The AP Model and Shannon Theory Show the Incompleteness of Darwin’s ToE

self | January 26, 2009 | Jean F. Drew

[CottShop]

I see you don’t want to be taken seriously- Fine- you’ve shown you don’t-0 Buh bye-

[js1138]

Changes in the ability to metabolize new food sources, such as nylon, requires mutation.

If you have a source that says otherwise, please provide a link.

[js1138]

Not sure what you’re not understandign about htis?

If you have an example of a new metabolc function arising without an associated mutation, please cite your source.

[tpanther]

Right, they interpret the objective data, in a very subjective way. So who's to say what is or isn't obejctive other than by sheer scientific concensus?

Just like some astronomers are on board with reclassifying Pluto while others are not. And some scientists, while seeking out grant money, are arguing that manmade global warming is a valid argument, as well as evolution, nothing is immune to godless liberals, scientific or otherwise.

The objectivity of science you speak of is mere concensus and hardly stationery.

The research, studies, peer review, publication and so on are all guarantees that, in the end, the drugs will have been scrutinized sufficiently to give a solid estimation of the expected outcomes.

Nope, there are no guarantees of objectivity in peer review when all the peers are drinking from the same kool-aid fountain. It's a nice idea in theory but in practice it's a corrupted practice as human beings aren't 100% objective no matter how many times people say they are, or assert that they're inacapable of succumbing to outside influence.

So, how therefore can a scientist or anyone for that matter pretend to tell others, let alone demand from them, what is or isn't objective science?

algore said the debate is over...and there's your "in the end" problem...there literally IS no end when it comes to origins or which drug is the best choice or how to classify and reclassify Pluto.

It's an ongoing endeavor, with not only new data to be extrapolated but new methodologies to understand it.

After all, what once was alchemy is today called science and vice versa.......it's all about human interpretation and perception.

The only way to appreciate obejective science, whatever that is, is to remove the human element.

The problems with your last statement is algore has way more in common with his fellow godless liberals that have turned the theory of evolution into a cult with their myriad God-hang-ups and too many scientists are in his pocket ensuring it's not seen as junk science but as objective science, proving my very point.

Beware of any human being, scientist or otherwise, who thinks he has the keys to scientific objectivity.

Again, "in the end" (if there's such a thing), it's all about the interpretation and perception. More scientists can exclaim manmade global warming is real and obejective than do not, and bingo, it's magically "real" and "objective", and all via the guise of "peer review" no less.

[Filo]

Now look in the mirror for the paragon of illustrations of that principle.

Sorry, not seeing it. . .

[Filo]

I see you don’t want to be taken seriously- Fine- you’ve shown you don’t

Actually, I've shown that I do, but frankly I'm none too concerned if you take me seriously or not. . .

[hosepipe]

[ We can see these elements in existance now, but where did the first information receivers come from? ]

Any to suggest that the third human on this planet did NOT COME from the first two.. is to concoct an interesting yarn of science fiction.. There is zero evidence that any form of "human" was not as intelligent as the current ones.. -OR- depending on how cynical you are..... just as dumb..

[Filo]

Right, they interpret the objective data, in a very subjective way. So who's to say what is or isn't obejctive other than by sheer scientific concensus?


Not at all. That's not how it works. Science has nothing to do with "consensus." If 10,000 scientists think that the earth is flat and one proves it's round then it's round.

Just like some astronomers are on board with reclassifying Pluto while others are not. And some scientists, while seeking out grant money, are arguing that manmade global warming is a valid argument, as well as evolution, nothing is immune to godless liberals, scientific or otherwise.

I'm sorry, but you are conflating completely different concepts. The classification of Pluto is a matter of opinion, but not about Pluto itself. Astronomers merely selected a few criteria that they apply uniformly to define what a planet is. That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Pseudo-scientists following grant money and pursuing junk science, much as ID types follow their religious principles while abandoning reason, are also not related to science.

The objectivity of science you speak of is mere concensus and hardly stationery.

Sorry, but not at all. Science is the pursuit of provable fact. Consensus has nothing to do with it. I can see, however, why you think that ID is anything but garbage. Your concept and understanding of science is deeply flawed.

Nope, there are no guarantees of objectivity in peer review when all the peers are drinking from the same kool-aid fountain. It's a nice idea in theory but in practice it's a corrupted practice as human beings aren't 100% objective no matter how many times people say they are, or assert that they're inacapable of succumbing to outside influence.

No doubt those flaws make it harder, but in the end 2+2=4 is recognized as reality and 2+2=Buick will be rejected as junk.

The truth always wins in the end, even if there is resistance and even if the truth-tellers find themselves in a church prison for a time..

algore said the debate is over...and there's your "in the end" problem...there literally IS no end when it comes to origins or which drug is the best choice or how to classify and reclassify Pluto.

Again you are conflating disparate things. There certainly is an end when something is proven - like Evolution. The facts line up and reality is set. Atomic theory is the same way, as are Newton's laws and so on.

Yes there are areas that are not yet settled, but application of the scientific method will eventually settle them.

Application of the nonsense that IDers use will do nothing but perpetuate their mental masturbation and define their inability to grasp basic precepts of science, logic and reason.

[betty boop]

The time development of complexity in biological organisms and systems is observed to always procede from simple to complex, in accordance with the laws of physics and in a fashion modeled by evolutionary algorithms.

Where did these plenipotential "evolutionary algorithms" of which you speak come from, spunketts?

If the universe is ultimately one "whole" — as conceptually I believe it is — then its ultimate "rule" will likely be found to be very simple indeed. What still needs to be accounted for, however, is the means by which such simplicity yields the complexity we see all around us in Nature.

The people who develop "evolutionary algortihms" are probably painfully aware of this problem.... .

[js1138]

Where did these plenipotential "evolutionary algorithms" of which you speak come from, spunketts?

Why don't you try framing that question with respect to the video I linked and which you watched?

[editor-surveyor]

I think that you missed my point entirely.

[betty boop]

There is zero evidence that any form of "human" was not as intelligent as the current ones.

I agree with that statement, dear hosepipe. Yet you know as well as I do that evolutionary theorists just EXPECT that man MUST be getting BETTER over time. Meaning: smarter, more "fit," etc. That means past (dead) generations before our own were less smart, less fit, etc., etc., than we who are presently living.

I mean, isn't evolution all about "progress" — while at the same time denying any purpose in nature? And yet: How can there be "progress," if there is no purpose, criterion, or standard to assess "progress" by in the first place?

[betty boop]

Why don't you try framing that question with respect to the video I linked and which you watched?

I did. My answer: What was offered in that video was a purely human construction which may or may not have anything to do with the structure of "objective" reality.

We are not looking for human opinions here, js1138, but for the structure of universal truth as it applies to the evolution of the universe and its living constituents.

[js1138]

What was offered in that video was a purely human construction which may or may not have anything to do with the structure of "objective" reality

What was offered was chemistry.

[js1138]

We are not looking for human opinions here, js1138, but for the structure of universal truth as it applies to the evolution of the universe and its living constituents.

And you are going to find universal truth without reference to verifiable facts?

[metmom]

IBT *It’s not science, it’s religious apologetics* crowd.

[metmom]

There is no such thing as a “compelling case” for abject stupidity.

Except the example you just provided.

Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2009 9:59:07 AM

3 posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2009 10:06:26 AM by Filo

And you read the thread and composed a response to the topic in seven minutes and 19 seconds?

[js1138]

How long does it take to evaluate a statement like, “Further, the idea of the “whole” must come prior to an understanding of the nature and function of the constituting parts”?

[metmom]

Forget that ToE is an unproven theory when applied to inter-species

If DNA cannot be used to determine kinship, there are a lot of court decisions that need to be reversed.

WOW! Going off topic at the speed of light.

There's a world of difference between demonstrating inter-species relationships and kinship as is used in a court of law.

Even if DNA can be used to determine relationships, it does not prove common descent.

[js1138]

Even if DNA can be used to determine relationships, it does not prove common descent.

That's a masterpiece of logic. What do you suppose is meant by "relationships"?