wrote:
On 5/22/2026 3:36 PM, Ernest Major wrote:On 22/05/2026 14:27, sticks wrote:>This book by Vox Day is his work on the subject title, MITTENS, and it
is quite convincing. He begins by giving a full history lesson on the
1966 Wistar Institute Conference where this concept was debated
between biologists and mathematicians. The biologists had no answers
for the math, but the math side wasn't very good at pressing this and
the debate was considered a draw. Nothing much has been done in the
years since then on this, as it was largely ignored by the evolution
crowd. Day details this all in depth.
>
He has updated the formulas and with his background come up with some
compelling reasons to believe it simply couldn't have happened. Not
enough time for the genetic changes needed to have been the method of
creating species. He is not saying he believes evolution didn't
happen, he is saying natural selection was not the method. That
should make Martin happy. I think he would be considered a Theistic
Evolutionists, but he calls it IGM, Intelligent Genetic Manipulation
and doesn't really pick a manipulator. His main objective is in
proving the math doesn't work for selection. If correct, this is a
death sentence for Darwinian evolution which relies on natural selection.
>
Though I don't agree with IGM theory, I found his math on selection
impressive. I decided to check into his models and whether or not
they had been reviewed and objections leveled. He does have chapters
in this book that preempt such reviews and challenges. All the
objections I and with the help of AI could find, were addressed in the
book. The consensus loving AI even accepted his math and his
assumptions were said to be completely valid. I have not found
anything that adequately refutes his findings. As back in 1966, it
just gets ignored.
I suspect that the sycophancy of AI is more relevant here than its love
of consensus.
Of course.
>>Day's understanding of the problem, his research, and his method is
quite impressive in my view. He simply lays it all out there. I also
found his willingness to call out biologists and their complete lack
of understanding and/or use of math in their research refreshing. He
basically says they're a bunch of idiots, and then goes on to show why.
Ronald Fisher, a biologist, was one of the founders of the field of
statistics. Theodore Beale makes an elementary statistical error (the
lottery fallacy).
Did Fisher make that claim from his grave since he died before Day was born?
Presumably it's a logical fallacy that others beside Day have fallen
into.
I read a 6 part review of the book back in January.>
I did say below I would be interested in comments from actual readers of
the book, and to be honest I'm not sure whoever wrote your review
actually did read it. It appears not.
>Among the highlights>
1) in chapter 7 he commits the lottery fallacy.
No. He is NOT arguing evolution could not have happened and is
improbable.
So you agree that evolution could have happened and is not improbable.
Quite the opposite actually. He is arguing it could not
have happened by chance through natural selection, and shows why.
Calling this a lottery fallacy simply is an attempt at getting the eye
off the target.
How is it supposedly "off the target"?
2) in chapter 8 he offers unfixed traits (CCR delta 32, lactase>
persistence, Genghis Khan's Y-chromosome) in support of his position.
That seems to me to be a problem for any version of intelligent design
that denies the sufficiency of natural selection.
No. He uses these examples of unfixed traits to show the difficulty and
improbability of even the most obvious propagation cases of genetic
mutations becoming fixed. Note that instead of debating his actual
point, this is simply using a talking point and ignoring it to again get
off target.
Does he address Kimura and Ohta's ideas? E.g., that the average time
to fixation rate is the population size?
3) he incorrectly assumes that all the DNA fixations are independent>
(read up on selective sweeps).
4) he fails to account for genetic drift operating in parallel with
natural selection.
Crazy statements if you actually read the book. He covers both these
objections, and even shows where some of the research data he uses that
comes from evolutionists, already take these into account. Your
reviewer clearly did not read the book.
Tell us how he "covers" these criticisms.
>I could probably give much more on this book, but nobody is gonna readForget about his math. Does his model accurately reflect reality?
it anyway, so in case Martin or MarkE are interested in this stuff, it
is a worthwhile read. If anyone has read it and wants to comment I
would love to hear about it. I sincerely believe his math has not
been seriously refuted.
>
That's the point of the book. His model does so according to him, and
he shows why. His actual models and specific points are not being
reviewed. Kinda makes me wonder why that is?
>
But, I've read the book and just thought MarkE might be interested in
the findings, too. It's all easy to look into. He's not hiding
anything and his assumptions are made clear.
Claims from someone as far right on the political spectrum as he is
have to be viewed with caution.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.