Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Evolution for Leroy

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 5
 [ 86 posts ] 
Evolution for Leroy
Author Message
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

Sparhafoc wrote:And finally back with an almost functioning brain! :? :roll: :o

So let's move forward. Now I am aware of what you know, then you shouldn't have any problem following the next step which will show you the principle, and then finally we'll look at the evidence once you've acknowledged the principle.

So we're talking about speciation, but clearly you have trouble accepting any significant morphological change resulting from iterative genetic shuffling and mutation over multiple generations.

The thing about this is that you can approach it purely statistically. There's actually no need for you to understand any more than you already do to find yourself agreeing to the process by which that significant morphological change occurs.

Let's look at just one example of speciation using an analogy originally crafted by Dr Noor of Duke University. It's obviously still basically spherical cows in a vacuum, but we can try to add more grit if necessary.

Imagine a population of squirrels on a land mass. You've already accepted that there is natural genetic variation among the squirrel population (a fact many creationists accept without understanding that they've already thereby allowed for that 'natural' variation to have occurred in the species' past, and therefore have accepted evolution... but leaving that aside), so you appreciate that there are slight variations in morphology, and presumably you accept that there are slight variations in behavior, both of which can be wholly genetic, or partially genetic partly adaptive.

Looking at that population of squirrels with a different eye, you can instead track the genes present in that population. One thing you will find quickly is the concept of the allele, which is basically an inherently variant form of a given gene. It can either be A or B, and alone the difference between this simple binary will provide fairly substantial variation. Set in its genetic environment, set in its physical environment, set in the wider natural selection environment, that variation can have a dramatic effect on the distribution via different behaviors and morphologies of the subsection of the population which possess it.

One such very common behavior in wild animals (in fact an interesting way to measure the wildness of an animal) is its fight or flight response. You can try this for yourself when you next walk down the road. Sparrows in your area, for example, might let you get within 3 or 4 feet before doing the off, while magpies might scarper when you're still 20 feet away. Less noticeable is that each individual has its own invisible radius which will provoke the flight response, while some individuals seemingly have much reduced radii before they feel instinctively inclined to flap.

Thus, in a population, you might have some 'bold' individuals and some 'prudent' individuals, all of which I assume you accept.

Now back to our squirrels. They live on an island - the ancestral squirrels colonized it just a few generations ago and their population has slowly spread across the island. All variations are doing well because there are no natural predators, no competition for food, and they've yet to run out of available territory to colonize. No real pressure mean they explode.

However, there's a river running down the middle of the island separating East and West, and this river is full of alligators with a particular penchant for squirrel meat.

Of course, on the other bank is a vast uncolonized landmass just full of acorns or whatever it is that gets squirrels wet with desire. It would certainly be a benefit to any individual to get over there, especially as this side of the river is beginning to get a bit crowded and competition is starting to become a primary factor in a squirrel's daily duties.

If we were to focus our population attention just on the group which lives nearest to the river, we would of course expect to see a standard distribution of the population possessing the variety of possible fight/flight responses (and all other traits), thereby making some individuals braver and some meeker, as we would if we were looking at any other arbitrarily selected group of squirrels on the island. It's an evolutionary stable number - let's say 25% of squirrels have the 'bold' gene and that it's recessive meaning you'd need a copy of it from both your carrier/ bold dominant parents for that allele to be passed on.

Next what happens is also something you accept. Natural selection. The 75% of squirrels which are meek would not possess any inclination to run the gauntlet with the alligators, and would therefore make do with what they have to paw - no risk, but also no reward. Our bolder squirrels will risk more frequently and consequently get themselves killed by alligators much, much more frequently than the meek squirrels.

Now what happens to the 'bold' gene under such a scenario? A behavior arising from a genetic component is seriously lessening the likelihood of an individual passing on those genes to the next generation. Even if just 10% of bold squirrels die, the prior evolutionary stable strategy is thrown out of whack. There's now a new pressure - an environmental one - that statistically, over generations, results in the bold gene being disadvantaged and therefore less represented in the population if by nothing else than that there are more meek squirrel babies consuming the resources and passing on their genes more frequently successfully.

At this point you've accepted all the necessary components which underlie the question, so you just need to answer the question for yourself. You are essentially witnessing the power of evolution just from a statistical perspective, regardless of any complexities, the kind of evolution you reject is occurring. Of course, you don't see it yet because it's just one step, and you are thinking much bigger and want to see sweeping morphological changes. Well, that's why we chose this particular mode of speciation, because it is so very puissant when it comes to grand morphological change in a relatively short time.

So let's continue our nutty gedanken with the sudden and unexpected success of some of the few remaining bold squirrels. Perhaps rainfall was a bit lower that summer, or perhaps the trees branches extended a little further than usual, or perhaps the alligators got temporarily bored of squirrel meat. Any which way, a small group of bold squirrels makes it to the other side, and all before them lies uncharted territory. And let's keep our cows spherical by saying that after the squirrels got to the West Side, the river got dramatically bigger and there was never a way back ever again. We now have two isolated populations with no gene flow between them.

Firstly, we have a situation known as the founder effect. That means that of the greater squirrel gene population, only an unrepresentative fraction is present on the West Side, and consequently all their offspring will have a common or even universal trait that is actually entirely uncommon in their ancestral population on the other side of the river. Those novel genes in turn can mutate independently in the future resulting in an even wider genetic gulf than already exists the moment the populations are separated.

Secondly, we have a new environmental niche with new environmental pressures. Perhaps together with the abundance of food on the West Side, so there is an abundance of predators who are too scared of alligators to head to the East side. Perhaps the topography and climate are different, perhaps there are numerous different pressures on the survival of the West Side Squirrels (an instant classic Musical, I am sure) which then exert selection on their population.

Betwixt the two, we have all the ingredients for speciation. Mutations arising in the original population may offer no survival value and just be shuffled around aimlessly with respect to survival and reproduction. Meanwhile the very same mutation on the very same gene in the new population may offer dramatic benefits which ultimately result in that gene becoming universal in that population. Now add time. Stir with a divine wooden spoon... or just let nature (or even mathematics) take its course and you will find that by generation 100, there are now two substantially different gene pools, and it would be easy to identify whether any given squirrel comes from the East or West solely by the genes they possess.

But then you have to ask yourself what the genes they possess are doing to them in the visible terms that most Creationists focus on. Well, we need to wonder about details here: Are they fleeing predators more often? Then those best able to respond to predators will succeed statistically more frequently than those which don't thereby leaving more offspring. Meanwhile, no such pressure on the other side means no such naturally selected mutation can become prevalent. Did they encounter a new food source that wasn't very nutritious at first thanks to their chemical inability to process the nutrients efficiently but which they, over generations, became evolved to process efficiently? (a good example of this in humans is milk)

So let's forward a thousand years, ten thousand years, a hundred thousand years... we now have two distinct populations. Even if we assume they are still Platonic squirrel form for the moment, they are genetically sufficiently distinct that even were the alligators to go extinct and relations once again established, the dramatic differences in the genetic lines of the two populations would mean they were not interfertile. Now, regardless of whether you still don't accept major morphological change, you've still go to acknowledge the fact that there are now two different groups of squirrels, and we'd have a different name for them.

But factually, what also would have occurred is that the two populations would have diverged morphologically as well. This would certainly happen faster if the environments the two groups operated in were markedly different as there might be a pressure towards a certain form of perambulation, for example, or an abundance of food allowing larger body size, but it would also happen solely by the arisal of novel mutations in different populations and the vagaries of gene shuffling through recombination. Once the two groups are isolated, they are already speciating, and speciation means there are differences genetically and morphologically. As such, regardless of whether you want a squirrel to grow a horn, or learn to fly before you accept 'macro-evolution' (as per the Creationist usage of it), this is actually exactly such an example, none of which you can disagree with and be consistent with your earlier answers.

The only thing you can do is erect a magical barrier that we can't detect in nature, and which appears to be completely contradictory to observable evidence. You'll assert that there can be changes (and call it adaptation) but claim there can't be 'enough' changes to speciate. Firstly, as explained above, that's speciation regardless of whether they even look different or not, but factually they would accrue minor morphological changes encoded into their genes generation by generation, and eventually that will add up enough so that not only are the two populations genetically distinct, but thanks to those different genes, phenotypically distinct as well.

So if you still somehow don't accept this principle, even though it must follow logically from the answers you've already given, then we'll just have to start pointing to the litany of examples which establish this beyond credible doubt. I wonder what you'll do then, I personally find it intriguing, and even more so when someone shucks off their emotional programming.



OK so you obviously know what my answer would be, so there is no need for details, because you have heard this answer multiple times.


sure in your example we have some diversity of squirrels, this diversity was caused by evolution (random genetic change and natural selection) and you can even get to a point where you can call these 2 populations of squirrels a different specie

we both agree that evolution can account for at least some of the diversity that we see, so how do you go from some diversity to all diversity, how does accepting your "squirrel example " implies that I also have to accept that squirrels came from ancient fish-like organisms trough the same mechanism.

how does accepting squirrel to squirrel evolution, implies that I also have to accept fish to squirrel evolution?

The analogy is that you accept that I can take a pace forward, but you refute the possibility for me to take several paces forward then go down the shops. It is, of course, silly. But it's the best Creationists can muster these days.


it is not silly, small changes don't necessarily add up and create big changes, for example from the same basic recipe (eggs, milk, chocolate, flower...) you can get a diversity of cakes, brownies and muffins, but that doesn't automatically imply that all meals (pizza, hamburgers, salads, etc) came from that same recipe,

or take a look at living fossils, these organisms have been accumulating small changes for millions of years, and that did not translated in to big changes...........the point that I am trying to make is that small changes don't necessarily imply big changes additional evidence is required for big changes. (I will ignore any comment that is not relevant for that particular point)


The magical barrier you are placing is on macroevolution. I've told you - been doing this a while, I know. You accept that evolution occurs, you accept the manner in which evolution occurs, you just deny that evolution can result in significant morphological change


I am not placing any magical barrier, I would say that there are at least 4 real and solid barriers that limit evolution, one can prove that evolution can only account for some of the diversity of life, the barriers are real, but before presenting these barriers I am going to let you present your own positive arguments and proofs.

Prove that evolution can account for all (or most) of the diversity of life and not just for a small portion of the diversity as I am suggesting. After you do that I will present my evidence that support the idea that evolution can only account for some of the diversity of life, and let readers decide who is presenting strongest evidence.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Jul 02, 2017 9:04 am
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

leroy wrote:OK so you obviously know what my answer would be, so there is no need for details, because you have heard this answer multiple times.


Indeed, and as I knew what point you'd raise, you'd similarly also know that the example I gave has locked you into either contradicting your previous answers, or accepting that evolution is a statistical necessity.


leroy wrote:sure in your example we have some diversity of squirrels, this diversity was caused by evolution (random genetic change and natural selection) and you can even get to a point where you can call these 2 populations of squirrels a different specie


And that, ladies and gentlement, is the end of that.

Welcome to modern Biology Leroy. :D


leroy wrote:we both agree that evolution can account for at least some of the diversity that we see, so how do you go from some diversity to all diversity, how does accepting your "squirrel example " implies that I also have to accept that squirrels came from ancient fish-like organisms trough the same mechanism.


How did you ignore the paragraph I wrote which explained this already?

Some diversity times many iterations, Leroy.

Some diversity times many different local niches to exploit and adapt towards.

What matters regardless is that two species of squirrels have formed from one ancestral squirrel population, that you acknowledge that the two gene pools are different, and that genotype results in phenotype and behavioral components.

That's speciation, and all that needs to happen for those two populations to grow apart is that there is no gene flow between the two populations. Even if they experienced exactly the same conditions on both sides of the river, the two populations would still grow apart genetically as new mutations arose and either became present or widespread in a statistically significant fraction comparative to the other population.

When you also acknowledge that phenotypes are genetic, then you've accepted the thing you want to claim is the part you don't accept about evolution.



leroy wrote:how does accepting squirrel to squirrel evolution, implies that I also have to accept fish to squirrel evolution?


Because it's not squirrel to squirrel evolution, Leroy. It's squirrel to 2 new populations of animals that are very similar indeed genetically and morphologically to the ancestral population, and while we may naively call the early generations 'squirrels', over time the nature of genetic mutation, allele shuffling and differing selection pressures will result in an ever wider gulf between the genotypes of the two populations which will only accrue over generations thereby resulting in the significant morphological changes which you are trying to claim that evolution cannot explain. As such, you're going to need to explain why it can't when I've just explained to you how exactly it can.

No good just tossing out denials - I know you have a magical barrier, so you might as well spit it out and admit that you have it. Then we can start to knock the bullshit wall down.



leroy wrote:it is not silly, ...


It's literally infantile, Leroy. It's the most stupid contrivance you Creationists come up with. It's nonsensical, it has no actual meaning, Leroy. Small changes DO necessarily add up. I even gave you a way you could go and test this notion yourself. Remember how experimentation is crucially important in validating the worth of your ideas? Well, I don't give a fuck how poor your imagination is - go do the experiment and come back and tell me that small changes iteratively retained over generations don't result in large changes.... and try telling me it with a straight face! :D

Trust me Leroy, you will either accept this, or I will keep using it as an example of how Creationist cognitive bias works.


leroy wrote:small changes don't necessarily add up and create big changes, for example from the same basic recipe (eggs, milk, chocolate, flower...) you can get a diversity of cakes, brownies and muffins, but that doesn't automatically imply that all meals (pizza, hamburgers, salads, etc) came from that same recipe,


:lol:

You can also buy fish on a Wednesday.

Important huh? OOOOoooh! LOOK OVER THERE IT"S A BIG... errr.. .HAMBURGER

/sound of footsteps fleeing and door slamming shut


Do you want to have a second attempt at expressing your illogical dismissal of a process you can't actually argue with? Perhaps this time you could try to ... I don't know... make sense? :D

Did you think that genomes are like recipes, Leroy? Odd how you seemed to understand elementary genetics, but now your analogy suggests you are literally clueless. Do you think a genome means one position for each base, Leroy? Do all humans and all human variety come somehow from the exact same recipe, Leroy? There's only one single human genome and we all have it? Let's stop playing silly buggers, eh? You know perfectly well having already stated your acceptance of it that you inherit two parts for your own personal genome (i.e. your mum and dad) and that the unit of inheritance can change. So who exactly are you trying to confuse here? :D


leroy wrote:or take a look at living fossils,....


I've already educated you with respect to this in a post. Do you not learn anything? Are you too arrogant to change your mind when you realize you are wittering bullshit at someone who knows a fuck of a lot more than you?

There are NO SUCH THING as living fossils, Leroy. The term 'fossil' indicates that the biological matter like skin and bones have been REPLACED with minerals.

So as I already challenged you before: show me a SINGLE EXAMPLE of a lump of living rock.

No, can't do that? Then perhaps you should spend a bit more time on expressing cogent ideas rather than parotting bullshit?



leroy wrote:these organisms have been accumulating small changes for millions of years, and that did not translated in to big changes...


Says who?

You? Please either a) cite the article you've written quantifying 'big' changes or b) explain what magical bullshit it is you're referring to.

There's no special category of 'iving fossils' Leroy. There is just two relevant categories here: extant or extinct.

All extant species are 'living fossils', Leroy, or none are.

If we want to employ the hokey metaphor, then the vast majority of your body's blueprint down to the finest details are living fossils, just as many of the genes which code for the relevant proteins there are living fossils.

The problem with such a term is that it's the kind of detritus Creationists grab as they desperately seek not to flounder when way out of their depth. Even using the term represents a Stolen Concept Fallacy.

Aside from just being plain wrong in your unstated rubric of change, worse for you - by claiming that there are organisms today who have not undergone significant morphological change, you are proving the rule that most have undergone significant morphological change and that's why you have to find the one or two examples you still can while ignoring the 99.9% of extant species which have.

So I can defeat your argument solely in this way: saying that something can happen and for the most part did happen, doesn't mean that something will always happen. It depends on context.

Of course, your post above represents very clearly to me that you are not amenable to genuine discussion here, you are still playing for your team, so you'll try to leap on what you perceive as the weakness in the above statement, but that's again just a produce of who you are and the cack you have given intellectual allegiance to.

Instead, what we can very clearly say is that changes in environment produce corresponding changes in the species which inhabit it. This will happen by extinction if no other way. However, there are gazillions of places on Earth that do not undergo very dramatic environmental changes. A good example of this is life deep in caves which can be amazingly ancient and unique, and which have barely changed in the millennia they've inhabited the caves. We all understand via domestication that dramatic selection pressures produce dramatic results, so why is it hard for you to comprehend that a lack of dramatic selection pressures would consequently produce less dramatic results?

Either which way, you're still wrong. There are plenty of significant changes between extant coelocanths - or whatever borrowed talking point you presented... I forget, but it all amounts to the same bullshit - and the ancestral population of coelocanths. However, their environmental niche has not undergone dramatic change, and a body plan suited to living in water is usually going to retain certain features for hydrodynamicism, and that if it works, there's no pressure to change much. Meanwhile, it's only comparative genotypes that would actually allow us to quantify the total change between the ancestral population and the extant population - not folksy eyeballing by the ideologically hostile.

So you have a choice. Either accept your error, or provide a rubric quantifying 'big change' which we can then apply to all other species and see how useful it is and what it tells us about evolution.

I don't know if you ever rise to challenges, but here's your moment to shine,


leroy wrote:...........the point that I am trying to make is that small changes don't necessarily imply big changes additional evidence is required for big changes. (I will ignore any comment that is not relevant for that particular point)


Oh Leroy, that's genuinely pathetic. I am disappointed to even have bothered with someone like you. Why would I spend my time educating someone who thinks they're already the fucking dog's bollocks, and who thereby gets to decide what's relevant for them to know and what's not? The point, Leroy, is that you don't get it because you are not in possession of the requisite knowledge. I teach this shit to university students, consequently vastly above your level, but even so they don't tell me what I need to teach them because they're there to learn what it is they don't know they need to know.

You on the other hand, think you know what you know and it doesn't matter that it's in contradiction with all the scientific institutes of the world, it doesn't matter that this subject is taught to biologists in every country in the world that isn't blinded by religious dogma, it doesn't matter to you that thousands on thousands of papers are published each year in dozens of journals across dozens of fields which directly test - and thereby potentially falsify - every aspects of evolutionary theory. It doesn't matter to you that evolutionary theory has provided our societies with an abundance of agricultural solutions that literally put the food on your plate, or the numerous medicines warding off the ancient parasitic enemies of humanity - it doesn't matter that evolutionary theory repeatedly works offering vast benefits to all human endeavours.... you won't accept it because of your fanatical affiliation with a stupid fucking idea that's provably false from the fucking Bronze Age.

Go read Morton's Demon - that's the only comment you're ever going to get directly from me again. But oh don't you worry, I am going to show you what people like you deserve when they vomit in the public arena.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Last edited by Sparhafoc on Sun Jul 02, 2017 3:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Sun Jul 02, 2017 1:01 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

I am not placing any magical barrier, I would say that there are at least 4 real and solid barriers that limit evolution, one can prove that evolution can only account for some of the diversity of life, the barriers are real, but before presenting these barriers I am going to let you present your own positive arguments and proofs.


Shut up flapping your lips and cite evidence for your lying assertions.

I don't care that you can form a sentence - we've trained gorillas to do that - the informational content of your sentence is what would potentially elevate you above their level of competence.

So fucking well show it.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jul 02, 2017 1:03 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

Leroy's Demon - or the Parable of Creationist Self Deceit

Reproduced here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Morton%27s_demon

Maxwell suggested a famous demon which could violate the laws of thermodynamics. The demon, sitting between two rooms, controls a gate between the two rooms. When the demon sees a speedy molecule coming his way (from room A), he opens the gate and lets the speedy molecule leave the room and when he sees a slow molecule coming at the gate (from room A), he holds it closed. Oppositely, when he sees a speedy molecule coming at the gate from room B he closes the gate but when he sees a slow molecule from room B coming toward the gate he opens it. In this way, the demon segregates the fast moving molecules into one room from the slow ones in the other. Since temperature of a gas is related to the velocity of the molecules, the demon would increase the temperature of room B and cool room A without any expenditure of energy. And since a temperature difference can be used to create useful work, the demon would create a perpetual motion machine.

Maxwell's demon was shown to fail by Szilard who showed that the demon needed to use light (and expend energy) to determine a fast molecule from a slow one. This energy spent to collect information meant that the demon couldn't violate the 2nd law.

The reason I mention this is because I realized tonight that the YECs have a demon of their own. In a conversation with a YEC, I mentioned certain problems which he needed to address. Instead of addressing them, he claimed that he didn't have time to do the research. With other YECs, I have found that this is not the case (like with sds@mp3.com who refused my offer to discuss the existence of the geologic column by stating "It's on my short list of topics to pursue here. It's not up next, but perhaps before too long." Message-ID: a3bv4t$v2m$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net ) And with other YECs, they claim lack of expertise to evaluate the argument and thus won't make a judgment about the validity of the criticism. Still other YECs refuse to read things that might disagree with them.

Thus was born the realization that there is a dangerous demon on the loose. When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data. Fortunately, I eventually realized that the demon was there and began to open the gate when he wasn't looking.

However, my conversations have made me aware that each YEC is a victim of my demon. Morton's demon makes it possible for a person to have his own set of private facts which others are not privy to, allowing the YEC to construct a theory which is perfectly supported by the facts which the demon lets through the gate. And since these are the only facts known to the victim, he feels in his heart that he has explained everything. Indeed, the demon makes people feel morally superior and more knowledgeable than others.

The demon makes its victim feel very comfortable as there is no contradictory data in view. The demon is better than a set of rose colored glasses. The demon's victim does not understand why everyone else doesn't fall down and accept the victim's views. After all, the world is thought to be as the victim sees it and the demon doesn't let through the gate the knowledge that others don't see the same thing. Because of this, the victim assumes that everyone else is biased, or holding those views so that they can keep their job, or, in an even more devious attack by my demon, they think that their opponents are actually demon possessed themselves or sons of Satan. This is a devious demon!

He can make people think that the geologic column doesn't exist even if one posts examples on the internet. He can make people believe that radioactive dating doesn't work even if you show them comparisons of tree rings compared to radiocarbon dating. He can make people ignore layer after layer of footprints and burrows in the geologic column (see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/burrow.jpg ) and believe that burrowing can occur and animals can walk around unimpeded during a global flood. He can make people think that the sun is shrinking, that the stars are all within 6000 light years of the earth, or that God made pictures in that light of events which never happened. He can make people believe that fossils aren't the remains of animals and are 'petrifactions' placed there by the devil. He can make people ignore modern measurements of continental motion, stellar formation, or biological speciation. He can make people believe that 75,000 feet of sediment over an area 200 by 100 miles can be deposited in a few hundred years, and he can make people believe that Noah trained animals to poop into buckets on command. He can make people deny transitional forms which have traits clearly halfway between two groups. This is a dangerous demon.

But one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data. The victim doesn't know that he is the host to an evil parasite and indeed many of their opponents don't know that as well since the demon is smart enough to be too small to be seen.

But unlike Maxwell's demon, Morton's demon doesn't expend any energy—he gets his victim to expend it for him. He can get his victim to expend massive amounts of intellectual energy figuring out how to convince the world that they are wrong. The victim will spend hours reading supportive books or searching through scientific literature noting only those portions which support the YEC position. And the victim will spend lots of energy trying to convince others to come see things the way they do. Thus, the demon gets its victims to spend energy to help it spread the infection.

The demon drives his victim to go to YEC conventions so that the demon can rest. By making his victim be with those equally afflicted, the demon doesn't have to shut the door or even be watchful. This is because it allows the demon time to rest when all that is in the room is supportive data. For the victim, there is comfort in numbers even if they are few.

Those who try to help the poor victims escape the ravages of Morton's demon wear themselves out typing e-mails explaining data and facts which never get through the demon's gate. After years of weariness, the philanthropic individual dies of fatigue. This is oh so devilish a situation!
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jul 02, 2017 1:04 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

Sparhafoc why don't you simply remove your arrogance, your fanatism and your insults and accept your burden proof


prove that the same mechanisms that cause diversity of squirrels, could have also created wings in a wingless creature, or eyes in a eyeless creatures.


we both agree that these mechanisms take place and we both agree that these mechanisms can account for some diversity, our point if disagreement is on whether if these mechanisms can account for all the diversity we see, including the origin of complex organs and systems (eyes, wings, digestive system etc.)


Of course, your post above represents very clearly to me that you are not amenable to genuine discussion here, you are still playing for your team, so you'll try to leap on what you perceive as the weakness in the above statement, but that's again just a produce of who you are and the cack you have given intellectual allegiance to



perfect then don't do it for me, do it for the sake of all the honest readers that might come to this forum and that are genuinely interested in learning, these readers might me interested in your proofs. So please prove that those mechanisms that we know can cause variation in squirrels could also cause eyes and wings (given enough time and selective pressure of course)

leroy
I am not placing any magical barrier, I would say that there are at least 4 real and solid barriers that limit evolution, one can prove that evolution can only account for some of the diversity of life, the barriers are real, but before presenting these barriers I am going to let you present your own positive arguments and proofs.


Sparhafoc
Shut up flapping your lips and cite evidence for your lying assertions.

I don't care that you can form a sentence - we've trained gorillas to do that - the informational content of your sentence is what would potentially elevate you above their level of competence.






sure I will provide the evidence after you provide yours or after you admit that you have no evidence.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Jul 02, 2017 5:54 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

leroy wrote:Sparhafoc why don't you simply remove your arrogance, your fanatism and your insults and accept your burden proof


I'll do that the moment you stop taking crack and then spouting random shit on the internet.

What's hilarious about you fools is that you think you are Christian while exhibiting none of the supposed central characteristics of Christianity.

You're not here to learn, or to discuss - you've shown that repeatedly in the handful of days I've been here - you're here because you get some kind of demented kick out of fucking around with people you don't know.

Either which way, you drongo, what you read as 'arrogance' is really just expertise, and because you lack the competence to engage with that expertise, you are now going to do the typical lowest common denominator trolling by positing emotions, pretending that style is more important than content, and attempting to obfuscate away the fact that you were just shown to have all the integrity of a vodka-fuelled toilet trip.

Of course style is more important that content to you because you keep fleeing the content whenever it gets too difficult for you to bullshit your way out of.

I don't mind. This is the equivalent of you squirming in the dirt while I've got you pinned to the floor. Squirm away, be my guest.

Every single post you make that fails to acknowledge how my example has defeated your poorly conceived notion, it just reiterates what I've said: Morton's Demon. Make all the noise you like. You can strip off and dance on the table singing bawdy songs about the Blacksmith's cock for all I care - anyone with a functioning capacity for reason can see perfectly well that all it amounts to is evasion on your part because you were shown wrong and were incapable of arguing further so you started with the drama-generation.




leroy wrote:prove that the same mechanisms that cause diversity of squirrels, could have also created wings in a wingless creature, or eyes in a eyeless creatures.


Go take a long walk off a short plank. I do not perform tricks on command for cretins.



leroy wrote:we both agree that these mechanisms take place and we both agree that these mechanisms can account for some diversity, our point if disagreement is on whether if these mechanisms can account for all the diversity we see, including the origin of complex organs and systems (eyes, wings, digestive system etc.)


I have already explained to you that your agreement is irrelevant - if I show something to be true and you disagree, that just makes you incompetent, and it reiterates what psychology it takes to be a creationist.



leroy wrote:perfect then don't do it for me, do it for the sake of all the honest readers that might come to this forum and that are genuinely interested in learning, these readers might me interested in your proofs. So please prove that those mechanisms that we know can cause variation in squirrels could also cause eyes and wings (given enough time and selective pressure of course)


If so, then I am sure they possess the competency to write a coherent sentence, unlike yourself, so I am sure they'd be more than capable of asking for help. That's what normal people do, you realise? They appreciate it when someone takes time to explain stuff to them they were previously ignorant of. Whenever arrogance is mixed in with ignorance it becomes a shiffest, and that's basically Creationism to a tee.

You think you get to dictate what I inform you about because you don't really want to learn anything, you want to prove your stupid little belief system has validity even though it possesses none of the preponderance of evidence which you are desperately cherrypicking at available in the sciences.

But you don't get to dictate what you learn because, as already explained to you in sufficiently simple English a child could understand: if you're ignorant, then you don't know what it is you need to learn, so telling people who are helping you that you will ignore anything you don't want to process both shows the cognitive bias operating and also indicates a person who lacks elementary etiquette. In other words, I think you are a dopey cunt, and if you want me to think otherwise you will start by apologizing profusely and asking me to help you out of the ignorant hole you are in.

Otherwise, go swivel. I don't help rude cunts - I mock them.



leroy wrote:sure I will provide the evidence after you provide yours or after you admit that you have no evidence.


You're such a conniving little shit stain, aren't you.

Cite where I said that I have provided evidence. I won't let you keep lying to my face, you dishonest little man.

As for whether I have evidence for the above - are you off your little mind, you bloody moron? Of course I've got fucking evidence for all the above, that's what I told you in advance. Just because you apparently fail at the most elementary reading comprehension, that doesn't give you license to make up bullshit and pretend I am part of it.

It reflects only on why you reject science and accept magical bullshit.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Last edited by Sparhafoc on Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sun Jul 02, 2017 6:41 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

Welcome to Creationism where an example which operates solely on the grounds already established suddenly gets rejected the moment it arrives at a conclusion that's ideologically unacceptable.

we both agree that these mechanisms take place and we both agree that these mechanisms can account for some diversity, our point if disagreement is on whether if these mechanisms can account for all the diversity we see, including the origin of complex organs and systems (eyes, wings, digestive system etc.)


See the above for why indeed evolution does not just account for this, but is the only explanation that accounts for such diversity.

As for evidence, it's as simple as looking at the fossil record.

Image

Image

Image

Or at observations made in the wild:

Image

Image

Or of observations made in the laboratory.

Image


Of course, if you possessed the competence and honesty necessary to approach any specialist subject, you would already have looked into the vast body of scientific literature on the topic, as just a couple of examples:

Soltis, D., & Soltis, P. (1989). Allopolyploid Speciation in Tragopogon: Insights from Chloroplast DNA American Journal of Botany,

McPheron, B., Smith, D., & Berlocher, S. (1988). Genetic differences between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella Nature, 336

Uy, J., Moyle, R., Filardi, C., & Cheviron, Z. (2009). Difference in Plumage Color Used in Species Recognition between Incipient Species Is Linked to a Single Amino Acid Substitution in the Melanocortin?1 Receptor The American Naturalist, 174

Phillip A Morin1, Frederick I Archer, Andrew D Foote, Julie Vilstrup, Eric E Allen, Paul Wade, John Durban, Kim Parsons, Robert Pitman, Lewyn Li, Pascal Bouffard, Sandra C Abel Nielsen, Morten Rasmussen, Eske Willerslev, M. Thomas P Gilbert, & Timothy Harkins (2010). Complete mitochondrial genome phylogeographic analysis of killer whales (Orcinus orca) indicates multiple species Genome Research

But of course, not only would that be difficult (being far above your comprehension levels), it would also be hard work, and we all know Creationists are averse to doing anything more than sitting in their armchair making declarations about the world in order to stave up their failing bullshit belief in magical bollocks.

Not only is Creationism repeatedly shown to survive thanks to the paucity of relevant knowledge, thriving on the self-imposed ignorance of its adherents, but also that it has generated a selection process where only the most fanatically blind and mentally biased deniers of reality get to carry the torch. The others have all left the doolally train and joined reality.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jul 02, 2017 6:58 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

Also just to cite the actual words the happened, rather than the newly contrived bullshit Leroy's trying to foist off - anything that muddies the waters, I guess.


Sparhafoc wrote:So let's move forward. Now I am aware of what you know, then you shouldn't have any problem following the next step which will show you the principle, and then finally we'll look at the evidence once you've acknowledged the principle.


Which goes through the smear mill of Creationist Desperate Styles of Evasive Argumentation to become...


Leroy making it up as he goes along wrote:sure I will provide the evidence after you provide yours or after you admit that you have no evidence.


Reading comprehension failure? How does he work out how to use a microwave if he can't read such simply written steps to a process as above?

Or is it not really reading comprehension failure at all?

I've been here a few days, yet I can't help but notice the dozens of times long-term users note how Leroy has, once again, apparently failed at basic reading comprehension. I think this is a noble assumption initially, but there are times where the response from Leroy is so obviously manipulative and intentionally evasive that there comes a time where lending him the benefit of the doubt would just make the honest interlocutor a mug.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:15 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

As for 'scientific proof'...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... ific-proof

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven.

In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.

The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.



Anyone who thinks the proof is a component of science is scientifically illiterate.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jul 03, 2017 7:41 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3347Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

leroy wrote:we both agree that these mechanisms take place and we both agree that these mechanisms can account for some diversity, our point if disagreement is on whether if these mechanisms can account for all the diversity we see, including the origin of complex organs and systems (eyes, wings, digestive system etc.)


We already went over this. Remember? You said we needed to account for "new features", I asked what is a "new feature", and you abandoned the thread.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Jul 03, 2017 4:32 pm
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

The litany of anti-scientist Creationist denialism, amusingly specifically focused on Leroy's magical barrier denialism, even has its own topic on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eat ... reationism
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Jul 04, 2017 1:49 am
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

he_who_is_nobody wrote:We already went over this. Remember? You said we needed to account for "new features", I asked what is a "new feature", and you abandoned the thread.



Ohhh look!

There I was trying to get Leroy to honestly admit that he was harboring an undisclosed magical barrier, much to his repeated denial, and in that other thread he explicitly states:


Leroy wrote:The reason why I would say that it is an insuperable barrier...


The reason why you would say it's an insuperable barrier is because you are a Creationist who cherrypicks facts based on whether they conform to a priori beliefs in magical bullshit.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Jul 04, 2017 1:53 am
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

So you have a choice. Either accept your error, or provide a rubric quantifying 'big change' which we can then apply to all other species and see how useful it is and what it tells us about evolution.


It's genuinely amazing - like a pesticide or something.

Whenever you ask a Creationist to provide a formalized quantification - a rubric - for one of their numerous claims about the degree of change, or any standardized way to test their assertions... they scarper.

It's because they don't do work, don't test their ideas against evidence, and aren't in the discussion for truth or honesty but to prop up their emotionally held beliefs in religious dogma.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Jul 04, 2017 2:00 am
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

Sparhafoc wrote:Cite where I said that I have provided evidence. I won't let you keep lying to my face, you dishonest little man.
.



Ok so remember when I said that there are atletas 4 barriers that limit the extent in which evolution can account for the diversity of life?

and just to be clear when I use the term evolution I mean the process and the mechanisms that you described in the squirrel example.

So with that said, my position is that evolution can only account for some of the diversity of life, while your position is that evolution can account for all (or nearly all) the diversity that we observe, including the origin of complex organs and systems (wings, eyes, reproductive systems, brains etc.)


the 4 barriers

Barrier number 1

1 Haldane's dilemma, a problem originally proposed by J. B. S. Haldane in the 1950s, which states that organisms can only accumulate a limited number of genetic changes in a given amount of time, organisms that reproduce slowly and have relatively long reproductive cycles (primates for example) can only accumulate relatively few genetic changes in say 1,000,000 years, compared to other creatures with shorter reproductive cycles.

Imagine a population of 100,000 apes, the putative progenitors of humans. Suppose that a male and a female both received a mutation so beneficial that they out-survived everyone else; all the rest of the population died out—all 99,998 of them. And then the surviving pair had enough offspring to replenish the population in one generation. And this repeated every generation (every 20 years) for 10 million years, more than the supposed time since the last common ancestor of humans and apes. That would mean that 500,000 beneficial mutations could be added to the population (i.e., 10,000,000/20). Even with this completely unrealistic scenario, which maximizes evolutionary progress, only about 0.02% of the human genome could be generated. Considering that the difference between the DNA of a human and a chimp, our supposed closest living relative, is greater than 5%,2 evolution has an obvious problem in explaining the origin of the genetic information in a creature such as a human

http://creation.com/haldanes-dilemma-ha ... een-solved.

So if a population of primates or some other organism with a slow reproductive rate, is subject to the same mechanisms that you described in the squirrel example, for 10 million years, he would only differ from the original primate by 0.02%(assuming un unrealistically convenient scenario) this si not enough to account for the differences between foro example humans and other apes.

evolution can not account for the differences between humans and chimps, "something else" )other than random genetic change and natural selection) most have happened, evolution by itself cant account for these changes. Evolution can not account for the 5% difference between humans and chimps and this would still be true even if we assume that the difference is just 1%.




Barrier number 2

Genetic entropy, Basically the argument is that most mutations are slightly deleterious, this means that they produce a small harm, but this harm is so small that natural selection wont remove it. If you leave evolution by itself, for a few million years (or maybe even less) organisms would be loaded with deleterious mutation and all organisms will become extinct.

an analogy would be, imagine a book, say a manual on how to build a robot, if the editor makes a spelling mistake, in most of the cases it would not be a big deal, the manual would still work, and a robot can be built from that manual, however if you keep adding small spelling mistakes, you will get to a point where the manual wont work and robots cant be build from there. Even if you have beneficial spelling mistakes every once in a while, degradation will still be the predominant trend.

Natural selection is simply not good enough to remove most deleterious mutations.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY98io7JH-c
http://evolutionatbyu.com/Other/2013060 ... ntropy.pdf

any organism would go excitant long before it could develop complex surf, like eyes, wings or brains.

evolution by itself can not last long, something else has to be there that prevent deleterious mutations to accumulate, natural selection can only remove the very negative mutations (just a minority)

barrier 3

Irreducible complexity, some "evolutionary steps" require múltiple independent genetic changes in order for them to have a benefit that would be selected by natural selection. for example it is said that the first step towards the evolution of the eye, would be a step in which a blind organism evolved the ability to detect light.

however if you what to go from a completely blind organism, to an organism that can detect lite, you need
1 a system that provides photosensitive cells

2 , some sort of brain that interprets the information provided by this photosensitive cells

3 some other system that causes a reaction any time light is detected.

if you don't have all these 3 independent systems at the same time you wont have a functional system, and therefore it wont be selected by natural selection.


evolution can only create stuff that can be reached on a step by step basis, any change that requires more than 1 step is unlikely to be a product of evolution.

Barrier 4
Convergent evolution at a genetic level, sometimes 2 independent species have genetic material in common, that cant be explained by common ancestry, because closer relatives lack these genetic material. and example would be some genetic variants related to echolocation, these variants are present in dolphins and bats, but are not present in other mammals.

this is usually interpreted as an example of convergent evolution at a genetic level, or in otherr words, it is interpreted as 2 organisms having similar selective pressures that went through the same genetic path to overcome those pressures.

here the problem is that even assuming strong selective pressure for those particular changes, the idea that 2 organisms suffered form the same mutations multiple times is demonstrably very unlikely.

for example the probability of 2 organisms having the same random point mutation in the same spot is around 1 in 30 million ..so even in 100 million years only 3 or 4 examples of mutation in common are to be expected. evolution can not account for any relevant amount of convergent evolution, we need something else to explain various examples of convergent evolution at a genetic level.

.......................
Ok so what about your arguments and the supposed evidence that you presented...

As for evidence, it's as simple as looking at the fossil record.
Image



Remember, you have to show that the mechanisms that you described in the squirrel example can account for the all diversity of live, showing that birds evolve form tetrapod dinosaurs is not enough, you have to prove that the changes took place trough the mechanisms that you described (evolution)

we both agree that birds came from tetrapod dinosaurs, the question is can the mechanisms that you described account for all the changes that are required?..............A fossil at best can prove relationship and transitions, but fossils cant show that the changes took place trough the mechanisms that you described.


Or at observations made in the wild:


researchers openly admit that they don't understand the genetic basis for the changes in the Italian wall lizard, for all we know it could be just a plastic response.
What could be debated, however, is how those changes are interpreted—whether or not they had a genetic basis and not a "plastic response to the environment," said Hendry, who was not associated with the study

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ion_2.html

since we don't know the genetic basis for those morphological changes there is no way you could know that these changes where caused by the mechanisms that you described in the squirrel example (evolution) but even more important, even if that change was caused by evolution this changed could have occurred within the barriers that I described earlier.


Or of observations made in the laboratory.
Image

I am not familiar whith that example, but if you think that this example actually proves what you are suppose to prove, please let me know and I ll track the source.
...............................................................................................................................................................

and then you used the same old and dishonest tactic that atheist form this forum typically use, namely, provide a bunch of random unrelated sources, and try to sound smart.

Of course, if you possessed the competence and honesty necessary to approach any specialist subject, you would already have looked into the vast body of scientific literature on the topic, as just a couple of examples:

Soltis, D., & Soltis, P. (1989). Allopolyploid Speciation in Tragopogon: Insights from Chloroplast DNA American Journal of Botany,

McPheron, B., Smith, D., & Berlocher, S. (1988). Genetic differences between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella Nature, 336

Uy, J., Moyle, R., Filardi, C., & Cheviron, Z. (2009). Difference in Plumage Color Used in Species Recognition between Incipient Species Is Linked to a Single Amino Acid Substitution in the Melanocortin?1 Receptor The American Naturalist, 174

Phillip A Morin1, Frederick I Archer, Andrew D Foote, Julie Vilstrup, Eric E Allen, Paul Wade, John Durban, Kim Parsons, Robert Pitman, Lewyn Li, Pascal Bouffard, Sandra C Abel Nielsen, Morten Rasmussen, Eske Willerslev, M. Thomas P Gilbert, & Timothy Harkins (2010). Complete mitochondrial genome phylogeographic analysis of killer whales (Orcinus orca) indicates multiple species Genome Research



I read the first source and it was about phylogenetic relationships among some types of plants, which is very interesting but irrelevant, is any of those articles relevant? does any of those articles prove that the mechanisms that you described in the squirrel example can account for the diversity of life?

So you have a choice. Either accept your error, or provide a rubric quantifying 'big change' which we can then apply to all other species and see how useful it is and what it tells us about evolution


sure, any change that transcends the 4 barriers that I described would be considered a big change, each of these barriers is quantifiable, and provides a clear limit on what changes are possible and which are impossible (or very unlikely)


so just to be clear

Your view> the mechanisms that you describen in the squirrel example,(evolution) can account for all the diversity of life, including the origin of complex stuff like eyes, brains, wings etc.

My view> those mechanisms are real, and can account for some, but not, of the variation that we observe, there are barriers that limit this process, and at least some changes that have occurred in the past go beyond these limitations.

in other words, my view is that the mechanisms that you described are not enough to account for these changes, there has to be something else, this may be ether an unknown natural mechanism or a unnatural mechanism (design)


up to this point any honest reader would notice that I presented positive objective and testable evidence for my view, and that you haven't provided anything.


I didn't explain with detail any of these barriers, because I am presupposing that you are already familiar with this arguments, if this is not the case please do some research in any source that you consider reliable and only answer when you actually understand the arguments.

please do not respond with straw man arguments, please do not ignore the main points and make a big deal out of secondary and irrelevant points, if you have any question on what am I trying to say, please send me a PM, before answering.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Jul 05, 2017 10:46 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

Sparhafoc wrote:As for 'scientific proof'...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... ific-proof

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven.

In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.

The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.



Anyone who thinks the proof is a component of science is scientifically illiterate.


1 I never used the term scientific proof

2 this is an informal forum and we are having an informal discussion, we are not writing a scientific paper

3 you know what I meant when I used the term proof,

4 this is the kind of irrelevant stuff that you should omit in your next answer, please do not make a big deal out of this kind of insignificant and irrelevant "mistakes" even if you where 100% and I where 100% wrong on the proper use of the term proof, that doesn't do anything to show that your view is correct and mine is wrong.


Your view> the mechanisms that you describen in the squirrel example,(evolution) can account for all the diversity of life, including the origin of complex stuff like eyes, brains, wings etc.

My view> those mechanisms are real, and can account for some, but not, of the variation that we observe, there are barriers that limit this process, and at least some changes that have occurred in the past go beyond these limitations.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Jul 05, 2017 11:20 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

So with that said, my position is that evolution can only account for some of the diversity of life, while your position is that evolution can account for all (or nearly all) the diversity that we observe, including the origin of complex organs and systems (wings, eyes, reproductive systems, brains etc.)



Nope, not my position.

Read what I wrote, show you understand what I wrote, then I will read the rest of your post.

If you lack the competence to understand that I expressly did not write anything like 'evolution can account for all (or nearly all) the diversity we observe...' and you instead paraphrase what I did say, then I call you out as a lying cunt who needs a smack round the head for fucking about with people like a child.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Thu Jul 06, 2017 6:07 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

Sparhafoc wrote:
So with that said, my position is that evolution can only account for some of the diversity of life, while your position is that evolution can account for all (or nearly all) the diversity that we observe, including the origin of complex organs and systems (wings, eyes, reproductive systems, brains etc.)



Nope, not my position.

Read what I wrote, show you understand what I wrote, then I will read the rest of your post.

If you lack the competence to understand that I expressly did not write anything like 'evolution can account for all (or nearly all) the diversity we observe...' and you instead paraphrase what I did say, then I call you out as a lying cunt who needs a smack round the head for fucking about with people like a child.


ok then if that is not your position then we both agree and there is no need to extend this discussion.



my arguments where arguments against that position, anyone who holds that position can read my arguments and provide counterarguments
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Jul 06, 2017 7:31 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

leroy wrote:ok then if that is not your position then we both agree and there is no need to extend this discussion.


This never was a discussion. I offered this thread to honestly help you understand evolution.

Regardless of what you think, you don't understand it. But your Creationist-manufactured hubris is too strong for you to accept being educated by someone you've pushed into your Boogeyman pigeonhole.



leroy wrote:my arguments where arguments against that position, anyone who holds that position can read my arguments and provide counterarguments


You don't know what 'argument' means. You need a series of postulates, and those postulates need to be inspected, and in the case of science, evidenced. But you just want to string words together and pretend that any resulting meaning is necessarily valid, just because you uttered it.

To be blunt: your opinion's not worth a wank. Opinions that won't conform to facts are just prejudices masquerading as something more innocent. No one but you can shed Leroy of his prejudices.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Thu Jul 06, 2017 8:19 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

Sparhafoc wrote:
leroy wrote:ok then if that is not your position then we both agree and there is no need to extend this discussion.


This never was a discussion. I offered this thread to honestly help you understand evolution.

Regardless of what you think, you don't understand it. But your Creationist-manufactured hubris is too strong for you to accept being educated by someone you've pushed into your Boogeyman pigeonhole.


and I did proved that I understand evolution by answering your questions, didn't I?


besides you can have all the word games that you what, you may call it evolution or give it an other name...................my point is that the diversity of life can not be accounted by the mechanisms that you described with the squirrel example.(random genetic change, natural selection, genetic drift etc.) and I provided reasons to support that assertion.


If you agree with my point then we both can happily agree and have joy

If you disagree you can always read my arguments and present your counterarguments


you can call these mechanisms that you described in the squirrel example or you can give it an other name I don't care
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Jul 06, 2017 9:32 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

leroy wrote:and I did proved that I understand evolution by answering your questions, didn't I?


Well, you did "PROVE" (omg, you just won't learn, will you?) that you fail at basic reading comprehension.

Are you allergic to reality, or something?

I quite clearly explained that I wanted to know if you had an elementary knowledge, a basis in evolution or genetics, and described it as a 'beginning'.

But somehow that morphs into me thinking you know what you're talking about after I've addressed dozens of your mistakes? I mean.... that's your take-away message from pages of criticism of the stupid statements you've made?

It's amazing the lengths Morton's Demon will go to in order to keep on suckling off you.



leroy wrote:besides you can have all the word games that you what,...


What word games would they be, LEROY?

Only, you once again made an accusation and terminally failed to support it. It's just shit slinging because you had your ideas criticized and you need to deflect attention.... oooh WORD GAME that will confuse him!

No, LEROY, no word games were played. Sorry if you thought you were winning there.



leroy wrote:you may call it evolution or give it an other name...................


Why would I call evolution any other name?

What I will call another name is something that's categorically not evolution.

That means even if you still keep repeating the idiotic claim you made, you simply remain wrong. The fact that I have informed you of your mistake, and you want to pretend you are somehow still right is precisely the litany of your tenure here. I don't think I've seen a single thread proceed with you in it where it wasn't bogged down with your fetid bullshit.


leroy wrote:my point is that the diversity of life can not be accounted by the mechanisms that you described with the squirrel example.(random genetic change, natural selection, genetic drift etc.) and I provided reasons to support that assertion.


As I already explained to you: you're wrong.

The reason I gave the example I gave (remember how it was me who gave it for reasons I explained to you, not the other way round?) was to show that significant morphological changes occur by evolution, and that speciation occurs by evolution - both of which you had denied. You actually acknowledged the latter, but because Creationists are inherently incapable of admitting mistakes, you're now pretending that my argument is that all variation is evolution. Clearly, as anyone with a shred of honesty would agree, I never said anything like that.

You are either wrong and stupid, or wrong and a lying cunt.

I am beginning to be persuaded of the latter.



leroy wrote:If you agree with my point then we both can happily agree and have joy


You don't have a point, LEROY, unless it's to serve as a salutary warning for the dangers of mixing stupid belief and total faith.



leroy wrote:If you disagree you can always read my arguments and present your counterarguments


I disagree. There are no 'arguments' here, LEROY, learn what words mean when you use them. And just so you know - you don't get to make up your own meanings on the fly.

Arguments require a series of postulates, and those postulates must be inspected. Declarations are not accepted as postulates. Your ability to (barely) string words together into a sentence does not lend any weight or validity to the resulting meaning.

The quicker you grasp that, the sooner you join the rest of your fellow humans.


leroy wrote:you can call these mechanisms that you described in the squirrel example or you can give it an other name I don't care


Of course you don't care. You didn't care when I was explaining it to you, and you didn't care when you were trotting out vapid dismissals, and you don't give a fuck about honesty, or about legitimate discourse, you clearly don't give a damn about anyone here because you think they're here for you to rub yourself off on. What do you care about LEROY? Just LEROY? Certainly not truth. It's antithetical to you - you'd implode if it ever got past your cognitive bias.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Thu Jul 06, 2017 10:07 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 5
 [ 86 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
cron