I understand statistics fine thanks. I used to completely buy evolution as a theory. What changed my mind was working for two solid years with genetic algorithms.
And you didn't even mention the most obvious problem with the idea that "genetic algorithms" somehow corroborate evolution. Genetic algorithms are carefully designed by ostensibly intelligent experts with advanced college degrees. Evolution supposedly happened without any intelligent guidance whatsoever. Anyone see a problem here?
Let's say I toss 10,000,000 coins, and make a careful record of the sequence of heads and tails. Now, I calculate the
probability of that exact sequence, and discover that it is exactly as low as the probability of having them all come
up heads. Have I proved that the coins are weighted? Or influenced by God? No, because every sequence of coins
has exactly the same very low probability, but nevertheless one of them has to come up. This is the falacy of
calcuating probabilities backwards. Every attempt I've seen to calculate the probability of evolution falls into that
same basic error.
Oh, I see. This kind of crap gets rated 5. That's why I don't waste much time on Slashdot -- and it will be even less in the future. Most of you are pathetic fools. Got that? That's right. You're a bunch of idiots. Oh, did I just lose some "Karma"? Oh, I'm devestated!
I see how this works. Now I will get pecked to death on irrelevant points. No, Spetner did not claim that evolution is "pre-specified". That is a canard that you are bringing up. The point about pre-specification came up in the context of coin tossing to illustrate a point. Please read the book (Not By Chance! by Spetner) to find out the details.
Thanks, but I read that stuff already. It's worth reading, but it isn't as clear as Spetner's book.
As for my rhetorical skills, you're probably right. Calling people fools is not the best way to persuade them of anything. Then again, I probably won't persuade anyone anyway -- their minds are already made up. So I might as well enjoy the pleasure of calling them fools! I'm sure they will reciprocate.
But evolution is a fact. It has been observed both in nature and in the laboratory. There really is no question about it.
This is the kind of nonsense evolutionists routinely espouse.
Yes, micro-evolution has been observed, but if you think that macro-evolution has ever been observed in nature you are confused -- and if you think it has been observed in the lab your are borderline delusional.
Micro-evolution includes things like the change in color of a moth. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, includes things like the evolution of a fish to an amphibian (or a cow to a whale!). Macro-evolution has never, ever been observed -- certainly not in the lab. Do we have that straight now?
Whether we're talking about 10,000,000 heads coming up or some other combination is beside the point. The point is that the odds are vanishingly small of any pre-specified combination coming up (where the result for each coin is specified independently). The odds in this case are very easy to compute: 1/2 raised to the 10,000,000 power.
And of course natural selection is not a random process, but natural selection cannot work until reproduction is established, hence it cannot help produce the first living cell. Please read the book (Not By Chance!, by Spetner) for more details.
By the way, if you have fallen for the sophism of Richard Dawkins, please read Spetner's book. He takes Dawkins apart at the seems. Not that that is a real challenge, but the cool thoroughness with which he does it is a sight to behold.
Yes, of course it happened. The question is not whether it happened or not, but how it happened. You seem to be assuming that the mere fact that it happened proves that it happened without any intelligent design. In other words, you are confusing your premise with your conclusion. That's alright, evolutionists do it all the time.
For all you fools out there who think evolution is a proven fact, please read a book called Not By Chance! by Lee Spetner, an information theorist from MIT who has studied evolution on the side since the 1960's. He proves rigorously that Neo-Carwinian evolution could not have happened -- or rather is about as unlikely as tossing 10,000,000 coins at random and having them all come up heads (yes, that is "possible", I guess).
On second thought, don't bother. Your mind is made up and you wouldn't want to be confused with the facts. And Spetner offers no religious alternative, so you cannot attack him as a religious fanatic, so what strawman argument will you fall back on instead?
Just for the record, I do not personally believe in "creation science", nor do I think that science can explain how "creation" occurred, but I am amazed at how completely fooled Slashdot readers are by the completely discredited neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. If Darwin were here, I think he'd slap you all upside the head.
A few years ago I attended a safety training session put on by the fire department. They told us that fire extinguishers "cake up" inside and no longer work after a year or two (if I recall correctly). I couldn't help but wonder how many fire extinguishers out there are as useless as tits on a bull. 90%? These balls could be an answer to that largely unknown problem.
Thanks for that information. That says it all. How many ignorant Slashdot readers consider Leahy a champion of the Free Speech when he is a co-sponsor of a CFR bill that tramples the First Amendment? Amazing!
I'm curious how Leahy voted on the recently passed campaign finance reform law. You know, the law that prohibits issue advocacy ads for 60 days prededing a general election. The one that excises the First Amendment. How did this Free Speech champion vote on that one? Anyone know?
The governing principle here is simple. The recording industry can use whatever means they wish to stop pirating -- so long as they do NOT impede my right to make legal copies of anything. If they cannot figure out how to stop piracy without infringing on my rights, then they are shit out of luck. The right of the general public to make legal copies (of software, music, or their own files, for example) takes precedence over the need of one particular industry to make a profit.
Nuclear power is at least hundreds of times cleaner than coal, and it's far cleaner than solar too. No, I'm not kidding. Check out these articles by the great Bernard L. Cohen.
People who claim that free software is somehow anti-capitalist don't understand the most basic principles of free enterprise. The first principle is that producers try to maximize profit (over the long term, if they are wise), and the second principle is that consumers try to minimize cost. The second principle is just as important as the first, whether Microsoft likes it or not.
... that the Clinton Administration declassified over 4,000,000 pages of classified information on nuclear test results -- and received massive illegal campaign contributions from the communist Chinese government. And the Chinese are spreading that technology all over the world. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Did Slashdot express moral outrage over that little episode? I doubt it.
I find that many Slashdot folks tend to be very knowledagable on computer matters and issues, but man of them demonstrate an abysmal ignorance on the "theory of evolution." It's not my field, but I've read several books on it, including at least two on the pro-evolution side. The pro-evolution side is a fraud and a farce. How many anti-evolution books have you read, Mr. open-mind?
Read the book yourself please. At least read chapters 11 and 12. I have read a couple of supposed "refutations" of Denton, and they have both demonstrated a complete failure to comprehend what he wrote. By the way, Denton is a self-professed agnostic.
Oh, I didn't realize that C++ compilers fell together by random chance, with no guiding intelligence! I'll bet Bjarne Stroustroup will be downright disappointed about that, eh? Think about what the hell you are saying.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand statistics fine thanks. I used to completely buy evolution as a theory. What changed my mind was working for two solid years with genetic algorithms.
And you didn't even mention the most obvious problem with the idea that "genetic algorithms" somehow corroborate evolution. Genetic algorithms are carefully designed by ostensibly intelligent experts with advanced college degrees. Evolution supposedly happened without any intelligent guidance whatsoever. Anyone see a problem here?
Let's say I toss 10,000,000 coins, and make a careful record of the sequence of heads and tails. Now, I calculate the
probability of that exact sequence, and discover that it is exactly as low as the probability of having them all come
up heads. Have I proved that the coins are weighted? Or influenced by God? No, because every sequence of coins
has exactly the same very low probability, but nevertheless one of them has to come up. This is the falacy of
calcuating probabilities backwards. Every attempt I've seen to calculate the probability of evolution falls into that
same basic error.
Oh, I see. This kind of crap gets rated 5. That's why I don't waste much time on Slashdot -- and it will be even less in the future. Most of you are pathetic fools. Got that? That's right. You're a bunch of idiots. Oh, did I just lose some "Karma"? Oh, I'm devestated!
RussP.org
The point is not whether I can do justice to Spetner's thesis. The point is that you need to RTFB!
I see how this works. Now I will get pecked to death on irrelevant points. No, Spetner did not claim that evolution is "pre-specified". That is a canard that you are bringing up. The point about pre-specification came up in the context of coin tossing to illustrate a point. Please read the book (Not By Chance! by Spetner) to find out the details.
Thanks, but I read that stuff already. It's worth reading, but it isn't as clear as Spetner's book.
As for my rhetorical skills, you're probably right. Calling people fools is not the best way to persuade them of anything. Then again, I probably won't persuade anyone anyway -- their minds are already made up. So I might as well enjoy the pleasure of calling them fools! I'm sure they will reciprocate.
But evolution is a fact. It has been observed both in nature and in the laboratory. There really is no question about it.
This is the kind of nonsense evolutionists routinely espouse.
Yes, micro-evolution has been observed, but if you think that macro-evolution has ever been observed in nature you are confused -- and if you think it has been observed in the lab your are borderline delusional.
Micro-evolution includes things like the change in color of a moth. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, includes things like the evolution of a fish to an amphibian (or a cow to a whale!). Macro-evolution has never, ever been observed -- certainly not in the lab. Do we have that straight now?
Whether we're talking about 10,000,000 heads coming up or some other combination is beside the point. The point is that the odds are vanishingly small of any pre-specified combination coming up (where the result for each coin is specified independently). The odds in this case are very easy to compute: 1/2 raised to the 10,000,000 power.
And of course natural selection is not a random process, but natural selection cannot work until reproduction is established, hence it cannot help produce the first living cell. Please read the book (Not By Chance!, by Spetner) for more details.
By the way, if you have fallen for the sophism of Richard Dawkins, please read Spetner's book. He takes Dawkins apart at the seems. Not that that is a real challenge, but the cool thoroughness with which he does it is a sight to behold.
Yes, of course it happened. The question is not whether it happened or not, but how it happened. You seem to be assuming that the mere fact that it happened proves that it happened without any intelligent design. In other words, you are confusing your premise with your conclusion. That's alright, evolutionists do it all the time.
For all you fools out there who think evolution is a proven fact, please read a book called Not By Chance! by Lee Spetner, an information theorist from MIT who has studied evolution on the side since the 1960's. He proves rigorously that Neo-Carwinian evolution could not have happened -- or rather is about as unlikely as tossing 10,000,000 coins at random and having them all come up heads (yes, that is "possible", I guess).
On second thought, don't bother. Your mind is made up and you wouldn't want to be confused with the facts. And Spetner offers no religious alternative, so you cannot attack him as a religious fanatic, so what strawman argument will you fall back on instead?
Just for the record, I do not personally believe in "creation science", nor do I think that science can explain how "creation" occurred, but I am amazed at how completely fooled Slashdot readers are by the completely discredited neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. If Darwin were here, I think he'd slap you all upside the head.
RussP.org
A few years ago I attended a safety training session put on by the fire department. They told us that fire extinguishers "cake up" inside and no longer work after a year or two (if I recall correctly). I couldn't help but wonder how many fire extinguishers out there are as useless as tits on a bull. 90%? These balls could be an answer to that largely unknown problem.
A global economy is good.
A global government, on the other hand, is very bad -- unless the rest of the world is willing to adopt and abide by the US Constitution.
Absolutely. Use Ada95 instead.
Thanks for that information. That says it all. How many ignorant Slashdot readers consider Leahy a champion of the Free Speech when he is a co-sponsor of a CFR bill that tramples the First Amendment? Amazing!
I'm curious how Leahy voted on the recently passed campaign finance reform law. You know, the law that prohibits issue advocacy ads for 60 days prededing a general election. The one that excises the First Amendment. How did this Free Speech champion vote on that one? Anyone know?
The governing principle here is simple. The recording industry can use whatever means they wish to stop pirating -- so long as they do NOT impede my right to make legal copies of anything. If they cannot figure out how to stop piracy without infringing on my rights, then they are shit out of luck. The right of the general public to make legal copies (of software, music, or their own files, for example) takes precedence over the need of one particular industry to make a profit.
Nuclear power is at least hundreds of times cleaner than coal, and it's far cleaner than solar too. No, I'm not kidding. Check out these articles by the great Bernard L. Cohen.
People who claim that free software is somehow anti-capitalist don't understand the most basic principles of free enterprise. The first principle is that producers try to maximize profit (over the long term, if they are wise), and the second principle is that consumers try to minimize cost. The second principle is just as important as the first, whether Microsoft likes it or not.
To say that "Clinton was worse" has got to be the understatement of the decade.
... that the Clinton Administration declassified over 4,000,000 pages of classified information on nuclear test results -- and received massive illegal campaign contributions from the communist Chinese government. And the Chinese are spreading that technology all over the world. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Did Slashdot express moral outrage over that little episode? I doubt it.
If you actually use Ada, you may actually be writing quality software. Warts and all. (Beauty is only skin deep.)
Bingo! Give that man a cigar.
Yes, Ada is the correct answer. Give that man a cigar. Give everyone else a slap upside the head.
I find that many Slashdot folks tend to be very knowledagable on computer matters and issues, but man of them demonstrate an abysmal ignorance on the "theory of evolution." It's not my field, but I've read several books on it, including at least two on the pro-evolution side. The pro-evolution side is a fraud and a farce. How many anti-evolution books have you read, Mr. open-mind?
Read the book yourself please. At least read chapters 11 and 12. I have read a couple of supposed "refutations" of Denton, and they have both demonstrated a complete failure to comprehend what he wrote. By the way, Denton is a self-professed agnostic.
Oh, I didn't realize that C++ compilers fell together by random chance, with no guiding intelligence! I'll bet Bjarne Stroustroup will be downright disappointed about that, eh? Think about what the hell you are saying.