Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[whois]

I hate to break it to you, but the process of evolution is an abstraction of a natural phenomena.

Biochemical life are things that are subject to this process. Biochemical life is NOT the process.

In order for a thing to be subject to this process, it requires certain properties. All one requires to simulate this process on a computer, are the presence of those propertes (a genotype, a fenotype, a fitness test, heredity, mutation, etc).

We don't require a complete model of bio-chemisty because it is simply not needed.

You strip it down to only the bear essentials. That's what smart people do who don't like to waste time.

this, coming from the poster that said a bird is a dinosaur.
face it dogmahunter, all is not well in the worldview of darwinism.

you can try to dissociate evolution from biochemistry all you want, but it will never fly.
when you do such a thing, all you are doing is proving what your idea of evolution is, not the actual reality of the situation.
i have no idea why you are failing to see that.

 

[whois]

Yah I know. You prefer to just let it magically happen. Sorry but that's a strawman, because without life coming about in the first place - there can not be any evolution. So the origin of life is paramount to your theory and can never be ignored. Except by those who believe in evolution because they don't want to deal with the problem.

the origins of life makes use of the very same processes of evolution, and science has utterly failed in its explanation.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I hate to break it to you, but the process of evolution is an abstraction of a natural phenomena.

Biochemical life are things that are subject to this process. Biochemical life is NOT the process.

In order for a thing to be subject to this process, it requires certain properties. All one requires to simulate this process on a computer, are the presence of those propertes (a genotype, a fenotype, a fitness test, heredity, mutation, etc).

We don't require a complete model of bio-chemisty because it is simply not needed.

You strip it down to only the bear essentials. That's what smart people do who don't like to waste time.

Biochemistry is paramount. Without it you have no life to run your simulations on. Everything on this planet requires a complex biochemical interdependence to survive. To ignore it is to ignore 98% of the data.

So you are going to run a computer simulation programed by an intelligent being on a computer also designed - while ignoring 98% of the data in your programming. GIGO.

Are going to use non-random calculations and sub-programs to tell us all about how random processes dominate - even if the computer uses only logical strings and routines - with no randomness at all. Your program tell the simulation when to insert a mutation - and a precise result of that mutation - it does not do this randomly, but on a numerical calculation designed by an intelligent being in a non-random string of events. The computer only gives you what you ask of it - and not once was it allowed to randomly run any of those processes - but followed a logical sequence of events and programing.

 

[whois]

Are going to use non-random calculations and sub-programs to tell us all about how random processes dominate - even if the computer uses only logical strings and routines - with no randomness at all.

careful, a computer can indeed simulate truly random events.
they can do this by employing a "white noise" random number generator.
this is what makes computers so useful as simulators.
as a matter of fact one of the qualifiers of a "good" computer is how "random" their random number generators are.
for most applications (like the internet) this is irrelevant, but for things like real life events these generators can be very important.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

You said it had evidence, provide it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

So we agree that evolution is as defined: Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations.

 

[DogmaHunter]

this, coming from the poster that said a dinosaur is a bird.

Reading comprehension problems?

I didn't say that dino's are birds.
I said that birds are dino's.

This is not my claim, that is rather how they are classified.
I can't help it that you aren't aware of this.

face it dogmahunter, all is not well in the worldview of darwinism.

I don't think I ever said that we know everything there is to know about. So not really sure what you are on about this time around again.

you can try to dissociate evolution from biochemistry all you want, but it will never fly.

You can believe that if you want.
Meanwhile, we do that all the time. Quite successfully.

when you do such a thing, all you are doing is proving what your idea of evolution is, not the actual reality of the situation.
i have no idea why you are failing to see that.

I have no idea why you fail to see that things subject to a process are not the process themselves...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yah I know. You prefer to just let it magically happen.

No. I just prefer some scope and intellectual honesty.
The origins of diversity doesn't deal with the origins of life.

These are completely different fields of scientific study.
I'm sorry that you can't handle that basic fact.

Sorry but that's a strawman, because without life coming about in the first place - there can not be any evolution.

And without matter with mass coming into existance, there could not be gravity.
But that didn't stop Newton (or Einstein, for that matter).

So the origin of life is paramount to your theory

No. Life just needs to exist. No matter how.
We don't need to know where life came from in order to study existing life and understand the processes it is subject to.

I'm sorry that your mind can't handle that little fact.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's not.

I lost track of how many times I had to point this out.

Yes, it is and I don't know why you dismiss what others in the field say about it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You asked for a link to a genetic algoritm.
I gave you one.

You not liking it is not my problem.
I don't care for your assertions based on ignorance either.



And a color is a color, but red and blue aren't the same thing.

whois didn't ask for a link to a genetic algorithm. You gave it as evidence for appearance of design that you deny is present in real life.

 

[DogmaHunter]

the origins of life makes use of the very same processes of evolution

Explain?

and science has utterly failed in its explanation.

By this, you mean, science has not yet solved it and continues the search....

 

[DogmaHunter]

whois didn't ask for a link to a genetic algorithm.

*ahum*

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.

You gave it as evidence for appearance of design that you deny is present in real life.

40 pages of clarifications on my part and you STILL didn't get this one correct.

Sleep thight.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You said it had evidence, provide it.

I made the decision to stop responding to your requests for "evidence", because it became very very very clear to me that you don't actually want it.

No matter what I'll throw at you, you'll stay in denial.
You aren't interested in evidence.

You are only interested in playing games and psychological defense mechanisms.

Now, you can play the pigeon pretending to have just beaten me in a game of chess.

You don't want any evidence of anything. You just want to continue believing what you already believe.

 

[whois]

Explain?

are you suggesting the processes of the origin of life aren't at work with evolution?
if so, then please explain how they would be different.

By this, you mean, science has not yet solved it and continues the search....

koonin says it's an outright failure.
he even goes so far to say some scientists consider the origin of life research with derision.
of course you will want to somehow gloss this over like it doesn't really mean anything.

 

[whois]

Reading comprehension problems?

I didn't say that dino's are birds.
I said that birds are dino's.

sorry, i will edit the post accordingly.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No. I just prefer some scope and intellectual honesty.
The origins of diversity doesn't deal with the origins of life.

These are completely different fields of scientific study.
I'm sorry that you can't handle that basic fact.

And I am sorry you can't deal with the fact your in denial and practicing avoidance.

And without matter with mass coming into existance, there could not be gravity.
But that didn't stop Newton (or Einstein, for that matter).

What gravity? GR is a theory of free-fall, where there is no gravitational force. It is only a force in Newton's theory. Gravitational theory only applies to solids, liquids and gasses - 1% of the universe. The rest is dominated by plasma physics - being 99% plasma.

No. Life just needs to exist. No matter how.
We don't need to know where life came from in order to study existing life and understand the processes it is subject to.

I'm sorry that your mind can't handle that little fact.

And I am sorry you can't handle the fact it does matter how. You follow a cosmology proposed by a priest - evade discussions of origin so you can continue your false belief that it doesn't matter if life was created or not. You do need to know where it came from - because that determines every belief thereafter.

 

[WordList]

i can't read minds, so state yours.

You don't need to read my mind, just spot the problem in your statement that I quoted.

 

[whois]

You don't need to read my mind, just spot the problem in your statement that I quoted.

here is the dialog of which you speak:
dogmahunter: And yet, the amount of different algoritms (ie: patterns of 1s and 0s) that can be loaded into such limited memory is nearly infinite. Especially if we also include modules that can be loaded into memory when they are needed.
whois:actually it is not even close to infinite.
again, what you are doing is switching coding schemes.
the rest of your post, well, until you are willing to discuss just one coding scheme, the one associated with DNA, then the discussion is moot.

the only problem i see is dogmahunters misuse of the word algorithm and his ensuing statement that it's nearly infinite.

unless you are willing to point out any other errors, i will not engage you any further on this matter.

 

[DogmaHunter]

are you suggesting the processes of the origin of life aren't at work with evolution?
if so, then please explain how they would be different.

Evolution requires life to exist.
Evolution only takes place once things that can evolve exists (in this case, life).

How can the mechanisms of evolution apply to things that don't exist?

You're not making a lot of sense.

koonin says it's an outright failure.

Why this obsession with this guy? You cite him as if every word the man ever said is truth and nothing but truth.

I don't really care what the dude's personal opinions are, you know.

he even goes so far to say some scientists consider the origin of life research with derision.
of course you will want to somehow gloss this over like it doesn't really mean anything.

Indeed, it doesn't mean anything.
That the search for the origins of life hasn't been as succesful as other scientific puzzles is rather obvious, since the puzzle of origins hasn't been solved yet.

Pointing that out is stating the obvious - no matter what anyone says with which words.

So, does Koonin also suggest to stop the search and just go with whatever firs thought comes to mind?

Lemme ask you... what exactly is your point by citing Koonin's (or indeed anyone's) opinions on this?

 

[DogmaHunter]

And I am sorry you can't deal with the fact your in denial and practicing avoidance.

There is no avoidance or denial.
Evolution theory doesn't deal with the origins of life.
That's just a fact.

What gravity? GR is a theory of free-fall, where there is no gravitational force. It is only a force in Newton's theory. Gravitational theory only applies to solids, liquids and gasses - 1% of the universe. The rest is dominated by plasma physics - being 99% plasma.

I lol'ed.

And I am sorry you can't handle the fact it does matter how.

Nope

You follow a cosmology proposed by a priest

I don't "follow" anything.
And that priest was an astronomer, cosmologist and physicist at the same university I attended.

- evade discussions of origin

Only when the topic is not origins.

so you can continue your false belief that it doesn't matter if life was created or not.

It doesn't matter in context of evolution theory.
Scope. It kind of matters.

You do need to know where it came from - because that determines every belief thereafter.

No, it does not.