Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Barbarian observes:
    ...

    Sure. It's math, so proof is easy. Information is the Shannon entropy. It's related to the uncertainty of the message. The more uncertainty, the more information in the message.
    ...
    If you'd like to use different numbers, it still works. As you now realize, any new mutation increases information in a population genome.
    Maybe if you used a simple concrete example with letters or playing cards it would sink it. Though I have my doubts whether anything will convince these fine gentlemen.

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    This is a devastating problem for creationism, but it's a prediction of evolutionary theory.

    However, evolution does not require an increase in information. Often, a decrease in information results from evolution. Do you see why?
    They don't, and they won't. The problem here isn't the science or the math, or even the facts. There are two main issues here:
    1. These Creationists think that the Bible, that is God himself (in their viewpoint), said otherwise. So somehow, anyhow, Evolution is wrong wrong wrong.
    2. This is also part of a culture war. You think you are on the side of Knowledge and Light, and they are on the side of Ignorance and Dark. They think you are on the side of Evil, plain and simple. They are on the side of God. They can't allow even one tiny crack in their view of Evolution as Evil. They can't even admit outright that the fossil record shows that evolution actually happened, irrespective of the mechanism and the math.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by chair View Post
      Maybe if you used a simple concrete example with letters or playing cards it would sink it. Though I have my doubts whether anything will convince these fine gentlemen.
      You're not going to convince us of something we all understand.

      You can shuffle cards, calculate an "information" score, add more and calculate "greater information" all you like. That is not going to convince us that information can be improved by random changes.

      It never can.

      Confused? That's the point of equivocation. It's supposed to make the conversation as impenetrable as possible so that Darwinism — your precious religion — is protected at all costs.


      These Creationists think that the Bible, that is God himself (in their viewpoint), said otherwise. So somehow, anyhow, Evolution is wrong wrong wrong.
      And your religious leader is Darwin and nothing can contradict him.

      The solution is to discuss the ideas sensibly, without equivocation. We have clearly outlined what we mean by information. Stop insisting that we use your definition where it does not belong.

      Conversely, if you think we are misusing terms, suggest a better description of what we are talking about.

      This is also part of a culture war. You think you are on the side of Knowledge and Light, and they are on the side of Ignorance and Dark. They think you are on the side of Evil, plain and simple. They are on the side of God. They can't allow even one tiny crack in their view of Evolution as god. They can't even admit outright that the fossil record shows that the flood actually happened, irrespective of the mechanism and the math.
      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
      E≈mc2
      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
      -Bob B.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by chair View Post
        Maybe if you used a simple concrete example with letters or playing cards it would sink it. Though I have my doubts whether anything will convince these fine gentlemen.
        I wrote some code once to simulate random mutation and natural selection. It convinced almost no one who was already in the YE group.

        They don't, and they won't. The problem here isn't the science or the math, or even the facts. There are two main issues here:
        1. These Creationists think that the Bible, that is God himself (in their viewpoint), said otherwise. So somehow, anyhow, Evolution is wrong wrong wrong.
        Mark Twain summed up that process by writing "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

        2. This is also part of a culture war.
        Yep. And it's dying, but slowly. You see attempts by the culture warriors who realize that they've lost, to build enclaves to preserve their ideology:

        We've lost the culture war.

        I wish I could tell you otherwise and go happily along with the many Christians who still think we can recapture America, return to our moral and spiritual roots, and revitalize our wayward institutions. But I can't, and someone needs to tell you -- loudly and clearly. We are not going to reclaim the culture in America and return to the days of June and Ward Cleaver. We won't see a majority of the officials in legislative and judicial branches of our government go back to the original intent of America's founding fathers as reflected in the U.S. Constitution and other original documents. We are not going to witness prayer, Bible reading, and posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools again. There will be no drastic decline in divorce, sexually transmitted diseases, abortion, and homosexual "marriage."

        http://www.church-of-yehovah.org/culturewar.html

        He turned out to be wrong about the effects, mostly. Divorce is down (and highest among evangelicals) STDs are down. Abortion continues to decline. Homosexual marriage is now legal, though.

        You think you are on the side of Knowledge and Light, and they are on the side of Ignorance and Dark.
        I don't think of it that way. Yes, there are some creationists who have made their new doctrines into an idol and have abandoned His ways. But most have not. Creationists are generally good people, and those who are Christians, are generally decent Christians. Don't let the crazies lead you to think they are all like that. They generally aren't.

        They think you are on the side of Evil, plain and simple.
        Some do. Those who made an idol of man's revisions to Genesis have. But many, many more don't think of it that way. I taught in public schools for years and had lots of parents talk to me. Many were creationists, and I think I managed to allay their fears. Never had anyone complain about me. It was in the curriculum, and I had to teach it. My stand was that students had to know what scientists say about evolution, but they don't have to accept it. So they could write "I don't believe this is true." On any answer in a test, and there would be no penalty for it. (edit: so long as they knew what scientists say about it)

        Worked for everyone, apparently.

        They are on the side of God.
        Most are. They know that I am, too. We differ in something that God doesn't even care how we feel about it.

        They can't allow even one tiny crack in their view of Evolution as Evil.
        Those have made it into an idol.
        Last edited by The Barbarian; June 25th, 2019, 10:49 AM.
        This message is hidden because ...

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
          I wrote some code once to simulate random mutation and natural selection. It convinced almost no one who was already in the YE group.


          You are as blind as can be.
          All of my ancestors are human.
          Originally posted by Squeaky
          That explains why your an idiot.
          Originally posted by God's Truth
          Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
          Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
          (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

          1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
          (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

          Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Right Divider View Post


            You are as blind as can be.
            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
            E≈mc2
            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
            -Bob B.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
              I wrote some code once to simulate random mutation and natural selection.
              Why?

              Are they part of Darwinism?

              Mark Twain summed up that process by writing "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
              God said that faith is based on evidence.

              We know you hate it.

              Darwinism it's dying. You see attempts by the culture warriors who realize that they've lost to build enclaves to preserve their ideology.

              Abortion continues to decline.
              Wrong.

              Homosexual marriage.
              A contradiction in terms.

              Darwinists are generally idiots. You're a dishonest troll. And possibly going senile.

              Those who made an idol of man's revisions to Genesis have.
              Genesis: "Six days."
              Barbarian: "Billions of years."

              Genesis: "The whole Earth."
              Barbarian: "Turkey."

              I taught in public schools for years.
              It shows.

              You have made it into an idol.
              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
              E≈mc2
              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
              -Bob B.

              Comment


              • #67
                Barbarian observes:
                I wrote some code once to simulate random mutation and natural selection. It convinced almost no one who was already in the YE group.

                Originally posted by Right Divider View Post


                You are as blind as can be.
                Since then, there's been many, many engineers who have copied the same process to solve engineering problems that are too complex for design. Genetic algorithms are now widely used in engineering, copying nature as God created it. Turns out, evolutionary processes are more efficient than design for very complex systems.

                Instead, we are going to look at the core principles behind Darwinian evolutionary theory and develop a set of algorithms inspired by these principles. We don’t care so much about an accurate simulation of evolution; rather, we care about methods for applying evolutionary strategies in software.
                ...
                The term “genetic algorithm” refers to a specific algorithm implemented in a specific way to solve specific sorts of problems. While the formal genetic algorithm itself will serve as the foundation for the examples we create in this chapter, we needn’t worry about implementing the algorithm with perfect accuracy, given that we are looking for creative uses of evolutionary theories in our code. This chapter will be broken down into the following three parts (with the majority of the time spent on the first).

                Traditional Genetic Algorithm. We’ll begin with the traditional computer science genetic algorithm. This algorithm was developed to solve problems in which the solution space is so vast that a “brute force” algorithm would simply take too long. Here’s an example: I’m thinking of a number. A number between one and one billion. How long will it take for you to guess it? Solving a problem with “brute force” refers to the process of checking every possible solution. Is it one? Is it two? Is it three? Is it four? And so and and so forth. Though luck does play a factor here, with brute force we would often find ourselves patiently waiting for years while you count to one billion. However, what if I could tell you if an answer you gave was good or bad? Warm or cold? Very warm? Hot? Super, super cold? If you could evaluate how “fit” a guess is, you could pick other numbers closer to that guess and arrive at the answer more quickly. Your answer could evolve.

                Interactive Selection. Once we establish the traditional computer science algorithm, we’ll look at other applications of genetic algorithms in the visual arts. Interactive selection refers to the process of evolving something (often an computer-generated image) through user interaction. Let’s say you walk into a museum gallery and see ten paintings. With interactive selection, you would pick your favorites and allow an algorithmic process to generate (or “evolve”) new paintings based on your preferences.

                Ecosystem Simulation. The traditional computer science genetic algorithm and interactive selection technique are what you will likely find if you search online or read a textbook about artificial intelligence. But as we’ll soon see, they don’t really simulate the process of evolution as it happens in the real world. In this chapter, I want to also explore techniques for simulating the process of evolution in an ecosystem of pseudo-living beings. How can our objects that move about the screen meet each other, mate, and pass their genes on to a new generation? This would apply directly to the Ecosystem Project outlined at the end of each chapter.

                https://natureofcode.com/book/chapte...ution-of-code/

                Turns out, God knew best, after all. You might want to read about it. You'll be a more effective creationist, if you're aware of these things.
                This message is hidden because ...

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                  Why?

                  Are they part of Darwinism?
                  Fallacious reasoning is one of their favorite tools.
                  All of my ancestors are human.
                  Originally posted by Squeaky
                  That explains why your an idiot.
                  Originally posted by God's Truth
                  Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                  Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                  (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                  1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                  (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                  Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                    Since then, there's been many, many engineers who have copied the same process to solve engineering problems that are too complex for design. Genetic algorithms are now widely used in engineering, copying nature as God created it. Turns out, evolutionary processes are more efficient than design for very complex systems.
                    That is one of the dumbest things ever posted on TOL.
                    All of my ancestors are human.
                    Originally posted by Squeaky
                    That explains why your an idiot.
                    Originally posted by God's Truth
                    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                      Barbarian observes:
                      It's a pity he won't think.
                      There's been many, many engineers who have copied the same process to solve engineering problems that are too complex for design.
                      Nope.

                      They do not give away design when they employ trial-and-error processes.

                      That you think computer programming is a valid analogy for Darwinism shows you don't understand either.

                      Turns out, evolutionary processes are more efficient than design for very complex systems.
                      Nope. The code thrown at the problem is extremely complex. Designed.

                      Turns out, you will do anything to avoid a sensible conversation.

                      You might want to read about what is being discussed. You'll be a more interesting contributor if you're aware of these things.
                      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                      E≈mc2
                      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                      -Bob B.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        YEC: "We've carefully defined what we mean by information. Hint, it's not Shannon."

                        Darwinist: "Shannon."
                        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                        E≈mc2
                        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                        -Bob B.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          YEC: "The challenge is from entropy, not thermodynamics."

                          Darwinist: "Thermodynamics."
                          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                          E≈mc2
                          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                          -Bob B.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Darwinist: "Evolution is change."

                            Also the Darwinist: "I programmed a computer to do random mutations and natural selection."
                            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                            E≈mc2
                            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                            -Bob B.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Barbarian observes:
                              Since then, there's been many, many engineers who have copied the same process to solve engineering problems that are too complex for design. Genetic algorithms are now widely used in engineering, copying nature as God created it. Turns out, evolutionary processes are more efficient than design for very complex systems.

                              Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                              That is one of the dumbest things ever posted on TOL.
                              It's just a fact. Engineers are pragmatic people. If evolution didn't work, they wouldn't use it, regardless of who wanted them to use it. It works, so they use it regardless of anyone's objections.

                              It's the way this world works. If you have objections, take it to the One who made it.
                              This message is hidden because ...

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                                Barbarian observes:
                                Since then, there's been many, many engineers who have copied the same process to solve engineering problems that are too complex for design. Genetic algorithms are now widely used in engineering, copying nature as God created it. Turns out, evolutionary processes are more efficient than design for very complex systems.
                                That you cannot see how utterly stupid your statement there is is a testament to your vain ideas.
                                All of my ancestors are human.
                                Originally posted by Squeaky
                                That explains why your an idiot.
                                Originally posted by God's Truth
                                Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                                Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                                (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                                1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                                (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                                Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X