Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

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

  • #76
    Barbarian observes:
    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.


    Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
    That you cannot see how utterly stupid your statement there is is a testament to your vain ideas.
    If you'd think it over, you'd realize why you can't do anything but bleat out insults. You're at the end of your rope, because you don't have any idea what this is about. As I said earlier, if you'd learn a little about the subject, you'd be a lot more efficient at fighting evolution.

    Worth a try?
    This message is hidden because ...

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
      Barbarian observes:
      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.
      Hilarious.... BTW, I'm a computer engineer.
      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


      • #78
        Barbarian observes:
        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.


        Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
        Hilarious.... BTW, I'm a computer engineer.
        Hmmm...seems unlikely, since genetic algorithms are not a new issue in computer science.

        Genetic Algorithms and their Use in the Design of Evolvable Hardware.
        Abhishek Joglekar,
        April, 2000.
        Abstract
        Genetic Algorithms are an important area of Evolutionary Computing, which is a rapidly growing area of Artificial Intelligence. They are a class of algorithms which mimic the natural process of Evolution and Darwin’s principle of Survival of the Fittest – in this case, it refers to the acceptance of the best solution,generated from previous solutions by the use of genetic operators such as crossover and mutation. The next section takes a more detailed look at the background of GAs and outlines the basic concepts in its computer model. Genetic Algorithm as in the case of Darwinian model of evolution relies heavily on random experiments of reproduction. From where does this apparently simple model of problem-solvingderive its power? This has been a topic of intense research work, covered in the next section. Section3 of this paper discusses design of evolvable hardware (EHW), which is a promising approach towards autonomous and on-line reconfigurable machines capable of adapting to real-world problems.

        https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f66...e9474a10a5.pdf

        Electronic Circuit Automatic Design Based on Genetic Algorithms
        Xuesong Yan Wei Li Yuzhen Zhang Huihui Zhang Jianfei Wu
        https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...56X?via%3Dihub

        Designing digital circuits for FPGAs using parallel genetic algorithms
        https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1118155

        Automated Analog Circuit Design Using Genetic Algorithms
        http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~kphang/...1/navid_GA.pdf
        This message is hidden because ...

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
          Barbarian observes:


          Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
          Hmmm...seems unlikely, since genetic algorithms are not a new issue in computer science.
          Ah, calling me a liar now.... welcome back to my ignore list you lying evolutionist patsy.
          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


          • #80
            (Claims to be computer engineer)

            Barbarian observes:
            Hmmm...seems unlikely, since genetic algorithms are not a new issue in computer science.

            Genetic Algorithms and their Use in the Design of Evolvable Hardware.
            Abhishek Joglekar,
            April, 2000.
            Abstract
            Genetic Algorithms are an important area of Evolutionary Computing, which is a rapidly growing area of Artificial Intelligence. They are a class of algorithms which mimic the natural process of Evolution and Darwin’s principle of Survival of the Fittest – in this case, it refers to the acceptance of the best solution,generated from previous solutions by the use of genetic operators such as crossover and mutation. The next section takes a more detailed look at the background of GAs and outlines the basic concepts in its computer model. Genetic Algorithm as in the case of Darwinian model of evolution relies heavily on random experiments of reproduction. From where does this apparently simple model of problem-solvingderive its power? This has been a topic of intense research work, covered in the next section. Section3 of this paper discusses design of evolvable hardware (EHW), which is a promising approach towards autonomous and on-line reconfigurable machines capable of adapting to real-world problems.
            https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f66...e9474a10a5.pdf

            Electronic Circuit Automatic Design Based on Genetic Algorithms
            Xuesong Yan Wei Li Yuzhen Zhang Huihui Zhang Jianfei Wu
            https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...56X?via%3Dihub

            Designing digital circuits for FPGAs using parallel genetic algorithms
            https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1118155

            Automated Analog Circuit Design Using Genetic Algorithms
            http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~kphang/...1/navid_GA.pdf


            [QUOTE=Right Divider;5344028]


            Ah, calling me a liar now....
            Nope. Just pointing out it's very odd that a computer engineer wouldn't know about those things.

            welcome back to my ignore list you lying evolutionist patsy.
            You had pretty much given up on making any kind of cogent argument, anyway.
            This message is hidden because ...

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
              It's very odd that a computer engineer wouldn't know about those things.
              Nope. It's perhaps understandable that a non-engineer would think that programming is analogous to Darwinism.

              With you, it's just dishonesty, as you've had this explained to you numerous times.

              Evolution is the idea that random changes to the "source code" are naturally selected to generate today's biodiversity from a universal common ancestor.

              Correctly applying your stupid analogy is to say that the engineer writes his code and allows random changes to it. He doesn't. He writes his code to constrain a particular set of data and iterate through it, testing each instance against a desired outcome.

              Random changes can never improve that overarching code.

              You understand neither computer programming, nor evolution.
              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


              • #82
                Originally posted by Stripe View Post

                Darwinists are generally idiots. You're a dishonest troll. And possibly going senile.
                Calling people "Darwinists" isn't especially bright. Barb is far from a troll as he doesn't indulge in puerile insults nor juvenile emoticons but rather addresses the subject matter in detail, something that really seems to wind you and others up to distraction.

                Your last is just outright trolling and pathetic, so it's little wonder that it gets a thumbs up from some.
                Well this is fun isn't it?

                Comment


                • #83
                  Huh... Don't know what happened to my post. In any event, the best common descentists can come up with as far as computer programs that mimic common descent is a program called Eve last I checked. And it failed miserably to simulate the principles of common descent. Or rather, it succeeded spectacularly to show that common descent was not possible under the conditions set by the program. I don't think there have been many new developments since then. I think they can't even speculate on solutions to the problems they ran into.

                  As far as genetic algorithms are concerned, they aren't made to simulate common descent. They create an environment where there will always be a winner that is better than the previous iteration nearly every iteration. Then the previous iterations are discarded as needed. But this isn't what common descent has to deal with in reality.
                  Good things come to those who shoot straight.

                  Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    It's too bad Barbarian cannot discuss a topic. He sees a topic, spits out canned response, and ignores the many good points made by other people. It appears his pride has only grown in the years he's been posting.

                    When Stripe talks about entropy, a subject that isn't only about heat, Barbarian spits out a canned response that ignores the point. It's the same with information.

                    And the ironic thing is that common descent also fails due to thermodynamics and Shannon information. But one could never hope to discuss the topic with Barbarian because he's an NPC.
                    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

                    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Yorzhik View Post
                      Huh... Don't know what happened to my post. In any event, the best common descentists can come up with as far as computer programs that mimic common descent is a program called Eve last I checked.
                      Ironically, the genetic finding that we are all descended from one woman was done by computer modeling.
                      This message is hidden because ...

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        ...something that really seems to wind you and others up to distraction.
                        I don't do it to make the trolls agitated. And lately, I see so much less of it here...
                        This message is hidden because ...

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                          I don't do it to make the trolls agitated. And lately, I see so much less of it here...
                          Meanwhile, there was the beginnings of a decent conversation on offer.

                          It's a pity that the Darwinists can't engage sensibly.
                          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


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Yorzhik View Post
                            When Stripe talks about entropy, a subject that isn't only about heat, Barbarian spits out a canned response that ignores the point.
                            The point was that he had confused "entropy" and "thermodynamics." And yes, entropy is about heat just as "evolution" is about a change in allele frequency in a population over time. But both terms are used in other fields.

                            So the equivocation is about information about a random variable, given the knowledge of another random variable.

                            It's the same with information.
                            Where creationists generally crash and burn when they begin talking about "information" is in the equivocation, which few of them can understand. Specifically, they are unable to show that any process required for biological evolution is ruled out by anything in information theory.

                            Generally, it's "well, you know, things get more disordered over time." But of course they often don't, which when mentioned usually results in a creationist hissy.

                            And the ironic thing is that common descent also fails due to thermodynamics and Shannon information.
                            So which process, required for evolution is ruled out by thermodynamics? Show your math.

                            Which process, required for evolution is ruled out by Shannon information? Show your math.

                            Usually, the creationist gets very, very vague, but maybe you won't. Let's see what you have.

                            But one could never hope to discuss the topic with Barbarian because he's an NPC.
                            Well, just for everyone else,how about supporting your claims? This should be interesting.
                            This message is hidden because ...

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                              The point was that he had confused "entropy" and "thermodynamics."
                              Nope.

                              Entropy is a wider topic than just heat flow.

                              Pays to learn things before engaging in a subject, otherwise you just get embarrassed.

                              Entropy is about heat.
                              Nope. You've even admitted such. "[It is] used in other fields." That's a bingo!



                              Must be senility.

                              "Evolution" is about a change in allele frequency in a population over time.
                              Nope.

                              Evolution is the idea that all living things are descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection.

                              Calling it "change" is the Darwinist's way of defining the debate out of existence.

                              So the equivocation is about information about a random variable, given the knowledge of another random variable.


                              "English, dude. English."

                              Darwinists crash and burn when they begin equivocating over "information," which none of them can understand. Specifically, they are unable to respect that the term has been defined and used in a way they do not like.

                              Let's see what you have.
                              There has already been a challenge issued. Guaranteed you will be just as dissembling and dishonest with a rabbit trail as with that.

                              One could never hope to discuss the topic with Barbarian, because he's a troll.
                              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


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                                The point was that he had confused "entropy" and "thermodynamics." And yes, entropy is about heat just as "evolution" is about a change in allele frequency in a population over time. But both terms are used in other fields.

                                So the equivocation is about information about a random variable, given the knowledge of another random variable.



                                Where creationists generally crash and burn when they begin talking about "information" is in the equivocation, which few of them can understand. Specifically, they are unable to show that any process required for biological evolution is ruled out by anything in information theory.

                                Generally, it's "well, you know, things get more disordered over time." But of course they often don't, which when mentioned usually results in a creationist hissy.



                                So which process, required for evolution is ruled out by thermodynamics? Show your math.

                                Which process, required for evolution is ruled out by Shannon information? Show your math.

                                Usually, the creationist gets very, very vague, but maybe you won't. Let's see what you have.



                                Well, just for everyone else,how about supporting your claims? This should be interesting.
                                Stripe has already answered you repeatedly on these topics, but your best response has been NPC answers to other people.
                                https://youtu.be/Me_ORZVm7w4
                                Good things come to those who shoot straight.

                                Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X