Math Professor destroys Atheist
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#87 Jan 29, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to be sarcastic myself but do you ever add anything of value or is negativity and sarcasm all you ever add?
Repro, you are starting to be one of the biggest bigots towards irony meters I've ever seen.

He likely thought that pointing out Shoob's (rather basic) errors AGAIN would be an exercise in triple-quadratic redundancy, and was wondering why Shoob had a bad habit of ignoring inconvenient reality.

To put mildly, Shoob's full of shit and doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, and is pretending otherwise for the sake of religious apologetics. Wouldn't be so bad except that even the fundies think Shoob is so full of it they took out a restraining order on the guy.

Since YOU also have a habit of ignoring anything you find inconvenient I feel I should warn you you are starting to sound more and more like him every day. This should be a concern.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#89 Jan 29, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
Sorry, but there is no such thing as 'high level' math at high school. Anything you see in high school is low level. For that matter, the first course in differential equations is low level.
Everything today revolves around either true axioms or incredible deceptions. For example, Richard Dawkins, an ethologist, thinks he’s qualified to speak authoritatively about real science but he’s really not even a bonafide biologist.

The mathematical physicist John Barrow—who is a theist—made a similar point directly to Richard Dawkins. When Dawkins challenged Barrow in Cambridge about the mathematical precision found in nature Barrow responded:“You have a problem with these ideas, Richard, because you are not really a scientist. You are a biologist.” Barrow views biology as little more than a branch of natural history, and thinks biologists lack an intuitive understanding of complexity. Their study of the higgledy-piggledy paths of life on this planet give them limited appreciation for the rich laws of physics that enable those paths.

My students are naturally brilliant and I’m sure that my Algebra II class will have no problem understanding the universal, empirical principle for devolution theory. To illustrate, let’s compare them to those who are so perfectly brainwashed and mesmerized by their own conceit and natural selection to actually admit believing that introducing 100 copying errors into textbooks year after year via random misspellings and by the duplications and deletions of sentences, is a valid way to improve textbook quality.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#90 Jan 29, 2014
HillStart wrote:
The only way 100 errors per text makes sense otherwise is to assume that each book is 3000 times longer, or that your error rate is 3000 times higher. But perhaps I was wrong to do this - perhaps you wanted to present a deliberately misleading picture.
The point of the new, universal, empirical principle for devolution theory is that it's a universal principle. The same conclusions will be reached regardless of the numbers. You're just whining about a concrete example.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#91 Jan 29, 2014
Bluenose wrote:
You don't do reading comprehension, do you Shoob?
I almost always skip over the posts by psychopaths. They know who they are. And the writings of borderline psychopaths only merit a cursory glance.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#92 Jan 29, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Everything today revolves around either true axioms or incredible deceptions. For example, Richard Dawkins, an ethologist, thinks he’s qualified to speak authoritatively about real science but he’s really not even a bonafide biologist.
BONG!!! That's a good sign for you to stop posting, Shoob.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#93 Jan 29, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> The point of the new, universal, empirical principle for devolution theory is that it's a universal principle. The same conclusions will be reached regardless of the numbers. You're just whining about a concrete example.
Except for the fact you got it wrong. DNA doesn't work on conventions of language. It works on conventions of chemistry. If our genomes WERE like the English language then you MIGHT have had a point (except for the fact you conveniently leave out natural selection as a factor) since English words may only have one or two different ways of spelling a word, and only so many words which are similar which are still viable when "mutations" are applied. But in the case of biology, where you've got say, roughy 10^93 different possible functional combinations for cytochrome C, the effect of mutations bringing about non-functionality becomes MUCH less of a factor. This is hardly surprising really, when one considers that there's roughly 7 billion ways to make a human being. And that's just today, not even counting everyone who's ever lived or every other species that's ever existed.

That, and the fact that your BS apologetics is based on Adam and Eve and their "100% perfect genomes", who as far as can be scientifically determined never even existed.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#94 Jan 29, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> I almost always skip over the posts by psychopaths. They know who they are. And the writings of borderline psychopaths only merit a cursory glance.
In which case you must skip your own posts most often, which explains why they're constantly erroneous.

Since: Jan 14

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#95 Jan 29, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> The point of the new, universal, empirical principle for devolution theory is that it's a universal principle. The same conclusions will be reached regardless of the numbers. You're just whining about a concrete example.
OK, I'm willing to put that example to one side and concentrate on the principle itself.

First, let me make sure I understand what you're talking about. Your devolution theory states:
1. Genetic copying errors arise in every generation and accumulate in a population over time.
2. More of these errors have a negative effect than a positive one (though most may be neutral).
3. As the errors accumulate, they cause more and more problems until, ultimately, the population dies out.

Is that right, or have I misunderstood?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#96 Jan 29, 2014
HillStart wrote:
OK, I'm willing to put that example to one side and concentrate on the principle itself.
First, let me make sure I understand what you're talking about. Your devolution theory states:
1. Genetic copying errors arise in every generation and accumulate in a population over time.
2. More of these errors have a negative effect than a positive one (though most may be neutral).
3. As the errors accumulate, they cause more and more problems until, ultimately, the population dies out.
Is that right, or have I misunderstood?
John Sanford postulates that a genome is an instruction manual that specifies a particular form of life. Thus, start randomizing the code of that instruction manual and expect to get gibberish, unless, of course, you believe in the existence of magic molecules. Consequently, most mutations might seem to be neutral in their isolated, individual consequences but their cumulative effect could only be comparable to a car rusting atom by atom. I agree with him.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#97 Jan 30, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> John Sanford postulates
(snip bullshit)
I agree with him.
Who cares, he's a reality-denying YEC who was falsified before he even published his pseudo-scientific apologetics. Since neither of you address the realities that prevent you from being taken seriously you'll always be wrong.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#98 Jan 30, 2014
Dr. Sanford and I both reject the silly fantasy of an inheritable magical molecule.
http://everythingimportant.org/evolution

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#99 Jan 30, 2014
Shubee wrote:
Dr. Sanford and I both reject the silly fantasy of an inheritable magical molecule.
http://everythingimportant.org/evolution
{yawn}

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#100 Jan 30, 2014
Shubee wrote:
Dr. Sanford and I both reject the silly fantasy of an inheritable magical molecule.
http://everythingimportant.org/evolution
So when can we expect to see your interview on 60 Minutes? Nature? The Daily Show?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#101 Jan 30, 2014
Discord wrote:
So when can we expect to see your interview on 60 Minutes? Nature?
In other words, from the people that think for you. Here's a perfect illustration of that:

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#102 Jan 30, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> In other words, from the people that think for you. Here's a perfect illustration of that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Zv7BImVvEykXX
Fine, any reputable scientific or news organization of your choice. I will keep my DVR ready.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#103 Jan 31, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
In which case you must skip your own posts most often, which explains why they're constantly erroneous.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#104 Feb 1, 2014
The Dude wrote:
Except for the fact you got it wrong. DNA doesn't work on conventions of language. It works on conventions of chemistry.
There is no disputing first two axioms of devolution theory:

AXIOM1
DNA, which is found in every cell, determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism. DNA is the hereditary material in all living things that is passed on to descendants.

AXIOM2
DNA—an extraordinarily long molecule, which encodes a fantastic amount of information—is "a linear sequence of four types of extremely small molecules, called nucleotides. These small molecules make up the individual steps of the spiral-staircase structure of DNA. These molecules are the letters of the genetic code, and are shown symbolically as A, T, C, and G. These letters are strung together like a linear text. They are not just symbolically shown as letters, they are very literally the letters of our instruction manual."'
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#105 Feb 1, 2014
I perceive that there are non-scientists on this thread that are too cowardly to reveal their unbelief in the first two axioms of devolution theory. Don't be weasels. Reveal your true ignorance.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#106 Feb 1, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Everything today revolves around either true axioms or incredible deceptions. For example, Richard Dawkins, an ethologist, thinks he’s qualified to speak authoritatively about real science but he’s really not even a bonafide biologist.
The mathematical physicist John Barrow—who is a theist—made a similar point directly to Richard Dawkins. When Dawkins challenged Barrow in Cambridge about the mathematical precision found in nature Barrow responded:“You have a problem with these ideas, Richard, because you are not really a scientist. You are a biologist.” Barrow views biology as little more than a branch of natural history, and thinks biologists lack an intuitive understanding of complexity. Their study of the higgledy-piggledy paths of life on this planet give them limited appreciation for the rich laws of physics that enable those paths.
My students are naturally brilliant and I’m sure that my Algebra II class will have no problem understanding the universal, empirical principle for devolution theory. To illustrate, let’s compare them to those who are so perfectly brainwashed and mesmerized by their own conceit and natural selection to actually admit believing that introducing 100 copying errors into textbooks year after year via random misspellings and by the duplications and deletions of sentences, is a valid way to improve textbook quality.
Your textbook analogy is flawed. It assumes changes in a vacuum and is unlike actual evolution. There is no selection process in your analogy. Were you to eliminate selection, then evolution might turn as you claim, but since selection exists, there is no devolution. It was an interesting hypothesis, but alas, it fell to the wayside.

I don't think the parents of those children will appreciate you dumbing them down with you quasi (sorry), crasi-religious, pseudoscience.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#107 Feb 1, 2014
Shubee wrote:
I perceive that there are non-scientists on this thread that are too cowardly to reveal their unbelief in the first two axioms of devolution theory. Don't be weasels. Reveal your true ignorance.
No one has ignorance to compare with yours. You are the King Weasel.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 min scientia potentia... 154,640
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 10 min Brian_G 48,440
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 33 min scientia potentia... 216,630
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 18 hr ChristineM 23,486
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... 20 hr It aint necessari... 638
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 20 hr Aura Mytha 179,708
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 21 hr Timmee 7
More from around the web