@Quim, are you an evolutionary biologist?
1 Like
complexity grows spontaneously
2 Likes
Your unevidenced claims didnât seem to have any relevance to my post youâve quoted?
Wow, you actually do believe you know better than the entire scientific world, thatâs frankly astonishing. I shall stick with science thanks.
No it isnât, it is an example of someone preferring their unevidenced superstition, over scientific facts, and I donât think myth means what you think it meansâŚ
noun
- a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
That doesnât describe any part of the methods of science, it does describe religions though.
Even if he were, denying established scientific theories that have been accepted globally for over 164 years speaks for itself.
1 Like
No, I used it for optimizing designs.
Not in a functionally organized manner. If you donât believe me, try creating your own simulation and test your understanding of evolution to determine its effectiveness.
I donât know what a functionally organized manner is in this context. It sounds like weasel words. I do know that complexity grows naturally (without intelligent intervention). You can take that to the bank. For example: black holes generate enormous amounts of complexity.
2 Likes
Ah, no. There are other scientists who also believe that our current model is incomplete. I have arrived at the same conclusion from a practical viewpoint.
Then I do not accept that you have the requisite knowledge and expertise for me to consider your tests and their results for this reliable.
What is the dimension of this effectiveness that you are suggesting I measure (or calculate)?
1 Like
Make up your mind, which is it?
I could care less what individuals believe based on their unevidenced subjective superstitious beliefs, as that is not how the methods of science work.
I see the in tray is full again ⌠letâs take a look at this shall we?
BARE FACED LIE.
If you think the vast quantity of experimental data documented in several million peer reviewed scientific papers is âlimited experimental supportâ, then you need to learn some basic facts.
Meanwhile, letâs take a look at the rest of this drivel, shall we?
Oh look, two pieces of apologetic duplicity in the one phrase!
First, thereâs the resurrection of the âonly a theoryâ canard creationists love so much, namely Canard #7 in my grand list of creationist canards. Iâll remind you once again why this is a canard, viz:
In the realm of science, a theory is an integrated explanation for a class of real world observational phenomena of interest, that has been subjected to direct empirical test with respect to its correspondence with observational reality, and which has been found, via such testing, to be in accord with observational reality. It is precisely because scientific theories have been subject to direct empirical test, and have passed said empirical test, that they ARE theories, and consequently enjoy a high status in the world of scientific discourse.
As a corollary, a scientific theory is as far removed from âmade up shit guessâ as itâs possible to be, outside the realm of pure mathematics.
The hypocrisy and double standard youâre deploying here truly constitutes a galactic level of chuztpah. How many times have you been presented with peer reviewed scientific papers, documenting in detail experimental evidence supporting relevant postulates, only for you to dismiss them summarily on entirely specious apologetic grounds? While demanding that the rest of us treat your blind assertions as purportely constituting fact, including risible assertions to the effect that a whole host of irrelevant tinsel purportedly constititues âevidenceâ for your imaginary and merely asserted cartoon magic man?
One, those theories arenât âsubjectiveâ, this is another bare faced lie on your part. Two, youâve been presented with dozens of scientific papers documenting the very experimental evidence you assert above is purportedly âmissingâ, only for you to play dishonest apologetics with the science.
Stop lying.
A concept you not only donât understand, but canât even spell correctly.
When we have a large body of experimental evidence supporting the relevant postulates, weâre not dealing with argumentum ad populum. Learn this basic lesson quickly, to spare yourself much embarrassment before a global public audience.
Meanhile, Iâll entertain this tangential diversion âŚ
Oh really? Do you have peer reviewed publications to back up this assertion?
Only inquiring minds really want to know more about this.
The DATA says otherwise. Have you actually READ any of the relevant peer reviewed scientific papers from the evolutionary biology literature?
Evolutionary biologists have already done this.
1 Like
@WhoAreYou
PROPER credit for quotes - plagarizing
2 Likes
That article (written before I was born by a minister) claims that Paul (who wrote in Greek) hadnât heard of Hercules. That smells like total bullshit to me. Got anything written this century by a historian?
3 Likes
Well fuck, your in for it now Mr. Who are you.
I donât even need to read the next sentence to know you just stepped in a can of whipass.
Well, off the bat, you are called on the carpet for not knowing what the fuck a scientific theory is. Explanations are âTheoretical?â You didnât really say that did you? You were making a joke right? I knew you were going to get your ass chewed.
Objective evidence vs subjective theories? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ! Oh fuck! I just face palmed my head so hard I am bleeding brain out my ass. You donât have a fucking clue what you are talking about do you?
- Studies suggest that random mutations that individually have no effect on an organism can fuel the emergence of complexity in a process known as constructive neutral evolution. (Things donât even need natural selection to evolve.)
This is in addition to a gradual evolutionary process. First Law , McShea and Brandon. A thing need not evolve all at once. Different body parts (segments, organs or bone-structures) can evolve individually and independently into more complex features. Things need not evolve or change all at once. Change happens over time.
Biologyâs First Law: The Tendency for Diversity and Complexity to Increase in Evolutionary Systems. Daniel W. McShea and Robert N. Brandon. University of Chicago Press, 2010.
How a Neutral Evolutionary Ratchet Can Build Cellular Complexity. Julius LukeĹĄ et al. in IUBMB Life, Vol. 63, No. 7, pages 528-537; July 2011.
You are so far out of your depth itâs silly.
Reference, Thank you.
Unevidenced superstition is hardly a solid basis to challenge scientific rigour, people who think it is, donât understand either.
I donât think itâs the first time Iâve seen this. Anyway, I will take a fresh look. At first glance, I can tell you that this doesnât demonstrate the emergence of complexity; The difference is that complexity requires the emergence of new, complex functions through mutations. However, these simulations merely repeat and accumulate simple functionalities that arise from mutations, never reaching the level of organization necessary for a new functionality to emerge. Instead of creating a new complex entity, they only produce an amorphous mass of pre-existing entities.
Whatâs even worse is that if you introduce a functionally complex being into these simulations, it degenerates into a similar amorphous state. This demonstrates that the problem lies not in the computational power or time, but in the principles underlying the simulation itself. This critical issue is often overlooked when dealing with these programs.
Allow me to clarify this using different terms. You are assuming that a seashell can emerge spontaneously through certain natural forces. However, the simulation you presented merely creates a pile of sand with great difficulty. In reality, our world contains numerous sand piles and mountains, but none of the processes involved in their formation will ever produce a seashell. This is because the creation of a seashell requires additional processes that you have not mentioned.
If this is the strongest evidence you have for evolution as you understand it, then we have a serious problem. As I have mentioned before, you may believe that you understand evolution, but that is actually a misconception. In reality, you do not comprehend it.
whereâs the popcorn stand?..theyâll be working overtime, I am settled into my BattleBull, my wine rack to hand. Captain Cat has already called Uber Eats for two extra large portions of sashimi quality tuna with a side of shrimp flavored turkey thighâŚits going to be a loong entertaining night I thinkâŚ
Edit: Fun is watching quality dismembermentâŚ
1 Like
Yeah, well⌠itâs not the first time Iâve spoken about this. I know itâs a painful process that will end up with me presenting tens of peer-reviewed papers, clearly demonstrating how wrong you have been all this time.
So, please, letâs begin.
Sheldon,
Why would you discard the flood story if it passes step 3?
Wouldnât it make more sense that, compared to today, at a time where there was no technology to communicate and influence others, over large distances, with cultural separation, linguistic separation and oceanic separation, and without cancel culture that we can safely conclude argumentum ad populum fallacy is not the case when it comes to the flood story? Because at that point in time the same basic story was told independently of others. Please note that the details that overlap are eerily similar. I have spent time reading the oral and written accounta of flood storues in different parts of the world and even i was amazed by the similarities.