in context. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2012 : 13:42:55 [Permalink]
|
jamaltroll:
What kind of mistake is it? Do you see it as a typo. I wrote somewhere about the dexterity of skeptics with their fingers. |
Why yes. Just last week I accidentally wrote "anthropomorphic" when I meant "anthropic." It happens. Call it a "brain fart" if "typo" doesn't work for you. Troll. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2012 : 21:33:31 [Permalink]
|
| Just calm down Kil. Calling people names is not very nice. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
God's "shyness" makes ID hard to prove?
