Skip to comments.Climategate Recalls Attacks on Darwin Doubters
Posted on 12/22/2009 7:53:44 AM PST by SeekAndFind
click here to read article
None of which happened in my comment.
Your apparent anger seems to thwart your ability to discern the truth.
I am bored with the current exchange. Do you have something useful to add or should we just let it rest?
A joke is only amusing the first time.
If that's your criteria, you failed it from the start.
"A joke is only amusing the first time."
Good luck w/ your cognitive dissonance.
Sad state, eh?
Didn’t offend me. As any designer of complex systems will attest they always have one or more boxes or clouds on the systems flowchart labelled something like “And a miracle happens here.” But unlike us mere human programmers, God actually pulled it off. No one knows how.
Yes, and apparently being an Astrophysicist makes one an evolutionist.
Being ANY type of real scientist must, because creationism is antithetical to the scientific method; and creationists must lie about science out of necessity; trusting that their target audience is, as a group, the most ignorant of science and the most bereft of education.
liberals continue to project-alot.
Gosh it’s not like this has been a dead horse re-beaten into a pulp eh?
Thanks for the info...
it’s nice to see there is another a-politcally correct Hillsdale college out there...as Paul Harvey says...”and that... is the rest of the story”.
Like I said, liberals continue to project-alot.
Your re-posting the same ole tired liberal debunked links still amounts to nothing more than re-posting the same ole tired liberal debunked links.
You creationists crack me up : )
“For example, contrary to Darwinian orthodoxy, the fossil record actually challenges the idea that all organisms have evolved from a single common ancestor. Why? Fossil studies reveal a biological big bang near the beginning of the Cambrian period (520 million years ago) when many major, separate groups of organisms or phyla (including most animal body plans) emerged suddenly without clear precursors.
The evidence that you are trying to use to disprove evolution, falsifies creation.
Isn’t cognitive dissonance a wonderful thing : )
That’s funny, like the incessant liberal logic that the rocks are really old because of the old fossils we find in them, and how do we know the fossils are old?
Well that’s easy, because of the really old rocks we found them in.
And the audacity with the liberal projection of cognitive dissonance, is what’s truly highly entertaining!
How old do you think the earth is and what is your evidence for that belief?
The more educated someone is, the less likely they are to be a creationist; just as the chart shows, or do I need to explain to you what the chart means?
Creationist sources play to their audience and take for granted that they know little, if anything, about science, or much of anything else.
It’s so much easier to start from the premise of there’s very little if anything at all that you’ve linked that hasn’t thoroughly been debunked, and work from there.
As far as this case...the more a person exposes himself to liberal indoctrination centers: from k-12 public screwels to liberal professors, the more likely they are to accept without question myriad liberal fallacies including evolution.
Education has nothing to do with it. And liberal ideology can never replace a proper education.
If you’re off by millions or billions of years,
and I’m off by tens or even hundreds of thousands of years,
In both monte carlo statistical analysis and genetic programming randomization is used to color in a paint-by-numbers design — the design is that which designed by designers — the random events do not create any information at all.
Genetic programming is like an example covered in a few chapters of Dawkin’s book, where he writes a BASIC program to draw stick figures, in a random progression. In that it HE THE DESIGNER who adds information — first by providing the platform on which the software runs, and second by coding the program, third by executing it, fourth by observing the output in each stage, fifth by selecting which output he likes, sixth by feeding back that selection into the system, and seventh by reiterating again and again.
Seven steps like seven days. Very parallel!
Being ANY type of real scientist must, because creationism is antithetical...
You are assuming that all who doubt evoloserism are literal 6000-year-old-universe creationists. That's BS.
The problem is with the basic laws of mathematics and probability, with which evolution is essentially incompatible.
The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.
Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.
For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.
In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening at once (which is what you'd need), best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.
All of that was the best case. For the pieces of being a flying bird to evolve piecemeal would be much harder. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.
And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.
Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.
Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.
And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e. that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again. Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record to support any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said:
Guys, we need flight feathers, and wings, and specialized bones, hearts, lungs, and tails, and we need em NOW; not two years from now. Everybody ready, all together now:
You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as stupid as THAT.
But it gets even stupider.
Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any sizeable herd of animals.
Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).
Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:
1. It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could SEE them, they wouldn't BE witches...) This kind of logic is less inhibiting than the logic they used to teach in American schools.
2. PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance...
3. PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.
4. PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.
5. For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.
The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.
And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:
They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens, and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:
ASSUMING that Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happens, then the rest of the business proceeds as we have described in our scholarly discourse above!
Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.
I look forward to a world in which the debate is between myself and GGG over the actual pre-history of our world and universe, and evoloserism has been relegated to the junkyard of dead science theories where it belongs.
How does monte carlo statistical analysis and genetic programming perform using randomness versus not using randomness?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.