… with Mung. In a recent comment Mung asserted that
If Darwinists had to put up their hard earned money they would soon go broke and Darwinism would be long dead. I have a standing $10,000 challenge here at TSZ that no one has ever taken me up on.
Now, I don’t have $10,000 to bet on anything, but it is worth exploring what bet Mung was making. Perhaps a bet of a lower amount could be negotiated, so it is worth trying to figure out what the issue was.
Mung’s original challenge will be found here. It was in a thread in which I had proposed a bet of $100 that a Weasel program would do much better than random sampling. When people there started talking about whether enough money could be found to take Mung up on the bet, they assumed that it was a simple raising of the stake for my bet. But Mung said here:
You want to wager over something that was never in dispute?
Why not offer a meaningful wager?
So apparently Mung was offering a bet on something else.
I think I have a little insight on what was the “meaningful wager”, or at least on what issue. It would lead us to a rather extraordinary bet. Let me explain below the fold …
Mung accepted that Weasel programs reach their goal far faster than random sampling. However Mung also said (here) that
Weasel programs perform better than blind search because they are guided. I didn’t think the performance was in dispute, nor why the performance was better.
and elsewhere characterized Weasels as succeeding because of “intelligence” as opposed to ignorance.
So let’s imagine what might happen if we took Mung up on the $10,000 bet. We would bet that the Weasel would succeed, because of cumulative selection. Mung would bet that (because of “intelligence” or being “guided”) the Weasel would succeed. The stake would be held by a house of some sort, which would not take a commission.
The Weasel would be run. It would succeed. So the house would declare that we had all won. The stake would be given to the bettors, in proportion to their bets. But alas, no one actually bet against the Weasel. So the winnings would be zero. Everyone, Mung and the rest of us, would get their stake back, and that’s all.
To bet against Mung, we have to come up with some event that distinguishes cumulative selection from “intelligence” (or being “guided”). That seems to be the issue on which Mung was offering a $10,000 bet, and declaring (here) us all to be “pretender[s]” because we would not put up or shut up.
So there it is. We’re all betting on the same side, and no one will win or lose a penny. Unless Mung can come up with some test that distinguished “intelligence” or being “guided” from cumulative selection.
Now I am possibly misunderstanding what the bet actually would be. I hope that Mung will straighten us out on that, so that we can understand what test is proposed, and place our bets.
Weasel shows us how easy it is to evolve a complex object, like an eye.
The letters are the parts of an eye. All of them together in the final string are all the complex parts working together to make a complex functioning eye.
I don’t know why Dawkins thinks you can just throw the pieces together in just any old order and have it still work. Yet another reason Weasel is silly and fails miserably.
What? I thought you said that the weasel models ID. So ID can’t produce eyes? bummer
Heh. Seems to me if I want to know what evolution can’t do there are many people I can ask. But if I want to know what ID can do nobody seems to know.
Actually I imagine you get that a lot, but most of the time you don’t actually notice.
http://elitedaily.com/life/culture/sarcastic-people-proven-smarter/792826/
I do…however…
“Think Sarcasm is Funny? Think Again
Sarcasm is really just hostility disguised as humor
If you want to be happier and improve your relationships, cut out sarcasm since sarcasm is actually hostility disguised as humor. Despite smiling outwardly, most people who receive sarcastic comments feel put down and usually think the sarcastic person is a jerk. Indeed, it’s not surprising that the origin of the word sarcasm derives from the Greek word “sarkazein” which literally means “to tear or strip the flesh off.” Hence, it’s no wonder that sarcasm is often preceded by the word “cutting” and that it hurts.
What’s more, since actions strongly determine thoughts and feelings, when a person consistently acts sarcastically it usually only heightens his or her underlying hostility and insecurity. After all, when you come right down to it, sarcasm is a subtle form of bullying and most bullies are angry, insecure, cowards. Alternatively, when a person stops voicing negative comments, especially sarcastic and critical ones, he or she soon starts to feel happier and more self-confident. Also, the other people in his or her life benefit even faster because they no longer have to hear the emotionally hurtful language of sarcasm.
Now I’m not saying all sarcasm is bad. It’s just better used sparingly – like a potent spice in cooking. Too much spice and the dish will be overwhelmed by it. Similarly, an occasional dash of sarcastic wit can spice up a chat and add an element of humor to it. But a big or steady serving of sarcasm will overwhelm the emotional flavor of any conversation and taste very bitter to its recipient.
So, tone down the sarcasm and work on clever wit instead which is usually devoid of hostility and thus more appreciated by those you’re communicating with. In essence, sarcasm is easy (as is most anger, criticism and meanness) while true, harmless wit takes talent.
Thus, the main difference between wit and sarcasm is that, as already stated, sarcasm is hostility disguised as humor. It is intended to hurt, and is often bitter and caustic. Witty statements are usually in response to someone’s unhelpful remarks or behaviors, and the intent is to unravel and clarify the issue by accentuating its absurdities. Sarcastic statements are expressed in a cutting manner; witty remarks are delivered with undisguised and harmless humor.
Also, don’t hestate to tell others that you don’t appreciate their sarcastic comments because it’s just thinly veiled hostility and unacceptable bullying…”
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/think-well/201206/think-sarcasm-is-funny-think-again
J-Mac,
Good to know, Cliff Clavin.
Glen Davidson
J-Mac,
I’m obligated to be hostile to your particular brand of poisonous ignorance. Bullying you and yours is a duty not to be shirked. If you don’t like it then crack a book some time and learn something. Or continue to post a series of ignorant strawman OPs that do your side no favours and continue to spread debunked nonsense. As you prefer.
But I will never accept or normalise your poison.
The eye, like a human eye, is a part of ocular system that consists of the eye and its central visual system… Light images from the outside, pass through the central visual system (cornea, the lens, and fluids) to land upon the retina. The retina then generates the signals passed by the optic nerve to the brain and interpreted as vision..
This further proves that the eye could not have evolved as a separate organ, as all systems needed to be there at the same time for the integration of all system to function…
Yeah, you can attached light-sensitive cells to the olfactory neurotransmitters and make a blind worm respond to light and determine whether the worm liked light or disliked light, but that is not the same thing as signals passing by the optic nerve to the brain and interpreted as vision…
The “simplest of cells” requires a multitude of functioning components not only to be surrounded by cell membrane, but their presence at the same time for the cell to remain alive and functional…
One or two are missing, or outside of the cell membrane and goodbye… The cell dies…We talking about keeping a living cell alive and not the evolution of it into functioning cell…
The creation of the eye by ID/God required not only the presence of ALL functional systems at the same time…
It required the blueprint of all systems and the integration of them into functional body at the same time by a process beyond biology…
The eye and the supportive systems would require the assembly process on the subatomic level.. the level quantum mechanics operates on…
I think the author was being sarcastic here.
He couldn’t!? lol
Mung,
You have a subtle, penetrating, almost devious way of pointing out ones shortcomings, imperfections but especially hypocrisy…
I love it! -:D
You can point out mine whenever you feel like it…I don’t care..lol
So you love sarcasm only when it comes from your coreligionists? nice
dazz,
No! I was just writing Mung to fire at me with it…
There is nothing wrong with a bit of sarcasm as long as it is not generated by anger, hate and does’t lead to bullying…If you don’t know what I mean, read Jerry Coyne’s or Larry Moran’s blogs… Where did the name IDiots come from?
BTW: I’m not perfect and I’m working on improving my communications with people of the opposite or differing views…I’m not there yet…but I’m really trying…
It’s hard when you get provoked…
What makes you think Mung and I are coreligionists? Not that soul thingy???
Mung is a Christian (closet YEC though)
You’re a YEC Christian, am I wrong?
I gather that it’s from the stupidity that you spew.
Then the fact that you think your brand of ignorance should be taught in schools as a means of disparaging actual science.
You at least understand ridicule. You don’t understand evidence and good reasoning.
Glen Davidson
dazz is a closet truth-teller for whom labels matter more than arguments.
There is no reproductive success, so why are you saying it was fit?
Wait, I think I know why. Because your own definition of fitness is so stupid, even you aren’t willing to defend it.
J-Mac,
Deprive me of sarcasm and all you are left with is common-or-garden assholery. In fact, leave it in, much the same result.
Don’t know what Mung believes…
No.. I’m not a YEC and not even an OEC… I don’t even think I can be considered a creationist…maybe by some…
Here is why:
1.
I can concede that the Earth as a planet is very old…How old? I don’t know…could be millions or billions years old…but there is no definite proof just like there is not definite proof how old is the universe is or whether it is finite or infinite…I’m willing to concede however that the universe had a beginning what you believe to be with a big bang… I call it the greatest transformation of energy into some matter and other types of energy…
2.
I have doubts that after the Noah’s Flood all the known specious on the earth, about 10 mil. and counting, have been able to evolve within properly defined kinds without the supernatural intervention… I’m not saying it is impossible…I’m saying that I have not seen any plausible evidence that it happened…If it did, the mechanism has omitted both evolutionists and creationists alike…
He’s not…Come on! I don’t mind him at all…when unprovoked though..;-)
That’s sort of hilarious, considering I’ve argued multiple times why your position is incompatible with the things you claim to believe in (like common descent), and never got a meaningful response
I rest my case
Many present-day YECs accept huge bursts of ultra-fast evolution to explain how all 10 billion or so species came from those on the Ark. They tend to say “well, everyone has always agreed that species change”. The history tells a different story — the “fixity of species” was a major issue in biology in the 1700s, being gradually abandoned even by creationist biologists in the 1800s.
lol
Where did the animals come from before the flood?
Joe Felsenstein,
What’s a species?
You asked. I answered…I’m planning to do an OP on Noah’s Flood vs Ice Age and that’s not going to be a movie review.. 😉
What do you mean exactly? Are you referring to the kinds of animals that were on earth before the flood? Be more specific…
10 billion species?You mean 10 million or probably less…8.7 was the last number that comes to my mind…
At least you are being honest about it…lol
I like sarcasm but I had realized I need it to curb it quite a bit…
That is for eukaryotes only. Looking at Wikipedia for Global Biodiversity one sees that number plus some that are larger. Some people argue that a lot of roundworms (nematodes) and mites are missing.
The real calculation is. (Number-of-species-descended-from-those-that-must-have-been-on-the-ark) / (Number-of-descendants-each-ark-species-could-have-had-in-the-immediate-aftermath-of-the-ark) – (Number-of-species-that-would-fit-on-the-ark). If greater than zero there is a problem.
Maybe you should start a thread of the logic of Noah’s ark. Facing up to issues like “*How* many beetles?”, “What about the saltwater fish?”, “Oh, so it was all salt water?” “How many species of plants?”, “Where did the poop go?”, “How many people could feed how many animals”, “They all had all their parasites?”, “Dinosaurs were where?”, and “And exactly *when* were the Pyramids built?”.
Not for this thread. I wish you luck because you have your work cut out for you on that thread.
One is tempted to say that absolutely no one here knows that.
“And where did they keep all the termites?”
I had an OP once asking Mung specifically why he’s an ID supporter. Still don’t know.
That’s not the reason you are an asshole.
The reason you are an asshole is that you are an adult yet believe fairy tales and no doubt lie to children also regarding the way of the world.
Tell me two things J-Mac, what did the Koala bears eat on the arc? How did they make it to australia?
Then, logically, you’ve seen plausible evidence that supernatural help was involved. What was it?
Dawkins was blissfully unaware, tinkering in his study with the conceit of billions of monkeys typing Shakespeare, what a famous piece of work Weasel would become. So much so that people are still saying it’s useless and uninformative, throughout the Creosphere. So useless and uninformative that everyone needs to be told just how useless and uninformative it is. A program with legs. That my useless programs should achieve such lasting fame! It’s become a meme.
Allan Miller,
Well, it would be just another, in a long list of things Dawkins seems blissfully unaware of.
And yet, based on popularity, he is apparently one of the best thinkers your side has.
phoodoo,
And you have … ?.
Neither was it supposed to.
The letters are the parts of an eye.
All of them together in the final string are all the complex parts working together to make a complex functioning eye.
And yet you can’t support the claim that Weasel is about complexity, much less that it is about evolving a praticular complex organ with a pre-defined function.
But you’ve just made a strawman of what the program is intended to achieve. You’ve done this because only then can you defeat it. What a great swordsman you are, that ball of straw looked menacing!
That’s a great point as Mung’s various silly claims about what the Weasel is supposed to accomplish and is an argument for, is now in contradiction.
In one post Mung thinks the success of Weasel is an argument for ID. In another post he thinks the Weasel is apparently silly and fails miserably.
The problem with all of it is he’s decided to make up a story about what aspect of biological evolution the Weasel program is supposed to model. Mung claims it’s about the evolution of greater complexity, but he can’t support that claim in any other way that vaguely handwaving in the general direction of the context of the whole book The Blind Watchmaker.
But when you read the chapter in which Dawkins brings up the Weasel, he specifically addresses the creationist strawman of evolution as being about just random guessing without selection (what Dawkins calls single-step selection) and shows how this is nothing like how evolution works, with the Weasel example.
Yes, was there speciation before the flood?
Allan Miller,
David Berlinski, Stephen Meyer, Behe, Michael Egnor, Ann Gauger, Simon Conway Morris, Paul Nelson, Dennis Noble, Lynn Margulis, Thomas Nagel, Fred Hoyle, Carl Woese, …
Sorry, will take too long to type them all.
phoodoo,
Conway Morris is an ‘evolutionist’, as is Denis Noble, as was Margulis, as was Woese. Hoyle not a Creationist – not even a biologist, indeed, had some deep misunderstandings. The rest – a list of clowns. I was hoping you’d name Casey Luskin so I could laugh my frigging socks off. But I will anyway.
Allan, to phoodoo:
You should. David Berlinski was the first person he thought of.
David frikkin’ Berlinski, #1 on a list of “our best thinkers.”
That says it all.
Joe Felsenstein,
Well, if you are right about the 10 billion species, what’s your calculations as to how many of those species are in the evolutionary transition into another species?
I do not wish you luck to do the calculations, because for a scientist and specialist in population genetics, it should be a piece of cake…
I do wish you luck however proving it though and I’m not even trying to be sarcastic…
If 10 billion species are on earth thanks to evolution, it should be easy breezy pointing out at least few thousand species in the transition into another species…shouldn’t it???
Allan Miller,
Right, and Dawkins is an IDist.
keiths,
Yea, the same David Berlinski that thrashed Eugenie Scott so badly in a debate, that she got scared and decided she better not ever debate anymore, because she looked too stupid.