@Tardus-d5y: Is there going to be a video fully dedicated to debunking Vox Day or will you only address his nonesense in the next stream?
@GutsickGibbon: full video
This promises to be absolutely hilarious.
A young woman who is still in school for biology and probably hasn’t even passed a single math exam at her fifth-rate university genuinely believes she is going to record a full video disproving the mathematical demonstration of the impossibility of evolution by natural selection as well as the irrelevance of neutral theory, genetic drift, and neutral substitution, both constructed by the man who solved the Agrippan Trilemma.
Never mind that the MITTENS math has been repeatedly stress-tested by the oppositional Red Team of Grok, Gemini, and ChatGPT, two world-class physicists, five professional mathematicians, and just last week, a Professor of Mathematical Statistics at Stockholm University. Or that very little of the math that is the basis of my separate Neutral Theory argument is original, but is mostly derived from the mathematical work of Dr. Fabio Chalub, PhD in Mathematics and Professor at Universidade NOVA de Lisboa.
It’s not as if she doesn’t have fair warning in her comments already.
I have a PhD in maths from Cambridge and am working my way through Vox Day’s rather dense books and publications on this subject, and I’m yet to find any major issues with his maths.
Of course he won’t, except for the N/Ne error that I identified myself, but has not yet been corrected in a few of the older papers. There have been nearly 2,000 downloads of my paper dissolving the Trilemma since February, mostly by professional philosophers desperate to find a place where I was wrong so they can call me out for it. And there has not been a single response, not one single attempted criticism from any of them, because the solution is airtight. Given that, how does she think she’s going to find an error in my case against something much more obviously and hopelessly wrong like Neo-Darwinian natural selection, especially when she didn’t immediately recognize the citation of the LTTE or that parallel fixation is built into those numbers?
Note that I’m definitely NOT appealing to my authority or the authority of any of the various machine intelligences, physicists, or mathematicians referenced here. By all means, I encourage absolutely anyone and everyone who has any doubts about my arguments to work through the relevant math for themselves. Take your best shot. Critique it. Dig as deep as you can. That’s the purpose of the Red Team. Find the errors. I did, and others have, and my case is now far stronger for them. Ironically, my most significant error to date came from taking the evolutionary biology textbooks at face value!
I just find it amusing that an inveterate little credentialist like Erika would pay so little heed to what any rational individual would realize is an absolutely formidable set of intellectual adversaries. Because hiding behind name-calling and butterfly collectors simply isn’t going to cut it here.
Which is why I very much doubt that the promised video is ever going to be recorded. I expect that just like she did with regards to debating me directly, she’s going to find an excuse to avoid addressing the math and the arguments on camera since she doesn’t want to be publicly eviscerated. But perhaps she’ll follow through, and maybe even produce some little tangent, hitherto unaddressed, that will allow us to drive yet another nail in the coffin, like Dennis McCarthy did. That, too, is a service.
It is also amusing that these I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE retards have absolutely no comprehension of how I utilize AI. They appear to imagine I use it to generate my arguments. But, as everyone who has read HARDCODED knows, I use it in exactly the opposite way.