The 90% Theory

JohnR7 · Aug 28, 2006

Now that the industrial revolution is in full swing, they have come up with what they call the 90% theory. This theory says that in a lot of cases it is cheaper to throw away 10% of what you manufacture then it is to try and hit a 100% efficency rate.

So evolutionists are trying to apply this efficiency to evolution. They say that it is easier for put out 90% efficient species. Then dump the 10% or make a adjustment so they can not reproduce. That way evolution can dump all of the errors in that 10% in order to get rid of them.

EvoDan · Aug 28, 2006

Who is "they", and how are they "applying" this "efficiency" to evolution?

imind · Aug 28, 2006

JohnR7 said:
Now that the industrial revolution is in full swing, they have come up with what they call the 90% theory. This theory says that in a lot of cases it is cheaper to throw away 10% of what you manufacture then it is to try and hit a 100% efficency rate.

So evolutionists are trying to apply this efficiency to evolution. They say that it is easier for put out 90% efficient species. Then dump the 10% or make a adjustment so they can not reproduce. That way evolution can dump all of the errors in that 10% in order to get rid of them.

somebody please make sense of this for me. OP, if you'd like to give it another go, please, feel free.

vitodabona · Aug 28, 2006

Is this what goes on in the factory that manufactures your strawmen for you?

Opcode42 · Aug 28, 2006

Was there an actual question here, point of discussion, or was it just rambling?

And for my own personal edification, are you in the regular habit of abandonding threads when you get called out to present evidence? Just want to know before I waste more time in 3 or 4 more threads where you subsequently leave when we started trying to get you to back up your claims.

vitodabona · Aug 28, 2006

Opcode42 said:
Was there an actual question here, point of discussion, or was it just rambling?

The latter.

Opcode42 said:
And for my own personal edification, are you in the regular habit of abandonding threads when you get called out to present evidence? Just want to know before I waste more time in 3 or 4 more threads where you subsequently leave when we started trying to get you to back up your claims.

You nailed it.

BeamMeUpScotty · Aug 28, 2006

I think Led Zeppelin said it best on side 2 of their second album..."it's time to ramble on..."

GoSeminoles! · Aug 28, 2006

BeamMeUpScotty said:
I think Led Zeppelin said it best on side 2 of their second album..."it's time to ramble on..."

No, you are thinking of Ambrosia's debut album, OneEighty.

JohnR7 · Aug 28, 2006

Opcode42 said:
Just want to know before I waste more time in 3 or 4 more threads where you subsequently leave when we started trying to get you to back up your claims.

I am the one that wastes a lot of time on here because no one knows anything about evolutionary theory. Even most Phds in Biology know very little about it.

The subject here is "COST". The cost of evolution. The way science works is you have to KNOW the keywords. That is also the way Google works. So if you memorize KEY words then you can find information about that very fast in this day and age.

In this case we are talking about COST along with EVOLUTION or NATURAL SELECTION. The tread is wide open to anything that has to do with the "cost" Here is an example:

Haldane stated that there is a cost of natural selection for new beneficial alleles to be substituted over time. Most of this cost, which leads to "genetic deaths," is in the early generations of the substitution process when the new allele is low in frequency. It depends on the initial frequency and dominance value, but not the selection coefficient, of the advantageous allele. There have been numerous suggestions on how to reduce the cost for preexisting genetic variation that goes from disadvantageous, or neutral, to advantageous with a change in the environment. However, the cost of natural selection for new alleles that arise by mutation is assumed to be high, based on the assumption that new mutant alleles arise in natural populations as single events [1/(2N) of the total alleles]. However, not all mutant alleles arise as single events. Premeiotic mutations occur frequently in individuals (germinal mosaics), giving rise to multiple copies of identical mutant alleles called a "cluster" (C) with an initial allele frequency of C/(2N) instead of 1/(2N). These clusters of new mutant alleles reduce the cost of natural selection in direct proportion to the relative size of the cluster. Hence new advantageous alleles that arise by mutation have the greatest chance of going to fixation if they occur in large clusters in small populations.

JohnR7 · Aug 28, 2006

vitodabona said:
Is this what goes on in the factory that manufactures your strawmen for you?

Do a little research on what evolutionists have to say about the COST of evolution. While evolution maybe a strawmen theory I am not the author. Evolutionists are the ones that invent evolutionary theory. The more I study it, the more I learn about it, the more I realize that the average person knows nothing about it or almost nothing about it. Even people with Phds know almost nothing about it, outside of the area they are researching.

1 Cor. 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

AnEmpiricalAgnostic · Aug 28, 2006

JohnR7 said:
Now that the industrial revolution is in full swing, they have come up with what they call the 90% theory. This theory says that in a lot of cases it is cheaper to throw away 10% of what you manufacture then it is to try and hit a 100% efficency rate.

So evolutionists are trying to apply this efficiency to evolution. They say that it is easier for put out 90% efficient species. Then dump the 10% or make a adjustment so they can not reproduce. That way evolution can dump all of the errors in that 10% in order to get rid of them.

With almost 22,000 posts I think John has resorted to creating his arguments with a Madlibs book.

Mincus · Aug 28, 2006

JohnR7 said:
I am the one that wastes a lot of time on here because no one knows anything about evolutionary theory. Even most Phds in Biology know very little about it.

Do you think that maybe, just MAYBE, that it might be your idea of evolution is incorrect, meaning that your assertions about evolution don't match up to what others say?

Just a thought.

JohnR7 · Aug 28, 2006

Mincus said:
Do you think that maybe, just MAYBE, that it might be your idea of evolution is incorrect, meaning that your assertions about evolution don't match up to what others say?Just a thought.

Maybe Evos have come to realize that their theory is incorrect. They use to try and defend it, but they do not try to defend it anymore.

JohnR7 · Aug 28, 2006

AnEmpiricalAgnostic said:
With almost 22,000 posts

Yeah, 22,000 posts and I still have not shown creationism to be true. But at least I have proven evolution to be false.

EvoDan · Aug 28, 2006

JohnR7 said:
Maybe Evos have come to realize that their theory is incorrect. They use to try and defend it, but they do not try to defend it anymore.

Yeah... that's it.

XTE · Aug 28, 2006

Megalomaniasism is a horrible, horrible thing to watch in anyone else.

When it finally takes hold the person always feel it's "them against the world." That "they know more than people that actually study the topic."

It's incredible to watch because it's rare, and you can't hardly believe what you are seeing.

I can't believe what I am seeing.

Maxwell511 · Aug 28, 2006

JohnR7 said:
Now that the industrial revolution is in full swing, they have come up with what they call the 90% theory. This theory says that in a lot of cases it is cheaper to throw away 10% of what you manufacture then it is to try and hit a 100% efficency rate.

So evolutionists are trying to apply this efficiency to evolution. They say that it is easier for put out 90% efficient species. Then dump the 10% or make a adjustment so they can not reproduce. That way evolution can dump all of the errors in that 10% in order to get rid of them.

Are you debating against the TOE based on the fact that "evolutionists" believe it doesn't break the 2nd LOT? Or am I not understanding your post at all?

Hydra009 · Aug 28, 2006

JohnR7 said:
Now that the industrial revolution is in full swing

Sorry, I stopped at this. It's impossible to take someone seriously when they post about technological developments in the late 18th and early 19th centuries as if they just now hit the scene.

TheBear · Aug 28, 2006

Hydra009 said:
Sorry, I stopped at this. It's impossible to take someone seriously when they post about technological developments in the late 18th and early 19th centuries as if they just now hit the scene.

random_guy · Aug 28, 2006

Moore's Law says that the number of transitors on a chip doubles every 18 months. So are the evolutionists applying this theory? If evolution was correct, the number of neuron connections in a brain should be doubling every 18 months, but according to phrenology, this has not been the case. Therefore, evolution is false.

The 90% Theory

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

GoSeminoles!

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

bel esprit

NON-WOKED

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency