tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post4560988896501315404..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Ants Optimize Their SearchUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5254834142472272302010-12-20T10:26:51.767-08:002010-12-20T10:26:51.767-08:00Rhod said:
Unfortunately, evolutionism has never ...Rhod said:<br /><br /><i>Unfortunately, evolutionism has never seemed to attract really first-rate minds such as you might see in physics and other "hard" sciences.</i><br /><br />Well, of course "evolutionism" does not attract bright minds. "Evolutionism" is a straw man of evolution. I would not be attracted to work on such a cartoon either.<br /><br />The science of evolution, on the other hand, has tons of bright minds working on it. Most of them have to be very mathematically-oriented, otherwise they would not make it. You seem to have no idea about the scientific rigour in evolutionary science. I have seen my manuscripts been meticulously destroyed into shreds by these very capable and sharp minds (which has forced me to be a much better scientist than I would be otherwise). I guess you have not taken any courses in evolutionary analysis, nor in molecular evolution, nor in population genetics, nor in bioenergetics.<br /><br />Then again, you did not say "evolution," you said "evolutionism" which is the give-away that you actually have no idea whatsoever about evolution. All you know is the cartoons portrayed by the likes of our dear blog host. Figures.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58078868224342372462010-12-18T07:06:52.191-08:002010-12-18T07:06:52.191-08:00Rhod: Again this has to do with ants, sterile work...<b>Rhod</b>: <i>Again this has to do with ants, sterile workers. </i><br /><br />Sterile workers are consistent with predictions from the Theory of Natural Selection as sisters are related by ~75% of their genes. <br /><br />Female ants inherit one set of genes from their mother, one from their father. Male ants are produced from an unfertilized egg and only have half a complement of genes (haploid). Consequently, female workers share up to 75% (assuming monandry) of their genes. They have greater success by *not* reproducing (where their offspring would only have 50% of their genes), but by helping their sisters. <br /><br />The relationship between female ants is determined by the habits of the queen, in particular, how many mates she takes. In colonies where the queen has only one mate, females are more closely related, and tend to be more dominant going so far as to manipulate sex ratios. <br /><br />Sundström, Chapuisat & Keller, <i>Conditional Manipulation of Sex Ratios by Ant Workers: A Test of Kin Selection Theory</i>, Science 1996. <br /><br />And even beyond immediate kin. <br /><br />Helantera, et al., <i>Unicolonial ants: where do they come from, what are they and where are they going?</i>, Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2009. <br /><br />Ronald Reagan, <i>Alien Invasion Hypothesis</i>, 1987.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7834207766916238092010-12-17T23:40:35.946-08:002010-12-17T23:40:35.946-08:00troy said...
Rhod:
"Unfortunately, evoluti...troy said... <br /><br />Rhod:<br /><br />"Unfortunately, evolutionism has never seemed to attract really first-rate minds such as you might see in physics and other "hard" sciences."<br /><br />You don't think that Fisher qualifies as a really first-rate mind? I would put him at about the same level as Richard Feynman. <br /><br />Ron Fisher and John Haldane were some of the very few mathematically minded evolutionists. True. Too often, the sort who enter the field (and are perceived as the leaders, today) of evolutionism are just not sound scientific minds. Instead, evolutionism seems to attract folks who "want to make a difference", bringing sentimentalist and political points of view to an already "soft science". Fisher put evolution on a firmer scientific basis and with his Genetical Theory. But, in that same work I believe he diverged into his odd Theory of Racial Decline. And when tobacco manufacturers were looking for a shill "man of science" to counter cancer research, Ron Fisher was there in several articles. Seems like I remember old ARGOSY magazine articles in the 50's with Fisher the resident expert denying a link to smoking and cancer. Haldane didn't help himself out, either, standing by fellow marxist Lysenko all those years while folks starved in Russia/Ukraine. And his duplicitous attacks on Velikovsky (like CSagan's, too) did not put evolutionists in a very good light. <br /><br />Again on the topic at hand, I see the latest Jan issue of DISCOVER has an interesting 3 page interview with Ed Wilson. He is infuriating his accolytes by now negating his past claims for altruism and kinship --particularly citing ants. Over 35 years, so many evolutionists had embraced altruism as a panacea for gaps in evolutionary biology. They are irate that their "grand old man" E.O.Wilson now has vacated his work, there, and orphaned them. Wilson even shoots down the math of Bill Hamilton. Again this has to do with ants, sterile workers. And remembering that CDarwin had said (a lack of evolutionary mechanism) could be "actually fatal to my whole theory". That I see it, evolutionism needs to have a person step forward in the footsteps of Darwin, Hamilton, and Wilson and resolve this problem with insects such as the ants.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50844035002354441902010-12-17T13:41:09.981-08:002010-12-17T13:41:09.981-08:00I know of one "evolutionary narrative" k...I know of one "evolutionary narrative" kind of concept by Ernst W Mayr, but I doubt Cornelius means the same thing. I don't buy completely on Ernst's idea. But maybe that's just me, or maybe I should read more about it before rejecting a half-understood idea.<br /><br />I will see if I can get what Cornelius means about it around here. Then I will ask if needed.<br /><br />Have fun!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76983930495477041352010-12-17T13:32:12.181-08:002010-12-17T13:32:12.181-08:00Eocene,
The algorithm used by the ants is still q...Eocene,<br /><br />The algorithm used by the ants is still quite mechanical, and it is replicated "mechanically" in "ant algorithms" in computer science. This method involves, again, heuristics: Semi-random walks, and decision-making/selection at a level that can be replicated without any need for consciousness to get involved.<br /><br />I fail to see why an environment would not be able to select and wash away semi-randomness too. We have seen it at many levels. We have seen it happen in nature, directly. We have seen it at a smaller level in directed evolution experiments where variability is brought about by random mutagenesis, and then selection applied as simply as, say, using antibiotics, we have seen it in rounds of self-replicating RNA being selected from random libraries that improve enormously each round, we have seen it in genetic algorithms. The formula has always been random variability plus selection. Why would an environment be incapable of selecting?<br /><br />Then, I fail to see how the environment would be messed up because of evolutionary theory.<br /><br />I don't expect you to change your mind about evolution being wrong. I only expect your answers to be reasonable, and that you will find mine so as well. Let me know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41404919448442905592010-12-17T12:51:27.683-08:002010-12-17T12:51:27.683-08:00Rhod:
"Unfortunately, evolutionism has never...Rhod:<br /><br />"Unfortunately, evolutionism has never seemed to attract really first-rate minds such as you might see in physics and other "hard" sciences."<br /><br />You don't think that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Fisher" rel="nofollow">Fisher</a> qualifies as a really first-rate mind? I would put him at about the same level as Richard Feynman.troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37530152682462634662010-12-17T11:39:07.882-08:002010-12-17T11:39:07.882-08:00Negative:
"I did not mention the evolution o...Negative:<br /><br />"I did not mention the evolution of the ants at all. I was talking about what you seem to perceive as "intelligence" in the ants: Can you see how this works at all? They "outsmart" people because they are using an heuristic algorithm instead of thinking. This takes the form of semi-random exploration (semi-random because there are constraints to where they can walk and where not), keeping record of the trials (pheromone trail), finding the food, then go back by following intersecting trails which give them, with time and several runs of traveling the different paths, to optimizing a single path as they add concentration of pheromones. <br />====<br /><br />The problem is you are making it out as strictly nothing more than mechanical and there is clearly more than blind programmed robotics invented by non-sense going on here. <br />----<br /><br />Negative Entropy:<br /><br />"This is selection"<br />====<br /><br />The only selection going on is with the ant's own ability of decision making. I'm not comparing it to the intellectualness of humans(human's are only ignorant when lack of understanding doesn't exist yet), but clearly ants(and any other organism) have a measure of consciousness as a living breathing lifeform with desires, goals, choices etc, though they are limited compared to us. The act of selection is done by a living lifeform, not blind unintelligent forces of environment as even the bible acknlowledges exist and that we're all subject to it. That was my point.<br /><br />I believe Cornelius' point was this constant lack by evolutionists to ever explain in their own foundation of undirectedness with no guidance or interference from any intelligence. Everyone seems perfectly comfortable with story telling without supporting facts about just how all these complicated mechanisms(example - your heuristic algorithms) arose and the complex codes of information that drive them came about by nothing more than chemcials and physics. This is always diliberately left out and glossed over with linguistic whitewash and we're left with inadequate and unsatifying answers to our questions.<br /><br />One thing you might do in the other thread is ask Cornelius just what he means by "evolutionary narritives" which seems to be stumbling many on the latest thread. I'm not necessarily attacking you, but I'm attacking a dogma that I see presently destroying out planet Earth and all that runs it. I'm also not favouring the other side either. I find much of their own dogma that turns my stomach as well. Admittedly I am very ecologically oriented and most of my fights in debates come from rightwinging Fundies , but oddly enough the political left suddenly becomes their allies somehow when I bring it up here for no other intelligent reason than to be merely contrary in the discussion. Go figure!Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4615694346077956592010-12-17T11:10:21.723-08:002010-12-17T11:10:21.723-08:00Zachriel:
"You could have simply quoted the ...Zachriel:<br /><br />"You could have simply quoted the claim that you say you are not misrepresenting. Instead, when challenged, you repeat that you are not misrepresenting anything, and then sprinkle in some insults."<br />====<br /><br />What is this with you and game playing ??? I don't bite. Your issue is with Richard Dawkins over at his forum where he and other well knowns have established there is no god directing anything and blind pointless indifference without purpose or intent free from any interference from any intelligence(except possibly Aliens) has brought us the world of complexity and sophistication we see all around us that sadly at the present time is failing because of humankind.<br /><br />If your a Theistic Evolutionist, then admit it and move on. Otherwise this contant linguistic whitewash over rotten timbers to hide the truth ends here.Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8460172195726633202010-12-17T07:42:34.583-08:002010-12-17T07:42:34.583-08:00Excuse me eocene, but if you don't want to hav...Excuse me eocene, but if you don't want to have a conversation tell me so. Attacking me without giving me an answer showing that you understood what I said will not make a conversation any easier. Fine if that is what you prefer, but then prepare to have the corresponding answers.<br /><br />I did not mention the evolution of the ants at all. I was talking about what you seem to perceive as "intelligence" in the ants: Can you see how this works at all? They "outsmart" people because they are using an heuristic algorithm instead of thinking. This takes the form of semi-random exploration (semi-random because there are constraints to where they can walk and where not), keeping record of the trials (pheromone trail), finding the food, then go back by following intersecting trails which give them, with time and several runs of traveling the different paths, to optimizing a single path as they add concentration of pheromones. This is selection.<br /><br />To make you happy about your inference about "my religion," let me finish as follows: What the ants are doing too, is show you that heuristic algorithms are sufficient, and often surpass intelligence, to solve problems. Thus, evolution, another heuristic algorithm, does not need intelligent input to work and produce the variety of life that we see. yes, the ant system depends in their different capacities, pheromone, following pheromone trails, and so. But, if ants can "outsmart" you with heuristics, why can't nature "outsmart" you by using heuristics?<br /><br />If you give me a real answer, I will try hard to understand what you say. But if instead you prefer the attack mode, I will be glad to comply.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88824313151254208992010-12-17T06:07:00.013-08:002010-12-17T06:07:00.013-08:00Eocene: I haven't misrepresented anything. The...<b>Eocene</b>: <i>I haven't misrepresented anything. The very foundation and reason for your belief and worldview is that there is absolutely no Intelligent Designer/Creator of any sort who accomplished anything. </i><br /><br /><b>Zachriel</b>: <i>As WE have not made that claim, you are still misrepresenting our position. </i><br /><br /><b>Eocene</b>: <i>No I haven't misrepresented anything, science fiction always remains science fiction no matter how much your heart wishes it to be true. Apparently lying is also considered a perfectly normal AMMORAL attribute that is nothing more than a cobbled and tinkered invention of evolution as a defensive survival mechanism(even tho it was never planned for). </i><br /><br />You could have simply quoted the claim that you say you are not misrepresenting. Instead, when challenged, you repeat that you are not misrepresenting anything, and then sprinkle in some insults. <br /><br />Good luck with that.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46550866660917784262010-12-17T05:50:28.023-08:002010-12-17T05:50:28.023-08:00Pedant:
"Another excellent example of natura...Pedant:<br /><br />"Another excellent example of natural selection at work."<br />====<br /><br />Incredible and very illustrative example of an Evolutionist jumping for joy over a supposed proof of their god's existance when in actual fact it is nothing more than the result of rejecting morality. Human imperfection and error motivated and given continued life through the flawed passed on epigenetic trait qualites of greed and selfishness.<br /><br />Other examples:<br /><br />SWINE FLU:<br /><br />How many articles came out during the potential for global swine flu pandemic and the possible death of 10s of thousands of fellow human beings and all evolutionists could do is write articles celebrating what they considered yet another example of their god at work cobbling and tinkering and all the while ignoring the human error of sanitaton problems and laspes. Ignored also was the greed behind industrial farming which caused the thing to mutate in the first place. Screw the victims, their just collateral damage in the survival of the fittest game of life.<br /><br />2009 HOMOSEXUALITY IS NORMAL IN NATURE<br /><br />Several articles championed Homosexuality as a perfectly normal trait because it is so prevalent in nature as examples like the gay penquins in the German Berlin Zoo illustrate. Yet researchers as far back as the early 1980s were warning the scientific community that Bisphenol A and other chemicals had potential for disrupting the endocrine system during early fetal developement and causing sexual disfunction in all life on earth. Girls were being born with testicle instead of ovaries. More common also is the deformity of children born with both genitalia and of course the taboo of discussing the genetic mistakes causing an increase in homosexuality in later day children. <br /><br />www.ourstolenfuture.org has innumerable examples of gay seagulls trying to nest, gay fish trying to spawn etc failing to reproduce in the environment because of trace amounts of these dangerous chemicals destroying their genetic wiring. Articles in other journals warning since warning of potential of mass extinctions if the world's leaders don't get a handle on this. What is the Evolutionist reaction to all of this ??? What about global ruin for increased extinction rates globally ??? Who cares, our degenerative behavior is found in nature, it is therefore natural and normal, hell, life is a mere casualty of the chaos that cobbled and tinkered the damn thing in the first place. Hurray for our side!!!.<br /><br />Pedant: "it's an attack on western civilization"<br /><br />One has to wonder how far into the toilette this so-called Western Civilization has to sink before ammorality is rejected or ejected from the planet. That time is actually close at hand.Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25754857240289695522010-12-17T05:01:08.804-08:002010-12-17T05:01:08.804-08:00Argentine ants have been so successful outside of ...<i>Argentine ants have been so successful outside of their natural checks and balances environment, that they are actually decimating most all of the various native Harvestor ant populations throughout the Southwest...</i><br /><br />Another excellent example of natural selection at work.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37986422315447395752010-12-17T00:43:26.115-08:002010-12-17T00:43:26.115-08:00Negative Entropy:
"Actually what the ants pr...Negative Entropy:<br /><br />"Actually what the ants prove is that heuristics with some way of selection, can solve problems more efficiently than greedy (or exhaustive) methods. This looks awfully similar to something I have heard about before ... hum ... heuristics smells a bit like trial and error, like some random process ... selection ... random process ... selection ... hum, so familiar ... what could it be?"<br />=====<br /><br />Unfortunately for your religious worldview of a wish list there, none of the above. To the extent that the ants have a measure of self awareness and consciousness along with other instinctive programming, they have the ability to make decisions. And personally for me in the case of the Argentine Ants and having to deal with them in what is ideally a perfect environment which lacks all the natural controls of their homeland where different genetic hives attack & control each other, here they only have to deal with the collective intelligence of supposedly far superior humans(scientific geniuses) and in doing this they are proving to out smart the geniuses at almost every turn. Evolution has noting to do with it. That's your problem.<br /><br />On another note: Argentine ants have been so successful outside of their natural checks and balances environment, that they are actually decimating most all of the various native Harvestor ant populations throughout the Southwest, which in domino effect terms, means that Horned (Toad) Lizards are declining at an alarming rate and are no longer present in many of their formerly large territories(since they dine almost exclusively on Harvestor ants). Aren't the later day human geniuses and their achievements and accomplishments a wonderful precious thing ???Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31844665043251684242010-12-17T00:10:49.085-08:002010-12-17T00:10:49.085-08:00Zachriel:
"As WE have not made that claim, y...Zachriel:<br /><br />"As WE have not made that claim, you are still misrepresenting our position."<br />====<br /><br />Again with this condescending speaking in the third person bit. No I haven't misrepresented anything, science fiction always remains science fiction no matter how much your heart wishes it to be true. Apparently lying is also considered a perfectly normal AMMORAL attribute that is nothing more than a cobbled and tinkered invention of evolution as a defensive survival mechanism(even tho it was never planned for).<br /><br />Nice!!!Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27687136346251004302010-12-16T21:15:49.465-08:002010-12-16T21:15:49.465-08:00Gary said,
Darwinian evolution is literally impos...Gary said,<br /><br />Darwinian evolution is literally impossible without a powerful algorithmic programed input. And that can only come from intelligence.<br /><br />You are almost correct. Evolution can and eventually will be deconstructed by our evolved brains to be nearly fully described by "powerful algorithms". There are powerful laws and complex interactions at work that, so far, the mind of man has little concept. In all the 6 editions of Origin, CDarwin used almost no math, could think of no math to muster in favor of Wallace's (and his) Theory. Though Greg Mendel rejected evolutionism, he did turn his intellect to genetics and gave us a few simple equations to work from. Hardy, Weinburg, and especially Ron Fisher supplied a few more equations. I won't include the math of J Haldane as we now know there really can be no "dilemma". Bill Hamilton added his own peculiar math to biology. To come back to the point of discussion, that I foresee future evolutionists who will be able to furnish us with powerful algorithms, the mathematical terms and tools to describe evolution in action. Unfortunately, evolutionism has never seemed to attract really first-rate minds such as you might see in physics and other "hard" sciences. I'm sure this will change as the next generation comes into the field.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61224128119645680462010-12-16T19:35:22.978-08:002010-12-16T19:35:22.978-08:00Actually what the ants prove is that heuristics wi...Actually what the ants prove is that heuristics with some way of selection, can solve problems more efficiently than greedy (or exhaustive) methods. This looks awfully similar to something I have heard about before ... hum ... heuristics smells a bit like trial and error, like some random process ... selection ... random process ... selection ... hum, so familiar ... what could it be?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74565313434638620102010-12-16T13:37:54.279-08:002010-12-16T13:37:54.279-08:00Gary the yappy little puppy said...
Statistic...<i>Gary the yappy little puppy said...<br /><br /> Statistical mechanics proves Darwinism wrong.</i><br /><br />Let me try that line of reasoning:<br /><br /><b>Statistical mechanics proves Gary is a clueless gasbag.</b><br /><br />How'd I do using your method Gary? No evidence, no calculations, no explanation needed. Just wave those hands and make an unsupported assertion!<br /><br />Boy, arguing like an IDiot is a lot easier that doing real science. No wonder yappy little puppies like Gary always take the lazy way out!Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59965905768168289662010-12-16T13:07:39.374-08:002010-12-16T13:07:39.374-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Venture Freehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17667967894208257738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37774197028146964062010-12-16T12:16:06.423-08:002010-12-16T12:16:06.423-08:00Gary: Statistical mechanics proves Darwinism wrong...<b>Gary</b>: <i>Statistical mechanics proves Darwinism wrong. </i><br /><br />Evolutionary theory is consistent with statistical mechanics. But if you have a cite, or at least an argument, we will look at it. <br /><br /><b>Gary</b>: <i>Bio systems are full of such inter-dependencies. </i><br /><br />Yes, they are, and these interdependencies evolved. <br /><br />Your comment seems to be full of rejection, but little in the way of argument. You may want to concentrate on a few points. Do you accept Common Descent?Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63493238904392176302010-12-16T11:57:18.702-08:002010-12-16T11:57:18.702-08:00Eocene: I haven't misrepresented anything. The...<b>Eocene</b>: <i>I haven't misrepresented anything. The very foundation and reason for your belief and worldview is that there is absolutely no Intelligent Designer/Creator of any sort who accomplished anything. </i><br /><br />As we have not made that claim, you are still misrepresenting our position.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74164243396909573662010-12-16T10:41:12.458-08:002010-12-16T10:41:12.458-08:00Zachriel said...
The usual post. Point to som...Zachriel said...<br /><br /> <i> The usual post. Point to something complicated and exclaim that it couldn't have evolved.</i><br /><br />And you're supposed to be an expert?!<br /><br />Statistical mechanics proves Darwinism wrong.<br /><br />The inane reasoning that Darwinists love so much i.e. "probabilities have nothing to do with life" is laughable.<br /><br />Darwinists have clearly never heard of and know nothing of what engineers call "combinatorial dependencies".<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and look it up.<br /><br />Sadly, for evolutionism, it applies to bio systems as much as to anything else.<br />Bio systems are full of such inter-dependencies.<br /><br /><i> Actually, evolutionary expectations are that evolution is pretty darn smart having had billions of years to cobble and tinker.</i><br /><br />So now "evolution is pretty darn smart"? <br />Gee, Nobel prize! <br />If you can prove that.<br />For evolution to "smart" implies that you must have some proof that nature itself actually thinks and thus has will and knows where its going.<br />Oops, that's against the Darwinian rules:<br />Rule #1 "No intelligence allowed".<br /><br />Even as a common analogical expression, your statement implies the exact opposite of your intent.<br /><br /><i> The results suggest incremental improvement; pheromone trails, counting steps, sense of direction, each ability adding capability. </i><br /><br />This also is risible and quite telling. <br />Do read what you write entirely w/o thinking or is this really the best you've got?<br />Darwinists thinking like small children always go leaps and bounds over details.<br /><br /><b>Look at the questions begged by your ludicrous statement</b>:<br />Where did pheromones come from? <br />How did organisms "evolve" the necessary mechanisms required to detect them? <br />How did they "evolve" the 'instinct' to follow such trails?<br />How did ants learn to count?<br />Whence comes this built in compass for "sense" -what's that exactly?- of direction?<br /><br />You just demonstrated your typical Darwinist, puerilely simplistic comprehension and reasoning.<br />Life is not simple, things are not simple. The deeper you go the more complex it gets. <br /><br />Worse, you just created a few 100 more problems for Darwinism as each new question raised by your answer will raise yet more questions on how all these mechanisms arose through RM + NS.<br /><br />And then on to the requirement for an empirically testable evolutionary RM+NS pathway.<br />That is something that does not exist anywhere in the whole of Darwinian "science" literature.<br /><br />Bad news Zach, selection has no creative power.<br />Selection is just a filter that weeds things out.<br />It has no plan, no guidance, no preference, no goals. Its just a filter.<br /><br />Worse, most RM's are neutral. Many are deleterious. Few are beneficial. <br />Selection can't even "see" most of them and the numerous deleterious ones will almost always overcome the rare good ones and mutations come at a cost to the organism.<br /><br />Darwinian evolution is literally impossible without a powerful algorithmic programed input. And that can only come from intelligence.<br /><br />Get over it.Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26833385926978164422010-12-16T10:15:11.379-08:002010-12-16T10:15:11.379-08:00Gary,
I think that Rhod was being facetious (a &qu...Gary,<br />I think that Rhod was being facetious (a "Poe" as they say).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10538070410910465649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21886903153207923752010-12-16T09:55:38.826-08:002010-12-16T09:55:38.826-08:00We know this is so, because evolution has done it....<i>We know this is so, because evolution has done it. </i><br /><br />I'm sure you know its true because you believe its true. The proof of evolution is that things evolved.<br /><br />Can you say "begging the question"?!<br /><br />Sheesh, this I would expect from an ignorant indoctrinated grade schooler.Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3730770823313597032010-12-16T09:52:36.181-08:002010-12-16T09:52:36.181-08:00Rhod said...
This is easily explained in evol...Rhod said...<br /><i><br /> This is easily explained in evolutionary terms, and quite simply too.</i> <br /><br />How many more times must the poor world be subjected to such idiotic claims? <br />Rhod, the only reasonable response to this type of claim is ROTFLMAO!!!<br /><br />Yes folks everything is <i>easily explained by evolution</i>, yet nothing is explained by just-so stories speculation on how it might have happened. <br />Once again we witness the dumb evolutionist using stories to "prove" evolution is true and claiming that its true because we have stories.<br /><br />Thank God physics doesn't work like this and physicists are actually required to produce empirical evidence for their claims.Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83088617274654533962010-12-16T09:08:25.611-08:002010-12-16T09:08:25.611-08:00Zachriel:
"Pseudoscience stands outside of t...Zachriel:<br /><br />"Pseudoscience stands outside of this body of science."<br />====<br /><br />Which is why evolutionary theory shouldn't even be allowed with the exception of a course in philosophy.<br />----<br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><br />"Your own comments avoided any substantive response."<br />====<br /><br />I'm certain that in your own political/pholosphical/ideological worldview mindset(as your own blog indicates) you actually believe that to be true. That's what freewill is all about. So believe it!!!<br />----<br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><br />"No one can stop you from playing with straw men, but we will continue to point out that you are misrepresenting our views, and that your comments are devoid of scientific content."<br />====<br /><br />I haven't misrepresented a thing. I'm not the one who believes non-sense begat sense, non-intelligence begat intelligence, non-life begat life. Everything I relate to in life has to do with intelligent logic and reasoning, yet you are the ones who are suppose to be the rational logical ones, yet your defiance against any intelligent reasoning as having any influence on the sophistication and complexity of life belies that claim to fame. If you don't like continually hearing this then find a new church.Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.com