tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post1903734149898235014..comments2023-06-13T19:06:50.965-07:00Comments on Oasis: Musings about ImaginationKarlahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-42746366426122952172009-03-23T09:50:00.000-07:002009-03-23T09:50:00.000-07:00Karla,Claiming that EAs aren't evidence for evolut...Karla,<BR/>Claiming that EAs aren't evidence for evolution or are dishonest is dishonest and misleading. Don't let cl con you by shifting his argument to try and re-write history. That's part of his MO.<BR/><BR/>Also, note that Jack's comment that he links to has nothing to do with what he's saying, yet he's somehow claiming it vindicates him, which is another part of his MO.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-44828619374343306582009-03-22T18:49:00.000-07:002009-03-22T18:49:00.000-07:00Asking how evolutionary algorithms account for the...Asking how evolutionary algorithms account for the genotype/phenotype distinction is <I>not</I> "falsehood" or "misinformation," but I'd think most rational people can see that for themselves. Citing Avida as "evidence" in response to a question about "one species evolving into another" is misleading. Notice that despite the accusatory tone, OMGF has still been able to answer the question I asked him.<BR/><BR/>And Karla, YES, you <I>should</I> check out the post OMGF suggested, especially <A HREF="http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/03/evolutionary-algorithms.html#comment-45153" REL="nofollow">this</A> comment from jack.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-49111840493487562382009-03-18T11:53:00.000-07:002009-03-18T11:53:00.000-07:00Karla,Ebonmuse has a post up about genetic algorit...Karla,<BR/>Ebonmuse has a post up about genetic algorithms that you might find interesting.<BR/><BR/>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/03/evolutionary-algorithms.html<BR/><BR/>This way you can learn more about them without having cl's falsehoods and misinformation mucking up the works.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-31252113306443058622009-03-10T03:36:00.000-07:002009-03-10T03:36:00.000-07:00Anonymous said," I know that he sees it as a badge...Anonymous said,<BR/><BR/><I>" I know that he sees it as a badge of honor in that he thinks I can not answer his ignorance or that his arguments are so good that they are irrefutable, but that's a delusion that he'll have regardless of whether I knock down his arguments or not."</I><BR/><BR/>Hey that's convenient! I don't even need to know how to answer that question!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-28150789290411512682009-03-05T10:28:00.000-08:002009-03-05T10:28:00.000-08:00lollolKarlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-92123042271826944322009-03-05T09:42:00.000-08:002009-03-05T09:42:00.000-08:00Wait. There's a non-cyber world? Why didn't someon...Wait. There's a non-cyber world? Why didn't someone tell me! I can take off my VR goggles now!Mike aka MonolithTMAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08385705390882035829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-70255292413829360152009-03-05T08:21:00.000-08:002009-03-05T08:21:00.000-08:00Sorry I've not posted anything new in a while. To ...Sorry I've not posted anything new in a while. To me it's been a long time. I have an increased amount of responsibility right now in the non-cyber world that has limited my writing time.Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-79757789031865477482009-03-03T06:36:00.000-08:002009-03-03T06:36:00.000-08:00Anon you are free not to respond to cl and cl you ...Anon you are free not to respond to cl and cl you are free not to respond to Anon. Maybe if you guys stay on topic and avoid statements to each other outside of that things will go more smoothly. Still neither of you have to respond to comments by the other while both of you are free to post comments that correspond to the post or an off shoot thread in the comments.Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-13011637827020464282009-03-03T05:14:00.000-08:002009-03-03T05:14:00.000-08:00And again, Karla, see how he's only interested in ...And again, Karla, see how he's only interested in arguing with me when I've made it plainly obvious that I want nothing to do with cl. If you look up the research from credible sources, you'll find that cl is in error, and no, I'm not going to cast my pearls before swine in dealing with him. I know that he sees it as a badge of honor in that he thinks I can not answer his ignorance or that his arguments are so good that they are irrefutable, but that's a delusion that he'll have regardless of whether I knock down his arguments or not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-82591993637252763742009-03-02T16:08:00.000-08:002009-03-02T16:08:00.000-08:00Anonymous,Everything you said about me in your las...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>Everything you said about me in your last comment is false and/or incorrect save for one thing - you <I>did</I> mention Tictalic and I glanced over it. So you're correct about that and you have my apologies. <BR/><BR/>However, it's no surprise to me that the rest of my points are completely eschewed. Whenever you feel like tackling the questions, I'm interested in your answers.<BR/><BR/>You claim I've made erroneous statements, but you don't back your claim up. Where are they? Don't simply denounce or handwave - explain with reason - if you can.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-34447832020265773982009-03-02T07:10:00.000-08:002009-03-02T07:10:00.000-08:00Karla,The evidence is right in front of you. cl c...Karla,<BR/>The evidence is right in front of you. cl claims I didn't mention Tiktaalik, even though I did. And, now he's claiming all kinds of contrary things about what he has claimed. He's also continually making references to what I can and can't possibly know about things that are way outside the scope of the OP. I made my comments and pointed out the things that you were ignorant about in regards to evolution. cl is making erroneous statements simply to try and argue with me. I am not going to entertain him, as that's all he's here to try and do - argue with me. He gets a perverse pleasure out of the attention he receives from people like me, because it indulges his misplaced sense that he is an intellectual and is able to converse on the same level as those of us who actually know something about that which we speak, especially rationalism and logic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-28499147248150782562009-02-28T10:27:00.000-08:002009-02-28T10:27:00.000-08:00Honestly, this is Greek to me. However, anon you h...Honestly, this is Greek to me. However, anon you have called me dishonest when I wasn't being dishonest, so I don't see how you expect me to accept your assessment of another when it wasn't accurate about me.Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-68981992581292856632009-02-27T17:02:00.000-08:002009-02-27T17:02:00.000-08:00Anonymous,First of all - again - I am not an evolu...<B>Anonymous,</B><BR/><BR/>First of all - again - I am not an evolution denier, nor do I endorse anti-evolution arguments. Although I've certainly got my questions, I believe in LUCA. <BR/><BR/><I>"I suggest you look up Avida and not take the word of cl or me."</I><BR/><BR/>Hey! A point on which we can agree! Karla <I>should</I> do her own research regarding these things, and that's precisely why I left my original comment, because I saw you trying to distort Avida in order to persuade Karla that one species can evolve into another - which BTW is a fact I do not deny. And if you're so knowledgeable about evolution, why didn't you just mention <I>Tictalic</I> as evidence of transition even beyond species? Such is surely more analogous to biological evolution than the computer simulation created by Ofria, Adami and Brown.<BR/><BR/><I>"He says that using Avida is as dishonest as using Haeckel or horse evolution..."</I><BR/><BR/>In the context of proof for "evolution of one species into another," which is the context you were speaking in, that is correct. Again - I would like to hear your own argument in your own words that justifies positing a computer simulation and digital organisms as having any pertinence or explanatory power to the geno / phenotype distinction. Again - present your own reasonable hypothesis regarding the means by which successive forms can result from successive lines of embryological development.<BR/><BR/><I>"...and then turns around and denies it,"</I><BR/><BR/><I>Oh really?</I> When did I "turn around and deny" that "...using Avida is as dishonest as using Haeckel or horse evolution...?" Where is the <I>evidence</I> for your claim? I did state that whether or not Haeckel's embryos were faked bears zero significance on my argument. Such is correct, and does not entail that I've denied my previous statement that "...using Avida is as dishonest as using Haeckel or horse evolution..." Another claim with no evidence from Anonymous.<BR/><BR/>As it is, we have no cogent rebuttal, more accusation, and more speculation. You eschewed the first of a two-tier argument - the bit about whether something is free if we must perform an action to obtain it. Then, you handwaved me to two articles that you <I>thought</I> refuted the second tier argument - yet as I explained, one of those articles actually directly supported my point (the eohippus article) and the other was out-of-context (Haeckel's embryos). Lastly, in the complete absence of counter-arguments, you then accuse me of being "dishonest" and presume I cite "made-up" friends! Yet notice how both of your responses conveniently manage to not address a single point I've made? No cogent rebuttal, more accusation and more speculation.<BR/><BR/>Now go ahead - explain how Avida can account for geno / phenotype distinction and please present your own reasonable hypothesis regarding the means by which successive forms can result from successive lines of embryological development. Otherwise quit chiding me and spinning webs unless you have something to say.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-41324354866310257182009-02-27T13:26:00.000-08:002009-02-27T13:26:00.000-08:00Karla,See cl's response above for why I say he's d...Karla,<BR/>See cl's response above for why I say he's dishonest. It's a typical display from him. He says that using Avida is as dishonest as using Haeckel or horse evolution, and then turns around and denies it, while simultaneously making grand claims about my misunderstandings of evolution? Give me a break. This is what I was warning you about.<BR/><BR/>Again, I suggest you look up Avida and not take the word of cl or me. If you have questions, I'll be happy to answer them, but I would be reticent to take the word of cl or his most-likely, made-up friends.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-18712958950352781072009-02-27T12:11:00.000-08:002009-02-27T12:11:00.000-08:00Karla,About the moderation, fair enough, and I sti...<B>Karla,</B><BR/><BR/>About the moderation, fair enough, and I still do intend to make a comment that is relevant to the OP. Among other things, it will touch upon your idea about the need for an original to precede a counterfeit.<BR/><BR/><B>Anonymous,</B><BR/><BR/>You seem to have misunderstood the relevance of Haeckel's embryos, as whether or not they were faked doesn't affect my point at all. Further, Claim CC216.2 directly supports my point, so I'm left to wonder why you'd reference that, and to wonder if maybe you're making knee-jerk responses here. These are even further supported by the fact that even after I explicitly told you I am not an evolution denier, you merely handwaved my claims and proceeded to gas on about how I've accepted the lies of the anti-evolution movement. I believe in LUCA for cryin' out loud, don't you read?!?!? And why on Earth would you assume I've never spent any time scouring the TalkOrigins archive and attempt to handwave me to an authority I'm quite familiar with? Your strategy here lends well to the idea that you can't formulate your own intelligent responses to my points, and that you'd wave me to a reference that supports one of them lends well to the idea that you haven't even understood them.<BR/><BR/><I>"Avida is a good simulation of evolution that performs what it set out to do. There's nothing wrong with citing it, and, in fact, it's very strong evidence in favor of evolution."</I><BR/><BR/>You do realize that there's not one lick of evidence or argument in your response here, right? You expect us to simply take your word for it. "Hell, Anonymous on the internet says Avida is good, strong evidence for evolution that there's nothing wrong with citing," well okay then, but you have totally failed to provide evidence and the burden of proof lies on you to show <I>with reason</I> why Avida is an accurate analogy for biological evolution. As with the others, your comments on Avida also lend themselves to the idea that you can't formulate your own response to Avida's failure to account for the geno / pheno type distinctions, or present your own reasonable hypothesis regarding the means by which successive forms can result from successive lines of embryological development. But you could clear all that up quite easily with a pertinent response, you know.<BR/><BR/>And lastly, of course you'll have to take my word for it, but if I've had conversations with employed, secular microbiologists at State Universities not tied to the Discovery Institute who find Avida less than persuasive, are they also believing the lies from the anti-evolution crowd? If so, I'm curious to find out what you know that they do not?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-89161177162520435082009-02-27T06:38:00.000-08:002009-02-27T06:38:00.000-08:00lol, Mike, you've never presented any problems. An...lol, Mike, you've never presented any problems. <BR/><BR/>Anon, I will research all that soon. I've been busy lately and haven't finished looking into somethings Cyberkitten and I were discussing and I haven't forgot that either.Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-41799399100756888202009-02-27T06:33:00.000-08:002009-02-27T06:33:00.000-08:00I promise to self govern. I'll watch my #^&...I promise to self govern. I'll watch my #^&%#%%#%$ %^#%&%%^#% language. ;-)Mike aka MonolithTMAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08385705390882035829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-35160925158995542702009-02-27T06:21:00.000-08:002009-02-27T06:21:00.000-08:00Sigh...I once again have to correct...Haeckel...ht...Sigh...I once again have to correct...<BR/><BR/>Haeckel...<BR/><BR/>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB701.html<BR/><BR/>Horses...<BR/><BR/>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_2.html<BR/><BR/>Finally, Avida is a good simulation of evolution that performs what it set out to do. There's nothing wrong with citing it, and, in fact, it's very strong evidence in favor of evolution. Karla, you should look at it and understand it instead of listening to me or cl (who obviously has been taken in by the lies of anti-evolution charlatans).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-13738902737547372262009-02-27T06:13:00.000-08:002009-02-27T06:13:00.000-08:00cl, welcome back. To date, I have never deleted or...cl, welcome back. To date, I have never deleted or modified or blocked any comments. I have only deleted my own a couple times when I inadvertently posted duplicate comments. <BR/><BR/>As long as everyone continues to self-govern themselves to be civil in their comments I will not need to turn on comment modification. <BR/><BR/>Thank you for your input.Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-79581339232982306432009-02-26T22:50:00.000-08:002009-02-26T22:50:00.000-08:00Karla,This was a great post. I hadn't come around ...<B>Karla,</B><BR/><BR/>This was a great post. I hadn't come around for a few days, because I'd been wondering if you deleted or "moderated" one of my comments. But this post was good enough I had to comment. I've been thinking some things along these similar lines. For now, I just want to address a few things in the thread.<BR/><BR/><B>Anonymous,</B><BR/><BR/>You said, <I>"Anything that is conditional and/or requires action on my part is not truly free. We use shorthand to denote what is "free" as in a lunch that you pay for, but it's not truly free if I need to perform some action in order to obtain this reward. You can not get around this. If god is offering salvation and is making it conditional upon us believing in god or something else, then it is not free."</I><BR/><BR/>Although I understand your point, can you realize that by your definition no truly free thing exists? The very act of acceptance is an action the accepter must perform. Karla can buy you lunch, but you need to perform the act of eating in order to benefit from the offer. Equally, Karla argues that God can offer you life, but you need to act in order to benefit from the offer. Do you not think that's reasonable?<BR/><BR/>And BTW, when you posit Avida in response to Karla's questions about evolution, you're way off. And let me add emphatically that by no means am I an evolution denier, so get that out of your head if it arises. Using Avida to support biological evolution is about as scrupulous as using Haeckel's embryos or those damned horse diagrams. These computer simulations that supposedly demonstrate evolution via natural selection and mutation flagrantly omit the geno/pheno type distinction, and show no reasonable means by which successive forms can result from successive lines of embryological development.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-76117536628639187032009-02-25T09:25:00.000-08:002009-02-25T09:25:00.000-08:00Karla said... Adam and Eve were not Hindu or polyt...Karla said... <BR/>Adam and Eve were not Hindu or polytheistic. Hence Monotheism has always been around. Polytheism sprang up sometime after that, but monotheism never cycled out, it has always been. It wasn't one and then the other and back again or anything like that.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Karla, you're hilarious.Ali Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04566345726056361182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-44426782549131257642009-02-24T11:41:00.000-08:002009-02-24T11:41:00.000-08:00"Even if I deposited it into your bank account you..."Even if I deposited it into your bank account you would have to accept that it was yours to have."<BR/><BR/>Perhaps. Let's just say this:<BR/><BR/>Anything that is conditional and/or requires action on my part is not truly free. We use shorthand to denote what is "free" as in a lunch that you pay for, but it's not truly free if I need to perform some action in order to obtain this reward. You can not get around this. If god is offering salvation and is making it conditional upon us believing in god or something else, then it is not free.<BR/><BR/>"Mike, Cyber, and Anon, I suppose you guys think we evolved from monkeys, right?"<BR/><BR/>We did not evolve "from" monkeys, and it is statements like this that make me say that you obviously don't know what you are talking about when it comes to evolution. We do know, however, how the chromosomal fusion event happened, where in the genome it happened, the results of it happening, and the time-frame when it happened. I recommend reading Ken Miller's testimony in the Dover Trial transcript.<BR/><BR/>"To me that's far more preposterous than God creating the first man and woman and telling us about them."<BR/><BR/>Positing some entity for which you have no evidence that created some beings that were the first man and woman, and then allowed for some hyper-active evolution to make up the diversity we see today is beyond the bounds of Occam's Razor, and certainly not more likely. And, in an ironic twist, if you believe in the flood and that only 8 people survived, it would require evolution much faster than what you deny is possible in order to see the genetic diversity among humans that we see today.<BR/><BR/>"Or a singular designer which would account for the similarities."<BR/><BR/>There's no evidence for a designer, and there's no reason why a divine designer would have to re-use similar features.<BR/><BR/>"Evolution of one species to another has never been proven."<BR/><BR/>It has been well demonstrated. I suggest you look up Avida, nylonase, and this link:<BR/><BR/>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/<BR/><BR/>"No half ape, half human skeletons have been recovered."<BR/><BR/>Of course not, because we didn't evolve <I>from</I> apes, as we've told you. We do have many skeletal remains of hominids that show the changes that have taken place over the last couple hundreds of thousands of years.<BR/><BR/>"No transitional creatures fossils have been found."<BR/><BR/>This is just ignorant. Look up Tiktalik (sp?), or the line of horse evolution, or whale evolution, etc. There are tons of transitionals, beyond Archeopteryx.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-64619952038706103892009-02-24T08:42:00.000-08:002009-02-24T08:42:00.000-08:00karla said: Evolution of one species to another ha...karla said: Evolution of one species to another has never been proven.<BR/><BR/>Yes, it has.<BR/><BR/>karla said: No one has observed this.<BR/><BR/>Yes, they have.<BR/><BR/>karla said: No transitional creatures fossils have been found.<BR/><BR/>Actually numerous transitional fossils have been found. Have you not heard of Archeopteryx? It is *the* classical transitional fossil.<BR/><BR/>karla said: BTW, I think we are getting way off topic of the original post.<BR/><BR/>Indeed we are. Funny how things tend to end up with debating Evolution though....CyberKittenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394155516712665665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-86420727024103494122009-02-24T08:35:00.000-08:002009-02-24T08:35:00.000-08:00"All primates (including us) have a common ancesto..."All primates (including us) have a common ancestor. This has been proven beyond reasonable doubt many times."<BR/><BR/>Or a singular designer which would account for the similarities. <BR/><BR/>Evolution of one species to another has never been proven. No one has observed this. No half ape, half human skeletons have been recovered. No transitional creatures fossils have been found. <BR/><BR/>BTW, I think we are getting way off topic of the original post.Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-5683248926199042172009-02-24T08:03:00.000-08:002009-02-24T08:03:00.000-08:00"Mike, Cyber, and Anon, I suppose you guys think w..."Mike, Cyber, and Anon, I suppose you guys think we evolved from monkeys, right? To me that's far more preposterous than God creating the first man and woman and telling us about them."<BR/><BR/>Might want to add Evolution For Dummies to your reading list, despite the title, I do not mean that as an insult at all. I love the dummies books.Mike aka MonolithTMAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08385705390882035829noreply@blogger.com