Slashdot Mirror

In particular, check The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability to see why the 2nd law applies to closed systems, not planets warmed by suns.

Charles Darwin's views on the evolution of the eye have been taken out of context. They were part of a thought experiment on evolution. See An Old, Out of Context Quotation on that and for some intermediate steps in eye evolution.

Another very basic scientific law states that living tissue can not spawn from non living matter.

I believe that you're thinking of Lamarck and spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation is part of abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution comes into play when you have living organisms to evolve. See Abiogenesis FAQ for details.

If you think that "evolution is a nice idea, but pure fiction", how do you explain the results that the A-Life folks get when the implement genetic algorithms on computers? ( Artificial Life Online )

Would you be implying that Evolution is taking place? If so I strongly disagree.

On the contrary, evolution is still going on around us today. See Observed Instances of Speciation for some examples. But, you don't have to go so far afield to look for evolution. My father was nearly killed twice by a newly evolved strain of strep that was immune to dern near all antibiotics. Remember the days when a little shot of penicillin would cure just about everything? No more. Resistant strains have evolved. Now penicillin is mostly useless.

The problem is that you probably have a faulty idea of biological evolution. The shortest and clearest definition I know is, "A change in allele frequency in a population of creatures over time." (An allele is an instance of a gene, say green peas vs. yellow peas in Mendel's experiment.) Who can doubt that that happens all around us, all the time? It's simply a fact. (See What is Evolution? for a better description than I can write.)

To get back on topic, if learning is formed by growing connections between neurons, then there should be an upper limit to it that can be roughly expressed in bits. I have no idea if 13 TB is close.

In particular, check The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability to see why the 2nd law applies to closed systems, not planets warmed by suns.

Charles Darwin's views on the evolution of the eye have been taken out of context. They were part of a thought experiment on evolution. See An Old, Out of Context Quotation on that and for some intermediate steps in eye evolution.

Another very basic scientific law states that living tissue can not spawn from non living matter.

I believe that you're thinking of Lamarck and spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation is part of abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution comes into play when you have living organisms to evolve. See Abiogenesis FAQ for details.

If you think that "evolution is a nice idea, but pure fiction", how do you explain the results that the A-Life folks get when the implement genetic algorithms on computers? ( Artificial Life Online )

Would you be implying that Evolution is taking place? If so I strongly disagree.

On the contrary, evolution is still going on around us today. See Observed Instances of Speciation for some examples. But, you don't have to go so far afield to look for evolution. My father was nearly killed twice by a newly evolved strain of strep that was immune to dern near all antibiotics. Remember the days when a little shot of penicillin would cure just about everything? No more. Resistant strains have evolved. Now penicillin is mostly useless.

The problem is that you probably have a faulty idea of biological evolution. The shortest and clearest definition I know is, "A change in allele frequency in a population of creatures over time." (An allele is an instance of a gene, say green peas vs. yellow peas in Mendel's experiment.) Who can doubt that that happens all around us, all the time? It's simply a fact. (See What is Evolution? for a better description than I can write.)

To get back on topic, if learning is formed by growing connections between neurons, then there should be an upper limit to it that can be roughly expressed in bits. I have no idea if 13 TB is close.

In particular, check The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability to see why the 2nd law applies to closed systems, not planets warmed by suns.

Charles Darwin's views on the evolution of the eye have been taken out of context. They were part of a thought experiment on evolution. See An Old, Out of Context Quotation on that and for some intermediate steps in eye evolution.

Another very basic scientific law states that living tissue can not spawn from non living matter.

I believe that you're thinking of Lamarck and spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation is part of abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution comes into play when you have living organisms to evolve. See Abiogenesis FAQ for details.

If you think that "evolution is a nice idea, but pure fiction", how do you explain the results that the A-Life folks get when the implement genetic algorithms on computers? ( Artificial Life Online )

Would you be implying that Evolution is taking place? If so I strongly disagree.

On the contrary, evolution is still going on around us today. See Observed Instances of Speciation for some examples. But, you don't have to go so far afield to look for evolution. My father was nearly killed twice by a newly evolved strain of strep that was immune to dern near all antibiotics. Remember the days when a little shot of penicillin would cure just about everything? No more. Resistant strains have evolved. Now penicillin is mostly useless.

The problem is that you probably have a faulty idea of biological evolution. The shortest and clearest definition I know is, "A change in allele frequency in a population of creatures over time." (An allele is an instance of a gene, say green peas vs. yellow peas in Mendel's experiment.) Who can doubt that that happens all around us, all the time? It's simply a fact. (See What is Evolution? for a better description than I can write.)

To get back on topic, if learning is formed by growing connections between neurons, then there should be an upper limit to it that can be roughly expressed in bits. I have no idea if 13 TB is close.

In particular, check The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability to see why the 2nd law applies to closed systems, not planets warmed by suns.

Charles Darwin's views on the evolution of the eye have been taken out of context. They were part of a thought experiment on evolution. See An Old, Out of Context Quotation on that and for some intermediate steps in eye evolution.

Another very basic scientific law states that living tissue can not spawn from non living matter.

I believe that you're thinking of Lamarck and spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation is part of abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution comes into play when you have living organisms to evolve. See Abiogenesis FAQ for details.

If you think that "evolution is a nice idea, but pure fiction", how do you explain the results that the A-Life folks get when the implement genetic algorithms on computers? ( Artificial Life Online )

Would you be implying that Evolution is taking place? If so I strongly disagree.

On the contrary, evolution is still going on around us today. See Observed Instances of Speciation for some examples. But, you don't have to go so far afield to look for evolution. My father was nearly killed twice by a newly evolved strain of strep that was immune to dern near all antibiotics. Remember the days when a little shot of penicillin would cure just about everything? No more. Resistant strains have evolved. Now penicillin is mostly useless.

The problem is that you probably have a faulty idea of biological evolution. The shortest and clearest definition I know is, "A change in allele frequency in a population of creatures over time." (An allele is an instance of a gene, say green peas vs. yellow peas in Mendel's experiment.) Who can doubt that that happens all around us, all the time? It's simply a fact. (See What is Evolution? for a better description than I can write.)

To get back on topic, if learning is formed by growing connections between neurons, then there should be an upper limit to it that can be roughly expressed in bits. I have no idea if 13 TB is close.

There is a dinosaur fossil that has a human footprint in it too.

Oh, for crying out loud. Paluxy River, right? You might want to take some time and read through this, if you're so inclined.

One of the differences between scientists and creationists is that scientists acknowledge when their theories are wrong, and either refine or outright reject them and start looking elsewhere. As this "human footprint" evidence proves, the creationist response to being told that something is fraudulent is to stick their fingers in their ears and shout "is not!" Hint: Very few respectable creationists still try to use the Paluxy River "man tracks" as evidence that man and dinosaur co-existed.

Your claims about "missing transitional fossils" are quite common and quite wrong. I don't think they're addressed in any one place in the talk.origins FAQs, but you can start with Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution and Observed Instances of Speciation.

As to the rest of your points: I think it's stupid to try to shoehorn human behavior into a Darwinian straitjacket, nor does evolutionary theory require human behavior to be dictated solely by evolved reactions to environmental pressures. However, it would be equally stupid to deny that biology can and does play a role in human behavior (e.g., hormonal influence of emotions), and those things often are related to evolutionary pressures.

Finally, those who advocate "social Darwinism" (such as wiping out "inferior" races) fundamentally misunderstand evolutionary theory, which does not proscribe morals nor even speak of "inferior". (It speaks of "less well adapted" species in the technical sense that they are poorer at reproduction.)

Incidentally, natural selection may not be the whole story when it comes to evolution; other mechanisms (such as self-organization as espoused by Kauffman) may play a role. As for the punctuated equilibrium you mention, you might want to see the talk.origins FAQ on Punctuated Equilibrium since it is often misunderstood.

Your claims about "missing transitional fossils" are quite common and quite wrong. I don't think they're addressed in any one place in the talk.origins FAQs, but you can start with Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution and Observed Instances of Speciation.

As to the rest of your points: I think it's stupid to try to shoehorn human behavior into a Darwinian straitjacket, nor does evolutionary theory require human behavior to be dictated solely by evolved reactions to environmental pressures. However, it would be equally stupid to deny that biology can and does play a role in human behavior (e.g., hormonal influence of emotions), and those things often are related to evolutionary pressures.

Finally, those who advocate "social Darwinism" (such as wiping out "inferior" races) fundamentally misunderstand evolutionary theory, which does not proscribe morals nor even speak of "inferior". (It speaks of "less well adapted" species in the technical sense that they are poorer at reproduction.)

Incidentally, natural selection may not be the whole story when it comes to evolution; other mechanisms (such as self-organization as espoused by Kauffman) may play a role. As for the punctuated equilibrium you mention, you might want to see the talk.origins FAQ on Punctuated Equilibrium since it is often misunderstood.

Your claims about "missing transitional fossils" are quite common and quite wrong. I don't think they're addressed in any one place in the talk.origins FAQs, but you can start with Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution and Observed Instances of Speciation.

As to the rest of your points: I think it's stupid to try to shoehorn human behavior into a Darwinian straitjacket, nor does evolutionary theory require human behavior to be dictated solely by evolved reactions to environmental pressures. However, it would be equally stupid to deny that biology can and does play a role in human behavior (e.g., hormonal influence of emotions), and those things often are related to evolutionary pressures.

Finally, those who advocate "social Darwinism" (such as wiping out "inferior" races) fundamentally misunderstand evolutionary theory, which does not proscribe morals nor even speak of "inferior". (It speaks of "less well adapted" species in the technical sense that they are poorer at reproduction.)

Incidentally, natural selection may not be the whole story when it comes to evolution; other mechanisms (such as self-organization as espoused by Kauffman) may play a role. As for the punctuated equilibrium you mention, you might want to see the talk.origins FAQ on Punctuated Equilibrium since it is often misunderstood.

Your claims about "missing transitional fossils" are quite common and quite wrong. I don't think they're addressed in any one place in the talk.origins FAQs, but you can start with Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution and Observed Instances of Speciation.

As to the rest of your points: I think it's stupid to try to shoehorn human behavior into a Darwinian straitjacket, nor does evolutionary theory require human behavior to be dictated solely by evolved reactions to environmental pressures. However, it would be equally stupid to deny that biology can and does play a role in human behavior (e.g., hormonal influence of emotions), and those things often are related to evolutionary pressures.

Finally, those who advocate "social Darwinism" (such as wiping out "inferior" races) fundamentally misunderstand evolutionary theory, which does not proscribe morals nor even speak of "inferior". (It speaks of "less well adapted" species in the technical sense that they are poorer at reproduction.)

Incidentally, natural selection may not be the whole story when it comes to evolution; other mechanisms (such as self-organization as espoused by Kauffman) may play a role. As for the punctuated equilibrium you mention, you might want to see the talk.origins FAQ on Punctuated Equilibrium since it is often misunderstood.

Your claims about "missing transitional fossils" are quite common and quite wrong. I don't think they're addressed in any one place in the talk.origins FAQs, but you can start with Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution and Observed Instances of Speciation.

As to the rest of your points: I think it's stupid to try to shoehorn human behavior into a Darwinian straitjacket, nor does evolutionary theory require human behavior to be dictated solely by evolved reactions to environmental pressures. However, it would be equally stupid to deny that biology can and does play a role in human behavior (e.g., hormonal influence of emotions), and those things often are related to evolutionary pressures.

Finally, those who advocate "social Darwinism" (such as wiping out "inferior" races) fundamentally misunderstand evolutionary theory, which does not proscribe morals nor even speak of "inferior". (It speaks of "less well adapted" species in the technical sense that they are poorer at reproduction.)

Incidentally, natural selection may not be the whole story when it comes to evolution; other mechanisms (such as self-organization as espoused by Kauffman) may play a role. As for the punctuated equilibrium you mention, you might want to see the talk.origins FAQ on Punctuated Equilibrium since it is often misunderstood.

But I get annoyed at people that act and talk like they have a reason to think their life has any purpose when they've wholesale accepted the idea that a wholly natural, mindless chance process made us what we are.

Evolution is not simply the result of random chance, and one wonders why this assertation keeps coming up even after it has been so thoroughly dealt with. You might be interested in taking a look at the Evolution and Chance FAQ.

With regards to thinking that a person's life has a purpose, I don't see what role evolution plays in this at all. If you personally require some sort of an external crutch in order to justify your existence, then that is your business.

Our Creationist friend is repeating a series of statements that have been refuted in appropriate fora. Our Creationist friend should have known that he was repeating things that have been refuted. In short, our Creationist friend repeated a lie.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability provides a comprehensive explanation of his error.

"Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics" always seems to be the "proof" against evolutionary processes that is offered up by Biblical creationists and other Flat-Earth types.

I invite you to peruse the archive at

http://www.talkorigins.org

for a refutation of this "proof", along with refutations of other popular creationist pseudoscience myths. You are, of course, free to hold your own personal beliefs, but please tell your ghost stories around some other campfire, okay?