Evolution Vs. Creationism

[pood]

Evolutionary principles and their practical application.

You’d think everyone would be aware of how practically pervasive the understanding of evolution is, and all the benefits it confers.

 

[pood]

Let me guess...the only possible answer then is "Intelligent Design?"

There is a myriad of possible answers, so what? Who cares and why is a much more interesting question in my estimation.

Anyone who cares to understand themselves and the natural world, and how it all works, cares, and that is why they care.

Is it. Nothing to do with ideology?

That’s right, nothing. Here is what happens when ideology actually invades biology.

 

[Swammerdami]

Evolutionary principles and their practical application.

You’d think everyone would be aware of how practically pervasive the understanding of evolution is, and all the benefits it confers.

I've had some involvement with computerized optimization problems. Some difficult optimizations have been achieved using a  Genetic algorithm. A "genome" is designed, typically a list of the parameters of a possible solution. Initially the population is set to random genomes; and generation-by-generation the individuals breed children according to their score on the objective (fitness) function. (The more fit individuals contribute more to the next generation.) After many generations the most fit individual becomes the "solution." It will not generally be the global optimum across all possible solutions, but will often be better than any other discoverable solution.

Each individual in Generation N+1 is created from two individuals ("parents") in Generation N; their genomes are combined into a new genome by mimicking the cross-over present in eukaryotic meiosis. (Separately, random mutations are also imposed.) It seems fascinating that this approach -- almost exactly similar to eukaryotic evolution -- provides the best solution method for some computerized optimizations. (I myself once won an optimization contest using a 2-D genome.)

The approach has mixed success -- it only works well when the solution parameters can be coded into a "genome" with good behavior. (As a simple example, small integer parameters are sometimes better expressed in unary than binary.)

The great computer scientist Danny Hillis came up with a novel improvement on the Genetic algorithm. TWO populations ("predator" and "prey") are evolved together. In his example, calculating the exact fitness of a predator (across N! cases) had too high of a computational cost so the predator was tested only against specific test-cases (the "prey"). The prey needed to evolve into the most challenging cases for the evolving predators.

 

[Ford]

It certainly doesn't have much practical use.

Oh dear. You are so clueless.

Yeah, we should have just left it at "the plague is caused by evil miasmas in the air" and totally not tried to figure out germ theory or why it's important to have clean water. And atoms clearly don't exist because we didn't have a microscope powerful enough to see one.

 

[DLH]

Yeah, we should have just left it at "the plague is caused by evil miasmas in the air" and totally not tried to figure out germ theory or why it's important to have clean water. And atoms clearly don't exist because we didn't have a microscope powerful enough to see one.

The most obvious problem with that stupid playground philosophy is that virtually all of the people who figured out that shit were theists.

 

[Ford]

Yeah, we should have just left it at "the plague is caused by evil miasmas in the air" and totally not tried to figure out germ theory or why it's important to have clean water. And atoms clearly don't exist because we didn't have a microscope powerful enough to see one.

The most obvious problem with that stupid playground philosophy is that virtually all of the people who figured out that shit were theists.

I guess at this point it would be a waste of time pointing out that Darwin was a divinity student and probably knew the Bible better than most modern day evangelicals.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Yeah, we should have just left it at "the plague is caused by evil miasmas in the air" and totally not tried to figure out germ theory or why it's important to have clean water. And atoms clearly don't exist because we didn't have a microscope powerful enough to see one.

The most obvious problem with that stupid playground philosophy is that virtually all of the people who figured out that shit were theists.

Simplistic meaningless truism. We can all create these: most of the people that explored China were Chinese.

 

[Ford]

Yeah, we should have just left it at "the plague is caused by evil miasmas in the air" and totally not tried to figure out germ theory or why it's important to have clean water. And atoms clearly don't exist because we didn't have a microscope powerful enough to see one.

The most obvious problem with that stupid playground philosophy is that virtually all of the people who figured out that shit were theists.

Simplistic meaningless truism. We can all create these: most of the people that explored China were Chinese.

Well now, hang on a second here. Marco Polo explored China, and he was Venetian. In fact if you read Western history, most of the people who explored the Americas were European. Spanish, Portuguese, English, and of course Christopher Columbus discovered the whole thing, and he was Italian. They were also Christian, so obviously the best explorers are theists!

 

[pood]

Yeah, we should have just left it at "the plague is caused by evil miasmas in the air" and totally not tried to figure out germ theory or why it's important to have clean water. And atoms clearly don't exist because we didn't have a microscope powerful enough to see one.

The most obvious problem with that stupid playground philosophy is that virtually all of the people who figured out that shit were theists.

So what?

 

[steve_bank]

The idea that science is aEuropean Christian invention is an old Christian argument. Very simplistic and ignorance of history.

As Persian and Arab cultures declined silence and math fed into Europe. Science always goes where the money is, where people have the time to pursue math and science.

Before the rise of Europe Persia and Arabia were the places to be for science. Newton used Persian astronomical data. The basic principles of Newton's laws of motion existed in print in Arabia. The foundations of his calculus goes far back in history.

Arabs came up with idea of zero, important in arithmetic.

The path goes back through the Greeks, what we now call India, and China.

 

[Swammerdami]

Arabs came up with idea of zero, important in arithmetic.

Not quite. In fact the Latin translation of Al-Khwarizmi's major work is called Algoritmi de numero Indorum -- "Algorithms with the numerals of India."

Algorizmi said:
since I had seen that the Indians had set up IX symbols in their universal system of numbering, on account of the arrangement which they established, I wished to reveal, concerning the work that is done by means of them, something which might be easier for learners if God so willed. If, moreover, the Indians had this desire and their intention with these IX symbols was the reason which was apparent to me, God directed me to this. If, on the other hand, for some reason other than that which I have expounded, they did this by means of this which I have expounded, the same reason will most certainly and without any doubt be able to be found. And this will easily be clear to those who examine and learn.

So they made IX symbols, whose forms are these: (9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1). ...

And I have found that the Indians worked according to these places. Of these, the first is the place of the units, in which is doubled and tripled whatever is between one and IX. The second is the place of the tens, in which is doubled or tripled whatever is from X to ninety. The third is the place of the hundreds, in which is doubled and tripled whatever is from C to DCCCC. But when X was put in the place of one and was made in the second place, and its form was the form of one, they needed a form for the tens because of the fact that it was similar to the form of one, so that they might know by means of it that it was X. So they put one space in front of it and put in it a little circle like the letter o, so that by means of this they might know that the place of the units was empty and that no number was in it except the little circle, which we have said occupied it, ...

 

[EricH]

The theory of evolution, though rooted in the ancient Greek philosophy of Aristotle, Empedocles, Anaxagoras and Anaximander, became a failed metaphysical experiment based on the racism popularized by eugenics during the industrial revolutions in order for academia to usurp the authority of the apostate "Christian" church.

The Theory of Evolution is rooted in countless observations of the natural world and within the laboratory. It is not based on racism, nor is it a failed metaphysical experiment. The theory has stood the test of time, and is extremely likely to continue standing the test of time as we learn more.

With steam, coal and oil powered engines international travel became more accessible, and to the prudes of that time, who literally would cover the legs of pianos for decency, the Chimpanzees from abroad, especially when dressed in clothes, were adorably humanesque. Theory after theory was created designed to make dark skinned peoples appear apelike.

Not true at all. While it is true that modern chimpanzees are "humanesque", there is a very good reason for that. That is because modern humans share a common ancestor with modern chimpanzees a mere six million years ago, a blink of an eye on the timeline of the planet. We know this because we have conducted countless studies, and the studies all point to this fact.

Microevolution is supported by the Bible and observable. Macro evolution isn't in accordance with the Bible and has never been observed. Creationism is nonsensical apostate theology that has little to do with the accurate understanding of the Bible.

The universe doesn't have a purpose, al least none that we have been able to divine. If the universe had a purpose, that purpose would surely be to expand relentlessly, and increase the entropy of the universe as a whole while doing so. We have countless observations telling us this is so as well. What life does is speed up the rate at which the universe converts low entropy energy, visible light from the Sun, into high entropy energy, long wavelength heat radiated out into space from Earth. And as life has evolved into increasingly more complex forms, from single-celled organisms to modern humans burning fuel to power their lives, the rate at which this conversion is happening has accelerated dramatically. I propose that where the conditions are right, life is inevitable, because the laws of physics says it must. I may have an MD after my name but my first love is chemistry. Ask me how the chemistry of life drives the hydrogenation of carbon dioxide and how this affects the conversion I talked of. Life exists because the universe is relentlessly converting low entropy energy into high entropy energy, not despite it as some of your less-than-learned creationist colleagues like to state.

In conclusion, both evolutionism and creationism are stupid. Not surprisingly so well received.

You are only half right. And if you are only half right, you are 100 percent wrong.

 

[EricH]

Let me guess...the only possible answer then is "Intelligent Design?"

There is a myriad of possible answers, so what? Who cares and why is a much more interesting question in my estimation.

Anyone who cares to understand themselves and the natural world, and how it all works, cares, and that is why they care.

Is it. Nothing to do with ideology? Just self-awareness and curiosity. On the other hand, the better we get the further we are removed from the "natural world." Doesn't really add up, does it? To watch someone rationalize it is entertaining, but otherwise, not very interesting.

Maybe that doesn’t include you.

It certainly doesn't have much practical use.

This has to be one of the dumbest things I have heard a creationist say. It is so laughably absurd that it makes me doubt your sincerity. Am I right?

 

[pood]

Let me guess...the only possible answer then is "Intelligent Design?"

There is a myriad of possible answers, so what? Who cares and why is a much more interesting question in my estimation.

Anyone who cares to understand themselves and the natural world, and how it all works, cares, and that is why they care.

Is it. Nothing to do with ideology? Just self-awareness and curiosity. On the other hand, the better we get the further we are removed from the "natural world." Doesn't really add up, does it? To watch someone rationalize it is entertaining, but otherwise, not very interesting.

Maybe that doesn’t include you.

It certainly doesn't have much practical use.

This has to be one of the dumbest things I have heard a creationist say. It is so laughably absurd that it makes me doubt your sincerity. Am I right?

I know, right? I linked him to a science article on all the practical benefits accrued from evolutionary theory, but I doubt he read it. So far he has not responded, at any rate.

 

[DLH]

I know, right? I linked him to a science article on all the practical benefits accrued from evolutionary theory, but I doubt he read it. So far he has not responded, at any rate.

I know how you feel. I asked you to explain why Trump couldn't be a god and you didn't respond.

 

[pood]

I know, right? I linked him to a science article on all the practical benefits accrued from evolutionary theory, but I doubt he read it. So far he has not responded, at any rate.

I know how you feel. I asked you to explain why Trump couldn't be a god and you didn't respond.

I pointed out that in two different posts,nearly consecutive, you contradicted yourself. You said that “he’s just a guy, ya know?” and you said, “how can he not be god?” Now, I realize that in your bizarro world of conflating different nuances of Oxford dictionary definitions, you probably think he can be both just a guy and a “literal” god — remember, the leader of North Korea is a literal God, according to you. Most of us who are literate know better, and feel no need to provide an explanation to you on this matter.

 

[DLH]

I know, right? I linked him to a science article on all the practical benefits accrued from evolutionary theory, but I doubt he read it. So far he has not responded, at any rate.

I know how you feel. I asked you to explain why Trump couldn't be a god and you didn't respond.

I pointed out that in two different posts,nearly consecutive, you contradicted yourself. You said that “he’s just a guy, ya know?” and you said, “how can he not be god?” Now, I realize that in your bizarro world of conflating different nuances of Oxford dictionary definitions, you probably think he can be both just a guy and a “literal” god — remember, the leader of North Korea is a literal God, according to you. Most of us who are literate know better, and feel no need to provide an explanation to you on this matter.

And I have pointed out to you that anything and anyone can be a god. Examples of "just guys" being gods are Moses, the judges of Israel, Tammuz, as well as Clapton, Frodo and Jong-un. You seem to be suggesting that Trump and the others can't be a god and I'm asking you, with your literate superiority why that is. You can't answer because you aren't literate, you are wrong.

 

[pood]

I know, right? I linked him to a science article on all the practical benefits accrued from evolutionary theory, but I doubt he read it. So far he has not responded, at any rate.

I know how you feel. I asked you to explain why Trump couldn't be a god and you didn't respond.

I pointed out that in two different posts,nearly consecutive, you contradicted yourself. You said that “he’s just a guy, ya know?” and you said, “how can he not be god?” Now, I realize that in your bizarro world of conflating different nuances of Oxford dictionary definitions, you probably think he can be both just a guy and a “literal” god — remember, the leader of North Korea is a literal God, according to you. Most of us who are literate know better, and feel no need to provide an explanation to you on this matter.

And I have pointed out to you

You have “pointed out” nothing. You have made a claim. And I and others, in turn, have pointed out (not “claimed”) that you cannot legitimately conflate the four separate definitions of “god” in the Oxford dictionary and decide that they are all the same, as you did when you claimed (not pointed out) that North Korea’s dictator is a “literal” god as opposed to figurative; the two are NOT the same.

<ship>

Which renders the rest superfluous to comment on.

 

[pood]

Anyway, this thread is for discussing your nonsensical views on evolution, as opposed to your nonsensical views on god.

 

[DLH]

Anyway, this thread is for discussing your nonsensical views on evolution, as opposed to your nonsensical views on god.

Don't care about evolution. I just thought the video was an interesting and accurate history of racism in evolution. Microevolution doesn't contradict the Bible. Macroevolution does. Who cares? I certainly don't. I thought evolution as taught in the schools was pure nonsense long before I became a believer.