Why I do not accept evolution part two.

[Speedwell]

Sheesh, you are quick on the draw. I changed "atheist" to "agnostic" almost immediately after I posted the wrong word.

Why not? The "evolution equals atheism" shtick is the most offensive thing about creationism. You should expect a reaction every time you try it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I will only respond to one of your points.
Do-While Jones is David R. Pogge. Not exactly your average electrical engineer. He redesigned the air to air missiles (AIM-9) used by the USAF in the Vietnam war. The original design had a very poor strike rate. He fixed the problem. He's written books on ADA programming.

Mr Pogge has a great deal of experience with closed loop systesm, such as the temperature control that mammals require. He knows how difficult it is to get it right. Programming is not a bad background for analysing genetic systems. I know from experience that the slightest error will likely cause a program to crash. I've never yet seen an error in a program make it work better.

I understand the claims of evolution. My response is exactly the same. It's not feasible. There is a perfectly satisfactory alternative. I accept the alternative. When a chimp at the zoo taps me on the shoulder and asks, "Am I my keeper's brother?", I will rethink my position. I'm not holding my breath.

A guy who knows about air-to-air missile system programming is automatically an expert on evolution? Seriously? Would you accept a biologist telling you how to improve laser guided missile targeting because he knows about blood coagulation?

 

[pitabread]

Programming is not a bad background for analysing genetic systems. I know from experience that the slightest error will likely cause a program to crash.

As a programmer who has studied genetics, this statement is neither true of either programming nor genetics.

(On a side note, I remember debunking one of the articles from "Do-While Jones" that you previously posted. His understanding of biology is quite lacking. If there are the types of sources you are deferring to for your education about evolution, then no wonder you are confused. It's the blind leading the blind.)

 

[pitabread]

Sheesh, you are quick on the draw. I changed "atheist" to "agnostic" almost immediately after I posted the wrong word.

It still isn't relevant because I'm not trying to change your worldview.

When I went to school, biology was mandatory. I passed quite well.

Sure, I had unit on biology in high school too. That was ages ago, and I wouldn't put much stock in my retention of knowledge for that class to now.

I was curious though if you tried anything contemporary. It goes back to your statement (re: evolution), "I've found nothing that remotely answers my objections and a great deal that confirms them."

That why I am wondering if you're tried starting with a contemporary biology class and working your way up from there. Based on your responses, I'm assuming not.

 

[MIDutch]

Well, I've been lectured by enough people to know that evolution is pretty much what the "experts" decide it is. What was taught as evolution, as fact, not so long ago, is different now.

This is, of course, a falsehood. Evolution is what the EVIDENCE says it is. Evolution happens in reality and new evidence is being discovered on a daily basis. What may be different now compared to "not so long ago" is human understanding of that evidence, it's scientific implications, and how it fits into the overall picture of life on the planet Earth over time.

Heck, even your own religion is different now than what was taught as "fact" not so long ago. Does that mean you are willing to admit that it is as invalid as you think the Theory of Evolution is?

 

[MIDutch]

Have you ever considered that your world view is entirely wrong? After all, several billion people are not agnostic.

Correct. Most of them are Buddhist, Hindu, Daoist, Shinto, Sikh, Jewish, Roman Catholic, Mainstream Protestant, Muslim, Wicca, etc.. The vast majority of whom do not have a problem with the fact of evolution or the Theory of Evolution that explains it in terms we humans can understand.

MOST of the people on Earth don't have a problem having a world view that includes both religious faith and science.

 

[pitabread]

The oscillator experiment was specifically configured- pre-adapted with a built in fitness function, a specific intended goal, to try to amplify a signal, which it of course did- from surrounding interference

I understand that the way this happened was not clearly predicted or understood, and it is an interesting experiment compared with mere computer sims that claim to model evolution- but of course there was an enormous amount of constraint of the design towards achieving this specific intended result

The fact that it's an experiment with a defined goal isn't relevant.

I was simply making a point that your original claim about a radio always limited to being a radio isn't necessarily true.

In this particular case, you have an experiment designed to evolve a self-oscillating circuit. And the circuit is in fact capable of such. However, the best signal output resulted from the circuit "cheating" and co-opting part of the circuit path to use as a make-shift antenna.

This speaks to a couple things:

1) That constituent parts can serve different or multiple functions depending on the nature of the arrangement of the parts.

2) The intrinsic constraints we project onto objects may not be reflective of such constraints in reality.

Both of these points are equally relevant to evolutionary biology.

 

[MIDutch]

Programming is not a bad background for analysing genetic systems. I know from experience that the slightest error will likely cause a program to crash. I've never yet seen an error in a program make it work better.

Bummer for you then that you're likely to crash soon since you have, per average, 60 mutations in your genome that your parents didn't have. You do know what mutations are, don't you? They're errors. Errors that occurred when your parents genomes were replicating to form your "program". Most of these mutations were neutral, meaning they didn't harm or help you biologically, a few may have been deleterious, and a very rare one may have been beneficial.

So, since you "know from experience that the slightest error will likely cause a program to crash", let us know how your program is crashing. Does it freeze up? Is it incompatible with certain peripherals? Have you experienced any "blue screens of death"?

 

[MIDutch]

I understand the claims of evolution. My response is exactly the same. It's not feasible. There is a perfectly satisfactory alternative.

Really? What "satisfactory alternative" would that be?

If you have one that is scientifically valid the world would love to see it. You'll be world famous and, in all likelihood, very very rich.

 

[pitabread]

I understand the claims of evolution. My response is exactly the same. It's not feasible. There is a perfectly satisfactory alternative.

There isn't a satisfactory alternative, at least when it comes to equivalent explanatory power and application.

We previously went over this and you basically admitted as much.

 

[Larniavc]

Really? What "satisfactory alternative" would that be?

Goddidit.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The fact that it's an experiment with a defined goal isn't relevant.

I was simply making a point that your original claim about a radio always limited to being a radio isn't necessarily true.

In this particular case, you have an experiment designed to evolve a self-oscillating circuit. And the circuit is in fact capable of such. However, the best signal output resulted from the circuit "cheating" and co-opting part of the circuit path to use as a make-shift antenna.

This speaks to a couple things:

1) That constituent parts can serve different or multiple functions depending on the nature of the arrangement of the parts.

2) The intrinsic constraints we project onto objects may not be reflective of such constraints in reality.

Both of these points are equally relevant to evolutionary biology.

'However, the best signal output resulted from the circuit "cheating" and co-opting part of the circuit path to use as a make-shift antenna.'

Come on Pita, plug any basic analog amp into some speakers and crank it up- hear that buzz?

congratulations!! you just demonstrated the feasibility of Darwinian evolution ...

Of course the amp picked up stray EMI noise- that's actually quite difficult to avoid- see Dolby

In real world audio engineering this is not a 'scientific breakthrough' but a common annoyance- especially before digital signal processing.

If anything this is a great example of how academic science can lag so far behind real world engineering.

A little similar to how generations of farmers already empirically demonstrated limits of variation, long before Darwin and other academics 'theorized' that there were none

 

[Subduction Zone]

'However, the best signal output resulted from the circuit "cheating" and co-opting part of the circuit path to use as a make-shift antenna.'

Come on Pita, plug any basic analog amp into some speakers and crank it up- hear that buzz?

congratulations!! you just demonstrated the feasibility of Darwinian evolution ...

Of course the amp picked up stray EMI noise- that's actually quite difficult to avoid- see Dolby

In real world audio engineering this is not a 'scientific breakthrough' but a common annoyance- especially before digital signal processing.

If anything this is a great example of how academic science can lag so far behind real world engineering.

A little similar to how generations of farmers already empirically demonstrated limits of variation, long before Darwin and other academics 'theorized' that there were none

Too bad that you have no idea of the science that you deny. Failed analogies only underscore the fact that you have no understanding.

And engineering by its very nature must lag science. Now your understanding of both engineering and science has been shown to be deficient. Engineering is merely applied science. Engineering cannot use science that has not been discovered yet.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Too bad that you have no idea of the science that you deny. Failed analogies only underscore the fact that you have no understanding.

And engineering by its very nature must lag science. Now your understanding of both engineering and science has been shown to be deficient. .

Sticks and stones

Actually I studied audio engineering in college- though you don't have to to understand the mechanisms in operation here. This ain't rocket surgery as they say! And this is not an analogy- if you read the article, this is by their own definition an electronic amplifier, which will by it's nature receive EMI where present- from the PCs in their lab in this case

"Too bad that you have no idea of the science that you deny"

'Let him without sin cast the first stone'

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sticks and stones

Actually I studied audio engineering in college- though you don't have to to understand the mechanisms in operation here. This ain't rocket surgery as they say! And this is not an analogy- if you read the article, this is by their own definition an electronic amplifier, which will by it's nature receive EMI where present- from the PCs in their lab in this case



'Let him without sin cast the first stone'

Studying it is one thing. Understanding it is another. One can apply engineering without really understanding it. And your posts indicate that is the case.

Do you understand that there is no scientific evidence for creationism? Wait, let me correct that a bit. No creationist here (or on any other forum that I have been on) can show any scientific evidence for creationism. Do you understand that there are mountains of scientific evidence for evolution? These are easily demonstrable facts. I have had creationists confirm countless times that they have no scientific evidence for creationism. So why would you believe an idea that all of the reliable evidence refutes? All you have are failed analogies that are based upon a lack of understanding of evolution.

We could always discuss the basics of science and evidence so that you could debate better. I am betting that you do not want to learn the basics because an understanding of the basics refutes creationism.

 

[pitabread]

'However, the best signal output resulted from the circuit "cheating" and co-opting part of the circuit path to use as a make-shift antenna.'

Come on Pita, plug any basic analog amp into some speakers and crank it up- hear that buzz?

congratulations!! you just demonstrated the feasibility of Darwinian evolution ...

Of course the amp picked up stray EMI noise- that's actually quite difficult to avoid- see Dolby

In real world audio engineering this is not a 'scientific breakthrough' but a common annoyance- especially before digital signal processing.

If anything this is a great example of how academic science can lag so far behind real world engineering.

A little similar to how generations of farmers already empirically demonstrated limits of variation, long before Darwin and other academics 'theorized' that there were none

None of this addresses my point in the context of your original claim about a radio always being a radio.

 

[Kylie]

I will only respond to one of your points.
Do-While Jones is David R. Pogge. Not exactly your average electrical engineer. He redesigned the air to air missiles (AIM-9) used by the USAF in the Vietnam war. The original design had a very poor strike rate. He fixed the problem. He's written books on ADA programming.

Mr Pogge has a great deal of experience with closed loop systesm, such as the temperature control that mammals require. He knows how difficult it is to get it right. Programming is not a bad background for analysing genetic systems. I know from experience that the slightest error will likely cause a program to crash. I've never yet seen an error in a program make it work better.

I understand the claims of evolution. My response is exactly the same. It's not feasible. There is a perfectly satisfactory alternative. I accept the alternative. When a chimp at the zoo taps me on the shoulder and asks, "Am I my keeper's brother?", I will rethink my position. I'm not holding my breath.

Irrelevant. He has no education in biology, does he? I don't care if he's got lots of experience with the closed loop system and that mammals have something similar. So what? Plumbers have lots of experience with making sure liquid can flow through tubes, but that doesn't give them any skill when it comes to the circulatory system, does it?

And since you are incapable of responding to any of the other points, I'll assume that you have conceded them to me.

 

[Aussie Pete]

A guy who knows about air-to-air missile system programming is automatically an expert on evolution? Seriously? Would you accept a biologist telling you how to improve laser guided missile targeting because he knows about blood coagulation?

You don't need to be an expert on biology to disbelieve evolution. A biological closed loop system has to meet the same requirements as an electro-mechanical system., but in a far more difficult and demanding environment than most. A biologist starts with an assumption that it must have evolved because that's what he's been told. Like many subjects, the initial view seems plausible. Evolution has the advantage that any alternative is not taught. It is also career ending for a life sciences worker to say that they disbelieve evolution. More objective observers can see the flaws.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Irrelevant. He has no education in biology, does he? I don't care if he's got lots of experience with the closed loop system and that mammals have something similar. So what? Plumbers have lots of experience with making sure liquid can flow through tubes, but that doesn't give them any skill when it comes to the circulatory system, does it?

And since you are incapable of responding to any of the other points, I'll assume that you have conceded them to me.

Plumbers can understand circulatory systems, especially if it's in the industrial realm. No, they don't repair them. But biologists are not necessarily surgeons either.

Assume what you like. I don't have time to answer every response I've got to my posts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't need to be an expert on biology to disbelieve evolution. A biological closed loop system has to meet the same requirements as an electro-mechanical system., but in a far more difficult and demanding environment than most. A biologist starts with an assumption that it must have evolved because that's what he's been told. Like many subjects, the initial view seems plausible. Evolution has the advantage that any alternative is not taught. It is also career ending for a life sciences worker to say that they disbelieve evolution. More objective observers can see the flaws.

Of course one does not need to be an expert in biology to disbelieve biology. The problem is that that belief would be irrational And if one is not an expert in biology any argument presented against it is almost certainly wrong.

And it is not that no alternative is not taught. That would be a false claim. No reasonable alternative exists. There is no scientific evidence for alternatives. What are they supposed to teach? Pixies did it is just as viable as creationism. If they teach creationism then by the same "logic" they should teach that pixies did it.