Evolution is a fact. Darwinism is based on a belief that these events (Micro and Macro) happened over a long peroid of time. Random mutation and natural selection are not the done deal with evolution. There is a missing component that is not accounted for and I do NOT mean god. The Theory of Evolution has been shown to be a flawed theory that under examination fails. It is also true that DNA and homology do not support evolution theory.
@gregrutz DNA does not prove that the theory of evolution is fact. Evolution, what I think you mean Darwinism is not a done deal. Homology does not support evolution theory. The out of Arfica theory is slowly being forgotten about.
@TheLogic1010 No I mean the modern theory of evolution, not ''Darwinism''. Darwin's ideas are 150 years out of date. Homology and all the other bull shit [2nd law of thermodynamics] creationists come up with has been debunked. Evolution has been observed and documented.
DNA shows how humans moved out of Africa, done deal.
Correct me if I'm entirely off on this, I'm relatively new to biology and just putting forward an idea:
Ring species constitute an example of speciation because Salamander A and Salamander B can no longer breed. However, its now believed that modern humans bred with Neanderthals at some point (their DNA is found in most non-Africans I believe) yet Neanderthals are a different species. Doesn't this throw the definition of a species in question into some doubt?
Well, in ring species it is only the two species at the two ENDS of a long chain of interbreeding but different adjacent interbreeders that cannot interbreed. It is at the ENDS that real speciation has occurred. So the Neanderthals, though different, might not have effectively been on the ends of such a chain.
To respond properly to your question, species is in fact an ill defined term. You see it in the media often "scientists discover new species and give it a name". Evolutionary studies on fruit flies for example showed that after intense selection pressures the initial population eventually split between A and B types. Upon closer inspection...continued...
Upon closer inspection, they found that A and B sub-populations of fruit-flies would no longer interbreed. For them, this meant that A and B fruit-flies were now different species. But the fact is (and this is primarily why species is an ill-defined term) it was not because they COULD NOT interbreed biologically, it was because they CHOSE NOT TO, as a matter of preference.
Darwinian Evolution has always been good for two things:
1) preventing extinction
2) genetic entropy
Natural selection for example can only select from what already exists, it doesn't create initial function. Random Mutations is all Darwinist have and it is a completely random process (random input, random output).
Also,genetic algorithms only prove that when you have Intelligent selection guiding the process only than can you gain function.
@logicCplusplus Can you turn a wolf into every kind of dog, Yes. That proves the variation in species IS already there. How it got there, mutation if you want to call it that, is not important., it happens.
Mutations have always been shown to be reversible. This proves that mutations are not responsible for the differences between species, because species-level changes are all irreversible. Its these little facts that make Darwinian Evolution look very unscientific.
@logicCplusplus Darwin didn't even know about mutations and still showed how evolution works. He showed there is variation in species even though he didn't know what caused it.
Ok, Darwin was right about differential reproduction (ie: RM + NS), changes occur. The problem is adaptability vs. utility/function. Adaptation is dependent on function (before you can even have "fitness"), function is independent of adaptability. So we have first-order function which is obviously not dependent on any selection. ie: it has to exist first before any "selection" can even occur.
I'd like to see a creationist refute this, if they believe at least micro-evolution is true:
Two salamanders of the same specimen (can reproduce) breed. However, when placed in different parts of the world, they breed generations and generations later, creating offspring such that Salamander A can't reproduce with offspring of Salamander B
1. He acknowledged there are small changes like in your video.
2. All evolution NEEDS is four things that were highjacked from creationist beliefs. i.e. replicating machines.
3. Once again there wasn't any clear number you can adhere to.
4. Evolution could not be talked about without using time, natural selection, perhaps, about, possibly, we believe, most agree, maybe, and my favorite, cartoon drawings as evidence. Take any article and add up these words. They add up to zero!! a
Number one, Berlinski didn't put up the "5 minutes" video, it is actually excerpts composed by someone else from a full interview where Berlinski also discusses genetic algorithms and their inadequacies. The only time these algorithms work he points out is when you DON'T use proper Darwinian assumptions he points out. You have to place on far more narrow restraints.
The "narrow restraints" is that if you're designing a bridge you set up the selection criteria to look at bridge behaviors not the behaviors of rocket engines. Nature works EXACTLY the same way, evolving sea gulls have selection based on things sea gulls do - like flying - not what moles do - like digging holes. You are not a mathematician - Berlinski is. When HE says such stupid things he proves himself a deliberate liar.
@onemin "have you considered the arguments laid out in the Craig vs Ayala debate?"
There were NO arguments whatsoever presented FOR intelligent design, just a lot of waffle about "how hard" it was for him to accept the absolute mountain of evidence that does exist FOR DARWINIAN EVOLUTION. Then Craig drones on about how the other side MUST PRODUCE this so-called evidence, when the entire ID movement has not produced a single shread of evidence FOR their own so-called theory. What a joke!
Adaptation happens evolution one animal evolving into another does not happen, OK cow like ok you find one or 2 fossils from a creature that no longer exists it became extinct then you draw up this so called map of evolutionary step and call it evidence of evolution same old same old BS (bad science).
And exactly why would the "adaptation" keep on-and-on happening and then just stop dead in it's tracks when the changes were getting great enough to nearly become another species? What magical stop-sign would it see? Well I can tell you it DOESN'T stop, it goes right on to form that new species. We can see this taking place NOW in the various RING SPECIES about us. Do a wiki on "ring species" and see if you can come up with another excuse to try to defend your ultra-dogmatic religious beliefs
and BTW, macro evolution is NOT "one animal changing into another completely different animal", it is only an evolutionary change sufficient to not allow successful cross-breeding between the related variations of an animal - a new SPECIES. In many cases the two separate species may look identical... however once seperated they SLOWLY develop more differences over long periods of time.
Congratulations glendwell! I am awarding you the title of Absolutly Worst Debater to have visited my channel. This is a unique distinction given the total lack of debating skills from many other creationists posting here in the past.
Hint: Constantly repeating the same old thing without providing any evidence, backup facts, logical argument or rational counterarguments is NOT considered good debating.
So you say god created species.... which means that he constantly kept doing so over a 3.5 billion span of time, introducing new designs for any branch about every 10,000 years or so, sometime faster. Then he made 99.6% of these designs of his extinct as he did this. He set it up that the species he left suffered extremes of disease, paracitism, and constant predation. All the designs all had major flaws eg. our appendix.. some crappy designer I'd say
@HowieInTheUK Like I said macro one animal evolving into another completly diffferent animal never happened no matter how you phrase it. And you can shove your award where the sun don't shine.
Before you go glendaweil, let me thank you very much for helping me to show to other readers of this channel's comment pages just how illogical, pig-headed and unread members of the creationist lobby really are.
2nd argument: Look up "Von Neumann universal constructor" on Wikipedia and read what's being said under "evolvability"
3rd argument: Look up the criticism of genetic algorithms.
4th argument: "All of the transitional intermediaries" HAHAHAHAHA. Ok so after a handful of changes, under 10 probably, the cat/dog-like creature went to a whale? Come on dude...
5th argument: Deceive? What about stretching the actual evidence like you did with the 4th argument?
“limited” evolvibility only means SLOWER evolvability… it still gets there in the end, particularly when the MECHANISM of the constructor itself evolving
3) “criticism of genetic algorithms”
What criticism? NEVER any criticism that it doesn’t work
4) “after a handful of changes”
These particular intermediaries, their direct interrelationship, with verifiable positioning in geologic time is ONLY explainable by Evolution
One point Berlinski made is the 50,000 changes there would have to be for a cow to becoame a whale. It doesn't matter what the original ancestor was but you'd thnk he would have produced this list of 50,000 changes. Does anyone else smell bullshit?
Dr Berlinski shouldnt be questioned on why he is saying anything. He is providing an argument, he is free to do that. I dont agree with the video saying that he is "attacking" Darwin. He is again, stating an argument. Its the argument that is interesting. What is a possible way of explaining why a transition would occur? Wouldnt it lead to a plethora of species in between? And why would a land living animal "evolve" into a water living animal? Those are valid questions arent they?
Well there is quite a difference between an argument that is built on false premise and deliberately intended deception, as Berlinski presents his so-called argument, and an argument that is based on the actual facts and a honest desire to deal fairly and honestly with a subject .
And your own questions are quite effectlvely answered by the nature of Darwinian Evolution, and certainly not not by Bellinski.
@HowieInTheUK Allright, so concerning point 2, how many intermediary species have been found in the evolution of the pakicetus to the whale? Or between the landliving "whale" to the sealiving whale?
@MrKifen "how many intermediary species have been found in the evolution of the pakicetus ..?"
Do a wiki on "whale Evolution" and see.
What is further proof of the correctness of Darwinian Theory is that the verifiable positioning in geological time for ALL transitional species follow in the exact order as their evolution, that the sequence of morphological change all converges on that of the whale, and then the great DNA similarity of related evolutionary branches from that common ancestor
@HowieInTheUK I dont interpret Dr Berlinski to try to decieve anyone. He only has his opinion and I think its a valid and interesting question that he presents. No need to get upset about it or calling names. You say he is bluffing, well, will you call his "bluff" then and explain what is wrong with his question?
MrKifren "He is providing an argument, he is free to do that. "
Not exactly free.
He is paid in excess of $50,000 a year by the Discovery Institute to put these so-called arguments to the credulous. The source of Discovery Institute money is from fundementalist church groups. The strategy of the Discovery Instutitute (from its Wedge Document) is to replace scientific teaching with creationist dogma. That's more than reason enough to question his honesty, aside from the nonsense he says.
there is an absolute absence of transitional forms between major phylum in the fossil record or didn't u get that,there should be thousands upon thousands, quiet Guinness at work here
You are then saying that god "designed" the various phyla over a three billion timespan? He's a bloody slow worker then. And isn't it odd that they ALL use the same exact genetic chemical encoding format, exactly what we would expect if they evolved? And why exactly was god such a clumsy designer that he had to destroy 99.4% of his own species designs?
Anyhow what you say is absolute rubbish, there are masses of examples of transitional forms between phylum.
Howie, Thank you for your prompt response to my questions, I will look. I believe you say at approximately 6:05: "Berlinski should know this if he is a mathematician." This remark implies to me that you have some doubts in Berlinski's ability. I listened to your video twice and I can find nowhere where you stated explicitly that he was a fifth rate mathematician. As a matter of fact towards the end of your 'proof' you seem to imply that he is, more or less, a deceiver and a crook.
To verify Von Neumanns views on Evolution with only a web search, I would suggest that you begin with entering the words "Viking Math Von Neumann" in Google and follow the text and links.
Much more is provided in both of the excellent written biographies of Von Neumann available on Amazon or at your local library.
And of course his mathematical work on the subject of cellular automata could never have been written by anyone who does not believe in Evolution
Do you disagree with any of the statements in the CV at the start of Dr. Berlinski's posting? If not, I think it is disingenuous of you to state that he is not a qualified mathematician. On another point, do you have a reference to any writing of Von Neumann about his position on Darwinism? Thank you
I never said Berlinski was not a qualified mathematician; only that he was a fifth rate one. He has made no contribution whatsoever to the field of mathematics, which I must say is a rare sort of non-achievement for anyone in the field. My beef with Berlinski is that he is a con man.... he makes his money by taking advantage of gullible and credulous members of the public with deliberately constructed falsehoods.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Fred Hoyle wrote an entire book refuting the capabilities of neo Darwinian evolution. There is no genetic mechanism to create any new body plan, organ, or system. No new body plans have been created through evolution in the supposed .5 billion years since the Cambrian. All of the transitional intermediaries? Three or four sets of bones is not " All of the transitional intermediaries" without the evolutionary fairy tale those bones are just bones of extinct animals. Thousands of steps unexplained
I think the problem I have here is that the Van Neuman Machine is Van Neuman designed. Do you think the replicating mechanism could arrive by non-intelligent accident. Genetic algorithms are also designed. The examples you use for refute Berlinsky are examples of intelligent design. Can you explain how the evolutionary algorithm could have itself evolved ?
You really don't understand the nature of mathematics. Mathematicians DISCOVER mathematical truths, they don't DESIGN them. 2+2=4 whether a mathematician is doing the adding or not. Evolutionary algorithms are just like that.. The process and what it leads to is a mathematical truth, it is WHAT HAPPENS whether a mathematician is doing the numbers or not. By the way, the nature of computers is also mathematical so their functioning is NOT DESIGNED, only USED.
@HowieInTheUK I agree that math truths are discovered, by man. I think laws require a legislator. I see technology as man reading out principles legislated into the world. That they were of themselves, always, makes no sense to me. The function of computers and the computers themselves are designed. I worked with them for 30 years.
Turing and Von Neumann DISCOVERED the mathematical nature of problem solving IN GENERAL by a sequenced methodology and then discovered the minimal mathematical set of operations needed in such sequencing. This allowed machines to be made on the basis of this mathematical discovery. We call these computers.
The use of the word legislator rather than intelligent designer is just a ruse. Given the nature of quanta it is impossible to "design" the universe - bottom up or top down
@HowieInTheUK The addressing scheme was devised and designed by Von Neumann. The methodology of individual addressed locations to access instructions and the data performed upon them he devized. In this case "discovered" I think is a euphamism for designed.
You hardly touch on the scope of what Von Neumann really contibuted to computation and don't mention Turing at all. The key point that i am making ( and the gist of their work) is this... What is the point of making machines that "crunch" numbers to solve problems in general, unless you can first mathematically prove that problems are actually solvable by sequential processes. The next question is what minimal set of operations can to solve these general problems, next how do you sequence?
What must be done is first mathematically DISCOVER how general problems can be solved as a sequential process. Can it be done? If so how? It really doesn't matter then what you use to do this process.. It can be done by hand or by machine. But such a machine only automates a discovered mathematical process. The process is what matters, and THAT is discovered. So computers are NOT designed.
Now Houses on the other hand ARE designed... Big deal..... It doesn't mean that the universe is.
So let us go to the core of the issue. The universe cannot be designed, so there cannot be an "intelligent designer", eg a creator. But WE design things..how can this be? Because design provides a competing advantage to a species and the Evolutionary process has placed this behaviour on this minor branch of the evolutionary tree. But evolution is a mathematical process and is itself totally undesigned.
We are so used to the concept of design we attribute it places where it does not exist.
Creationists do not seem to understand language very well....the 'theory of xyz' is a scientific and empirical study to explain a FACT....'The theory of Evolution' is a scientific and empirical study to explain the FACT of Evolution through the mechanism of Natural Selection.
@hernes111 Do you or have you ever used antibiotics? Do you realise that it is the understanding of evolution and natural selection that allows scientists to continue to create super strain resistand anti biotics....do you know why??? because viruses mutate and evolve and become drug resistant. I'm sorry but you are not well educated enough to refute evolution.
Fortunatly we don't have any problems with the mathematics contradicting the facts of evolution. They don't. As a matter of FACT they only reinforce our understanding of the process and mechanisms of Evolution. What is impressive to me is that Darwin was so comprehensively right in his explanation of Evolution without having much of the fulrther substantiating information that we now have in both Genetics and in Mathematics.
Haha. Basically this guy is saying that because computers can "evolve" so does everything else? hahaah. Nice rebuttal. Maybe leave the math up to the math teachers there genius.
"Haha. Basically this guy is saying that because computers can "evolve" so does everything else? hahaah"
NO, "this guy" (Von Neumann) proved that the MECHANISM of Evolution works, and can allow simple replicating things to develop into more complex replicating things (not an obvious fact ). And he showed that ANY replicating thing that follows this mechanism WILL EVOLVE. In essense he proved mathematically that what Darwin said about evolutionary descent was absolutly true
Sorry to disappoint you but such a program can be generated RANDOMLY.
Von Neumann described the process. It starts with chemicals that naturally ASSEMBLE in long chains(ther're lots of these). By chance they assemble a chemical that catalyses (assembles more efficiently) the assembling process. Then again by chance the catalyser mutates into one that catalyses ITSELF thru the assembly process. Because billions of different assemblies occur over time a "lucky" one occurs
@HowieInTheUK "a lucky one" what the heck does that mean? you believe in Luck? ..... problem is this has never been observed by science.. thats called pseudo science.
@BigG99 When the germ theory was proposed was it pseudo-science right up until the time we physically we able to observe germs and then suddenly became science right at that time?
@CliffStamp no because its was proposed as a theory until it was proven... claiming something as true before it proven is called pseudo science.. i would be fine if it is still called a theory. we need about 3 million more years of observation before we can claim anything on this level that you speak of.
@BigG99 Ok, so to clarify, the germ theory was just pseudo science until we observed germs directly?
Was the displacement term by Maxwell also pseudo science until it was experimentally observed?
Is all of astronomy pseudo-science until we actually observe the full lifetime of stars (planets, comets, etc.) form and collapse from start to finish?
How exactly are you defining science, and is this your definition or professionally recognized?
@BigG99 ""a lucky one" what the heck does that mean? you believe in Luck?"
I believe in Probability BigG.
Being "lucky" in this context is being the one particular entity that achieves an improbable result which has an exceptionally good payoff.
And I would think that having the "immortality" of having all lifeforms on this planet descended from it would be considered a pretty good payoff even in your book.
@HowieInTheUK ok well if we are talking probability, then mathematics is very clear at the improbability of life arising from evolution. Thats why we must tak on billions and billions of years. because there would need to be a rediculous amount of tries for something like evolution to even remotley occur let alon the irreducibly complex systems we see in nature. besides there needs to be information for that to even occur. do you know where that came from? can information evolve? is so when?
@CliffStamp the probability of you talking to me with those words is very high considering i spoke to you.. its probably based on your interest in the subject and 80% chance that you would respond. with those exact words probably 1 in a million... evolutions chances are something like less then 0.01 % over 4 billion years according to one stat published by the journal of astrobiology. and thats in reference to even one life form not many.
@BigG99 I think the probability that I as a specific individual wrote those words at that exact time is much lower than one in a million, but just staying with that, the probability of both of these posts would be 1 in a million million, or 10^-12. I sent off ten such posts yesterday on various threads, the probability would then be 10^-60, if you looked at the posts I made in the last couple of weeks it would about 10^-200. Am I thus obviously a vessel for God?
@BigG99 My point should be clear, you can easily look at anything that happen and ask yourself, what is the probability that exact thing happened at that exact time and the number will be extremely low. Improbable things will happen all the time. Roll a million 20 sided dice, some number will come up, the chance of that exact number will be very low, but no one would argue God made sure it did.
@CliffStamp im sorry but your using a logical falicy. although i understand fully where you are coming from, the problem is that if every hypothesis or theory worked on that basis, we would have aterrible problem. cause then one could say that any theory however bogus given enough time and chance would be credible and plausible. the problem is the greater the improbability of something happening, the less likley one is to claim it or should claim it as fact or science proof.
@BigG99 That would be true, any hypothesis does have some probability of being true, aside from those which are inherently either false or unknowable (square circles).
As for the last part, that is the point, any particular observable, if you define it specific enough has an infinitesimal chance of being observed, that just comes straight from the definition of probability.
@CliffStamp so then by that same logic, God as a creator being is also just as likley to have created the universe by those same infintismal means. in fact by that definition i would argue that God creating us is more likley then evolution occuring to bring us into existence, according to mathematics.
@BigG99 You can not use the same logic if you define God as non-natural because if you do then you can not use the word probability because it is defined as the inverse of the number of possible natural events.
And again, if you want to argue that something which is unlikely means that God did it, you are actually asserting that we have no free will and God controls every action that everyone does.
@BigG99 Because if you do not hold this assertion then you are self-contradictory as I can very easily write a set of numbers right now, and after I have them wrote if you tried to calculate the probability I would write that exact set, at this exact time, in the exact place, with the exact pen (etc., etc.) then that probability would be so low as to be zero by any means of measurement.
@BigG99 Again, by how the word probability is defined, any event, any event at all, will have a probability approaching zero if sufficiently constrained, again that is how the word is defined in mathematics.
If you want to however infer one thing because of something else happens (i.e., we evolved therefore the probability of God is something) then you are now using bayesian probability and those equations do not prove or even imply God.
There is some event which is itself very unlikely (we are here), but if God were true it is likely (or even certain) to happen, thus based on those two facts we can conclude that it is true that God is likely to exist.
This seems very logical, and it is how the fine tuning argument works, however if you look at the actual math equations then the argument does not hold.
You walk into a restaurant and order your favorite breakfast. You notice the two other people eating the same meal and remark this to them and are amazed to find out that they have your exact same name.
You know this is so unlikely to happen by chance and thus conclude that this restaurant must only serve that one breakfast to people with your name, because if that were true then what you observe would have to happen.
@BigG99 The reason why it fails is obvious, the probability of a restaurant which only serves a particular breakfast (which is your favorite) to people with your name is itself a highly improbable event.
Thus to use the argument that because something is unlikely that God did it, you first must show *independently* that the probability of God existing is actually much higher than the thing you claim is too improbable to be random chance.
@CliffStamp well the answer to that is simple.... If God is to exist and is likley then it would mean that in nature we should be able to see obviouse strutures, information, intelligence, laws that govern the universe all working together in one big functioning system. Also we should be able to see beauty and artistry that comes from a creative being. these things we see clearly see today in nature. What we dont see is random chance producing elequent life. Hence God is probable.
@CliffStamp your resteraunt analogy is silly because its a man made and compiled system. Nature is not. Well, ill use one more example then although i think you are trying to get muddled in the beuracracy of systematic critical thinking. The bible is direct evidence, it makes certain claims about the natue and character of God. thus God is self revealed. going back to the laws of the universe, this is not an argument that evolution is improbale simply that God is probable if left on its own
@BigG99 No, I am stating the mathematical law which you are trying to use, which is a common one, it is bayes law. It describes if you have two dependent events (which may or may not be causal) that you can infer the probability of one of them if you observe the other. The restaurant example is indeed improbable, it was chosen for a reason to make the point that you can not infer the conclusion with any certainty.
You are playing cards and note that your opponent catches the exact right card at the right time over and over. Now you can infer the probability that he is cheating, that is to say he created those events, that they are not random, with the following equation :
P( A|B) = P(B|A) P (A) / P(B)
But, you have to first be able to calculate a priori the probability that he could be cheating.
@BigG99 The same holds with God, in order to use this inference you have to a priori calculate God's probability of existence. There is a mathematical equation which governs this which is essentially take all the ways God could happen divided by all the ways that God could happen plus all the ways he could not happen. And prove this number is significantly higher than the probability of the improbable event you are using to lay claim to God being real.
@BigG99 If this seems like a non-trivial calculation then that is correct which is why no one has ever been able to do it, mathematician, or theologian.
Now many people use this argument, or versions of it (fine-tuning) but again, the math does not hold for reasons noted.
@CliffStamp i agree the argument is rudementary yet sensible.. anything or system containing information that governs its funtion and laws that create its move, then it is logical based on the world we observe everyday, to conclude that thos things are not random chance happenings but created, invented, maintained, and sophisticated devices... evolutions claims that these things can arise out of no outside higher mind, has yet to observed. hence the foundation of evolution is fatally flawed
@BigG99 Well yes, there is an assertion that all information has to be designed, and the base contention for that is (ignoring evolution) everything that has complex information that we see is caused either directly (or indirectly) by us through intended direction of intelligence. Is that similar to what you are asserting?
@CliffStamp I would say that is the assertion from a human standpoint. even from a non human standpoint, amino acids cannot produce proteins unless it has the dna or information to go from one to the other. thus even at the most basic level of evolution we see an impossability. thus information cannot arise out of nothing to give life, thus information must be already present or must be given for life to occur. the information is the intelligence part that evolution cannot produce.
@BigG99 There are a number of hypothesis which are being explored as to the very early stages of life, they focus on RNA (or similar macromolecules) which can store information, self-replicate and are act as enzymes. There are also ideas being explored for how to get from RNA to DNA through virus interaction for example. This while currently not perfectly understood is not an impossibility by our current understanding of biology and chemistry.
@BigG99 Well life is here so it is in fact possible....just because your mathematics tells you it is very unlikely obviously cannot prove it is impossible, please watch a BBC wildlife documentary and you will see lots of evidense of the possibility of life, have you thought that maybe the math is incorrect?
@BigG99 Believe in luck? Lol, haven't you ever walked out in the street and found a 20$ bill on the pavement? Was that a miracle? Doubt it, it's luck, or else an event of low probability. If anything you're using luck all the time but you have just renamed it 'miracle' because you're too weak to take responsibility for your own actions and you have to blame everything on someone who has made them predefined for you. Even the good ones, but you mainly do it for the bad ones. What a moron.
@Razgrits ha ha do you even know what the difference is between a mircale and luck is? please define them for me, so i dont hold to the fact that you are total idiot and that your comment was a waste of good internet space.
@BigG99 I can't see how someone as retarded as you has the nerve to laugh. So- lets see the definitions:
Luck: a : a force that brings good fortune or adversity b : the events or circumstances that operate for or against an individual
Miracle: 1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs. 2: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment.
Well, the second definition, seems like luck to me, extremely outstanding = something rare or unusual.
@BigG99 The only difference between the two is that one is just considered a 'force' or simply, randomness, while the other has your sky daddy in it so you can believe it more easily. So- tell me, as the christfag that you are, do you 'believe in luck' and random events... lol, 'believe'...
@Razgrits i love to see how zealous you are to retract christianity. its very religious of you :)... the origin of the word luck comes from superstition about forces in the world. I dont believe in luck, i believe that everything is the result of ones action or God given circumstances. I would love to resort to mud slinging back at you, but as a christian i am held to a higher standard. not to repay evil with evil. so i hope you have a great day and realize the error of your mudslinging.
@BigG99 The origin, you know language is something created by people who were superstitious about everything around them. The world lightning has the very same origin, back then it was a 'force' from a godly source that killed stuff. Luck if anything, is randomness which doesn't make sense until all events have unfolded because we can't foresee them. Yes, in a sense it is cause and effect. That's what I think as well, but you put god there in that gap. And you don't have to resort to anything;
@Razgrits putting God in the gaps of our understanding is part of what FAITH is.. however it doesnt stand alone, we take what we do know to be true through science and through history and the observence of people and we make probablity statement. one that we feel best describes this world. Hence I say that God is the most probable reason for this worlds existence and for the diversity we see in people and their interaction. this is not much different then athesim.
@BigG99 It is very different, since you automatically accept that the god created this world instead of asking yourself how this world came to be and look for a real answer. People did the same with lightning and rain until science answered this question. When science answers how the world came to be- either the world will fall in chaos because people like you will see no reason not to kill and such, or we will finally be able to really move forward and drop the religious crap once and for all.
@BigG99 >>your fellow christfags are doing a great job at that by themselves. If you became more we'd sure have to resort in cutting your balls so you wouldn't procreate. But I already support that idea to avoid another 'Dark Ages of Christianity' era from befalling upon humanity all over again. You know, we are not too fond of Inquisition in today's society any more.
@Razgrits well interestingly enough the atheist stalin killed more religious people in one day then the entire spanish inquisition..... little known fact...... the difference is, the inquisition was not consistent with christs teaching, and yet stalin did nothin that was against any code for the atheists because athesim has not code for morality. so the inquisition was not justified under christianity and yet stalin was justified under atheism... interesting isnt it
@BigG99 That's probably because Atheists have no code or anything. They take their morals and values by the society around them and if there is something they are against, then they will, maybe actively or not so actively, not support it. Saying someone is an Atheist doesn't prove much, Hitler was a catholic, and if you want to go on about how he wasn't, then the German Nazis sure were, and fought for that. And I also doubt about the number of victims.
@BigG99 Religious deaths the past 500 years are 250 million and Christians alone hold 90% of this number. We don't hate inquisition for the number of people it killed, we hate it for it's effect upon society and the world we live today. Think about it, think about our world 500 years in the future, today. That's how it would be if Dark ages never happened. No atheist has justified Stalin's actions so- I wouldn't say he was justified, and also, once more, Atheism in neither a group, nor a cult.
@BigG99 The only thing Atheists hold in common is that they don't believe in one more God than you. You are an Atheist when it comes to Allah, or to Zeus, or to Anubis, or Apollo. Like me, but our difference is that I don't believe in one more good and you do. That's our difference. And the inquisition sure was justified by Christianity. They followed the bible by the letter. Stoning disobedient children, death for adultery, it all seem to follow what the bible says, want me to throw the verses?
@Razgrits actually your wrong. your intending to throw out old testament versus to justify your claim. this is where you need to go and study theology. the new covenant under christ changed many things including the enforcement of the law. it introduced the Law of Love and the concept of grace upon grace. the inquisition happened in this new testament setting of history. it was not justified. want me to throw out some versus for ya? show me some from atheism that goes against stalin? lol
@BigG99 For the last time, Atheism has no written text or any bronze age retarded story that supports it, logic alone supports it. Saying Atheists are bad because Stalin was an atheist is like me saying vegetarians are bad because Hitler was a vegetarian. That's the level of retardation you hold.
So, new testament: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." ~ (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
@BigG99 Up to this point I think you are wishing that you'd have taken my advice and would have shut the fuck up before you had ridiculed yourself so thoroughly. Whatever the inquisition was, it was a christian product. Also, you Christians don't go by with what Jesus was saying anyway, you believe in him but not in his words which, seems rather important, so what's the fucking point anyway? I, myself, am skeptic if he existed or not, but even if he did, he wouldn't be a "today's" christian.
@HowieInTheUK I'm not familiar with Von Neumann, but I know of no program that is of any worth that was not written. The program that evolution implies, that is unguided, would be far more complex than the one we're typing on right now, yet you would never in your life assume that youtube programming would write itself......
You're confusing programming and mathematics Riskof. Mathematical truth/reality exists whether or not a mathematician (or programmer) is there to write down the equations. And Evolution is mathematical, a mathematical process......
@HowieInTheUK I understand what your saying, however, if the process exists without programmer or origin, then we should be able do see the same result over and over easily without great effort. We just have to be on hand to witness it. That does not seem to me to be the case in evolutionary experiments. rather to the contrary, if that process exists, scientists are having a very hard time duplicating it. if the process is mathmatical , we should see pattern, 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 etc.cont------>
Are you saying that we have to be present at the time of the Big Bang or we can not say that it occurred? This is nonsense, as we have masses of evidence that proves it occurred from it's after effects. The same is true for Evolution.
We can also witness the process of Evoloution taking place NOW... just one example being Ring Species. Why not try a Wiki on the term "Ring Species" to see exactly what I'm talking about.....
@HowieInTheUK 1stly, having to be on hand to witness it was not part of my statement or argument. 2ndly, I see no evidence of ring species establishing the evolutionary process, because Those gulls, or salamanders, or any example they choose are not changing to anything other than what they are. Gulls, salamanders. Because gulls can breed with other gulls proves nothing, in fact cause they can't even breed with all members of the same species, it shows the limits of what changes can be made
@Riskofignition " Because gulls can breed with other gulls proves nothing, in fact cause they can't even breed with all members of the same species, it shows the limits of what changes can be made"
If a gull cant breed with another kind of gull, the two types are DIFFERENT SPECIES. Ring species show us the evolutionary transition from one species to another, and no amount of your denying it can change this obvious fact.
In a ring species we are essentially there to see both the new species and the intermediaries all at the same time. The new species has evolved to be isolated genetically from it's immediate origin and will in future "go it's own way". Both the new species and its intermediaries will continue to evolve IN ISOLATION IN THE FUTURE. Without a doubt some of theses branches on the tree will die out in future, for 99% of all species have done this in the past.
@HowieInTheUK but on the branches of this tree, ones are higher than other, and from this we can conclude that this new branch has selected traits and or genes, whatever you want to call it that makes it evolve, that are more beneficial for survival.
that being the case, the more evolved organism should be genetically superior, am i right in assuming this?
"that being the case, the more evolved organism should be genetically superior?"
Well, that's not exactly the way to put it. The separated species in the ring are MORE ADAPTED to the conditions in which they must survive. In ring species the environment, the preditors, and the prey on which they depend are different as one moves across the "ring". It'spossible the adaptions are in different niches Saying one of two branches is "genetically superior" doesn't really fit these circumstances.
@HowieInTheUK btw thanks for your time and responses.
I understand what you're saying that each one may not be superior but more adapted.. however, isn't the hypothesis that we can extrapolate the results from ring species to prove the evolutionary process?
by that I mean, doesn'tevolution say that there aren't just different species of gulls but that they can evolve into different types of animals over long periods of time? ie. Horses to whales
@Riskofignition cont.... isn't evolution saying that by extrapolation ring species put together with what you mentioned about Von Neuman that animals or people or whatever you choose, started as simple life and then by evolutionary process adapted via beneficial gene selection to become more complecated and therefore higher forms of life?
Evolving organisms get more complicated (thru natural selection) only because more complicated forms are usually more adapted in solving their problems of survival. They have "more degrees of variation" allowing them to do things more efficiently or more "cleverly". Von Neumann showed us the kind of mechanism that makes it possible for simplicity to grow into more complexity - this is not obvious from the point of Information Theory. DNA has exactly this type of mechanism.
@HowieInTheUK here is where I feel the theory breaks down.
If organisms improve by becoming more adapted to their environment, and 99% of intermediary organisms fail to survive, they should still outlast the lesser adapted species.
If we relate this mathmatics, the pattern shouldn't have the base number and the last number( an enormous #) and maybe 3 numbers in the sequence, we should have , let's say, the last 5 numbers in the sequence. only the most recent adaptations, the most clever.
@Riskofignition "...they should still outlast the lesser adapted species."
The thing is only one, or at the very most three, species ever occupy the same exact competitive niche. The superior species suceeds at the cost of it's competitors and essentially DRIVES them to extinction. This is also true of intermediate adaptions of the same species. In this case their genetic characteristics fade away over time in the overall gene pool of a species. Evolution is not a forgiving process at all.
Exactly! Ring species is one example where we can see evolution (through the branching off of a new species) happening right before our eyes. It disproves the rather silly argument from creationists that there is no such thing as macro-evolution (species change). And as you say, once a branching off takes place there is no telling where the seperate branches may end up over a long period of time.
And re: your thanks, I also thank you for looking for some answers in this topic
@HowieInTheUK but the fossil record and evolutionary experiments do not follow the well established rules of mathmetical rationality, to the contrary in fact, that the method that is used is random. How many systems of any kind do you know that are random processes that work as well any life on earth?
The direction that Evolution takes is NOT random. Mutation may be random, but it's affect is only to produce more "trial solutions" to be tested by the process of Natural Selection. And Natural Selection is NOT AT ALL RANDOM.... it weeds out the poor solutions and favors the more adapted solutions to the problems and opportunities for survival of an evolving species.
@HowieInTheUK do I understand this right? Does the adapted solution become a dominent gene in one generation as soon as the mechanism identifies it as beneficial?
No, a better adapted solution becomes a exponentially growing percentage of the population over time. More precisely it's specific characteristics comes to dominate the pool of genes existing for a population of of an evolving species. This takes place more rapidly if the organism has sexual reproduction because this form of reproduction is more effective in mixing many various gene types to produce individuals with many different improvements into one individual type.
"He was never never never..." and i stopped... If you start your arguments with such an ignorant statement, then sorry, but you know nothing about logic. You would have to know literally whole life of Neumann and all his spoken words to say something like this... So you have started with a big lie.... sorry dont wanna see what happens next.
"You would have to know literally whole life of Neumann and all his spoken words to say something like this... So you have started with a big lie.... "
Well by your very own logic it is evidently provable that Jesus Christ himself said that you will be born to be a stupid shit, and you have no means whatever to deny this, and it would be a big lie if you even tried. And I dont wannna hear any rebuttal from you, or see what happens next either
Thats not "my own logic". Thats funny how smothly evolutionists go from real case to argumentum ad personam.
I never wrote that what Berlinski said is true, i just simply replied that its not possible to falsificate such statement in such way. In other words it was impossible to say that Berlinski was wrong without veryfing his source of information. OK I put that in my own words and did it not very convincingly, but thats not the reason to offend me. You can also block this accaunt :)
You specifically argued that unless one knows what a person said in every single utterence in every millisecond of his life one cannot falsify that he didn't say some theoretical utterence. It is an absurd criteria, as my mock about Jesus Christ commenting on you exemplifies. Lighten up, it wasnt meant to insult you.
As for Berlinski, he never justifies his Von Neumann quote with a direct reference to ANY documented utterence. Check the DI website to verify this if you wish.
Proof that Von Neumann believed in evolution is not only in his pro-evolution statements- it’s in his mathematical work. He spent great effort seeking a mathematical basis of how complexity can increase in self-replicating entities, and what must be their structure. He EXPANDED explanation of Darwinian Theory. To say that Von Neumann did not believe in Darwinian evolution is akin to saying that Pythagoras explained the mathematics of the hypotenuse, but actually didn’t believe in triangles.
some sweet info here
sprattysy 1 month ago
very interesting thanks
msjessypp 1 month ago
some really good stuff here
rodswebdesign 1 month ago
very interesting thanks
willbirful 1 month ago
wow, he destroyed darwin in 5 minutes, and you destroyed it in 10
SabresPoint 2 months ago
Look up genetic entropy.
uppercutter21 4 months ago
@uppercutter21 "Look up genetic entropy"
Haven't read that particular book but did have a chance to skim through a sister text - "Quantum Hairdressing"
HowieInTheUK 4 months ago
Evolution is a fact. Darwinism is based on a belief that these events (Micro and Macro) happened over a long peroid of time. Random mutation and natural selection are not the done deal with evolution. There is a missing component that is not accounted for and I do NOT mean god. The Theory of Evolution has been shown to be a flawed theory that under examination fails. It is also true that DNA and homology do not support evolution theory.
TheLogic1010 6 months ago
@TheLogic1010 WTF?!? DNA is the best proof of Evolution. It show exactly how everything is realated to everything else.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz DNA does not prove that the theory of evolution is fact. Evolution, what I think you mean Darwinism is not a done deal. Homology does not support evolution theory. The out of Arfica theory is slowly being forgotten about.
TheLogic1010 5 months ago
@TheLogic1010 No I mean the modern theory of evolution, not ''Darwinism''. Darwin's ideas are 150 years out of date. Homology and all the other bull shit [2nd law of thermodynamics] creationists come up with has been debunked. Evolution has been observed and documented.
DNA shows how humans moved out of Africa, done deal.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz The out of africa theory is slowly being forgot about.
TheLogic1010 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheLogic1010
Why doesn't any science back you on this assertion?
odinata 4 months ago
Correct me if I'm entirely off on this, I'm relatively new to biology and just putting forward an idea:
Ring species constitute an example of speciation because Salamander A and Salamander B can no longer breed. However, its now believed that modern humans bred with Neanderthals at some point (their DNA is found in most non-Africans I believe) yet Neanderthals are a different species. Doesn't this throw the definition of a species in question into some doubt?
Look forward to your response :)
wbraddell2 6 months ago
@wbraddell2
Well, in ring species it is only the two species at the two ENDS of a long chain of interbreeding but different adjacent interbreeders that cannot interbreed. It is at the ENDS that real speciation has occurred. So the Neanderthals, though different, might not have effectively been on the ends of such a chain.
Cheers
HowieInTheUK 6 months ago
@wbraddell2
To respond properly to your question, species is in fact an ill defined term. You see it in the media often "scientists discover new species and give it a name". Evolutionary studies on fruit flies for example showed that after intense selection pressures the initial population eventually split between A and B types. Upon closer inspection...continued...
logicCplusplus 1 month ago
@wbraddell2
continued...
Upon closer inspection, they found that A and B sub-populations of fruit-flies would no longer interbreed. For them, this meant that A and B fruit-flies were now different species. But the fact is (and this is primarily why species is an ill-defined term) it was not because they COULD NOT interbreed biologically, it was because they CHOSE NOT TO, as a matter of preference.
continued...
logicCplusplus 1 month ago
@wbraddell2
continued...
Darwinian Evolution has always been good for two things:
1) preventing extinction
2) genetic entropy
Natural selection for example can only select from what already exists, it doesn't create initial function. Random Mutations is all Darwinist have and it is a completely random process (random input, random output).
Also,genetic algorithms only prove that when you have Intelligent selection guiding the process only than can you gain function.
logicCplusplus 1 month ago
@logicCplusplus Can you turn a wolf into every kind of dog, Yes. That proves the variation in species IS already there. How it got there, mutation if you want to call it that, is not important., it happens.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz
Mutations have always been shown to be reversible. This proves that mutations are not responsible for the differences between species, because species-level changes are all irreversible. Its these little facts that make Darwinian Evolution look very unscientific.
logicCplusplus 1 month ago
@logicCplusplus Darwin didn't even know about mutations and still showed how evolution works. He showed there is variation in species even though he didn't know what caused it.
gregrutz 3 weeks ago
@gregrutz
Ok, Darwin was right about differential reproduction (ie: RM + NS), changes occur. The problem is adaptability vs. utility/function. Adaptation is dependent on function (before you can even have "fitness"), function is independent of adaptability. So we have first-order function which is obviously not dependent on any selection. ie: it has to exist first before any "selection" can even occur.
logicCplusplus 3 weeks ago
I'd like to see a creationist refute this, if they believe at least micro-evolution is true:
Two salamanders of the same specimen (can reproduce) breed. However, when placed in different parts of the world, they breed generations and generations later, creating offspring such that Salamander A can't reproduce with offspring of Salamander B
BlackWolf4830 7 months ago
It sounds to me that either you didn't watch the video and consider the evidence, or perhaps you just don't want to admit defeat.
Here's another for you:
watch?v=byN38dyZb-k
It's really awesome.
Oh, and here's another totally rad smiley face: XD
oneminutetomidnight 8 months ago
CRAP!
1. He acknowledged there are small changes like in your video.
2. All evolution NEEDS is four things that were highjacked from creationist beliefs. i.e. replicating machines.
3. Once again there wasn't any clear number you can adhere to.
4. Evolution could not be talked about without using time, natural selection, perhaps, about, possibly, we believe, most agree, maybe, and my favorite, cartoon drawings as evidence. Take any article and add up these words. They add up to zero!! a
falconjblack2008 8 months ago
@falconjblack2008
Errrr.... would you mind repeating the points that you made in your post, but this time in English?
HowieInTheUK 8 months ago
@HowieInTheUK
Number one, Berlinski didn't put up the "5 minutes" video, it is actually excerpts composed by someone else from a full interview where Berlinski also discusses genetic algorithms and their inadequacies. The only time these algorithms work he points out is when you DON'T use proper Darwinian assumptions he points out. You have to place on far more narrow restraints.
periechontology 4 months ago
@periechontology "You have to place far more narrow restraints"
The "narrow restraints" is that if you're designing a bridge you set up the selection criteria to look at bridge behaviors not the behaviors of rocket engines. Nature works EXACTLY the same way, evolving sea gulls have selection based on things sea gulls do - like flying - not what moles do - like digging holes. You are not a mathematician - Berlinski is. When HE says such stupid things he proves himself a deliberate liar.
HowieInTheUK 4 months ago
And have you considered the arguments laid out in the Craig vs Ayala debate?
watch?v=WY8P-V3Iqxk
4. Is Intelligent Design Viable?: William Lane Craig opens
;p~ :D :} and check out this other really cool smiley face... =D~
totally awesome
oneminutetomidnight 8 months ago
@onemin "have you considered the arguments laid out in the Craig vs Ayala debate?"
There were NO arguments whatsoever presented FOR intelligent design, just a lot of waffle about "how hard" it was for him to accept the absolute mountain of evidence that does exist FOR DARWINIAN EVOLUTION. Then Craig drones on about how the other side MUST PRODUCE this so-called evidence, when the entire ID movement has not produced a single shread of evidence FOR their own so-called theory. What a joke!
HowieInTheUK 8 months ago
Craigs so-called "argument" follows EXACTLY the same "logic" as this:
1. You say all the matter in the universe is said to be comprised of atoms
2. I say all the matter in the universe is made of pixie dust
3. There is not sufficient evidence, in my opinion, that the universe is comprised of atoms
4. Therefore the universe is made up of pixie dust
HowieInTheUK 8 months ago
Adaptation happens evolution one animal evolving into another does not happen, OK cow like ok you find one or 2 fossils from a creature that no longer exists it became extinct then you draw up this so called map of evolutionary step and call it evidence of evolution same old same old BS (bad science).
glendaweil 10 months ago
And exactly why would the "adaptation" keep on-and-on happening and then just stop dead in it's tracks when the changes were getting great enough to nearly become another species? What magical stop-sign would it see? Well I can tell you it DOESN'T stop, it goes right on to form that new species. We can see this taking place NOW in the various RING SPECIES about us. Do a wiki on "ring species" and see if you can come up with another excuse to try to defend your ultra-dogmatic religious beliefs
HowieInTheUK 10 months ago
@HowieInTheUK Because macro is bs (bad science) and it has never occured one animal changing into another completely different animal thats why!
glendaweil 10 months ago
@glendaweil
You are repeating again your same old disproven argument.
Macro evolution is just micro evolution given a bit more time. You can see macro evolution taking place NOW in RING SPECIES. Look it up on wiki...
YOU don't have to disbelieve your religious faith to also believe in Evolution, you only have to be more honest
HowieInTheUK 10 months ago
@HowieInTheUK
and BTW, macro evolution is NOT "one animal changing into another completely different animal", it is only an evolutionary change sufficient to not allow successful cross-breeding between the related variations of an animal - a new SPECIES. In many cases the two separate species may look identical... however once seperated they SLOWLY develop more differences over long periods of time.
HowieInTheUK 10 months ago
@HowieInTheUK Look macro never happened I know you want it sooooo badd but you are wrong. Creation happened then things adapted.
glendaweil 10 months ago
@glendaweil
Congratulations glendwell! I am awarding you the title of Absolutly Worst Debater to have visited my channel. This is a unique distinction given the total lack of debating skills from many other creationists posting here in the past.
Hint: Constantly repeating the same old thing without providing any evidence, backup facts, logical argument or rational counterarguments is NOT considered good debating.
HowieInTheUK 10 months ago
"Creation happened then things adapted"
So you say god created species.... which means that he constantly kept doing so over a 3.5 billion span of time, introducing new designs for any branch about every 10,000 years or so, sometime faster. Then he made 99.6% of these designs of his extinct as he did this. He set it up that the species he left suffered extremes of disease, paracitism, and constant predation. All the designs all had major flaws eg. our appendix.. some crappy designer I'd say
HowieInTheUK 10 months ago
@HowieInTheUK Like I said macro one animal evolving into another completly diffferent animal never happened no matter how you phrase it. And you can shove your award where the sun don't shine.
glendaweil 10 months ago
@glendaweil
Before you go glendaweil, let me thank you very much for helping me to show to other readers of this channel's comment pages just how illogical, pig-headed and unread members of the creationist lobby really are.
Cheers...
Howie..
HowieInTheUK 10 months ago
1st argument: Ad-hominem.
2nd argument: Look up "Von Neumann universal constructor" on Wikipedia and read what's being said under "evolvability"
3rd argument: Look up the criticism of genetic algorithms.
4th argument: "All of the transitional intermediaries" HAHAHAHAHA. Ok so after a handful of changes, under 10 probably, the cat/dog-like creature went to a whale? Come on dude...
5th argument: Deceive? What about stretching the actual evidence like you did with the 4th argument?
Antilli 10 months ago
1) “Ad-hominem.”
Berlinski DESERVES an ad-hominem
2) “evolvability”
“limited” evolvibility only means SLOWER evolvability… it still gets there in the end, particularly when the MECHANISM of the constructor itself evolving
3) “criticism of genetic algorithms”
What criticism? NEVER any criticism that it doesn’t work
4) “after a handful of changes”
These particular intermediaries, their direct interrelationship, with verifiable positioning in geologic time is ONLY explainable by Evolution
HowieInTheUK 10 months ago
5) "stretching evidence"
That’s very rich, coming from YOU
HowieInTheUK 10 months ago
@HowieInTheUK 1) Lost your worth of my time because of arrogance, which inevitably points to bias.
Good day.
Antilli 10 months ago
@Antilli
1) Lost your worth of my time because of your running away, which inevitably points to your having lost the argument.
HowieInTheUK 10 months ago
...... and a Good Day to You :-)
HowieInTheUK 10 months ago
One point Berlinski made is the 50,000 changes there would have to be for a cow to becoame a whale. It doesn't matter what the original ancestor was but you'd thnk he would have produced this list of 50,000 changes. Does anyone else smell bullshit?
snakeguy76 10 months ago
Dr Berlinski shouldnt be questioned on why he is saying anything. He is providing an argument, he is free to do that. I dont agree with the video saying that he is "attacking" Darwin. He is again, stating an argument. Its the argument that is interesting. What is a possible way of explaining why a transition would occur? Wouldnt it lead to a plethora of species in between? And why would a land living animal "evolve" into a water living animal? Those are valid questions arent they?
MrKiifen 11 months ago
@MrKiifen
Well there is quite a difference between an argument that is built on false premise and deliberately intended deception, as Berlinski presents his so-called argument, and an argument that is based on the actual facts and a honest desire to deal fairly and honestly with a subject .
And your own questions are quite effectlvely answered by the nature of Darwinian Evolution, and certainly not not by Bellinski.
HowieInTheUK 11 months ago
1. What is a possible way of explaining why a transition would occur?
Why? - Because it would provide a competitive advantage in the niche in which an organism needs to survive and reproduce
2. Wouldnt it lead to a plethora of species in between?
Yes... and fossil and DNA evidence exists to show that these species intermediates exist exactly as Darwinian theory predicts
3. And why would a land living animal "evolve" into a water living animal?
Same answer as answer 1
HowieInTheUK 11 months ago
@HowieInTheUK Allright, so concerning point 2, how many intermediary species have been found in the evolution of the pakicetus to the whale? Or between the landliving "whale" to the sealiving whale?
MrKiifen 11 months ago
@MrKifen "how many intermediary species have been found in the evolution of the pakicetus ..?"
Do a wiki on "whale Evolution" and see.
What is further proof of the correctness of Darwinian Theory is that the verifiable positioning in geological time for ALL transitional species follow in the exact order as their evolution, that the sequence of morphological change all converges on that of the whale, and then the great DNA similarity of related evolutionary branches from that common ancestor
HowieInTheUK 11 months ago
@HowieInTheUK I dont interpret Dr Berlinski to try to decieve anyone. He only has his opinion and I think its a valid and interesting question that he presents. No need to get upset about it or calling names. You say he is bluffing, well, will you call his "bluff" then and explain what is wrong with his question?
MrKiifen 11 months ago
MrKifren "He is providing an argument, he is free to do that. "
Not exactly free.
He is paid in excess of $50,000 a year by the Discovery Institute to put these so-called arguments to the credulous. The source of Discovery Institute money is from fundementalist church groups. The strategy of the Discovery Instutitute (from its Wedge Document) is to replace scientific teaching with creationist dogma. That's more than reason enough to question his honesty, aside from the nonsense he says.
HowieInTheUK 11 months ago
there is an absolute absence of transitional forms between major phylum in the fossil record or didn't u get that,there should be thousands upon thousands, quiet Guinness at work here
lazzerwolf 11 months ago
@lazzer
You are then saying that god "designed" the various phyla over a three billion timespan? He's a bloody slow worker then. And isn't it odd that they ALL use the same exact genetic chemical encoding format, exactly what we would expect if they evolved? And why exactly was god such a clumsy designer that he had to destroy 99.4% of his own species designs?
Anyhow what you say is absolute rubbish, there are masses of examples of transitional forms between phylum.
HowieInTheUK 11 months ago
Howie, Thank you for your prompt response to my questions, I will look. I believe you say at approximately 6:05: "Berlinski should know this if he is a mathematician." This remark implies to me that you have some doubts in Berlinski's ability. I listened to your video twice and I can find nowhere where you stated explicitly that he was a fifth rate mathematician. As a matter of fact towards the end of your 'proof' you seem to imply that he is, more or less, a deceiver and a crook.
wwwlogionorg 1 year ago
@wwwlogionorg
To verify Von Neumanns views on Evolution with only a web search, I would suggest that you begin with entering the words "Viking Math Von Neumann" in Google and follow the text and links.
Much more is provided in both of the excellent written biographies of Von Neumann available on Amazon or at your local library.
And of course his mathematical work on the subject of cellular automata could never have been written by anyone who does not believe in Evolution
HowieInTheUK 1 year ago
Do you disagree with any of the statements in the CV at the start of Dr. Berlinski's posting? If not, I think it is disingenuous of you to state that he is not a qualified mathematician. On another point, do you have a reference to any writing of Von Neumann about his position on Darwinism? Thank you
wwwlogionorg 1 year ago
@wwwlogionorg
I never said Berlinski was not a qualified mathematician; only that he was a fifth rate one. He has made no contribution whatsoever to the field of mathematics, which I must say is a rare sort of non-achievement for anyone in the field. My beef with Berlinski is that he is a con man.... he makes his money by taking advantage of gullible and credulous members of the public with deliberately constructed falsehoods.
HowieInTheUK 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fred Hoyle wrote an entire book refuting the capabilities of neo Darwinian evolution. There is no genetic mechanism to create any new body plan, organ, or system. No new body plans have been created through evolution in the supposed .5 billion years since the Cambrian. All of the transitional intermediaries? Three or four sets of bones is not " All of the transitional intermediaries" without the evolutionary fairy tale those bones are just bones of extinct animals. Thousands of steps unexplained
mejc2 1 year ago
I think the problem I have here is that the Van Neuman Machine is Van Neuman designed. Do you think the replicating mechanism could arrive by non-intelligent accident. Genetic algorithms are also designed. The examples you use for refute Berlinsky are examples of intelligent design. Can you explain how the evolutionary algorithm could have itself evolved ?
Ear4Beauty 1 year ago
@Ear4Beauty
@Ear4Beauty
You really don't understand the nature of mathematics. Mathematicians DISCOVER mathematical truths, they don't DESIGN them. 2+2=4 whether a mathematician is doing the adding or not. Evolutionary algorithms are just like that.. The process and what it leads to is a mathematical truth, it is WHAT HAPPENS whether a mathematician is doing the numbers or not. By the way, the nature of computers is also mathematical so their functioning is NOT DESIGNED, only USED.
HowieInTheUK 1 year ago
@HowieInTheUK I agree that math truths are discovered, by man. I think laws require a legislator. I see technology as man reading out principles legislated into the world. That they were of themselves, always, makes no sense to me. The function of computers and the computers themselves are designed. I worked with them for 30 years.
Ear4Beauty 1 year ago
@Ear4Beauty
Turing and Von Neumann DISCOVERED the mathematical nature of problem solving IN GENERAL by a sequenced methodology and then discovered the minimal mathematical set of operations needed in such sequencing. This allowed machines to be made on the basis of this mathematical discovery. We call these computers.
The use of the word legislator rather than intelligent designer is just a ruse. Given the nature of quanta it is impossible to "design" the universe - bottom up or top down
HowieInTheUK 1 year ago
@HowieInTheUK The addressing scheme was devised and designed by Von Neumann. The methodology of individual addressed locations to access instructions and the data performed upon them he devized. In this case "discovered" I think is a euphamism for designed.
Ear4Beauty 1 year ago
You hardly touch on the scope of what Von Neumann really contibuted to computation and don't mention Turing at all. The key point that i am making ( and the gist of their work) is this... What is the point of making machines that "crunch" numbers to solve problems in general, unless you can first mathematically prove that problems are actually solvable by sequential processes. The next question is what minimal set of operations can to solve these general problems, next how do you sequence?
HowieInTheUK 1 year ago
What must be done is first mathematically DISCOVER how general problems can be solved as a sequential process. Can it be done? If so how? It really doesn't matter then what you use to do this process.. It can be done by hand or by machine. But such a machine only automates a discovered mathematical process. The process is what matters, and THAT is discovered. So computers are NOT designed.
Now Houses on the other hand ARE designed... Big deal..... It doesn't mean that the universe is.
HowieInTheUK 1 year ago
So let us go to the core of the issue. The universe cannot be designed, so there cannot be an "intelligent designer", eg a creator. But WE design things..how can this be? Because design provides a competing advantage to a species and the Evolutionary process has placed this behaviour on this minor branch of the evolutionary tree. But evolution is a mathematical process and is itself totally undesigned.
We are so used to the concept of design we attribute it places where it does not exist.
HowieInTheUK 1 year ago
@HowieInTheUK : You can't remember what you had for breakfast last Tuesday yet you know the impetus of the Universe? Get a job.
procommenter 1 year ago
@procommenter "You can't remember what you had for breakfast last Tuesday"
Cornflakes with skimmed milk, plain toast, and coffee with creamer and two saccharin
HowieInTheUK 1 year ago
Creationists do not seem to understand language very well....the 'theory of xyz' is a scientific and empirical study to explain a FACT....'The theory of Evolution' is a scientific and empirical study to explain the FACT of Evolution through the mechanism of Natural Selection.
drewwhonumba22 1 year ago
LIFE = FACT, EVOLUTION = FACT, COMPLEXITY OF LIFE = FACT....if mathematics cannot explain the facts then the mathematics is wrong!!!!!!!
drewwhonumba22 1 year ago
@drewwhonumba22 EVOLUTION = NOT FACT
hernes111 1 year ago 2
@hernes111 Do you or have you ever used antibiotics? Do you realise that it is the understanding of evolution and natural selection that allows scientists to continue to create super strain resistand anti biotics....do you know why??? because viruses mutate and evolve and become drug resistant. I'm sorry but you are not well educated enough to refute evolution.
drewwhonumba22 1 year ago
@drewwhonumba22
Fortunatly we don't have any problems with the mathematics contradicting the facts of evolution. They don't. As a matter of FACT they only reinforce our understanding of the process and mechanisms of Evolution. What is impressive to me is that Darwin was so comprehensively right in his explanation of Evolution without having much of the fulrther substantiating information that we now have in both Genetics and in Mathematics.
HowieInTheUK 1 year ago
Who said Berlinsky was qualified?
that is where you make the mistake.
JerezJulio 1 year ago
Haha. Basically this guy is saying that because computers can "evolve" so does everything else? hahaah. Nice rebuttal. Maybe leave the math up to the math teachers there genius.
strattgatt 1 year ago
@strattgatt
"Haha. Basically this guy is saying that because computers can "evolve" so does everything else? hahaah"
NO, "this guy" (Von Neumann) proved that the MECHANISM of Evolution works, and can allow simple replicating things to develop into more complex replicating things (not an obvious fact ). And he showed that ANY replicating thing that follows this mechanism WILL EVOLVE. In essense he proved mathematically that what Darwin said about evolutionary descent was absolutly true
HowieInTheUK 1 year ago
"program that controlled replication"... who wrote the program? Program implies a programmer.
lotusblossom6884 1 year ago
@lotusblossom6884
Sorry to disappoint you but such a program can be generated RANDOMLY.
Von Neumann described the process. It starts with chemicals that naturally ASSEMBLE in long chains(ther're lots of these). By chance they assemble a chemical that catalyses (assembles more efficiently) the assembling process. Then again by chance the catalyser mutates into one that catalyses ITSELF thru the assembly process. Because billions of different assemblies occur over time a "lucky" one occurs
HowieInTheUK 1 year ago
@HowieInTheUK "a lucky one" what the heck does that mean? you believe in Luck? ..... problem is this has never been observed by science.. thats called pseudo science.
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99 When the germ theory was proposed was it pseudo-science right up until the time we physically we able to observe germs and then suddenly became science right at that time?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp no because its was proposed as a theory until it was proven... claiming something as true before it proven is called pseudo science.. i would be fine if it is still called a theory. we need about 3 million more years of observation before we can claim anything on this level that you speak of.
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99 Ok, so to clarify, the germ theory was just pseudo science until we observed germs directly?
Was the displacement term by Maxwell also pseudo science until it was experimentally observed?
Is all of astronomy pseudo-science until we actually observe the full lifetime of stars (planets, comets, etc.) form and collapse from start to finish?
How exactly are you defining science, and is this your definition or professionally recognized?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@BigG99 ""a lucky one" what the heck does that mean? you believe in Luck?"
I believe in Probability BigG.
Being "lucky" in this context is being the one particular entity that achieves an improbable result which has an exceptionally good payoff.
And I would think that having the "immortality" of having all lifeforms on this planet descended from it would be considered a pretty good payoff even in your book.
HowieInTheUK 1 year ago
@HowieInTheUK ok well if we are talking probability, then mathematics is very clear at the improbability of life arising from evolution. Thats why we must tak on billions and billions of years. because there would need to be a rediculous amount of tries for something like evolution to even remotley occur let alon the irreducibly complex systems we see in nature. besides there needs to be information for that to even occur. do you know where that came from? can information evolve? is so when?
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99 What is the probability that the exact person that is me would respond to your video at this exact time with these exact words?
If that probability is very low does that mean God actually made me do it because it could not happen randomly?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp the probability of you talking to me with those words is very high considering i spoke to you.. its probably based on your interest in the subject and 80% chance that you would respond. with those exact words probably 1 in a million... evolutions chances are something like less then 0.01 % over 4 billion years according to one stat published by the journal of astrobiology. and thats in reference to even one life form not many.
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99 I think the probability that I as a specific individual wrote those words at that exact time is much lower than one in a million, but just staying with that, the probability of both of these posts would be 1 in a million million, or 10^-12. I sent off ten such posts yesterday on various threads, the probability would then be 10^-60, if you looked at the posts I made in the last couple of weeks it would about 10^-200. Am I thus obviously a vessel for God?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@BigG99 My point should be clear, you can easily look at anything that happen and ask yourself, what is the probability that exact thing happened at that exact time and the number will be extremely low. Improbable things will happen all the time. Roll a million 20 sided dice, some number will come up, the chance of that exact number will be very low, but no one would argue God made sure it did.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp im sorry but your using a logical falicy. although i understand fully where you are coming from, the problem is that if every hypothesis or theory worked on that basis, we would have aterrible problem. cause then one could say that any theory however bogus given enough time and chance would be credible and plausible. the problem is the greater the improbability of something happening, the less likley one is to claim it or should claim it as fact or science proof.
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99 That would be true, any hypothesis does have some probability of being true, aside from those which are inherently either false or unknowable (square circles).
As for the last part, that is the point, any particular observable, if you define it specific enough has an infinitesimal chance of being observed, that just comes straight from the definition of probability.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp so then by that same logic, God as a creator being is also just as likley to have created the universe by those same infintismal means. in fact by that definition i would argue that God creating us is more likley then evolution occuring to bring us into existence, according to mathematics.
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99 You can not use the same logic if you define God as non-natural because if you do then you can not use the word probability because it is defined as the inverse of the number of possible natural events.
And again, if you want to argue that something which is unlikely means that God did it, you are actually asserting that we have no free will and God controls every action that everyone does.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@BigG99 Because if you do not hold this assertion then you are self-contradictory as I can very easily write a set of numbers right now, and after I have them wrote if you tried to calculate the probability I would write that exact set, at this exact time, in the exact place, with the exact pen (etc., etc.) then that probability would be so low as to be zero by any means of measurement.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@BigG99 Again, by how the word probability is defined, any event, any event at all, will have a probability approaching zero if sufficiently constrained, again that is how the word is defined in mathematics.
If you want to however infer one thing because of something else happens (i.e., we evolved therefore the probability of God is something) then you are now using bayesian probability and those equations do not prove or even imply God.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@BigG99 Here is the essential of your argument :
There is some event which is itself very unlikely (we are here), but if God were true it is likely (or even certain) to happen, thus based on those two facts we can conclude that it is true that God is likely to exist.
This seems very logical, and it is how the fine tuning argument works, however if you look at the actual math equations then the argument does not hold.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@BigG99 To understand why it does not work :
You walk into a restaurant and order your favorite breakfast. You notice the two other people eating the same meal and remark this to them and are amazed to find out that they have your exact same name.
You know this is so unlikely to happen by chance and thus conclude that this restaurant must only serve that one breakfast to people with your name, because if that were true then what you observe would have to happen.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@BigG99 The reason why it fails is obvious, the probability of a restaurant which only serves a particular breakfast (which is your favorite) to people with your name is itself a highly improbable event.
Thus to use the argument that because something is unlikely that God did it, you first must show *independently* that the probability of God existing is actually much higher than the thing you claim is too improbable to be random chance.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp well the answer to that is simple.... If God is to exist and is likley then it would mean that in nature we should be able to see obviouse strutures, information, intelligence, laws that govern the universe all working together in one big functioning system. Also we should be able to see beauty and artistry that comes from a creative being. these things we see clearly see today in nature. What we dont see is random chance producing elequent life. Hence God is probable.
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99 Again, you have to show God is probable without using the improbability, your logic is circular.
By implying your argument I can conclude that restaurant as described is created with one meal which is to serve people of your name.
So again, show God is probable without using an argument of something being improbable if he did not exist.
If you are going to use a bayesian inference you have to start off a priori with a probability of God.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp your resteraunt analogy is silly because its a man made and compiled system. Nature is not. Well, ill use one more example then although i think you are trying to get muddled in the beuracracy of systematic critical thinking. The bible is direct evidence, it makes certain claims about the natue and character of God. thus God is self revealed. going back to the laws of the universe, this is not an argument that evolution is improbale simply that God is probable if left on its own
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99 No, I am stating the mathematical law which you are trying to use, which is a common one, it is bayes law. It describes if you have two dependent events (which may or may not be causal) that you can infer the probability of one of them if you observe the other. The restaurant example is indeed improbable, it was chosen for a reason to make the point that you can not infer the conclusion with any certainty.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@BigG99 A more common inference :
You are playing cards and note that your opponent catches the exact right card at the right time over and over. Now you can infer the probability that he is cheating, that is to say he created those events, that they are not random, with the following equation :
P( A|B) = P(B|A) P (A) / P(B)
But, you have to first be able to calculate a priori the probability that he could be cheating.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@BigG99 The same holds with God, in order to use this inference you have to a priori calculate God's probability of existence. There is a mathematical equation which governs this which is essentially take all the ways God could happen divided by all the ways that God could happen plus all the ways he could not happen. And prove this number is significantly higher than the probability of the improbable event you are using to lay claim to God being real.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@BigG99 If this seems like a non-trivial calculation then that is correct which is why no one has ever been able to do it, mathematician, or theologian.
Now many people use this argument, or versions of it (fine-tuning) but again, the math does not hold for reasons noted.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp i agree the argument is rudementary yet sensible.. anything or system containing information that governs its funtion and laws that create its move, then it is logical based on the world we observe everyday, to conclude that thos things are not random chance happenings but created, invented, maintained, and sophisticated devices... evolutions claims that these things can arise out of no outside higher mind, has yet to observed. hence the foundation of evolution is fatally flawed
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99 Well yes, there is an assertion that all information has to be designed, and the base contention for that is (ignoring evolution) everything that has complex information that we see is caused either directly (or indirectly) by us through intended direction of intelligence. Is that similar to what you are asserting?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp I would say that is the assertion from a human standpoint. even from a non human standpoint, amino acids cannot produce proteins unless it has the dna or information to go from one to the other. thus even at the most basic level of evolution we see an impossability. thus information cannot arise out of nothing to give life, thus information must be already present or must be given for life to occur. the information is the intelligence part that evolution cannot produce.
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99 There are a number of hypothesis which are being explored as to the very early stages of life, they focus on RNA (or similar macromolecules) which can store information, self-replicate and are act as enzymes. There are also ideas being explored for how to get from RNA to DNA through virus interaction for example. This while currently not perfectly understood is not an impossibility by our current understanding of biology and chemistry.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@BigG99 Well life is here so it is in fact possible....just because your mathematics tells you it is very unlikely obviously cannot prove it is impossible, please watch a BBC wildlife documentary and you will see lots of evidense of the possibility of life, have you thought that maybe the math is incorrect?
drewwhonumba22 1 year ago
@BigG99 Believe in luck? Lol, haven't you ever walked out in the street and found a 20$ bill on the pavement? Was that a miracle? Doubt it, it's luck, or else an event of low probability. If anything you're using luck all the time but you have just renamed it 'miracle' because you're too weak to take responsibility for your own actions and you have to blame everything on someone who has made them predefined for you. Even the good ones, but you mainly do it for the bad ones. What a moron.
Razgrits 1 year ago
@Razgrits ha ha do you even know what the difference is between a mircale and luck is? please define them for me, so i dont hold to the fact that you are total idiot and that your comment was a waste of good internet space.
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99 I can't see how someone as retarded as you has the nerve to laugh. So- lets see the definitions:
Luck: a : a force that brings good fortune or adversity b : the events or circumstances that operate for or against an individual
Miracle: 1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs. 2: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment.
Well, the second definition, seems like luck to me, extremely outstanding = something rare or unusual.
Razgrits 1 year ago
@BigG99 The only difference between the two is that one is just considered a 'force' or simply, randomness, while the other has your sky daddy in it so you can believe it more easily. So- tell me, as the christfag that you are, do you 'believe in luck' and random events... lol, 'believe'...
Razgrits 1 year ago
@Razgrits i love to see how zealous you are to retract christianity. its very religious of you :)... the origin of the word luck comes from superstition about forces in the world. I dont believe in luck, i believe that everything is the result of ones action or God given circumstances. I would love to resort to mud slinging back at you, but as a christian i am held to a higher standard. not to repay evil with evil. so i hope you have a great day and realize the error of your mudslinging.
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99 The origin, you know language is something created by people who were superstitious about everything around them. The world lightning has the very same origin, back then it was a 'force' from a godly source that killed stuff. Luck if anything, is randomness which doesn't make sense until all events have unfolded because we can't foresee them. Yes, in a sense it is cause and effect. That's what I think as well, but you put god there in that gap. And you don't have to resort to anything;
Razgrits 1 year ago
@Razgrits putting God in the gaps of our understanding is part of what FAITH is.. however it doesnt stand alone, we take what we do know to be true through science and through history and the observence of people and we make probablity statement. one that we feel best describes this world. Hence I say that God is the most probable reason for this worlds existence and for the diversity we see in people and their interaction. this is not much different then athesim.
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99 It is very different, since you automatically accept that the god created this world instead of asking yourself how this world came to be and look for a real answer. People did the same with lightning and rain until science answered this question. When science answers how the world came to be- either the world will fall in chaos because people like you will see no reason not to kill and such, or we will finally be able to really move forward and drop the religious crap once and for all.
Razgrits 1 year ago
@BigG99 That or you will come up with a new retarded question about the existence and squeeze god in it.
Razgrits 1 year ago
@BigG99 >>your fellow christfags are doing a great job at that by themselves. If you became more we'd sure have to resort in cutting your balls so you wouldn't procreate. But I already support that idea to avoid another 'Dark Ages of Christianity' era from befalling upon humanity all over again. You know, we are not too fond of Inquisition in today's society any more.
Razgrits 1 year ago
@Razgrits well interestingly enough the atheist stalin killed more religious people in one day then the entire spanish inquisition..... little known fact...... the difference is, the inquisition was not consistent with christs teaching, and yet stalin did nothin that was against any code for the atheists because athesim has not code for morality. so the inquisition was not justified under christianity and yet stalin was justified under atheism... interesting isnt it
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99 That's probably because Atheists have no code or anything. They take their morals and values by the society around them and if there is something they are against, then they will, maybe actively or not so actively, not support it. Saying someone is an Atheist doesn't prove much, Hitler was a catholic, and if you want to go on about how he wasn't, then the German Nazis sure were, and fought for that. And I also doubt about the number of victims.
Razgrits 1 year ago
@BigG99 Religious deaths the past 500 years are 250 million and Christians alone hold 90% of this number. We don't hate inquisition for the number of people it killed, we hate it for it's effect upon society and the world we live today. Think about it, think about our world 500 years in the future, today. That's how it would be if Dark ages never happened. No atheist has justified Stalin's actions so- I wouldn't say he was justified, and also, once more, Atheism in neither a group, nor a cult.
Razgrits 1 year ago
@BigG99 The only thing Atheists hold in common is that they don't believe in one more God than you. You are an Atheist when it comes to Allah, or to Zeus, or to Anubis, or Apollo. Like me, but our difference is that I don't believe in one more good and you do. That's our difference. And the inquisition sure was justified by Christianity. They followed the bible by the letter. Stoning disobedient children, death for adultery, it all seem to follow what the bible says, want me to throw the verses?
Razgrits 1 year ago
@Razgrits actually your wrong. your intending to throw out old testament versus to justify your claim. this is where you need to go and study theology. the new covenant under christ changed many things including the enforcement of the law. it introduced the Law of Love and the concept of grace upon grace. the inquisition happened in this new testament setting of history. it was not justified. want me to throw out some versus for ya? show me some from atheism that goes against stalin? lol
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99 For the last time, Atheism has no written text or any bronze age retarded story that supports it, logic alone supports it. Saying Atheists are bad because Stalin was an atheist is like me saying vegetarians are bad because Hitler was a vegetarian. That's the level of retardation you hold.
So, new testament: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." ~ (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
Can you feel Christ's love?
Razgrits 1 year ago
@BigG99 More new testament?
Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22
The non-Christian is “a deceiver and an anti-Christ” 2 John 1:7
Shun those who disagree with your religious views. Romans 16:17
Everyone will have to worship Jesus -- whether they want to or not. Philippians 2:10
Favorite:
Paul, knowing that their faith would crumble if subjected to free and critical inquiry, tells his followers to avoid philosophy. Colossians 2:8
Razgrits 1 year ago
@BigG99 Up to this point I think you are wishing that you'd have taken my advice and would have shut the fuck up before you had ridiculed yourself so thoroughly. Whatever the inquisition was, it was a christian product. Also, you Christians don't go by with what Jesus was saying anyway, you believe in him but not in his words which, seems rather important, so what's the fucking point anyway? I, myself, am skeptic if he existed or not, but even if he did, he wouldn't be a "today's" christian.
Razgrits 1 year ago
@HowieInTheUK I'm not familiar with Von Neumann, but I know of no program that is of any worth that was not written. The program that evolution implies, that is unguided, would be far more complex than the one we're typing on right now, yet you would never in your life assume that youtube programming would write itself......
Riskofignition 1 year ago
@Riskofignition
You're confusing programming and mathematics Riskof. Mathematical truth/reality exists whether or not a mathematician (or programmer) is there to write down the equations. And Evolution is mathematical, a mathematical process......
HowieInTheUK 1 year ago
@HowieInTheUK I understand what your saying, however, if the process exists without programmer or origin, then we should be able do see the same result over and over easily without great effort. We just have to be on hand to witness it. That does not seem to me to be the case in evolutionary experiments. rather to the contrary, if that process exists, scientists are having a very hard time duplicating it. if the process is mathmatical , we should see pattern, 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 etc.cont------>
Riskofignition 1 year ago
@Riskofignition
"We just have to be on hand to witness it."
Are you saying that we have to be present at the time of the Big Bang or we can not say that it occurred? This is nonsense, as we have masses of evidence that proves it occurred from it's after effects. The same is true for Evolution.
We can also witness the process of Evoloution taking place NOW... just one example being Ring Species. Why not try a Wiki on the term "Ring Species" to see exactly what I'm talking about.....
HowieInTheUK 1 year ago
@HowieInTheUK 1stly, having to be on hand to witness it was not part of my statement or argument. 2ndly, I see no evidence of ring species establishing the evolutionary process, because Those gulls, or salamanders, or any example they choose are not changing to anything other than what they are. Gulls, salamanders. Because gulls can breed with other gulls proves nothing, in fact cause they can't even breed with all members of the same species, it shows the limits of what changes can be made
Riskofignition 1 year ago
@Riskofignition " Because gulls can breed with other gulls proves nothing, in fact cause they can't even breed with all members of the same species, it shows the limits of what changes can be made"
If a gull cant breed with another kind of gull, the two types are DIFFERENT SPECIES. Ring species show us the evolutionary transition from one species to another, and no amount of your denying it can change this obvious fact.
HowieInTheUK 1 year ago
@HowieInTheUK in a ring species system, is the reason they cannot breed together because one is more evolved than the other?
and if so, would we ever see the intermediaries die out before the less evolved ones?
Riskofignition 1 year ago
@Riskofignition
In a ring species we are essentially there to see both the new species and the intermediaries all at the same time. The new species has evolved to be isolated genetically from it's immediate origin and will in future "go it's own way". Both the new species and its intermediaries will continue to evolve IN ISOLATION IN THE FUTURE. Without a doubt some of theses branches on the tree will die out in future, for 99% of all species have done this in the past.
HowieInTheUK 1 year ago
@HowieInTheUK but on the branches of this tree, ones are higher than other, and from this we can conclude that this new branch has selected traits and or genes, whatever you want to call it that makes it evolve, that are more beneficial for survival.
that being the case, the more evolved organism should be genetically superior, am i right in assuming this?
Riskofignition 1 year ago
"that being the case, the more evolved organism should be genetically superior?"
Well, that's not exactly the way to put it. The separated species in the ring are MORE ADAPTED to the conditions in which they must survive. In ring species the environment, the preditors, and the prey on which they depend are different as one moves across the "ring". It'spossible the adaptions are in different niches Saying one of two branches is "genetically superior" doesn't really fit these circumstances.
HowieInTheUK 1 year ago
@HowieInTheUK btw thanks for your time and responses.
I understand what you're saying that each one may not be superior but more adapted.. however, isn't the hypothesis that we can extrapolate the results from ring species to prove the evolutionary process?
by that I mean, doesn'tevolution say that there aren't just different species of gulls but that they can evolve into different types of animals over long periods of time? ie. Horses to whales
Riskofignition 1 year ago
@Riskofignition cont.... isn't evolution saying that by extrapolation ring species put together with what you mentioned about Von Neuman that animals or people or whatever you choose, started as simple life and then by evolutionary process adapted via beneficial gene selection to become more complecated and therefore higher forms of life?
Riskofignition 1 year ago
@Riskofignition
Evolving organisms get more complicated (thru natural selection) only because more complicated forms are usually more adapted in solving their problems of survival. They have "more degrees of variation" allowing them to do things more efficiently or more "cleverly". Von Neumann showed us the kind of mechanism that makes it possible for simplicity to grow into more complexity - this is not obvious from the point of Information Theory. DNA has exactly this type of mechanism.
HowieInTheUK 1 year ago
@HowieInTheUK here is where I feel the theory breaks down.
If organisms improve by becoming more adapted to their environment, and 99% of intermediary organisms fail to survive, they should still outlast the lesser adapted species.
If we relate this mathmatics, the pattern shouldn't have the base number and the last number( an enormous #) and maybe 3 numbers in the sequence, we should have , let's say, the last 5 numbers in the sequence. only the most recent adaptations, the most clever.
Riskofignition 1 year ago
@Riskofignition "...they should still outlast the lesser adapted species."
The thing is only one, or at the very most three, species ever occupy the same exact competitive niche. The superior species suceeds at the cost of it's competitors and essentially DRIVES them to extinction. This is also true of intermediate adaptions of the same species. In this case their genetic characteristics fade away over time in the overall gene pool of a species. Evolution is not a forgiving process at all.
HowieInTheUK 1 year ago
@Riskofignition
Exactly! Ring species is one example where we can see evolution (through the branching off of a new species) happening right before our eyes. It disproves the rather silly argument from creationists that there is no such thing as macro-evolution (species change). And as you say, once a branching off takes place there is no telling where the seperate branches may end up over a long period of time.
And re: your thanks, I also thank you for looking for some answers in this topic
HowieInTheUK 1 year ago
@HowieInTheUK but the fossil record and evolutionary experiments do not follow the well established rules of mathmetical rationality, to the contrary in fact, that the method that is used is random. How many systems of any kind do you know that are random processes that work as well any life on earth?
Riskofignition 1 year ago
@Riskofignition
The direction that Evolution takes is NOT random. Mutation may be random, but it's affect is only to produce more "trial solutions" to be tested by the process of Natural Selection. And Natural Selection is NOT AT ALL RANDOM.... it weeds out the poor solutions and favors the more adapted solutions to the problems and opportunities for survival of an evolving species.
HowieInTheUK 1 year ago
@HowieInTheUK do I understand this right? Does the adapted solution become a dominent gene in one generation as soon as the mechanism identifies it as beneficial?
Riskofignition 1 year ago
@Riskofignition
No, a better adapted solution becomes a exponentially growing percentage of the population over time. More precisely it's specific characteristics comes to dominate the pool of genes existing for a population of of an evolving species. This takes place more rapidly if the organism has sexual reproduction because this form of reproduction is more effective in mixing many various gene types to produce individuals with many different improvements into one individual type.
HowieInTheUK 1 year ago
What a LOAD of BS
Ev-LIE-ution
Nuff Said.
By the way folks......Ancient Astronaut Theory is the correct one. Not creationism or evolution, both are wrong.
buffboynick 1 year ago
@buffboynick
"By the way folks......Ancient Astronaut Theory is the correct one. Not creationism or evolution, both are wrong."
Following your own logic the Ancient Astronaut Theory is total bunk given that...
Repti -LIE-an beliefs are just another form of Re-LIE-gon
Nuff Said
HowieInTheUK 1 year ago
Brilliant reply on the part of Howie. This is what they call pwned
:D :D
tr342s 1 year ago
"He was never never never..." and i stopped... If you start your arguments with such an ignorant statement, then sorry, but you know nothing about logic. You would have to know literally whole life of Neumann and all his spoken words to say something like this... So you have started with a big lie.... sorry dont wanna see what happens next.
rafalodys 1 year ago
@rafalodys
"You would have to know literally whole life of Neumann and all his spoken words to say something like this... So you have started with a big lie.... "
Well by your very own logic it is evidently provable that Jesus Christ himself said that you will be born to be a stupid shit, and you have no means whatever to deny this, and it would be a big lie if you even tried. And I dont wannna hear any rebuttal from you, or see what happens next either
HowieInTheUK 1 year ago
Thats not "my own logic". Thats funny how smothly evolutionists go from real case to argumentum ad personam.
I never wrote that what Berlinski said is true, i just simply replied that its not possible to falsificate such statement in such way. In other words it was impossible to say that Berlinski was wrong without veryfing his source of information. OK I put that in my own words and did it not very convincingly, but thats not the reason to offend me. You can also block this accaunt :)
rafalodys111 1 year ago
@rafalodys111
You specifically argued that unless one knows what a person said in every single utterence in every millisecond of his life one cannot falsify that he didn't say some theoretical utterence. It is an absurd criteria, as my mock about Jesus Christ commenting on you exemplifies. Lighten up, it wasnt meant to insult you.
As for Berlinski, he never justifies his Von Neumann quote with a direct reference to ANY documented utterence. Check the DI website to verify this if you wish.
HowieInTheUK 1 year ago
Proof that Von Neumann believed in evolution is not only in his pro-evolution statements- it’s in his mathematical work. He spent great effort seeking a mathematical basis of how complexity can increase in self-replicating entities, and what must be their structure. He EXPANDED explanation of Darwinian Theory. To say that Von Neumann did not believe in Darwinian evolution is akin to saying that Pythagoras explained the mathematics of the hypotenuse, but actually didn’t believe in triangles.
HowieInTheUK 1 year ago