tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post7556893537854755775..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Science vs IDiots: My Talk at Eschaton 2012Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger147125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76019874096267798652013-01-14T18:00:55.887-05:002013-01-14T18:00:55.887-05:00Re Anonymous
OK, then tell us where the designer ...Re Anonymous<br /><br />OK, then tell us where the designer (i.e. god) came from.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32732319676016175652013-01-11T23:30:39.355-05:002013-01-11T23:30:39.355-05:00Anonymous, sign in with a unique user name and the...Anonymous, sign in with a unique user name and then describe your worldview. I'm curious as to whether your worldview relies on or contains any 'just so stories', and whether it fits "the evidence". The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54393153717821321922013-01-11T01:25:31.704-05:002013-01-11T01:25:31.704-05:00I see the triggers as biological events.
They don&...I see the triggers as biological events.<br />They don't have a direction but just react to thresholds being passed .<br />So it could be in a creatures life and quicker then that.<br />Just like creatures changing colour for the winter.<br /><br />There is no intermediates in the fossil record but only variety's that changed to suit their place.<br /><br />An example is on our own body with the hair we get at puberty. <br />The hair under our arms is useless and only there because the body was triggered, perhaps in stages, to keep the area dry. Not a end goal but just a trigger.<br /><br />I say seals and bears and dogs are the same kind. <br />seals are just a further expression of water dogs. Water dogs have their webbed feet because of triggers and not evolution.<br />just examples I present here.Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55380256889718097742013-01-10T13:37:42.502-05:002013-01-10T13:37:42.502-05:00Sorry to hear because most of what Larry says is j...Sorry to hear because most of what Larry says is just "so stories" that fits his worldview and not the evidence!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2059735475887851062013-01-10T13:36:44.127-05:002013-01-10T13:36:44.127-05:00Oh ok! If the universe owes its origins to quantum...Oh ok! If the universe owes its origins to quantum theory, then quantum theory must have existed before the universe right? So the next question is surely: where did the laws of quantum theory come from?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53166969535244475292013-01-10T13:15:36.242-05:002013-01-10T13:15:36.242-05:00Sez the overwhelming majority of cosmologists who ...Sez the overwhelming majority of cosmologists who study the problem. SLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6276087137249569132013-01-10T12:21:21.185-05:002013-01-10T12:21:21.185-05:00Sez who slc... Lawrence krauss?.... OK whatever......Sez who slc... Lawrence krauss?.... OK whatever....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7445133775764041312013-01-10T08:16:35.113-05:002013-01-10T08:16:35.113-05:00Thanks for the video. Since I have no biology/bio...Thanks for the video. Since I have no biology/biochemistry background I learned stuff.<br />I liked it that evolution can be defined in statistical terms (change in the frequency distributions of the allels in a population over time).<br /><br />I am going to spread this video around. Harriethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17953435368705942387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64238515482863483942013-01-10T07:53:35.241-05:002013-01-10T07:53:35.241-05:00Re anomymous
As far as questions of effects on su...Re anomymous<br /><br />As far as questions of effects on such things as celestial mechanics, the quantum vacuum is, indeed, nothing because it has not the slightest effect on the motions of the planets or the stars. This is why its existence can be ignored when preforming calculations in celestial mechanics. This despite the fact that the entire universe came into being as a result of a transient discontinuity in the quantum vacuum. SLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68985850681213469702013-01-10T07:18:13.385-05:002013-01-10T07:18:13.385-05:00Yes marine mammals are variety's of land creat...<i>Yes marine mammals are variety's of land creatures they came from in a post flood world. The seas being emptied of the previous monsters.<br />Yet not from evolution. Rather another mechanism. I say its from innate triggers built into the biological system. The 'transitional" fossils are simply other variety's and unrelated to the ones in the water.</i><br /><br />Just to understand your thinking Robert with regard to this change in land mammal form: does it occur within the lifetime of a given animal? Does a land mammal slip into the ocean and begin receding its limbs and budding out flippers? Or do you mean that, as a result of these "inate triggers built into the biological system", successive generations of a given land mammal becomes gradually more adapted to the marine lifestyle?Shawnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68786337879412732682013-01-10T04:03:10.147-05:002013-01-10T04:03:10.147-05:00Luther, I think that maybe, just maybe, you're...Luther, I think that maybe, just maybe, you're slightly confused. If you have something of value to offer here, spit it out, I really couldn't give any less of a fuck that some internet nobody vaguely insinuates Wittgenstein will have some grand impact on the trajectory of the discussion.Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16075078280236295742013-01-10T02:41:15.978-05:002013-01-10T02:41:15.978-05:00If stupidity was a deadly disease you'd be dea...If stupidity was a deadly disease you'd be dead by now.... <br /><br />A quantum vacuum is not nothing it is in fact a physical sheet of virtual particles. It is something.<br /><br />What is nothing? <br /><br />noth·ing <br /><br />Pronoun<br /><br />Not anything; no single thing <br /><br />Clearly you guys don't know what nothing means let me help you in layman's terms just so that your finite little brains can comprehend.<br /><br />Nothing is the stuff that rocks dream about. Get it? Good!<br /> <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81602141480693809162013-01-10T00:53:25.436-05:002013-01-10T00:53:25.436-05:00There isn't fossil evidence for vany evolution...There isn't fossil evidence for vany evolution.<br />There is only interpretation of data points and connecting the points.<br />further a biological theory needs biological evidence. Fossils are only evidence for evolution if the geology is true. if the geology is wrong then the fossils are not evidence for evolution.<br />therefore the conclusions about fossils as indicating evolution are not based on biological study but only geological presumptions.<br />A great logical flaw in evolutionary thought.<br />Evolutionism has persuaded itself fossils are biological evidence for evolution but in fact it employs no biological skill or tools.<br />Then the seeming evolution is dismissed by understanding the strata is from segregated deposition within hours or days or weeks.<br />The diversity in the fossils only shows a diverse world that is segregated.<br />A thoughtful evolutionist should not invoke fossils as BIOLOGICAL evidence for evolution.<br />Even if they accurately showed evolution they still would not be biological evidence for the conclusions.<br />Be persuaded by fossils as evidence for evolution but don't say they are biological evidence. Important difference in authority. Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87034683401343709772013-01-10T00:36:11.171-05:002013-01-10T00:36:11.171-05:00John Harshman
Yup. Typo. I meant 2400B.C.
Yes mari...John Harshman<br />Yup. Typo. I meant 2400B.C.<br />Yes marine mammals are variety's of land creatures they came from in a post flood world. The seas being emptied of the previous monsters.<br />Yet not from evolution. Rather another mechanism. I say its from innate triggers built into the biological system. The 'transitional" fossils are simply other variety's and unrelated to the ones in the water.<br />Marine mammals are a very, very, very, rare case of great change in a type of creature.<br />they are not a sample of the mean.<br />i would protest evolutionists using them like they just pulled them out of a hat as a example.<br />These air breathing milk-feeding and animated critters are clearly originally land creatures. also anatomical bits are evident. THis also very rare.<br />Creationists are wrong to deny this .<br />Yet evolutionists are wrong to gain faith in evolution on a special case of actual important body changes. A whoops.<br /><br />Imagination must be allowed for giving different reasons for simple raw data.<br />No evidence for evolution of whales. only whales and some fossils of creatures seemly related in geological stratas believed to be in sequence.<br />Mechanism is not shown by fossils. Only raw results. Then speculation with non biological aids.<br /> <br /><br />Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3688137134393392032013-01-09T21:44:32.747-05:002013-01-09T21:44:32.747-05:00LF:
> If we can get complex biological systems ...LF:<br />> If we can get complex biological systems without<br />> evolution then we can get complex biological<br />> systems without evolution.<br /><br />I'm not surprised you didn't follow the link and didn't read the article. Here's the picture highlighting your fallacious thinking:<br />http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/views.gif<br /><br />And, as has been put to you, complexity is measurable (relative). We can assign a number to it. We can compare degrees of complexity. Evolution explains the bulk of complexity in living organisms. If you have been reading this blog you should also know that random evolution (i.e. not natural selection) explains the bulk of evolved complexity.<br /><br />Abiogenesis only has to explain the premises for evolution, which have a complexity so low that they can be explained by randomness. Again, see the article.DRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64237334113012966462013-01-09T21:26:30.853-05:002013-01-09T21:26:30.853-05:00Actually, I do not prescribe to what you call the ...Actually, I do not prescribe to what you call the narrow definition. Whenever someone honestly and inquisitively tries to find the truth, tries not to fool himself, he's doing science.<br /><br />What demarcates good science from bad science from non-science is the quality of the methodology, not the subject. And you have to vary methodology and its rigor in light of what you are trying to determine.<br /><br />E.g. if you want to do a forecast of a product's demand on the basis of one year of sales data, you have to use a simple estimator with few parameters. For if you estimate more you will overfit. Also you should divide your data into two parts, one for parameter estimation, the other for testing the model's validity. That's the scientific approach, you are using methods with a proven track record of generating the most knowledge (here most precise estimation) in a given situation.<br /><br />Or even softer: If you ask a group of experts to make a prediction, run a few feedback cycles and determine the average, that's scientific. You will get much better results than when you skip one of the steps.<br /><br />BTW, I'm not trying to open up that "STEM umbrella" discussion, but I do think that you can perform engineering scientifically. I even think "go and see" (genchi genbutsu) on the shop floor is scientific. You watch carefully, try to single out a parameter to vary, and then measure the results.<br /><br />I've even seen philosophy done scientifically, with lots of mathematics, as well as critical and lateral thinking. See this project page on Ockham efficiency (!):<br />http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/kk3n/ockham/Ockham.htm<br /><br />Is my definition subjective, should we entertain a plurality of thought here? No, it is grounded in objective truth.<br /><br />At the heart of the argument is the proven universal efficacy of, say, Bayesian inference. Could there be a better estimator (i.e. a better way of using inductive inference)? Yes, since the problem of finding the best estimator is undecidable. However we do know a lot about required properties (scientific principles) and upper bounds (e.g. AIXI, http://www.hutter1.net/ai/uaibook.htm) as well. Dropping those principles will inescapably get you into trouble.<br /><br />In fact those principles are mostly intuitive. E.g. not arbitrarily favoring one explanation over another, checking for simple explanations first, etc.<br /><br />If you try to find the truth and are unfettered by bias, you use them. And you improve your methods based on past results. The scientific method can be applied to everything, including the scientific method.DRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25490630950167131922013-01-09T19:34:00.996-05:002013-01-09T19:34:00.996-05:00Re anonymous
Mr. anonymous apparently is unaware ...Re anonymous<br /><br />Mr. anonymous apparently is unaware that the cosmological definition of nothing today is totally different then the definition in the 19th century. In the 19th century, nothing was thought to consist of a vacuum with no matter. Today, we know that nothing consists of the quantum vacuum, which contains virtual particles, e.g. electrons, and protons. When, for instance, an electron is promoted out of the quantum vacuum, the hole it leaves behind becomes a positron (e.g. anti-electron). Although the quantum vacuum is not directly observable, its presence has observable consequences; thus the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron is predicted by the interaction of the electron with the quantum vacuum (the so-called vacuum corrections of quantum electrodynamics). This prediction agrees with the observed value to 10 significant digits.SLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66766298210490651222013-01-09T17:55:15.562-05:002013-01-09T17:55:15.562-05:00Luther, let me quote from Larry's article on t...Luther, let me quote from Larry's article on the <b>minimal</b> definition of evolution:<br /><br /><i>The amazing thing about the minimal definition of biological evolution is that it doesn't carry any baggage concerning the history of life or its future. As soon as we try to define evolution in terms of the historical record, we run into all kinds of problems because we confuse evolution as a process with evolution as a history of life. The scientific definition attempts to describe the <b>minimum thing</b> that might be called evolution. We know that the history of life is more complicated than this and we know that evolutionary theory encompasses other things such as the formation and extinction of populations. There is no conflict between the minimal definition of evolution as a change in the genetic composition of populations and macroevolution. Gould understands this.</i><br /><br />Gould does, you don't. Or perhaps you pretend you don't because it allows you (at least in your eyes) to misinterpret Larry in order to call him a liar -- as if he claimed anywhere that evolutionary theory was only about microevolution and nothing else. Do you really believe that Larry excludes things like speciation or common descent from the scope of <b>evolutionary theory</b>? Do you believe that, according to what he says, the fossil record, molecular phylogenetic dating, etc., are compatible with the Biblical story? Take microevolution out of its historical context and it may even be compatible with a Universe created last week, let alone 6000 years ago. But the context is there and every sane, sufficiently educated person is perfectly aware of its existence.<br /><br />You called me a prick before I used any comparably strong language to describe your argumentative style. Since you say that it's OK to respond in kind in such cases, let me reciprocate by calling you a mendacious douchebag, trolling here to get some undeserved attention. You won't get too much troll food from me any more, but take this and choke on it.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50588954880903232482013-01-09T16:24:07.128-05:002013-01-09T16:24:07.128-05:00"Debating creationists on the topic of evolut..."Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D. Weitzenhoffersteve oberskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76985187899747602182013-01-09T16:08:57.749-05:002013-01-09T16:08:57.749-05:00Luther, don't hide behind what others say.
...Luther, don't hide behind what others say. <br /> <br />These are your arguments. <br /> <br />You <i>couldn't give a flying fuck if common descent is true</i> but <i>the Cambrian explosion is problematic for any theory of evolution</i>. There is absolutely no consistency within or between your posts, whatever trash is floating around in your mind gets vomited out in some sort of IDiot/creotard stream of consciousness/speaking in tongues spasm. <br /> <br />You are merely parroting IDiot propaganda without any real understanding of the underlying science as evidenced by your grotesque caricatures of evolution and your inability to explain what your issues are with HGT, mutations, copy errors etc. <br /> <br />I completely understand that for you this has nothing to do with a better understanding of reality and an increase in knowledge with the concomitant increase in the well being for all human beings but is all about Luther Flint showing the rest of the world how wrong they have been and how finally someday you will make them pay dearly for all the perceived slights. Like the cheesy villain in a James Bond movie. If it wasn't so pathetic it would be funny. <br /><br /><br />steve oberskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70068722799831945012013-01-09T15:44:29.709-05:002013-01-09T15:44:29.709-05:00It seems to me that if you want to know whose view...It seems to me that if you want to know whose views are bound up with religion, not science, you should look at the person who refuses to discuss the science. So let's try it. In what way is the Cambrian explosion problematic for any "gradualist, bottom up account"? Don't be shy. To start out, you can describe what you think the explosion was, when it began and ended, and what it tells us about evolution.<br /><br />As for requirements of ID, you confuse the abstract concept of intelligent design, which nobody cares about, with the ID movement, a creationist sect that includes a few token theistic evolutionists and a few more old-earth creationists. Larry does not.john harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26776885218797015952013-01-09T15:41:31.122-05:002013-01-09T15:41:31.122-05:00Anyway, ladies, I grow weary of this dispute. My a...Anyway, ladies, I grow weary of this dispute. My appraisal of Larry's presentation is an honest one. Take it or leave. TTFN/OLuther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12256697161351657472013-01-09T15:39:32.686-05:002013-01-09T15:39:32.686-05:00@Oberski
And my problem with Larry is that he'...@Oberski<br />And my problem with Larry is that he's always banging on about critical thought (as most in the self-styled critical thinking community do) when he's as ideologically bound as almost any who have ever walked God's green earth. Luther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45232207785790773272013-01-09T15:34:36.628-05:002013-01-09T15:34:36.628-05:00@Oberski
Yawn. These arguments are offered mainly ...@Oberski<br />Yawn. These arguments are offered mainly by ID proponents because ID proponents are the highest profile critics of evolution. But these criticisms also exist elsewhere amongst people are uncomfortable with the extent to which a highly speculative theory is put forward as virtually the final word. <br />The reason you (falsely) believe everyone who doubts the theory of evolution is religious is also largely down to the fact that the theory has become so interwoven with your own religious views that you you simply can't see that it is your religion, rather than the science, which forces you to believe it with the strength you do. Thus, eg, you see no problem with the cambrian explosion despite the fact that it is hugely problematic for any gradualist, bottom up account that bears any resemblance to the gradualist, bottom up accounts we currently have. And so the question for me is whether our future theories of life will look anything the theory we currently have. I suspect it will not. I suspect that in a hundred or so years we will look back with a wry grin at what clowns like you believed with all your heart.Luther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79370083398415612422013-01-09T15:22:43.265-05:002013-01-09T15:22:43.265-05:00No Luther, your problem is with evolution and not ...No Luther, your problem is with evolution and not Larry's critical thinking skills.<br /><br />You have said <i>the Cambrian explosion is problematic for any theory of evolution</i> and <i>Larry talks about nested genetic hierarchies as if HGT didn't exist</i> and <i>Larry talks about mutation as if symbiosis was a mutation</i> and <i>Larry talks about copying errors as if this wasn't a teleological metaphor.</i><br /><br />These are all standard IDiot/creotard talking points against evolution and have nothing to do with critical thinking.<br /><br />Then again, so many turds have been expelled from your cesspool of a mind that it's no wonder you can't keep track of them all.<br /><br />You are an IDiot or creationist and all the hand waving and associated bullshit about critical thinking is a smokescreen to hide your actual IDiot/creotard agenda.steve oberskinoreply@blogger.com