Evolution works in mysterious ways

Matthew Faithfull

Fisticuffs wrote:

I thought you said the principle of science was falsifiability

Exactly my point, I'm, glad you're catching on. None of the double negatives you presented is capabale of falsifying anything any more than Nelson putting the telescope to his blind eye meant there weren't any ships. I have an education thanks, do you need to borrow it?

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

Lost User

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Can constitute information loss, has a high probability of disrupting any exisitng gene function.

What's the probability? Show your work.

- F

Lost User

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

None of the double negatives you presented is capabale of falsifying anything

Sure they are - because they are ways of falsifying the theory of evolution, that have been tested, that have failed to disprove the theory. Therefore, evolution has not been disproven. Therefore, it remains the best explanation of diversity of life and a highly useful tool to all scientific and medical professionals.

- F

Matthew Faithfull

Fisticuffs wrote:

Wrong.

I think you mean you disagree but can't think why. :)

Fisticuffs wrote:

Wrong - there are mutations that are neutral,

And therefore don't confer selective advantage as I said.

Fisticuffs wrote:

What?!?!?! Deleterious phenotypes are outcompeted by definition. How can something that's deleterious outcompete something that's beneficial?

Because randomness swamps fractional selective advantage, 500 bad chess players can beat one good one on average, especially if pieces don't always move as either side chooses.

Fisticuffs wrote:

That's not only the fundamental concept of evolution

it's also false.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

Lost User

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Because randomness swamps fractional selective advantage, 500 bad chess players can beat one good one on average, especially if pieces don't always move as either side chooses.

Not if they die before they play the game, you idiot. Not if they have no arms or eyes. Get the point?

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

I think you mean you disagree but can't think why. [Smile]

No, you're wrong. That's not how mutations accumulate. Check the literature, check the genomes at BLAST. Consider the redundancy in the triplet code. It's self-evident with a little knowledge of genetics.

- F

Paul Watson

What are you, 5? "Your mom" replies are for infants.

regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

Lost User

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Another, proof by blindness, double negative.

Science works on models. A model that explains observed phenomena is accepted as true until an observation that contradicts it is made. So, complete knowledge of all mutations is not necessary to hold theory of evolution as scientifically valid. For example: Newton's laws does not paint an accurate picture of all the forces involved in a given situation, but is a very good approximation for most real world situations. There is a certain expectation of evidence needed for a model to be discarded or modified. I am sure the evolution, natural selection models must have been modified many times. For instance, there is no dispute yet in the scientific community regarding the common origins of the animal kingdom; in case of microbes, there are disagreements (obviously not big enough to discredit the whole theory). I think that it is everyone's duty to aid the scientific process rather than doggedly standing your ground with no evidence. Maybe, one day a living human being may know everything that is to know. Evolution may be wrong; it may be discredited in the future; but please bear in mind that proving that the theory of evolution is wrong does not automatically prove the theory of creation. I get a distinct feeling of pride of your theory being vindicated when you discredit another.

Paul Watson

Just curious if that is your real name... Matthew Faithful. Never heard the surname Faithful before. It is like African tribesmen who select an English name and end up with kids named Precious, Beautiful, Innocent and Cocacola.

regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

Paul Watson

I am an aethist and I have moral restraint. Haven't bashed your brains in yet, have I? Stuck. Record.

regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

CataclysmicQuantum

Paul Watson wrote:

What are you, 5?

How can I be a number? Yes, I am the number 5. Brilliant!

The Digital World. It is an amazing place in which we primitive humans interact. Our flesh made this synthetic machine. You see, we are so smart, we know a lot of stuff. We were grown from cells that came from the universe, which the matter and physics I'm typing in it is amazing how the universe is working. Human life is very amazing. How I experience this sh*t its like wow.

Matthew Faithfull

Oakman wrote:

Well the translations don't always agree with each other

Those who have never read the whole tend to massively exagerate the trivial differenes between translations for their own ends. It's seldom even worth arguing about. There are now unfortunately a number of highly corrupted modern 'translations' particularly coming out of the US, stick with an NIV or Good News or something with equivalent academic pedigree and you won't go far wrong.

Oakman wrote:

You aren't one of these guys who thinks that God spoke Elizabethan English, are you?

I'm sure he did at the time, he's considerate like that. :)

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

Al Beback

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

The more you look the less evolution and more de-evolution you will see.

So this "de-evolution"... is it part of God's plan?

- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus

Lost User

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Because randomness swamps fractional selective advantage, 500 bad chess players can beat one good one on average, especially if pieces don't always move as either side chooses.

This is a false analogy - because the number of players don't stay the same. If every "win" creates a new player, and B wins preferentially over A, then eventually there will be more B players than A players. Do the math. Presto! Evolution! The mutation rate and generation time are perfectly in line with what's been observed. Presto! Evolution!

- F

Paul Watson

CataclysmicQuantum wrote:

Yes, I am the number 5

You're a robot from a movie controlled by a bunch of guys with RF transmitters? Explains a lot...

regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

Matthew Faithfull

It's Faithfull, two ll's and yes it is real and pretty rare, only 3 or 4 families in the UK. In our case its an English transliteration of a corrupted Irish Gealic word which was originally a rude name given to Viking invaders who steal our daughters. At least according to my great Aunt Kay's research. Not as rare as Heher pronounced like 'hair', on my mother's side, only one family in the entire world, also Irish although most of them left during the great potato famine.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

Matthew Faithfull

That's what we call common grace but of course you're not allowed to believe in that :laugh:

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

CataclysmicQuantum

A robot can't jack off to porn on the internet though, ahh the simple human pleasures.

The Digital World. It is an amazing place in which we primitive humans interact. Our flesh made this synthetic machine. You see, we are so smart, we know a lot of stuff. We were grown from cells that came from the universe, which the matter and physics I'm typing in it is amazing how the universe is working. Human life is very amazing. How I experience this sh*t its like wow.

Paul Watson

The five guys controlling you can though.

regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

Paul Watson

I'm allowed to believe in whatever I want to believe, no book or person tells me otherwise. Can be tough and means frequent changes but it does make me responsible for all my actions, unable to do things in the name of someone else.

regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

Matthew Faithfull

Thomas George wrote:

but please bear in mind that proving that the theory of evolution is wrong does not automatically prove the theory of creation.

I have no desire or need to 'prove the theory of creation', firstly as for the reasons we agree it connot be proved and secondly becuase it is not a theory.

Thomas George wrote:

there is no dispute yet in the scientific community regarding the common origins of the animal kingdom;

Not so, there has always been dispute and probably always will be. Newton's laws and evolution are not readily comparable. Newton was stating fundamental universal laws describing reality. Evolutionists, despite recent denials here, are looking for an explanation of observable facts within the framework of the known laws. They have not yet found such an explanantion that does not contradict those laws, yes they will keep searching but to falsely claim success and to falsely claim the theory hasn't changed fundamentally over time and is not therfore a different theory ( This is implicit in calling it Darwinian evolution ) is wrong. Also to interpret all the evidence gathered accoring to the theory they are supposed to be falsifying before evaluating it is bad science. This doesn't just go on with evolution but is sadly a plague in modern science.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)