Of Hamlet, Monkeys and Infinity

[alang1216]

I just proved that evidence shows Darwinism is a fraud....and some moron posts "but doesn't really show you thinking for yourself."

Oh...that moron was you.

"... is not doubted by the science community."
What do you suppose Science represents.

Obviously science is not the only area in which you remain staunchly ignorant.

I'm sorry but cutting and pasting from an ID website proves nothing, certainly not that common descent is doubted by the scientific community. The mechanisms of evolution are debated but the fact of common descent is not.

Here's my cut and paste review of the Meyers mentioned in your post:

Scientific readers will likely find that “Darwin’s Doubt” has an inspired-by-true-events feel: a few elements are recognizable, but the story makes no sense to anyone who was there. The problem for Meyer is that what has come to be called the Cambrian explosion was not, in fact, an explosion. It took place over tens of millions of years—far more time than, for example, it took humans and chimpanzees to go their separate ways. Decades of fossil discovery around the world, combined with new computer-aided analytical techniques, have given scientists a far more complete portrait of the tree of life than Darwin and Walcott had available, making connections between species that they could not see.

It turns out that many of the major gaps that Meyer identifies are the result of his misleading rearrangement of the tree. Nick Matzke, a scientist who blogs at Panda’s Thumb, makes a convincing case that Meyer does not understand the field’s key statistical techniques (among other things). For example, Meyer presents a chart on page thirty-five of “Darwin’s Doubt” that appears to show the sudden appearance of large numbers of major animal groups in the Cambrian: the smoking gun. But if one looks at a family tree based on current science, it looks nothing like Meyer’s, and precisely like what Darwinian theory would predict. “All of this is pretty good evidence for the basic idea that the Cambrian ‘Explosion’ is really the radiation of simple bilaterian worms into more complex worms…[which] occurred in many stages, instead of all at once,” Matzke writes.

That must prove my point, after all it did come from the internet.

You claim there was not enough time in the Cambrian for evolution to take place. OK, how much time was needed? Do you even have a clue?

Didn't the phase "the field’s key statistical techniques " give you a clue that you are being snookered?

Well....perhaps you're not that bright.

No shock there.....the material that I provided, from several sources, is accurate and correct.

Darwin is not.

But....you may continue to genuflect to him just the same.

So you don't like math either? No math and no science, what does that leave you? Religion?

Your material is NOT accurate and correct but you are too intellectually lazy to figure it out for yourself. You just repeat what other creationists tell you. You have it in your head that since you see the world as either left or right, everything and everyone in it is that way. Sorry but science is, in most cases, apolitical.

Charles Bukowski — 'The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.'

 

[idb]

Hilarious.
PC is like one of those boors in a bar who, when they get out of their intellectual depth in an argument just starts shouting insults so that no one else can be heard.

Please, keep shouting...the entertainment level is high.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm sorry but cutting and pasting from an ID website proves nothing, certainly not that common descent is doubted by the scientific community. The mechanisms of evolution are debated but the fact of common descent is not.

Here's my cut and paste review of the Meyers mentioned in your post:

Scientific readers will likely find that “Darwin’s Doubt” has an inspired-by-true-events feel: a few elements are recognizable, but the story makes no sense to anyone who was there. The problem for Meyer is that what has come to be called the Cambrian explosion was not, in fact, an explosion. It took place over tens of millions of years—far more time than, for example, it took humans and chimpanzees to go their separate ways. Decades of fossil discovery around the world, combined with new computer-aided analytical techniques, have given scientists a far more complete portrait of the tree of life than Darwin and Walcott had available, making connections between species that they could not see.

It turns out that many of the major gaps that Meyer identifies are the result of his misleading rearrangement of the tree. Nick Matzke, a scientist who blogs at Panda’s Thumb, makes a convincing case that Meyer does not understand the field’s key statistical techniques (among other things). For example, Meyer presents a chart on page thirty-five of “Darwin’s Doubt” that appears to show the sudden appearance of large numbers of major animal groups in the Cambrian: the smoking gun. But if one looks at a family tree based on current science, it looks nothing like Meyer’s, and precisely like what Darwinian theory would predict. “All of this is pretty good evidence for the basic idea that the Cambrian ‘Explosion’ is really the radiation of simple bilaterian worms into more complex worms…[which] occurred in many stages, instead of all at once,” Matzke writes.

That must prove my point, after all it did come from the internet.

You claim there was not enough time in the Cambrian for evolution to take place. OK, how much time was needed? Do you even have a clue?

Didn't the phase "the field’s key statistical techniques " give you a clue that you are being snookered?

Well....perhaps you're not that bright.

No shock there.....the material that I provided, from several sources, is accurate and correct.

Darwin is not.

But....you may continue to genuflect to him just the same.

So you don't like math either? No math and no science, what does that leave you? Religion?

Your material is NOT accurate and correct but you are too intellectually lazy to figure it out for yourself. You just repeat what other creationists tell you. You have it in your head that since you see the world as either left or right, everything and everyone in it is that way. Sorry but science is, in most cases, apolitical.

Charles Bukowski — 'The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.'

I must be a bug-light for imbeciles.


No, you have no grasp of science or mathematics, and certainly not for how they are tied together.


"Organic molecules, therefore form a large and formidable array, endless in variety and of the most bewildering complexity. One cannot think of having organisms without them.

This is precisely the trouble, for to understand how organisms originated we must first of all explain how such complicated molecules could come into being.

And that is only the beginning. To make an organism requires not only a tremendous variety of these substances, in adequate amounts and proper proportions, but also just the right arrangement of them. Structure here is as important as composition - and what a complication of structural. The most complex machine man has devised - say an electronic brain - is child’s play compared with the simplest of living organisms.

The especially trying thing is that complexity here involves such small dimensions. It is on the molecular level; it consists of a detailed fitting of molecule to molecule such as no chemist can attempt."
G. Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 191, No. 4.





Keep bowing to ignorance, dope.

 

[alang1216]

I must be a bug-light for imbeciles.

No, you have no grasp of science or mathematics, and certainly not for how they are tied together.

"Organic molecules, therefore form a large and formidable array, endless in variety and of the most bewildering complexity. One cannot think of having organisms without them.

This is precisely the trouble, for to understand how organisms originated we must first of all explain how such complicated molecules could come into being.

And that is only the beginning. To make an organism requires not only a tremendous variety of these substances, in adequate amounts and proper proportions, but also just the right arrangement of them. Structure here is as important as composition - and what a complication of structural. The most complex machine man has devised - say an electronic brain - is child’s play compared with the simplest of living organisms.

The especially trying thing is that complexity here involves such small dimensions. It is on the molecular level; it consists of a detailed fitting of molecule to molecule such as no chemist can attempt."
G. Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 191, No. 4.

Keep bowing to ignorance, dope.

Scientific American, Vol. 191, No. 4 was published in 1954, you might want to catch up.

Like many creationists, you look at the enormous complexity of a typical cell and, rightly, conclude that it is too complex to come into existance by random chance. Also like many creationists you fail to appreciate that it took millions or billions of years before the first living thing evolved into a complex cell.

If cells were not the first life what was? It is unlikely we'll ever know for sure but the most likely candidate appears to be self-replicating molecules Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life. Once they existed they became subject to natural selection and evolution began.

 

[rightwinger]

I must be a bug-light for imbeciles.

No, you have no grasp of science or mathematics, and certainly not for how they are tied together.

"Organic molecules, therefore form a large and formidable array, endless in variety and of the most bewildering complexity. One cannot think of having organisms without them.

This is precisely the trouble, for to understand how organisms originated we must first of all explain how such complicated molecules could come into being.

And that is only the beginning. To make an organism requires not only a tremendous variety of these substances, in adequate amounts and proper proportions, but also just the right arrangement of them. Structure here is as important as composition - and what a complication of structural. The most complex machine man has devised - say an electronic brain - is child’s play compared with the simplest of living organisms.

The especially trying thing is that complexity here involves such small dimensions. It is on the molecular level; it consists of a detailed fitting of molecule to molecule such as no chemist can attempt."
G. Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 191, No. 4.

Keep bowing to ignorance, dope.

Scientific American, Vol. 191, No. 4 was published in 1954, you might want to catch up.

Like many creationists, you look at the enormous complexity of a typical cell and, rightly, conclude that it is too complex to come into existance by random chance. Also like many creationists you fail to appreciate that it took millions or billions of years before the first living thing evolved into a complex cell.

If cells were not the first life what was? It is unlikely we'll ever know for sure but the most likely candidate appears to be self-replicating molecules Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life. Once they existed they became subject to natural selection and evolution began.

Are you still trying to conduct a serious discussion with PC?

You would be better off arguing with one of the monkeys

 

[PoliticalChic]

I must be a bug-light for imbeciles.

No, you have no grasp of science or mathematics, and certainly not for how they are tied together.

"Organic molecules, therefore form a large and formidable array, endless in variety and of the most bewildering complexity. One cannot think of having organisms without them.

This is precisely the trouble, for to understand how organisms originated we must first of all explain how such complicated molecules could come into being.

And that is only the beginning. To make an organism requires not only a tremendous variety of these substances, in adequate amounts and proper proportions, but also just the right arrangement of them. Structure here is as important as composition - and what a complication of structural. The most complex machine man has devised - say an electronic brain - is child’s play compared with the simplest of living organisms.

The especially trying thing is that complexity here involves such small dimensions. It is on the molecular level; it consists of a detailed fitting of molecule to molecule such as no chemist can attempt."
G. Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 191, No. 4.

Keep bowing to ignorance, dope.

Scientific American, Vol. 191, No. 4 was published in 1954, you might want to catch up.

Like many creationists, you look at the enormous complexity of a typical cell and, rightly, conclude that it is too complex to come into existance by random chance. Also like many creationists you fail to appreciate that

If cells were not the first life what was? It is unlikely we'll ever know for sure but the most likely candidate appears to be self-replicating molecules Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life. Once they existed they became subject to natural selection and evolution began.

1. Darwin's "On The Origin of Species" was published in 1859...you might want to catch up, perhaps even ask why no proof has been produced in 155 years.

Was there anything in the Scientific American quote that is no longer true?

You sound pretty stupid, then, don't you.



2. "Like many creationists, you..."
You gleaned that.....where?
Reduced to lies....that's what happens when any show the fallacy of Darwin's theory.

a. It's more than interesting that the same pattern appears when Liberalism is criticized.


3. "...it took millions or billions of years before the first living thing evolved into a complex cell."
"...millions or billions of years..."
See what I mean about guessing being your level of science?



4. "If cells were not the first life what was? "
How about you begin a thread based on your ignorance.

Perhaps during evolution your ancestors were in the control group.

5. What I have done is spotlight both the mistake called Darwinian evolution, and the fools who would rather serve as his acolytes than think for themselves.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I must be a bug-light for imbeciles.

No, you have no grasp of science or mathematics, and certainly not for how they are tied together.

"Organic molecules, therefore form a large and formidable array, endless in variety and of the most bewildering complexity. One cannot think of having organisms without them.

This is precisely the trouble, for to understand how organisms originated we must first of all explain how such complicated molecules could come into being.

And that is only the beginning. To make an organism requires not only a tremendous variety of these substances, in adequate amounts and proper proportions, but also just the right arrangement of them. Structure here is as important as composition - and what a complication of structural. The most complex machine man has devised - say an electronic brain - is child’s play compared with the simplest of living organisms.

The especially trying thing is that complexity here involves such small dimensions. It is on the molecular level; it consists of a detailed fitting of molecule to molecule such as no chemist can attempt."
G. Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 191, No. 4.

Keep bowing to ignorance, dope.

Scientific American, Vol. 191, No. 4 was published in 1954, you might want to catch up.

Like many creationists, you look at the enormous complexity of a typical cell and, rightly, conclude that it is too complex to come into existance by random chance. Also like many creationists you fail to appreciate that it took millions or billions of years before the first living thing evolved into a complex cell.

If cells were not the first life what was? It is unlikely we'll ever know for sure but the most likely candidate appears to be self-replicating molecules Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life. Once they existed they became subject to natural selection and evolution began.

Are you still trying to conduct a serious discussion with PC?

You would be better off arguing with one of the monkeys

I have yet to find you involved in any discussion that is either serious or truthful.

Carry on.

 

[alang1216]

Are you still trying to conduct a serious discussion with PC?

You would be better off arguing with one of the monkeys

We're all monkeys on this bus, some just think they are more evolved than others.

 

[Asclepias]

Are you still trying to conduct a serious discussion with PC?

You would be better off arguing with one of the monkeys

We're all monkeys on this bus, some just think they are more evolved than others.

I dont think PC is wrapped too tight. Her and Gysmo have got to belong to the same chapter of nutcases.

 

[alang1216]

5. What I have done is spotlight both the mistake called Darwinian evolution, and the fools who would rather serve as his acolytes than think for themselves.

What you have done is to show your ignorance, your arrogance, and your childishness.

 

[rightwinger]

Scientific American, Vol. 191, No. 4 was published in 1954, you might want to catch up.

Like many creationists, you look at the enormous complexity of a typical cell and, rightly, conclude that it is too complex to come into existance by random chance. Also like many creationists you fail to appreciate that it took millions or billions of years before the first living thing evolved into a complex cell.

If cells were not the first life what was? It is unlikely we'll ever know for sure but the most likely candidate appears to be self-replicating molecules Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life. Once they existed they became subject to natural selection and evolution began.

Are you still trying to conduct a serious discussion with PC?

You would be better off arguing with one of the monkeys

I have yet to find you involved in any discussion that is either serious or truthful.
Carry on.

What trying to conduct a serious discussion with Political Chic is like


[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JgpZTj_3G8"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JgpZTj_3G8[/ame]

 

[idb]

Didn't the phase "the field’s key statistical techniques " give you a clue that you are being snookered?

Well....perhaps you're not that bright.

No shock there.....the material that I provided, from several sources, is accurate and correct.

Darwin is not.

But....you may continue to genuflect to him just the same.

So you don't like math either? No math and no science, what does that leave you? Religion?

Your material is NOT accurate and correct but you are too intellectually lazy to figure it out for yourself. You just repeat what other creationists tell you. You have it in your head that since you see the world as either left or right, everything and everyone in it is that way. Sorry but science is, in most cases, apolitical.

Charles Bukowski — 'The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.'

I must be a bug-light for imbeciles.


No, you have no grasp of science or mathematics, and certainly not for how they are tied together.


"Organic molecules, therefore form a large and formidable array, endless in variety and of the most bewildering complexity. One cannot think of having organisms without them.

This is precisely the trouble, for to understand how organisms originated we must first of all explain how such complicated molecules could come into being.

And that is only the beginning. To make an organism requires not only a tremendous variety of these substances, in adequate amounts and proper proportions, but also just the right arrangement of them. Structure here is as important as composition - and what a complication of structural. The most complex machine man has devised - say an electronic brain - is child’s play compared with the simplest of living organisms.

The especially trying thing is that complexity here involves such small dimensions. It is on the molecular level; it consists of a detailed fitting of molecule to molecule such as no chemist can attempt."
G. Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 191, No. 4.





Keep bowing to ignorance, dope.

Hilarious.
That quote from Scientific American was written in 1954.
Chemists are a bit more able these days.

But...by all means...keep trying.
Have you been to this site?
SCIENTIFIC FACTS ABOUT EVOLUTION
There's all sorts of great cut 'n' paste source material there for semi-literate uneducated bozos.
You'll have fun for hours.

 

[Vikrant]

Where do monkeys fit into this?
Right along with 'infinity.'


The monkey is sitting in front of a typewriter, randomly hitting keys forever, will, after an unbelievably long time, will type Hamlet and all of Shakespeare's works. That means all the letters, the correct sequence, and every other factor necessary....about 30,000 words, average 5-6 letters each word, or about 150,000 characters the monkey needs to get right....and in the right order.
Now add spaces and punctuation.

On the first try, the probability is one divided by 26 to the 150,000th power. That makes it very, very close to zero.

I'm afraid you don't quite understand the theory of evolution. It is NOT random since there is selection pressure required to make it work. Mutations are random, evolution is not.

To correct your monkeys typing story, imagine a monkey actually struck some keys on a typewritter. It's unlikely they'd make much sense. Now imagine you're a selective force and removed any character that didn't match those in Hamlet and the monkey tried again. Again you removed any characters not in Hamlet. The result would be a perfect version of Hamlet in a very short time. Evolution.

If it is not random, you moron, than it must be directed by some intelligence.

Is that your position?

It is unfortunate that you are calling him names because he is correct. I have already made two posts on this topic in your thread about 'mathematics not proving evolution'. Let me repeat it again. In a given population, if there is no mutation, no gene flow, mating is random, population is large enough to negate the allele/genotype frequency shift then there will be no evolution. So he is correct in saying that evolution is not random. It is the factors that induce it are random. There is a difference.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm afraid you don't quite understand the theory of evolution. It is NOT random since there is selection pressure required to make it work. Mutations are random, evolution is not.

To correct your monkeys typing story, imagine a monkey actually struck some keys on a typewritter. It's unlikely they'd make much sense. Now imagine you're a selective force and removed any character that didn't match those in Hamlet and the monkey tried again. Again you removed any characters not in Hamlet. The result would be a perfect version of Hamlet in a very short time. Evolution.

If it is not random, you moron, than it must be directed by some intelligence.

Is that your position?

It is unfortunate that you are calling him names because he is correct. I have already made two posts on this topic in your thread about 'mathematics not proving evolution'. Let me repeat it again. In a given population, if there is no mutation, no gene flow, mating is random, population is large enough to negate the allele/genotype frequency shift then there will be no evolution. So he is correct in saying that evolution is not random. It is the factors that induce it are random. There is a difference.

Another poster trying to conduct a serious discussion with PC

Get it through your head....she has no interest in serious discusion, facts or logic

 

[Old Rocks]

9. Worse news for Darwin fans:

a. Did I say " less than 40 million years to produce the 'Cambrian explosion' is not possible"?

b. Ratiometric analysis changed that:

"Currently, uranium-lead zircon geochronology is the most powerful method for dating rocks of Cambrian age. ... the Cambrian period began at approximately 544 million years ago ... The resulting compression of Early Cambrian time accentuates the rapidity of both the faunal diversification and subsequent Cambrian turnover.
Bowring, et. al., "Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution." Calibrating rates of early Cambrian evolution

c. The explosion itself is now believed to be much shorter than thought, lasting no more than 10 million years, and the main "period of exponential increase of diversification" lasting only 5 to 6 million years. Bowring, Op. Cit.

d. In fact, the former 20 to 40 million year 'window' during this occurred was thought to be far too short a period for the natural, random changes into so many new structures and body organization to have occurred.....
....now, the period has been shortened to lasting only 5 to 6 million years!

As this thread is designed to end any belief that an appeal to "infinity" supports the variety of life on the planet, the ever diminishing window, now considered less than a mere handful of millions of years, puts that view to rest.

Darwin has run out of time!

Your post seems to rely on a mis-read of Bowring (Science Magazine: Sign In). The 5-6 million year figure is only for a pair of stages within the Cambrian. Bowring writes that the first stage lasted "no less than 10 million years".

No, she did not mis-read, she purposely cherry picked what she wanted out of context. It is the favorite tool of the fools that think that the rest of us do not bother to read. Works very well with the ignoramouses they normally address.

 

[Old Rocks]

Where do monkeys fit into this?
Right along with 'infinity.'


The monkey is sitting in front of a typewriter, randomly hitting keys forever, will, after an unbelievably long time, will type Hamlet and all of Shakespeare's works. That means all the letters, the correct sequence, and every other factor necessary....about 30,000 words, average 5-6 letters each word, or about 150,000 characters the monkey needs to get right....and in the right order.
Now add spaces and punctuation.

On the first try, the probability is one divided by 26 to the 150,000th power. That makes it very, very close to zero.

I'm afraid you don't quite understand the theory of evolution. It is NOT random since there is selection pressure required to make it work. Mutations are random, evolution is not.

To correct your monkeys typing story, imagine a monkey actually struck some keys on a typewritter. It's unlikely they'd make much sense. Now imagine you're a selective force and removed any character that didn't match those in Hamlet and the monkey tried again. Again you removed any characters not in Hamlet. The result would be a perfect version of Hamlet in a very short time. Evolution.

If it is not random, you moron, than it must be directed by some intelligence.

Is that your position?

Chemical reactions are not random. They are directed by the laws that control the universe. And you are either purposely ignoring what was stated, or you are rather stupid.

 

[Old Rocks]

If it is not random, you moron, than it must be directed by some intelligence.

Is that your position?

It is unfortunate that you are calling him names because he is correct. I have already made two posts on this topic in your thread about 'mathematics not proving evolution'. Let me repeat it again. In a given population, if there is no mutation, no gene flow, mating is random, population is large enough to negate the allele/genotype frequency shift then there will be no evolution. So he is correct in saying that evolution is not random. It is the factors that induce it are random. There is a difference.

Another poster trying to conduct a serious discussion with PC

Get it through your head....she has no interest in serious discusion, facts or logic

Being born into a family of hard core Christian fundementalists, I understand PC's point of view and method of arguement very well. And that 'education' has also left me with a profound contempt for those that choose willfull ignorance over knowledge. It damages them, their children, and those around them. A meme that works against their own survival.

 

[rightwinger]

It is unfortunate that you are calling him names because he is correct. I have already made two posts on this topic in your thread about 'mathematics not proving evolution'. Let me repeat it again. In a given population, if there is no mutation, no gene flow, mating is random, population is large enough to negate the allele/genotype frequency shift then there will be no evolution. So he is correct in saying that evolution is not random. It is the factors that induce it are random. There is a difference.

Another poster trying to conduct a serious discussion with PC

Get it through your head....she has no interest in serious discusion, facts or logic

Being born into a family of hard core Christian fundementalists, I understand PC's point of view and method of arguement very well. And that 'education' has also left me with a profound contempt for those that choose willfull ignorance over knowledge. It damages them, their children, and those around them. A meme that works against their own survival.

PC does not chose ignorance over knowledge

She just enjoys dicking around with liberals

 

[Old Rocks]

Really, in the debate concerning evolution and global warming, there are no liberals or conservatives, just those that either accept science, or deny science.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another poster trying to conduct a serious discussion with PC

Get it through your head....she has no interest in serious discusion, facts or logic

Being born into a family of hard core Christian fundementalists, I understand PC's point of view and method of arguement very well. And that 'education' has also left me with a profound contempt for those that choose willfull ignorance over knowledge. It damages them, their children, and those around them. A meme that works against their own survival.

PC does not chose ignorance over knowledge

She just enjoys dicking around with liberals

I'll cop to that.