Skip to comments.So You Think You Are a Darwinian?
Posted on 02/08/2003 7:54:52 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode
Darwinism's Dilemma (part I: Cave Man)
Darwinism's Dilemma (part II: Hard Man)
My point exactly!
at least one of them got it
I am sorry I should have been much more clear (wow). Facts that prove a position.
You just don't get it do you? My statement was constructive on two levels and both seem to have gone over your head.
scientific method n. The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.
There is a conclusion that validates a theory, moving the theory out of the realm of thought and into fact. You forgetting or ignoring that step does not remove it from the process.
Get a clue - the use of the word "proof" is not scientific.
Allow me to point out that arguing from a position with no attendant facts produces no useful conclusions. Got any facts to offer, dumbass?
I think not.
How much Oil Production you got Bubba?
Why are the major Oil & Gas discoveries all made by evolutionists?
That must be some kinda Godless Commie Liberal plot, huh?
I mean, everybody knows Oilmen are liberals, right? That's why they were W's first supporters.
< /Contempt >
Facts can be proven (in this case, except to the Flat Earth Society) but not theories. Note: calling a fact a theory, or vice versa, doesn't change that.
How does science happen?
This is based around a brief, incomplete list of definition of terms:
An idea about the way the world is. A hypothesis might be that 6 year old children are particularly tall in Nottingham. Before hypothesis can be developed into scientific law it needs to be tested by carefully planned experiments.
Taking a law (probably mathematical or logical) and using it work out what will happen in a given situation. For instance if there was a law that lightning was always followed by thunder, then we could conclude that any particular lightning strike will be followed by thunder.
There are various technical meanings for this word, but for a working scientist it means making some observations (every time lighting strikes thunder always seems to follow) and building these into a general law (thunder always follows lighting).
Often two measurements of something do not give exactly the same result. For instance, if measuring the temperature of the room, the temperature may fluctuate due to the movement of the air. Even if it didn't you may read the thermometer slightly differently each time. If you measure the height of 6 year old children, there will clearly be a variation across the population. This variation is generally called 'noise' or 'random errors'.
If you measure the height of a class of 6 year old children in Nottingham and Leicester, you will almost certainly find that the average height is different. However, if you had chosen two classes in Nottingham, you may have also found a difference. The question is, is the difference between the average height in Nottingham and Leicester significant? We can estimate this using statistics. Usually we would accept the result if we could say there was a 95% chance that the two measurements were different, that is there is a 5% risk that this result could have been obtained by chance.
(It is very important to notice that if infact the average height of children across the UK is the same, but we compare the heights of children in Nottingham to those measured in 20 other cities in this way, accepting a difference which had a 5% risk of being obtained by chance, then inevitably if we repeat the meausement 5 times, we expect at least one city to be difference by chance.)
We can never prove that a scientific law is generally true in all situations. We can only carry on doing experiments until we find somewhere where it no longer holds- where it proves it to be false. (e.g. does thunder follow lighting if it strikes you?). This is sometimes known as falsification.
This does NOT mean that science cannot give us meaningful answers to difficult problems; it simply means that it cannot always give black and white, cut and dried answers. Science can often tell us which of two senarios is most likely to be true, and we can often give a numerical probability to that likelihood. This is exactly the sort of process that we all use to manage our lives, to make informed decisions about say, whether to keep our money in a tin on the mantlepiece, or open a bank account. Yes, of course, there is a chance that the bank will go bust, but virtually all of us decide that on balance we think it is safer than our mantlepiece.The trouble with some science is that the information needed to make these decisions is very technical and so sometimes we have to trust a very few people, who are basically world experts in a given area, to make these decisions for us.
In practice, we are often simply trying to determine the range of applicability of a law. Then we often turn things on their head and test the "null" hypothesis (thunder and lighting always occur simultaneously). We then make measurements to find out how likely it is that the difference in time that we are observing has occured simply by chance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is based on personal interests of staff, and does not represent core work of MR Centre. It is written from the point of view of a working scientist, rather than a scientific philosopher.
If you want to comment on this page please contact Penny.Gowland@nottingham.ac.uk
An absolutely incredible paragraph! First you have been arguing against my statements that this circuit shows intelligent design and here you admit completely to the truth of my statements - that scientists even now cannot figure out how the system works. So tell me how you can create a working system with perfectly fitting parts at random and without any idea as to what you want to achieve????????????
As to the AI nonsense - organisms are intelligently designed so that does not count as computer AI material. To put a human brain on a piece of metal does not make it an AI computer. The "A" in AI stands for artificial. There is nothing artificial about an organism.
Is your name Jim Robinson? Who died and put you in charge here? If you do not like the thread, go somewhere else, there are thousands of threads to choose from here.
You are just another evolutionist tyrant which when faced with the truth about how silly your atheist/materialist theory is wants to silence opponents. Well, this is still a free country. So those who oppose evolution will keep on speaking against it and showing how lame and foolish it is.
Oh and BTW - don't tell me that you are for evolution because it is 'science' instead of because it is the basis for materialistic atheism in our day. Don't tell me that because if you were in it because of the science you would welcome discussion and you also would be able to defend your theory instead of trying to silence those who disagree with it.
Since when are all scientists Popperian irrationalists?
The old evo switcheroonie. My post was in answer to balrog's silly statement that "In my experience, "Darwinian" or "Darwinist" as a term". You added to the attack on Darwin by saying that " Darwin isn't a religious icon, he was just a dude with some ideas." Sounds like a putdown to me.
The whole point is that evolutionists are ashamed of Darwin both as a person and because he was so wrong in his theories. Problem is that both the theory and what is despicable about the man are indelibly intertwined. His promotion of the bracycephalic index as proof for his theory that some human races are inferior both shows his racism and the need for evolution to show that there are some which are 'more human' than other. His eugenics is an attempt to keep humanity from avoiding survival of the fittest through Christian charity. It was also scientifically wrong. As genetics has taught us, it is the parents of those with genetic defects which are the carriers of the bad genes so his proposal to kill (or prevent from procreating) those who had such defects would not have solved the problem. The man was not a scientist as he had absolutely no reason for these views which science has conclusively refuted. He just made stuff out of thing air because it helped his agenda. He did not bother to question or test the stuff he was promoting. He was willing to have people killed without having the vaguest scientific idea of how genetic diseases were transmitted. The man was a monster both as a human being and as a perpetrator of total unscientific garbage upon the public - and you cannot separate the theory from the man no matter how hard you try.
Why is it when Lib lurkers get called out they start calling people names instead of contributing something worthwhile to the debate?
but, but, but...I'm a Christian...and a scientist...arrrghhh. LOL!
Teehee, glad I could help~
As I often say, evolutionists are totally shameless in their dishonesty. At least you are honest enough to admit you are proud of being dishonest for the cause.
Really? Let's see the contributions of the evolutionists to this thread (names withheld to protect the guilty):
Bilge for your mill. - post# 5
It doesn't matter whether or not evolution is true, it must be suppressed "for the good of the children." - post# 6
I almost started to debate this, until I realized that honest debate has nothing to do with your post...- post# 7
Oh slay he the mighty strawman! - post# 9
This whole article stinks, - post# 10
I just took from the first ten posts, did not want to bore all with the same old rhetorical, insulting garbage which the evolutionists try to pass off as argument on these threads.
If evolutionists were really scientists, and believed in science, and were informed about the facts of evolution, they would eagerly refute the statements of opponents with scientific facts and hard evidence. But they are not, they are just a bunch of atheist buffoons.
That has also been my experience. "Darwinism" is a pejorative created by Creationists to bash anyone who does not believe in their version of reality.
Here it is:
In man the frontal bone consists of a single piece, but in the embryo, and in children, and in almost all the lower mammals, it consists of two pieces separated by a distinct suture. ~~This suture occasionally persists more or less distinctly in man after maturity; and more frequently in ancient than in recent crania, especially, as Canestrini has observed, in those exhumed from the Drift, and belonging to the brachycephalic type. Here again he comes to the same nclusion as in the analogous case of the malar bones. In this, and other instances presently to be given, the cause of ancient races approaching the lower animals in certain characters more frequently than do the modern races, appears to be, that the latter stand at a somewhat greater distance in the long line of descent from their early semi-human progenitors. Darwin, Descent of Man, Chapter II.
All you and your friends know how to do is engage in ad-hominem attacks against those who disagree with you. Again - I do not see you or the rest of the evo clowns refuting anything I have said. I do not see you or the rest of the evo clowns giving evidence for your side. All you guys know how to do is insult. Shame on you.
I'm starting to like you Clive.
That is the 'defense' that evolutionists always give - the opponents do not know what the theory of evolution is. Evolutionists are always saying what evolution is not, they never are willing to say what the theory of evolution is. For two years I have been trying to nail evolutionists down on what the theory is but they lamely refuse to state it or even more lamely give a stupid answer about the " change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." which of course is not what the theory of evolution is. To go for a definition instead of the chicken hearted mumblings of evolutionists we must go back to Darwin:
"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse;. a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows."
From: Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
More gratuitous insults, totally made up from the king of slime trying again to get the thread pulled by inciting a slime-a-thon.
You still need to explain how intelligent human design of a process proves random, stochastic, evolution. What your statements show is the desperation of evolutionists in the face of intelligent design. Now they are trying to argue that mindless chance is a better designer than human beings. When you have to do that, you have already lost.
This is the usual nonsense from evolutionists - they cannot tell what the refutation is but like Gould's moronic punk-eek it always happened at some other time, at some other place which of course they cannot mention nor can they mention what the refutation is.
All that the evolutionists have been doing on these threads is engaging in ad hominems and giving excuses why they cannot debate honestly the issues presented to them.
... because we don't know enough to calculate them.
We certainly do know the enough, although evolutionists keep putting down science we know very well the chances of making a single normal sized gene. There are some 300 amino acids in a medium sized gene. At each position there are 22 posible values. However, some values may be substituted by others with similar characteristics but not at all positions and not by just any value. So being extremely generous the chances are one in 10^300th power. That's just for one of the some 30,000 genes in a human being - with millions of different genes in the over a million species in existence today. In addition, as science has shown, the genes have to fit in with the entire organism and be completely connected to it to work properly so making a gene is not the end of the hurdles necessary for evolution to be true.
So yes, evolution is impossible.
Matter does not think. Random chance does not have a goal. You need goal to arrange things in an orderly manner instead of wandering blindly and hitting upon a solution by dumb luck. Evolution does not cut it. The complexity of living organisms shows it to be impossible. In fact, the attempt by evolutionists to claim that evolution is 'intelligent' shows how far their theory has lost respectability that it is forced to try to hijack the arguments of its opponents.
Repeating the same ridiculous statement will not make it true. You are arguing that intelligent design of a program proves random chance. Can't you see the absurdity of what you are saying??????????
There are many throughout his writings, here's one:
In man the frontal bone consists of a single piece, but in the embryo, and in children, and in almost all the lower mammals, it consists of two pieces separated by a distinct suture. This suture occasionally persists more or less distinctly in man after maturity; and more frequently in ancient than in recent crania, especially, as Canestrini has observed, in those exhumed from the Drift, and belonging to the brachycephalic type. Here again he comes to the same nclusion as in the analogous case of the malar bones. In this, and other instances presently to be given, the cause of ancient races approaching the lower animals in certain characters more frequently than do the modern races, appears to be, that the latter stand at a somewhat greater distance in the long line of descent from their early semi-human progenitors.
Darwin, Descent of Man, Chapter 2.
Hmmm, so I guess you have seen this 'natural selection' you evolutionists speak of all the time? Is it male or female? How large is its brain?
Semantics garbage, the same nonsense you do in trying to 'prove' Hitler a Catholic and the Pope not Catholic - in the very same thread. That Darwin was a racist there can be no doubt (as that racism is an integral part of evolutionary theory):
"I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."
Darwin to Graham, July 3, 1881.
What a moronic and totally disingenous statement. Guess you have taken a poll of everyone that has discovered oil and asked them if they were evolutionists or not? Seems to me that GWB, a good Christian, dug for oil. There goes your blatant nonsense.
I am not a liberal. And evolution is at the center of politics in our society, so this is a political discussion. People do not get so exited over science. It is you who is trying to shut down discussion and you got put down as you deserved. And no you are not a scientist. Scientists have open minds and welcome discussion. Also if evolution was true and you were a scientist you would be eager to show that evolution is true instead of close down the discussion.
I lived in Houston, met them in business, had them over to the house, saw them at the country clubs. I knew all the serious players of the last 50 years, the ones who actually found oil, unlike GWB who was just a promoter.
And by the way, W didn't stop believing in evolution till it became politically expedient, like GHWB and abortion, and yeah, they were over at the house too.
Another evolutionist which is ashamed of the founder of the theory! Wow, you guys are really losing.
Sell your nonsense to someone else, the same nonsense as your taking a poll of all those who dig for oil being evolutionists. Reminds me of the Clintonites who claimed that everything good in the world was due to Clinton. Keep it, I was vaccinated by 8 years of that liar from your kind of nonsense.
And.... you think you are winning?
Want to put some money on it?
Really serious money?
Money to make it worth my while to meet you in Houston this weekend?
LOL - you really are a Stove fan, aren't you? Go ahead, post his critique of Popper - blowing holes in that one ought to be fun, too ;)
Yup, when your opponents can only respond to your statements with insults and when they are being forced to by the huge amount of scientific evidence to abandon random change, I can certainly say that the evolutionists are losing big.
Do you have an invitation to see GWB in Houston this weekend??????? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
No Sonny, but then he never found any significant oil. for the rest of the family I don't need an invitation. I sure don't need an invitation to see the Senior Geologists and corp executive officers who have found most of the worlds petro.
If you got the jack, I 'll be there.
Put up or crawl back into your own little fantasy reality boy.
Some of us have led real lives and have real accomplishments and the friends that go with them.
It is all relative my boy, someday you will learn that dishonesty is in the ear of the receiver. Honesty is wasted on people like you, and you have probably had little experience with it. Give me one reason why anyone would be willing to share anything they value with you, you have not shown yourself worthy of trust. Mostly, people tell you what you want to hear merely so that you will go away. Have I hit a chord?
Errrrmmm... This doesn't really follow, chemistry-wise. You might want to revise your math.
I would point out that while evolution is a valid mathematical concept (you DID know it has a proper mathematical derivation, didn't you?), that there is no proper proof that it has anything to do with speciation even if a new species evolved in front of your eyes. In fact, there is more than one viable non-evolutionary hypothesis in circulation. That said, no one (least of all ID folk) has been able to attack the fundamentals of evolution hypothesis, primarily because everyone accepts that the necessary premises exist (selection and variation). The rest is just argument fodder and most of the competing hypotheses have premises that haven't stood up nearly as well to scrutiny (including many non-ID, non-religious purely scientific alternative hypotheses, which do exist).
I would point out the difference between "artificial" and "natural" is purely semantic. The universe can't tell the difference, and it is trivial to construct an example of why this is. Any argument against this will have to be stronger than an arbitrary semantic classification.
Evidence for, not proof. That said, he was using the correct mathematical definition of "program". You, on the other hand, apparently are not. If you want to make a rigorous argument, you have to use a rigorous definition. I would suggest Kolmogorov Complexity and Its Applications (Li & Vitanyi) if you want to argue down this path. It is a good book for learning about what you are attempting to talk about.
I think a lot of interesting arguments can happen in this vein, but most people who try are woefully unprepared math-wise (it is usually graduate or post-graduate study if you are a math or a computer science major; difficult to understand and few people have been exposed to it in detail).
That doesn't quite make sense, but I have a different question to ask you. What's your beef with the word "proof"? It's a perfectly good word. There's nothing wrong with it. There's no reason to avoid it like leprosy. It won't give you the pox. You don't have to ramble on with nonsensical rubbish like "proof has no place in science..." and the like, which is merely a concession to confused idiots anyway. Why not used a reasonable definition of the word proof? (like the one found in the dictionary, eg Webster's.) Surely, if I tell you that I have proven there is no sumo wrestler in my bedroom, you will understand me without going off into the weeds about mathematical proofs and deductive proofs, no?
I ain't ashamed.... // LAKE // In Jump NOW! // YOU! //
Just show me a rock that thinks and reproduces itself and I will believe the above. You folks are really going off the cliff.