I know what a lot of my philosophical assumptions are but probably not all of them. I doubt you know what they are, however. Instead of getting so dramatic, why don’t you state what you think my assumptions are, and how those assumptions are seen in the argument about pseudogenes? Then we will have something to talk about. Or we could talk about pseudogenes, or any other topic in genetics. As it is, I know that you think I’m wrong, and that you probably don’t like me, but that’s not really very helpful.
1 Like
I don’t know you so how can I possibly hate you? Or is this just some weird debating trick you use that has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand? All I know for a fact is that you guys are making patently false claims based on faulty assumptions that have no real empirical support for the point you are trying to establish, i.e. namely common descent.
The last word is all yours. I have much better things to do than try to correct someone who could be so misguided in his basic requirements of empirical science.
I’m trying to get you to say something with actual content. You say I’m making patently false claims based on false assumptions, but you won’t tell me what the false assumptions are or how they lead to the false claims (which you are very vague about as well). So what am I supposed to say? “Am not?” I think it’s your responsibility, if you’re going to accuse a scientist of shoddy scientific reasoning, to back up your accusation.
1 Like
Whether something happened once, does not give a probability of 1. That is meaningless. For example, a lottery ticket being drawn… The probability that a ticket will be drawn has a probability of one, but the probability of a particular ticket is a probability of one in the number of tickets sold. Even if you argue that the probability of evolution occurring is one, the probability of any particular evolutionary result is certainly not one.
The probability of one particular event is relevant, but not as significant as the probability of innumerable changes in a specific direction. Flipping a coin once is 50% probable for outcome, but getting the same outcome 1000 times in a row is much different.
Maybe it is the way you stated this… but technically, differences do not show common ancestry; only similarities show common ancestry. Differences show different ancestry.
We would expect this even if evolution were not the cause.
However, a tree-like pattern existed long before dna sequencing. Every child was taught about this tree like pattern in elementary school long before dna sequencing was possible. DNA sequencing has altered the pattern of the tree-like pattern in some cases, but it did not create the principle of it. Thus obviously it cannot be definitive for evolution, since it would be present regardless.
John,
I am talking about past events. You can determine the probability of future events but past events already happened so the probability of them occurring is 1 because they did occur.
I found that that was a slightly dramatic escalation on your part based only on glipsnort’s apparently patient efforts to understand what you meant. I agree with him: you have not clarified your view and I think your readers are left wondering what on earth the pseudogene issues have to do with unwarranted reductionist assumptions.
bornagain just led it go. Biologos and its supporters are not interested in an exchange of ideas. You have backed up your arguments with numerous references and have received rudeness and personal attacks in return. Biologos what to dictate not debate.
I guess your post isn’t necessarily responding to what I posted but I’ll address it since it’s posted as a follow up to my post.
Your post suggests that it is you, not Collins and others, who see other Christians as “below” oneself if there are differences of opinion. Do you have any references or videos showing Francis Collins referring to other people like you’re referring to him and others on your post?
I don’t see any option for comments at Ten Myths About Dover: #1, "Judge Jones Addressed the Actual Theory of ID, Not a Straw Man" | Evolution News, let alone a platform for discussion and debate of ideas as BioLogos provides here - seems to me like it’s ID who does not want to be debated in public. Why is that?
1 Like
You are repeating what you said before. So you can reread what I wrote in response, until you understand what I was saying. The probability of something happening does not change once it happens.
Your statement is false. The probability of a past event occuring is 1. When using past events in probability models to predict future probabilities, the probability models have to be adjusted based on the past events which occurred. The whole subject of Bayesian Probability is based on this. Given that a previous event occurred, what is the probability of a second event occurring given that the first event occurred? That is the key statement that Bayesian probability can be used for. When used correctly, the incredible rare events that ID claims are not so rare.
so the probability that god exist is then 1 because its already happaned.
What event that already happened are you referring to? The Big Bang, life on Earth, your birth?
Rudeness and personal attacks…
Hmm, you mean like these?
1 Like
P.S. You’ve been flagged as inappropriate, hopefully not just by me. Vulgarity crosses the line, my friend
That’s called a rant. Low on content, high on petty insults. Not welcomed when the point (assuming a point) could be made with so much more class.
I don’t think that is true. Biologos staff is very interested in exchange of diverse ideas. I am also.
1 Like
Dennis is excellent at explaining complex genetics. He is very precise and factual in all of his writings. Very clear and very informative. You can learn a lot from Dennis. I have.
Dennis’ response to ENCODE was very good. Very clear and well presented. Plus factually correct.
Not true, Biologos folks engages with everybody. An TE is not an intellectual stain on Christian thinking as TE is not different than what the Catholic Church and mainline protestant have been saying for decades - there is not conflict between the Big Bang and evolution and TE
Francis Collins is a great scientist and an excellent public servant as Director of NIH. His efforts will help hundred of millions of people as new medical discoveries funded by NIH improves the lives of millions of people.
ID looks nothing like QM. QM is the most tested theory in all of science. Regarding String Theory, Multiverse, Loop Gravity, these are proprosals made that need to be tested before taken seriously.
2 Likes
the event of creation. you claimed that any past event have a probability of 1.
Yes, space, time, matter, and energy coming into existence in an instant 13.799 billion years ago happened so has a probability of 1
1 Like