Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[lasthero]

I have never questioned his profession.

I never said you did. That wasn't my question.

My question was whether or not what Mike said would constitute an attack. This is a simple yes or no question.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I never said you did. That wasn't my question.

My question was whether or not what Mike said would constitute an attack. This is a simple yes or no question.

It isn't a simple yes or no question. I've answered your question. Mike I believe might be a programmer...I can't remember for sure. However, he questioned Dogma's profession due to his post concerning knowledge that a programmer should have and found it not to be characteristic of that profession. I am not a programmer and must depend on what other programmers say about the program which is that it isn't a blind process nor is it a true simulation of actual biological evolution.

 

[lasthero]

It isn't a simple yes or no question.

It is. He is either attacking Dogma by your definition or he is not.

I've answered your question.

The answer to a yes or no question is 'yes' or 'no'. Waffling around the question is something politicians do.

Mike I believe might be a programmer...I can't remember for sure. However, he questioned Dogma's profession due to his post concerning knowledge that a programmer should have and found it not to be characteristic of that profession.

Whether Dogma is or is not a programmer has nothing to do with the merits of his arguments. If Dogma proved his profession, would it change anything in this discussion? If not, why bother calling it into question?

 

[whois]

I would say that you agree that you have been accused of quote mining yourself when in fact that was an unfounded accusation.

nooooooo, you're kidding.
these people would NEVER accuse someone of quote mining, or misrepresentation, or being creationist.

i can only imagine the number of times my posts were reported for quoting a certain scientist.
even when i uploaded the entire paper i was misrepresenting (lying) about what he said.
i still scratch my head over that.
i guess they didn't like the fact this scientist was kicking sand in darwins face.
they just couldn't accept this scientist saying ALL of the tenets of the modern synthesis has been outright overturned or replaced.

i've posted links to papers that say gene trees and species trees seldom correlate.
i've posted links to paper that MA experiments decrease in fitness linearly with increasing mutation.
i've posted links to papers that state gradualism and the adaptive nature of evolution is in error.

maybe i need to change "rational" to "the thorn in your side"

 

[whois]

It isn't a simple yes or no question. I've answered your question. Mike I believe might be a programmer...I can't remember for sure. However, he questioned Dogma's profession due to his post concerning knowledge that a programmer should have and found it not to be characteristic of that profession. I am not a programmer and must depend on what other programmers say about the program which is that it isn't a blind process nor is it a true simulation of actual biological evolution.

don't confuse me with mike.
i sent the program and asked the question.

 

[lasthero]

`

don't confuse me with mike.
i sent the program and asked the question.

Why? Say he did answer your question and didn't refuse. What changes about this discussion?

 

[Loudmouth]

i can only imagine the number of times my posts were reported for quoting a certain scientist.

I can only imagine how many times you have ignored quotes from those same scientists.

even when i uploaded the entire paper i was misrepresenting (lying) about what he said.
i still scratch my head over that.

Uploading a paper does not stop one from misrepresenting a scientist's position in that paper.

i guess they didn't like the fact this scientist was kicking sand in darwins face.

You ignore all of the quotes where those same scientists are agreeing with Darwin.

they just couldn't accept this scientist saying ALL of the tenets of the modern synthesis has been outright overturned or replaced.

You ignore all of those quotes where those same scientists describe the situations where those same tenets still apply.

i've posted links to papers that say gene trees and species trees seldom correlate.

"The comparative infrequency of HGT in the eukaryote part of the biological world means, however, that in this case the conceptual implications for the TOL might not be as drastic: the evolutionary histories of many eukaryotes appear to produce tree-like patterns."--Eugene Koonin
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32

i've posted links to paper that MA experiments decrease in fitness linearly with increasing mutation.

It also shows that you have increases in fitness with lower mutation rates.

i've posted links to papers that state gradualism and the adaptive nature of evolution is in error.

What you failed to address is that there is a difference between genomic evolution and phenotypic evolution. You remove the context to distort what the author is saying.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is. He is either attacking Dogma by your definition or he is not.



The answer to a yes or no question is 'yes' or 'no'. Waffling around the question is something politicians do.



Whether Dogma is or is not a programmer has nothing to do with the merits of his arguments. If Dogma proved his profession, would it change anything in this discussion? If not, why bother calling it into question?

I guess you have to ask the one that questioned in the first place, don't you think?

 

[lasthero]

who's mike?
i for one doubt if dogmahunter is a programmer.

i presented dogmahunter with a very simple program, and asked him a simple question about it that any programmer should have been able to answer.
so far he has provided no answer.

i presented a base conversion program written in the same language to a mathematician on a different forum and asked him why it didn't work right, he had no problem pointing out my error, and it wasn't even the language he was familiar with, he programs in python.
so yes, i question dogahunters assertion that he is a programmer.

I would like to repeat here that just because he doesn't answer your question doesn't mean he CAN'T.

 

[Oncedeceived]

don't confuse me with mike.
i sent the program and asked the question.

Well whois I am not confusing you with Mike as I was referring to Mike.

 

[lasthero]

I guess you have to ask the one that questioned in the first place, don't you think?

I'm asking YOU what YOU think about the questioning, and you are, strangely, not giving a straight answer.

You seem capable of identifying attacks when they're thrown at theists like Whois. Why can't you do it the other way around?

 

[Oncedeceived]

nooooooo, you're kidding.
these people would NEVER accuse someone of quote mining, or misrepresentation, or being creationist.

i can only imagine the number of times my posts were reported for quoting a certain scientist.
even when i uploaded the entire paper i was misrepresenting (lying) about what he said.
i still scratch my head over that.
i guess they didn't like the fact this scientist was kicking sand in darwins face.
they just couldn't accept this scientist saying ALL of the tenets of the modern synthesis has been outright overturned or replaced.

i've posted links to papers that say gene trees and species trees seldom correlate.
i've posted links to paper that MA experiments decrease in fitness linearly with increasing mutation.
i've posted links to papers that state gradualism and the adaptive nature of evolution is in error.

maybe i need to change "rational" to "the thorn in your side"

Exactly. We quote mine, even if we are representing exactly what they are saying and we are liars if we disagree with them.

 

[whois]

`


Why? Say he did answer your question and didn't refuse. What changes about this discussion?

this is in relation to the boxcar2d program.
he states that he knows about these things because he is a programmer.
not only does he state he is a programmer, but he gives the illusion he is very proficient in it.
in the PM he sent me, he list 5 or 6 languages that he programs in.
little does this man realize, but VBA and visual basic makes use of the very commands my program uses.

 

[lasthero]

this is in relation to the boxcar2d program.
he states that he knows about these things because he is a programmer.
not only does he state he is a programmer, but he gives the illusion he is very proficient in it.
in the PM he sent me, he list 5 or 6 languages that he programs in.
little does this man realize, but VBA and visual basic makes use of the very commands my program uses.

Let's say he proved he was a programmer.

What changes about this argument?

 

[bhsmte]

I don't have the time to look it up, but Mike Enders said something of the effect to 'If you're a programmer, I'm the POTUS'



You're assuming that he's provided no answer because he CAN'T, as opposed to him possibly not feeling the need to answer you.



So you would say that he's lying?

All one has to do is read the posts of Mike to come to their own conclusions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm asking YOU what YOU think about the questioning, and you are, strangely, not giving a straight answer.

You seem capable of identifying attacks when they're thrown at theists like Whois. Why can't you do it the other way around?

I think that there is something you are missing here. First of all, Dogma is very caustic towards those who do not agree with him. He calls people out and out liars. I've never seen whois ever be rude or caustic to anyone even those who are that way with him. The attacks are unfounded. In this case there may be some foundation for the accusation. There is a difference between calling someone a liar when in fact they are, and calling someone a liar just because they don't agree with you or present something you don't like. It comes down to whether or not something is founded and presented to be substantiating the accusation or not.

 

[lasthero]

I think that there is something you are missing here. First of all, Dogma is very caustic towards those who do not agree with him. He calls people out and out liars. I've never seen whois ever be rude or caustic to anyone even those who are that way with him. The attacks are unfounded. In this case there may be some foundation for the accusation. There is a difference between calling someone a liar when in fact they are, and calling someone a liar just because they don't agree with you or present something you don't like. It comes down to whether or not something is founded and presented to be substantiating the accusation or not.

So would you say that Mike was attacking Dogma? Yes or no, please.

 

[whois]

Let's say he proved he was a programmer.

What changes about this argument?

the first thing that would change is that he wouldn't have come in here and say boxcar2d simulates the processes of biological evolution.
because it doesn't.
as a matter of fact no one has proved that it even APPLIES to biological evolution.
in order to prove it does is by simulating ALL of the processes involved, and boxcar2d does not do that.

 

[lasthero]

the first thing that would change is that he wouldn't have come in here and say boxcar2d simulates the processes of biological evolution.
because it doesn't.
as a matter of fact no one has proved that it even APPLIES to biological evolution.
in order to prove it does is by simulating ALL of the processes involved, and boxcar2d does not do that.

He'd already made the argument when you PMed him. It isn't going away, regardless. So what was the point of PMIng him?

 

[whois]

He'd already made the argument when you PMed him. It isn't going away, regardless. So what was the point of PMIng him?

he has made no argument at all by PM.