It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I no longer believe in Evolution as currently being used

page: 25
8
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Prezbo369
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 




This entire line of reasoning used by the proponents of abiogenesis is completely irrational.


Irrational is continuing to confuse abiogenisis (the origins of life) with evolution (the diversity of life) over and over again despite it being pointed out to you numerous times...



When I refer abiogenesis, I am referring to the development of all life from a single cell- "a universal common ancestor" Charles Darwin

And since you seem to be the next one in line to repeat the same tired circular arguments over and over again, let me remind you of what is at issue.
I have said repeatedly that evolution happens.
Gregor Mendel proved this beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Things evolve, but what I doubt and what is a totally separate entity, is the modern theory of abiogenesis proposed by Charles Darwin in his book On the Origin of Species.
No matter how hard you guys try to disconnect yourself from Darwin and the essence of his theory, a linear progression of life ascending from one single cell to the multi-cellular-impossibly-complex-predator-top-of-the-food-chain that we have today is what y'all are preaching.

Let it go.

I am not confusing a single thing. You are trying to frame my argument incorrectly, but it is an obvious act of desperation.

You can attack me personally. You can attack the OP personally, but when it's all said and done, the collective of proponents of Darwinian evolution in this thread have all been thoroughly debunked.




posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   

kyviecaldges
reply to post by peter vlar
 



the problem here is that you fail to see how a mutation in a creature may be beneficial in one environment yet detrimental in another. The Kit Fox and the Arctic Fox are genetically identical yet are adapted to very different environments. If forced to switch places neither would survive long in the others natural habitat making the once beneficial mutation a detriment to their survival. Nature doesn't care about algorithms, nature cares about surviving.


And I thought about having Chinese take out for lunch.

What does that have to do with anything?
And don't respond with 'if you can't figure it out then I won't explain it' B.S.
We are talking about random stuff man. Your argument does nothing to support anything.

You are right that nature doesn't care about recursive algorithms, but (insert random mainstream evolutionary biologist here) qualifies the validity of abiogenesis using recursive algorithms.

Random, random, random, random, random, random.....
I hope that you see the irony in that last sentence.


I'm not an expert when it comes to computers so i did some digging. Turns out recursive algorithms aren't quite the nail in the coffin you claim.

Bottom line is that recursive algorithms just cant handle complex biological systems. It's our computers that are the problem and not evolution. After a search on google it seems to be a commonly accepted fact that super recursive computers are required to accurately process any complex biological system, ie a "better than a turing machine" computer that can handle input and output processes.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   

kyviecaldges

Prezbo369
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 




This entire line of reasoning used by the proponents of abiogenesis is completely irrational.


Irrational is continuing to confuse abiogenisis (the origins of life) with evolution (the diversity of life) over and over again despite it being pointed out to you numerous times...



When I refer abiogenesis, I am referring to the development of all life from a single cell- "a universal common ancestor" Charles Darwin

And since you seem to be the next one in line to repeat the same tired circular arguments over and over again, let me remind you of what is at issue.
I have said repeatedly that evolution happens.
Gregor Mendel proved this beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Things evolve, but what I doubt and what is a totally separate entity, is the modern theory of abiogenesis proposed by Charles Darwin in his book On the Origin of Species.
No matter how hard you guys try to disconnect yourself from Darwin and the essence of his theory, a linear progression of life ascending from one single cell to the multi-cellular-impossibly-complex-predator-top-of-the-food-chain that we have today is what y'all are preaching.

Let it go.

I am not confusing a single thing. You are trying to frame my argument incorrectly, but it is an obvious act of desperation.

You can attack me personally. You can attack the OP personally, but when it's all said and done, the collective of proponents of Darwinian evolution in this thread have all been thoroughly debunked.


Thoroughly debunked? I dont think so.

Abiogenesis and evolution are two different things altogether.

Darwin didn't propose abiogenesis. The concept was around a long time before be was on the scene.

Oh and btw, Darwin pondered a few problems with his theory, the evolution of the complex eye being one of them. Just because he had a problem with it doesn't prove anything (like irreducible complexity).
edit on 2-12-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   

SuperFrog


Evolution is one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. Armed with the knowledge of the interconnectedness of all life on earth, biologists have made startling discoveries. There is so much evidence in favor of evolution, that arguing against it is like denying that there is a moon in the sky. Yet people do still actively deny evolution occurs. Speciation, the formation of a new species from an ancestor species, takes a very long time yet there are evolutionary steps which can be observed. Here are eight examples, amongst many, of evolution in action.


8 Examples of Evolution in Action


Do you not freaking realize that you just totally invalidated the idea of punctuated equilibrium.


Speciation, the formation of a new species from an ancestor species, takes a very long time yet there are evolutionary steps which can be observed.


Speciation also happens through adaptive radiation, which happens incredible fast in terms of the modern theory of abiogenesis.

Adaptive radiation is rapid evolutionary radiation. It is an increase in the number and diversity of species in each lineage. It produces more new species, and those species live in a wider range of habitats.


So let's see here. On one hand speciation takes a "very long time", but on the other hand we have TWO recorded explosions in biodiversity, which are both totally unexplainable unless Darwin's original theory is slightly tweaked in order to make sense. Let's see how they do this. Pay attention to the bold words.


Adaptive radiation is the rapid proliferation of new taxa from a single ancestral group. However, in the most striking cases, such as occurred in the Triassic after the greatest extinction event in Earth history, many lines underwent rapid radiation simultaneously.


There we have that confounding concept of rapid radiation and the creation of new taxonomic lines from a common ancestor due to beneficial mutations relative to a rapidly changing environment, all happening simultaneously; but yet somehow these mutations are supposedly totally random in nature.
Normally some 70% of these mutations are destructive.
How does modern academia explain this? It is conveniently omitted.
The prevalent attitude is well it must have happened that way because there are so many gaps in the fossil record that we can't explain. We are going to force this square peg into a round hole.


This must have something to do with the availability of ecological niches and relative absence of competition.

link to source

Well Golly, it must have something to do with the response to the environment and the absence of competition.
Of course this cant' be proven, but since it makes sense in going along with the status quo belief of abiogenesis from a single cell then it must be true.

POPPYCOCK...

Every single argument that you use to support abiogenesis from a single cell actually supports the idea of intelligent design.
You are your own worst enemy.
edit on 2/12/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   

UB2120
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


What I don't understand is why does it have to be one or the other, Evolution or Creation? I view it as both. God had life planted on this planet. His creative technique in time/space is evolution. That way life is sure to adapt for the given planets environment.


Want more info on this? Go to www.urantia.org...


Riiiggghhttt....



There is that thing called evidence... and there is no simple shred of evidence for any mix of science and religion, as seen in this little funny video.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   

kyviecaldges


I am referring to the development of all life from a single cell- "a universal common ancestor" Charles Darwin

Things evolve, but what I doubt and what is a totally separate entity, is the modern theory of abiogenesis proposed by Charles Darwin in his book On the Origin of Species


So you've never read the book have you? I can tell you with 100% certainty that nothing resembling abiogenesis is mentioned in 'On the Origin of Species' Darwin did postulate on the primordial soup hypothesis but not until 1871, a dozen years after 'On the Origin of Species' was published. And it wasn't something from a published or peer reviewed paper, it was in a private letter. In fact, the "Primordial Soup" hypothesis didn't really have any proponents until 1924 by biochemist Alexander Oparin in his book 'On the Origin of Life'. Keep digging though, I'm enjoying the show.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   

helldiver

kyviecaldges
reply to post by peter vlar
 



the problem here is that you fail to see how a mutation in a creature may be beneficial in one environment yet detrimental in another. The Kit Fox and the Arctic Fox are genetically identical yet are adapted to very different environments. If forced to switch places neither would survive long in the others natural habitat making the once beneficial mutation a detriment to their survival. Nature doesn't care about algorithms, nature cares about surviving.


And I thought about having Chinese take out for lunch.

What does that have to do with anything?
And don't respond with 'if you can't figure it out then I won't explain it' B.S.
We are talking about random stuff man. Your argument does nothing to support anything.

You are right that nature doesn't care about recursive algorithms, but (insert random mainstream evolutionary biologist here) qualifies the validity of abiogenesis using recursive algorithms.

Random, random, random, random, random, random.....
I hope that you see the irony in that last sentence.


I'm not an expert when it comes to computers so i did some digging. Turns out recursive algorithms aren't quite the nail in the coffin you claim.

Bottom line is that recursive algorithms just cant handle complex biological systems. It's our computers that are the problem and not evolution. After a search on google it seems to be a commonly accepted fact that super recursive computers are required to accurately process any complex biological system, ie a "better than a turing machine" computer that can handle input and output processes.


God you are so wrong.

Never use Google.

Here is one link that proves you wrong.


A phylogenetic tree is the common object of interest in many areas of biological science. The tree represents the ancestral relationships between a group of individuals. Given molecular sequence data sampled from a group of organisms it is possible to infer the historical relationships between these organisms using a statistical model of molecular evolution.


Well the people who wrote this peer reviewed paper obviously think that a statistical model of molecular evolution is valid. In fact, here is the conclusion to the paper.


We describe an algorithm that is polynomial in the number of sampled individuals for counting of resolutions of a constraint tree assuming that the number of constraints is fixed. We generalise this algorithm to counting resolutions of a fully ranked constraint tree. We describe a quadratic algorithm for counting the number of possible fully ranked trees on n sampled individuals. We introduce a new type of tree, called a fully ranked tree with sampled ancestors, and describe a cubic time algorithm for counting the number of such trees on n sampled individuals.


Here is a link to super recursive algorithms that destroys the argument that they are no better than a Turing machine.


In the theory of algorithms such a step has been made by transition from the ordinary, recursive algorithms (such as Turing machines, partial recursive functions, Minsky machines, random access machines (RAM), Kolmogorov algorithms etc.) to the super-recursive algorithms violating the famous Turing-Church thesis (Burgin 1987).


And lastly, here is chapter 13 of a paper in PDF form and the chapter is titled Super-Recursive Features of Evolutionary Processes and the Models for Computational Evolution
link to source

These were the first three that popped up when I searched using a quality search engine.

God you are so wrong.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   

peter vlar

kyviecaldges


I am referring to the development of all life from a single cell- "a universal common ancestor" Charles Darwin

Things evolve, but what I doubt and what is a totally separate entity, is the modern theory of abiogenesis proposed by Charles Darwin in his book On the Origin of Species


So you've never read the book have you? I can tell you with 100% certainty that nothing resembling abiogenesis is mentioned in 'On the Origin of Species' Darwin did postulate on the primordial soup hypothesis but not until 1871, a dozen years after 'On the Origin of Species' was published. And it wasn't something from a published or peer reviewed paper, it was in a private letter. In fact, the "Primordial Soup" hypothesis didn't really have any proponents until 1924 by biochemist Alexander Oparin in his book 'On the Origin of Life'. Keep digging though, I'm enjoying the show.


Yes I have read the book and I have never once typed the words "Primordial Soup". That is all you bra.

Read this. It is straight up off of wikipedia-

Its full title was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. For the sixth edition of 1872, the short title was changed to The Origin of Species. Darwin's book introduced the scientific theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection. It presented a body of evidence that the diversity of life arose by common descent through a branching pattern of evolution.

link to source

Darwin used the exact words "universal common ancestor" in the very book.

I will continue to prove you wrong. I keep posting links to validate my claims and you post NOTHING.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   

kyviecaldges

peter vlar

kyviecaldges


I am referring to the development of all life from a single cell- "a universal common ancestor" Charles Darwin

Things evolve, but what I doubt and what is a totally separate entity, is the modern theory of abiogenesis proposed by Charles Darwin in his book On the Origin of Species


So you've never read the book have you? I can tell you with 100% certainty that nothing resembling abiogenesis is mentioned in 'On the Origin of Species' Darwin did postulate on the primordial soup hypothesis but not until 1871, a dozen years after 'On the Origin of Species' was published. And it wasn't something from a published or peer reviewed paper, it was in a private letter. In fact, the "Primordial Soup" hypothesis didn't really have any proponents until 1924 by biochemist Alexander Oparin in his book 'On the Origin of Life'. Keep digging though, I'm enjoying the show.


Yes I have read the book and I have never once typed the words "Primordial Soup". That is all you bra.

Read this. It is straight up off of wikipedia-

Its full title was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. For the sixth edition of 1872, the short title was changed to The Origin of Species. Darwin's book introduced the scientific theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection. It presented a body of evidence that the diversity of life arose by common descent through a branching pattern of evolution.

link to source

Darwin used the exact words "universal common ancestor" in the very book.

I will continue to prove you wrong. I keep posting links to validate my claims and you post NOTHING.


You're grasp on phonics not withstanding, I never attributed "primordial soup" to you. I attributed it to Darwin. You can revise Darwin's words to suit your purpose all day long but it doesn't change anything. Yes, Darwin said "Universal Common Ancestor". It was in the 1st edition a dozen years prior to his postulation of what would become the Primordial Soup Hypothesis which led to abiogenesis. if you can't follow along I'll try to go slower for you next time.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   

peter vlar

kyviecaldges

peter vlar

kyviecaldges


I am referring to the development of all life from a single cell- "a universal common ancestor" Charles Darwin

Things evolve, but what I doubt and what is a totally separate entity, is the modern theory of abiogenesis proposed by Charles Darwin in his book On the Origin of Species


So you've never read the book have you? I can tell you with 100% certainty that nothing resembling abiogenesis is mentioned in 'On the Origin of Species' Darwin did postulate on the primordial soup hypothesis but not until 1871, a dozen years after 'On the Origin of Species' was published. And it wasn't something from a published or peer reviewed paper, it was in a private letter. In fact, the "Primordial Soup" hypothesis didn't really have any proponents until 1924 by biochemist Alexander Oparin in his book 'On the Origin of Life'. Keep digging though, I'm enjoying the show.


I have no idea what you are trying to argue with this.

I am going to lurk in the shadows again because you trying to create an argument where one doesn't exist.

The plain fact is that I have repeatedly proved you

Yes I have read the book and I have never once typed the words "Primordial Soup". That is all you bra.

Read this. It is straight up off of wikipedia-

Its full title was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. For the sixth edition of 1872, the short title was changed to The Origin of Species. Darwin's book introduced the scientific theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection. It presented a body of evidence that the diversity of life arose by common descent through a branching pattern of evolution.

link to source

Darwin used the exact words "universal common ancestor" in the very book.

I will continue to prove you wrong. I keep posting links to validate my claims and you post NOTHING.


You're grasp on phonics not withstanding, I never attributed "primordial soup" to you. I attributed it to Darwin. You can revise Darwin's words to suit your purpose all day long but it doesn't change anything. Yes, Darwin said "Universal Common Ancestor". It was in the 1st edition a dozen years prior to his postulation of what would become the Primordial Soup Hypothesis which led to abiogenesis. if you can't follow along I'll try to go slower for you next time.



The best that you can do is try to create an argument over semantics that I could not care less about while throwing in a subtle personal insult to ramp up the rhetoric.

Please stop throwing around dates and names and big words without tying them together coherently and try to formulate a premise to an argument with supporting evidence validated by third party observations with links to the supporting evidence.
Exactly like my posts to you.

Checkmate. Again.
Ciao. Til next time.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   

kyviecaldges

When I refer abiogenesis, I am referring to the development of all life from a single cell- "a universal common ancestor" Charles Darwin


Well then you're doing it wrong.


And since you seem to be the next one in line to repeat the same tired circular arguments over and over again, let me remind you of what is at issue.


It's not an argument, there is no debate or controversy. There's just theists getting science wrong.


I have said repeatedly that evolution happens.
Gregor Mendel proved this beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Things evolve, but what I doubt and what is a totally separate entity, is the modern theory of abiogenesis proposed by Charles Darwin in his book On the Origin of Species.


Many people have proposed that hypothesis long before Darwin. It's not modern and it's not a theory.


No matter how hard you guys try to disconnect yourself from Darwin and the essence of his theory, a linear progression of life ascending from one single cell to the multi-cellular-impossibly-complex-predator-top-of-the-food-chain that we have today is what y'all are preaching.


And that's evolution.


Let it go.


I'll let it go when you guys get it right.


I am not confusing a single thing. You are trying to frame my argument incorrectly, but it is an obvious act of desperation.


You're 'framing' your own argument incorrectly.


You can attack me personally. You can attack the OP personally, but when it's all said and done, the collective of proponents of Darwinian evolution in this thread have all been thoroughly debunked.


I'd rather not, I'd prefer it if you did't play the victim card. And for the record if you want to debunk evolution, at least learn the difference between the origins of life and the diversity of life. It'd be a step in the right direction.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369
 



And for the record if you want to debunk evolution, at least learn the difference between the origins of life and the diversity of life.


Why don't you explain to me how I am wrong and misunderstanding this issue.

It's really easy to throw out an argument and shift the burden of proof to me, but that in no way validates your claim.

Prove I am wrong.

Gimme some links. Gimme some truth.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   

kyviecaldges

helldiver

kyviecaldges
reply to post by peter vlar
 



the problem here is that you fail to see how a mutation in a creature may be beneficial in one environment yet detrimental in another. The Kit Fox and the Arctic Fox are genetically identical yet are adapted to very different environments. If forced to switch places neither would survive long in the others natural habitat making the once beneficial mutation a detriment to their survival. Nature doesn't care about algorithms, nature cares about surviving.


And I thought about having Chinese take out for lunch.

What does that have to do with anything?
And don't respond with 'if you can't figure it out then I won't explain it' B.S.
We are talking about random stuff man. Your argument does nothing to support anything.

You are right that nature doesn't care about recursive algorithms, but (insert random mainstream evolutionary biologist here) qualifies the validity of abiogenesis using recursive algorithms.

Random, random, random, random, random, random.....
I hope that you see the irony in that last sentence.


I'm not an expert when it comes to computers so i did some digging. Turns out recursive algorithms aren't quite the nail in the coffin you claim.

Bottom line is that recursive algorithms just cant handle complex biological systems. It's our computers that are the problem and not evolution. After a search on google it seems to be a commonly accepted fact that super recursive computers are required to accurately process any complex biological system, ie a "better than a turing machine" computer that can handle input and output processes.


God you are so wrong.

Never use Google.

Here is one link that proves you wrong.


A phylogenetic tree is the common object of interest in many areas of biological science. The tree represents the ancestral relationships between a group of individuals. Given molecular sequence data sampled from a group of organisms it is possible to infer the historical relationships between these organisms using a statistical model of molecular evolution.


Well the people who wrote this peer reviewed paper obviously think that a statistical model of molecular evolution is valid. In fact, here is the conclusion to the paper.


We describe an algorithm that is polynomial in the number of sampled individuals for counting of resolutions of a constraint tree assuming that the number of constraints is fixed. We generalise this algorithm to counting resolutions of a fully ranked constraint tree. We describe a quadratic algorithm for counting the number of possible fully ranked trees on n sampled individuals. We introduce a new type of tree, called a fully ranked tree with sampled ancestors, and describe a cubic time algorithm for counting the number of such trees on n sampled individuals.


Here is a link to super recursive algorithms that destroys the argument that they are no better than a Turing machine.


In the theory of algorithms such a step has been made by transition from the ordinary, recursive algorithms (such as Turing machines, partial recursive functions, Minsky machines, random access machines (RAM), Kolmogorov algorithms etc.) to the super-recursive algorithms violating the famous Turing-Church thesis (Burgin 1987).


And lastly, here is chapter 13 of a paper in PDF form and the chapter is titled Super-Recursive Features of Evolutionary Processes and the Models for Computational Evolution
link to source

These were the first three that popped up when I searched using a quality search engine.

God you are so wrong.


Good grief!! Your lack of comprehension here is astonishing. Did you even read these sources before you posted them? Here's a quick snippet from one:

Accordingly, we may consider that biological systems, such as cellular machines perform computation that is equivalent to computation of an Inductive Turing machine (ITM) based on super-recursive algorithms.(Computation of ITM is formally described in [Burgin, 2005]).

By an inductive turing machine they mean one with more computational power.

And the first paper you link is about phylogenetic trees using recursive algorithms. Hardly a model of a complex biological system. It requires a user to input set data, unlike biological evolution.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to [url= by kyviecaldges[/url]
 


It's not a secret, one that needs to be sought and found, open a science text book, ask anyone that's received an education, or click this link or this link.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Prezbo369
reply to [url= by kyviecaldges[/url]
 


It's not a secret, one that needs to be sought and found, open a science text book, ask anyone that's received an education, or click this link or this link.


This is ridiculous.

All of this was already covered in the thread.

I suggest that you read it to understand my position instead of jumping in on a thread and reading a few responses and then trying to play ball.

I adressed this issue here.

And here.

And here.

Please read before you reply. I don't have a problem with evolution. Mendel proved that.
What I have a problem with is the spontaneous self-replication of a single cell that sparked abiogenesis, resulting in us. There you go.
edit on 2/12/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by helldiver
 



Good grief!! Your lack of comprehension here is astonishing. Did you even read these sources before you posted them? Here's a quick snippet from one:

Accordingly, we may consider that biological systems, such as cellular machines perform computation that is equivalent to computation of an Inductive Turing machine (ITM) based on super-recursive algorithms.(Computation of ITM is formally described in [Burgin, 2005]).


My reading comprehension is obviously astonishingly better than yours.

You stated this-

By an inductive turing machine they mean one with more computational power.


You are wrong yet again.


An inductive Turing machine is a definite list of well-defined instructions for completing a task which, when given an initial state, will proceed through a well-defined series of successive states, eventually giving the final result. The difference between an inductive Turing machine and an ordinary Turing machine is that an ordinary Turing machine must stop when it has obtained its result, while in some cases an inductive Turing machine can continue to compute after obtaining the result, without stopping. Kleene called procedures that could run forever without stopping by the name calculation procedure or algorithm (Kleene 1952:137).

link to source

When the instructions begin with an initial state and proceed through a well defined series of successive states without stopping, then the perfect mathematical model for evolution has been created, but the problem lies with the input of truly random variables.
If every number input into the formula is a random variable where the probability of any variable being chosen is equal then it is impossible to validate the output. That is exactly what happens with punctuated equilibrium.

Here Burgin says this exact same thing.

A biological population gives another example, where super-recursive algorithms are important as a tool of investigation. Simulation of their functioning essentially involves infinite processes though contemporary methods of modeling in biology and ecology ignore this fact. Consequently, utilization of super-recursive algorithms provides new powerful facilities for simulation of such processes.



In spite of all benefits of super-recursive algorithms, any modern computer (even the fastest one) cannot cram an infinite number of computations in bounded time. It is a challenge for computer engineers to create such a computer that will be able to do this (Stewart 1991).

link to source



And the first paper you link is about phylogenetic trees using recursive algorithms. Hardly a model of a complex biological system. It requires a user to input set data, unlike biological evolution.


Exactly. Darwinian Evolution as modified by punctuated equilibrium requires essentially an infinite number of computations.

My point in posting the first link was to prove you wrong.
The peer reviewed paper used a recursive algorithm to model evolution. You cannot deny that.

And then I went on to show that super-recursive algorithms are the best model that can be used to simulate evolution and even Burgin stated that they do a poor job.
But yet y'all wanna use them when they are convenient but ignore them when they are inconvenient.
edit on 2/12/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   

tadaman
I want to say that I always reserve a measure of caution when it comes to evolution. It is still not fact. The reality is that it needs more than random "evidence" that can be interpreted in either direction before it is taken out of the realm of being a theory and can be accepted as fact universally.

I am still waiting for transitional fossils or ANY evidence of new traits being "evolved" out of thin air.

That said, I am not entirely against it. I simply DO NOT accept that "it can never be proven"....then guess what, it is not true. It is at that point a faith issue which is based loosely on the interpretations of random evidence sought out and fashioned accordingly to prove a theory that some have invested entire careers , educations, and systems of education in.

Sorry, but thats your problem.

I will NEVER call something a fact until it is proven as such. Until then its a nice idea, and may have SOME truth. Its just not acceptable to me when evolutionists say that it can NEVER be proven one way or the other. If I am to have any faith, in anything, its going to be in something a little more special than a theory others have invested too much in. They jumped the gun. I dont have to.

SO I dont understand the arrogance of the proponents of evolution. It is COMPLETELY NORMAL and logical to doubt this theory. It is still rather lacking. How dare you mock others for not "faithing" an idea into "fact".

How dare you, and you say you love science.



edit on 11 30 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)


First off, a scientific theory and the layman definition of theory are two different things. Evolution is considered as real and factual as the theory of gravity.




Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[2] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis'


linky

Anyone who says they need more evidence isn't paying attention, or deliberately ignoring it. If there was no such thing as evolution, then there would be no such thing, and every new creature created would be a random generation of parts. Humans would give birth to a dog with a parrot head that gives birth to a platypus with a rhino tail.

The flu, as it changes its DNA every year, is ongoing evolution. A current change in human evolution is the ability to drink milk. Those who are lactose intolerant are slightly less evolved.

Other current evolution is elephants, the number of African males being born without tusks has doubled in recent years. And in a few more years, it will double again. Why? Because humans are hunting them en masse for their tusks. Their need to evade poachers has become more critical than their need to use their tusks for foraging. Also, those with tusks are getting killed, leaving more non tusks elephants to reproduce.

Moths have been changing colors since the Industrial revolution, to match the color of pollution. Just google the color changes of the peppered moth, which in the last 50 years has gone from brown and white mottled to all black.

I can go on, but most likely, if at this point you are still looking for "facts", you will go along with all the other evolution skeptics and simple deny any facts that are presented to you.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 



First off, a scientific theory and the layman definition of theory are two different things. Evolution is considered as real and factual as the theory of gravity.


The concept of evolution as defined by Gregor Mendel has been proven and validated.

Abiogenesis or the spontaneous self-replication of a single cell to multicelled and beyond has not been proven.

And Darwin's version of abiogenesis is not accepted by all scientists and those that doubt are on the rise.

Ranks of Scientists Doubting Darwin’s Theory on the Rise

SEATTLE — Another 100 scientists have joined the ranks of scientists from around the world publicly stating their doubts about the adequacy of Darwin's theory of evolution.

"Darwinism is a trivial idea that has been elevated to the status of the scientific theory that governs modern biology," says dissent list signer Dr. Michael Egnor. Egnor is a professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook and an award-winning brain surgeon named one of New York's best doctors by New York Magazine.

Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture today announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.


As long as you differentiate between the two then I have no problem accepting evolution as defined by Gregor Mendel as fact.

edit on 2/12/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   

kyviecaldges
reply to post by nixie_nox
 



This fool is taking a word off his "science word of the day"" calendar that he learned, and trying to build an argument around it. yesterday's was "recursive algorithms." I wonder what today's will be?


Wow.... What an impressive violation of the terms and conditions.

Since you seem to understand this concept and I am just using words yoda, tell me.
Explain to me how exactly recursive algorithms are NOT applicable to Darwinian Evolution.


I give you kudos for trying to come up with an explanation without the use of faith or belief in a higher power. I also understand where you are coming from, because everything in science and nature is based on math. Life itself is based on math. We can't get away from it. So I see your POV that we can't apply formulas to evolution, so therefor since it can't be proven by math, it can't be scientifically proven.

What math can't do is predict the future. Ever. And for those who fail to know how evolution works, you think that evolution is survival of the fittest, or only the big bad mountain lion gets ahead. So why shouldn't we prove what will happen with a formula? Because the skeptics forget the part of evolution where evolution is forced. If a species finds an environment where it can maintain itself successfully, then it won't change, unless a mutation comes along that works better and makes it change. But most species do change, not because of selective breeding or mutations, but because of environmental forcing.

And there is no way to predict what that will be.

The huge whales that live in our oceans are decended from a deer sized land mammal. So how did an antelope like creature evolve into a massive, massive sperm whale? Environmental forcing. It looked to water for a food source, it looked to size to protect itself.

To deny evolution because it can't be mathematically formulated is just silliness and nonsense. Then you would have to deny that weather exists. We would be able to develop a formula to predict who the next 5 presidents are. We would be able to predict the future.

So stop saying that evolution doesn't exist because scientists can't predict the future.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 



To deny evolution because it can't be mathematically formulated is just silliness and nonsense. Then you would have to deny that weather exists. We would be able to develop a formula to predict who the next 5 presidents are. We would be able to predict the future.

So stop saying that evolution doesn't exist because scientists can't predict the future.


I never said that scientists can or cannot accurately predict the future.
You are creating an argument where one doesn't exist.

What I have said is that scientists cannot accurately model the past using punctuated equilibrium as a mathematical model.
When the mathematical construct that is being used relies upon an infinite number of input variables, then no computer existing today can reconstruct the past effectively. No computer can process an infinite number of variables simultaneously when all probabilities are equal.

I had already discussed this when linking this paper.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join