Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   d (deprecated_ii@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 16-Aug-2022 21:12:13 JST d
   You know how you can tell evolution is just a tenet of modern dogma? Because people who don't understand it and can't explain it in any detail at all treat you like a crank for saying it's bogus, and refer you to their religious authorities.
   • Embed this notice
     Randbot (randbot@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 16-Aug-2022 21:11:53 JST Randbot

     in reply to

     • touch fluffy tail
     • hazlin
     • ?Cirnog?
     • Wolfgirl in Wheatfield
     • mall0ry　苦レモン
     @cirnog @fluffy @wgiwf @deprecated_ii @hazlin @mute_city >IT HAS BEEN ETERNITY SINCE I LAST TOUCHED A WOMAN
     johnbudd1350 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     ?Cirnog? (cirnog@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 16-Aug-2022 21:11:55 JST ?Cirnog?

     in reply to

     • touch fluffy tail
     • Randbot
     • hazlin
     • Wolfgirl in Wheatfield
     • mall0ry　苦レモン
     @randbot @fluffy @wgiwf @deprecated_ii @hazlin @mute_city YOU MEAN THE MOON QUESTION
     
     RESET THE COUNTER IT HAS BEEN ZERO DAYS SINCE THE MOON LANDING WAS DEBATED IT HAS BEEN ETERNITY SINCE I LAST TOUCHED A WOMAN
   • Embed this notice
     ?Cirnog? (cirnog@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 16-Aug-2022 21:11:56 JST ?Cirnog?

     in reply to

     • touch fluffy tail
     • hazlin
     • Wolfgirl in Wheatfield
     • mall0ry　苦レモン
     @fluffy @wgiwf @deprecated_ii @hazlin @mute_city Annoying arguments between Internet nazis. No wonder you missed it :cirnolaughing:
   • Embed this notice
     Randbot (randbot@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 16-Aug-2022 21:11:56 JST Randbot

     in reply to

     • touch fluffy tail
     • hazlin
     • ?Cirnog?
     • Wolfgirl in Wheatfield
     • mall0ry　苦レモン
     @cirnog @fluffy @wgiwf @deprecated_ii @hazlin @mute_city And they say they problem with Nazism is they have uniformity of thinking.
     
     Watch them slapfight over the anime.. wait I mean the God question.
   • Embed this notice
     touch fluffy tail (fluffy@social.handholding.io)'s status on Tuesday, 16-Aug-2022 21:11:58 JST touch fluffy tail

     in reply to

     • hazlin
     • ?Cirnog?
     • Wolfgirl in Wheatfield
     • mall0ry　苦レモン
     right
     
     by the way, i've heard a lot of people talk about this in the last day or two. did it pop up somewhere recently?
   • Embed this notice
     Wolfgirl in Wheatfield (wgiwf@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 16-Aug-2022 21:12:01 JST Wolfgirl in Wheatfield

     in reply to

     • touch fluffy tail
     • hazlin
     • ?Cirnog?
     • mall0ry　苦レモン
     @fluffy @cirnog @deprecated_ii @hazlin @mute_city You might be able to experiment on single cellular life; but I don't know how much you could potently get out of that, or how much could even apply to something drastically more complex.
     
     This is not even addressing the elephant in the room of the biases and potential and ulterior or political motives of the scientists.
   • Embed this notice
     Wolfgirl in Wheatfield (wgiwf@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 16-Aug-2022 21:12:02 JST Wolfgirl in Wheatfield

     in reply to

     • touch fluffy tail
     • hazlin
     • ?Cirnog?
     • mall0ry　苦レモン
     @fluffy @cirnog @deprecated_ii @hazlin @mute_city The fact of animals and other complex life adapting to their local environment by various means (ie crossbreeding like man does with dogs) seems pretty clear to me (viruses etc. even more so). But for it to be the primary reason for the speciation of the world seems dubious to me.
   • Embed this notice
     touch fluffy tail (fluffy@social.handholding.io)'s status on Tuesday, 16-Aug-2022 21:12:02 JST touch fluffy tail

     in reply to

     • hazlin
     • ?Cirnog?
     • Wolfgirl in Wheatfield
     • mall0ry　苦レモン
     naturally. after all, there is no way to perform an experiment.
   • Embed this notice
     Wolfgirl in Wheatfield (wgiwf@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 16-Aug-2022 21:12:04 JST Wolfgirl in Wheatfield

     in reply to

     • hazlin
     • ?Cirnog?
     • mall0ry　苦レモン
     @cirnog @mute_city @hazlin @deprecated_ii One should not even assume such a thing is physically possible given an infinite period of time. The leap from simple chemical reactions in a tidal pool struck by lightning, or whatever scenario they think of, to self replicating genetic material has never been adequately addressed. The formation of planets, stars, black holes and galaxies have been explained and predicted by the interaction of matter in it's most basic form with the physical forces in the universe, abiogenesis completely unaided by any "unnatural force" however: :itisamystery:
   • Embed this notice
     touch fluffy tail (fluffy@social.handholding.io)'s status on Tuesday, 16-Aug-2022 21:12:04 JST touch fluffy tail

     in reply to

     • hazlin
     • ?Cirnog?
     • Wolfgirl in Wheatfield
     • mall0ry　苦レモン
     is natural selection incompatible with a creation origin?
     
     it seems like sometimes people say evolution to mean the phenomenon, and other times to mean the theory on the origin of life, and one of these is much less controversial.
   • Embed this notice
     ?Cirnog? (cirnog@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 16-Aug-2022 21:12:05 JST ?Cirnog?

     in reply to

     • hazlin
     • mall0ry　苦レモン
     @mute_city @hazlin @deprecated_ii It says that given an already existing ecosystem full of life, there are ways the population distribution will change. The problem with the argument is that the programmer brings his simulations into existence, but in the real world you would need either God or abiogenesis, and probability of abiogenesis occurring is infinitesimally small
   • Embed this notice
     mall0ry　苦レモン (mute_city@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 16-Aug-2022 21:12:11 JST mall0ry　苦レモン

     in reply to

     • hazlin
     • ?Cirnog?
     @hazlin @cirnog @deprecated_ii > I don't remember without looking, but someone on here was arguing that evolutionary algorithms used by programmers proved evolution in nature.
     
     That most likely refers dawkins computer experiments, which are admittedly rather crude.
     
     The local minima problem is usually answered with what evolutionists call "survival of the flattest".
     I.e. environments are changing constantly - not only in climate, but also the set of all other organisms in a biome.
     Overfit species are culled all the time. (one of them dying out can also trigger an entire cascade of extinctions)
     
     This means the organisms you see today all descent from "generic enough" organisms that survived past extinction cascades.
   • Embed this notice
     ?Cirnog? (cirnog@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 16-Aug-2022 21:12:12 JST ?Cirnog?

     in reply to
     @deprecated_ii Nobody in that thread tried to explain evolution in a systematic (or axiomatic way) which is how you know that they're just repeating words without thinking through the scientific theory they claim to believe (you can't even believe in a conditional theory stupid idiot)
     
     Evolution defined as "differential survival of those with advantageous traits" is a tautology and uninteresting. But if you tie that tautology to a method of making those traits hereditary and mutable then you have something that will solve for local extrema (this is how programmers can write "evolutionary algorithms". If you can code something then it obviously has some axiomatic structure to it)
     
     The real kicker is 1) where did this process start and how? And 2) how exactly do the random probabilities work out to produce such complex biological structures let alone behaviors. All discussions with evolutionists never get to the problems posed by 1) and 2) because they don't actually like or understand science, they're just conformist tattle tales
   • Embed this notice
     hazlin (hazlin@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 16-Aug-2022 21:12:12 JST hazlin

     in reply to

     • ?Cirnog?
     @cirnog @deprecated_ii I don't remember without looking, but someone on here was arguing that evolutionary algorithms used by programmers proved evolution in nature.
     
     My initial reaction was to point out, computer algorithms have to be crafted to avoid local minimums and mitigate the effects of input bias, in order to enumerate and evaluate enough possibilities to find viable solutions. (computer algorithms may also be able to bypass failing intermediaries).
     
     His response was to insist that, these models (I assume he meant algorithms) as they grow become more resistant to these issues. And, that natures model is much larger than the computer models, so of course it will be able to avoid these issues and arrive at life, from atoms and natural forces.
     
     I don't think this negates the issues I asserted. And, I think it is error to say nature has an very large and robust algorithm for guiding evolution (that sounds rather more like an argument for Intelligent Design using Evolution). But, I wasn't sure how to soundly overturn his argument. And, I'd appreciate your feedback, on my part or his part, or what ever you'd like to comment on xD
   • Embed this notice
     TinyFern ⚜️ Christ is King (tinyfern@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 16-Aug-2022 21:14:22 JST TinyFern ⚜️ Christ is King

     in reply to

     • hazlin
     • ?Cirnog?

     @cirnog @hazlin @deprecated_ii

     Something I see thrown around is the idea that permutations are sufficient to achieve a result. If you write a computer program which starts with the sentence “I like to eat ice cream” and is trying to achieve the sentence “Lime juice is refreshing”, you can make it happen pretty easily in evolutionary timescales at one mutation per generation, if none of the sentences in between have to be functional sentences. The problem with that is, biological evolution needs every change in between to be not only functional but successful enough to spread those mutations into the next generation without the offspring being disadvantaged. Suddenly you realise how many random mutations are actually highly deleterious and compromise functionality - how many functional sentences are there between “I like to eat ice cream” and “Lime juice is refreshing”? Rolling the dice on each letter and space every time makes it apparent how easy it is to make it gibberish; similarly, the human genome can easily accrue mutations which result in a lot more dead babies than Spidermen.

   • Embed this notice
     johnbudd1350 (johnbudd1350@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 16-Aug-2022 21:14:22 JST johnbudd1350

     in reply to

     • TinyFern ⚜️ Christ is King
     • hazlin
     • ?Cirnog?
     @TinyFern @cirnog @deprecated_ii @hazlin Over millions of years and millions of species/mutations at least some fraction of changes are going to give a beneficial edge.
   • Embed this notice
     ?Cirnog? (cirnog@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 16-Aug-2022 21:14:23 JST ?Cirnog?

     in reply to

     • hazlin
     @hazlin @deprecated_ii The response is that his argument is still just vague handwaving post hoc explanations. Ask for concrete numbers, exactly how many mutations does it take for a spider to spin web, whats the probability for each mutation, how many occur each generation and how long until it predominates? The devil is in the details and quantitative analysis.
     
     In the other thread someone said that rolling a trillion sided dice a trillion times for a trillion years would be enough, and i said he was off by a factor of 10^15000
     
     And computer algorithms still rely on a programmer to tune enough parameters to make it run. An intelligent designer who picks the right numbers is an argument for God not against him.
     
     >His response was to insist that, these models (I assume he meant algorithms) as they grow become more resistant to these issues.
     Ask for proof of this with an example
     
     >And, that natures model is much larger than the computer models, so of course it will be able to avoid these issues and arrive at life, from atoms and natural forces.
     
     This is just begging the question
   • Embed this notice
     TinyFern ⚜️ Christ is King (tinyfern@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 16-Aug-2022 22:46:17 JST TinyFern ⚜️ Christ is King

     in reply to

     • johnbudd1350
     • hazlin
     • ?Cirnog?
     @johnbudd1350 @cirnog @deprecated_ii @hazlin
     
     There's 150 genes involved in skin colour. How many generations does it take to go from a Nigerian to a Finn if 'some fraction' of the genes are a beneficial change? When you run the numbers it becomes apparent that even explaining human diversity with currently-observed mutation rates is extremely difficult, let alone going from early mammals to humans or even further back to single celled organisms.
     
     Throwing billions of years at a probability with a trillion decimal places in it doesn't help as much as you think. Humans are just bad at large numbers, so it makes it feel more realistic.
   • Embed this notice
     johnbudd1350 (johnbudd1350@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 16-Aug-2022 22:46:17 JST johnbudd1350

     in reply to

     • TinyFern ⚜️ Christ is King
     • hazlin
     • ?Cirnog?
     @TinyFern @cirnog @deprecated_ii @hazlin >when you run the numbers
     
     Ok go ahead I can follow math.