“It IS clear. It’s not Geek who is misrepresenting the quotes or the sources.” Geek’s misunderstanding on Popper, Mayr, the 2 scientists, the Origin has been made clear in past posts :)

“In fact, it is clear that kswolverine’s argument is flatly self contradictory, and that he is refusing to respond to Geek’s link to Talk Origins for what it is, a summary of the science regarding nested hierarchies”

Again, past posts made this clear. THE PROBLEM has NEVER been w the evidence only the INFERENCE of this evidence. NO ONE that I AM AWARE of doubts nested hieracrchies or common descent to the EXTENT its been SCEINTIFICALLY demonstrated. Hence, this is why I continually pointed out the differences between historcial theories and scientific theories. Thus your claim that I failed to address these is wrong.

“Examination of the genetic code of various organisims either provides evidence of such hiearchies, and therefore common descent, or they don’t”

READ ABOVE. PERHAPS IF PPL OPEN their minds this debate will get somewhere. ITS GREAT that ppl like HOLMES are willingly to admit as much

Thanks Holmes, it appears there are SOME HONEST evolutionists on here. Im confident with what I wrote and the debate that took place. Of course, no one’s mind is going to change because of this blog, however I hope that some will read the evidence presented and closely examine the debating style used by both parties. As you pointed out, it is SAD that Geek had to resort to such tactics. You can always tell who is winning a debate when all a side can say is “you’re an idiot” or “I dont care”. Very telling.

How’s that workin’ for ya?

It IS clear. It’s not Geek who is misrepresenting the quotes or the sources. In fact, it is clear that kswolverine’s argument is flatly self contradictory, and that he is refusing to respond to Geek’s link to Talk Origins for what it is, a summary of the science regarding nested hierarchies, particularly since the link referenced primary literature. His self congratulatory and childish theatrics aside, it is clear that he is ignoring the evidence presented with such irrelevancies as:

“DID YOU READ THAT GEEK. TIME-INVARIANT. You do understand that invariant means constant. CHANGELESS. Hmmm, I could have sworn that “evolution” involved change, lol.”

Nested heirarchies are not dependent upon perfect “time-invariance”. Examination of the genetic code of various organisims either provides evidence of such hiearchies, and therefore common descent, or they don’t.

They do.

By the way, I second Geek’s opinion of kswolverine.

Actually it was over before it started. Your convoluted arguments proved NOTHING other than you are an “intelligent design” apologist. It other words you are a creationist. There is not a controversy about evolution to discuss. That is in your narrow, creationist mind.

I heard last night one of the local BOE candidates who supports ID got her ass handed to her when she suggested that this alleged “controversy” be taught in a science class. Sorry, that isn’t going to happen. Instead of wasting electrons and space on the WE server, try actually reading the Dover decision. Your ID voodooism was sent packing.

Bggeek…………..it did a great job parrying this moron’s thrusts, but I did advise you to not engage his/her type. Hell, they’ll declare victory with a sword embedded in their bellies. To top it off, they’ll claim their god will strike us down. Don’t engage these RW “Christian” nutjobs!

You’re finally right about something. You tried your best kid, dont beat yourself up. Although I must say you have some nerve. The fact that you got royally hammered and then claim that ANYONE w questions should come to YOU for answers when your ignorance has been repeatedly shown amazes me!

Correct. As I have said all along Darwinism is not like the physical sciences. THIS DOESNT mean it CANNOT be tested at ALL, but rather CANNOT BE TESTED IN the same manner as theories in the physical sciences. WHICH IS WHAT THE MAYR quote and Scientists quote amply shows

Just to clarify any future misunderstanding, historical theories are unfalsifable WHEN they critiqued and measured by the same manner in which scientific or physical scientific theories are measured. My original statement is correct. However, this statement could be misconstrued. Hence hopefully this well help the GEEK

MINE: “The only QUANTIFIED way though to measure this fitness is with survival….In short, the 2 and 3 theories are useful and even predictive. Yet in the end the results are inferences which are not quantified. JUST AS the differences between historical theories and scientific theories the differences between survival and prediction is results. QUANTIFIED results.” (empahsis mine)

WHAT EXACTLY DONT YOU UNDERSTAND GEEK?

I NEVER made such a claim. PLEASE dont make statements you can not back up. I have totally destroyed you in this debate. NOW you have resorted to myth, to LYING!

“I proved it with a logical argument. One of those premises has to be wrong.”

YOU ARE CONFUSED GEEK. I tried to explain it to you. I even showed you the post you claimed WAS GOOD, lol. ARE you saying you now dont admit that. THE lies are building here GEEK. Those reading take notes

Couldn’t agree more.

In fact, this format is far more useful to muddying water (ie, “teaching the controversy”) than it is to clarifying it.

“PLEASE, do tell. When was this done? Wrong about what? Dont make empty statements and not back them up.”

When were you wrong? When you said Darwinism was unfalsifiable because it was a historical and then said historical sciences were not unfalsifiable. I proved it with a logical argument. One of those premises has to be wrong.

Let it go.

No you didnt. I had to throughly destroy your “evidence” piece by piece. ONLY when I showed you up for bringing up pointless unrelated jargon did u admit it.

“You are incapable of seeing you are wrong much less admitting it, even though it has been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt.”

PLEASE, do tell. When was this done? Wrong about what? Dont make empty statements and not back them up.

You know, these blog comments are really terrible for conversation. They don’t number or permalink the posts and they don’t allow tags for formatting and quoting. Those big dense posts would go down so much better with a little formatting. It’s the same in the forums, shame.

LOL

2 comments.

First, even heartlander doubts that “real science” takes place on paper. Much less a blog. And much, much less a “real debate” here, in this god awful format. LOL

Second, “religion v. science” advice offered to WE editors from the guy who insists he (and by some kind of goofy extension his experience can be generalized to that of all humankind) has to decide whom he’s attracted to sexually, girls or boys, every time the wind changes directions (or whenever).

You got to love these Kansans who apparently relish being as blinded by religion as a 20th century Arab or a 15th century Dominican from Seville.

You should immediately gather all the arguments you used in this thread and publish them in the Journal of Intelligent Design (you know, that place where all the ID research is published). Darwinism will shortly be at it knees.

Another stellar debating tactic. YOU’RE AN IDIOT!

GAME-SET-MATCH!

Jesus you’re an idiot.

GEEK, buddy. How many blunders can one man make? Are you going for the record? I assume you have actually read bout Markovain this time, and not simply googled it, .lol. From your link:

“Markovian systems appear extensively in physics, particularly statistical mechanics, whenever probabilities are used to represent unknown or unmodelled details of the system, if it can be assumed that the dynamics are time-invariant, and that no relevant history need be considered which is not already included in the state description.”

DID YOU READ THAT GEEK. TIME-INVARIANT. You do understand that invariant means constant. CHANGELESS. Hmmm, I could have sworn that “evolution” involved change, lol.Again, no relevant history need be considered not in the description. Considering we have already established Darwinism is an historical theory this seemingly argues AGAINST your point that this model somehow shows credence to “evolution”

Link: “Markov chains also have many applications in biological modelling, particularly population processes, which are useful in modelling processes that are (at least) analogous to biological populations. The Leslie matrix is one such example, though some of its entries are not probabilities (they may be greater than 1). Another important example is the modeling of cell shape in dividing sheets of epithelial cells. The distribution of shapes — predominantly hexagonal — was a long standing mystery until it was explained by a simple Markov Model, where a cell’s state is its number of sides. Empirical evidence from frogs, fruitflies, and hydra further suggests that the stationary distribution of cell shape is exhibited by almost all multicellular animals.”

Biological modeling, particularly population process. The modeling of cell shape dividing sheets of epithelial cells. Empirical evidence from frogs, fruitflies, and hydra further suggests that the stationary distribution of cell shape is exhibited by almost all multicellular animals. AND THIS IS YOUR mathematical evidence for “evolution.” Forgive me if im wrong, but I have yet to hear of ANYONE who denies that populations can vary, that cells can divide and ell shape distribution. THIS, GEEK, is your mathematical EVIDENCE for Darwinism or what u keep referring to as “evolution”. Excuse me but LMAO. Please GEEK how many more times must I shred you feeble arguments?

“Common descent is a genetic process in which the state of the present generation/individual is dependent only upon genetic changes that have occurred since the most recent ancestral population/individual.”

Agreed. I am not aware of anyone that would doubt this

“Therefore, gradual evolution from common ancestors must conform to the mathematics of Markov processes and Markov chains. Using Markovian mathematics, it can be rigorously proven that branching Markovian replicating systems produce nested hierarchies (Givnish and Sytsma 1997; Harris 1989; Norris 1997). For these reasons, biologists routinely use branching Markov chains to effectively model evolutionary processes, including complex genetic processes, the temporal distributions of surnames in populations (Galton and Watson 1874), and the behavior of pathogens in epidemics.”

Again NESTED HIERARCHIES. To the extent that science has shown us, BELOW the family level :)

“Goodbye again. Don’t make me keep embarrassing you, let me go”.

GEEK, buddy, I think its evident who KEEPS getting embarrassed. Perhaps if you took the time to READ your examples before you post them you would save yourself the embarrassment.

The mistake was trivial. I knew of the Price equation and offered it up without thoroughly reading the article. I immediately accepted correction. But you have completely ignored my amended argument. Here I’ll post it again.

“The debate between the adherents and critics of Darwinism is not in the mathematical language of the physical sciences but in the framework of two competing narratives. On this basis, Darwinism and ID are both in the same arena. If Darwinism wishes to have the better claim for being science, it would have to be based on a restricted definition that mandates quantitative mathematical arguments as in the physical sciences.”

This is untrue. If you would READ the article titled “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution” (you know, the one that you keep saying infers macroevolution from speciation so that you can justify not reading to yourself but in fact does no such thing) you would see this.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

“Common descent is a genetic process in which the state of the present generation/individual is dependent only upon genetic changes that have occurred since the most recent ancestral population/individual. Therefore, gradual evolution from common ancestors must conform to the mathematics of Markov processes and Markov chains. Using Markovian mathematics, it can be rigorously proven that branching Markovian replicating systems produce nested hierarchies (Givnish and Sytsma 1997; Harris 1989; Norris 1997). For these reasons, biologists routinely use branching Markov chains to effectively model evolutionary processes, including complex genetic processes, the temporal distributions of surnames in populations (Galton and Watson 1874), and the behavior of pathogens in epidemics.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain

Goodbye again. Don’t make me keep embarrassing you, let me go.

A single admitted mistake can not be horribly wrong? Not to say I don’t make mistakes. However, I never once question somebody, attempted to denounce their quote and point in argument, by using an irrelevant piece of information.

GEEK- “Your Princeton buddies don’t say anything about the unfalsifiability of historical sciences, they accuse “Darwinists” of conflating science and religion. To the extent that they address the unfalsifiablitly of evolution they say it’s because it’s not a quantitative mathematical science (also untrue, google for the Price equation). So they give you NO SUPPORT.”

HE CLAIMED this equation disproved my quote. “NO SUPPORT”. I stand by what I said. It was wrong, horribly wrong.

Sad.

Keep voting Republican though.

We don’t want you . . .

“You have my sympathies, Geek, for dealing with this intellectually dishonest individual.”

Hmmm, can one hold another blogger accountable for libel online. PLEASE SIR DO NOT make false accusations