The Evolution Fraud - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15006726
So what exactly is the criticism?

Is the OP denying the fact that new species of life forms cone into existence through gradual change?

Or is the OP criticising a particular aspect ig Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection?
#15006752
Pants-of-dog wrote:So what exactly is the criticism?


You expect someone to interpret plain English for you? You can't understand what has been written?
Then more explanation will certainly not help, since you are not interested in reading and thinking about what was written. You have your extremely biased agenda, and that is that.

Is the OP denying the fact that new species of life forms cone (sic) into existence through gradual change?


Your words, not mine. Incidentally, your atavars read "more posts then (sic) 5,000"
How is it that the owner and moderators of this forum can't even write simple English?
Nor can Pants-of-dog.

Or is the OP criticising a particular aspect ig (sic) Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection?


There is a scientific challenge posed. Nobody in Darwin's archaic camp wants to attempt it because it is clearly impossible to get anywhere with odds of 1 in 10 to the 10,000th or less.
#15006759
MrWonderful wrote:You expect someone to interpret plain English for you? You can't understand what has been written?
Then more explanation will certainly not help, since you are not interested in reading and thinking about what was written. You have your extremely biased agenda, and that is that.


I have carefully read your posts. You have not made a single verifiable and coherent criticism of evolution or its accompanying theory.

Your words, not mine. Incidentally, your atavars read "more posts then (sic) 5,000"
How is it that the owner and moderators of this forum can't even write simple English?
Nor can Pants-of-dog.


If you are arguing thay speciation is not a fact, then how do you account for the fact that it has been observed?

There is a scientific challenge posed. Nobody in Darwin's archaic camp wants to attempt it because it is clearly impossible to get anywhere with odds of 1 in 10 to the 10,000th or less.


If you are alluding to your polypeptides argument, I have already addressed it.
User avatar
By Sivad
#15006762
MrWonderful wrote:.
There is a scientific challenge posed. Nobody in Darwin's archaic camp wants to attempt it because it is clearly impossible to get anywhere with odds of 1 in 10 to the 10,000th or less.


The soundness of Dembski's concept of specified complexity and the validity of arguments based on this concept are widely disputed. A frequent criticism (see Elsberry and Shallit) is that Dembski has used the terms "complexity", "information" and "improbability" interchangeably. These numbers measure properties of things of different types: Complexity measures how hard it is to describe an object (such as a bitstring), information is how much the uncertainty about the state of an object is reduced by knowing the state of another object or system[23], and improbability measures how unlikely an event is given a probability distribution.

On page 150 of No Free Lunch Dembski claims he can demonstrate his thesis mathematically: "In this section I will present an in-principle mathematical argument for why natural causes are incapable of generating complex specified information." When Tellgren investigated Dembski's "Law of Conservation of Information” using a more formal approach, he concluded it is mathematically unsubstantiated.[24] Dembski responded in part that he is not "in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity".[25] Jeffrey Shallit states that Demski's mathematical argument has multiple problems, for example; a crucial calculation on page 297 of No Free Lunch is off by a factor of approximately 1065.[26]

Dembski's calculations show how a simple smooth function cannot gain information. He therefore concludes that there must be a designer to obtain CSI. However, natural selection has a branching mapping from one to many (replication) followed by pruning mapping of the many back down to a few (selection). When information is replicated, some copies can be differently modified while others remain the same, allowing information to increase. These increasing and reductional mappings were not modeled by Dembski. In other words, Dembski's calculations do not model birth and death. This basic flaw in his modeling renders all of Dembski's subsequent calculations and reasoning in No Free Lunch irrelevant because his basic model does not reflect reality. Since the basis of No Free Lunch relies on this flawed argument, the entire thesis of the book collapses.[27]

According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation".[6]

Dembski's critics note that specified complexity, as originally defined by Leslie Orgel, is precisely what Darwinian evolution is supposed to create. Critics maintain that Dembski uses "complex" as most people would use "absurdly improbable". They also claim that his argument is circular: CSI cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus. They argue that to successfully demonstrate the existence of CSI, it would be necessary to show that some biological feature undoubtedly has an extremely low probability of occurring by any natural means whatsoever, something which Dembski and others have almost never attempted to do. Such calculations depend on the accurate assessment of numerous contributing probabilities, the determination of which is often necessarily subjective. Hence, CSI can at most provide a "very high probability", but not absolute certainty.

Another criticism refers to the problem of "arbitrary but specific outcomes". For example, if a coin is tossed randomly 1000 times, the probability of any particular outcome occurring is roughly one in 10300. For any particular specific outcome of the coin-tossing process, the a priori probability (probability measured before event happens) that this pattern occurred is thus one in 10300, which is astronomically smaller than Dembski's universal probability bound of one in 10150. Yet we know that the post hoc probability (probabilitly as observed after event occurs) of its happening is exactly one, since we observed it happening. This is similar to the observation that it is unlikely that any given person will win a lottery, but, eventually, a lottery will have a winner; to argue that it is very unlikely that any one player would win is not the same as proving that there is the same chance that no one will win. Similarly, it has been argued that "a space of possibilities is merely being explored, and we, as pattern-seeking animals, are merely imposing patterns, and therefore targets, after the fact."[14]

Apart from such theoretical considerations, critics cite reports of evidence of the kind of evolutionary "spontanteous generation" that Dembski claims is too improbable to occur naturally. For example, in 1982, B.G. Hall published research demonstrating that after removing a gene that allows sugar digestion in certain bacteria, those bacteria, when grown in media rich in sugar, rapidly evolve new sugar-digesting enzymes to replace those removed.[28] Another widely cited example is the discovery of nylon eating bacteria that produce enzymes only useful for digesting synthetic materials that did not exist prior to the invention of nylon in 1935.
#15006770
Sivad wrote: Hence, CSI can at most provide a "very high probability", but not absolute certainty.


And where, pray tell, do we find "absolute certainty" in life? That you will arrive at your destination when you drive your car somewhere? That you will celebrate your next birthday?



Another criticism refers to the problem of "arbitrary but specific outcomes". For example, if a coin is tossed randomly 1000 times, the probability of any particular outcome occurring is roughly one in 10 to the 300. For any particular specific outcome of the coin-tossing process, the a priori probability (probability measured before event happens) that this pattern occurred is thus one in 10 to the 300, which is astronomically smaller than Dembski's universal probability bound of one in 10 to the 150. Yet we know that the post hoc probability (probabilitly as observed after event occurs) of its happening is exactly one, since we observed it happening.


That is the greatest nonsense posed in the name of mathematics that is possible.
A random sequence of coin tosses is profoundly different from a sequence of all heads, or a sequence of all tails. Profoundly different. To claim that the "probability is one because it happened" begs the question of WHAT happened. A random event? Please.

A sequence of a bunch of polypeptides "happening" is nothing like the synthesis of hemoglobin, defying LeChatelier's Principle, which incidentally, nobody has even ventured an attempt at explaining.

EDIT: I just returned from our afternoon walk, and along the lovely way, I pondered the game of poker, as played by Sivad. His opponent bets big and shows four aces. Sivad shows 2,4,5,8 10 of four different suits and calls it a draw. "DRAW? Where do you get off calling these two hands "DRAWS"? says his poker opponent holding four aces.


"Well," the ever brilliant Sivad argues, "my hand is JUST as improbable as yours. So there."

Four Aces: "Ya got me there. Let's split the pot, okay?"

Do you think that has ever happened? heh heh heh
Here's a clue: No, and it never will, simply because a random event is NOT improbable. It's just playing word games, which atheists excel at.


This is similar to the observation that it is unlikely that any given person will win a lottery, but, eventually, a lottery will have a winner; to argue that it is very unlikely that any one player would win is not the same as proving that there is the same chance that no one will win.


So why don't you buy ONE Super Lotto ticket! You're bound to win. The probability is 1, right?
It's all so simple. "No one will win" is YOUR phrase, nobody else's. For you to argue that one player has enhanced odds because you make a tired but utterly fallacious argument of any sequence, as the famous physicist said, "isn't right. It isn't even wrong."

Apart from such theoretical considerations, critics cite reports of evidence of the kind of evolutionary "spontanteous (SIC) generation" that Dembski claims is too improbable to occur naturally. For example, in 1982, B.G. Hall published research demonstrating that after removing a gene that allows sugar digestion in certain bacteria, those bacteria, when grown in media rich in sugar, rapidly evolve (sic) (You mean "adapt") new sugar-digesting enzymes to replace those removed.[28]


Adaptation is not Darwinian evolution, as in all life emerging from the first one-celled organism, whatever you wish to define that as.
Last edited by MrWonderful on 22 May 2019 23:34, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Sivad
#15006784
MrWonderful wrote:And where, pray tell, do we find "absolute certainty" in life?


You used the word impossible, that implies certainty. It's not impossible, at most it's extremely unlikely but extremely unlikely things happen all the time.


That is the greatest nonsense posed in the name of mathematics that is possible.
A random sequence of coin tosses is profoundly different from a sequence of all heads, or a sequence of all tails. Profoundly different. To claim that the "probability is one because it happened" begs the question of WHAT happened. A random event? Please.


You can't rule out chance, every sequence is just as improbable as the next. And no matter how unlikely an outcome may seem from our perspective, when you consider that it may very well be the case that our universe is just one among countless many in an infinite many worlds multiverse then a world like ours is guaranteed to come about at random.
#15006786
"One sequence is just as unlikely as another." - Sivad

"F*** you. F*** this. F*** that. F*** everything." - Godstud

"You're stupid and you know nothing about science." - Multiple atheists hanging out here, chasing away decent, thoughtful people

Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation Decent people, afraid to be slain by the preponderance of hateful atheists.

Decades ago, atheists argued against God by claiming that "the universe is just too big! God would not have wasted all that matter and space and energy just to make a place for mankind! Come on, people. Wise up, like us."

Today, the Anthropic Principle has thrown a monkey wrench into atheists tired old Big Universe verbiage. Now they claim "The Multiverse! The Multiverse! We're just one in an infinite number of universes, see. And ours works on account of we're here! It just 'happens'."

From one asinine claim to the opposite asinine extreme, without blinking an eye. Zero empirical evidence, just waving the atheists' magic wand of verbal wordplay.
#15006802
@MrWonderful I see you cannot make up an argument, so you turn to insulting people, misquoting them, or simply pretending you are being oppressed. The other people in this thread are at least having a reasonable discussion. Why don't you argue your point, like an adult. This isn't your regular 4chan/Reddit playground.

Most people, regardless of their religious affiliation, are reasonable and thoughtful people. Your bigotry is obvious.
#15006807
Godstud wrote:@MrWonderful I see you cannot make up an argument, so you turn to insulting people, misquoting them, or simply pretending you are being oppressed. The other people in this thread are at least having a reasonable discussion. Why don't you argue your point, like an adult. This isn't your regular 4chan/Reddit playground.

Most people, regardless of their religious affiliation, are reasonable and thoughtful people. Your bigotry is obvious.


There are still reasonable people of good will out there on all sides of most of these issues, but there is a growing divide. I can look at the trends of thought and see that quite well. As i've said before to you and others on PoFo in the past-even recently-such ''proofs'' as are offered do not convince set minds and hearts, and are a species of a lack of faith on the part of the one offering proof to begin with. They see the future but do not want to cede what power and worldly success in modern society they still have.

For the future on one part is atheistic, secular, statist, socialistic and technocratic, AI driven and with transhumanist beliefs gradually changing the way it means to be human in a fundamental way. A cult of Scientism. This started with Copernicus and gained traction with Darwin and Marx but did not end there. It will shape a person into something utterly unrecognizable to one's ancestors before they can even hesitate to begin doubting.

I'll be on the other part away from all that.
#15006827
The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions believed by less intelligent beings is the foremost conceit of the atheist. – The Irrational Atheist, by Vox Day, page 7

… the High Church atheist’s undeveloped social skills are often so dramatic as to be reasonably described as a form of social autism. – page 16

It is worth noting that it was neither Christians nor Muslims but revolutionary atheists inspired by Enlightenment ideals who beheaded the man known today as the father of modern chemistry, Antoine- Laurent de Lavoisier, in 1794, declaring “La Repubique n’a pas besoin de savants ne de chimistes.” (The Republic has no need of scientists or chemists.) – page 42

[La Terreur was of course the direct result of the Enlightenment, where atheist intellectuals denounced Christianity and religious leadership, in the name of “science and reason.” They dontinue their contemptible behavior today, everywhere.]

===================

[The Irrational Atheist is a brilliantly inspired, documented, and written book which I highly recommend to all thoughtful people.]
#15006828
Godstud wrote:@MrWonderful I see you cannot make up an argument, so you turn to insulting people, misquoting them, or simply pretending you are being oppressed. The other people in this thread are at least having a reasonable discussion. Why don't you argue your point, like an adult. This isn't your regular 4chan/Reddit playground.

Most people, regardless of their religious affiliation, are reasonable and thoughtful people. Your bigotry is obvious.



"Godstud"'s "reasonable discussion on full display:

RE: THE EVOLUTION FRAUD#15006016
By Godstud - 19 May 2019 18:32


Coming from you that is fucking RICH! Religion does not belong with science, an atheism isn't a religion, either, so you need to smarten, the fuck, up. Religion has no place in a discussion about science, but fanatics like you always bring it up.

Evolution is one of the most proven scientific theories in existence. People who try to disprove it make themselves look like idiots.
#15006830
@MrWonderful It was in response to yours and others attempts to toss religion into a scientific discussion. You are being dishonest about this, and the context of my statements.

It was in response to this stupid, and off-topic, post:
MrWonderful wrote:There is a lovely graph showing the percentage of various faiths and their retention rates.
At the bottom of the list is atheism, 30% retention. Atheism has been stipulated to be a religion by the Supreme Court. This is something that makes atheists gnash their teeth in fury.
heh heh


Now stick to the topic. Are you capable of doing that?
User avatar
By Ter
#15006831
This discussion is going nowhere and nobody will be convinced to believe a different theory than the one they hold already.

About the extremely small probability that something will happen, the following : my six year old son asked me years ago to buy a lottery ticket so we could become rich. I told him that the probability of us winning the million prize was so small, it would be like me throwing a coin at full force through the room and the coin will end up standing on its side on the mantelpiece.
My son replied : but every week someone is winning.
I had nothing to say about that, till today.
(I should have beaten him up, the little rascal, humiliating his Dad like that)
User avatar
By ingliz
#15006884
[Darwinism] refers strictly to biological evolution. Creationists have appropriated it to refer to the origin of life, and it has even been applied to concepts of cosmic evolution, both of which have no connection to Darwin's work.

Wiki


:lol:
#15006917
Ter wrote:About the extremely small probability that something will happen, the following : my six year old son asked me years ago to buy a lottery ticket so we could become rich. I told him that the probability of us winning the million prize was so small, it would be like me throwing a coin at full force through the room and the coin will end up standing on its side on the mantelpiece.
My son replied : but every week someone is winning.
I had nothing to say about that, till today.
(I should have beaten him up, the little rascal, humiliating his Dad like that)

Most people have very little intuitive understanding of probability and large numbers. A thousand seems like a large number, and a million is larger, and a billion is larger than that, etc. But it's hard for people to understand how much bigger than a thousand a trillion is. Think of it this way: a cupful of dried peas is about a thousand. A trillion would be a large football stadium full. The probability of the coin landing on edge on the mantelpiece is much, much smaller than one in a million. Maybe one in trillion, or a quadrillion.
User avatar
By Besoeker2
#15006923
Truth To Power wrote:Most people have very little intuitive understanding of probability and large numbers.

Yes, true. Nor the vast time scales involved. Nor the number of species that have become extinct. More than 99%.
The creator, if there was one, wasn't very good with his designs.
User avatar
By Ter
#15006925
Truth To Power wrote:Most people have very little intuitive understanding of probability and large numbers. A thousand seems like a large number, and a million is larger, and a billion is larger than that, etc. But it's hard for people to understand how much bigger than a thousand a trillion is. Think of it this way: a cupful of dried peas is about a thousand. A trillion would be a large football stadium full. The probability of the coin landing on edge on the mantelpiece is much, much smaller than one in a million. Maybe one in trillion, or a quadrillion.


You are correct but I have no idea what you are trying to prove.

By the way, there was a picture of thousands of floating trees in a river in an issue of Scientific American and the point was to show that the maximum we can comprehend would be like ten thousand. After that, we cannot comprehend or imagine.
#15006930
ingliz wrote:[Darwinism] refers strictly to biological evolution. Creationists have appropriated it to refer to the origin of life, and it has even been applied to concepts of cosmic evolution, both of which have no connection to Darwin's work.

Wiki
:lol:


"LOL"
Darwin titled his book "The Origin of Species". The original life form was a specie. Attempting to elude abiogenesis is a clever word game, nothing more. Why have biologists and chemists worked so feverishly for decades to demonstrate abiogenesis, as in the now infamous "Miller-Urey Experiment," which accidentally synthesized only tiny amounts of a few simple amino acids, under strict laboratory conditions, in a very controlled environment, and even then only the racemic mixtures, which would of course be useless in synthesizing proteins from exclusively the L forms?

"LOL" is a hollow laugh.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15006933
MrWonderful wrote:Attempting to elude abiogenesis is ...

"It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter."

Charles Darwin from a letter to American botanist Joseph Hooker (29 Mar 1863)


:lol:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 10
The Evolution Fraud

Fountains of the great deep? That would require t[…]

I don't know one way or the other, and neither […]

How did you become a socialist?

The irony of Deutschmania's complaint against you[…]

https://external-preview.redd.it/k3Nd[…]