The difference between could and always will is colossal and fundamental in any context, because the former implies merely a potential above zero (that could, could still be a very low percentage of the time), while the latter outright means nothing less than 100% of the time.
Nope. The Weasel is intended to illustrate nothing more than the massive time difference between wholesale random guessing and cumulative selection on incremental stochastic change. No case for the evolution of anything is actually based on the Weasel program.
Remember, he is not performing for you or I. He’s just interested in impressing @colewd and folks like that. You can see how discriminating an audience that is.
What’s vague is statement number 2. Could has too many possibilities to be informative.
Statement number 3 is claiming the ability to prove a negative.
Statement number 1 you can assign to observations with a high probability. Always happening is not provable.
It appears to me that Dawkins was trying to create the impression that “could” means likely. I could be wrong by I don’t see why he included the weasel program in his book unless he thought the program would persuade people of the effectiveness of cumulative selection.
No Bill – the exact probability (as long as it is less than one, or greater than zero) is irrelevant, in the context of this conversation. The point was to distinguish between whether “increased complexity is necessarily correlated with increased fitness”, or whether it merely “can” or could" be in some circumstances. Within that context, the exact probability is, as I said, irrelevant.
Wrong Bill. The world (let alone the universe) is full of things that “cannot happen” – the Sun rising in the west would be one obvious example. It would help if you put a glimmer of thought into your responses, rather than simply reflexively sealioning. In this case, you should have put a moment’s thought into the limitations of the aphorism that you cannot “prove a negative”.
Wrong again Bill for the same reason. The Sun will always rise in the East.
These responses of yours are worthless Bill – they display a complete inability to muster a coherent argument!
In practice, and in the context of how often Bill actually is wrong in reality, the difference between could and always is, is immeasurably small and of virtually no significance. 99% and 100% the time is not worth arguing about.
Well let’s move on since the evolutionists here claim to certainty of their positions. While I agree the sun will likely never (in our lifetime) rise in the west in a practical sense you cannot be certain this will always be the case. Science is always tentative.
A further example of a complete inability to muster a coherent argument there Bill.
What “certainty” are you talking about?
If it is the “certainty” that “increased complexity is … correlated with increased fitness”, then this is exactly the position that @Rumraket was arguing against.
If it is the “certainty” that your arguments are incoherent and thus worthless, then the only rational way to “move on” from this would be to exclude you from the conversation – which appears to be impossible.
If you are talking about my position that things are either certain, uncertain, or impossible, and that these three sets are both mutually exclusive, and non-empty, then I would suggest that this is true as a matter of logic and common sense.
Then why did Rum start with insulting @stcordova vs trying to understand a position you now claim he agrees with.
If you were really interested in a conversation you would ask questions vs continuing to make bald assertions.
This is black and white thinking and not based on real world observations. All answers are between certain or impossible. Science is about finding solutions that are closer to certain.
So when @Rumraket becomes somewhat confrontational in correcting Salvador Cordova, a Creationist apologist, with no expertise whatsoever relevant to Evolutionary Biology, you feel compelled to come incoherently to Sal’s defense, like a toothless attack chihuahua attempting to gum people’s ankles, in spite of your near complete ignorance of logic and biology.
That your comments were “worthless” was not a “bald assertion”, as I provided reasoned arguments as to their lack of worth.
I would also point out that this opinion of your comments seems to be nearly universal – as it would be hard to find anybody on this forum, with any scientific literacy, who finds any value in your comments.
But now we’re getting to the stage where even laughing at your incoherent incompetence grows tedious.
And I guess you carefully ignored the following point:
I cannot speak for @Rumraket, but speaking for myself, probably because illogic and ignorance irritates me – so I tend to respond rather than ignoring, as I probably should.
Is this your strategy Bill? To make posts so inanely stupid that everybody ends up putting you on ignore, and leaving you free to spout such stupidity unrebutted.
If you feel strongly that me or Sal are saying things that do not make sense to you I recommend you just not respond. If you do respond maybe you could try to understand why there is a gap in understanding of what you believe to be the truth.
