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

[Aussie Pete]

I never have been any good texting on a phone.
Other than that, my command of English is better than yours.

Your comments on the nature of science are not to be taken seriously.

Data does not change and theories seldom do. Its not as you describe.

Surely you know there's megabucks in text books and it's not
new info but new bribes and kickbacks that drive text replacement,
in all subjects.
As your for your "proof" that evolution is going backwards, that only applies to your subspecies. We Han Chinese
would keep surpassing you anyway of course but your going backwards does accelerste the process. : D

I must be following a whole different range of science commentators to you. No one is certain that dark matter exists, the "big bang" theory is in doubt, some believe that it is possible to travel faster than light, others are saying that anthropology got it wrong with respect to early man and so on and so forth. I'm 72. I was told in about 1959 that science knew everything there was to know, apart from a few minor details. He assured us that science would solve every conundrum in the next few years. I wish I could talk to that teacher now. I think he would change his tune.

 

[Larniavc]

What is keeping you from knowing?

Not enough information available.

 

[Bradskii]

Im not going to dwell on this, here in brief,

So moving on,

Except that I didn't ask you for a brief on optimal filters or any associated concepts. I especially didn't ask you to claim that they are somehow, in some way, mysteriously connected with evolution. You've already done that. But I don't care what you claim. I asked you to link to anything, anywhere, at anytime, by anybody that says the same. I think it's required that you 'show your workings' and link to where this idea is supported. Otherwise we are all going to assume that you're using some expertise in some branch of maths to deny a concept with which you have exhibited minimal knowledge and which has zero connection to it.

When you are ready...

 

[Mountainmike]

Except that I didn't ask you for a brief on optimal filters or any associated concepts. I especially didn't ask you to claim that they are somehow, in some way, mysteriously connected with evolution. You've already done that. But I don't care what you claim. I asked you to link to anything, anywhere, at anytime, by anybody that says the same. I think it's required that you 'show your workings' and link to where this idea is supported. Otherwise we are all going to assume that you're using some expertise in some branch of maths to deny a concept with which you have exhibited minimal knowledge and which has zero connection to it.

When you are ready...

It seems you haven’t read “ climbing mount improbable “
People on this forum are generally badly read.
live read all Dawkins books, have you?
But I am sure even your intelligence can understand the direct analogy of getting from Oxford to Everest As a hill climb, and why it fails.
Dawkins clearly doesn’t. He’s not an optimisation specialist. I am.
a lot of what he says betrays misunderstanding of optimisation processes,

Focus on basics not details.
I am still waiting for one of you to produce an actual hypothesis for abiogenesis ,
Which means
“ to link anything anywhere by anybody“
that shows an EXACT testable biochemical, structure proposed for first life and a process to test
From non life to life on which to base a hypothesis.
Something which is not speculation using “could be , maybe, maybe not, “

Also any actual evidence at all of the intermediate genome structures between first life and present Minimum known cell To put something in the void that is not speculation. RNA world is speculation until you identify the simpler predecessor and how it evolved to RNA world.
On which to base a hypothesis Of cell evolution.
It is because my level of knowledge is seemingly way greater than yours, I know you can’t.

But I don’t like your tone, so I am out.
there are too many believers in scientism on this forum, not enough science.

 

[Bradskii]

It seems you haven’t read “ climbing mount improbable “
People on this forum are generally badly read.

Be careful with the insults my friend.

I happen to have a signed copy. And I know there is no link between stochastic optimisation or Kalman filters and the evolutionary process. You are simply showing your lack of knowledge about evolution and trying to convince people that using a few faux impressive sounding phrases, that you have some inside knowledge on the matter.

You don't. And your inability to link to anything whatsoever that might back up your unimpressive claim shows just that.

 

[Shemjaza]

I must be following a whole different range of science commentators to you. No one is certain that dark matter exists, the "big bang" theory is in doubt, some believe that it is possible to travel faster than light, others are saying that anthropology got it wrong with respect to early man and so on and so forth. I'm 72. I was told in about 1959 that science knew everything there was to know, apart from a few minor details. He assured us that science would solve every conundrum in the next few years. I wish I could talk to that teacher now. I think he would change his tune.

Dark matter is the name given to an observable effect on the spin of galaxies and cosmic scale collisions of visible matter, it absolutely exists... its exact nature is, for now, unknown.

You can make vague claims about "someone" disagreeing or getting some particular idea wrong... but if you can't actually point out the evidence or reasoning it's not a justification one way or another.

Also, a teacher, decades ago, being ignorant about the scope and scale of scientific knowledge doesn't in anyway reduce both the scope of scientific discoveries of the time, or the details learned since.

 

[Astrid]

I must be following a whole different range of science commentators to you. No one is certain that dark matter exists, the "big bang" theory is in doubt, some believe that it is possible to travel faster than light, others are saying that anthropology got it wrong with respect to early man and so on and so forth. I'm 72. I was told in about 1959 that science knew everything there was to know, apart from a few minor details. He assured us that science would solve every conundrum in the next few years. I wish I could talk to that teacher now. I think he would change his tune.

We are kinda talking past eachother.

You do agree that data does not change, and that changing books is about greed, not science?

That there is uncertainty about
nature of things in the outer edges of
theoretical physics is inevitable.

Two hundred fifty years ago there was
comparable uncertainty about the
theoretical existence of a great southernacceptable.

We know a lot more now, good solid
information that doesn't change with the wind.

Pop news articles always play up
new info as in anthropology as
" revolutionizes evrrything...".
But it doesn't.



But anyway, yes, we clearly come from different backgrounds. Different school systems. As the far different results show in the stats, for one.

If someone aa a science teacher herec said what yours did, they'd be out of work. Incompetent idiocy is
not acceptible.

I do agree you have been exposed to
quite different understandings of science than I.

It's too bad.

 

[Mountainmike]

Be careful with the insults my friend.

I happen to have a signed copy. And I know there is no link between stochastic optimisation or Kalman filters and the evolutionary process. You are simply showing your lack of knowledge about evolution and trying to convince people that using a few faux impressive sounding phrases, that you have some inside knowledge on the matter.

You don't. And your inability to link to anything whatsoever that might back up your unimpressive claim shows just that.

So no abiogenesis hypothesis -

But now you admit to reading Dawkins you will know that he supports my conclusion he has no idea how life started so no hypothesis ..


So kindly argue with all those on this forum who repeatedly - and wrongly - state there is .


The connection I stated was not the applications I used it for , but from actually doing generic hill climbing optimisation in many contexts just as Dawkins thesis in the book mount improbable , so you understood the connection perfectly.

Now tell us your expertise?

pS signed copies - I have several from famous authors I happened to meet or know . But I’ve not read some of them . It means nothing

.

 

[Astrid]

So no abiogenesis hypothesis -

But now you admit to reading Dawkins you will know that he supports my conclusion he has no idea how life started so no hypothesis ..


So kindly argue with all those on this forum who repeatedly - and wrongly - state there is .


The connection I stated was not the applications I used it for , but from actually doing generic hill climbing optimisation in many contexts just as Dawkins thesis in the book mount improbable , so you understood the connection perfectly.

Now tell us your expertise?

pS signed copies - I have several from famous authors I happened to meet or know . But I’ve not read some of them . It means nothing

.

No highly detailed hypothesis

Just enough to give some ideas of how/ what to investigate.

Like having Captain Cook look for
thevhypothrtical Southern Continent

 

[Frank Robert]

I was told in about 1959 that science knew everything there was to know, apart from a few minor details. He assured us that science would solve every conundrum in the next few years. I wish I could talk to that teacher now. I think he would change his tune.

Sounds like you were misled by someone whose understanding of science was inadequate.

 

[Mountainmike]

No highly detailed hypothesis

Just enough to give some ideas of how/ what to investigate.

Like having Captain Cook look for
thevhypothrtical Southern Continent

I’m happy to consider it a worthwhile area for research , and there are a few ideas ,

My criticism is that the status is way overplayed.

 

[Mountainmike]

Sounds like you were misled by someone whose understanding of science was inadequate.

Frank. It’s true .

There was a period of post war optimism in the 50s 60s where many believed it true . Aussie Pete is right - That was the prevailing attitude

It’s also when it was assumed that amongst the small blobs of jelly very simple life structures would be.found

Sadly reality has kicked in . In the last example DNA sequencing showed even what was hoped to be simple was hideously complicated

 

[Occams Barber]

I’m happy to consider it a worthwhile area for research , and there are a few ideas ,

My criticism is that the status is way overplayed.

This is a little summary of the status of abiogenesis (aka chemical evolution) research. It's further along than you might think. Its non-technical, easy to follow and will only take up 7 minutes of your life.

Can Science Explain The Origin Of Life? • Stated Clearly

The theory of evolution tells us how life diversified after it got started, but how did the first evolving creatures come about?

www.statedclearly.com

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

This is a little summary of the status of abiogenesis (aka chemical evolution) research. It's further along than you might think. Its non-technical, easy to follow and will only take up 7 minutes of your life.

Can Science Explain The Origin Of Life? • Stated Clearly

The theory of evolution tells us how life diversified after it got started, but how did the first evolving creatures come about?

www.statedclearly.com

OB

@Mountainmike

Here's another (9 minutes)

This one explains how a cell structure can build itself using chemical evolution - a completely natural process which causes atoms and molecules to bond together forming complex structures like DNA or cells.

The first couple of minutes is a review of biological evolution as a comparison to chemical evolution.

What Is Chemical Evolution? • Stated Clearly

The origin of life is still a mystery, but the careful study of chemical evolution is beginning to provide us with possible answers.

www.statedclearly.com

OB

 

[USincognito]

First - the usage of the word "evolution" is nebulous and amorphous.

Rubbish.

It can mean variously the unprovable "common descent",

Nothing in science is proven and there is no such thing as scientific proof. That said, common descent is well supported by the evidence.

various processes in molecular genetics for progressive change,

That is part of evolution, not a description of evolution itself.

ideas about "survival of fittest",

That is part of evolution, not a description of evolution itself.

dawkins nonsens about "climbing mount improbable" - implying progressive "improvement" in some sense.

Well if you say it's nonsense, I guess is must be nonsense.

Or Darwins postulate separate from those "all organisms come from progressive small change". It means many different things to many different people.

I love how Dawkins drives so many people crazy.

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.

There is no proof in science. Science doesn't deal in absolutes and all scientific propositions and conclusions are provisional.

 

[Mountainmike]

This is a little summary of the status of abiogenesis (aka chemical evolution) research. It's further along than you might think. Its non-technical, easy to follow and will only take up 7 minutes of your life.

Can Science Explain The Origin Of Life? • Stated Clearly

The theory of evolution tells us how life diversified after it got started, but how did the first evolving creatures come about?

www.statedclearly.com

OB

With respect that is a basic video for those who never studied it.
I’ve studied it for 50 years and it’s barely moved in all that time. And its exact where I think,

It is the usual overplay of status concluding maybe Maybe maybe Maybe.
Possibly . A few plausibility ideas but nothing of any substance,

The academic papers in this area use longer words and high sounding chemical names ,
but are also maybe maybe maybe.

Not a single cohesive hypothesis there,
Nor is there any cohesive idea of how cells evolved either,
What was the first genome.? How did it develop?

its a valuable subject, but barely off first base.

 

[Mountainmike]

Rubbish.

Nothing in science is proven and there is no such thing as scientific proof. That said, common descent is well supported by the evidence.

That is part of evolution, not a description of evolution itself.

That is part of evolution, not a description of evolution itself.

Well if you say it's nonsense, I guess is must be nonsense.

I love how Dawkins drives so many people crazy.

There is no proof in science. Science doesn't deal in absolutes and all scientific propositions and conclusions are provisional.

Since evolutin is indeed nebulous and amorphous, a catchall for multiple ideas , no point in reading the rest of the post.
You can tell what Darwin’s conjecture was, by the falsification test he gave, I bet you dont know.
it is not the same as common descent. Thats a different logical proposition.
you cannot test / prove / disprove or believe / not believe without a specific proposition,


There are other definitions , what is yours?

This thread is well past it’s sell by date, bored of discussing same issues so time to move on.

 

[Occams Barber]

You can tell what Darwin’s conjecture was, by the falsification test he gave, I bet you dont know.

At a guess you're talking about the infamous eye quote so beloved of Creationists who deliberately shorten the quote to make it appear as if Darwin is casting doubt on evolutionary processes.

Other than that - I have a copy of Origins but it's been years since I read it.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

Not a single cohesive hypothesis there,
Nor is there any cohesive idea of how cells evolved either,
What was the first genome.? How did it develop?

See the second video for an overall on cell development and DNA based on chemical evolution.

Based on your earlier posts you may think you know about evolution, but you don't appear to understand what you know. From experience this, plus blanket denialism, is fairly typical of Creationists.

OB

 

[Astrid]

I’m happy to consider it a worthwhile area for research , and there are a few ideas ,

My criticism is that the status is way overplayed.

Maybe that's just your perception.
It doesn't seem so to me.

But we both see it as worth investigating.