| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Comments:
<0> it's a good model, but not perfect
<0> like I was saying before, it puts sattelites in orbit
<0> and took us to the moon
<0> but General Relativity came along
<0> and fixed a discrepancy in the orbit of Mercury
<0> that Newtonian physics couldn't account for.
<0> Quantum physics explains all kinds of things Newtonian physics can't
<0> well, Newtonian, and electrodynamics
<0> we use relativity to explain all kinds of things
<0> quantum, well, computers wouldn't work without it.
<0> Newtonian mechanics are only a model.
<1> Noidea to whom are you addressing this?
<0> IRR^
<0> from earlier
<1> ah
<0> just got back from lunch :)
<0> and saw his comment on Evolution was just created to destroy religion
<0> but, things like newtonian physics haven't ever changed
<0> that's why physics is fine, but evolution is wrong.
<1> Evolution was created as a theory to cover observed data
<1> ditto, physics
<2> I don't claim evolution was created to destroy religion.
<2> Please don't put words in my ... urm ... finger tips.
<2> I said that its often used as an instrument to attack religion, and call it redundant, and unnecessary and uncool.
<0> [11:35] <2> Whereas evolution is not defended as a theory, but as an instrument to dispel world religions.
<0> it's easy to misinterpret that
<2> Not really
<3> I think it's easy to misinterpret, too!
<0> No, really IRR^, otherwise you wouldn't have gotten the same comment from at least 2 different people
<0> but, regardless
<0> Evolution should be taught
<0> it will be expected that you know it in university
<0> if you major in any sort of life science
<0> or, even if you take the cl***es.
<0> and the point of HS is to prepare people for university
<2> and when I used to ask questions from profs in cl***, they never gave scientifically argued answers.
<2> What sort of science is that?
<4> badly taught science?
<2> Suppose I say that the lunar landing is dangerous because the astronauts will fall off at half moon.
<2> Its a theory afterall.
<3> But you theory is contradicted by empirical evidence. LOTS of empirical evidence.
<0> IRR^, you're ***uming that in all the world, none of the scientists working in the life sciences have bothered to question Evolution at all.
<2> So is evolution
<3> And better, mroe logical theories exist.
<2> Lots of evidence
<2> Noidea how many Comp scis have bothered to question the stupidity of java?
<2> How many JBlitzens have questioned the dumbness of Bush?
<4> plenty
<0> and, again, we have observed evolution happening in a lab.
<0> and, the stupidity of java is ultimately just an opinion.
<2> Noidea read my paste about that experiment you talked of.
<0> Not that one experiment IRR^
<0> many
<0> and I read what you said
<0> and didn't see any relevance in it.
<2> There is work going on in Caltech which concludes that organisms show a resistant patter in feature change vs. dna change, since the dna design reflects a self stablizing info network pattern.
<2> Noidea thats the only example you came up with. And I put the conclusion of that research over here.
<2> You can study the original paper and its follow ups if you want to.
<0> I've been through all of this already IRR^
<2> So... caltech research indicates that organisms resist evolution.
<0> I studied some microbiology in college.
<2> Yet so many educated people think that their ancestors were monkeys.
<0> there is a fossil record to support that.
<0> it's not complete, granted
<4> Because one counterexample doesn't outweigh the other evidence
<3> ***uming organisms "resisted" evolution, mutations might still happen. And that mutation happens are the pre-requisite for evolution, not that organism like it or "resist" it.
<2> The analysis of fossil record is extremely biased and starts with a pre concieved premis.
<2> Tell me: what scientific acclaim did Darwin have before he published his theory?
<4> He was a renound naturalist, IIRC
<0> man, the spelling in here is horrible.
<4> But then, what acclaim did Einstein have before he published his first paper?
<2> ***uming there are free hydrogen atoms in space, they might come together and form a Sun one day.
<0> and, they did
<2> But whats the probability? And time required?
<2> Not the space in our solar system.
<0> billions of years
<2> The earth is only 6 billion year old.
<0> the sun is older
<2> Do you think it sufficient time for you to evolve?
<0> 6 billion years is a very long time.
<2> Granted, as they say, that life started 200 million years ago.
<2> Run a computer simulation.
<5> between 4 and 5, more likely
<4> when we can see evolution on timescales measured in decades, I'd wager 200 million years is more than enough
<2> Make a complete human simulation after 200 million iterations.
<5> with a sun that will likely die by it's 10 billionth birthday, every billion years counts
<2> From a carbon globule.
<2> Make a fruit fly even.
<2> Computes have been around for 65 years. Why haven't we seen that so far?
<4> give me a computer the size of the earth, and I will gladly
<2> Because biologists don't know about computers? That isn't true.
<2> Asriel` you are just being non methodical in your argumentation.
<4> Who said that?
<4> No, you're just being obtuse
<4> "I can't concieve of it, therefore it doesn't happen"
<0> hold on
<1> brain the size of a planet, eh? I give you: ............................................ wait for it............................................
<0> 200 million iterations of what?
<1> MARVIN!!
<5> i think non-methodical in response to utter absurity is fair
<3> That argument is ridiculous. That's the kidn of computing task that wouldn't be resolved in a hundred lifetimes.
<0> do you think we can realistically simulate all of the chemical processes you're talking about?
<4> We can create simulations of evolution on small scales very easily
<2> DrkMatter precisely
<0> for 200 millions years
<4> In fact, there are entire fields of science devoted to it, in mathematics, computer science and biology
<0> across the entire planet
<2> And 200 million years aren't enough.
<0> and do so in a realistic amount of time?
<2> Asriel` give us simulations then.
<4> just google for genetic algorithms and fitness tests
<4> which is fundamentally what evolution is
<2> Evolution is driven by: mutations, crossovers and that third thing I don't know.
<2> Genetic algos simulate that.
<4> the p***ing of traits that create "species" that succeed in an environment
<5> ultimately, you can't rise above your argument that since we can't fully explain anything, or things are "too complex", then they must be designed
<5> a good theory it is, but it's a philosophical one
<2> Do we have a genetic algo that can create an intelligent living human simul?
<0> a human is exceedingly complex IRR^
<2> Noidea I agree
<0> far far more complex than a computer.
<4> No, but then we don't have a computer with the capacity to execute the 10^10000 "calculations" that would be needed
<0> well outside the limits of current computing technology.
<4> within the capacity of our technology, we have replicated it
<2> My main contention is that if evolution exists, it should take longer than 200 million years.
<4> with what evidence to back up your premise?
<0> based on what IRR^
<0> I mean, other than the hope that your religious beliefs are correct.
<2> You have no idea what the evolutive software would look like.
<4> Sure I do. I've written some. Not great, but it worked
<2> I take it as a computational problem.
<2> 2 researchers did a simulation of creating the optimal curvature of the eye ball starting with a straight line.
<2> Know how much iterations it took?
<4> a few billion?
<2> 80,000
<2> 80,000 generations.
<5> http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/cd200.html
<2> For something that a 5 year old can draw by hand.
<4> wow. that's absolutely nothing
<5> i would imagine it does take longer than 200 million years too...
<2> Try arriving at the golden ratio then.
<2> And we are just starting.
<4> Easily. Don't forget, physics dictates many of these things
<1> 80,000 generations (human) is only 1,600,000 years
<1> or 1.6 million
<2> what is the size of the dna footprint?
<4> Your argument is still flawed
<4> "I can't concieve of it, so it must be wrong"
<2> vawjrwrk for a line that can be described in 10 byes of information.
<4> You offer no evidence to back up your position
<2> Asriel` I attempt to concieve of it, and it turns out impractical.
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
You don't have permission to access /php/php-cgi.exe/test.php on this server.
#skype
#linux
#linuxhelp
#chatzone
not a single-group function
mmcache sql refresh
shared object libwine.so.1 not found, required by wine
sdk 2.2.3 Sony Ericsson SDK 2.2.3
Linux Precision M90 backlight
|
|