Ye Religion Thread

[DaHanG]

quadz: "And it's a misconception that evolution is a random process."

Evolution here is unclear because you have disrespected the common definition.  You have used it in such a way to include mutations and natural selection.  The rest of the world sees it as being simply the process of change to the genome, from wikipedia: "In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next" and britannica's definition: "Biological theory that animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations".  It is nevertheless a broad and ambiguous statement with your definition and with "random" in here.

quadz: "What I was saying was, the genetic mutation is random, but the overarching process of natural selection (of which genetic mutation is just a part) is not random."

Very unclear.  First of all, I could have just easily assumed it was his way of saying it's a magic trick.  The real definition of random is "I don't know how something occured".  If some person says "I was observing the nucleus of a bacterium, and observed random mutations", that is meaningless in terms of how how it happened and neither does it necessarily prove evolution the way you think of it.  quadz's argument of "random mutations" would fall if he could not elucidate how it happened.  And he continued on to just assume we all knew what he was talking about with "random" when we didn't, and then finally said something later on about what it could be.

And second of all, "overarching process" in my mind usually reminds me of complex diagrams of things like second messenger systems in cells overseeing particular processes.  He's already admitted that his way of writing that was unclear.

And third of all, genetic mutation is NOT a part of natural selection, as natural selection only describes that the weak die off, while the strong live on.  You could have a world with absolutely no evolution and still have natural selection.

quadz: "But note that we have demonstrated that the genetic algorithm does work: We have taken the algorithm of the process represented by mutation and natural selection, and used that same algorithm to genetically grow solutions to programming problems."

Suddenly introducing ambiguous terms, "the genetic algorithm" out of nowhere to try to explain something I didn't even ask about!

quadz: "It's no different with antibiotic resistence.
Good ol' wikipedia again:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection#An_example:_antibiotic_resistance
"

Adding to the confusion, the wikipedia article talks about the *development* of antibiotic resistance as being the result of natural selection.

"A well-known example of natural selection in action is the development of antibiotic resistance in microorganisms."

WRONG!  I think I will actually go and change that article myself.  An example of natural selection would be the elimination of non-resistant bacteria.

Me: "And let me ask another question, assuming you're right that "random mutations" do happen in the way you'd describe, how do you know the entire evolutionary process is governed by "random mutations"?"

quadz: "I wouldn't say that the process is governed by mutations..."

A boat load of confusion, thanks.

"I've reiterated this in so many ways, saying that the random selection occurs at the protein level,"

"random selection"?  Thanks for more confusion!

Also what's interesting is the way some people change opinions so suddenly.

Oh, and BTW, to all those people treating me like I'm an idiot from statements saying quadz wasn't unclear (such as jagermonsta).. thank you for being so sweet!  I guess I shouldn't be surprised since most of humanity has emotional derangements, you just happen to be a part of that group!  Thank you once again for you "criticism".

Good grief. I have concluded you confused yourself. I had no problem with anything quadz said.

DaHanG (in response to reaper): "You continuously prove my point. You're obsessed with probabilities, even though science itself has *no problem* with them. Science accepts the *big bang and evolution* as *simply* *the way* the universe *is* because the *evidence* is *simply* too strong."

Yeah, that evidence sure is strong... and talking about probabilities, you should try studying genetics before talking.  And what is that evidence again?  And why are you talking about evolution as though it were the genesis of life?  You don't even know how life originated after such a big bang, and the rest of the science community doesn't either.  Then later when you realize the rest of the community doesn't know, then you comment "I don't know how life originated", thus making your previous statement incorrect.

I said the big bang and evolution are parts of the way universe is. Not understanding the origin of life is independent of this statement.

[quadz]

Whew!

[Robot]

For "evolution", I pointed out the dictionary definition, which I find adequate.  Apparently, you don't like english discussions too much.

With "random", you are saying I think it's not OK to understand how something works, and I have never said that.  Don't put words into my mouth.  And please start using a dictionary so you can know what random means to most people.

With the "mutation" part, you were unclear at the earlier stages of the conversation what type of mutations you were referring to.

Regarding the "natural selection" part, I was saying natural selection does not *necessarily* have anything to do with evolution.  I was pointing out your ambiguous writing style with this one.  And yes, I did read the wikipedia article.  I'm saying the first statement in the wikipedia page's antibiotic resistance section is incorrect (which added ambiguity).  I didn't say the rest of it is incorrect.  Then about the natural selection of bacteria part, you said "That's part of the story, but it's not the whole of the genetic algorithm".  Great, we're talking about natural selection though, stay on topic.  You are the master of confusion.

Again, this discussion is mostly just misunderstandings, lies, and disagreements about what certain words mean.  If you want to play the "Let's guess what quadz means today" game, go ahead, but you'll alienate a lot of people from discussing stuff with you.  My last post was to show to DaHanG how you are ambiguous in the way you write things, since he asked.

And my advice is to try to figure out why you said "random selection" instead of just saying it was a "typo".  That would the be the right thing to do here.

Oh, and thanks again for the idiot claim DaHanG, it makes you look really great on this forum...

[quadz]

You are the master of confusion.

Cool!  Does that come with a cape, or suspenders or anything?




(Getting the feeling I'm being trolled. )

[quadz]

quadz: "It's no different with antibiotic resistence.
Good ol' wikipedia again:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection#An_example:_antibiotic_resistance
"

Adding to the confusion, the wikipedia article talks about the *development* of antibiotic resistance as being the result of natural selection.

"A well-known example of natural selection in action is the development of antibiotic resistance in microorganisms."

WRONG!  I think I will actually go and change that article myself.  An example of natural selection would be the elimination of non-resistant bacteria.

It appears you have understood the article to mean simply that less-resistent bacteria are weeded out, leaving primarily a population consisting of descendents of bacteria which were already naturally resistent beforehand, and that during the process the individual bacteria will not have developed levels of resistence that exceed that of their original ancestors?

Have I understood correctly?

[jägermonsta]

The point is, I exposed the douche bag you act like (although that's clearly evident from tons of other posts), and then you posted your biased comment regarding quadz's ambiguity in this thread.

Uhh... you exposed the douche bag I act like? LOL! You didn't expose shit son. Everyone knows I can be an asshole, it's all in good fun. It's the ones like you that take it to seriously that make it that much better. 

You took that comment to deep. I would of posted that comment regardless whether or not you said anything in that other thread towards me because it was true. Get some sun kid.

[DaHanG]

Oh, and thanks again for the idiot claim DaHanG, it makes you look really great on this forum...

The fact that I never came close to calling you one makes you look like one by saying I did.

 

[Jman-CRU]

Confused, alienated idiot asks for *timeout*!

Robot, what the hell...? 

"Let's guess what quadz means today"? - Man, I'm no native speaker, not very blessed with intellect, natural sciences aren't really my subject (I don't get physical principles in detail, that is, I get an idea of the general principle, but am not able to deal with formula etc. without spending AGES on it) - but even I feel that quadz in fact is pretty clear.
"Master of confusion"? I disagree. Imo, his point of view, his diction, choice and use of arguments, drawing conclusions and most of all, his overall organisation of thoughts is highly sophisticated/differenciated, pretty precise, coherent, logic. All combined with a whole lot of curiosity, willingness to listen, contemplate and find out what's the point of the other participant, to LEARN, if there's something to learn (!!!!), to find out where quadz himself might be wrong, and last but not least a nice sense of humor. I really can't see any try to diffuse things - far from it! In fact it is pretty obvious that any time when misunderstandings might occur, he choses to let science speak for itself.

And I can't see even the slightest bit of arrogance, "I am right all the time", disrespect, hostility or else - especially I can't see him arbitrarily using arguments, trying to hide "true" personal intentions behind science arguments, trying to exert pressure on someone, or even attempting to force his opinion on someone. I mention this, because I noticed several times, you seem to assume something like that. And it seems from time to time you attack people personally. 
I didn't find any proof that quadz ever attacked anyone like that in this thread, and I highly doubt I will find anything like that in other threads on ts forums (not sure how he behaved in his Storm and Stress times though, LOL). He seemed pretty relaxed most of the time. And I don't feel confused about him.
When I was in a better constitution (after I had allowed my arrogance to grow out or at least to minimize, hehe), my overall organisation of thoughts used to be very similar (at least pretty differentiated).

I am more confused about what you are doing. I'm trying hard to find out what the hell you are trying to do. I can't really get what your arguing is about. What's the big thing about ONE TYPO, for instance? I can't really see what your target is, "Don Quichote", for you seem to be shooting in almost all directions. And none.
LIES, man? Where do you see LIES? Isn't that a bit harsh?

I dropped in and posted for good reason, though it might not seem so. (Among other things) I wanted to draw attention to the fact that IF it seems like there's disagreement on the meaning of words and terms (which is indeed crucial)... Why not choose one source that's more precise than wikipedia (a free encyclopedia which is likely to be far from being precise)?
Why not agree on choosing one source, to be able to agree on the meaning of some basic terms? That is: The CONTENT of some basic terms? And the principles they describe? Otherwise you'd have to repeat the history of defining these terms... At LEAST.

Btw., do you really think, "the" dictionary definition (which dictionary, btw.?) meets the requirements of a discussion about detailed subjects?
Of course it is likely to happen, that if you look up a very generalized, simplified definition of one word (which in most cases is to be found in dictionaries, for they aren't science books), you'll be taken by surprise by some arguments which weren't named there but are a substantial part of the subject, if you go more into detail. Might this be the point where your confusion started? For I don't see quadz trying to confuse you, nor trying to turn this into a semantic discussion - or even a battle. In fact he's trying to find basic things you agree on to be able to go on with the subject. He's even trying to find out how you understood and interpreted those basic things to find out where you've lost each other.

I'm not the first to post something like this. But I hope you don't feel like being looked at as an idiot this time, for I think this is not the case. I feel that most of the people who already drew attention to this, in fact are confused about the way you (still) use and intrepret terms. Right? Please correct me, if not.
Of course you may put (scientific) principles together just the way you think it's best in your opinion, according to your point of view, your philosophical contemplation, your religious feelings and thoughts, or in general, your world outlook. But the range how the very basics of these principles can be interpreted is very close, limited by FACTS. As long as you can't beat data proof and falsify something, this means you simply have to deal with these facts and their logic. Or better: You have to deal with what's been verified or falsified. Period. Attacking facts backed by data without any counterevidence backed by data is futile. Agreed?
On a philosophical level (or else) you may put those principles in order whatever way you like and discuss this with others - but even there range is limited. You still can't change the basic facts, and at least your train of argument needs to follow some basic rules of logic and drawing conclusions. If not, it's not only likely it will be torn to shreds... It's almost certain.

But touching an argument that appears to be wrong, incoherent, not logic, not conclusive or else isn't touching your belief or your world outlook. I think quadz knows that very well and is very interested in hearing something conclusive to fully understand your points. That means: He respects any different point of view. But of course and for sure he will tear any inconclusive argument to shreds (just the argument, not YOU!). Especially when there's counterevidence based on data.
Am I right? Am I wrong? I don't know. I just see him trying to find proven facts you agree on...   



(shuts up and goes playing quake2 now)   

[Robot]

jagermonsta, why are you referring to me as kid and son?  And get some english classes.

DaHanG: "The fact that I never came close to calling you one makes you look like one by saying I did."

Sure thing DaHanG, and I guess you had no problems with "random selection"? What a biased follower.

quadz, it doesn't get any more clear than that, it's an incorrect statement:

"A well-known example of natural selection in action is the *development* of antibiotic resistance in microorganisms." (as in the genetic mutations leading to antibiotic resistance)

If it were written as "A well-known example of mutations leading to a functional change is the *development* of antibiotic resistance in microorganisms." in the mutation page, I would have no problem with that.

[Whirlingdervish]

ok the only thing that would make this even more true:

"A well-known example of natural selection in action is the *development* of antibiotic resistance in microorganisms."


is to remove the "microorgansisms" part and replace it with this:


"in populations of microorganisms over the course of generations of asexual reproduction."

that is all.

[ReCycled]

jagermonsta, why are you referring to me as kid and son?

[DaHanG]

DaHanG: "The fact that I never came close to calling you one makes you look like one by saying I did."

Sure thing DaHanG, and I guess you had no problems with "random selection"? What a biased follower.

quadz, it doesn't get any more clear than that, it's an incorrect statement:

That was the only thing he said that was confusing, and I don't remember reading that until it was pointed out recently.

 

[quadz]

quadz, it doesn't get any more clear than that, it's an incorrect statement:

That was the only thing he said that was confusing, and I don't remember reading that until it was pointed out recently.

BTW, Robot is quoting the wikipedia page on Natural Selection there, not me. 


Robot,

quadz, it doesn't get any more clear than that, it's an incorrect statement:

"A well-known example of natural selection in action is the *development* of antibiotic resistance in microorganisms." (as in the genetic mutations leading to antibiotic resistance)

I'm still trying to understand your position here, in no uncertain terms.  Are you saying that random genetic mutations DO NOT lead to the formation of bacteria that have BETTER resistence than their genetic ancestors?


Regards,

quadz

[Robot]

quadz, it doesn't get any more clear than that, it's an incorrect statement:

That was the only thing he said that was confusing, and I don't remember reading that until it was pointed out recently.

BTW, Robot is quoting the wikipedia page on Natural Selection there, not me. 


Robot,

quadz, it doesn't get any more clear than that, it's an incorrect statement:

"A well-known example of natural selection in action is the *development* of antibiotic resistance in microorganisms." (as in the genetic mutations leading to antibiotic resistance)

I'm still trying to understand your position here, in no uncertain terms.  Are you saying that random genetic mutations DO NOT lead to the formation of bacteria that have BETTER resistence than their genetic ancestors?


Regards,

quadz

No, I'm not saying that.  I'm saying mutations can lead to changes, whether they're done in a controlled way or not, and the development of antibiotic reisistance would be an example.  I would put forward the hypothesis it goes forward in a controlled way, and most or any undeliberate changes would go repaired.  If it were proven to be the case, it would help support the notion of intelligent design.

[Whirlingdervish]

but that isn't the case and it hasn't been proven.

that hypothesis begs the questions:

what controls the mutation, and what makes the direction it has chosen, "intelligent"?

what means does this force use to enact "intelligent" effects upon the uncounted number of cells that exist in every living thing at all times?

why would cells need this force to act on them in order to create useful mutations, when the sheer numbers of them insure that eventually a beneficial mutation will occur without any interference?