Here Is What Louisiana Schoolchildren Learn About Evolution

[Retro Rob]

No, you're just a prick.😛

Please. Taxt has proven himself, in this thread anyway, to be an obnoxious, pompous jackass..

People who think they're right all the time CAN'T be debated with.

Stop feeding the troll, ignore him....

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Please. Taxt has proven himself, in this thread anyway, to be an obnoxious, pompous jackass..

One is entitled to the luxury of gloating when the facts so clearly and resoundingly endorse his arguments.

People who think they're right all the time CAN'T be debated with.

I'm not right all the time. Just most of the time, and this thread happens to be one of those times.

Stop feeding the troll, ignore him....

I don't think you know what trolling is.

 

[Paul98]

Obviously the time frame is massive. I don't expect to see miraculous novel systems being produced in 20 years.

One way for me to explain what I'm talking about is converging vs diverging integrals in calculus.

If we take a function and integrate it from 1 to infinity it seems logical that you'd get an infinite amount of "added changes" but we don't when we are looking at 1/x for instance.

My point is that adding some changes over and over for an infinite amount of time won't make a difference.

Makes me think p may be less than 1 in the case of these bacterial changes.

Fine with that.

No I'm not.

I'm just saying that calling phenomenon that doesn't necessarily have to be called evolution when bringing it up as evidence of evolution isn't a valid argument.

Your "argument" is invalid, not only are the changes in DNA strands finite which makes your argument invalid. But also we know that small changes in DNA can make big differences.

Really that argument makes no sense at all when looking at evolution, but I thought that I would add a couple comments to hopefully make it obvious.

 

[Darwin333]

No I'm not.

I'm just saying that calling phenomenon that doesn't necessarily have to be called evolution when bringing it up as evidence of evolution isn't a valid argument.

So exactly WHAT would you call it?

How about this, what would you call this?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

 

[sandorski]

So exactly WHAT would you call it?

How about this, what would you call this?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Simple IT(Intelligent Tinkering). God, being invisible, clearly was in the Lab tweaking the Bacteria in front of the Scientists for the shits and giggles.

 

[Darwin333]

Simple IT(Intelligent Tinkering). God, being invisible, clearly was in the Lab tweaking the Bacteria in front of the Scientists for the shits and giggles.

No no no!! He had a very real purpose. God is trying to trick people into believing in evolution so he can send them to hell for it.

 

[buckshot24]

So exactly WHAT would you call it?

What we see in most of these cases is like there being something that causes people to die if they understand differential equations. Only those who do not understand the math would be left. The population would be worse off when the temporary pressure is removed as we couldn't build bridges efficiently anymore.

How about this, what would you call this?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

I'd call it interesting.

 

[buckshot24]

Your "argument" is invalid, not only are the changes in DNA strands finite which makes your argument invalid. But also we know that small changes in DNA can make big differences.

Really that argument makes no sense at all when looking at evolution, but I thought that I would add a couple comments to hopefully make it obvious.

The calculus example wasn't an argument, it was merely to express the concept that changes don't always add up to something.

 

[Paul98]

The calculus example wasn't an argument, it was merely to express the concept that changes don't always add up to something.

And I was showing you how it was nonsense when talking about evolution.

 

[buckshot24]

And I was showing you how it was nonsense when talking about evolution.

Not really but whatever.

 

[randomrogue]

Evolution and divergent integrals? Really?

 

[Paul98]

Not really but whatever.

How would evolution in anyway be able to be compared to that?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

How would evolution in anyway be able to be compared to that?

Clearly buckshot is preparing a new evolutionary model where every organisms phenotype and genotype can each be expressed in a single, finite number.

That's not a fruit fly, it's a 5666643254389849663135.67884357895.

 

[randomrogue]

Technically you could express it as a binary number 😛

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Technically you could express it as a binary number 😛

Well, apparently all mathematical functions can be rigorously mapped to biological processes, so translating a species ID into binary would naturally represent a new type of evolution.

I'm certain this revolutionary new model will earn buckshot a Nobel prize. Somebody notify the guys in Stockholm.

 

[buckshot24]

haha, I didn't map anything to any function so I'll have to refuse the invitation.

The fact that nobody complained when the 1+1+1+1.... was presented is funny but a more complex mathematical concept is introduced then its a problem.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

haha, I didn't map anything to any function so I'll have to refuse the invitation.

The fact that nobody complained when the 1+1+1+1.... was presented is funny but a more complex mathematical concept is introduced then its a problem.

That wasn't really the same thing. Jeff7 was addressing the common silly creationist suggestion that it is reasonable to accept the reality of "microevolution," but then dispute the validity of "macroevolution." To do so would be akin to stipulating the validity of the additive function but arbitrarily objecting to sums over some undefined limit.

 

[buckshot24]

There is no difference except who made the point.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

There is no difference except who made the point.

Patently false. You made the claim that an infinite number of biological changes might still be limited by... something... and likened it to a convergent geometric series. That's quite a different point than the one made by Jeff7, and quite aside from the fact that biological changes are discrete (like the numbers in Jeff7's analogy) while you suggested they could form a continuum.

The two points could hardly be more different.

 

[Paul98]

haha, I didn't map anything to any function so I'll have to refuse the invitation.

The fact that nobody complained when the 1+1+1+1.... was presented is funny but a more complex mathematical concept is introduced then its a problem.

You implied that small changes can not turn into a big change.

so he took the analogy and used numbers 1+1 = 2 which is a small change. 1+1+1 = 3 another small change, 1+1+1... +1 = 100,000 big change. Which shows that small changes can eventually lead to big changes.


Your analogy makes no sense, I think you wanted to talk about an infinite sum which doesn't equal infinity. Is that correct? If so I can explain why that analogy doesn't work here.

 

[First]

Jeez, buckshot going hard to the hole with the fail today.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Jeez, buckshot going hard to the hole with the fail today.

It's a way of life for conservatives.

 

[First]

It's a way of life for conservatives.

Not surprising specifically with buckshot, though. In another thread he continues to deny/ignore the reality of confidence intervals in statistics, claiming the last few months of state polling in the election was all wrong in one direction despite rich and massive samples from countless public polling firms.

The fact that he's going after practically an immutable law in evolution is, well, sadly predictable and emblematic of the education problem we have in this country.

 

[buckshot24]

Not surprising specifically with buckshot, though. In another thread he continues to deny/ignore the reality of confidence intervals in statistics, claiming the last few months of state polling in the election was all wrong in one direction despite rich and massive samples from countless public polling firms.

The fact that he's going after practically an immutable law in evolution is, well, sadly predictable and emblematic of the education problem we have in this country.

The polls were wrong just only in the direction towards Obama.

 

[Todd33]

As with all analogies it isn't perfect. I'm only talking about the principle.

And some bacteria have DNA that is much longer than ours.

These bacterial adaptations result in less viable organisms when the temporary pressure is removed. The issue I have with this is that from 0 (self replicating molecule) to now there had to be a lot of stuff added to make life on the planet as diverse as it is. At one point there weren't lungs, hearts, wings, cell membranes etc etc etc. There needed to be these positive additions in order for us to get where we are today with some neutral/negative changes thrown in for good measure. What we see in bacterial adaptation is almost always the loss of an ability which because of new environmental pressures gets selected for and eventually the ability is lost in the population completely.

I'm not expecting miracles in short periods of time, all I'm saying is that we need more than what we have observed in almost all of these cases to occur or the complexities of living systems simply cannot be created.

There is a "nylon bug" that comes much closer however.

There is better evidence than bacterial resistance for "mud to jud" (just made that up :awe🙂 evolution out there. I find the bacteria case overblown and a hand overplayed imho.

Dude, just stop. You are not treading on new ground, your non-sense has been dead and buried for decades. Go read a book.