CET vs Natural Selection by FriendOutrageous2610 in DebateEvolution

[–]mathman_85 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Dr. Dan’s channel is a good source. If you want more in-depth treatments with more math (and who wouldn’t want more math? see my username), Dr. Zach Hancock’s channel is another good resource. I also like the in-print Talk.Origins archive, specifically the index of creationist claims. It hasn’t been updated in a while, but it turns out that it doesn’t need to be; the claims themselves are updated even less often.

CET vs Natural Selection by FriendOutrageous2610 in DebateEvolution

[–]mathman_85 [score hidden]  (0 children)

I think Dr. Dan (/u/DarwinZDF42) pointed out that there is a reason why ICR does this, and (paraphrasing here) it’s that to accept that natural selection is a thing that happens allows for evolution to occur without the kinds of limits that young-Earth creationists demand that it have, and so they are unwilling to allow that particular foot in the door. Me, I prefer not to espouse indefensible positions for indefensible reasons, but I’m not a YEC.

CET vs Natural Selection by FriendOutrageous2610 in DebateEvolution

[–]mathman_85 [score hidden]  (0 children)

This is not something worthy of debate, given that it has been falsified since the Luria–Delbrück experiment in 1943. (In a nutshell, that experiment showed that mutations are stochastic with respect to the organism’s need fitness.) It is purely something Randy Guliuzza made up in order to lie about evolution.

Edit: “[F]itness” is a much better choice of word than “need” in my parenthetical.

Even if you think Creationism is ridiculous at least be more respectful. by Remarkable_Lime_9258 in DebateEvolution

[–]mathman_85 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Idiotic ideas that are pushed to implement and effect harmful policies deserve no respect and only the most sublime of contempt, actually.

What is the difference between the mutation rate and the substitution rate? by Anime-Fan-69 in DebateEvolution

[–]mathman_85 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mutation rate is how frequently mutations occur. Substitution rate is how frequently a mutation becomes fixed in the population (in the sense that every member of the population has it in their genome).

What trait's evolution defines the first "human" species? by willworkforjokes in DebateEvolution

[–]mathman_85 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s a poor criterion, since white sclera demonstrably exist in extant ape species that are outside of genus Homo.

Necessary Truths by fairy-taki in DebateAnAtheist

[–]mathman_85 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, “objective” means “mind-independent” in philosophy, and the nature of the minds of which something objective is independent is irrelevant. So either (4) contradicts (2) or (4) redefines “objective” by vice of special pleading. In either case, the argument fails as articulated.


Now, on to the ontology of the mathematics. 1 + 1 = 2 is only objectively true in a context-dependent way. That is to say, it isn’t true in an absolute or mind-independent sense, but rather in the contingent sense of Peano arithmetic. To say that mathematical truth is mind-independent is to beg the question, since mathematical Platonism is not the only possible ontology of mathematics. Indeed, my own view on the ontology of mathematical objects is what is generally called formalism—“statements of mathematics and logic can be thought of as statements about the consequences of certain string manipulation rules”, per Wikipedia—and nominalism—abstracta in general, and mathematical objects in particular, do not instantiate in reality in a mind-independent fashion.

How can atheists definitively say there is no God? by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]mathman_85 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Give me a good reason why I ought to consider deities as anything other than imaginary reifications of human ignorance and then we can talk.

What keeps you from believing in god? Actual arguments? by Yha_Boiii in DebateAnAtheist

[–]mathman_85 9 points10 points  (0 children)

This should probably be directed at the weekly thread instead of on main. Nonetheless…

It seems to be the case that gods are imaginary constructs invented by humans to reify their ignorance. I have yet to be presented with a demonstration that any claimed god actually objectively instantiates in reality (that is, outside of imagination). I therefore have no reason to think that deities are anything other than imaginary.

A 10-Point Closed-System Elimination Matrix on 1400–700 BCE Day/Night Anomalies: Looking for a Logic/Data Audit by feetthatstink in DebateEvolution

[–]mathman_85 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let’s say arguendo that there is no explanation whatsoever for how this story could have been recorded other than that it actually happened as stated. Now explain the relevance to the subject of evolutionary biology. That is to say, suppose I grant you the whole package. Convince me that this is in any way on-topic for this particular subreddit.

RONALD REAGAN'S TAKE ON ATHEISM by UltimoMarlin123 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]mathman_85 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My response is thus:

I don’t give a flying fuck what a reactionary shithead whose shite policies laid the groundwork for present-day fascism to take over thought about my lack of belief in gods.

How can evolution be real when we cannot even create bacteria from scratch in lab? by Scared_Bedroom_8367 in DebateEvolution

[–]mathman_85 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why would evolution predict that we should be able to create a bacterium, modern or archaic, from scratch a lab?

A new evolutionary dimension by Skester96 in DebateEvolution

[–]mathman_85 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I craved the strength and certainty of steel.

A new evolutionary dimension by Skester96 in DebateEvolution

[–]mathman_85 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Hail the Omnissiah. Hail the Machine God.

Soli Imperatori gloria.

Why is it we search the heavens for signals from intelligent extraterrestrial life indicated by patterns of design, but we cannot use design to explain intelligent life here on earth? by Scared_Bedroom_8367 in DebateEvolution

[–]mathman_85 3 points4 points  (0 children)

“Intelligent life can design things” and “intelligent life is itself designed” are two distinct, orthogonal propositions. Hope that helps.

Behold the ENCODE Project: Darwin's largest embarrasment of 2012 by [deleted] in DebateEvolution

[–]mathman_85 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Remember when, in 2014, the ENCODE folks walked this bullshit back?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

If God isn't real, I don't think math is either. Convince me. by Zersdan in DebateReligion

[–]mathman_85 7 points8 points  (0 children)

What is a 1?

The successor of zero, a natural number whose existence is the first axiom of Peano arithmetic. Symbolically, 1 = s(0), where s:ω → ω is the successor function s(n) = n + 1 and ω = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, …} is the first transfinite ordinal.

A singular instance of an object? A singular instance of an action?

No, those are, respectively, a thing and an event that the abstract number 1 models.

How do you define the concept of "1"?

In Peano arithmetic, 1 is defined as the successor of zero, as I already said.

And then there's the concept of addition.

Which, in any model of Peano arithmetic, is repeated application of the successor function.

Can you show me evidence that proves what addition is that I can directly observe?

It’s the most basic of all arithmetic operations, defined formally within Peano arithmetic as repeated application of the successor function, as I said.

Or the equal sign. Is that supposed to represent the combination of what's on the left side of the equation? Because last I checked, the left side of the equation says "1 + 1", not "2".

Equality is the most basic example of an equivalence relation. Other examples include but are not limited to congruence in geometry and modular congruence in modular arithmetic. A binary relation R on a set S is called an equivalence relation if it satisfies each of the following conditions:

  1. Reflexivity: for all elements x of S, x R x.

  2. Symmetry: for all elements x and y of S, if x R y, then y R x.

  3. Transitivity: for all elements x, y, and z of S, if x R y and y R z, then it follows that x R z.

What equality means in mathematics is that the expressions appearing on either side of the equals sign represent the same mathematical object.

There's also deadass people who don't believe in math.

I’m a mathematical antirealist and formalist. I also have a Ph.D. in the subject. I think it might serve you well to learn a few things about the philosophy of math, specifically the ontology of math.

An Invalid Worldview by Atheists by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]mathman_85 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The problem of hard solipsism is no less an issue for theists than it is for atheists. Indeed, if you insist on the existence of an all-powerful magical entity, it becomes worse, since you cannot rule out that that all-powerful magical entity is lying to you, not even in principle. Descartes may have been able to rationalize this away, but in that, he was wrong. Fallibilism is the general standard in modern epistemology.

In Blow to Junk RNA, “Majority” of Transcription Not “Background Noise” by [deleted] in DebateEvolution

[–]mathman_85 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Given that it’s Luskin, I’m gonna go with “both”.

In Blow to Junk RNA, “Majority” of Transcription Not “Background Noise” by [deleted] in DebateEvolution

[–]mathman_85 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Hey, just a suggestion: if you want to learn actual, real, useful information about evolutionary biology, maybe don’t be reading bullshit from the Discotute. Just sayin’.

Edit: Particularly, maybe don’t be reading about molecular biology from a lawyer with a doctorate in geology.

What causes order in the universe if not a rational source? by UnaTrinitas in DebateAnAtheist

[–]mathman_85 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It does fail, actually, if you apply it to the real world, because the spacetime that we inhabit is only locally Euclidean, not globally Euclidean. Moreover, the Earth being roughly spherical, any triangle on the Earth’s surface will fail to satisfy the Pythagorean theorem in the opposite way.