Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sigh.
Very well. Quotes from my posts where I said I would accept your evidence with the actual specific words where I said I would accept your evidence highlighted in red.
I repeated myself as well, since you apparently didn't understand what I was saying:
You once again didn't seem to understand me, so I repeated myself again:
You then outright refused to take this as a proper answer, and I responded:
You once again accused me of not answering.
I believe I have made it abundantly clear that if you can present legitimate evidence that evolution is wrong, I will accept that evidence and change my views to agree with you that evolution is wrong. I honestly do not know how to make it any clearer.
You asked me if I would abandon evolution if you could show me it was wrong, and I have stated multiple times that I would abandon it if you did so.
I answered your question three times and then I told you three times that I had answered your question, one time even quoting myself where I had answered your question. You've even had another poster on here saying that I and other people had said they will accept your evidence if you can provide it.
evolution will be fine even in this case of mammal with feathers.That depends, when we examine the genome, would we find the same genes as we do in birds, or is it a true convergent evolutionary development and their DNA has recreated novel genes to express these new feathers, which fantasy would you like to explore?
so your answer to my question is "yes". ok. here is your counter evidence again:
Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland
now, with this new fossil the fossil order is look like this (image from wiki):
see the bottom left creature? its predate many of its transitional fossils. so instead of 12345 we actually find something like 51234.
so evolution is false now according to your criteria.
evolution will be fine even in this case of mammal with feathers.
With feathers? Or with feather-like structures, or structures serving the same purpose as feathers do in birds?evolution will be fine even in this case of mammal with feathers.
Nice vague comment, do you have a specific example?
A software person should know about the artificial neural networks used in AI research networks that have no rules or pre-determined goals.A software person should know that any complex algorithm must have rules, and it must have pre-determined goals. Evolution has neither.
You cannot make a totally random evolution program because it will
always, repeat always, go extinct. To get data evolution, it must cheat.
The weasel program or Dawkins' weasel is a thought experiment and a variety of computer simulations illustrating it. Their aim is to demonstrate that the process that drives evolutionary systems—random variation combined with non-random cumulative selection—is different from pure chance.
The thought experiment was formulated by Richard Dawkins, and the first simulation written by him; various other implementations of the program have been written by others.
A software person should know about the artificial neural networks used in AI research networks that have no rules or pre-determined goals.
A software person should know about genetic programming which is an actual analogy of evolution with no rules or pre-determined goals.
A software person interested in evolution should learn about evolution and know that "Evolution has neither (rules/pre-determined goals)" and "totally random evolution" is not evolution. They should learn about the weasel program
This paper is yet more evidence for evolution, pat34lee. This is a paper finding relationships between bird fossils so that an evolution of birds tree becomes an evolution of birds bush.
The Tree of Life may be more like a bush
Sorry but a link to the creation.com web site is an automatic failure because the web site lies too much to be trusted. Try again with any actual science that they cite.
You mean the sudden appearance of a great number of
species that appears to have happened at every level
of evolutionary eras?
so your answer to my question is "yes". ok. here is your counter evidence again:
Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland
now, with this new fossil the fossil order is look like this (image from wiki):
see the bottom left creature? its predate many of its transitional fossils. so instead of 12345 we actually find something like 51234.
so evolution is false now according to your criteria.
So nothing specifically then.Make this about me again and I will report you for flaming.
Deal with the specifics or don't post.
A software person should know that any complex algorithm must have
rules, and it must have pre-determined goals. Evolution has neither.
You cannot make a totally random evolution program because it will
always, repeat always, go extinct. To get data evolution, it must cheat.
A software person should know that any complex algorithm must have
rules, and it must have pre-determined goals. Evolution has neither.
You cannot make a totally random evolution program
because it will always, repeat always, go extinct. To get data evolution, it must cheat.
Dawkins' program was the worst. His program looked for certain traits to keep, giving more weight to those that
he considered better. That is one of the cheats I mentioned.
Before you even envision the program, you have a set of
standards. Programming language, hardware, software to
connect the hardware together, memory. All must synch
together before you can even begin.
Once it is going, how do you decide whether it is progressing, for that matter,
what progress means to such a program?
yes, with feathers. why?With feathers? Or with feather-like structures, or structures serving the same purpose as feathers do in birds?
I said I would agree that evolution is false IF (note that word IF there) there was no reasonable explanation. As others have pointed out, there is a reasonable explanation.
you said that you agree that if we will find a series of fossils like 12354 insetad of 12345 evolution will be false. this is exactly what we found. you cant play with this.
Feathers would pose a serious problem for the theory of evolution. Feather-like structures or structures serving the same purpose as feathers do in birds would not.yes, with feathers. why?
Adding selection to a program demonstrating evolution is obviously not a cheat, pat34lee. The evolution being demonstrated is mutation + selection.
This is evolution in a nutshell (or better yet a seed). Say there is a population of finches on an island. The climate is mild and favors bushes with soft seeds The finches are happily eating soft seeds with small beaks. This is analogous to the starting point of the Weasel program.
Along comes global warming. The climate gets hotter. Bushes with hard seeds start to dominate the vegetation. This is the selection you are complaining about!
Now run the "program" of evolution with mutation and selection. Mutations that produce bigger beaks that can crack more seeds will "give more weight" to those finches by allowing them to reproduce more, i.e. a "certain traits to keep" will more present in the next generation. Keep repeating and we get "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL", i.e. a new species of big beaked finches.
Weasel program
ETA: A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
See, this is why I said you are ill-informed. Not as an ad hominim, but as an observation..
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?