Why do you *not* accept evolution?

[brennan]

Again you must prove that creature in the past was less evolved when there is evidence this isn't the case. Creatures were complexes from the beginning.

Evolved =/= more complex.

 

[Truronian]

Again you must prove that creature in the past was less evolved when there is evidence this isn't the case. Creatures were complexes from the beginning.

What do you mean by complex?

Is "Mother Nature" really our creator like you suggested?

I believe it was use that think we need a creator. I see that as logically inconsistant.

 

[Smidlee]

Changes can add together into larger changes without necessarily replacing one another and staying changes of the same magnitude after combination. There, proved.

lol if only it was that simple

Can all these teeny tiny "atom" things be put together to make a person? Can a mountain climber make his way up a mile-high mountain with steps of less than a metre?

Yes.

I serious doubt it if the mountain climber had no brain.

 

[zxcvbnm]

Evo-designers? lol. That's a good one.

Simulating evolution to design new things. Gives better results than using human designers. We don't know why the results work so well but they do.

 

[zxcvbnm]

I serious doubt it if the mountain climber had no brain.

Animals... slugs... insects... ameboe...

 

[Erik Mesoy]

lol

You mean:

if only it was that simple

By your use of the past tense over the subjunctive tense I take it you agree with me; it was that simple? (And still is.)

I serious doubt it if the mountain climber had no brain.

If you want to extend the metaphor that way, fine. Have a hundred mountain climbers at the base of a mountain. Have each of them take five steps in random directions. (This is the "random variation" part.) Of the fifty highest, take away twenty, and of the fifty lowest, take away thirty. (This is the "selection" part with environmental pressure.) Then, next to each of the fifty remaining, put in a new one at the same distance up the mountain. (This is the "heredity" part.) Then repeat the process; on average, you will see mountain climbers that are further up as time progresses.

 

[Smidlee]

Simulating evolution to design new things.

You talking about the old engineer's trial and error. While trial and error wasn't very effective in the past it's a lot more effective with high speed computers with highly designed programs.

 

[zxcvbnm]

You talking about the old engineer's trial and error. While trial and error wasn't very effective in the past it's a lot more effective with high speed computers with highly designed programs.

So you just proved evolution theoretically

Trial and error + some million years time => huge development

 

[Aegis]

Wow, here we are in 2008 and Abiogenesis is still a topic?

It is when someone foolishly tries to disprove the Theory of Evolution by debunking Abiogenesis. That's like arguing gravity does not exist because somebody disproved the Big Bang theory.

 

[Smidlee]

So you just proved evolution theoretically

Trial and error + some million years time => huge development

First you got to have a powerful computer then you got to have a good programmer.
Here what one engineer wrote about those evolutionary programs that improve a design (in this case a engine):


"Trial-and-error programming is usually used as a last resort because it is a de facto admission of failure. We would all like to believe that we are smart enough to solve any differential equation, or find the roots of any polynomial. But, if you don’t know how to solve a nasty differential equation, or can’t analytically calculate the roots of a complex polynomial, guessing the answer does eventually work. It isn’t efficient or elegant, but since modern computers can make millions of guesses per second, it doesn’t really matter how inefficient the process is, as long as you get the job done in time.

There are a few ugly facts of life that we don’t like to admit. One is that you can’t get funding for doing the same old thing—unless you can figure out a way to make the same old thing to sound like something radically new. If you submit a proposal titled, “Ways to improve trial-and-error programming,” you probably won’t get the money. But, if you propose, “Application of evolutionary principles in adaptive computer algorithms that determine optimal fitness,” somebody will probably pony up the big bucks. So, if you model the turbine engine as a “gene,” and “mutate” it by “replicating” fan blades, and evaluate it for “fitness,” and use all the jargon of evolutionary biology you can to describe all the guesses you are making, it sounds like cutting-edge technology, instead of the crude, brute-force method it really is."

Also Behe latest book deal with the limits of "trial and error" (evolution?)we find in the cell.

 

[zxcvbnm]

First you got to have a powerful computer then you got to have a good programmer.
Here what one engineer wrote about those evolutionary programs that improve a design (in this case a engine):


"Trial-and-error programming is usually used as a last resort because it is a de facto admission of failure. We would all like to believe that we are smart enough to solve any differential equation, or find the roots of any polynomial. But, if you don’t know how to solve a nasty differential equation, or can’t analytically calculate the roots of a complex polynomial, guessing the answer does eventually work. It isn’t efficient or elegant, but since modern computers can make millions of guesses per second, it doesn’t really matter how inefficient the process is, as long as you get the job done in time.

There are a few ugly facts of life that we don’t like to admit. One is that you can’t get funding for doing the same old thing—unless you can figure out a way to make the same old thing to sound like something radically new. If you submit a proposal titled, “Ways to improve trial-and-error programming,” you probably won’t get the money. But, if you propose, “Application of evolutionary principles in adaptive computer algorithms that determine optimal fitness,” somebody will probably pony up the big bucks. So, if you model the turbine engine as a “gene,” and “mutate” it by “replicating” fan blades, and evaluate it for “fitness,” and use all the jargon of evolutionary biology you can to describe all the guesses you are making, it sounds like cutting-edge technology, instead of the crude, brute-force method it really is."

Also Behe latest book deal with the limits of "trial and error" (evolution?)we find in the cell.

The idea is not just simple brute force trial and error, but really mixing different versions, mutating them randomly and so on. The results are a lot better than with just designing. And something humans would have never thought about.

And about a computer and a programmer, nature doesn't need them because it's itself both the program and the computer: what spreads, spreads and what declines, declines and that's it.

 

[Smidlee]

The idea is not just simple brute force trial and error, but really mixing different versions, mutating them randomly and so on. The results are a lot better than with just designing. And something humans would have never thought about.

You can change the wording all you want but in the end it's nothing but "trial and error".

And about a computer and a programmer, nature doesn't need them because it's itself both the program and the computer: what spreads, spreads and what declines, declines and that's it.

This is a statement of faith. There is no evidence that Mother Nature and Father Time created life nor all the novelties of life . Now if this is your faith then stated it as faith.

Another thing evolution doesn't deal with years but with generations. Thus bacteria benefits from "trial and error" a lot more than let's say mammals yet with the thousands of generation bacteria studied "trial and error" hasn't produce anything impressive yet.

Also noted that a "trial and error" computer program itself never changes or mutates only the variables within the program.

 

[Grisu]

Another thing evolution doesn't deal with years but with generations. Thus bacteria benefits from "trial and error" a lot more than let's say mammals yet with the thousands of generation bacteria studied "trial and error" hasn't produce anything impressive yet.

I doubt that the point of evolution is to create 'impressive' species. It's about surviving, and if a species manages to survive for ages while keeping it relatively simple compared to others, then there's no reason to change that form the evolutionary POV.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

You can change the wording all you want but in the end it's nothing but "trial and error".

You can make unfounded assertions all you want but in the end there's also heredity and selection.

 

[Emperor Giulio]

Countless well educated scientists > "because it says it in the bible..."

 

[brennan]

...yet with the thousands of generation bacteria studied "trial and error" hasn't produce anything impressive yet.

...except for outnumbering the rest of the life on the planet you mean?

 

[Phlegmak]

Truronian mentioned human ancestors being less complex meaning less evolved. Truronian was wrong and Smidlee has been using "less evolved" in his arguments. There is no such thing as less evolved. Organisms are adapted for their environments.

EDIT: He said it here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6730664&postcount=147

EDIT: This is what results from Truronian's mistake:

Another thing evolution doesn't deal with years but with generations. Thus bacteria benefits from "trial and error" a lot more than let's say mammals yet with the thousands of generation bacteria studied "trial and error" hasn't produce anything impressive yet.

Evolution isn't trying to reach a goal. And bacteria are adapted for their environment. And species of bacteria evolved over time to bring us such joys as prokaryotes, plants, yogurt, and leprosy.

 

[brennan]

Truronian mentioned human ancestors being less complex meaning less evolved. Truronian was wrong and Smidlee has been using "less evolved" in his arguments. There is no such thing as less evolved. Organisms are adapted for their environments.

EDIT: He said it here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6730664

Aha. Truronian said it was true if you had no imagination.

 

[Phlegmak]

Aha. Truronian said it was true if you had no imagination.

He was responding to the fact that Smidlee said "if you use your imagination", and Truronian wanted Smidlee to NOT use his imagination.

The whole argument got pretty messed up I think.

EDIT: The difference between Lucy and modern humans is not one of "less evolved", but rather that they're simply different species. The illusion of one being "less evolved" than the other is very easy to be deceived by, since Lucy is chronologically before humans, and if one creates an evolutionary diagram, it's extremely easy to think one is "less evolved" than the other. The fact of the matter is that the two species are simply DIFFERENT and are (were in the case of Lucy) adapted for their environments.

 

[brennan]

MRSA is pretty impressive if you're one of the thousands of peple who've been killed by it in recent years.