What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[Ophiolite]

Then she's not "missing," is she?

You do realize that every missing link found produces two more missing links, don't you?

Please. Stop being obtuse. I know you aren't anywhere near as dumb as you are pretending. By playing that game it suggests you think I am that dumb.

 

[Ophiolite]

You are not fooling anyone. How many "challenges" have you posted? I have never seen one that was not garbage and refuted on the first page. Usually in the first response the thread was effectively dead.

As I reflected on your post an astounding though occured to me. AV might actually be serious about his challenges. I have always presumed they were a form of trolling, which would be consistent with AV's general online persona. But what if he actually thinks they are penetrating attacks on atheist thought? Surely not?

 

[AV1611VET]

Please. Stop being obtuse.

Post 748 please.

 

[AV1611VET]

As I reflected on your post an astounding though occured to me. AV might actually be serious about his challenges. I have always presumed they were a form of trolling, which would be consistent with AV's general online persona. But what if he actually thinks they are penetrating attacks on atheist thought? Surely not?

I consider my Apple Challenge to be my single most ... to borrow some of your words ... penetrating attack on scientific thought.

It is my magnum opus, so to speak, but I give God the credit for giving it to me.

If I only had one post to my credit here, it would be that one.

(Second to that is my Raisin Challenge.)

 

[Ophiolite]

Post 748 please.

Now all you have done is double down on the obtuse. Rude, arrogant, provocative posting on you part. Man up, speak directly and address the question and comments with integrity and no dissembling. It's distasteful in the extreme.

 

[o_mlly]

Sorry for the late reply. I had to sort through all my “fan” mail. I think what follows responds to the points under discussion. If not let me know.

Yes, descendants are mutates, in the common use of the word, ie, “changed”. If the sexual descendant is not a clone of either parent then the descendant has mutated.

There are four causes to any effect -- material, efficient, formal and final. The material cause -- the matter -- defines only what the thing came from and is instrumental to the effect. The efficient cause is the reason that the thing came to be.

Yes, the Schrodinger equation predicts possible outcomes. And Born’s transformation predicts average probabilities..

What does "undirected emergent order" mean? "Emergent" properties are those that have no observable cause. "Emergent" implies the whole is somehow greater than its parts. Philosophically, claiming an "emergent" property violates First Principles, ie., Principle of Sufficient Reason. How does adding the modifier "undirected" clarify the "emergent" assumption? "Emergent", like "random", admits of ignorance. Putting that place-marker into play in order to push the model farther to improve our understanding of natural laws is fine until others forget that it was just a place-marker. Of course, theists know that natural laws are nothing more than God's will.

Yes, a majority of scientists accept one of the evo theories. Their consensus though should not be surprising. Claiming a consensus of scientists as evidence for the likelihood of evolution is like walking into Raymond James Stadium on game day and asking, “Who’s for the Chiefs?” Do you know why most PhD candidates never write their thesis on the problems with evo theories? Yes, that’s right; they want their PhD award. And, of course, we do not allow them to appeal to immaterial causes so they will stretch their speculations beyond what their data supports.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No, your "bad". You have shown the uncanny ability to grasp the obvious. That which cannot be proven must be presumed. Think about it.

The "flying monkeys" are flooding my email with their usual drivel. The lonely crudman above is just an example.

Some wonder why atheists often frequent Christian web sites but the opposite is quite rare. Lurk an atheist website for the answer: they eat their own. I suppose they export their venom here to troll the threads in vain attempts to buff up their egos. Misery loves company. Sartre was right, for the atheist, “Hell is other people”.

And yet you've decided to join us in the Physical and Life Sciences forums... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[o_mlly]

Not a mutation but many mutations.

Thanks, Frank, others missed the point. You do know that in the set of "many", "one" is always an element?

Why is that a bad thing? The vast majority of mutations are neutral and neutral mutations that accumulate in genomes have an important long-term impact on the evolution.

Who said it was "bad"?

Frankly, we do not know in the moment, or perhaps many generations later, whether a mutation was beneficial or detrimental.

Another argument from ignorance.

Better look up that particular fallacy, Frank. It doesn't mean what I think you apparently think it means.

 

[o_mlly]

And yet you've decided to join us in the Physical and Life Sciences forums... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Who is us? The sub-forum is "Creation & Evolution". Are you a closet creationist?

 

[Ophiolite]

Do you know why most PhD candidates never write their thesis on the problems with evo theories? Yes, that’s right; they want their PhD award.

That's a questionable take on reality:

• Can you substantiate your claim that most PhD candidates never write their these on the problems of evolutionary theory?
• If you claim that "most" candidates do not do so, you implicitly concede that some do. My gut feel is that that 90% of those studying a subject will lack the intellect to conceive of a sound and serious objection to theory. Or perhaps they would lack the arrogance to think they have yet learned enough of what's inside the box to think out side it.
  
• All that said, my perception of PhD research is that it addresses what is unknown in a field. i.e. it addresses a problem with current theory. So, in that sense, all PhD candidates are investigating a problem.

Yes, descendants are mutates, in the common use of the word, ie, “changed”. If the sexual descendant is not a clone of either parent then the descendant has mutated.

This is a science sub-forum and we are meant to be having a scientific discussion about a scientific topic. Why would you make use of the common meaning of a word when that word has a much more specifically defined meaning in science? Very odd.

 

[Astrid]

That's a questionable take on reality:

• Can you substantiate your claim that most PhD candidates never write their these on the problems of evolutionary theory?
• If you claim that "most" candidates do not do so, you implicitly concede that some do. My gut feel is that that 90% of those studying a subject will lack the intellect to conceive of a sound and serious objection to theory. Or perhaps they would lack the arrogance to think they have yet learned enough of what's inside the box to think out side it.
  
• All that said, my perception of PhD research is that it addresses what is unknown in a field. i.e. it addresses a problem with current theory. So, in that sense, all PhD candidates are investigating a problem.

This is a science sub-forum and we are meant to be having a scientific discussion about a scientific topic. Why would you make use of the common meaning of a word when that word has a much more specifically defined meaning in science? Very odd.

It's an odd combo of pseudo-sophisticated
vocab., (is that called snow job? American
idiom plz?) and utter garbage seemingly made
up "on the fly".

Isn't "mutate(s)" a verb?

You may be blurring the distinction between
"odd" and "ignorant".

 

[Ophiolite]

It's an odd combo of pseudo-sophisticated
vocab., (is that called snow job? American
idiom plz?) and utter garbage seemingly made
up "on the fly".

Using jargon is one of the features of a snow job, but many other techniques can be used to construct one. I think it's used in the UK as well.

I don't have anything against making things up "on the fly". If one is skilled in a field and has a quick wit, then one can often nail a concept or a goal with an on-the-spot exposition. However, if one isn't skilled in the field it is liable to come out as word salad.

Isn't "mutate(s)" a verb?

Yes. It certainly isn't a noun. That would be mutation(s).

You may be blurring the distinction between
"odd" and "ignorant".

No. I genuinely don't know why @o_mlly would phrase things as they did. That's why asked them.

 

[Frank Robert]

Thanks, Frank, others missed the point. You do know that in the set of "many", "one" is always an element?

You do like word games, but it was you who dismissed the many.

Who said it was "bad"?

That is what you implied.

Frankly, we do not know in the moment, or perhaps many generations later, whether a mutation was beneficial or detrimental.

Why is that a problem for you?

Better look up that particular fallacy, Frank. It doesn't mean what I think you apparently think it means.

You are wrong. If you disagree you need to tell us why?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sorry for the late reply.

No problem - though I'm more likely to see it and respond if you quote the post you're responding to - that gives me a forum alert.

Yes, descendants are mutates, in the common use of the word, ie, “changed”. If the sexual descendant is not a clone of either parent then the descendant has mutated.

Not under the definition of 'mutation' in biology. As is often the case, some words have specific definitions in specialist domains, independent of their common usage.

There are four causes to any effect -- material, efficient, formal and final. The material cause -- the matter -- defines only what the thing came from and is instrumental to the effect. The efficient cause is the reason that the thing came to be.

If you're referring to (pseudo)random events, their unexpectedness or unpredictability doesn't make any difference to the nature of their causality, either in Aristotlean philosophy or any other.

I would be more interested in your answers to the questions I asked - do random events have effects? If so, how can they not be causal?

What does "undirected emergent order" mean?

It means order emerging from the interactions of multiple subsystems as a result of their intrinsic properties, without external guidance or direction. Popular examples are starling murmurations or schools of fish. The patterns generated by cellular automata like Game of Life, or fractals like the Mandelbrot Set are also examples.

"Emergent" properties are those that have no observable cause. "Emergent" implies the whole is somehow greater than its parts. Philosophically, claiming an "emergent" property violates First Principles, ie., Principle of Sufficient Reason. How does adding the modifier "undirected" clarify the "emergent" assumption? "Emergent", like "random", admits of ignorance.

Not really. Emergent properties may not be predictable from those of the subsystems, but they have observable causes (the interactions of the subsystems). The idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts is rather ambiguous - it's more the case that the behaviour of the whole is quite different from that of its parts. See Emergence.

There's no conflict with the Principle of Sufficient Reason, emergence is inherently deterministic.

The modifier 'undirected' is to distinguish the self-organisation I'm describing from the directed form you suggested in #753. As I said, the idea of self-organisation carries the implication of being the result of intrinsic rather than extrinsic influence.

Putting that place-marker into play in order to push the model farther to improve our understanding of natural laws is fine until others forget that it was just a place-marker. Of course, theists know that natural laws are nothing more than God's will.

I don't see your point - it makes no difference scientifically whether natural laws are God's will, Sauron's will, or brute fact.

Yes, a majority of scientists accept one of the evo theories. Their consensus though should not be surprising. Claiming a consensus of scientists as evidence for the likelihood of evolution is like walking into Raymond James Stadium on game day and asking, “Who’s for the Chiefs?” Do you know why most PhD candidates never write their thesis on the problems with evo theories? Yes, that’s right; they want their PhD award. And, of course, we do not allow them to appeal to immaterial causes so they will stretch their speculations beyond what their data supports.

So, I ask again - what are these other theories of evolution? I can't make any comment about them unless you tell me what they are. If you're unwilling or unable to name or describe them you can point to them with a reference or link.

Also, in #486 you said you were a scientist - can you say what kind of scientist? can you say what field you work in?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Who is us? The sub-forum is "Creation & Evolution". Are you a closet creationist?

By 'us' I mean the atheists in this sub-forum of the 'Physical & Life Sciences' forums - i.e. atheists that you seem to have so little regard for.

Lol, no, I'm not a closet creationist.

 

[Astrid]

Using jargon is one of the features of a snow job, but many other techniques can be used to construct one. I think it's used in the UK as well.

I don't have anything against making things up "on the fly". If one is skilled in a field and has a quick wit, then one can often nail a concept or a goal with an on-the-spot exposition. However, if one isn't skilled in the field it is liable to come out as word salad.

Yes. It certainly isn't a noun. That would be mutation(s).

No. I genuinely don't know why @o_mlly would phrase things as they did. That's why asked them.

I see a huge difference between creative use
of imagination, and, simply inventing phony
facts, then entering them into evidence.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes, descendants are mutates, in the common use of the word, ie, “changed”. If the sexual descendant is not a clone of either parent then the descendant has mutated.

The whole point* of sexual reproduction is to blend the genes of two individuals randomly in to the next generation. It is not mutation.

The chromosome 17 that I got from my mother is not identical to either the same chromosome she got from her father or mother, but a combination of the two created during the "crossover" event during the formation of the ovum. It consists of alternating large chunks of her maternal and paternal chromosome 17. This is *not* mutation.

A mutation *can* arise during this crossover if the segments don't align exactly such that the resulting (single) chromosome 17 in the ovum contains either two copies (from both maternal and paternal chromosome 17) or neither of the same short segment of DNA.

There are also potentially mutations (most likely single nucleotide copy errors) that arise in those two chromosome 17's between the formation of her genome and the crossover during the formation of the ovum.

Given the general statistics on new mutations in humans, there are 0-2 new mutations in the chromosome 17 (and the others) in the ovum that were not part of either chromosome 17 when her genome formed that occurred during the cell divisions needed to grow from a fertilized ovum to the ovary cells dividing to form a new ovum.

Other than that very low mutation rate the rest of the differences between my chromosome 17 from my mother and her two chromosomes 17 is that my is a choppy blend of hers. That's not mutation.

*Though I used the word "point" as if it were an intention, it is just the beneficial consequence of sexual reproduction, not an intent. It is what gives sexual reproduction its "power".

 

[Hans Blaster]

This is the tired "scientists are obedient slaves to the dominant paradigm" trope, but it also has some really bad analogies too...

Yes, a majority of scientists accept one of the evo theories. Their consensus though should not be surprising. Claiming a consensus of scientists as evidence for the likelihood of evolution is like walking into Raymond James Stadium on game day and asking, “Who’s for the Chiefs?” Do you know why most PhD candidates never write their thesis on the problems with evo theories? Yes, that’s right; they want their PhD award. And, of course, we do not allow them to appeal to immaterial causes so they will stretch their speculations beyond what their data supports.

First, what's so odd about a [Kansas City] Chiefs fan seeking out their fellows when their team is the visitors in a Florida stadium? There are *always* visiting fans in the stands even for the stadiums with the hardest tickets and most die hard home fans. Always. Every time I've gone to an away game for one of my teams there is a steady stream of fans entering the mostly home team section and shouting out "Who's for the [visting team]." or "Wooo. [visting team]." or even throwing vulgar insults at the home team and their fans. (Some people are jerks.)

A Ph.D. is a degree, not an award. It is earned, not given.

Science is the study of natural phenomena through natural/material causes, expecting science to study your favorite supernaturalism is not reasonable.

I've been to dozens of Ph.D. defenses and read about a dozen dissertations, not a single one of them mentioned evolution at all. (Probably because I'm not in biology. Go figure.)

There also haven't been any challenges to the base theories and concepts in our field either, but that is not unexpected. Dissertation topics are chosen 3-5 years earlier when the students barely have enough knowledge to grasp the implications of their own project, let alone devise a test of a fundamental paradigm. Most dissertations are rather pedestrian for a reason -- they need to be completed by relatively inexperienced researchers. After that experience they may begin to see ways to test the fundamental paradigms of their fields and craft appropriate tests. That's where the next great scientists come from.

 

[o_mlly]

You do like word games, but it was you who dismissed the many.

I did not mention God in the post either. Do you also mistakenly think that means I dismissed Him?

That is what you implied.

Frank, the listener (you) infers; the speaker (me) implies. You could ask me, "Is that what you implied?" But you cannot tell me so.

Why is that a problem for you?

No problems on my end. ???

You are wrong.

Well, that argument pretty much puts a wrap on it.

If you disagree you need to tell us why?

Sure. But first, explain how the argument from ignorance applies to my post.

 

[Astrid]

This is the tired "scientists are obedient slaves to the dominant paradigm" trope, but it also has some really bad analogies too...



First, what's so odd about a [Kansas City] Chiefs fan seeking out their fellows when their team is the visitors in a Florida stadium? There are *always* visiting fans in the stands even for the stadiums with the hardest tickets and most die hard home fans. Always. Every time I've gone to an away game for one of my teams there is a steady stream of fans entering the mostly home team section and shouting out "Who's for the [visting team]." or "Wooo. [visting team]." or even throwing vulgar insults at the home team and their fans. (Some people are jerks.)

A Ph.D. is a degree, not an award. It is earned, not given.

Science is the study of natural phenomena through natural/material causes, expecting science to study your favorite supernaturalism is not reasonable.

I've been to dozens of Ph.D. defenses and read about a dozen dissertations, not a single one of them mentioned evolution at all. (Probably because I'm not in biology. Go figure.)

There also haven't been any challenges to the base theories and concepts in our field either, but that is not unexpected. Dissertation topics are chosen 3-5 years earlier when the students barely have enough knowledge to grasp the implications of their own project, let alone devise a test of a fundamental paradigm. Most dissertations are rather pedestrian for a reason -- they need to be completed by relatively inexperienced researchers. After that experience they may begin to see ways to test the fundamental paradigms of their fields and craft appropriate tests. That's where the next great scientists come from.

My degrees are not in science but I've been
around scientists enough to have an idea how
to tell if someone is the real thing.

Kind of like how easy it would be to figure
out I am no expert if I tried to be the announcer
at an American football game.