EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[MysticPhD]

So, if I can sum it up:
In your search for God, and the meaning of life, you have read several books (i.e. Tao Te Ching, Bible, etc.) that led you into a few decades of meditation. Sometime during those decades of meditation the peyote kicked in, allowing you to coin such neat phrases as "spiritual fossil record" and "God contingent".
Naturally, the mescaline allowed you to complete the journey, wherein the rest of humanity began using science in a diabolical scheme to discredit your pantheistic beliefs (which, coincidentally, adhere to the Christian construct and recognize Jesus as the son of God).

I think I've got it.

How does it feel
How does it feel
To be on your own
With no direction home
Like a complete unknown
Like a rolling stone? - Bob Dylan

The Dylan selection is apt . . . as I indicated to Doppleganger. But the suggestion that I have EVER used drugs of any kind is not and I am a teetotaler. The 18+ years of meditation experimentation as an atheist Buddhist was drug free, aided by bio-feedback to gain control of my autonomic system. The breakthrough is what triggered my search for an explanation that made sense to ME. Once you KNOW there is a beneficent consciousness behind existence . . . rationality requires that it ALL must make sense somehow. I have ALWAYS had difficulty with "the red in tooth and claw" aspect of physical existence . . . hence the focus on the spiritual (consciousness) aspect instead. The physical universe is simply the "production processes" (factory) which always has inputs, outputs and WASTE . . . just as our physical bodies do. I strive NOT to be waste.

 

[MysticPhD]

You're going to make me say this as many different ways as possible, huh? It's not even an unintended consequence. It's not science's fault if some people, you included, take it that way. Science doesn't say or imply that there is no God.

It is if no pro-active effort is made to correct the misunderstanding of conflict . . and some leading proponents (Dawkins, et al.) go out of their way to confirm it with their theist/atheist scale of probabilities of God.

Also, you did say earlier that it was a goal of science. Remember the whole "They found design, but decided to refuse to accept it and found any way they could to explain it away" thing? So, this would seem to be backtracking from you.

That is going out of their way to use mathematical "non-explanations" to AVOID acknowledging what I advocate . . . not the same thing. It is the general mathematical ignorance and this use of "non-explanations" as if they were explanations that is the problem.

Um...that's been said, too. Pay attention. Science has and can, however, learn things that make certain aspects of some gods or religions less likely.

ANY attributes of God/Nature that are not validated by science are OPINION and subject to disputation.

Regardless, in case you missed, no one here thinks that science can find evidence that God doesn't exist. Just as it can't find evidence that God does exist. It would help if you read the other replies here, instead of ust continuing to post.

Some here exhibit the same ignorance as the general public about what the mathematics tells us. But it is the general public that suffers most from this antagonistic schism.

 

[themadhair]

The only example of probabilistic prediction you referred to was that of genetic mutations, and you were furnished with the information of their cause. Which you ignored of course.

I ignored no explanations . . . probabilities explain nothing. The issue is confusing the use of percentages (probabilities) which are descriptions of expected frequency of occurrence (chance) . . . with knowledge of the actual source of the occurrences. Chance is not a source . . . it reflects our ignorance of the source.

Here is the source I linked to - Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As I said, you ignored it.

mball1297[/b]] Also, you did say earlier that it was a goal of science. Remember the whole "They found design, but decided to refuse to accept it and found any way they could to explain it away" thing? So, this would seem to be backtracking from you.

That is going out of their way to use mathematical "non-explanations" to AVOID acknowledging what I advocate . . . not the same thing. It is the general mathematical ignorance and this use of "non-explanations" as if they were explanations that is the problem.

You objected to being compared with the intelligent design crowd, but let me see now:
1)Design is claimed without any supporting evidence.
2)You imply that science is deliberately constructing ‘non-explanations’ to avoid recognising the alleged design.
3)You are totally and repeatedly misrepresenting scientific concepts (specifically randomness, probability, chance and the use of mathematics).
4)You make claims of non-explanations while ignoring the evidentiary supported explanations that do exist.
5)You completely ignored the current scientific explanation for genetic mutations while continuing to repeatedly, and incorrectly, cite ‘probability’ and ‘randomness’ for their explanations – despite having this explanation linked for you.
Reads like ID to me.

mball1297[/b]] Regardless, in case you missed, no one here thinks that science can find evidence that God doesn't exist. Just as it can't find evidence that God does exist. It would help if you read the other replies here, instead of ust continuing to post.

Some here exhibit the same ignorance as the general public about what the mathematics tells us.

I’m guessing that snark was aimed at me. Gee whiz, I guess that means I’ll have to go and get a refund on that mathematics degree now.

It is if no pro-active effort is made to correct the misunderstanding of conflict . .

I think I can safely say that there are a number of posters who have pro-actively, and with great patience too I might add, tried to correct YOUR misunderstanding of YOUR invented conflict. I know you have thing against Dawkins, but to tell the truth much of what you have posted here isn’t really helping your ‘conflict’, at least not in way you are claiming.

 

[MysticPhD]

I’m guessing that snark was aimed at me. Gee whiz, I guess that means I’ll have to go and get a refund on that mathematics degree now.

Not necessary . . . it is quite usual for a proficiency in mathematics to exist simultaneously with a lack of understanding about the philosophical implications that underlie their use. I taught graduate quantitative methods for decades as a professor . . . it is quite common in such a rote discipline.

I think I can safely say that there are a number of posters who have pro-actively, and with great patience too I might add, tried to correct YOUR misunderstanding of YOUR invented conflict. I know you have thing against Dawkins, but to tell the truth much of what you have posted here isn’t really helping your ‘conflict’, at least not in way you are claiming.

As long as you continue to believe probabilistic descriptions "explain" anything about the source of phenomena . . . we will be at odds. C'est la vie.

 

[themadhair]

Not necessary . . . it is quite usual for a proficiency in mathematics to exist simultaneously with a lack of understanding about the philosophical implications that underlie their use.

In all seriousness here, you aren't just in disagreement with myself and the other posters here - but the scientific community itself. And given that some of your posts would indicate that you aren’t sure what the role of mathematics is in an explanatory context (i.e. none) then I’m not confident for your side here.

Also, I think the problem here is that you are ascribing philosophical implications to using mathematics within science that do not exist. I’m an empiricist so I’m going to see about testing this idea. Since you seem intent on believing that science regards ‘randomness’ as the explanation for genetic mutations, how about you explain how the scientific community incorporates randomness and what the phrase ‘randomness’ means in that context.

As long as you continue to believe probabilistic descriptions "explain" anything about the source of phenomena . . . we will be at odds. C'est la vie.

This is simply getting embarrassing. Please read the following quote from my previous post:

The only example of probabilistic prediction you referred to was that of genetic mutations, and you were furnished with the information of their cause. Which you ignored of course.

I ignored no explanations . . . probabilities explain nothing. The issue is confusing the use of percentages (probabilities) which are descriptions of expected frequency of occurrence (chance) . . . with knowledge of the actual source of the occurrences. Chance is not a source . . . it reflects our ignorance of the source.

Here is the source I linked to - Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As I said, you ignored it.

Given that genetic mutations is the only example of probability cited, and given that you seem to have a problem with using probabilities as the source of that phenomena, why do continue to ascribe probability as the explanation of the scientific community for that phenomena when that is not the case?? Particularly when you have been repeatedly told this isn’t the case?? And particularly when you have been linked to an article that actually presents that source??

Who am I kidding? If you didn’t read my postings on this the first twenty times why should I expect the twenty-first time to be any different?

 

[Autodidact]

Mystic: Was your family of origin Christian?

 

[Autodidact]

I am not lying and I don't believe any of you are lying. What we take for granted we never question. I am seeking to break through that "given in the inner consciousness" lack of awareness of the true implications of creating a "nature" as the subject of investigation driving the assumptions of science. Apparently my attempt failed.

Your attempt failed because you're wrong.

 

[Autodidact]

Mystic: Your tendency to obfuscate makes your posts virtually incomprehensible.

 

[MysticPhD]

In all seriousness here, you aren't just in disagreement with myself and the other posters here - but the scientific community itself. And given that some of your posts would indicate that you aren’t sure what the role of mathematics is in an explanatory context (i.e. none) then I’m not confident for your side here.

Also, I think the problem here is that you are ascribing philosophical implications to using mathematics within science that do not exist. I’m an empiricist so I’m going to see about testing this idea. Since you seem intent on believing that science regards ‘randomness’ as the explanation for genetic mutations, how about you explain how the scientific community incorporates randomness and what the phrase ‘randomness’ means in that context.

Given that genetic mutations is the only example of probability cited, and given that you seem to have a problem with using probabilities as the source of that phenomena, why do continue to ascribe probability as the explanation of the scientific community for that phenomena when that is not the case?? Particularly when you have been repeatedly told this isn’t the case?? And particularly when you have been linked to an article that actually presents that source??

Who am I kidding? If you didn’t read my postings on this the first twenty times why should I expect the twenty-first time to be any different?

Back at you. I suspect this is a waste of time given the tenacity and intransigence of your philosophical obtuseness regarding epistemology and mathematics. Here is a small excerpt from YOUR OWN source (Wiki is not a reliable source IMO):

Genetic drift or allelic drift is the change in the relative frequency with which a gene variant (allele) occurs in a population that results from the fact that alleles in offspring are a random sample of those in the parents, and because of the role of chance in determining whether a given individual survives and reproduces. Genetic drift may cause gene variants to disappear completely, and thereby reduce genetic variability.

Genetic drift is one of several evolutionary processes which lead to changes in allele frequencies over time.

What exactly do you NOT comprehend about this resort to frequency(probability) or chance and randomness AS IF they "explain" Genetic Drift?

 

[Autodidact]

Yes. I did my best in the summary of my synthesis to explain it.Yes . . . my atheism was eliminated by my achievement of the end state in deep meditation under conscious control. That led to decades of searching to make sense out of it all.

So why didn't you just say so? Using polysyllabic nominalizations is not an indication of higher thinking; quite the contrary. Why not just say what you mean, instead of obfuscating and making us guess? It smells fishy?

O.K., since you believe that nature is God, and has consciousness, then I would think that science would serve as an example of religious practice for you. Yet you're hostile to it. I don't understand that. Your hostility seems to emanate from other's refusal to accept your faith, basaed on a personal, subjective mystical experience, as a source of knowledge for them. Yet you refuse to accept other people's comparable experience as a similar source for you. I told you I had an identical experience that enabled me to know for certain that there is no God. Yet you refuse to accept this as a source of knowledge for you. Like very religionist who has ever argued, it's all special pleading. Except for the part that's circular arguments.

 

[MysticPhD]

Mystic: Was your family of origin Christian?

Your attempt failed because you're wrong.

Mystic: Your tendency to obfuscate makes your posts virtually incomprehensible.

I cannot deny that my communication skills can be part of the problem . . . but the receiver's have culpability as well . . . n'est pas.

 

[Autodidact]

I cannot deny that my communication skills can be part of the problem . . . but the receiver's have culpability as well . . . n'est pas.

Did I mention also your habit of evading reasonable questions?

 

[MysticPhD]

So why didn't you just say so? Using polysyllabic nominalizations is not an indication of higher thinking; quite the contrary. Why not just say what you mean, instead of obfuscating and making us guess? It smells fishy?

I thought I was doing just that.

O.K., since you believe that nature is God, and has consciousness, then I would think that science would serve as an example of religious practice for you. Yet you're hostile to it. I don't understand that. Your hostility seems to emanate from other's refusal to accept your faith, basaed on a personal, subjective mystical experience, as a source of knowledge for them. Yet you refuse to accept other people's comparable experience as a similar source for you. I told you I had an identical experience that enabled me to know for certain that there is no God. Yet you refuse to accept this as a source of knowledge for you. Like very religionist who has ever argued, it's all special pleading. Except for the part that's circular arguments.

This is a misunderstanding by association. My avatar broadcast a specific mindset leading to assumptions that do not apply. My attempts to break the "taken for granted" separation of nature from God were seen as hostility because of said assumptions of "supernaturality," Omni's . . . whatever and association with "every religionist who has ever argued." I am the opposite of hostile to science. I refuse to accept nothing about any individual's preferences or beliefs. But the implicit denial of God by default separation from nature is endemic to science . . . and completely unjustified on any grounds.

 

[MysticPhD]

Did I mention also your habit of evading reasonable questions?

What "reasonable" question did I ignore?

 

[themadhair]

Back at you. I suspect this is a waste of time given the tenacity and intransigence of your philosophical obtuseness regarding epistemology and mathematics.

A philosophical obtuseness that, curiously enough, the scientific community seems to share. A philosophical obtuseness that, curiously enough, only seems to exist if the words ‘random’, ‘probability’, etc. had different meanings within science.

I have to admire your balls here. You are essentially misunderstanding the use/meaning of probability within this topic, and then using your own misunderstanding as the basis for accusing me of ‘philosophical obtuseness’, as well as using this as a basis for accusing the scientific community of using these concepts to avoiding having to recognise design.

Genetic drift or allelic drift is the change in the relative frequency with which a gene variant (allele) occurs in a population that results from the fact that alleles in offspring are a random sample of those in the parents, and because of the role of chance in determining whether a given individual survives and reproduces. Genetic drift may cause gene variants to disappear completely, and thereby reduce genetic variability.
…
What exactly do you NOT comprehend about this resort to frequency(probability) or chance and randomness AS IF they "explain" Genetic Drift?

Gotta love the way you equate frequency (used as a quantitative in this context) with probability here. Almost as if you didn’t know the contextual meaning involved.

As for random sample, you do know that meiosis is the explanation for which genetic material gets passed on? Not as if you took the phrase ‘random sample’, which essentially means ‘a subsection’, and took it completely out of context because you, yet again, seem to misunderstand the contextual meaning involved.

If the word ‘chance’ were replaced with ‘the environment’ would you have objected? Of course not, you wouldn’t have been able to make another straw-man based upon yet another contextual misunderstanding.

You don’t know the explanation behind coin-flipping because you rely on probability to predict its results. You talk of flipping it with your fingers is a non-explanation because it is based upon this probability

I am the opposite of hostile to science.

You just accuse it for not recognising the design you see because….

 

[MysticPhD]

A philosophical obtuseness that, curiously enough, the scientific community seems to share. A philosophical obtuseness that, curiously enough, only seems to exist if the words ‘random’, ‘probability’, etc. had different meanings within science.

I have to admire your balls here. You are essentially misunderstanding the use/meaning of probability within this topic, and then using your own misunderstanding as the basis for accusing me of ‘philosophical obtuseness’, as well as using this as a basis for accusing the scientific community of using these concepts to avoiding having to recognise design.

Gotta love the way you equate frequency (used as a quantitative in this context) with probability here. Almost as if you didn’t know the contextual meaning involved.

You are hopeless. Randomness, probability, relative frequency, chance all have the same mathematical meaning in this context.Here is the most simplistic version I can think of to illustrate these basic concepts to you. A "population" is described generically as any group of objects, subjects, events, etc. under consideration. (This is to avoid the usual confusion with actual populations of people . . . though it does apply there as well) The probability of X occuring in a generic "population" of Y is a function of the relative frequency with which it exists in the population Y i.e. = X/Y. (You might even consider it the amount of X "designed" into Y) The percentage of X in a population of Y = X/Y*100. The chance of X occurring in the population of Y is = X/Y. A random selection from a population Y would have a chance of being X = X/Y. Notice anything consistent about these representations? We ONLY need to use these when we have no idea what actually determines what we will actually get on any given attempt. If we knew . . . it wouldn't be a probability . . . ergo ignorance.

As for random sample, you do know that meiosis is the explanation for which genetic material gets passed on? Not as if you took the phrase ‘random sample’, which essentially means ‘a subsection’, and took it completely out of context because you, yet again, seem to misunderstand the contextual meaning involved.

Sampling theory is even more complicated . . . and since you have such difficulty with the basic concepts . . . it would hardly be prudent to try to educate you further about it.

If the word ‘chance’ were replaced with ‘the environment’ would you have objected? Of course not, you wouldn’t have been able to make another straw-man based upon yet another contextual misunderstanding.

How would chance and environment be equivalent?

You just accuse it for not recognising the design you see because….

Because they have unjustifiedly separated nature from God AS IF they had some basis for it other than preference and the schism.

 

[themadhair]

You are hopeless. Randomness, probability, relative frequency, chance all have the same mathematical meaning in this context.

And therein lies the problem with your misunderstanding.

We ONLY need to use these when we have no idea what actually determines what we will actually get on any given attempt. If we knew . . . it wouldn't be a probability . . . ergo ignorance.

My analogy was more accurate than I thought:

An [/B]analogy for MysticPhD] You don’t know the explanation behind coin-flipping because you rely on probability to predict its results. You talk of flipping it with your fingers is a non-explanation because it is based upon this probability.

When you sidestep your obfuscating, the above analogy is essentially the distilled form of your claim. However, in this simpler setting it is much more easy to see its falsity.

How would chance and environment be equivalent?

Because it is the environment that determines which individual survives. Did you really need me to explain that?

Because they have unjustifiedly separated nature from God…

How many times do we have to tell you this isn’t the case…?

 

[MysticPhD]

And therein lies the problem with your misunderstanding.

How so?

My analogy was more accurate than I thought:

How so?

When you sidestep your obfuscating, the above analogy is essentially the distilled form of your claim. However, in this simpler setting it is much more easy to see its falsity.

Help me out then . . . explain it to my simple mind.

Because it is the environment that determines which individual survives. Did you really need me to explain that?

And that has WHAT to do with understanding probability, randomness, chance or relative frequency . . . THAT is the survival imperative "designed" into Life combined with the availability and competition for resources to sustain life. [/quote]How many times do we have to tell you this isn’t the case…?[/quote]Until it finally penetrates your thick head that it is actually true.

 

[themadhair]

How so?

Because when the words ‘random’, ‘probability’, etc. appear you seem to stop there and treat them in their mathematical meaning rather their relationship to the phenomenon they are describing.

How so?

I thought I was being a little facetious with the analogy. Unfortunately, it appears that your argument really is as analogised.

Help me out then . . . explain it to my simple mind

Disprove the analogy without disproving your own claim. Unless you hold that the tenet of the analogy really is true, in which case I don’t know of a simpler way to show that the involvement of probability to model a result isn’t a substitute for the explanation for that result, nor is their any pretence of such.

And that has WHAT to do with understanding probability, randomness, chance or relative frequency . . .

Curiously enough, every single environmental possibility cannot be expressed on a page of paper. The effect of the environment upon traits is well understood (more commonly called natural selection) and you should be aware of this if you had studied the subject – so why did you highlight the word ‘chance’ in that passage when it was clear what context it was being inferred in? Oh that’s right, you could use the word ‘chance’ to erect that straw-man of yours.

THAT is the survival imperative "designed" into Life combined with the availability and competition for resources to sustain life.

It is sort of a truism in that, what survives is necessarily more predisposed to surviving than what doesn’t.

How many times do we have to tell you this isn’t the case…?

Until it finally penetrates your thick head that it is actually true.

Or I get bored of this, which on current evidence is much more likely.

 

[MysticPhD]

Because when the words ‘random’, ‘probability’, etc. appear you seem to stop there and treat them in their mathematical meaning rather their relationship to the phenomenon they are describing.

I thought I was being a little facetious with the analogy. Unfortunately, it appears that your argument really is as analogised.

Originally Posted by An analogy for MysticPhD
You don’t know the explanation behind coin-flipping because you rely on probability to predict its results. You talk of flipping it with your fingers is a non-explanation because it is based upon this probability.

Disprove the analogy without disproving your own claim. Unless you hold that the tenet of the analogy really is true, in which case I don’t know of a simpler way to show that the involvement of probability to model a result isn’t a substitute for the explanation for that result, nor is their any pretence of such.

Curiously enough, every single environmental possibility cannot be expressed on a page of paper. The effect of the environment upon traits is well understood (more commonly called natural selection) and you should be aware of this if you had studied the subject – so why did you highlight the word ‘chance’ in that passage when it was clear what context it was being inferred in? Oh that’s right, you could use the word ‘chance’ to erect that straw-man of yours.

This sort of confusion in your own presentation is why you fail to understand. Ignorance is ALWAYS at the heart of the use of probabilities. Not understanding "every single environmental possibility" equals . . . what class? . . . IGNORANCE !! . . . and that explains nothing. You cannot imply that you have explained the source of mutations using probability and randomness . . . you can simply express your ignorance scientifically using mathematics and leave the impression that you have explained it (fraudulently ruling out any need for a source, like God). You can add survival imperative and resource competition to the mix . . . but it does NOT remove the basic ignorance. (BTW . . .You do not know what the coin flip will produce because you are IGNORANT of ALL the factors that will determine it, period. Ignorance explains nothing!)