Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[Loudmouth]

I'm still trying to figure out what evolutionist's consider a species, since birds that mate and produce fertile offspring are the same species - unless we are talking about Darwin's Finches - than suddenly birds that mate and produce fertile offspring are separate species showing speciation?

Do you think humans and chimps are the same species?

 

[justlookinla]

You haven't presented a single mainstream scientist that thinks "deliberate design" is observed.

Ah...."mainstream scientist".

 

[Oncedeceived]

You did not claim that designs produced by GA's aren't the product of the blind algoritm, because the blind algoritm was implemented by an intelligent programmer?

You change opinions so many times, it's really hard to keep track.

Till this day, I have actually no idea what you do and don't accept concerning evolution theory, for example.

Also, I'm growing a bit tired of running around in circles like this, as you probably already noticed from the reduced lengths of my post.

I feel like I should get a medal or something to put up with it for so long.

http://s65.photobucket.com/user/papa_giorgio/media/GIFS/FinalIronyMeter.gif.html

GA's aren't the product of the blind algorithm is not reflective of evolution and is dependent upon knowledge from the programmer.

 

[whois]

GA's . . . is dependent upon knowledge from the programmer.

irrelevant.
flight simulators fall into the same category as GA's.
the space shuttle test flights were ALL made by computer simulation except 2.
the first such test was when she was released from a 747 and glided back to landing.
even this test was completely controlled by a computer.
the second fight was manned by crippen and young and was a full blown manned flight from launch to touch down.
the above was made possible by programming into the computer ALL of the variables, processes, and characteristics of the shuttle and the environment it would operate in.
contrast this with the mercury, gemini, and apollo program, where dozens of flights using actual hardware was made to validate the rocket.

the problem with GA's is . . . i've never seen one.
if there is indeed such a thing, i would like to see a link to it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do you think humans and chimps are the same species?

Not any more than cats and dogs are the same species.

Do you think birds that interbreed and produce fertile offspring are the same species or separate species?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Tsk tsk tsk...straw man much.
I never called Dawkins a liar or an idiot. I never claimed that evolution didn't have any evidence but of course we might have to determine what we mean by evolution.

And what we mean by evidence.....

 

[whois]

the only "evidence" for evolution is rational common sense.
as far as i know, there is no real hard evidence for it.
science has been unable to prove inanimate matter can become alive.
science has been unable to prove a dinosaur can become a bird.
some will no doubt point to the time scales involved, but this is irrelevant with computers when speeds can be factored on the order of billions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

irrelevant.
flight simulators fall into the same category as GA's.
the space shuttle test flights were ALL made by computer simulation except 2.
the first such test was when she was released from a 747 and glided back to landing.
even this test was completely controlled by a computer.
the second fight was manned by crippen and young and was a full blown manned flight from launch to touch down.
the above was made possible by programming into the computer ALL of the variables, processes, and characteristics of the shuttle and the environment it would operate in.
contrast this with the mercury, gemini, and apollo program, where dozens of flights using actual hardware was made to validate the rocket.

the problem with GA's is . . . i've never seen one.
if there is indeed such a thing, i would like to see a link to it.

It isn't irrelevant because evolution is suppose to be mindless, it is not planned for optimization and the program is.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And what we mean by evidence.....

True.

 

[whois]

It isn't irrelevant because evolution is suppose to be mindless, it is not planned for optimization and the program is.

okay, you are apparently missing something here.
this "mindless" thing you mentioned can be modeled by a suitable program.
tossing a coin is a perfect example.
you cannot predict what will come up, heads or tails, but you CAN predict that given 1000 tosses, the number of heads will be approximately 500.
a computer program can be written to give these results.
the very same program can be adjusted for any number of coins tossed, or for that matter any number of dice.

the thing that matters, the ONLY thing actually, is that the program accurately models what you want it to.

the shuttle example i gave above is a good example of how powerful computer modeling is, it can actually take the place of "hard evidence".
i will say this, if someone writes a computer program that models how atoms can become a man, and that program is verified as accurate, then you can bet it can actually happen.
the shuttle example above demonstrates this beyond question.

 

[Zosimus]

Ah...."mainstream scientist".

It smacks of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

 

[Oncedeceived]

okay, you are apparently missing something here.
this "mindless" thing you mentioned can be modeled by a suitable program.
tossing a coin is a perfect example.
you cannot predict what will come up, heads or tails, but you CAN predict that given 1000 tosses, the number of heads will be approximately 500.
a computer program can be written to give these results.
the very same program can be adjusted for any number of coins tossed, or for that matter any number of dice.

the thing that matters, the ONLY thing actually, is that the program accurately models what you want it to.

the shuttle example i gave above is a good example of how powerful computer modeling is, it can actually take the place of "hard evidence".
i will say this, if someone writes a computer program that models how atoms can become a man, and that program is verified as accurate, then you can bet it can actually happen.
the shuttle example above demonstrates this beyond question.

I think you are missing something. It is a program where optimization is the goal. The program is predetermined to go towards that goal. So intelligence is predetermining optimization.

 

[whois]

I think you are missing something.

well, that depends on you you ask.
it also depends on a large part how intoxicated i am.
but i'm pretty confident in my programming abilities.

The program is predetermined to go towards that goal. So intelligence is predetermining optimization.

yes, some programs are written like that, boxcar2d for example.
we have already determined that it doesn't mimic all of the processes of evolution and therefor doesn't apply to evolution as written.

 

[Oncedeceived]

well, that depends on you you ask.
it also depends on a large part how intoxicated i am.
but i'm pretty confident in my programming abilities.

yes, some programs are written like that, boxcar2d for example.
we have already determined that it doesn't mimic all of the processes of evolution and therefor doesn't apply to evolution as written.

Then we agree? You are a programmer?

 

[whois]

Then we agree? You are a programmer?

an amateur, i've had a year anf a half on computer technology and programming was part of those classes.
we dealt mainly with chip level architectural design and assembler.

for those that don't know:
assembler deals with the mnemonics and hex code.
jmp 5cfe for example
or
bra fff3
the first instruction jumps to address 5cfe(hex)
the second branches backwards 12 locations from the current program counter address.

basic was another language we learned.
i started a thread on GWbasic for those that are interested in this type of stuff.

 

[Oncedeceived]

an amateur, i've had a year anf a half on computer technology and programming was part of those classes.
we dealt mainly with chip level architectural design and assembler.

Ah, I see.

 

[DogmaHunter]

well see, the thing that really irks me about you is, you are completely unwilling to concede there might be an intelligence at work in relation to life.

No. Rather, I'm completely unwilling to concede any extra-ordinary claim for which ZERO evidence exists. Especially not when we have rather ordinary explanations for the phenomena in question.

DNA and its transcription system would almost demand it.

In your limited opinion. Over here in reality, we understand that this complex process really is nothing more then chemistry. Complex chemistry - sure, but just chemistry nontheless.

the unsolvable origins of life is another area.

1. Calling it "unsolvable" is, again, just your (irrelevant) opinion
2. Calling it "unsolvable" is throwing in the towel and being content with ignorance. Also, it reminds me of those people who said "you will NEVER reach the moon!".
3. Argument from ignorance in the making

the human brain, heck, even a bats brain is far beyond ANY super computer we can produce.

And before we had a proper combustion engine, cheetah's ran faster then ANY machine we could produce.

So what?

And before we build ginormous generators, lightning contained more energy then ANYTHING we could generate.

Again, so what?

but yet you can't see any intelligence at work.

Nope, I indeed see zero, nada, zilch evidence of any "intelligence".
And that's the same amount of evidence that you people have presented us with.
Zero, nada, zilch.

The only thing you have, is what is written above. Opinion and ignorance.

i can't, for the like of me, picture any kind of god, but yet i see intelligence in the way life is put together and how it operates.

People "see" a lot of things all the time.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Good...now this is a start. We can look at the actual evidence in this bit of evidence later. Can you supply anything else?

You said that you have the book and that you read it.
So you already have that information.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Tsk tsk tsk...straw man much.
I never called Dawkins a liar or an idiot. I never claimed that evolution didn't have any evidence but of course we might have to determine what we mean by evolution.

There's only one meaning of "evolution" when talking about the scientific theory.

 

[DogmaHunter]

what irony.
roger lewin was called a liar more times than i can count when he penned his article for science.
he was accused of being incompetent, even though he won awards for his science books, even landing a prestigeous position as science editor for science.
he was even accused of misrepresentation.
why?
for publishing the facts in regards to a conference on evolution.
denise noble is another geneticist that was accused of "not knowing anything"
as a matter of fact, almost everyone that ever said anything against darwinism has either retracted or suffered the ire of their peers.

yes, a true fact finding process if i ever seen it.

I have no idea who lewin is nore do I know what you are talking about.
(EDIT: just googled the dude and it doesn't seem like this guy would disagree with Dawkins on anything in particular concerning biology and evolution - so I wonder what you are on about this time again... another "koonin" shenannigans, perhaps?)

Not that it matters though.
Dawkins, nore anyone else, is an authority. Not everything he says is correct by default.

I just find it funny when random internet people imply that this world-famous professor of biology doesn't understand biology.