This re-instated what passes for faith in humanity

[Occhidiangela]

Iif you read some of the above posts you will see that a few people tried to play  sematics with the word "theory". You would think a post like Petes would not be needed, but sadly -no.
As for my phonetic spelling inversion disasters - you have read my posts before right?
[right][snapback]97919[/snapback][/right]

Ghostiger:

Semantics. How does leaving out the "n" qualify as a phonetic error? It is a spelling error, a sign of carelessness or sloppiness in written communication.

To answer your question, I have read your sloppily crafted posts for about 4 years.

Regarding the lame excuse of phonetic spelling inversion: Are you a hairlip?

If you stop posting like a Wanker, I'll stop playing the Grammarian.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

The LL forums don't have a spellchecker. Sue me.

...

Wait, wait, don't sue me! NO!!!!

*cries*
[right][snapback]97921[/snapback][/right]

Too late, I think I hear an Advocate boss coming down the hall. Prepare for fireballs to arrive! :blink: *slips on Garnet Ring of the Heavens . . .*

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

On mutation.

Mutation as a form of evolving or advancement has been proven false. Mutation is a lack of genes... In some very long and involved studies involving mutations as a basis for evolution, they have found that each critter that mutated was missing genes and the mutation, even if it was a good mutation, was bad because of genetic damage. I am not smart enough to hash this out completely or defend it, so go looking for this stuff your self. It was really very interesting what they did, showing that mutations would only lead to dead ends in the long run.

The study started with fruit flies and worked up to other bugs and critters with speedy reproduction cycles.
[right][snapback]97885[/snapback][/right]

I don't know from what pool of ignorance you got this information, but it is crap.

First, a mutation is simply a change in the genetic structure. Some are viable, most are not. And as the Wikipedia article points out, only those to the germ cells have a chance to change the species.

As to 'a basis for evolution', if survival is an evolutionary goal, then I will simply give one example that demonstrates the idiocy of your statement. And it doesn't involve fruit flies, it involves people. The mutations (i.e., difference in the gene pattern) responsible for sickle cell anemia have been identified for some time now. Those mutations, if they appear only from one parent, gives the offspring a high resistance to malaria. So, in sub equatorial Africa, those mutation mean that there is only about a 45% mortality rate from malaria and sickle cell combined as opposed to an 80% rate from malaria alone.

A good solution? No. But since there's no intelligent designer and nature just works with what happens, a good enough solution till something else comes along.

I had a friend who used to, jokingly, answer a question with, "I don't know. (pause) Nobody knows." It's not nearly as funny when someone uses the equivalent line ("I don't understand science, so it must be wrong") literally.

--Pete

[Guest]

Umm its not an exscuse - that is exactly what it was. I just said I make those mistakes frequently. I used a word that sounds like the one I wanted.

I make pretty much every type of spelling error possible. But since he specifically asked me to address that mistake I did.



Also the my question was directed at the noob who was questioning my honesty, not you.

EDIT: While I have your attention why dont you go back up and explain what on earth you were talking about in reference to me not using bad "netiquite". I think the problem was you forgot what you had written.

[Guest]

Faith is - the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen



The Bible even says its not science.

[GenericKen]

Umm its not an exscuse - that exactly what it was. I just said i make those mistakes frequently. I used a word that sounds the I wanted.

I make pretty much every type of spelling error possible. But since he specifically asked me to address that mistake I did.
Also the my question was directed at the noob who was questioning my honesty, not you.
[right][snapback]97933[/snapback][/right]

Hey now, no need to get testy.

[Guest]

"Noob" isnt an insult it is a fact. Its definetly less of an insult than you questioning my honesty.


If you werent new you would probably know my bad communication is common to pretty much every subject I write in(what ever the cause may be).

[GenericKen]

"Noob" isnt an insult it is a fact. Its definetly less of an insult than you questioning my honesty.
If you werent new you would probably know my bad communication is common to pretty much every subject I write in(what ever the cause may be).
[right][snapback]97936[/snapback][/right]

I spent a lot of time on the old boards several years ago. Just poping in more recently to bask in the relative enlightenment and even-handedness of Occhi's posts as compared to the rest of the internet.

So much for that. At least you have cute smilies. :whistling:

[Doc]

"Noob" isnt an insult it is a fact. Its definetly less of an insult than you questioning my honesty.
If you werent new you would probably know my bad communication is common to pretty much every subject I write in(what ever the cause may be).
[right][snapback]97936[/snapback][/right]

Yes, and we love to rib you for it.

When poked with the right stick though, you can come up with some good well thought out responses though, and believe it or not, I rather like having you around.

Merry Christmas. :D

[Guest]

I didnt mean to drive you away.

You accidentally provided some ammo for Occhi to throw at me after he mistakenly called me out for posting on the wrong threads. You ended up up in our piss fight.

[Occhidiangela]

:angry:

You accidentally provided some ammo for Occhi to throw at me after he mistakenly called me out for posting on the wrong threads. You ended up up in our piss fight.[right][snapback]97940[/snapback][/right]

Carelessness.

It is all within your control to correct and manage, but you don't care enough for those reading your comments to do so. That sustained pattern of behavior shows a contempt for your reading audience.

Thanks, Ghostiger, for the 4 year long message to me, and to every Lurker who reads the threads you post in, that we aren't worth your time to get it right.

Oh, and screw you too.

Occhi

[Guest]

Look you have been gunning for me today for some reason. It started with you mocking my asking other people(which I do politely) to post in threaded form.

You then probably felt silly for correcting me when you had misread.



On a seprate note the error I made here (using "sight" in place of "cite" is one I never would have caught, even if I proof read 20 times before posting).

But that said, as always I make no defense of the my errors. They are errors and thats a bad thing.

[Jester]

Evolution does occur, but by no means does it come even close to accounting for us. [right][snapback]97869[/snapback][/right]

We've got the whole zoological tree, going all the way back to one-celled organisms. We know the broad mechanism of change (adaptation through selection) and the specific one (genetic mutation).

What doesn't evolution account for?

-Jester

[swirly]

I leave out 'theorem' because that is *not* a scientific concept, it is a mathematical one.

Does that quote say that mathematics is not a science? If mathematics is a science, then is it possible for something to be a mathematical concept, but not a scientific one?

A mathematical concept would be a concept that is "Of or relating to mathematics" (dictionary.com). A scientific concept would be a concept that is "Of, relating to, or employing the methodology of science"(dictionary.com). If mathematics is a science then a concept that relates to mathematics would be a concept that relates to a science. Does a concept that relates to a science relate to the methodology of science though? I suppose that a concept can relate to a science without having any relation to the methodology of science. So if one wanted to defend "theorem" as a scientific concept they would first have to define what the methodology of science is and then show that "theorem" relates to that instead of being able to just say that "theorem" relates to a science.

Anyway, I really was just wondering if you were saying that mathematics isn't a science. I have pretty much answered my own question in that saying something is mathematical, but not scientific in fact says nothing at all about mathematics as a science. So I guess there is no reason to post this since I answered myself, but I'm going to anyway just for the enjoyment of anybody who can get some enjoyment out of it. : )

P.S. After a preview and reading through my post again, I find myself wondering something. If "scientific" is "Of, relating to, or employing the methodology of science"(dictionary.com) then is there a word that means "Of or relating to a science" like I seem to have been wanting scientific to mean?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Does that quote say that mathematics is not a science?[right][snapback]97957[/snapback][/right]

Well, actually it implies it. But, yes, mathematics is not science, or at least not science in terms of exploring our universe and trying to understand it.

Mathematics is a game in which one tries to arrive at final positions (AKA theorems) from initial positions (AKA axioms) by the application of a finite set of rules (AKA logic) in a finite number of moves. Some mathematics are isomorphic to some human endeavors (e.g., banking is completely described by a sub-domain of an algebra on the reals). But there is no reason why a mathematical system should have any relationship in a real universe. When Non-Euclidean geometry was first developed, it was totally abstract.

So, no, math is not a science. Different rules, different game.

--Pete

[Doc]

Math gives me a headache. I can't do it. I am math challenged. It's like my brain wasn't wired to work that way.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Ghost, your replies do not clearly indicate to whom you are speaking/replying.  It is standard netiquette to indicate such.

Not everyone uses outline view, nor are they required to.

Please take the moment or two to indicate to whom you are replying, if for no other reason than to avoid crossed wires in the various strands of conversation.

Thanks, and Merry Christmas.    :whistling:

Occhi
[right][snapback]97904[/snapback][/right]

Fair's fair, so tell this to Doc, too. At least Ghost replies to the specific post and you *can* follow the argument in threaded view. Doc, with no indication of whom the hell he is talking to, simply replies to the thread as a whole.

--Pete

[Doc]

Hi,
Fair's fair, so tell this to Doc, too.  At least Ghost replies to the specific post and you *can* follow the argument in threaded view.  Doc, with no indication of whom the hell he is talking to, simply replies to the thread as a whole.

--Pete
[right][snapback]97962[/snapback][/right]

I uh, use a different view I think. My apologies. On my screen, it's clear to me.

[Ashock]

We've got the whole zoological tree, going all the way back to one-celled organisms. We know the broad mechanism of change (adaptation through selection) and the specific one (genetic mutation).

What doesn't evolution account for?

-Jester
[right][snapback]97953[/snapback][/right]

It's a theory based on very partial evidence, which is often not even directly tied together. It does not account for many of it's links. Simplest example is how did the Neanderthals become extinct? Did modern man wipe them out? Where is the link between us and our direct ancestors? The Neanderthals won't tell us. Homo habilis and Homo erectus (unlike Homo pederastus, heh) lived from 1 to 2 million years ago, approximately and they were supposedly our direct ancestors. We then know that Homo sapiens appeared approximately 100,000 years ago and that's it. What happened in between? Evolution? God? Little green martians with a DNA splicer? We know nothing.


-A

[Guest]

Too many modern physicists seem to forget this.
They approach and write about theoretical physics as if it were math but too often still call it science.

I think its Eisnstein envy driving it.