Prove it or remove it challenge

[DogmaHunter]

I'm not sure I would hire a software engineer that didn't understand genetic algorithms, or evolutionary programming.

And I have no idea what the opinion would be on AI or neural networks.

Most programmers don't know that much about genetic algorithms, AI or neural networks as most programmers are not involved in such fields.

Your average business application which shows a bunch of forms and provide basic CRUD (create, update, delete) functionality has no use for such logic.
A GA is about as irrelevant as it gets when you are designing your day-to-day web app.

GA's only become relevant in software for optimisation, specific types of search, AI, .. or things like risk assessment. And even then, GA is not always the best option. It's just a tool that has its use for solving/dealing with a specific type of problem.

 

[Extraneous]

I don't say so.

The scientific method says so.

Again, if you say so.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Is the human race evolving?

 

[mike van wyk]

PROVE IT, OR REMOVE IT CHALLENGE

My son has just started his first year of primary school, which is a good thing and a bad thing. Good in that he will be learning how to read, count all those good things. Bad in the fact that for the next 13 years he will be indoctrinated into the theory of evolution. A choice over which I have no power. So I don't plan to remain silent, I plan to challenge the government to either "prove or remove" evolutionary teaching.

Shame i feel for you. Evolution was started by the Freemasons and went throughout the word to destroy the word of God and illuminate mans believe in the creation of God. If you can destroy the word you destroy their believe. In actual fact there is no such thing like evolution for it is a humanistic religion made-up by agnostic-scientists. Best is to pray and ask God to guide your child to hold fast to the word. You cannot fight against the NWO. You remind me of an ant that asks the elephant to back-of or els. Be blessed

 

[VirOptimus]

Is the human race evolving?

What on earth do your post have to do with the theory of evolution?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Sorry, there are no "rules for Bible interpretation".

Do you know how to do a Google search? How long are you going to try to carry on this charade? You have got to end your double standard and start to function at a level of understanding that you claim to function at. All you have to do is type into Google: Rules for Bible interpretation. Then you can get at least a basic understanding of how to go around reading the Bible and how to interpret what you are reading.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1SNNT_enUS431&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=rules for bible interpretation

 

[digitalgoth]

Most programmers don't know that much about genetic algorithms, AI or neural networks as most programmers are not involved in such fields.

Your average business application which shows a bunch of forms and provide basic CRUD (create, update, delete) functionality has no use for such logic.
A GA is about as irrelevant as it gets when you are designing your day-to-day web app.

GA's only become relevant in software for optimisation, specific types of search, AI, .. or things like risk assessment. And even then, GA is not always the best option. It's just a tool that has its use for solving/dealing with a specific type of problem.

True, if you aren't using neural networks or evolutionary programming for something specific for a day to day project then they probably don't come up. However you said Software Engineer, which means you've certainly been educated and exposed to them as the requirements for even getting to that designation (unless it's self-designated). That was more my point. There's no way you can go through any degree involving CS without at least some optimization courses, whether its solving TSP or knapsack problems, optimization techniques, or basic ANNs.

 

[JackRT]

Shame i feel for you. Evolution was started by the Freemasons and went throughout the word to destroy the word of God and illuminate mans believe in the creation of God. If you can destroy the word you destroy their believe. In actual fact there is no such thing like evolution for it is a humanistic religion made-up by agnostic-scientists. Best is to pray and ask God to guide your child to hold fast to the word. You cannot fight against the NWO. You remind me of an ant that asks the elephant to back-of or els. Be blessed

The Theory of Evolution is a very robust scientific theory that has absolutely nothing to do with Freemasonry or the NWO nor is it a religion. If you are going to be critical of something it is best to educate yourself about exactly what that something is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you know how to do a Google search? How long are you going to try to carry on this charade? You have got to end your double standard and start to function at a level of understanding that you claim to function at. All you have to do is type into Google: Rules for Bible interpretation. Then you can get at least a basic understanding of how to go around reading the Bible and how to interpret what you are reading.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1SNNT_enUS431&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=rules for bible interpretation

You made the claim, you need to support it. I can see at a glance that those articles are different. There are not set in stone rules, and if one of the rules is "the Bible is always right" that makes that set of rules worthless.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Sorry, but the constitution protects us from that tyranny. You don't even understand what the theory of evolution is. Sadly you like so many creationists call science that you do not like "evolutionism" or some other such nonsense. Like it or not the theory of evolution is fact based. Creationism is based upon mythology. That is why your side lost those ten court cases you listed. There is no reliable evidence for creationism. There is reliable evidence that supports the theory of evolution and other sciences that you do not like.

You should at the very least try to understand the simple concept of scientific evidence. Then you might begin to learn why creationism is pure nonsense.

Again for the umpteenth time. I have no problem with the theory of evolution. By that I mean it is what it is so why should I have a problem with that. Again and again and again I have said there is NO conflict between true science and true religion. In fact they define and substantiate each other when they are properly understood.

When you look at science you look at PHYSICAL evidence and a method to study that evidence. We have to go where the evidence takes us if you want to go there or not. You are the denier, you are the atheist so YOU are the one that does not want to go where the evidence is taking you. So you need to confront that in yourself and quit trying to project it out on others.

Science and religion is like a marriage and you want a divorce, I understand that. You are trying to prove that Religion is to blame for the divorce and you are failing to provide any evidence for your claim. If you look at marriage you will see that marriage is wonderful when the man and the women work together. Science and religion together can accomplish a lot more together then they can apart. That is why those who want to be an enemy of God try to separate them and get them to divorce. The best of Science is the result of Science and Religion working together hand in hand.

"For I hate divorce," says the LORD, the God of Israel, "and him who covers his garment with wrong," says the LORD of hosts. "So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously." Malachi 2:16

 

[DaisyDay]

So your challenge is to provide evidence for evolution without referring to much of the relevant evidence because you don't understand it? Is that about right? Is this thread a joke?

Yeah, I think so.

 

[digitalgoth]

Again and again and again I have said there is NO conflict between true science and true religion. In fact they define and substantiate each other when they are properly understood.

is this the No True Scottish Christian Scientist fallacy?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again for the umpteenth time. I have no problem with the theory of evolution. By that I mean it is what it is so why should I have a problem with that. Again and again and again I have said there is NO conflict between true science and true religion. In fact they define and substantiate each other when they are properly understood.[/qoute]

That is fine, but then you can't honestly say that science is not at odds with your Bible. It was written by rather ignorant people, at least in regards to science, and it shows.

When you look at science you look at PHYSICAL evidence and a method to study that evidence. We have to go where the evidence takes us if you want to go there or not. You are the denier, you are the atheist so YOU are the one that does not want to go where the evidence is taking you. So you need to confront that in yourself and quit trying to project it out on others.

No, there is no denial in atheism. Just a recognition of facts. There is no evidence for God that I know of. Perhaps instead of spouting nonsense you could try to post some.

Science and religion is like a marriage and you want a divorce, I understand that. You are trying to prove that Religion is to blame for the divorce and you are failing to provide any evidence for your claim. If you look at marriage you will see that marriage is wonderful when the man and the women work together. Science and religion together can accomplish a lot more together then they can apart. That is why those who want to be an enemy of God try to separate them and get them to divorce. The best of Science is the result of Science and Religion working together hand in hand.

Again wrong. Religion has historically gotten int the way of science. Once more you are simply reinterpreting the Bible in the light of today's knowledge. I see that you were afraid to come out and state what you clearly believe.

By the way, if you accept reality then you deny the Adam and Eve story. At no time in human history were there only two people.

"For I hate divorce," says the LORD, the God of Israel, "and him who covers his garment with wrong," says the LORD of hosts. "So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously." Malachi 2:16

And you have never been able to show the "marriage" between science and your God so this verse is completely out of place.

 

[DogmaHunter]

However you said Software Engineer, which means you've certainly been educated and exposed to them as the requirements for even getting to that designation (unless it's self-designated).

A software engineer is someone who engineers/designs software - any software. It's just a fancy title for "programmer".
A software engineer, furthermore, should not be confused with computer science either.

Off course GA's and neural networks are touched upon during classes. Every programmer who had a college or university education in ICT most likely was exposed to it in one way or the other.

But that doesn't mean that it was done in detail. It's quite a specialised branch, which is not covered in detail in a general ICT education, especially not when the focus is on enterprise-level development.

The life of a software engineer / programmer is a lifetime of study. A lot of college and university tracks will just give you a foundation on which you'll have to build yourself, depending on the job or industry you end up working in.

Typically, when it comes to for example such heavy math based optimisation methods, it won't even be the programmers that will design the required algorithms. They'll just implement it in code. They'll have to roughly understand what is going on in the algorithm. But understanding the algorithm and being able to design it from scratch are two very different things in that world.

I've worked on plenty of projects where none of us actually really understood what all the values/variables/formula's really represented. A functional analyst would write it all out, step by step, and we'ld just implement it like code monkeys. And when you'ld ask a programmer of that team "what are you working on?", he'ld just answer with "use case X". And when asked "what is X about?", the answer would be "i don't have a clue".

Building software can be funny that way.

This is to be expected. If we would have to learn and understand the actual business behind every project we'ld work on, we'ld have to start studying months for every new project. In a consultancy firm, where you work on another project every 5 months, this is simply not possible and a waste of resources.

Not that long ago, we did a project that was all about risk management. Huge amounts of data were fed into mathematical models that would analyse it and spew out results. We created a framework in wich that analysis took place but we didn't design that math model. None of us was strong enough in math to do so. Instead, 2 mathematicians were part of the business team and they were the ones that told us how to implement what. They designed the model. We merely translated it into code.

 

[The Barbarian]

So my challenge to you is this, before I contact our government, tell me can you PROVE evolution using the fossil record, the only thing we can all understand and see.

Sounds like a good challenge. Keep in mind, it's only one of many different sources of information that support evolution. And you're mistaken if you think you are incapable of handling those other sources. It's really accessible to anyone willing to put in a little time to learn about it.

But let's go to your challenge. If you're right, there shouldn't be any transitional forms in the fossil record. So let's test that belief; name me any two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if there's a transitional for them. This one isn't a sure thing; there are still a few gaps. So you could get lucky.

If you like, you could give several examples. So are you confident enough in your beliefs to put them to a test? Prove it or remove it.

You're on.

 

[Extraneous]

I have a question, if no one minds answering. Do plants and animals share any DNA? If so, then did plants evolve from animals or vise versa?

 

[The Cadet]

I have a question, if no one minds answering. Do plants and animals share any DNA? If so, then did plants evolve from animals or vise versa?

Most of the functional parts of plants are very similar to animals. If you compare, here's a plant cell and an animal cell:

I've heard the figure that humans share 50% of their DNA with Bananas, and while I can't find much to back that up, I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest.

 

[Extraneous]

Most of the functional parts of plants are very similar to animals. If you compare, here's a plant cell and an animal cell:

I've heard the figure that humans share 50% of their DNA with Bananas, and while I can't find much to back that up, I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest.

Plants must have been first i would assume. If not then animals would have nothing to eat. Yes, we evolved from bananas.

 

[joshua 1 9]

is this the No True Scottish Christian Scientist fallacy?

Never heard of that one. Of course I do not waste my time to study fallacys.

 

[lasthero]

Plants must have been first i would assume. If not then animals would have nothing to eat.

Not all animals eat plants.