Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

It is obviously an ad hom if the bullshit allegation is unsubstantiated. If the allegation is substantiated there is no need to use the term. Hence the use of "bullshit" implies that the allegation cannot be substantiated and is therefore itself bullshit.

"Clowns" is an ad hom.

Setanta, Wilso, ci. and fm are habituated to ad homs beyond redemption. It is the mark of a despotic personality and in the average case, and we are here dealing with very average cases, it can usually be traced to an excess of Momism.

There is a distinct sense of a mental configuration which needs to get its own way, bawling and bottom lip pulling, and which will naturally seek unintelligent or cowed social interactions which, in the nature of things, excludes the possibility of a cure.

It goes without saying that it is a form of megalomaniacal madness which is so common that it is safe from any risk of incarceration in padded cells due to there being an insufficient number of men in white coats to deal with it.

It is in the way of being an epidemic which, because it is untreatable, has to be accepted as normal.

Child-centred education is probably the cause. Once Spock's bullshit about treating the little monsters with affectionate care, and being attentive to their every whim, had infected the self-improvers at coffee mornings, the result was inevitable although I doubt that it had been envisaged that ad hom experts would lecture the rest of us about ad homs being logical fallacies.

That is really very amusing.

"The most worthless of mankind are not afraid to condemn in others the same disorders which they allow in themselves; "

Edward Gibbon--Chapter VI.

S'mattah with Mormons?

No, FM, I am not asking you to clone a mammoth. I asked you whether you realize what you are doing (by combining processes that you are not even aware of).

My failure of imagination - what about your failure of imagination?
O.K., we have a set of genes G {g1, g2 ... gn}, we have a set of elementary events of variations of genes V{v1, v2 ... vm}, and a set of random mutations of genes M {m1, m2 ... mp}.
1. Where is the prove that V and M are subject to definition at all, for they are infinite? How can you define (... and exhaust subsequently in the studies) an infinite set of events?
2. Where is the evidence that M can cause brand new G, let alone 'improved' and 'adapted' to some external events that M does not have a correlation with? Where is the logic of all this? ... and if the genetics really has 'a feedback' with the external environment, how can you exclude the possibility of possessing intelligence?
3. Where is the evidence that V and M are driving any evolution at all? (evidences not in the results - the fossil records - but in the causes)
4. What is the math probability for an M, for example, to cause an 'improved' G event (taking into account that we don't even know whether M could be defined or not) ... and can you give an example of an M causing any 'improved' G?
5. What is the scope of operation of the evolution (if exists)? What divides the living matter from the non-living matter?
6. If the processes, driving the 'evolution', really exist in the physical world (as the theory claims) they should be subject to formal math modelling. Where is the formal math model of the evolution ... and where are the verification and validation tests of the (non-described formally) 'evolutionary processes', etc.

I will treat this as though it deserves a serious response.



Upon what basis do you allege that the "variations" in genes and mutations are infinite? Upon what basis do you allege that anything which is infinite cannot be defined? More importantly, why do i need to explain your claims? I pointed out that more than one gene can be involved in a characteristic, and the the variation comes from a combination of genetic events. At no time did i allege that evolution is caused by variations in genes.

In short, you are making a set of ipse dixit statements without substantiation. You make up a set of silly letter and number symbols, apparently in an attempt to appear authoritative, as though you were expressing mathematical truths. There is no reason to consider you to be authoritative, and, in fact, your statements in this thread and in others show someone who doesn't understand genetics and epigenetics, and who doesn't understand that morphological characteristics are usually caused by the expressions of several genes. Again, there is no reason to consider you authoritative.

Your number 2 is just as feeble, because of your resort to a straw man fallacy, as you did in number one, and because there is no basis to allege that any "feedback" takes place. At no time have i alleged that mutation causes brand new genes; at no time have i written of "adapted genes" nor have i used any term so silly as "improved" genes. The evolutionary process is value neutral. It is the expression of genes which matters not the mere existence of genes. No gene is ever "adapted" or "improved." The only thing that matters is whether or not the expression of a set of genes confers a reproductive advantage. If it doesn't, nothing in particular happens. If the expression of genes hinders reproductive success, the individual(s) concerned are unlikely to pass on their traits. If the expression of genes enhances reproductive success, the individual(s) concerned are not only likely to pass on their traits, but more likely to do so than those individuals which don't have those genetic expressions. You really don't understand this process at all.

The evidence that genetic expression leads to traits that both enhance and hinder reproductive success is all around us, and in the fossil record. Mammoth existed and prospered for almost five million years. In northern climates, those with long, thick coats were more successful, and eventually only the wooly mammoth survived in those climates. All mammoth species disappeared about 5000 years ago. That's because that's how evolution works. If a set genetic expressions confer reproductive advantage in the conditions which prevail at a specific time period, the species will prosper, and speciation may occur, as with the rise of the wooly mammoth. When propitious conditions no longer obtain, the species may cease to prosper, and may even die out--and mammoth are an excellent example of this.

You number four is a classic example of your incoherence. Your insistence on "defined" and "definition" is essentially meaningless because you have not defined "definition" for a discussion of this type. Once again, "improved" is a meaningless term because the only thing that matters is reproductive success. As the case with the mammoth demonstrates, in certain conditions, reproductive success can cause a species to prosper, and can cause speciation. When those conditions not long obtain, the species will no longer prosper, and may die out. Drop that "improved" crapola, because it has no meaning in a discussion of the evolutionary process.

Your number five is equally incoherent, and as you do so often, you imply a purposive characteristic in the evolutionary process. Evolution is indifferent to the value of genetic expression. Whatever works to benefit a species will cause the species to prosper, for so long as the conditions which favor reproductive success obtain. Otherwise, sorry 'bout your luck.

The evolutionary process is not modeled mathematically. Once again, it is an entirely random process--what works prospers a species, what doesn't work is either neutral or it may extinguish the species. You're really pathetic with your phony attempts to appear as though you are some kind of mathematical whizz-kid. Micro-organism generations run about three an hour. There are almost 8800 hours in a year. Therefore, from a single micro-organism, tens of thousands of interations of reproduction can take place in a year's time. Over the billions of years of life on earth, you end up with numbers which are dozens of powers of ten. A change in genetic expression can fail billions upon billions of times, and speciation can still occur because there are billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of iterations, and therefore of opportunities for success. Animal generations are a matter of a year or two, so that with thousands and thousands of breeding pairs over thousands and thousands of years, significant speciation can occur, even it it fails billions of times. Major plant organisms reproduce every year, to the same mathematics apply to them.

So, to summaries, your English sucks-- the word you keep using, "prove," is a verb. The word you want is "proof," a noun. Your comments are incoherent, for two reasons. The first is the constant use of the straw man fallacy. I am not obliged to provide proof for claims i haven't made. The second is your constant reliance on ipse dixit statements. We don't have to believe what you say just because you have said it. If you make a claim without substantiation, there is no reason to believe your claim. The best thing to do in that case is to ignore you, which is what i usually do. Finally, this all started because you keep attempting to suggest that there is a purposive process involved here. You keep trying to suggest that evolution "wants" to "improve" or "adapt" a gene. Nothing could be further from the truth. Evolution occurs when genetic expression provides a reproductive advantage--otherwise, nothing happens. Sort of like the result when you start playing your silly games about mathematics.

Periodically, a chap is feechewered on the front pages of our tabloid papers who has fathered upwards of 20 kids on 3 or 4 ladies.

If "the only thing that matters is whether or not the expression of a set of genes confers a reproductive advantage" we have evolutionary heroes and heroines on our hands. Those who choose to have no children, or only one, being defined as evolutionary failures.

All the examples we have had our attention drawn to are concerned with the welfare payments involved.

The default to mammoths and finches in debates about religious issues are trolling, irrelevant, evasive and cheating.

They are not infinite, but you cannot specify them and cannot limit them, which virtually means that they are 'undefinable in number ... and in kind'.


On the basis of the general rules of math, for example. You cannot apply 'classical math' to expressions with infinity - one needs special calculus (with differential equations) to calculate undefined things tending to infinity. You cannot use the classical math for this.
In the very same way one cannot apply classical logic over undefined processes to explain events that are observed ... and explained exclusively as phenomenology only.


Because you want to participate in a discussion. Actually you don't 'need to' - this a very personal decision.


Can you give an example of a 'positive' mutation that has helped somebody to adapt to something, and what is the mechanics underlying the processes and correlating to that adaption.


This is called formal model and has nothing to do with me and my appearance. It helps people to operationalize the processes and to prove that they are not just written on paper, but are free of any contradictions and are plausible and eventually possible to operate in the real world. The formal model resolves the problem of the possibility, or plausibility as a minimum.
Thus for example if your claims about the stochastic origin of the processes driving the appearing of new species is true, the functions of probabilistic distributions should apply.
Can you apply such functions to the genetics of the newly emerged species? (pls., pay attention that you claim that the processes are probabilistic - it is not me).
If you take for example the cases of blond, brown, black, and red hair the functions of probabilistic distribution are applicable, but if you take out of the sleeve some blue hair there is no function of probabilistic distribution that could apply.

Setanta's post is over-loaded with ipse dixit statements throughout. Indecently so on a thread with "intelligence" in its title.

First you state that infinite things cannot be defined (although you have not shown what you think definition means in such a discussion), then you say that they are not in fact infinite, then you say that "classical math" (another undefined term) cannot be applied to expression with infinity, then you say that one needs special calculus--this is exactly why i say you are incoherent. You can't keep your story straight. The more you babble about mathematics the more you convince others that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Once again, evolution is value neutral. There is no such thing as a "positive" mutation. We can also add adpatation to the long and growing list of matters in this discussion which you don't understand. Human beings developed agriculture using the mental and physical tool kit they alread possessed. No genetic changes were necessary. You clearly don't understand adaptation.

Operationalize simply means to provide a speculative measurement to things which are otherwise not measurable. It is a widely used term in speculative "sciences" such as psychology, and in real sciences such as physics when working in speculative realms. As with just about every other English word of more than one syllable, you demonstrate that you just fling around terms without really knowing what they mean.

When i point out that changes in organism which lead to evolutionary changes are, as you choose to name it, stochastic, that is not a claim, that is reality. You continue to attempt to suggest some purposive process for which there is no evidence. Had there ever been a reproductive advantage to "blue hair," it would have, eventually, appeared. However, it is highly unlikely that that would ever occur because of a lack of a blue pigment. Even blue eyes don't contain any blue pigment. People with "blue eyes" have significantly less melanin in their irises, so that they absorb far less short-wave radiation, and only appear blue. Other than in the case of albinism, all human beings have a great deal of melanin in their hair--so you're not going to be seeing blue hair, other than in old ladies who use a color rinse and punks with no style senese. I think we need to add color optics to the long and growing list of things you don't understand.

You also don't seem to understand that in a probabilistic process for which there are literally billions of iterations, at any time that the probability reaches one, the odds against cease to matter. With billions of iterations, probability can reach one many times, so mathematical modeling is meaningless. Just another silly conceit of yours in which you attempt to make yourself look wise . . . and fail.

It could have been but such an idea was illegal in the Classical world and punishable by death. Jesus mentioned it and it is possible that it was the reason He was executed. Pilate would never have understood.

If Setanta knew about the important things in history instead of a load of disconnected propaganda written by factionalists he would resist parading his ignorance.

Jesus as the first modern scientist, and martyred for the cause, is not a concept Setanta can afford to embrace. Every time he turned the lights on would remind him of his incoherence if he risked it.

Although Pythagoras has a claim in that respect too. He was hounded and his followers murdered.

The truth that the decimal representation of π never ends and never settles into a permanent repeating pattern blew the Classical mind.

your example of the komodo dragon seems to be a panic attack (once again). When you start getting backed into a corner you claim a counter position or assert a totally new "example"

I provided the anadromous fish example as one that demonstrates "macro evolution" in just a few hundred generations. Noone said anything that komodo dragons were "descended" from anadomus fish other than you. Your comprehension kills, as ci said, do need some serious work is youre going to continue in English.

Our "knowledge " in paleo sciences is waaay better than you know. Species and subspecies of hundreds of species are able to be followed through a local time-stratigraphic sequence. You keep denying this fact (I assume your religious position requires you to maintain a closed mind)

No big news here. Most ALL living reptiles (with the exception of turtles) re "cousins" of dinosaurs. In fact, there are but 2 of the subclasses of reptiles left still in existence.
(which illustrates my earlier comments of the "winnowing" effect of extinction upon the many ancient classes and species. All the ancient reptiles that no longer are in existence show us the relationship of Darwins idea of "overproduction of species" and Raups mathematicl models that demonstrate the importance of multiple species in various genera enhance the possibility of species evolving and not going extinct. (Although extinction is a tool of selection) . "Selection" in the sense that Wallace wanted Darwin to use in his works.

The genetic development show us the development of the venom glands within goa, komodo dragons nd several other species of monitor lizards (some more developed than others). The fossil record lso shows us the geographic development nd isolation of several others of these species through time. Its evolutionary history is actually pretty good so I always wonder whats yer point of using this species as an "example" of ID?
Youre assertion of 6 different toxinsare actually 57 (just like Heinz ketchup) different proto toxins and toxins that can be identified by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spec. The "sequence" of their appearances , and any associations with specific SNP pr multiple genetic compliments is now being worked on (I have no results to report but Im afraid you are going to have to abandon yet another
paragon of "ID" mantra, (like when Michael Behe claimed that the 26 enzymes that act in a "enzymatic cascade" to affect blood clotting in mammals was an Irreducible complexity unique to ID). Blood clotting was then easily traced to a simple series of enzymes that could be traced down to a mere two or three in Limulus polyphemus and increasing numbers of enzymes in successively "higher chordate "
I believe that we will see that the vat number of possible salivary "poisons" will be traceable, species by species , to some simple salivary and digestive enzyme variant in proto Varian species from Asia or Australia (places where the actual grand relatives of the komodo dragon were found as fossils, in their "proper order") You recall the "right ages of rocks that show us the fossils in specific adjacent rock sequences?

As I said, I don't have any data now, but as soon as we get something published on the subject, I suspect that yet ANOTHER attempt atirreducible complexity logic may fall.

PS, in your assertions at Set, why do you try to deny some sense of mathematical analyses in evolution/developmental analyses?

I already listed several math tools common to evo-devo work. In fact one of your buddies(during your brief assertions about needing "Math proof" about th 20 was making fun of the way I spelled "kriging" . In mot discovery and assembly work, we use many modeling tools , so please stop trying to sound like differential equations and iteration techniques are foreign to evolutionary biology. You are just unfamiliar with math that is NOT associated with your job in playing with computers. You should really get some books on Math analyses for the field sciences and that way you wont sound so damned ignorant and silly.

Ive gotta go ted hay, So in summary, youre still not reading anything other than ID websites it appears. Too bad, you may learn something by being more receptive to ideas that are foreign (and unknown) to you.

Harald is attempting to use the typical creationist dodge that if the odds against an occurrence are (allegedly) astronomical, then it can't happen. That is, of course, a witless position because at any such time as the probability reaches one, the odds against become meaningless. For example, mammoth were around for nearly 5,000,000 years. The number of reproductive iterations were in the billions and billions. It doesn't matter what the odds against an offspring with long, wooly hairs were because there were sufficient iterations to assure that such offspring would regularly occur. When the climate changed, the previously innocuous morphology became an adapatation which enhanced reproductive opportunity. It's pointless to explain it, though, because as you note, if you thwart him in one example, he just tries to dredge up another. His silly remarks about mathematical probabilities are just a smoke screen for his insistence on the intervention of a magic sky daddy

lol, one thing is for sure! You have never ever in your life studied something remotely looking like statistic! That's for sure.

Unbelievable the above! Abominable and unbelievable.
Cry and wheep!

I didn't say exactly that. I said that all possible variations and mutations on any genetic code ever found in the fossil records of FM are undefined in number and hence cannot be used in formal logic modelling unless some more information about their specification is found.


Definition in any discussion means: a statement of the meaning of a term (a word, phrase, or other set of symbols) as used in the subject matter of the discussion (if different, or constrained in addition, or extended in comparison to the generally accepted interpretation).


Yes, they are finite, but you will never be able to define and to count them (as you are proceeding through the rye).


Classical math by Def. is: In the foundations of mathematics, classical mathematics refers generally to the mainstream approach to mathematics, which is based on classical logic and ZFC set theory.
When one starts studying predicate logic and differential equations (if you ever heard of that) - this is called calculus.


Yes, you cannot calculate anything with infinity by using the high school knowledge of math.


This was an example only. As you are such an expert in predicate logic why don't you make here some inference by analogy: In the way you need a calculus to calculate expressions with infinity, in the very same way you will need special math logic to explain the probabilistic genetic processes (IF they are stochatics at all ... that you will never be able to prove, as you go).


Don't talk about the others, please. Restrain talking about yourself. Or maybe you are using special grammar forms to hide in the mob. Instead of saying 'I don't understand this' you use the implicit and impersonal form 'People don't understand this'.


We all know that there are a lot of physical, chemical, biological, radiological, GMO misunderstanding, etc. factors that can make mutations causing various curable and incurable diseases.
Can you show an example of a mutation that has made a superman - improved resistance to X-rays, or Gamma rays, for example. Do you have the example or we will continue with the generalities?


This is very interesting statement - that the 'mathematical modeling is meaningless'. You may continue further and claim that the verification and validation testing of any theory or whatever is meaningless as well, the ultimate goal of which will be to make anything go.
With such an approach one can create any theory about anything, no matter whether this thing is existing or not, is possible or not, is plausible or not, and its explanation as phenomenology is justified or not, etc.
This is a universal method for random theory generation. It can be computerized and one will be able to generate 'scientific' theories at the speed of light in vacuum. The only challenge will be to find some readers for this.

You seem to use "lol" as an exchange for anything intelligent.
Id like to have the audience recognize that quahog hs YET to engage in any debate or argument from a point of actual knowledge. Hes merely a serial "Google clipper" and his choices are based upon ID and CREATIONIST viewpoints (all the while inveighing against Christianity).

Maybe hes a Jesuit .

are you even aware of the mass of math analyses prformed in evolutionary biology?
are you familiar with
spectral analyses "non stationary" (if your anything in UK , youll have a subscription place in MyJSTOR0
in its application of mtDNA NP's or haplogroup analyses of human populations? (probably not but you can always LIU on Google to try to sound intelligent by grouping nonsensical strings of words)
How bout transform math (like F its a very important tool in time series functions Fourier and Laplacian?)
All these tools, beside the statistics wre transferred into biology day-to-day analyses from their original engineering applications.
Math tools are used wherever they can be of service, they are not (as you seem to wanna believe), UNOQUE applications specifically focused upon a single discipline

I see archeaologists using Spectral analyses (similar to population dynamics) to develop large regional 3D maps from Ancient tree ring data

youre talking out of your hat again. Cladograms and population projections and spectrograms of fossil relations and projections are ALWAYS analyzed using incomplete data. We even assume its incomplete because there are always new forms being found and they almost always merely fit WITHIN the defined cladistics of that group. (otherwise we have candidates for entirely new and unknown clades)

Look at haplogroup assignment for human populations. 2/3 of the haplogroups weren't even known until scienctists recovered full skeletal and DNA complements from living and fossil participants. That did NOT affect the accuracy of the haplogroup definitions.
You have to only consider radioactive isotope "decay" analyses. In this technique we ALWAYS find specimens lready having undergone significant decay. This doesn't affect the time calcs one JOT.
When you assert something you oughta have at least SOME idea of what youre speaking

once again I reiterate.
Herald represents the carpenter whose only tool is a hammer (his laptop) and therefore he sees the worlds problems as a nail (a computer program)
Hes wildly ignorant of all the knowledge base that lies behind the evolutionary SCIENCES, but that is of no concern to him. Hes trying wildly to assert an ID world without ANY evidence

This is general talks, or as it is usually called - generalities. Why don't you tell us something more specific.