Irony of the evolutionary belief

[F1fan]

I did the best possible thing that I could have done , I quotes a scientific paper that explicitly says that nonrandom mutations seem to occur and that they play a role in the evolution of organisms.

And you did the worst possible thing “claim that I am wrong because you say so”

False. I said your lack of expertise means your interpretation of the link doesn’t mean what you were claiming. This has been pointed out to you by numerous people. You continue to not understand your limitations and errors.

 

[Pogo]

You have a bias in favor of “refuting me” GPT has no bias……for that reason alone I prefer that source.

Besides there is a big difference between asking GPT about deep and hard philosophical questions and the definition of a common word

And be honest…. Deep inside you know that my definition of testimony (what people say or report) is perfectly valid,

Is chatGPT biased?

GPT says

As an AI language model, I strive to be as unbiased and objective as possible in providing information and responses. However, biases can inadvertently exist due to the data used to train the model or the way it is fine-tuned for specific tasks. OpenAI, the organization behind ChatGPT, continuously works to mitigate biases and improve fairness in its models.

It's important to remember that while I aim to be neutral and provide balanced perspectives, I don't have personal beliefs or opinions. My responses are based on patterns in the data I was trained on and the instructions provided by users like you. If you ever notice any biases or inaccuracies in my responses, please feel free to point them out, and I'll do my best to address them.

It is not actually unbiased in that your instructions to it seem to lead to it producing a wishy-washy confirmation bias. It is not terribly impressive.

In fact after using it today, it is a good example of why testimony is the wrong word when dealing with reproducible scientific information.
ChatGPT produces testimony or claims, but while there is something behind it, there is no way of examining it or reproducing it. Further if you don't quite like what it says, just hit the repeat and it will find different words. You can even tell it to leave out problematic output.
It is not a trustworthy source in the sense that I and others here use the term.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Need to clean my screen, missed that one, but re Pinky and the Brain, he probably watched it aged 7-10 just like my kids and I and here is an interesting use of the stories in P+B re startups. It is very interesting how Leroy behaves just like the Brain.

From

8 startup lessons from Pinky and the Brain​

I used to watch it as well, and I'm almost 70. I always equated them with Cheney and Bush. Trump and Stephen Miller might be the closest thing to them today, although Trump is also motivated to take over the world, and Miller has competition from the likes of Bannon and Stone.

You might enjoy this from

["Are you ponering what I'm pondering?"]

"Sure, Brain, but how are we going to find chaps our size?

"I think so, Brain, but this time you put the trousers on the chimp.

"I think so, Brain, but where will we find a duck and a hose at this hour?

"Well I think so, Brain, but if we didn't have ears, we'd look like weasels.

"Well, I think so, Brain, but where do you stick the feather and call it macaroni?"

"I think so, Brain, but burlap chafes me so."

"I think so, Brain, but me and Pippi Longstocking... I mean, what would the children look like?"

"I think so, Brain, but this time, you wear the tutu."

"I think so, Brain, but isn't Regis Philbin already married?"

"Uh... yeah, Brain, but where are we going to find rubber pants our size?"

"I think so, Brain, but culottes have a tendency to ride up so."

"I think so, but where will we find an open tattoo parlor at this time of night?"

"I think so, Brain, but if they called them sad meals, kids wouldn't buy them."

"Uh, I think so, Brain, but we'll never get a monkey to use dental floss."

"Well, I think so, Brain, but I can't memorize a whole opera in Yiddish."

[and many, many more]

 

[leroy]

False. I said your lack of expertise means your interpretation of the link doesn’t mean what you were claiming. This has been pointed out to you by numerous people. You continue to not understand your limitations and errors.

Back to you are wrong because I say so…… you have to support you accusations………………..sure it could be possible that I am misinterpreting the text, but you have to do more than simply asserting it that I am wrong.

 

[Pogo]

I used to watch it as well, and I'm almost 70. I always equated them with Cheney and Bush. Trump and Stephen Miller might be the closest thing to them today, although Trump is also motivated to take over the world, and Miller has competition from the likes of Bannon and Stone.

You might enjoy this from

["Are you ponering what I'm pondering?"]

"Sure, Brain, but how are we going to find chaps our size?

"I think so, Brain, but this time you put the trousers on the chimp.

"I think so, Brain, but where will we find a duck and a hose at this hour?

"Well I think so, Brain, but if we didn't have ears, we'd look like weasels.

"Well, I think so, Brain, but where do you stick the feather and call it macaroni?"

"I think so, Brain, but burlap chafes me so."

"I think so, Brain, but me and Pippi Longstocking... I mean, what would the children look like?"

"I think so, Brain, but this time, you wear the tutu."

"I think so, Brain, but isn't Regis Philbin already married?"

"Uh... yeah, Brain, but where are we going to find rubber pants our size?"

"I think so, Brain, but culottes have a tendency to ride up so."

"I think so, but where will we find an open tattoo parlor at this time of night?"

"I think so, Brain, but if they called them sad meals, kids wouldn't buy them."

"Uh, I think so, Brain, but we'll never get a monkey to use dental floss."

"Well, I think so, Brain, but I can't memorize a whole opera in Yiddish."

[and many, many more]

NARF, Cartoons written for adults as much as children.
Better than a P-sychciatrist.

 

[leroy]

Is chatGPT biased?

GPT says


It is not actually unbiased in that your instructions to it seem to lead to it producing a wishy-washy confirmation bias. It is not terribly impressive.

In fact after using it today, it is a good example of why testimony is the wrong word when dealing with reproducible scientific information.
ChatGPT produces testimony or claims, but while there is something behind it, there is no way of examining it or reproducing it. Further if you don't quite like what it says, just hit the repeat and it will find different words. You can even tell it to leave out problematic output.
It is not a trustworthy source in the sense that I and others here use the term.

Ok but GPT alleast tries to be unbias…………while you actively try to look for the information that would serve your purpose (refute me)

Besides, you would trust GPT more that you would trust me, you wouldn’t accept a mere claim made by me, that would refute your argument……………………..so why should I trust in your mere claims?

 

[Pogo]

Back to you are wrong because I say so…… you have to support you accusations………………..sure it could be possible that I am misinterpreting the text, but you have to do more than simply asserting it that I am wrong.

Because it is like when your wife sends you to the store for tartar sauce and you come back with cream of tartar and insist it is the same thing no matter what she says. Eventually she just rolls her eyes at you and smiles.

 

[Pogo]

Ok but GPT alleast tries to be unbias…………while you actively try to look for the information that would serve your purpose (refute me)

Besides, you would trust GPT more that you would trust me, you wouldn’t accept a mere claim made by me, that would refute your argument……………………..so why should I trust in your mere claims?

Look, we are pretty much a bunch of geezers that have been responding to creationists since before you were born and trying to lead you out of the quicksand you have fallen into by unscrupulous or ignorant leaders. Your first post on the subject I saw was 4 questions that defined you as a poor victim of a bad education re evolution. Each of the questions were classic PRATTs (points refuted a thousand times)
There is/was no need to look anything up to refute you, all we can do is give you examples of the real understanding and why the version you learned is a PRATT.

To your credit, you do seem to be trying to make rational scientific arguments as opposed to several here who are just denying and posting strawmen without any actual engagement.
However, from your regurgitation of creationist and Intelligent Design talking points and your stubbornness when faced with correction (ask your wife). we are stuck in a position that our explanations go over your head due to your lack of appropriate background all you here is no. This is because you don't understand even though you think you do and you will need to go back and relearn some basics from some place that explains how it does work instead of places that make up reasons that it doesn't work.

My suggestion is to start with this website Evolution 101 and work through it till you are actually comfortable with the terminology and concepts.

 

[YoursTrue]

In order to believe what reports say about human evolution you have to believe what the (scholarly) papers are saying, including the estimates of when 'humans' first appeared. etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

Don't worry about the Spanish or even the sentence structure, we now know why it is happening and that they are not just random mistakes. In fact it appears that my hypothesis of a Spanish autocorrect is probably correct and explains the accents and Spanish spellings for similar words.
We are curious people and we notice things and try to work out why.

yeah, like scientists are still trying to figure how humans started "evolving," conjecturing lots of things, and dates. and "intermingling" or interbreeding, and wandering, I am rather sure that you cannot say, but might say, "Look it up." Or refer me to an article you cannot go into detail about because -- you don't know beyond what the article says. and that's ok.

 

[Pogo]

In order to believe what reports say about human evolution you have to believe what the (scholarly) papers are saying, including the estimates of when 'humans' first appeared. etc.

No, you are more than welcome to go back and redo all of the observations and experiments that led to the conclusions. They are all available in public libraries etc.
As you follow this path of education you will repeat certain studies and having confirmed them yourself you will be able to understand and absorb others by following the logic and analyzing the results presented. This is how all sciences are learned at higher levels.
At no point will you be asked/told that this is the way it is because that is what it says in this book. That is the antithesis of science education.

Get a good HS and you will read about siege war and then build a Ballista or a Trebuchet and spend a day on the ball field and record where every thing lands and all the other data you can get, then take all your numbers and derive the equations and see if they look like Newtons. Within reasonable error they will be and you will have learned about half on Newtonian physics without ever being handed "Revealed Knowledge"

OK, it was an SCA project (society for creative anachronism) In class we did air hockey and hot wheels.

 

[Pogo]

yeah, like scientists are still trying to figure how humans started "evolving," conjecturing lots of things, and dates. and "intermingling" or interbreeding, and wandering, I am rather sure that you cannot say, but might say, "Look it up." Or refer me to an article you cannot go into detail about because -- you don't know beyond what the article says. and that's ok.

Look, you want to remain ignorant, go ahead but unless you can tell us why something is wrong, stop pretending you know anything.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am not saying that you shouldn’t remain skeptical, what I said is that given the existence of God (some generic God) the claim “miracles can occur” doesn’t sound like an extraordinary claim nor as something completely unexpected. I am not saying that miracles logically and necessarily follow from the existence of a God, I am just saying that miracle would be “ridiculously improbable” Given the existence of God

I can agree that if the god of Abraham exists, miracles are possible and may have occurred with a creation event and thereafter as well as with plagues, parting the Red Sea, the flood, the Tower of Babel, etc. through to the resurrection. If you establish the former, you have made a good case for the latter. But I don't think you can do that.

No thanks, in this thread, it was established that testimony means “without evidence”………….. if I use that word people are going to say “ohhhh see Leroy is admitting that he has no evidence”

For me, as I've explained, in its literal sense, testimony is the answer somebody gives when asked what he heard, saw, or did. Testify is the verb form of the noun testimony, as when in court.

But we can relax that and use the term more loosely. When you refer to the testimony of those who saw the resurrection, technically, you're implying that they were asked what they saw rather than excitedly offered their "testimony" to anybody that would listen. When somebody testifies at a religious revival or an AA meeting, he is probably doing so in a setting where somebody has asked for his opinion for the opinions of anybody who wants to offer one.

And we can be even more metaphorical was with, "The bruises to his face and on his knuckles testify that he has been in a fight," which doesn't include speaking at all.

I apologize for that, ill try not to publish words in Spanish

No problema, amigo. Your English is better than my Spanish.

I am from Mexico, I am 36 years old I have a 4yo daughter, the brain in my avatar is just a random image that I found in my computer.

Glad to meet you. If it's not too personal, I'd also like to know what country you live in now if it's not Mèxico, if you have a wife, what your work is, and how much schooling you have, but it's none of my business if you prefer to keep that private.

I'm from the US, but have lived in Mèxico fifteen years now in an expat community with a lot of Canadians and Americans. I'm almost 70 years old now, married 33 years now, no kids, a retired physician (internal medicine and hospice), an avid amateur musician (electric guitar), and a contract bridge enthusiast and teacher.

It is difficult to learn Spanish here because everybody speaks to us in English, so there is no need and one must do some immersion training to learn, but we keep plugging. At lunch today, we spoke Spanish as much as possible, but the Mexican waiter spoke to us in English. I ordered a "margarita fresa, frappe, sin sal, sin tajin, con tequila aparte" and heard back "frozen strawberry margarita, clean glass, tequila on the side." They want to improve their English just as we are trying to improve our Spanish. And if they screw up the English, they appreciate being corrected just I appreciate correction.

My wife lags behind me, especially when it comes to conjugating verbs, which can be a scene. As our mesero was clearing the table, she wanted to tell him that we never touched the bread, and said "No tocar" rather than "no tocamos," and he cleared everything but the bread. I told he that I think she just told him not to touch the bread. She'll say hable for hablo and necisita for necesito and that never works out well. Got to be careful with verbs.

The brain in your avatar you must know by now is a cartoon character, a cynical cartoon intended for adults, where your character is continuously angry and wants to rule the world with his low information but cheerful sidekick friend, maybe like Lieutenant Dan and Forrest Gump if that means anything to you, or Laurel and Hardy, or George and Lennie from Of Mice And Men - one smarter and a bid jaded, the other simple but happy.

 

[leroy]

Sooner or later people die. You will die some day. It is uncomfortable but that is a fact. You can pretend part of you will live on. That does not bother me. But you will die.

Now I cannot explain the evolutionary reason that happens beyond making some educated guesses. A population that has critters that do not die could not evolve. Sooner or later it would be all undying adults and no young could survive that. No evolution means that when the environment changes they would simply die out. It is an evolutionary advantage to keep having replacements with some variation. That way as the environment changes certain new traits would be prevalent and older ones that were no longer beneficial would be lost. To have that happen you need the older population to die and get out of the way.

If we don’t die, we can still have sons and grand suns and grate grand suns etc… each generation would be different from the prior, so we would still have variation and evolution..

I would say/guess that the explanation is that not dying is neutral (it really has no benefit) and any system that would prevent us to die would be a complex system , therefore unlikely to evolve without the help of natural selection

 

[Pogo]

If we don’t die, we can still have sons and grand suns and grate grand suns etc… each generation would be different from the prior, so we would still have variation and evolution..

I would say/guess that the explanation is that not dying is neutral (it really has no benefit) and any system that would prevent us to die would be a complex system , therefore unlikely to evolve without the help of natural selection

Actually it turns out to be negative because it uses up limited resources without creating progeny.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If we don’t die, we can still have sons and grand suns and grate grand suns etc… each generation would be different from the prior, so we would still have variation and evolution..

I would say/guess that the explanation is that not dying is neutral (it really has no benefit) and any system that would prevent us to die would be a complex system , therefore unlikely to evolve without the help of natural selection

You are forgetting something. Do you want me to say what obvious obstacle you missed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually it turns out to be negative because it uses up limited resources without creating progeny.

Oh well, I guess that I do not now have to point out the obvious to @leroy .

 

[Pogo]

Oh well, I guess that I do not now have to point out the obvious to @leroy .

We will get to exponential growth and being smothered by rabbits another day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We will get to exponential growth and being smothered by rabbits another day.

Bacteria would be even faster if they never died. And much messier.

 

[Pogo]

Bacteria would be even faster if they never died. And much messier.