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

[Occams Barber]

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

Here's a long, more technical, summary of where abiogenesis research has been and is going.

The Origin of Life

A case is made for the descent of electrons

www.americanscientist.org

 

[Bradskii]

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.

So you have nothing at all. Let's be honest...I knew you didn't. And I'm not alone. You thought that throwing some technical jargon out might impress someone. It doesn't. What does impress is showing a reasonable understanding of a subject and being able to discuss it coherently. The subject being evolution.

And trying desperately to redirect any conversation to abiogenesis when the two aren't connected - and some people have a reputation for doing this post after post after post is also equally unimpressive.

And you have to larf. Generic hill climbing optimisation? Hey, Dawkins wrote a book called Climbing Mount Improbable. There must be a link there! You may as well have tried to link it to the sermon on the mount...

 

[Astrid]

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

Profoundly lacking in the most
basic conpepts isn't putting it too dtronbly.

 

[Mountainmike]

So you have nothing at all. Let's be honest...I knew you didn't. And I'm not alone. You thought that throwing some technical jargon out might impress someone. It doesn't. What does impress is showing a reasonable understanding of a subject and being able to discuss it coherently. The subject being evolution.

And trying desperately to redirect any conversation to abiogenesis when the two aren't connected - and some people have a reputation for doing this post after post after post is also equally unimpressive.

And you have to larf. Generic hill climbing optimisation? Hey, Dawkins wrote a book called Climbing Mount Improbable. There must be a link there! You may as well have tried to link it to the sermon on the mount...

I get it.

-You neither understood the book or even the title "climbing mount improbable" which , guess what , is framing evolution in the context of "hill climbing optimization".

-Nor understood the underyling problems of the methods of "hill climbing optimization" as used in many numerical optimization techniques by those involved in process modelling, tracking and process control, and process optimization.

- Nor understood even the simple argument I gave which should be accessible to mean intelligence that only heading for higher ground will not get you to everest! Dawkins would get stranded on the north downs if he ever tried his simpleton method to get from oxford to everest. I am sure others understood it, even if you did not!. It is a fascinating intellectual puzzle.

The skills I bring are
1/ physics, particularly electronic and physical chemistry at a professional level and a lot of maths.
2/ A lot of time in PROFESSIONAL math modelling and optimization that qualifies me to say Dawkins is taking simplistic guesses at stuff he clearly does not know.
3/ Studying abiogenesis and evolution for nigh on 50 years and being VERY disappointed about the lack of progress.
As someone with a background in structural chemistry, I understand most of what is said.
4/ And I live with a director level molecular biologist to fill in gaps in what I do not know.


So What expertise do you have in ANYTHING that qualifies you to comment , let alone insult others?

The fact you do not understand my answer does not qualify you to disagree with it.
But for others reading "climbing mount improbable it " is indeed Dawkins using hill climbing optimization framing of evolutionary advantage and optimization. Seems Bradskii did not understand that. The title would make it clear to most.

Pointless talking to you.

I would much rather have a friendly conversation! But that’s your choice not mine

( btw As a result I can state, that the papers on abiogenesis and cell level evolution are devoid of testable ideas and are "may be ""could be" "possibly" ie a guess. pure conjecture.
I cannot contest most of it because there is NOTHING TO CONTEST. If someone would care to tell me their proposed structure for first life, detailed enough to test, we can discuss it. I will not hold my breath waiting. But Even Dawkins says there is not.)

 

[Bradskii]

I get it.

I'm afraid that all your posts on evolution show that you don't. If you do then show me any maths at all that says Darkins as being wrong. And I didn't say give me your opinion yet again. Show me the maths.

Otherwise, stop wasting our time.

 

[Mountainmike]

I'm afraid that all your posts on evolution show that you don't. If you do then show me any maths at all that says Darkins as being wrong. And I didn't say give me your opinion yet again. Show me the maths.

Otherwise, stop wasting our time.

Oh lighten up. Be nice.

Its precisely because there is no maths solution to many problems that searching for improvement , called hill climbing (Dawkins calls climbing mount improbable!) is needed! It is a fascinating both intellectual and philosophical puzzle. I spent a lot of time wrestling with it!
I think both Dawkins framing of the problem and the solution Illustrate lack of experience in these type of methods.

On the biggest point I actually agree with Dawkins when he says science has no idea how life started,

And yet the true believers in Abiogenesis here , shout me down for that as well!
Despite their inability to give me a structure or any process for first life! , indeed any process from there to present day cells, in enough detail to be able to test them. ( that’s called a hypothesis)
So who do you side with: Dawkins or them?

So I accept the parts that are proven. I am interested in the ideas, I am sceptical of the guesses, I am irritated when guesses are presented as fact, its what scientists do

Saying “I don’t get evolution “ just means I don’t buy into your faith.
Be cause It’s not a take it or leave it , believe or dont believe it idea. Because its not just one idea.

You still havent told us why we should listen to Bradskii?

From what great seat of learning on evolution do you tell the rest of us we do not get it?

 

[Bradskii]

Its precisely because there is no maths solution to many problems that searching for improvement , called hill climbing (Dawkins calls climbing mount improbable!) is needed! It is a fascinating both intellectual and philosophical puzzle.
I think both Dawkins framing of the problem and the solution Illustrate lack of experience in these type of methods.

Why do you make claims if you're not going to back them up? The book is a metaphor about how life progresses in small incremental changes and not huge leaps and bounds. And you propose that using generic hill climbing optimisation can contradict a metaphor about a mountain?

It's not just incorrect. It's not even wrong.

 

[Occams Barber]

Oh lighten up. Be nice.

Its precisely because there is no maths solution to many problems that searching for improvement , called hill climbing (Dawkins calls climbing mount improbable!) is needed! It is a fascinating both intellectual and philosophical puzzle.
I think both Dawkins framing of the problem and the solution Illustrate lack of experience in these type of methods.

On the biggest point I actually agree with Dawkins when he says science has no idea how life started,

And yet the true believers in Abiogenesis here shout me down for that as well!
Despite their inability to give me a structure or any process for first life! , indeed any process from there to present day cells.

So I accept the parts that are proven. I am interested in the ideas, I am sceptical of the guesses, I am irritated when guesses are presented as fact, its what scientists do

Saying “I don’t get evolution “ just means I don’t buy into your faith.
But It’s not a take it or leave it , believe or dont believe it idea. Because its not just one idea.

You still havent told us why we should listen to Bradskii?

From what great seat of learning on evolution do you tell the rest of us we do not get it?

Let me be blunt Mike.

After 50 odd years of talking to Creationists, the most obvious characteristic they share is in being woefully uninformed. Your posts fit this mould.
You have done what most Creationists do by hopelessly confusing evolution with abiogenesis. So far you haven't brought Big Bang into the mix but I'm waiting. Your arguments, like most Creationist arguments, are based on simplistic denial and incredulity.

Evolution is accepted as a valid theory backed by a wealth of factual evidence. Given your alleged mathematical credentials I suggest looking into shared chimp/human ERVs. for a statistical argument supporting human evolution. I know you won't do this.

Abiogenesis is still at the stage of hypothesis, The chain of links between the chemical precursors to life and life itself is under active investigation The pattern is emerging via the concept known as chemical evolution. It is complex and will need a step-by-step investigation. Your demand for immediate 'proof' displays an appalling lack of understanding of the complexity of the problem and the nature of scientific understanding.

The strength of Creationism is its absolute belief in the rightness of its ideas. This is also its greatest weakness.

The nature of science is to question. This is its overwhelming strength.

OB

 

[Mountainmike]

Let me be blunt Mike.

After 50 odd years of talking to Creationists, the most obvious characteristic they share is in being woefully uninformed. Your posts fit this mould.
You have done what most Creationists do by hopelessly confusing evolution with abiogenesis. So far you haven't brought Big Bang into the mix but I'm waiting. Your arguments, like most Creationist arguments, are based on simplistic denial and incredulity.

Evolution is accepted as a valid theory backed by a wealth of factual evidence. Given your alleged mathematical credentials I suggest looking into shared chimp/human ERVs. for a statistical argument supporting human evolution. I know you won't do this.

Abiogenesis is still at the stage of hypothesis, The chain of links between the chemical precursors to life and life itself is under active investigation The pattern is emerging via the concept known as chemical evolution. It is complex and will need a step-by-step investigation. Your demand for immediate 'proof' displays an appalling lack of understanding of the complexity of the problem and the nature of scientific understanding.

The strength of Creationism is its absolute belief in the rightness of its ideas. This is also its greatest weakness.

The nature of science is to question. This is its overwhelming strength.

OB

And yet you cannot find a single dent in what I said.


but I can find - to use Your words
An “ appalling lack of basic scientific understanding “ in yours.
How dare you use such an insult?

Let’s talk scientific process. You don’t even understand the words.
Abiogenesis is NOT a valid hypothesis . There is no evidence it happened , when where or how.
You cannot repeat it, it does not repeat naturally,
So .
Your only other entry point into the scientific process is a postulated first life structure and an actuall process from non living ingredients defined you can test. That is the MEANING of hypothesis, and abiogenesis.
So you have no test , non living to living, so you have no hypothesis for abiogenesis QED

You have pure conjecture nothing more.

Not to mention you have no idea of the first genome , or how the first cell you can’t define evolved to the minimum cell known in present day which is hideously complex.. So the cell level evolutionary path is also an unknown.
So you have a big nothing in terms of actual fact in OOL , no hypothesis for abiogenesis Or any hypothesis for how first life became present life at cell level.

You may believe in the abiogenesis or evolution faith, you are welcome to do so.
You are clearly a “ believer” in something you dont understand, evendefinitions .
But it is pure speculation, no valid hypothesis.

You believe Abiogenesus is a hypothesis because it is a myth repeated so often it became a fact.

If you want to enter a scientific thread , at least learn what the WORDS mean first!! You clearly don’t.

Now at pure logic level Creation is not an opposite of evolution either.
Evolution “ believers “ who think it is opposite to creation cannot even get those definitions right. You can believe in parts or all of both. They are not mutually exclusive. Evolution is not a single idea. Nor isccreation.

And what qualification or background do you have to contradict me?
It clearly isn’t scientific since you don’t understand the word hypothesis.

 

[SelfSim]

... It clearly isn’t scientific since you don’t understand the word hypothesis.

You are clearly not a scientific thinker as you cannot distinguish your truth-seeking from the scientific method.

 

[Mountainmike]

You are clearly not a scientific thinker as you cannot distinguish your truth-seeking from the scientific method.

My comment was about scientific process , the poster clearly doesn’t understand the word hypothesis.
Im the first to say the scientific model is just a model: it is not the underlying universe or truth.

I despair of the ad hominems.
Another Post starting with “ you” and an insult, why do I reply To you?

As for truth, and enlightenment , in place of faith dogma , you should read Voltaire.

The less well known parts That is!

His supporters who quoted him never seemed to notice,
that he openly mocked them and the very idea of celebrity authorship , or that he had some kind of truth they were willing to reward him to share! or that they would quote him as some kind of truth . He looked down at them all , but decided that for as long as they were willing to pay he would write it.

That was the real enlightenment - peddling profitable nonsense.
Roll on to today. The faces change, the idea does not,

Enlightenment is profitable ,
which is Dawkins strategy for “ survival” , mix a few bits of science with his brand of atheism using invisible mending to hide the cracks , and he is selling what all want to buy, no doubt sneering at his readers too.
As pt Barnum the showman said “ there’s a sucker born every minute” to buy more.

Its why myths repeated so often are treats as truth and believed by Bradskii and Occams.
Sadly science Doesnt support them. They don’t even notice.
Even Dawkins says he’s no idea how life started,

So Dawkins can’t be blamed for occam’s delusion! It must be this thread that misled him.

 

[Astrid]

Why do you make claims if you're not going to back them up? The book is a metaphor about how life progresses in small incremental changes and not huge leaps and bounds. And you propose that using generic hill climbing optimisation can contradict a metaphor about a mountain?

It's not just incorrect. It's not even wrong.

That's the why of calling acceptance of evolution a "faith".

Ie pseudoscience

 

[Bradskii]

My comment was about scientific process , the poster clearly doesn’t understand the word hypothesis.

I would have thought that it was obvious to anyone with a smidgin of scientific knowledge that the term being used was referring to a working hypothesis. I trust that I don't have to explain it, seeing as you're putting yourself forward as some sort of well read scientific expert.

And yet you still keep mixing up abiogenesis and evolution. To what end is anyone's guess.

 

[Astrid]

I would have thought that it was obvious to anyone with a smidgin of scientific knowledge that the term being used was referring to a working hypothesis. I trust that I don't have to explain it, seeing as you're putting yourself forward as some sort of well read scientific expert.

And yet you still keep mixing up abiogenesis and evolution. To what end is anyone's guess.

Auto - discredit?

All creationists do it eventually,
may as well get to it.

 

[SelfSim]

Im the first to say the scientific model is just a model: it is not the underlying universe or truth.

Your response supports the hypothesis of: 'you cannot distinguish your truth-seeking from the scientific method'.

If, on the other hand, you had responded with the evidence which would lead others to the conclusion that there is actually a testable difference between 'the underlying universe, or truth', and science's models of the universe, we would have something to discuss other than just your belief that there is.

Alas you have failed to do that .. therefore the above working (testable) hypothesis remains .
(PS: Oh .. as does your mere belief in the existence of some universal 'truth', which you seek).

 

[Mountainmike]

Your response supports the hypothesis of: 'you cannot distinguish your truth-seeking from the scientific method'.

If, on the other hand, you had responded with the evidence which would lead others to the conclusion that there is actually a testable difference between 'the underlying universe, or truth', and science's models of the universe, we would have something to discuss other than just your belief that there is.

Alas you have failed to do that .. therefore the above working (testable) hypothesis remains .
(PS: Oh .. as does your mere belief in the existence of some universal 'truth', which you seek).

The fact you think the difference is testable demonstrated you failed to even understand the philosophical problem. You just went down in my estimation. I thought you were one of the clever ones.

Your entire perception of the universe is not what it “is“ but what it does, ie how it interacts with you. What it emits , reflects or blocks, and that is also seen through a dimensional projection defined by your senses. all your knowledge is several stages indirect. Had you not realised?

Math modellers are forced to confront that difference. Study Kants noumena or Aristotle’s shadow world. The books on quantum reality force you to reasess what you think you know. Most would not understand the problem or those books , its hard science, not the schoolboy stuff normally on this forum.

We have discussed all this to death.

Most here aren’t interested in science, only their blind faith in evolution as a complete story of life, . They are welcome to it.
Yet not one of these rude posters can define anything from first life structure to present minimum cell.
They know squat and yet seem proud of it.
so I am out.
I shall wait for a few scientific posters discussing science before bothering to respond again,

 

[SelfSim]

.. so I am out.

Pity you never ever keep such promises ..

 

[Bradskii]

Most here aren’t interested in science, only their blind faith in evolution as a complete story of life, . They are welcome to it.
Yet not one of these rude posters can define anything from first life structure to present minimum cell.

You did it again...

 

[Mountainmike]

Pity you never ever keep such promises ..

Ill post when there is something to comment on.
So far you have nothing in evidence structure or model anywhere from abiogenesis to present day minimum cells, at cellular level.
Seemingly this forum has no idea what a hypothesis is.

You yoursefl profess to come from a direction of science, yet both philosophy and science hold the concept of the unobservable.
Observability is a basic concept in state space modelling and it causes real problems. Look it up, if your maths is up to it.
It is also the reason why nobody gets anywhere with superstrings. The dimensional projection problem. Many to one mappings. One to many mappings. Many to none mappings (which is the essence of non observability).

I am appalled that someone who challenges on the difference betwen truth and the model, can then ask the question about "testable difference" proving they have not understood the essence of the problem which is the difference is not testable . That is what observability means , or at philosophical level the difference between noumena and phenomena.

But it isnt even that.
It is the insults in every post.
Because I hold a different view, which is clearly scientific, you insult my science, not your lack of evidence!

There is one big differences between christians and the scientism (and often pseudoscience) of this forum.
Christians admit there is a boundary between what they know from experience and what they believe ( and a blurred area in between).

Whether true or not, Abiogenesis for all of you is just a belief at present. It is time you all admitted it.
There is no shame in that. Dreaming big is sometimes how science moves on. It might even be true.

The shame is in pretending there is evidence or model for something there is not, then insulthing those who do not hold your view.


So until there is some science to comment on. I shall leave you all to your creative imaginations!

 

[Bradskii]

Seemingly this forum has no idea what a hypothesis is.

Working hypothesis.

It seems that you do need to check what it means.