tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post1415137138519283573..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: The Religious Fundamentalism Among UsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger150125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44833654978793424222012-06-21T08:36:29.675-07:002012-06-21T08:36:29.675-07:00Safe journeys, Nic. Keep a strong mind about you.Safe journeys, Nic. Keep a strong mind about you.Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00216381429665486830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7511831437716904192012-06-21T00:49:02.140-07:002012-06-21T00:49:02.140-07:00Best wishes, Nic! Leukemia is a heck of a diagnos...Best wishes, Nic! Leukemia is a heck of a diagnosis but fortunately treatments are improving all the time. My brother-in-law is alive and well 10 years after diagnosis, owing to treatment not even available at the time of his diagnosis!<br /><br />Good to talk to you despite disagreements!<br /><br />Lizzie<br /><br />LizzieElizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37551595722310904462012-06-20T16:34:02.312-07:002012-06-20T16:34:02.312-07:00Good luck Nic. Let us know how it goes. If convent...Good luck Nic. Let us know how it goes. If conventional treatment fails consider Burzynski Clinic.Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2809309364360808492012-06-20T16:17:35.894-07:002012-06-20T16:17:35.894-07:00Nic,
Sorry to hear about your setback. I hope it...Nic,<br /><br />Sorry to hear about your setback. I hope it is only temporary and sincerely wish you the best for a speedy recovery. <br /><br />Two stubborn guys banging heads on the interwebs is way insignificant when compared to real life health issues.<br /><br />Take care and good luckGhostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87267987220266118882012-06-20T16:05:39.848-07:002012-06-20T16:05:39.848-07:00Nic I just ran across this video that might intere...Nic I just ran across this video that might interest you in this time you are going through:<br /><br />The Science Behind the Healing Power of Love - video<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t1p-PwGgE4<br /><br />And this one might interest you as well:<br /><br />Testing Prayer: Science and Miraculous Healing - Candy Gunther Brown at Boston College - video<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRfLooh3ZOkbornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34705017655761055322012-06-20T13:51:20.732-07:002012-06-20T13:51:20.732-07:00Hi Nic,
Very sorry to hear about your illness. Ho...Hi Nic,<br /><br />Very sorry to hear about your illness. Hope things get on the mend. <br /><br />Take care.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37300360159460500712012-06-20T13:33:29.656-07:002012-06-20T13:33:29.656-07:00Oleg & Thorton,
I feel I can no longer spend ...Oleg & Thorton,<br /><br />I feel I can no longer spend time here for the next while. I have Leukemia and I must attend to more important issues for a while. I have suffered a minor setback which is going to take me a while to deal with. I hope you understand.<br /><br />I know you both think I'm ill informed on the whole question of evolution and make unfounded accusations against scientists. This is simply not true. Questioning the results of various studies is not attacking science or scientists. We owe much to both. I and others simply reject many of the presumptions of many in the scientific community. To question their methods and their results is all part of the process. Scientists go after each other more viciously than do I or others on this blog, so I think your accusations against me and others are definitely overblown.<br /><br />Anyway, I hope to be able to participate again in the future. I sincerely wish you both the best and hope all goes well for both of you.<br /><br />Take care,<br />NicNichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18937825041842727612012-06-20T06:45:52.122-07:002012-06-20T06:45:52.122-07:00Nic
Questioning results does not constitute an at...<i>Nic<br /><br />Questioning results does not constitute an attack on a scientist by the way. <br /><br />So the bottom line is evolution and those who promote it are beyond criticism?</i><br /><br />You aren't just questioning results or criticizing evolutionary theory Nic. You're making accusations of willful dishonesty against the researchers. When you claim they purposely skew results to what they like and throw out contradictory data you are accusing them of <b>deliberate fraud.</b><br /><br />It's a repugnant, reprehensible tactic you can't support of course and shows just how low into the slime you'll sink to defend your Creationist nonsense.<br /><br />Simple fact is, you're way too ignorant on this topic in specific and science in general to carry on an intelligent discussion. You lie about what you've read, twist and misrepresent the responses of others, hand wave away data for the flimsiest of reasons, attack the integrity of honest scientists when the evidence gets to be too much for you to deny. You stay ignorant because you want to stay ignorant. It's not a question of merely having a different opinion as you like to falsely portray. It's a question of your refusal to honestly deal with what's been presented.<br /><br />So keep lying for Jesus Nic. Lots of better people than you have tried it to get into heaven.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28426663591236867422012-06-20T05:21:10.426-07:002012-06-20T05:21:10.426-07:00(continued)
Nic: And just how would the automated...(continued)<br /><br />Nic: <i>And just how would the automated ranking occur? By programmers setting up the parameters. So exactly how would the programmers not be involved? You simply don't see that intelligence is involved in the entire process, which reduces any results to little more than anecdote in terms of demonstrating the evolution of altruistic behaviour.</i> <br /><br />Nic, you are like a young spaniel chasing squirrels. As soon as you see a human being involved, you cry "Design!" Of course human beings set up the parameters! This is why it's called a simulation. You are like Gil Dodgen whom I mentioned above. You don't object when human beings set up parameters in a weather simulation, do you? (Bonus points if you think that the weather computers should be set outside in the rain and without airconditioning to more accurately predict the weather.) <br /><br />Nic: <i>There is certainly much discussion regards the whole concept of natural selection. I accept its existence, but I don't give it the power that evolutionists tend to give it. Certainly not the power to develop all life from a common ancestor. In fact there is growing evidence that natural selection has very little, if any power at all. It would seem most creatures have built-in adaptation systems. As a result a species does not pin its survival on fortunate mutations which are then selected. I think it might be time to look at some of the new findings in biology.</i> <br /><br />Nic, this is a pattern that repeats itself: you make lots of claims, but you do not back them up with any references to the literature. Why? Because you haven't read any scientific studies that you allude to. You heard from other creationists about them. Did I get that right? <br /><br />Nic: <i>Pointing out the flaws in the entire logic of the study is not a lame excuse. The researchers assume what they are trying to demonstrate and set up the entire study to arrive at the results they want. When they start their paper by asserting the evolutionary origin of altruism their eventual conclusions are already stated.</i> <br /><br />I know that this is the general model of evolutionary science you have in mind. But here is the damn thing: if you actually read this specific paper then you will see that <i>in this particular instance</i> it wasn't the case. So this particular instance should rock your general model a little. <br /><br />These researchers did not know in advance what they would find. They mention a "somewhat surprising result" in the abstract, which you have presumably read, and they looked into its possible origins (see the body of the paper). I am not sure how we can square this surprise finding with your claim that the scientists "arrived at the results they wanted." I can see three distinct possibilities: (1) You have not read the paper. (2) You have read the paper but you do not comprehend it. (3) You comprehend the paper but you intentionally mischaracterize it. Feel free to suggest your own interpretation as none of these possibilities reflects well on you.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55060319694741139412012-06-20T05:20:31.170-07:002012-06-20T05:20:31.170-07:00Nic: Again we have the attitude of, me, the ignora...Nic: <i>Again we have the attitude of, me, the ignoramus, who must be taught by, you, the intelligent evolutionist. Your condescending attitude is becoming tiresome.</i> <br /><br />This is only half right, Nic. You are definitely ignorant of evolutionary science. We have established that you do not know anything about the field except for the broad notion that it is wrong. I am not an evolutionist. I am a theoretical physicist, something that has already been pointed out and you seem to have noticed that. <br /><br />Nic: <i>Come on! You're going to equate a robot's programming with the genetic code of an organic being. Give me a break!</i> <br /><br />No analogy is perfect, Nic. However, this is how science works. It aims to apply <i>general principles</i> to a number of different phenomena. In the 17th century one could ridicule Newton's attempts to develop a theory of gravity: "Come on! You're going to equate a falling apple with the motion of a heavenly body. Give me a break." <br /><br />Likewise, evolutionary notions found applications beyond biology. Have you heard about genetic algorithms? John Holland had the smart idea to harness the power of evolution to solve optimization problems. Do genetic algorithms work in the exact the same as nature? No, of course not, but the core principles are the same.<br /><br />Nic: <i>They wanted the ones who found food, ergo, they picked the ones they liked. You're simply playing semantics here, but to be honest, I don't think you're even aware of it.</i> <br /><br />That isn't semantics, Nic. That is a crucial point that you misunderstand badly. Any evolutionary process has two main components: heritable variations (genetic mutations) and selection. Something, or someone, must discriminate organisms by their fitness. It could be cold weather, which selects foxes with thicker fur, or birds who miss better camouflaged insects, or a graduate student who compares the scores of different robots and selects the top 20 percent. These are all examples of selection as part of the evolutionary process. <br /><br />It does not matter whether the selection pressure is applied by an intelligent being or by cold air. The graduate student did not pick the robots who minimized the time to his or her PhD defense. He or she provided selection pressure required for the evolution to happen. You seem fixated on the the involvement of a human being here and you miss the point that selection, natural or artificial, is a necessary component of evolution. <br /><br />Nic: <i>It has been my experience that many evolutionists, many of whom are very intelligent people like yourself, are, unfortunately very poor in the area of philosophical disciplines, such as semantics.</i> <br /><br />As you can see from a <a href="http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/religious-fundamentalism-among-us.html?showComment=1340191585187#c5463642687147201056" rel="nofollow">preceding comment</a>, this was not an unexpected charge. People like you invariably accuse scientists of being generally dense. But we're not dense, Nic. We merely refuse to accept your flawed broad conclusions based on vague philosophical musings. <br /><br />(continued)oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42250509991659160972012-06-20T04:32:20.088-07:002012-06-20T04:32:20.088-07:00Ian you stated a few days earlier:
"If tyou ...Ian you stated a few days earlier:<br /><br />"If tyou want wicked, you need look no further than the Old Testament. The heart of man is desperately wicked and orders of magnitude more so when his wickedness as justified as being the will of God. Is there any difference in kind between what Stalin did to his own people and what God and the Israelites did to the other peoples in the Middle East at that time?"<br /><br />Well then,,,<br /><br />Romans 11:22<br />Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.<br /><br />,, Guess that should sober you right up as to how severe God can be on people! Prediction, it won't.<br /><br />note:<br /><br />This following recent video upload is excellent:<br /><br />The Moral Impact Of Darwinism On Society - Dr. Phil Fernandes - video<br />http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/Impact_Of_Darwinism_On_Society.html<br /><br />The following video is downright eye-opening with its archeological evidence for authenticity of the Bible:<br /><br />The Physical Ashen Remains Of Sodom and Gomorrah - video<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwTVFk1HK3Ybornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54636426871472010562012-06-20T04:26:25.187-07:002012-06-20T04:26:25.187-07:00Nic: It has been my experience that many evolution...Nic: <i>It has been my experience that many evolutionists, many of whom are very intelligent people like yourself, are, unfortunately very poor in the area of philosophical disciplines, such as semantics. <br /><br />[...]<br /><br />Pointing out the flaws in the entire logic of the study is not a lame excuse.</i> <br /><br />Thorton, I think we're dealing here with one of those specimens who haven't a slightest idea about a scientific field but think that they can take it apart by relying on pure logic. In the process they usually accuse scientists of being poorly educated in formal logic. (The two excerpts above confirm the diagnosis.) <br /><br />When confronted with concrete examples from the scientific field in question, they pronounce that this cannot be right. Because why? Because they <i>know</i> it can't be right. They refuse to go into any specifics because they do not have enough technical knowledge and they lack patience to learn it. They already have a worldview and the details don't matter. <br /><br />Gil Dodgen (at Uncommon Descent) and Thoedore Beale (a.k.a. Vox Day) are known to be afflicted by this disease. Attempts to engage them in discussions often result in hilarious claims revealing their total lack of understanding. <a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-more-realistic-computer-simulation-of-biological-evolution/" rel="nofollow">At some point</a>, Gil suggested that realistic simulations of evolution require subjecting the entire computer (including the OS and hardware) to random errors. Not just the simulated organisms. For some reason, he did not appreciate the counter offer that his own computers (simulating aerodynamics of parachutes) ought to be thrown out of a plane for added realism. <br /><br />I think fun can be had here as well, but with much less bang for the buck. Nic lacks the pomposity of Gil, so the fireworks won't be as spectacular.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53148077635292038132012-06-19T22:07:15.289-07:002012-06-19T22:07:15.289-07:00Thorton,
"Thing is, all we have to go on is ...Thorton,<br /><br />"Thing is, all we have to go on is your demonstrated complete ignorance of the topic despite claiming to be an expert,..." <br /><br />Again we have Thorton who loves to call me a liar at the drop of a hat making more false accusations. Please show us where I ever claimed to be an 'expert'. I do have a degree in Sociology,and have read much on the subject of altruism. Neither comment can be construed as claiming I'm an expert. Except perhaps in your mind.<br /><br />"your baseless attacks on honest scientists,..."<br /><br />Please show me where I made an attack on an honest scientist. Questioning results does not constitute an attack on a scientist by the way. If it did scientists would be each others worst enemy.<br /><br />"Aah, one last lie just for good measure. You're a real credit to Christians everywhere."<br /><br />You say I don't read any papers. If you think I'm wrong about the assertion of the fact of evolution at the beginning of virtually every research paper on the subject, it would only go to show it is you who is not reading the papers.<br /><br />"Read the damned paper you moron."<br /><br />That's a great rebuttal I must say. Are the robots functioning entities aside from their programming? If you think so please explain the nature of that existence.<br /><br />Nic: "Why don't you point out to me where I called anyone on any thread an incompetent, lying fraud."<br /><br />"You do it every time you accuse scientists of fudging results and deliberately omitting contrary data they don't like, like you did here and here."<br /><br />So the bottom line is evolution and those who promote it are beyond criticism? Show me where I say scientists fudged results. I really don't remember doing so. On the other hand it is a common accusation between scientists themselves, so I guess that would mean you see each other as incompetent, lying frauds. That being the case, why are you upset with me?<br /><br />"If you dared make those insulting accusations to the face of many research scientists I know you'd be walking home spitting out teeth. But on the web you're just another anonymous big mouthed Creationist."<br /><br />I doubt I would lose any teeth. My experience has been that actual scientists are quite civil, take criticism in a mature manner, and welcome intelligent discussion. However, that's not you. You're more interested in being a boor and elevating your low esteem by attacking others.<br /><br />Don't bother responding about my comment regards intelligent discussion, I'll supply your usual insults regards my ignorance and inability to say anything intelligent myself and save you the trouble.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10499907230129671272012-06-19T21:30:39.638-07:002012-06-19T21:30:39.638-07:00Nic
T:"The programming evolved you moron. R...<i>Nic <br /><br />T:"The programming evolved you moron. Read the damned paper."<br /><br />The programming IS the robot. You call me a moron?</i><br /><br /><b>Read the damned paper you moron.</b><br /><br /><i>T: "No paper for the last 100 years has had as its conclusion "...therefore evolution is true"."<br /><br />I can believe that completely. Why bother concluding with what you've already asserted in your preamble?</i><br /><br />I explained why, you quote-mined my answer and cut out the reasons. How honest of you.<br /><br /><i>T: "I'd think you were a clueless arrogant jerk no matter what you believed."<br /><br />You think anyone who doesn't agree with you is 'a clueless arrogant jerk.' Oh well, I'm in good company.</i><br /><br />Another dishonest quote-mining of my words, cutting out the context and changing the meaning.<br /><br />How does being so dishonest work out for you in real life?<br /><br /><i>Why don't you point out to me where I called anyone on any thread an incompetent, lying fraud."</i><br /><br />You do it every time you accuse scientists of fudging results and deliberately omitting contrary data they don't like, like you did <a href="http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/religious-fundamentalism-among-us.html?showComment=1340121687328#c7095175332911814938" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/religious-fundamentalism-among-us.html?showComment=1340148878599#c1977488113124333530" rel="nofollow">here.</a><br /><br />If you dared make those insulting accusations to the face of many research scientists I know you'd be walking home spitting out teeth. But on the web you're just another anonymous big mouthed Creationist.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78561077544720844622012-06-19T21:07:29.704-07:002012-06-19T21:07:29.704-07:00Nic
Again we have the attitude of, me, the ignora...<i>Nic<br /><br />Again we have the attitude of, me, the ignoramus, who must be taught by, you, the intelligent evolutionist. Your condescending attitude is becoming tiresome.</i><br /><br />True, you might be an amazingly intelligent guy just pretending to be a complete ignoramus on the web. Thing is, all we have to go on is your demonstrated complete ignorance of the topic despite claiming to be an expert, your preachy hand-waving denials of the evidence, your baseless attacks on honest scientists, and the lies you've been caught in. Can you blame us for thinking you're a clueless buffoon?<br /><br /><i>They wanted the ones who found food, ergo, they picked the ones they liked. You're simply playing semantics here, but to be honest, I don't think you're even aware of it.</i><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection" rel="nofollow">PROJECTION</a><br /><br /><i>And just how would the automated ranking occur? By programmers setting up the parameters. So exactly how would the programmers not be involved? You simply don't see that intelligence is involved in the entire process, which reduces any results to little more than anecdote in terms of demonstrating the evolution of altruistic behaviour.</i><br /><br />...and the same repeated stupidity:<br /><br />"You intelligently designed that gravity simulator program, so that proves gravity is DESIGNED!!"<br /><br /><i>The researchers assume what they are trying to demonstrate and set up the entire study to arrive at the results they want. </i><br /><br />Telling the same lie over and over won't make it come true Nic. Let's see - you lied about being well read on the topic, can't produce a single paper you read. You lied about having read this latest paper. You even lied about me saying you're "100% wrong".<br /><br />Should we start referring to you as Pinocchio Nic?<br /><br /><i>As I said before, when you state your conclusion in your preamble you're going nowhere.</i><br /><br />Aah, one last lie just for good measure. You're a real credit to Christians everywhere.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24243006260414318792012-06-19T21:03:07.376-07:002012-06-19T21:03:07.376-07:00Thorton,
"I only used the phrase '100% w...Thorton,<br /><br />"I only used the phrase '100% wrong' in response to Thorton's arrogance when he said I was 100% wrong."<br /><br />I must ask your forgiveness once more Thorton, I was accused of being 100% wrong by someone else on another thread. You must be enjoying this. I'm supplying you with lots of ammo to shoot at me. Again I apologize. <br /><br />"The programming evolved you moron. Read the damned paper."<br /><br />The programming IS the robot. You call me a moron?<br /><br />"Evolution *is* a well established scientific fact, has been for over a century."<br /><br />So you say, others disagree and not just ignorant fools such as I. <br /><br />"No paper for the last 100 years has had as its conclusion "...therefore evolution is true"."<br /><br />I can believe that completely. Why bother concluding with what you've already asserted in your preamble?<br /><br />"I'd think you were a clueless arrogant jerk no matter what you believed."<br /><br />You think anyone who doesn't agree with you is 'a clueless arrogant jerk.' Oh well, I'm in good company.<br /><br />"Says the guy who for the last two weeks has been calling myself and my fellow scientists incompetent lying frauds. Go take a flying leap at a rolling donut you disgusting hypocrite."<br /><br />So says the guy who likes to call me a liar on a regular basis. Why don't you point out to me where I called anyone on any thread an incompetent, lying fraud." If you can't do so I think an apology should be forthcoming in keeping with the one I just supplied to you. I won't hold my breath.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72141663958360977072012-06-19T20:11:58.568-07:002012-06-19T20:11:58.568-07:00Oleg,
"What you say is rather silly. I do no...Oleg,<br /><br />"What you say is rather silly. I do not mean to sound discouraging, but there is no other way to put it."<br /><br />Again we have the attitude of, me, the ignoramus, who must be taught by, you, the intelligent evolutionist. Your condescending attitude is becoming tiresome.<br /><br />"That is precisely what happens with living organisms. An animal does not evolve, either. It develops according to the genetic information in its chromosomes and acts in accordance with its neuron wirings."<br /><br />Come on! You're going to equate a robot's programming with the genetic code of an organic being. Give me a break!<br /><br />"The researchers did not select the robots whom they liked. They selected the robots who were objectively more successful at getting "food."'<br /><br />They wanted the ones who found food, ergo, they picked the ones they liked. You're simply playing semantics here, but to be honest, I don't think you're even aware of it.<br /><br />It has been my experience that many evolutionists, many of whom are very intelligent people like yourself, are, unfortunately very poor in the area of philosophical disciplines, such as semantics.<br /><br />"The programmers played the same role nature plays. They selected the best-fit (but not necessarily well-behaved!) robots. In fact, the ranking of the robots mentioned above could be automated and done without any active involvement of the programmers."<br /><br />And just how would the automated ranking occur? By programmers setting up the parameters. So exactly how would the programmers not be involved? You simply don't see that intelligence is involved in the entire process, which reduces any results to little more than anecdote in terms of demonstrating the evolution of altruistic behaviour.<br /><br />"If there is no natural selection there is no evolution."<br /><br />There is certainly much discussion regards the whole concept of natural selection. I accept its existence, but I don't give it the power that evolutionists tend to give it. Certainly not the power to develop all life from a common ancestor. In fact there is growing evidence that natural selection has very little, if any power at all. It would seem most creatures have built-in adaptation systems. As a result a species does not pin its survival on fortunate mutations which are then selected.<br /><br />I think it might be time to look at some of the new findings in biology.<br /><br />"All you want to do is dismiss it with the lamest excuse possible. It looks hilarious."<br /><br />Pointing out the flaws in the entire logic of the study is not a lame excuse. The researchers assume what they are trying to demonstrate and set up the entire study to arrive at the results they want. When they start their paper by asserting the evolutionary origin of altruism their eventual conclusions are already stated.<br /><br />What looks hilarious is otherwise intelligent people accepting such nonsense as legitimate research. As I said before, when you state your conclusion in your preamble you're going nowhere. They state altruism evolved and low-and-behold that's the conclusion they come to. It's simply amazing science.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5365602047275893482012-06-19T18:07:31.470-07:002012-06-19T18:07:31.470-07:00Nic: The robots did not evolve, they reacted based...Nic: <i>The robots did not evolve, they reacted based on their programming. The researchers then carefully chose the few which functioned to their satisfaction and created the next generation. Nothing happened independent of the programmers. This process continued until they got the results they wanted.</i> <br /><br />Nic, <br /><br />What you say is rather silly. I do not mean to sound discouraging, but there is no other way to put it. Let's review what you wrote up close.<br /><br />Nic: <i>The robots did not evolve, they reacted based on their programming.</i> <br /><br />That is precisely what happens with living organisms. An animal does not evolve, either. It develops according to the genetic information in its chromosomes and acts in accordance with its neuron wirings. The term <i>evolution</i> does not refer to a single organism. Evolution happens when mutations change the genetic program and that, in turn, affects the wirings and the behavior of the next generation. So your first sentence, is not even wrong. <br /><br />Nic: <i>The researchers then carefully chose the few which functioned to their satisfaction and created the next generation.</i> <br /><br />Great improvement this time! You are now wrong. Congrats! With a little more effort you can start getting things right. The researchers did not select the robots whom <i>they liked.</i> They selected the robots who were objectively more successful at getting "food." Here is how the authors describe it: "At the end of each generation, the 1,000 individuals in the population were ranked according to their performance and the best 20% were selected." This is actually important, so pay attention. It's not like the researchers looked for those robots who displayed specific behavior. No. The robots were selected on the basis of their fitness. In effect, those robots who couldn't get enough "food" died without leaving offspring. That's how selection works in nature.<br /><br />Nic: <i>Nothing happened independent of the programmers.</i> <br /><br />Drat, we're back again to not even wrong. The programmers played the same role nature plays. They selected the best-fit (but not necessarily well-behaved!) robots. In fact, the ranking of the robots mentioned above could be automated and done without any active involvement of the programmers. Same with natural selection. If there is no natural selection there is no evolution. So complaining that there was a selecting factor present in this experiment is kinda pointless. <br /><br /><i>This process continued until they got the results they wanted.</i> <br /><br />Wrong again. The researchers conducted the experiments until the robot population reached an equilibrium. <br /><br />Nic, you aren't even tying to understand the paper. All you want to do is dismiss it with the lamest excuse possible. It looks hilarious.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78732457993482815012012-06-19T18:05:29.778-07:002012-06-19T18:05:29.778-07:00Nic
The robots did not evolve, they reacted based...<i>Nic<br /><br />The robots did not evolve, they reacted based on their programming. </i><br /><br />The programming evolved you moron. Read the damned paper.<br /><br /><i>The researchers then carefully chose the few which functioned to their satisfaction and created the next generation. Nothing happened independent of the programmers. This process continued until they got the results they wanted.</i><br /><br />Jeez, here we go again:<br /><br />"You intelligently designed that gravity simulator program, so that proves gravity is DESIGNED!!"<br /><br />Clueless Nic determined to stay clueless.<br /><br /><i>I only used the phrase '100% wrong' in response to Thorton's arrogance when he said I was 100% wrong.</i><br /><br />Nic resorts to outright lying once again. Go ahead Nic, point to the place on this thread where I wrote you were "100% wrong".<br /><br /><i>You can't present a cogent case so you dismiss the critic as an ignorant buffoon. </i><br /><br />We did present a quite cogent case well supported by evidence. You hand waved it away without even bothering to read the references supplied. In your case you've demonstrated nothing but ignorant buffoonery.<br /><br /><i>Read the introduction of the paper again. For that matter read the introduction of virtually every paper on this subject or any other subject pertaining to evolution. It's clearly presented that evolution is a fact from the beginning. The only question the papers are concerned with is 'how' it evolved. There is never any consideration given to the question 'did' it evolve. </i><br /><br />Evolution <b>*is*</b> a well established scientific fact, has been for over a century. New papers on the details are no more required to "reinvent the wheel" and re-verify evolution than new papers on aeronautics are required to re-verify heavier-than-air flight. Science, ALL of science, builds off of what has been demonstrated before.<br /><br /><i>When your premise is also your conclusion you will go nowhere in the pursuit of knowledge.</i><br /><br />No paper for the last 100 years has had as its conclusion "...therefore evolution is true". New research investigates the details, <b>not</b> rehashes already demonstrated facts for clueless Creationists.<br /><br /><i>I'm sure if I still thought that way you would consider me a fine fellow.</i><br /><br />If you still refused to read the scientific literature and instead just lied about and insulted professional researchers as you do now, I'd think you were a clueless arrogant jerk no matter what you believed.<br /><br /><i>We can disagree, but disagreement does not need to lead to hostility.</i><br /><br />Says the guy who for the last two weeks has been calling myself and my fellow scientists incompetent lying frauds. Go take a flying leap at a rolling donut you disgusting hypocrite.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19774881131243335302012-06-19T16:34:38.599-07:002012-06-19T16:34:38.599-07:00Oleg,
"They evolved traits that were benefic...Oleg,<br /><br />"They evolved traits that were beneficial to the survival of themselves and their kin. Under certain circumstances (e.g., food shortages), altruistic behavior is a beneficial trait. SO it is no surprise that under such circumstances altruism arose in robot populations."<br /><br />The robots did not evolve, they reacted based on their programming. The researchers then carefully chose the few which functioned to their satisfaction and created the next generation. Nothing happened independent of the programmers. This process continued until they got the results they wanted.<br /><br />"you state, with hilarious certainty, that Thorton and I are 100% wrong. What makes you think so?"<br /><br />What makes you think I'm 100% wrong? Nothing but your adherence to the firm belief you're more knowledgeable than anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of things. Nothing more. I only used the phrase '100% wrong' in response to Thorton's arrogance when he said I was 100% wrong.<br /><br />"You don't know squat about evolution and simulations and can't comprehend a fairly short and simple paper, yet you feel sure that people who have had some experience with these subjects are even more clueless than you are."<br /><br />Ah yes, the old 'you don't understand evolution' canard. You guys are so predictable. You can't present a cogent case so you dismiss the critic as an ignorant buffoon. Very intellectual of you.<br /><br />I do understand evolution, that's why I reject it. However, you and others are so convinced of the truth of evolution it's impossible for you to see another point of view as valid. The loss is yours.<br /><br />I did not say you were clueless. I did say you are blinded by your complete adherence to the presupposition of evolution, and you are.<br /><br />Read the introduction of the paper again. For that matter read the introduction of virtually every paper on this subject or any other subject pertaining to evolution. It's clearly presented that evolution is a fact from the beginning. The only question the papers are concerned with is 'how' it evolved. There is never any consideration given to the question 'did' it evolve. When your premise is also your conclusion you will go nowhere in the pursuit of knowledge.<br /><br />"With this kind of attitude, you just won't be able to learn. If you want to get something of out this, you should change your attitude and try to learn new things instead of regurgitating tired creationist points."<br /><br />Isn't it strange how evolutionists always see themselves as teachers and everyone who disagrees with them as possessing lesser knowledge. You've convinced yourselves you are the only ones who really know the truth. Really funny how that works. I'm of the opinion we should all be open to learning. That attitude resulted in me turning from my former adherence to evolution. I'm sure if I still thought that way you would consider me a fine fellow.<br /><br />The only arrogance being displayed here is by those who insist they know the truth, that being evolution, and have the duty to teach those of us who are ignorant.<br /><br />No Oleg, these things are not over my head, I just don't agree with you, Thorton, et al, and as with all evolutionists you simply can't understand that. You have all failed in presenting your case and the fault is not mine, or yours for that matter. It stems from the fact that you have a very weak case and it's getting weaker by the day.<br /><br />I sincerely wish you all the best as well. We can disagree, but disagreement does not need to lead to hostility.<br /><br /><br />Take care,<br /><br />NicNichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56378873167080817862012-06-19T14:51:27.950-07:002012-06-19T14:51:27.950-07:00Nic,
No offense, but these things are way over y...Nic, <br /><br />No offense, but these things are way over your head. Or maybe you don't have the required reading comprehension. Maybe both. AT any rate, when Thorton and I try to convey to you some really elementary things you don't seem able to comprehend them. Either you need to double your efforts or you should give up and enjoy life. <br /><br />You wrote: <i>However, it is you, Thortton, et al who are 100% wrong. The robots are definitely programmed to function in a certain manner. Nothing they do is 100% random. No computer program can be entirely random as it would not function properly.</i><br /><br />There is a mind-boggling amount of misunderstanding in this short passage, with an unhealthy dose of arrogance. This combination does not bode well for learning. Let me explain. <br /><br />1. You are mudding the waters by switching the subject to ontological issues (true randomness vs pseudorandom numbers). This is a rabbit trail that is not worth chasing. It does not matter whether the code governing the behavior of a particular robot was obtained from a truly random sequence of numbers. (Yes, you can <a href="http://www.random.org/" rel="nofollow">have those</a>. And if that source does not satisfy your needs, feel free to build or buy your own <a href="http://www.idquantique.com/true-random-number-generator/products-overview.html" rel="nofollow">true random-number generator</a> based on quantum measurements. But I digress.) You can take the digits of the number π or use telephone numbers of your mom and dad or even use the sequence 11111111...1111. It is very, very unlikely that those numbers will encode highly altruistic behavior in those particular robots. In other words, the numbers need not be truly random, they should just not accidentally make the robots very altruistic. Most number sequences will suffice. (If that were not the case then the problem of generating altruism from scratch would not be difficult. Are you still with me?) <br /><br />2. The robots in this study were emphatically <i>not</i> programmed to function in a certain manner. Both Thorton and I quoted the same bloody passage that states unequivocally that "because the 33 genes were initially set to random values, the behavior of robots was random in the first generations." (In case you already forgot what was going on in Part 1, we aren't talking true randomness. Random here means "not specifically set to generate altruistic behavior.") So the robots behaved pretty much incoherently at the beginning. <br /><br />3. Although the robots behaved in a silly way, some behaved less silly than others because their programs encoding their behavior turned out to be slightly more advantageous than others. The top 20% were allowed to "procreate." Their descendants had a small amount of mutational changes in their genomes. These mutations were again random (in the aforementioned sense) and some mutations improved the robot performance in getting "food," while others were detrimental. <br /><br />3. After a number of generations, the robots became sophisticated enough to hang out near the source of food. That was in itself interesting, but that was not the most novel aspect of this study. They evolved traits that were beneficial to the survival of themselves and their kin. Under certain circumstances (e.g., food shortages), altruistic behavior is a beneficial trait. SO it is no surprise that under such circumstances altruism arose in robot populations. <br /><br />4. Lastly, you state, with hilarious certainty, that Thorton and I are 100% wrong. What makes you think so? You don't know squat about evolution and simulations and can't comprehend a fairly short and simple paper, yet you feel sure that people who have had some experience with these subjects are even more clueless than you are. With this kind of attitude, you just won't be able to learn. If you want to get something of out this, you should change your attitude and try to learn new things instead of regurgitating tired creationist points. <br /><br />All the best, <br /><br />OToleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18270116598817211862012-06-19T13:48:59.915-07:002012-06-19T13:48:59.915-07:00Nic
You and others just don't get it. Altruis...<i>Nic<br /><br />You and others just don't get it. Altruism is not a concrete entity which natural selection can 'see'. If you don't put it into the equation from the start it is not going to show up on its own. </i><br /><br />Nic, even I am starting to feel embarrassed for just how much of a fool you're making of yourself here.<br /><br />Altruism is a <b>genetically based behavior</b> which can and does provide a selectable evolutionary advantage for those with the genetic disposition to it. That's what the evidence shows.<br /><br />Altruistic behavior wasn't pre-loaded into the simulation in any way, shape, or form. It wasn't deliberately selected for by dishonest scientists. The group behavior <b>emerged</b> as a direct result of selectable beneficial mutations in the test population. <br /><br />You can wallow in your willful ignorance all you like, insult honest scientists, lie about reading the papers, loudly crow your happy little Creationist denials, but you won't affect reality even one little bit.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73451508811420537572012-06-19T13:31:19.616-07:002012-06-19T13:31:19.616-07:00Thorton,
"The experiment is simulating empir...Thorton,<br /><br />"The experiment is simulating empirically observed evolutionary processes in which the selection is not purely random. Real world selection does NOT have a uniform probability distribution but has a definite bias in favor of the more evolutionary fit, just as the simulation modeled."<br /><br />It's not I demonstrating staggering ignorance here. <br /><br />You and others just don't get it. Altruism is not a concrete entity which natural selection can 'see'. If you don't put it into the equation from the start it is not going to show up on its own. And choosing the top 20% of the best performers in no way even remotely resembles what would happen naturally. It's cherry picking of the highest order. It renders the whole exercise useless as science, except to the evolutionary mind which seeks only to confirm its presumptions.<br /><br />As for 'empirically observed evolutionary processes', this is only a further display of presumptuous evolutionary thinking. I never fail to be amazed at how willfully blind evolutionists are to the horrendous flaws in their reasoning processes. There are no 'empirically observed evolutionary processes', only minor adaptations within species which are then erroneously extrapolated. <br /><br />Call me a clueless git, idiot, whatever you want. It only demonstrates your lack of skill in presenting your case.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54377512739196303202012-06-19T13:23:45.473-07:002012-06-19T13:23:45.473-07:00Nic
The researchers in this case and in every oth...<i>Nic<br /><br />The researchers in this case and in every other study I have read, do not start with the intent of discovering whether evolution of altruism occurred, it is assumed it did. </i><br /><br />That's the <b>hypothesis being tested</b> you illiterate boob.<br /><br /><i>Therein lies the problem. The research begins with the evolutionary origin of altruism and only looks for results which support that assumption. That is not sound science and one need not hold scientific degrees to see that, common sense makes it obvious.</i><br /><br />See Nic, that's exactly why you get responded to harshly. You're woefully ignorant on this topic, haven't been within 1000 yards of a working science lab in your life, <b>yet you've just accused the researchers of being either hopelessly incompetent or deliberate frauds.</b> By claiming they deliberately ignore non-supporting data you're accusing them of reprehensible acts that if true would get them fired and probably blackballed from any reputable science lab.<br /><br />How would you feel if some untrained jerk had come to your office and proclaimed with zero support "That Nic, he's a liar and a fraud! For all his work in sociology he made up bogus results and ignored things he didn't like! He's an incompetent crook just producing dishonest results to steal money from the taxpayers!"<br /><br />I guarantee you'd be hacked off, which is what working scientists feel every time a Creationist jerk like you spits in their face by insulting their integrity.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51450437835445843562012-06-19T11:07:39.275-07:002012-06-19T11:07:39.275-07:00Nic
By choosing only the top 20% of the robots wi...<i>Nic<br /><br />By choosing only the top 20% of the robots with the best performance, the process is manipulated to produce the results wanted. In a truly random process the robots would not be chosen in such a manner. </i><br /><br />Good gravy but you're a clueless git.<br /><br />The experiment is simulating empirically observed evolutionary processes in which <b>the selection is not purely random</b>. Real world selection does NOT have a uniform probability distribution but has a definite bias in favor of the more evolutionary fit, <b>just as the simulation modeled.</b><br /><br />Your willful ignorance on this topic is truly staggering.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.com