Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[Tinker Grey]

God's word doesn't change.

Huck Finn doesn't change either

 

[Mountainmike]

I'm gonna cut that out and paste it in my treasure trove of quotes that I collect.

Perhaps you should take the grains of truth from it instead.

First - the usage of the word "evolution" is nebulous and amorphous.
It can mean variously the unprovable "common descent", various processes in molecular genetics for progressive change, ideas about "survival of fittest", dawkins nonsens about "climbing mount improbable" - implying progressive "improvement" in some sense.. Or Darwins postulate separate from those "all organisms come from progressive small change". It means many different things to many different people.

What it is not is a single cohesive hypothesis let alone a theory despite the misuse of the word amongs evolution believers.

So in that context Aussie P is allowed to focus on the bit he wants to, much like evolution believers do , hopping stools whenever it suits them.

Second,
in this context I suspect his reference might be a challenge to "climbing mount improbable" is "not all change is positive for improvement".

I can state as someone who ran teams of geeks that Aussie Pete is right in the regard that our youth no longer have a sense of knowing if the answer they get from calculators is in the right ballpark, so as (even Doctoral) subordinates of mine did they come up with an answer from a computer they no longer have the mental agility to know is ridiculous by orders of magnitude, and fails plausibility, so nonsense has to be pointed out and they have to do it again. Thats the problem with computers. Garbage in, garbage out.

I was not there, but I am guessing when the Mars lander crashed because the propulsion system and guidance system were talking in different units, someone of my generation would have noticed in the simulations that something looked "off". Because of arithmetic agility the present generation have lost from my early world of log tables and slide rules.. Those who rely on technology start having problems when they dont have it. A safety net has gone. Arithmetic agility could certainly be a dangerous skill to lose in the game of survival.

Third
since Dawkins rubbish about "climbing mount improbable" implying progressive small improvement resulting from small change is rubbish. It seems Aussie Pete has bought into one of the evolutionary myths. You can blame Dawkins not Aussie for that. Nonsense is still nonsense even when talked by world class (but only in their own opinion!) evolutionary biologists who shout loud because - in prime minister Mcmillans notes on one of his speeches - "weak point, say it louder in the hope nobody notices" or words to that effect.

So last,
The word I would object to his the word "proof" since there is little proof of anything in evolution world, whatever you think the word means, it is mostly conjecture, and in some cases evidence let alone proof is not forthcoming. Aussie petes "proof" is actually just an observation, as it is for much of what is stated as “ fact” by evolution believers.

#Indeed "proof" is largely restricted to a few of molecular genetic theories, which are only a small part of the puzzle.

 

[Astrid]

I thought the Japanese were the smartest or so they claim......

Japan,

I thought the Japanese were the smartest or so they claim......

Thinking educational achievement is somehow about evos a sign of low achievemen. So is thinking it's
" garbage".

As for smartest, of course that's
not really the topic, but anyway Finland,Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore all so far outpace Oz one might suspect its
about different species.

 

[Bradskii]

I was not there, but I am guessing....

Thanks Mike!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thanks Mike!

I think that has to be the record for single biggest piece of writing to pretend to be an intellectual I've seen on this forum.

 

[Mountainmike]

Thanks Mike!

no problem!
It’s time somebody sorted out myths from conjecture! .

Difference is because i did mathematical adaptive optimisation , I know Dawkins is talking bunk, sadly most of you don’t.

And the examples I saw of the mars lander syndrome are so arcane most of you would not understand the physics, but they were no less disastrous in potential outcome. But picked out because the numbers looked off on back of cigarette packet calculation. I picked a simple disastrous example all of you might understand!

You see the biggest problem is evolution , is it’s not an “ all in or all out “ kind of thing.
A disbeliever in some parts of the mush ( ie those who don’t let wishful thinking run away) can still accept others.
The proven bits which together dont account for life.

It depends what part of the mush of speculation , hypothesis ( or rarely an actual proven theory ) you pick.

It can’t be disproved any more than it can be proved until somebody uses an actual definition.

But Aussie Pete clearly picked up “ progressive improvement” From someone.
I blame Dawkins for “ climbing mount improbable”

So whats your definition of “ the hypothesis of evolutin” ?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

no problem!

I think he was being sarcastic...

 

[Mountainmike]

I think that has to be the record for single biggest piece of writing to pretend to be an intellectual I've seen on this forum.

Then you will have no problem in contesting it.
but other than the ad hominem flame quoted above , I presume you can’t, or you would have already done it,

I get it, you have your faith in evolution and i assume abiogenesis as the solution to life.
The evidence is way behind.

 

[Mountainmike]

I think he was being sarcastic...

Which is why I am entitled to do the same.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then you will have no problem in contesting it.
but other than the ad hominem flame quoted above , I presume you can’t, or you would have already done it,

I get it, you have your faith in evolution and i assume abiogenesis as the solution to life.
The evidence is way behind.

The ability or inability to sort out change without using a calculator or computer is not something that is connected to evolution. It's an education problem, plain and simple. Also, some people are just not good at mental maths. I'm not. I need, at minimum, my fingers or a pencil and paper to do more complicated sums.

Anyone who claims that it's a thing with evolution REALLY deserves a good smack around the head.

Which is why I am entitled to do the same.

Except you just like to butt in on people and act like you know more than anyone else. That's not the same as being sarcastic, that's just being rude.

 

[Mountainmike]

The ability or inability to sort out change without using a calculator or computer is not something that is connected to evolution. It's an education problem, plain and simple. Also, some people are just not good at mental maths. I'm not. I need, at minimum, my fingers or a pencil and paper to do more complicated sums.

Anyone who claims that it's a thing with evolution REALLY deserves a good smack around the head.



Except you just like to butt in on people and act like you know more than anyone else. That's not the same as being sarcastic, that's just being rude.

Education is clearly an issue in survival. IQ is partly genetic.

On selected issues each one of us knows more than someone else.
The hard part of our world is separating knowledge from speculation, peddlers of knowledge from peddlers of speculation.

Whats your area expertise?

 

[Bradskii]

Difference is because i did mathematical adaptive optimisation...

Stochastric optimisation? Or did you use arbitrary thresholds?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Education is clearly an issue in survival. IQ is partly genetic.

On selected issues each one of us knows more than someone else.
The hard part of our world is separating knowledge from speculation,

Whats your area expertise?

And you're proving my point. My area of expertise or yours has nothing to do with that fact that, if children are not able to do basic sums well or right, then there is an issue with education. To try and blame such a thing on evolution is hookum and hogwash.

 

[Mountainmike]

Stochastric optimisation? Or did you use arbitrary thresholds?

All sorts.

hard to explain to none geeks, depends on the problem - try Kalman filters,

The first part is generally stochastic observers to learn state space models around set point of nonlinear dynamic.. The hard part then is knowing whether you are modelling noise or dynamics, so entropy optimisation too. Then some part is optimal multidimensional hill climb. Which is how I know Dawkins talks round things.

It is a discipline, not just one technique.

 

[Mountainmike]

And you're proving my point. My area of expertise or yours has nothing to do with that fact that, if children are not able to do basic sums well or right, then there is an issue with education. To try and blame such a thing on evolution is hookum and hogwash.

In some areas my knowledge beats yours, but I have No doubt yours beats mine in places.
I asked a friendly question as to what areas I should trust you.


I didnt defend Aussie petes conclusion, I noted a Couple of grains of truth in it.
including one false seed of it which came from Dawkins, so blame Dawkins for that,
much of what is said by evolutionists is “ hookum and hogwash”

If kids can’t do sums right, it is in part genetic, so evolution
evolution includes environmental factors . Like to hone a skill you have to use it.
Overdepenence on technology can mean you are screwed if you lose it.
Survival can in part depend on a skill.

 

[Bradskii]

All sorts.

hard to explain to none geeks, depends on the problem - try Kalman filters,

The first part is generally stochastic observers to learn state space models around set point of nonlinear dynamic.. The hard part then is knowing whether you are modelling noise or dynamics, so entropy optimisation too. Then some part is optimal multidimensional hill climb. Which is how I know Dawkins talks round things.

It is a discipline, not just one technique.

I've never come across this used in conjunction with evolutionary development. I've only seen it used with motor systems. Maybe you can expand on this? Can you link to something that connects them? I'd be interested to see it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In some areas my knowledge beats yours, but I have No doubt yours beats mine in places.
I asked a friendly question as to what areas I should trust you.


I didnt defend Aussie petes conclusion, I noted a Couple of grains of truth in it.
including one false seed of it which came from Dawkins, so blame Dawkins for that,
much of what is said by evolutionists is “ hookum and hogwash”

If kids can’t do sums right, it is in part genetic, so evolution
evolution includes environmental factors . Like to hone a skill you have to use it.
Overdepenence on technology can mean you are screwed if you lose it.
Survival can in part depend on a skill.

Except that the predominant factor with the inability to do up sums correctly is largely educational. Why is it that you have to try and make a big deal out of it and go "Actually, it's also do with evolution, because you see genetics"? It's not smart, it's not clever, it's just you trying to find ways to bash on evolution for no other reason than it clashes with your religious beliefs.

 

[Frank Robert]

What it is not is a single cohesive hypothesis let alone a theory despite the misuse of the word amongs evolution believers.

While it may not be a single hypothesis, evolution is a single, unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. I know your belief prevents you from accepting evolution but belief isn't necessary for evolution as there is overwhelming evidence for it and if scientists believe evolution is fact it it because of the evidence. I can understand why some people believe in the supernatural because of the many reports of supernatural phenomena, such as ghosts, hauntings, psychic abilities, etc, while many others do not need any evidence to believe in the supernatural.

 

[Mountainmike]

While it may not be a single hypothesis, evolution is a single, unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. I know your belief prevents you from accepting evolution but belief isn't necessary for evolution as there is overwhelming evidence for it and if scientists believe evolution is fact it it because of the evidence. I can understand why some people believe in the supernatural because of the many reports of supernatural phenomena, such as ghosts, hauntings, psychic abilities, etc, while many others do not need any evidence to believe in the supernatural.

If you did me the courtesy of reading I pointed that what is meant by evolution is actually a mush.
So it is neither possible to prove or disprove, nor believe or disbelieve it.
Except in the context of a definition. So you cannot say I do not believe it!

I accept pieces of what is put in the general bin of evolution. On the basis of the status of evidence against definition.
So I can be neither believer nor disbeliever in “ it” because “ it” is not precise enough to say.
I believe in some of the bits.

And since it is a complete blank of evidence or even staged model from structure of first life to present minimum known cell,at a cellular level it is total overach to call evolution a unifying explanation of anything ..

You mean it is a conjecture proposed for a jigsaw which lacks many pieces , and none at all at the start Or the bottom.

You give me a definition of evolution that YOU think unifies explanation . I pointed out a variety of them.

PS. I don’t want the hostile Ping pong. i admire your post for civility. Bravo.
Let’s keep it that way.


I would love an answer to what you think on ghosts. How much evidence do you need to go from the question of whether they are to what they are?

 

[Astrid]

In some areas my knowledge beats yours, but I have No doubt yours beats mine in places.
I asked a friendly question as to what areas I should trust you.


I didnt defend Aussie petes conclusion, I noted a Couple of grains of truth in it.
including one false seed of it which came from Dawkins, so blame Dawkins for that,
much of what is said by evolutionists is “ hookum and hogwash”

If kids can’t do sums right, it is in part genetic, so evolution
evolution includes environmental factors . Like to hone a skill you have to use it.
Overdepenence on technology can mean you are screwed if you lose it.
Survival can in part depend on a skill.

So Asians are genetically
superior Australians.

Or far more likely, you are beyond clurless about evolution.