Fun with exponents

On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 8:58:44 PM UTC+2, jbeattie wrote:



My back and knees absolutely and conclusively refute intelligent design. And why do I have nipples? That doesn't seem too intelligent to me. And what's with all the joke animals in Australia? That designer should be fired.. "Hey, who designed this platypus -- you? You're fired!" If humans were intelligently designed, we would look like iPhones, early iPhones without the swipe thing, and a better power cord. I see no evidence of intelligent design.

-- Jay Beattie.

LOL.

Lou

On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 12:44:38 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 01:51:15 -0700, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

On Saturday, 6 June 2020 02:52:39 UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 22:46:44 -0700 (PDT), AnotherJim
wrote:

What are you all on about now? Evolution somehow doesn't have the time
to produce what we have? Therefore, what: Magic?

The observation of evolution caused speculation about its cause,
progress, and rate. Environmental pressure of some sort favors a
mutation of some sort, and new species result due to successful
competition; the species-to-species progression can be observed; the
rate of change is according to the time scale of what has been
observed to have changed.

Don't like the idea, the observations, the theory? So what?

-Jim

"Evolution" goes on every day. All modern Thoroughbred horses can trace
their pedigrees to three stallions originally imported into England in
the 17th and 18th centuries, however they have evolved and modern race
horses are noticeably different, larger and faster today then the
horses of 500 years ago.
Cattle are much the same and modern cattle produce more milk or more
meat then their forebears . Sheep produce more and finer fleece, and so
on..

The difference is that with animals evolution is managed rather than a
matter of chance.
--
cheers,

John B.

That was due to mankind selectively breeding the animals NOT natural
evolution. Ditto for many crops such as corn.

According to Darwis Thoery, evolution happens due to outside pressure for
change. In the case of domestic animls, the main pressure is the
requirements of humans. In naytural selection, it would be natural
factors as the selective pressure(s). Effectively the same.

It also shows that the genes are there to be selected

Cheers

Very likely true. When being chased by a lion the long legged
creatures are the most likely to escape and the most likely to have
long legged descendents :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 06:51:34 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, June 5, 2020 at 10:46:46 PM UTC-7, AnotherJim wrote:
What are you all on about now? Evolution somehow doesn't have the time to produce what we have? Therefore, what: Magic?

The observation of evolution caused speculation about its cause, progress, and rate. Environmental pressure of some sort favors a mutation of some sort, and new species result due to successful competition; the species-to-species progression can be observed; the rate of change is according to the time scale of what has been observed to have changed.

Don't like the idea, the observations, the theory? So what?

-Jim

In your terms it would be magic. Tell us why we have never found any intermediate stages in your idea of evolution? Why never a "bird"/reptile that had scales starting to change into feathers? A large reptile growing fur? The shape and construction of reptile teeth is uniquely theirs, why no intermediate stage of reptile teeth to mammal?

If speciation occurs at all it has to be an ongoing process. So in the more than 200 years since Darwin's theory why haven't we been able to identify a single case? And for that matter in the 2,000 years since civilization was born surely man would notice speciation and hasn't.


Gee Tom, and there you go, blathering away and displaying your
ignorance. Civilization is generally believed to have existed since
approximately 10,000 years ago.

You really need to either learn something or stop talking about things
that you don't understand as people are beginning to think that you
are a fool.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 7:58:44 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 9:57:52 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 2:51:36 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Friday, June 5, 2020 at 10:46:46 PM UTC-7, AnotherJim wrote:
What are you all on about now? Evolution somehow doesn't have the time to produce what we have? Therefore, what: Magic?

The observation of evolution caused speculation about its cause, progress, and rate. Environmental pressure of some sort favors a mutation of some sort, and new species result due to successful competition; the species-to-species progression can be observed; the rate of change is according to the time scale of what has been observed to have changed.

Don't like the idea, the observations, the theory? So what?

-Jim

In your terms it would be magic. Tell us why we have never found any intermediate stages in your idea of evolution? Why never a "bird"/reptile that had scales starting to change into feathers? A large reptile growing fur? The shape and construction of reptile teeth is uniquely theirs, why no intermediate stage of reptile teeth to mammal?

If speciation occurs at all it has to be an ongoing process. So in the more than 200 years since Darwin's theory why haven't we been able to identify a single case? And for that matter in the 2,000 years since civilization was born surely man would notice speciation and hasn't.

Mutations appear to come around repeated sections of DNA. Some 97% of all necessary proteins for life occur next to repeated or "noise" sections and some 60% of non-lethal areas. So the speed at which mutations occur is a known speed. Nothing can change this because of the immense odds against a mutation surviving. As I said elsewhere - it is 77,000:1 that it isn't fatal.

Pretend to use grade school logic and talk of magic, but that doesn't change odds and time.

Hang on, Tom. Jim just hasn't kept up.

Jim, this is about the Cambrian Explosion about 525m years ago, in which suddenly, without any developmental predecessors a whole world of new animals suddenly appeared. That is already anti-Darwinian. Furthermore, there are no intermediate stages for many of today's animals, when one works backwards from today. Let's assume that you understand that one, not all developmental stages are evolutionary (by definition in a trial and error process most are dead ends), two, that most evolutionary "trials" are lethal, and, three, that the rare evolutionary development must appear at the precise instant it is required, otherwise it would undermine the efficiency of an animal living at the margin and kill it before it become evolutionary. In consideration of these facts, and our new knowledge of the mathematics of the gene and its constituent parts, we can apply the laws of probability, which (I hate to tell you in a forum with so many engineers with railroad minds on it) is both purest physics and strictest Darwinism. And then a huge problem arises: There wasn't enough time since the start of the Universe for evolution to happen. Darwin, without the math, was aware of these problems and actually mentioned them in his book which found the now questionable "science" of evolution; he just hoped that the missing links would somehow be found. I assume you also know that Darwin, having held off publication of his book in the hope of new discoveries willing in the holes as a well as a disinclination to upset a Christian society, was forced to publish because someone else had independently come to invent the theory of evolution. If you want to know more, the best explanation is in Stephen C Meyer's Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design

My back and knees absolutely and conclusively refute intelligent design. And why do I have nipples? That doesn't seem too intelligent to me. And what's with all the joke animals in Australia? That designer should be fired.. "Hey, who designed this platypus -- you? You're fired!" If humans were intelligently designed, we would look like iPhones, early iPhones without the swipe thing, and a better power cord. I see no evidence of intelligent design.

-- Jay Beattie.

The problem isn't intelligent design or any other process we might investigate, the problem is that, due to calcification of our scientific arteries -- witness the mess of global warming which is now openly a religion rather than a science -- we've now arrived at a point where Darwin is subject to serious questioning -- questioning which some of his reflex defenders ludicrously don't even know Darwin started himself because he grasped, both instinctively and practically from his collection of skeletons, that his theory lacked adequate proof -- without the scientific community having the faintest idea of what could replace Darwin's attractive theory. Check out Rolf (Ralf?) telling me that a) he has a PhD (Duh!), and b) he will believe in Darwin unto the death: that's the religious response of a martyr, not scientific curiosity. Darwin published before he was ready because he had to, in the hope that future evidence would prove him right. The future has arrived and the new evidence is mounting up -- against Darwin -- and to replace Darwinian theories
we have **** in hand, religious defenses of Darwin from third-raters who fear that any new knowledge will shake their infirm grasp on scholarship (never mind actual science) holding fast to inspecting the King's stool rather than the King to diagnose what ails him.

Meyer's argument is a statistical case about DNA, not religion. If an Intelligent designer had the powers of a god, there would be a lot less waste in nature. One of my ancestors, Odin, was worshipped by the British and other Jutes/Anglo-Saxons elsewhere until the coming of Christianity; he waa a warrior, a poet (a singer of tales), and a wise chieftain; Odense, the Danish island and city is named for his seat, Odin's Hall or Odenhalle in Danish; however, I've never heard any evidence that this wise man was or claimed to be infallible. Gods are fallible humans, just wiser than most. But the intelligent designer visualized by the careless thinkers who cling to Darwin's like predigested pablum is all-knowing, infallible. Why? An intelligent designer doesn't need godlike powers. He, she or it could merely have curiosity and be as fallible as any human. When I was a motor and offshore racer, I discovered that the sooner you fail on the testbed, and the more often you fail on the testbed, and therefore that the faster you fail on the testbed, the sooner you win on the track or in the water; I had discovered a commonplace of high performance engineering. All you nead is endless money, and a certain ruthlessness with failed experiments. Why shouldn't the Intelligent designer who created our world bring to his work/hobby/experiment the same method that served me well as a racer, as a scholar, as a businessman, and in the arts?

Andre Jute
No, I thought not.

On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 7:58:44 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

My back and knees absolutely and conclusively refute intelligent design.

It may be time for you to rise up from being a gorilla in too small a cage, which is what a roadie down on the drops looks like, sit upright like a human being, and hold on to North Road bars. I did and it saved my back.

Andre Jute
Not to mention that my helmet also saved my life many, many times

On Sun, 07 Jun 2020 05:33:28 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 12:44:38 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 01:51:15 -0700, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

On Saturday, 6 June 2020 02:52:39 UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 22:46:44 -0700 (PDT), AnotherJim
wrote:

What are you all on about now? Evolution somehow doesn't have the
time to produce what we have? Therefore, what: Magic?

The observation of evolution caused speculation about its cause,
progress, and rate. Environmental pressure of some sort favors a
mutation of some sort, and new species result due to successful
competition; the species-to-species progression can be observed; the
rate of change is according to the time scale of what has been
observed to have changed.

Don't like the idea, the observations, the theory? So what?

-Jim

"Evolution" goes on every day. All modern Thoroughbred horses can
trace their pedigrees to three stallions originally imported into
England in the 17th and 18th centuries, however they have evolved and
modern race horses are noticeably different, larger and faster today
then the horses of 500 years ago.
Cattle are much the same and modern cattle produce more milk or more
meat then their forebears . Sheep produce more and finer fleece, and
so on..

The difference is that with animals evolution is managed rather than
a matter of chance.
--
cheers,

John B.

That was due to mankind selectively breeding the animals NOT natural
evolution. Ditto for many crops such as corn.

According to Darwis Thoery, evolution happens due to outside pressure
for change. In the case of domestic animls, the main pressure is the
requirements of humans. In naytural selection, it would be natural
factors as the selective pressure(s). Effectively the same.

It also shows that the genes are there to be selected

Cheers

Very likely true. When being chased by a lion the long legged creatures
are the most likely to escape and the most likely to have long legged
descendents :-)

Which, I believe actually arises from Lamarkian evolution. shrug, jst
different facits of the same effect.

Of course, with lions and running, there is also the factor who can dodge
the best where a slower running can still evade the lions.

On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 16:44:37 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 7:58:44 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

My back and knees absolutely and conclusively refute intelligent
design.

It may be time for you to rise up from being a gorilla in too small a
cage, which is what a roadie down on the drops looks like, sit upright
like a human being, and hold on to North Road bars. I did and it saved
my back.

Andre Jute Not to mention that my helmet also saved my life many, many
times

Hmm, is "beingintelligent" not putting yourself in the situation where
you must rely on your helmet for survival.

On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 01:28:32 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Jun 2020 05:33:28 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 12:44:38 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 01:51:15 -0700, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

On Saturday, 6 June 2020 02:52:39 UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 22:46:44 -0700 (PDT), AnotherJim
wrote:

What are you all on about now? Evolution somehow doesn't have the
time to produce what we have? Therefore, what: Magic?

The observation of evolution caused speculation about its cause,
progress, and rate. Environmental pressure of some sort favors a
mutation of some sort, and new species result due to successful
competition; the species-to-species progression can be observed; the
rate of change is according to the time scale of what has been
observed to have changed.

Don't like the idea, the observations, the theory? So what?

-Jim

"Evolution" goes on every day. All modern Thoroughbred horses can
trace their pedigrees to three stallions originally imported into
England in the 17th and 18th centuries, however they have evolved and
modern race horses are noticeably different, larger and faster today
then the horses of 500 years ago.
Cattle are much the same and modern cattle produce more milk or more
meat then their forebears . Sheep produce more and finer fleece, and
so on..

The difference is that with animals evolution is managed rather than
a matter of chance.
--
cheers,

John B.

That was due to mankind selectively breeding the animals NOT natural
evolution. Ditto for many crops such as corn.

According to Darwis Thoery, evolution happens due to outside pressure
for change. In the case of domestic animls, the main pressure is the
requirements of humans. In naytural selection, it would be natural
factors as the selective pressure(s). Effectively the same.

It also shows that the genes are there to be selected

Cheers

Very likely true. When being chased by a lion the long legged creatures
are the most likely to escape and the most likely to have long legged
descendents :-)

Which, I believe actually arises from Lamarkian evolution. shrug, jst
different facits of the same effect.

Of course, with lions and running, there is also the factor who can dodge
the best where a slower running can still evade the lions.

As in the old story about being chased by a bear. You don't have to
run faster then the bear, only faster then your mate :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 2:32:40 AM UTC+1, news18 wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 16:44:37 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 7:58:44 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

My back and knees absolutely and conclusively refute intelligent
design.

It may be time for you to rise up from being a gorilla in too small a
cage, which is what a roadie down on the drops looks like, sit upright
like a human being, and hold on to North Road bars. I did and it saved
my back.

Andre Jute Not to mention that my helmet also saved my life many, many
times

Hmm, is "beingintelligent" not putting yourself in the situation where
you must rely on your helmet for survival.

Duh, dingbat, I was trolling the usual suspects obviously enough to make the gesture contemptuous. And you gulped in the bait. You're stupider than a guppy in a fish tank.

Andre Jute
Monkey see, monkey do

On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 4:40:20 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 7:58:44 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 9:57:52 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 2:51:36 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Friday, June 5, 2020 at 10:46:46 PM UTC-7, AnotherJim wrote:
What are you all on about now? Evolution somehow doesn't have the time to produce what we have? Therefore, what: Magic?

The observation of evolution caused speculation about its cause, progress, and rate. Environmental pressure of some sort favors a mutation of some sort, and new species result due to successful competition; the species-to-species progression can be observed; the rate of change is according to the time scale of what has been observed to have changed.

Don't like the idea, the observations, the theory? So what?

-Jim

In your terms it would be magic. Tell us why we have never found any intermediate stages in your idea of evolution? Why never a "bird"/reptile that had scales starting to change into feathers? A large reptile growing fur? The shape and construction of reptile teeth is uniquely theirs, why no intermediate stage of reptile teeth to mammal?

If speciation occurs at all it has to be an ongoing process. So in the more than 200 years since Darwin's theory why haven't we been able to identify a single case? And for that matter in the 2,000 years since civilization was born surely man would notice speciation and hasn't.

Mutations appear to come around repeated sections of DNA. Some 97% of all necessary proteins for life occur next to repeated or "noise" sections and some 60% of non-lethal areas. So the speed at which mutations occur is a known speed. Nothing can change this because of the immense odds against a mutation surviving. As I said elsewhere - it is 77,000:1 that it isn't fatal.

Pretend to use grade school logic and talk of magic, but that doesn't change odds and time.

Hang on, Tom. Jim just hasn't kept up.

Jim, this is about the Cambrian Explosion about 525m years ago, in which suddenly, without any developmental predecessors a whole world of new animals suddenly appeared. That is already anti-Darwinian. Furthermore, there are no intermediate stages for many of today's animals, when one works backwards from today. Let's assume that you understand that one, not all developmental stages are evolutionary (by definition in a trial and error process most are dead ends), two, that most evolutionary "trials" are lethal, and, three, that the rare evolutionary development must appear at the precise instant it is required, otherwise it would undermine the efficiency of an animal living at the margin and kill it before it become evolutionary. In consideration of these facts, and our new knowledge of the mathematics of the gene and its constituent parts, we can apply the laws of probability, which (I hate to tell you in a forum with so many engineers with railroad minds on it) is both purest physics and strictest Darwinism. And then a huge problem arises: There wasn't enough time since the start of the Universe for evolution to happen. Darwin, without the math, was aware of these problems and actually mentioned them in his book which found the now questionable "science" of evolution; he just hoped that the missing links would somehow be found. I assume you also know that Darwin, having held off publication of his book in the hope of new discoveries willing in the holes as a well as a disinclination to upset a Christian society, was forced to publish because someone else had independently come to invent the theory of evolution. If you want to know more, the best explanation is in Stephen C Meyer's Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design

My back and knees absolutely and conclusively refute intelligent design.. And why do I have nipples? That doesn't seem too intelligent to me. And what's with all the joke animals in Australia? That designer should be fired. "Hey, who designed this platypus -- you? You're fired!" If humans were intelligently designed, we would look like iPhones, early iPhones without the swipe thing, and a better power cord. I see no evidence of intelligent design.

-- Jay Beattie.

The problem isn't intelligent design or any other process we might investigate, the problem is that, due to calcification of our scientific arteries -- witness the mess of global warming which is now openly a religion rather than a science -- we've now arrived at a point where Darwin is subject to serious questioning -- questioning which some of his reflex defenders ludicrously don't even know Darwin started himself because he grasped, both instinctively and practically from his collection of skeletons, that his theory lacked adequate proof -- without the scientific community having the faintest idea of what could replace Darwin's attractive theory. Check out Rolf (Ralf?) telling me that a) he has a PhD (Duh!), and b) he will believe in Darwin unto the death: that's the religious response of a martyr, not scientific curiosity. Darwin published before he was ready because he had to, in the hope that future evidence would prove him right. The future has arrived and the new evidence is mounting up -- against Darwin -- and to replace Darwinian theories
we have **** in hand, religious defenses of Darwin from third-raters who fear that any new knowledge will shake their infirm grasp on scholarship (never mind actual science) holding fast to inspecting the King's stool rather than the King to diagnose what ails him.

Meyer's argument is a statistical case about DNA, not religion. If an Intelligent designer had the powers of a god, there would be a lot less waste in nature. One of my ancestors, Odin, was worshipped by the British and other Jutes/Anglo-Saxons elsewhere until the coming of Christianity; he waa a warrior, a poet (a singer of tales), and a wise chieftain; Odense, the Danish island and city is named for his seat, Odin's Hall or Odenhalle in Danish; however, I've never heard any evidence that this wise man was or claimed to be infallible. Gods are fallible humans, just wiser than most. But the intelligent designer visualized by the careless thinkers who cling to Darwin's like predigested pablum is all-knowing, infallible. Why? An intelligent designer doesn't need godlike powers. He, she or it could merely have curiosity and be as fallible as any human. When I was a motor and offshore racer, I discovered that the sooner you fail on the testbed, and the more often you fail on the testbed, and therefore that the faster you fail on the testbed, the sooner you win on the track or in the water; I had discovered a commonplace of high performance engineering. All you nead is endless money, and a certain ruthlessness with failed experiments. Why shouldn't the Intelligent designer who created our world bring to his work/hobby/experiment the same method that served me well as a racer, as a scholar, as a businessman, and in the arts?

Andre Jute
No, I thought not.

You don't know what God intended so you cannot say how intelligent the design is. Is there some reason that God did not start the spark of life and let it grow as it would?