Sandbox (4)

Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.

I’ve opened a new “Sandbox” thread as a post as the new “ignore commenter” plug-in only works on threads started as posts.

0

3,498 thoughts on “Sandbox (4)

  1. Nonlin.org: a recessive gene which is certainly not the same as a “mutation”

    Good grief squared!

    Certainly not. Is there a prize for best non-sequitur of the month?

    +1
  2. Nonlin.org: And if they happen to be born in a lab interested in studying said “mutation” (or a breeding farm), guess which half of the litter will survive longer than the other? Haha.

    Oh, so the environment can turn a seemingly deleterious “mutation” into a positive one, can it?

    How verrryyy interesting.

    Nonlin.org: And I was asking about the (your) “fitness function”. No one equates a “mutation” with the “fitness function”?

    And I was asking how I will know when you publish your work. Will you be using your real name? If not, who is going to publish that?

    +1
  3. Nonlin.org: Notice how this is an “explanation” of the past devoid of any forecasting power, on par with what astrologers, phrenologicsts and tarot readers offer? That is how we know it is NOT science.

    ROFLMAO
    You quoted, but apparently did not understand, this forecast

    it isn’t “regressing to the mean” anytime soon…

    put another way, I forecast that “the D614G strain will continue to outperform the 614D strain”, your fantasies about “regression” notwithstanding.

    0
  4. OMagain: Oh, so the environment can turn a seemingly deleterious “mutation” into a positive one, can it?

    More precisely, there is no such thing as “deleterious mutation”. Logic 101.

    OMagain: And I was asking how I will know when you publish your work. Will you be using your real name? If not, who is going to publish that?

    You’ll know, but don’t be a stalker. It’s not healthy.

    0
  5. DNA_Jock: You quoted, but apparently did not understand, this forecast

    it isn’t “regressing to the mean” anytime soon…

    put another way, I forecast that “the D614G strain will continue to outperform the 614D strain”, your fantasies about “regression” notwithstanding.

    First off, viruses are not even life. Second, your “forecast” is no better than palm reading. Third, we were talking about “fitness” and you replied with a story about the genome, basically confirming you don’t even know what “fitness” is supposed to mean. And that after I turned very LENIENT and asked for ONE little thing about “fitness” instead of your FULL “fitness function”. How embarrassing is that? Is it painfully embarrassing? It should be. Time to abandon ship once again Hit and Hide dude: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/william-paleys-excellent-argument/comment-page-27/#comment-276161. Hilarious!

    Furthermore, you’re making the Pegasus Fallacy (like the name I coined?) by assuming 614G is superior to 614D when in fact it’s not, since there is no such thing as deleterious/beneficial mutation. The Pegasus Fallacy is the erroneous idea that you can take a horse, add wings and now you have a much better animal when in fact a horse with wings would be both a bad horse and a bad flying animal. Cool?

    0
  6. Nonlin.org: First off, viruses are not even life.

    When viruses enter and take over a cell, resulting in replication of new offspring, what difference is there intrinsically that makes this not a biological process?

    0
  7. Nonlin.org,

    My, oh my.
    Every single sentence in your comment is WRONG. That’s a record, even by your standards.
    In virology, “R” is my fitness function.
    But since you were talking about running away, I must ask:
    Under what circumstances is P(A|B) ÷ P(B|A) = P(A) ÷ P(B) ?
    😉

    0
  8. Anecdote follows.

    Wife and I enjoying an an evening meal on our west-facing terrace (chorizo con alioli) and I’m thinking that little cloud over there is an odd colour, when flash of lightning followed within half a second by the most almighty bang made me reconsider my existence. Was God reminding me of his power? Random? I report: you decide!

    0
  9. Alan Fox:
    Anecdote follows.

    Wife and I enjoying an an evening meal on our west-facing terrace (chorizo con alioli)and I’m thinking that little cloud over there is an odd colour, when flash of lightning followed within half a second by the most almighty bang made me reconsider my existence. Was God reminding me of his power? Random? I report: you decide!

    Either that or the dangers of high levels of cholesterol

    0
  10. DNA_Jock: Every single sentence in your comment is WRONG.

    Or so you say. Take your word for it? I think not, Hit-and-disappear. Haha.

    But we both know what happened: you were rendered speechless and to hide your embarrassment, you issue a blanket denial that fools no one… OK, maybe one or two of you fans.

    DNA_Jock: In virology, “R” is my fitness function.

    Impossible. According to the “theory”, “fitness” comes BEFORE “selection” whereas R most definitely comes AFTER not one but many “selections”. What you mean to say is that “R is an INDICATOR of “fitness”” which is most definitely not the same. This has been explained. Repeatedly. Someone’s shorthand tricked you. Embarrassed? Should be.

    DNA_Jock: But since you were talking about running away, I must ask:
    Under what circumstances is P(A|B) ÷ P(B|A) = P(A) ÷ P(B) ?

    As replied, I am not answering random questions. But, if you can prove I made that comment anywhere, then and only then you will get an answer. So again: “…where do you think I commented on that equation?” http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/william-paleys-excellent-argument/comment-page-27/#comment-276189

    Alan Fox: When viruses enter and take over a cell, resulting in replication of new offspring, what difference is there intrinsically that makes this not a biological process?

    I am sure the internet has an answer to your question. Search for “virus” in your favorite search engine.

    0
  11. Nonlin.org: I am sure the internet has an answer to your question.

    I have an answer to my question. You don’t apparently.

    0
  12. Alan Fox:
    Anecdote follows.

    Wife and I enjoying an an evening meal on our west-facing terrace (chorizo con alioli)and I’m thinking that little cloud over there is an odd colour, when flash of lightning followed within half a second by the most almighty bang made me reconsider my existence. Was God reminding me of his power? Random? I report: you decide!

    Your wife was tha target, you just happened to be nearby.

    Lightning is much more impressive ‘on the continent’, I find. On my Pyrenees hike I got overtaken by a summer storm, and nearly shat myself. Right overhead. Sheltered under an embankment, nearly choked on a cloud of flies. Cough, splutter, BANG!! Jesus! BANG!!! Trees can explode, cough, splutter … on another occasion, I left my son to go over a mountain top while he went round. Waaay in the distance was a tiny storm which proceeded to track slowly and inexorably towards me. Heavens opened, ran across the blasted moor like Heathcliff escaping the paparazzi, taking shelter in a mountaintop cowshed, cows in full-on panic mode.

    +2
  13. Nonlin.org: where do you think I commented on that equation ?

    What, P(A|B) ≠ P(B|A)?
    Err, you dedicated an entire OP to your inability to understand it, called “Intelligent Design Detection”.
    Corneel and I explained your schoolboy howlers over the first two pages of that OP, and my only explanation of your flailing is that you did not understand the meaning of P(A|B) notation. If you understood the notation, then answering my pop quiz would be a breeze:
    Under what circumstances is P(A|B) ÷ P(B|A) = P(A) ÷ P(B) ?
    As it stands, you look like you know nothing about probabilities.

    +1
  14. Allan Miller: Your wife was tha target, you just happened to be nearby.

    I’ll tell her you said so! Yes Pyrenees thunderstorms can be majestic when viewed from a distance. Up close…

    0
  15. DNA_Jock: Nonlin.org: where do you think I commented on that equation ?

    What, P(A|B) ≠ P(B|A)?
    Err, you dedicated an entire OP to your inability to understand it, called “Intelligent Design Detection”.

    So you cannot point to any actual mistake. That’s typical. Let me know when you have more than a generic “wrong”. Some proof for instance.

    Like I said many times: we both know what your empty “wrong” means: you’re speechless and to hide your embarrassment, you launch a naked “wrong”. Also noted: you can’t utter one intelligent word about “fitness” and don’t even know what it means to your own dogma. How weird and embarrassing is that? Or at least it would be to any normal person.

    0
  16. DNA_Jock: What, P(A|B) ≠ P(B|A)?
    Err, you dedicated an entire OP to your inability to understand it, called “Intelligent Design Detection”.

    Furthermore… I know for a fact you’re not one of the drones and dilettantes populating this site. So of course you know the argument needs to take the form: “part A from… to… is wrong because 1… 2… 3… where 1,2,3, etc are logical arguments that both you and your opponents appreciate, not yada, yada bullshit.” This is exactly what I am doing when pointing to your “R is “fitness”” nonsense and proving with clear, concise and logical arguments that it cannot be. To which you obviously fall silent not having any intelligent reply. And if you’re not a drone or dilettante, why don’t you extend the same courtesy to me that I extend to you? When you went to school and now at work you certainly apply this principle.

    Of course you’re very unhappy seeing “fitness”, “selection”, “evolution” now failing and see yourself not having a good recourse (and you will NEVER do). But such is life. Why can’t you take it like a man? Of course, you can still ponder in silence. Or better yet, try your best logical reasoning. Who knows? Maybe the magical rabbit shows up after all. That’s fine. But meanwhile just behave like the logical, intelligent, and educated guy that you are. Can you? This also applies to a FEW of your comrades here and elsewhere.

    0
  17. Nonlin.org: So you cannot point to any actual mistake.

    You have assumed that P(A|B) = P(B|A). This is a schoolboy howler.
    But it appears, from your steadfast refusal to answer a simple question, that you do not understand this notation.
    Therefore, it appears that you know nothing about probabilities.
    On the other hand, you claim to have proved that “fitness”, “selection”, and “evolution” are meaningless concepts.
    That’s rather impressive.
    😀

    +1
  18. Nonlin.org,

    the argument needs to take the form: “part A from… to… is wrong because 1… 2… 3… where 1,2,3, etc are logical arguments that both you and your opponents appreciate, not yada, yada bullshit.”

    Speaking as a card-carrying drone/dilettante, I can only marvel at the crystal clarity on display.

    +2
  19. DNA_Jock,

    Maybe I was wrong about you not being one of the drones/dilettantes. That’s fine. Now I know.

    Allan Miller,

    ?

    Also, you can’t be both. I’d say you’re not a drone, and that’s a plus. But then again, I have been wrong.

    Alan Fox: You forgot to ask when he stopped beating his wife!

    I noticed you’re very good at coming up with the craziest comments. What’s your secret? Is it Chemical Ali?

    0
  20. HEAVEN—A spokesperson for the Most High God confirmed that God will be ending humanity before any remake of The Princess Bride can be released.

    Humanity was forced to acknowledge that the God of the Bible is good, merciful, and gracious after His spokesangels confirmed he would rather destroy all of humanity than force anyone to live in a universe where The Princess Bride was remade.

    “Before The Princess Bride remake can see the light of day, The Lord will flatten all of humanity with fire and brimstone from on high, in His mercy,” said a heavenly spokesperson. “Humanity will experience the sweet release of death rather than have to see someone try to remake the only perfect movie ever made.”

    “Seriously, trying to remake The Princess Bride? What’s wrong with you people!”

    After the announcement, even atheists were forced to admit that God is truly good to us. “I have finally seen the light,” said Richard Dawkins as he repented in tears. “God is not a moral monster — He is the very standard of goodness, truth, and justice.”

    Theologians further confirmed that since the invention of acts of mercy, there have only been five that were rated the most gracious, the most merciful. This one left them all behind.

    The Bee

    0
  21. One of TSZ’s moderators is actually more active over at S. Joshua Swamidass’ site than here. I was over there checking things out, as usual doing my observation rounds of the main groups, when I saw something that is worth sharing here, simply to show a different side to the story here. At TSZ, while there are some religious theists, there are also many atheists and agnostics, like the moderator here who goes there every single day of the year.

    Neil Rickert is the 2nd most active Reader at PS, and has visited PS every single day this year.

    This is what “secular avian phylogeneticist” John Harshman wrote to Neil, after trying to get some clarity from him on his favorite “conventionalism” fetish: “I would suspect that nobody would think as you propose.” (https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-there-natural-kinds/11117/21)

    I fully agree. “Conventionalist” ideology seems largely akin to atheist socialism. Nothing is real until society “reifies” it. Such a “soul-less” ideology to embrace.

    My closest mathematician friend, a wonderfully talented musician and athlete to boot, is such an inspiring person. It is simply sad to see an uninspiring mathematical error result in denying “natural kinds” in order to seek validation from men, not from God. It’s like for Neil, 1 (bad mathematics) 1 (non-existent metaphysics and theology, ON PURPOSE!) = 0.

    Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – which Neil apparently just read for the 1st time within the last 24 hours – has an entry on “natural kinds.” Neil Rickert, however, is confident that there cannot be any such thing as “natural kinds”. So he quotes from the article, then effectively says, “this entry shouldn’t have been written because the topic is not real in my worldview.” Such activity exposes Neil as holding a definition of one, which may go some distance to explain why he is still stuck in apostasy, getting more uplift from PS than from TSZ, where there is little to none with atheist/agnostic mods running the show.

    0
  22. Gregory: Neil Rickert is the 2nd most active Reader at PS, and has visited PS every single day this year.

    I spend far more time reading TSZ than I spend reading PS posts.

    I fully agree. “Conventionalist” ideology seems largely akin to atheist socialism. Nothing is real until society “reifies” it. Such a “soul-less” ideology to embrace.

    I don’t know what that is about. I’m not familiar with conventionalist ideology.

    Why should saying X is conventional have anything to do with the question of whether X is real?

    0
  23. Gregory,

    You should take those statistics with a grain of salt.

    I check the site (PS), and I see that there is a post with 80 new replies. I do not carefully read all of those replies. I only skim through them. This is probably a thread with the same repetitious ID arguments that I have seen many times, and with some folk who have more patience than I giving sensible replies.

    I don’t know if TSZ has similar statistics somewhere, but I would show up less often there. That’s because I mainly read TSZ posts in my feed reader, and the feed reader does not seem to be providing browser cookies to tell TSZ who is fetching the posts.

    0
  24. Gregory,

    Those PS statistics are interesting, but there is one distinction I have in that list. I am listed not once, but twice! A considerable honor. The numbers given in both of my listings are identical, so it isn’t just a case of me signing in under two different email addresses. I am honored (and, as I should add, I am honored).

    0
  25. Joe Felsenstein,

    Reading the list again, I think the reason I am duplicated is that I read it while signed in as me. If you do that, you get your listing placed at the top, so you can compare it with others, and then it also appears again in the order of whatever statistic you are using to compare with. So you too can be there twice (and when you are, I will be there only once). Oops.

    0
  26. Was just nodding off last night when Mrs F, who had been stargazing before coming to bed, woke me to come and look at the weird planet. I couldn’t see anything with the naked eye but using binoculars… I was bowled over by the sight of the comet, Neowise. Absolutely spectacular. In my part of the world, anyway, at around midnight local time, the comet itself below the Plough/Big Dipper and the tail spreading up vertically. I believe it will be visible for a few more days yet.

    0
  27. Alan Fox,

    Up here in northern England we’re hampered by the fact that it never gets properly dark at this time of year, particularly in the northern sector of the sky. I wandered up the hill behind the village at midnight, could make out the blur but it was washed out by clear twilight to the north. I was joined by a couple I knew, unexpectedly, who managed to get a couple of pictures, and lent me their binocs.

    0
  28. Allan Miller,

    I forgot about the latitude issue. I was just pleased I didn’t miss it as the next chance to see it is in 6,800 years time.

    0
  29. Any one here still willing to argue that there exists some country on the planet doing a bigger fuck-up on this virus than America?

    On Fox, the orange orangutan was told the US has one of the highest mortality rates for this virus in the world, and what was his answer? “I heard we had one of the best. Someone bring me the rates. See, the best! So there!”

    How many times was he dropped on his head as a baby, last week?

    0
  30. phoodoo:
    Any one here still willing to argue that there exists some country on the planet doing a bigger fuck-up on this virus than America?

    On Fox, the orange orangutan was told the US has one of the highest mortality rates for this virus in the world, and what was his answer?“I heard we had one of the best.Someone bring me the rates.See, the best! So there!”

    How many times was he dropped on his head as a baby, last week?

    It’s almost as if the niche the virus finds itself in determines it’s ability to replicate…..

    0
  31. phoodoo:
    Any one here still willing to argue that there exists some country on the planet doing a bigger fuck-up on this virus than America?

    Not me, Trump and the Republican Governors have overwhelmed the efforts of the reasonable to control this virus. Trump now wants to rush to open schools, endangering even more people.

    It has gotten so bad that Trump is pretending to do his job.

    On Fox, the orange orangutan was told the US has one of the highest mortality rates for this virus in the world, and what was his answer?“I heard we had one of the best.Someone bring me the rates.See, the best! So there!”

    Funny thing , even with the cherry-picked graph, he still was wrong. You know he just wanted to start cussing out Chris Wallace for the joke about how easy the great test he aced was.

    0
  32. Wow!
    The Skeptical Zone appears to be the only blog in the world of the origins & “reasonability” to have survived the SARS CoV-2 infliction…
    Congratulations!
    I see some regulars…in the rage of 3-13… not bad…

    0
  33. Alan Fox: Indeed! I feel it has been inflicted upon us!

    It’s a good sign, no?
    France, apparently, will allow up to 5k of spectators (20% capacity) in the upcoming season of…sports…? Is that confirmed?

    0
  34. J-Mac: France, apparently, will allow up to 5k of spectators (20% capacity) in the upcoming season of…sports…? Is that confirmed?

    Upcoming season? The Tour de France didn’t happen. Winter sports? Lets see if the second wave materialises. At least here decisions seem to be made in response to events. And progress is being made on the vaccine front.

    0

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.