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)
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
Well, that's another quality of evolutionists (besides dishonesty) to say and do no matter how foul or dishonest to promote your agenda. Thanks for showing the lack of character in those who support evolution.
Errrrmmm... This doesn't really follow, chemistry-wise. You might want to revise your math.
Of course it does. In case you had not heard the 'stop' codon can sometimes code for two other amino acids. The impossibility of evolution has been shown abundantly by modern science.
Of course they have. First of all selection is a destructive force. Selection kills, it does not create new organisms. Selection thins out the gene pool, it does not create new variations. So right there the whole basic argument of evolution is false. Yes there is variation in species, but that does not prove the source of it in any way. In fact the variations are so great between species that they cannot be accounted for by evolution. Organisms are very much integrated and chance mutations cannot account for such integration. Worst of all though, we do not see, have not seen any species in the process of transforming themselves into new more complex species. If evolution were true we would indeed be seeing many species in the process of transforming themselves into new ones at present, we do not see that anywhere. In other words, there is absolutely no evidence to back up the hypothesis of evolution.
Evidence for, not proof. That said, he was using the correct mathematical definition of "program".
Semantics and more nonsense. You are admitting that it takes a program to make something that works like an organism. Have you seen a program ever write itself? Programs are the product of intelligent design and that evolutionists have been forced to admit that organisms are programmed shows quite well that the theory of evolution has already been disproven.
You need to realize that evolutionists allways fall back on semantics when they are shown that their theory has no scientific evidence to back it up.
Please excuse my lack of character, it is an evolutionary thingy, Darwin isn't through with me yet! He-he, Ho-ho!
One side has the truth, the other propaganda.
Why do these propagandists keep coming back here and recycling their false propaganda?
On this very long thread we exhausted thousands of posts exploring information theory and molecular biology. The emphasis was autonomy and self-organizing complexity. Somewhere along the way I offered the hypothesis that algorithm at inception is proof of intelligence design and provided several methods of falsification. The debate on that thread is particularly informative because of contributions of many Freeper experts and thinkers. There is a lot of useful information to be had but it cannot be realistically copied into this thread.
I dont wish to argue the case again here, but I do suggest anyone interested in the particulars of the debate might want to click on the above link.
Indeed. It was for that very reason that I prepared my much-reviled "List-o-Links," so that we could begin each new thread with some references to an ever-growing backlog of previously-discussed material. But the creo side kept complaining to the mods, so I gave it up. I understand their gripe. It's much better for their side if each new thread starts with an empty slate. That way they can repeat the same often-refuted material over and over.
You and I have tried to come up with a method to summarize but we couldn't find one. So, it appears de novo arguments and on-subject linking is all we can offer at the moment. Sigh...
Tell me, has it been proven yet that manned airplanes can fly faster than sound? I have no Popperian angst concerning the proposition "The Bell X-1 proved that manned airplanes can fly faster than sound." Do you?
Why do these propagandists keep coming back here and recycling their false propaganda?
For the same reason that all tyrants repeat lies on and on ad infinitum - in the belief that repetion will make their lies true.
Have you no shame? You call my posting of Darwin's definition of evolution my own strawman version? How disonest can you be??????
Here it is again, the definition of evolution as Darwin said it. Posted here because the evolutionists are too dishonest to even state what their theory is and constantly attack those who oppose it by saying 'that is not evolution'. It is the evolutionists who do not wish to be 'tied down' to a specific description because that way they can dance and shuffle their way out by saying 'that is not evolution, you are ignorant' (without ever saying what the theory is of course):
"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"
Thanks for posting the link to the thread, it should be read by those interested in the problem of information theory. It also has lots of links for even more information.
I think the question of algorithm at inception is pretty much of a closed book by now. Since all living things known to man have DNA and that DNA symbolic code is translated completely arbitrarily into amino acids by RNA, it is impossible to say that there was no algorithm at the inception of life. Unless materialists can show that rocks, carbon and other inert matter started a school to teach RNA how to read the code, a materialist origin for life is utter nonsense.
However, the question here goes further. The materialists are tyring to work backwards as one could say. They are trying to prove by saying that life can arrange itself intelligently to save the theory of evolution now that it is obvious that the complexity of organisms require intelligent programming to change it and make those changes work. The evolutionists have no evidence for such a thing of course. It is also an obvious fact that until recently not even man could genetically change itself - whether he wished to or not. So to say that species have been intelligently modifying themselves since the beginning of life is to me totally absurd and without any validity.
At least we have a name for the founder which is a lot more than one can say for the Creationists. Your founder was some bronze age story teller. LOL
I suspect you are speaking about autonomy and self-organizing complexity.
It is possible to write a program (and presumably a genetic code) which self-organizes and creates more code. But it is not as simple as it sounds and even then, there's the enormous problem of original algorithm at inception that could give rise to such a thing. For lurkers, I recommend these links:
Here's something for you.
Neutralizing success words, after the manner of the best authorities
(From David Stove, Popper and After, chapter 1)
How to rewrite the sentence: Cook discovered Cook Strait.
- Cook `discovered' Cook Strait.
- Among an infinity of equally impossible alternatives, one hypothesis which has been especially fruitful in suggesting problems for further research and critical discussion is the conjecture (first `confirmed' by the work of Cook) that a strait separates northern from southern New Zealand.
- It would of course be a gross anachronism to call the flat-earth paradigm in geography mistaken. It is simply incommensurable with later paradigms: as is evident from the fact that, for example, problems of antipodean geography could not even be posed under it. Under the Magellanic paradigm, however, one of the problems posed, and solved in the negative, was that of whether New Zealand is a single land mass. That this problem was solved by Cook is, however, a vulgar error of whig historians, utterly discredited by recent historiography. Discovery of the Strait would have been impossible, or at least would not have been science, but for the presence of the Royal Society on board, in the person of Sir Joseph Banks. Much more research by my graduate students into the current sociology of the geographical profession will be needed, however, before it will be known whether, under present paradigms, the problem of the existence of Cook Strait remains solved, or has become unsolved again, or an un-problem.
- Long before the constipated and boneheaded Cook, whose knowledge of the optics of his telescopes was minimal, rationally imposed, by means of tricks, jokes, and non-sequiturs, the myth of Cook Strait on the `educated' world, Maori scientists not only `knew' of the existence of the Strait but often crossed it by turning themselves into birds. Now, however, not only this ability but the very knowledge of the `existence' of the Strait has been lost forever. This is owing to the malignant influence exercised on education by authoritarian scientists and philosophers, especially the LSE critical rationalists, who have not accepted my criticisms and should be sacked. "No doubt this financial criticism of ideas will be more effective than [...] intellectual criticism and it should be used". (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. LVIII, 1978, p. 144).
Thanks. I am glad you are helping me alert everyone to the propaganda of the druggists.
Not by these two evolutionists:
"I pointed out more than a decade ago (1977) that `the reductionist explanation, so widely adopted in recent decades - Evolution is a change in gene frequencies in populations - is not only not explanatory, but is in fact misleading. Far more revealing is the definition: `Evolution is change in the adaptation and in the diversity of populations of organisms.'" [Mayr, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology, 1988]
"Evolution is a process which has produced life from non-life, which has brought forth man from an animal, and which may conceivably continue doing remarkable things in the future. In giving rise to man, the evolutionary process has, apparently for the first and only time in the history of the Cosmos, become conscious of itself. ... Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life." [Dobzhansky, Changing Man, 1967]
Are you too lazy to follow the link?
One of the key issues in these debates has been whether random events plus selection can produce something new. I concede that the computer program under discussion does not model biological evolution. I granted this up front. The issue is whether the process of selection can build new things without specifying their structure.
Regardless of the long term utility of this programming "trick", it has demonstrated once and for all that design can occur in the absence of preconceived ideas about structure. Only the behavioral outcome needs to be specified. It is critical to point out that the circuit being patented could not have been designed by the programmers, because they still don't understand how it works.
It is really quite amazing that so little attention is being paid to this.
You can find them here. Defining Evolution, John Wilkins
You could tell me that you're going to quit waffling and follow the link. But apparently you're too lazy for that. I guess a few vigorous mouse-clicks would exhaust you.
evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. (Curtis and Barnes 1989, p974)"
But isn't that a given? Or how do you determine that something is really new is everything is "in the space covered by the computation"?
It seems to me that in traditional computational algorithms, you follow a predictable, repeatable set of rules, and assume that the rules guarantee the correctness of the result.
In genetic programming, the transformational rules are irrelevant (more on this). Only the fitness function matters. (The rules for making attempts do matter, but only to the extent that they speed up the process. Can anyone say for certain that the rules for biochemistry aren't also rigged? I'm pretty sure that evolutionists are concerned with process, not with how the rules originated.)
"I pointed out more than a decade ago (1977) that the reductionist explanation, so widely adopted in recent decades - Evolution is a change in gene frequencies in populations - is not only not explanatory, but is in fact misleading. Far more revealing is the definition: 'Evolution is change in the adaptation and in the diversity of populations of organisms.'" [Mayr, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology, 1988]
Since the quote I pulled is dated 1989, and the one you pulled is dated 1988, one could make the point that your quote is outdated in light of new evidence.
However, we can also pull the working definition of the theory of evolution straight off The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource. It only goes back to 2001:
Working Theory of Evolution (contributed by Physicist)
At some finite time in the past, life began somehow. (How it began is beyond the scope of the theory, but the observational evidence strongly suggests that only one such beginning on Earth has left descendants to the present day.) As life reproduces and multiplies, mutations occur with small but finite probabilities, causing new genes to be added, and creating new alleles of existing genes. The different alleles confer different traits upon their owners, rendering them more or less successful in coping with their environments. The organisms that are more successful in coping with their environments consequently have a slightly greater probability of passing their genes to the next generation of organisms than do the less successful organisms. This causes allele frequencies to change over time.
Because mutations are random according to their probabilities, there is essentially a zero probability that two non-interbreeding populations will get the same set of mutations. (Even if they somehow do, there is essentially a zero probability that the frequencies of the alleles will end up the same in both populations.) The alleles and new genes available in each population will therefore diverge, with the result that the populations become genetically more distant from each other over time. Eventually, the two populations will become genetically so distant that they lose the ability to produce viable hybrids between them. This is the cause of the origin of species.