Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

[Stripe]

It's very odd that a computer engineer wouldn't know about those things.

Nope. It's perhaps understandable that a non-engineer would think that programming is analogous to Darwinism.

With you, it's just dishonesty, as you've had this explained to you numerous times.

Evolution is the idea that random changes to the "source code" are naturally selected to generate today's biodiversity from a universal common ancestor.

Correctly applying your stupid analogy is to say that the engineer writes his code and allows random changes to it. He doesn't. He writes his code to constrain a particular set of data and iterate through it, testing each instance against a desired outcome.

Random changes can never improve that overarching code.

You understand neither computer programming, nor evolution.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Darwinists are generally idiots. You're a dishonest troll. And possibly going senile.

Calling people "Darwinists" isn't especially bright. Barb is far from a troll as he doesn't indulge in puerile insults nor juvenile emoticons but rather addresses the subject matter in detail, something that really seems to wind you and others up to distraction.

Your last is just outright trolling and pathetic, so it's little wonder that it gets a thumbs up from some.

 

[Yorzhik]

Huh... Don't know what happened to my post. In any event, the best common descentists can come up with as far as computer programs that mimic common descent is a program called Eve last I checked. And it failed miserably to simulate the principles of common descent. Or rather, it succeeded spectacularly to show that common descent was not possible under the conditions set by the program. I don't think there have been many new developments since then. I think they can't even speculate on solutions to the problems they ran into.

As far as genetic algorithms are concerned, they aren't made to simulate common descent. They create an environment where there will always be a winner that is better than the previous iteration nearly every iteration. Then the previous iterations are discarded as needed. But this isn't what common descent has to deal with in reality.

 

[Yorzhik]

It's too bad Barbarian cannot discuss a topic. He sees a topic, spits out canned response, and ignores the many good points made by other people. It appears his pride has only grown in the years he's been posting.

When Stripe talks about entropy, a subject that isn't only about heat, Barbarian spits out a canned response that ignores the point. It's the same with information.

And the ironic thing is that common descent also fails due to thermodynamics and Shannon information. But one could never hope to discuss the topic with Barbarian because he's an NPC.

 

[The Barbarian]

Huh... Don't know what happened to my post. In any event, the best common descentists can come up with as far as computer programs that mimic common descent is a program called Eve last I checked.

Ironically, the genetic finding that we are all descended from one woman was done by computer modeling.

 

[The Barbarian]

...something that really seems to wind you and others up to distraction.

I don't do it to make the trolls agitated. And lately, I see so much less of it here...

 

[Stripe]

I don't do it to make the trolls agitated. And lately, I see so much less of it here...

Meanwhile, there was the beginnings of a decent conversation on offer.

It's a pity that the Darwinists can't engage sensibly.

 

[The Barbarian]

When Stripe talks about entropy, a subject that isn't only about heat, Barbarian spits out a canned response that ignores the point.

The point was that he had confused "entropy" and "thermodynamics." And yes, entropy is about heat just as "evolution" is about a change in allele frequency in a population over time. But both terms are used in other fields.

So the equivocation is about information about a random variable, given the knowledge of another random variable.

It's the same with information.

Where creationists generally crash and burn when they begin talking about "information" is in the equivocation, which few of them can understand. Specifically, they are unable to show that any process required for biological evolution is ruled out by anything in information theory.

Generally, it's "well, you know, things get more disordered over time." But of course they often don't, which when mentioned usually results in a creationist hissy.

And the ironic thing is that common descent also fails due to thermodynamics and Shannon information.

So which process, required for evolution is ruled out by thermodynamics? Show your math.

Which process, required for evolution is ruled out by Shannon information? Show your math.

Usually, the creationist gets very, very vague, but maybe you won't. Let's see what you have.

But one could never hope to discuss the topic with Barbarian because he's an NPC.

Well, just for everyone else,how about supporting your claims? This should be interesting.

 

[Stripe]

The point was that he had confused "entropy" and "thermodynamics."

Nope.

Entropy is a wider topic than just heat flow.

Pays to learn things before engaging in a subject, otherwise you just get embarrassed.

Entropy is about heat.

Nope. You've even admitted such. "[It is] used in other fields." That's a bingo!

:think:

Must be senility.

"Evolution" is about a change in allele frequency in a population over time.

Nope.

Evolution is the idea that all living things are descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection.

Calling it "change" is the Darwinist's way of defining the debate out of existence.

So the equivocation is about information about a random variable, given the knowledge of another random variable.

:AMR:

"English, dude. English."

Darwinists crash and burn when they begin equivocating over "information," which none of them can understand. Specifically, they are unable to respect that the term has been defined and used in a way they do not like.

Let's see what you have.

There has already been a challenge issued. Guaranteed you will be just as dissembling and dishonest with a rabbit trail as with that.

One could never hope to discuss the topic with Barbarian, because he's a troll.

 

[Yorzhik]

The point was that he had confused "entropy" and "thermodynamics." And yes, entropy is about heat just as "evolution" is about a change in allele frequency in a population over time. But both terms are used in other fields.

So the equivocation is about information about a random variable, given the knowledge of another random variable.



Where creationists generally crash and burn when they begin talking about "information" is in the equivocation, which few of them can understand. Specifically, they are unable to show that any process required for biological evolution is ruled out by anything in information theory.

Generally, it's "well, you know, things get more disordered over time." But of course they often don't, which when mentioned usually results in a creationist hissy.



So which process, required for evolution is ruled out by thermodynamics? Show your math.

Which process, required for evolution is ruled out by Shannon information? Show your math.

Usually, the creationist gets very, very vague, but maybe you won't. Let's see what you have.



Well, just for everyone else,how about supporting your claims? This should be interesting.

Stripe has already answered you repeatedly on these topics, but your best response has been NPC answers to other people.
https://youtu.be/Me_ORZVm7w4

 

[Stripe]

Stripe has already answered you repeatedly on these topics, but your best response has been NPC answers to other people.
https://youtu.be/Me_ORZVm7w4

:rotfl:

 

[ok doser]

Stripe has already answered you repeatedly on these topics, but your best response has been NPC answers to other people.
https://youtu.be/Me_ORZVm7w4

Its a form of passive aggressive trolling that barbie excels at.

Apparently blatant trolling is now allowed here :idunno:

 

[annabenedetti]

Its a form of passive aggressive trolling that barbie excels at.

Apparently blatant trolling is now allowed here :idunno:

Still working on getting him banned? Some things never change. This place is already dying a slow death, you want to accelerate it or what?

 

[JudgeRightly]

This place is already dying a slow death, you want to accelerate it or what?

Actually, that's incorrect.

According to Town...

https://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?p=5342856
(yes, that is linked to my post, but it's a summary of Town's post just above it)

 

[The Barbarian]

Stripe has already answered you repeatedly on these topics,

He merely redefines words to suit himself. Which is why he repeatedly failed. But feel free to show us any process, required for science that is ruled out by entropy.

Or any process, required for evolution that is ruled out by "information."

What do you have?

 

[ok doser]

Still working on getting him banned?

If I was, I'd be reporting his trolling behavior

 

[JudgeRightly]

He merely redefines words to suit himself.

Where did Stripe do so?

 

[ok doser]

Where did Stripe do so?

Another of barbie's trolling tactics, accusing others of doing what he does

 

[The Barbarian]

Where did Stripe do so?

I probably shouldn't have responded to you about him in the first place. We were told if we were ignoring someone, then we should ignore him. So it's probably a mistake to engage him by proxy.

I notice your posts are getting more and more abusive, so I think I'll give you some time away from me, too.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I probably shouldn't have responded to you about him in the first place. We were told if we were ignoring someone, then we should ignore him. So it's probably a mistake to engage him by proxy.

I notice your posts are getting more and more abusive, so I think I'll give you some time away from me, too.

So, in other words, instead of supporting your accusations against Stripe or retracting them altogether and apologizing to Stripe, you're going to just ignore a moderator who has challenged you to support them?

Tell me again why I shouldn't give you an infraction for being unnecessarily disruptive.