[_ Old Earth _] God Can Count - Can Evolution?

[Asyncritus]

[FONT=&quot]

Do you agree that we have there a very fair description of 'by chance'? From 38 Nobel laureates?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]As you learned, they didn't say evolution was by chance. They said random mutation and natural selection. Which as you now realize, is not by chance.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You’re quotemining them. Go re-read what they actually said, and stop misrepresenting them.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

I really worry about those blinkers you're wearing.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Funny how folks who wear them, are never aware of it, um? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Too true.

Let me show you again that they didn't say it was by chance:
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You get the impression that they're talking about CHANCE here? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]We’ve been over this ground several times before.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[Barbarian]

Async tries to insert the word again:

Do you agree that we have there a very fair description of 'by chance'? From 38 Nobel laureates?

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, they didn't say evolution was by chance. They said random mutation and natural selection. Which as you now realize, is not by chance.

You’re quotemining them.

I used the words they actually said. You didn't. As you learned, natural selection is not random.

Let me show you again that they didn't say it was by chance:
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

You get the impression that they're talking about CHANCE here?

Nope. As you learned, random variation and natural selection make a non-random process.

We’ve been over this ground several times before.

Yeah. But I'm a very patient guy.

 

[Barbarian]

Async quotes Dawkins as saying life began by chance:

Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step-by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance.

Barbarian chuckles:
No. Not stupidity. You just don't know enough about biology to understand the quotes you mine for us.

You have mined innumerable quotes of monumental irrelevancy

I'm just citing from the literature. And remember, I actually read it, so I know what it means.

Like ABIOGENESIS being the same as EVOLUTION? Heh heh heh!

I don't see Dawkins saying that. Which brings us back to the point. You seem to not understand what he's writing here. This happens to be about the origin of life. If you've accurately quoted him, he thinks that's by chance.

Barbarian observes:
They aren't quotes. They are evidence from the literature. And they aren't overly technical or difficult. If you'd spend a little more time learning about the issue in the literature, you wouldn't be so easy to flummox.

Like ABIOGENESIS being the same as EVOLUTION? Heh heh heh!

Yep. It seems to have completely slipped by you. When I highlighted it, you seem to have realized the mistake, um?

http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/darwin.htm
"Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."

Sounds like chance to me!

Goes back to that thing about not having learned about the things you talk about.

As you just learned, a random process, plus a non-random process, is a non-random process. I highlighted the relevant words for you.

I really think a course in basic English is called for here.
Unguided, unplanned, random are all words used of chance occurrences.

Nope. For example, a structure collapses when too much of a load is placed on it by error. Not planned, but neither is it random. It's very non-random; quite deterministic. Neither was it guided, but it wasn't random. And by now, you surely remember that a random process, plus a non-random process, is a non-random process.

Barbarian observes:
Gravity is unguided and unplanned. If a rock falls, it doesn't fall in a random direction. You made a bad assumption, and it led you to a foolish conclusion. .

I don’t know what you’ve been reading, but the law of gravity is in no way unguided and unplanned. Newton says so

Show us where he says that when a rock falls it's guided and planned. That should be interesting.

We are not discussing physics here

Barbarian chuckles:
More precisely, we're discussing your confusion as to what is random and what is not.

Produce a reputable definition.

but I again point out that when Sir Isaac Newton discovered the mathematics behind the law of gravity, he didn't immediately start prancing round shouting 'hey look, this is unguided and unplanned'.

If you think God personally intervenes to make falling objects fall it's guided and planned. Otherwise, not.

Off topic

You brought it up.

Far from it, and you as a catholic should take the same POV.

Barbarian observes:
As you know, the Church teaches that evolution, as a consequence of God's creation, is consistent with Christian faith.

Yeah. And it teaches that the wafer literally turns into something else, and that the pope is the vicar of Christ on the earth. You happy with those scientific statements?

One reason you get embarrassed here, is you conflate science and faith.

What did he say?

Barbarian observes:
Newton said natural forces caused gravity.

Go read some of his work and stop spouting nonsense willya?
He said:

Rational Mechanics will be the science of motions resulting from any forces whatsoever, and of the forces required to produce any motions, accurately proposed and demonstrated [...] And therefore we offer this work as mathematical principles of philosophy. For all the difficulty of philosophy seems to consist in this—from the phenomena of motions to investigate the forces of Nature, and then from these forces to demonstrate the other phenomena
Isaac Newton Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica

Surprise. Newton also wrote:
his most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.


Darwin thought so, too:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Abiogenesis is NOT EVOLUTION!!!!!

I'm pleased you now understand this. But you've confused Newton's acknowledgement of a creator, with Newton's acknowledgement of gravity as caused by natural forces.

In a similar way, you confused Darwin's acknowledgement of God as the creator of life, with the evolution of living things by natural processes.

 

[cupid dave]

Guilford was a quack.

I don't see what his work has to do with other geometric shapes or what either has to do with the urim and thummim.

Clearly you do not intend to get "it."

But that is Ok.
In regard to Guilford, he is a well respected psychologist in the field of Intelligence.
He is very active in the task of AI (Artifical Intelligence), and has contributed ideas that are very interesting.

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian reminds Async that Dawkins is talking about the origin of life by chance)

This refrain is getting a bit tiring – but, once more lads, his hearing aid isn’t working too well: Abiogenesis is NOT EVOLUTION!!!!!

Glad you accept that. But go back and check the words you attributed to Dawkins. It's about the origin of living things.

Now here's the pot calling the kettle black! You've been backed into smuggling design (as opposed to chance) into (alleged) evolutionary processes.

Barbarian chuckles:
As you learned earlier, it's neither design, or chance. Evolution isn't by chance, and it isn't designed. It's created.

Let’s have a quote from the scientific literature that says so.

God says so. And of course Darwin said so.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

You have done so just as your high priest does

Yours, not mine. You declared him high priest.

by attributing qualities of design ability to something that clearly could not possibly possess them.

Nope. Creation, not design.

No sign of design. Just natural processes. Which, as you learned some time ago, are more efficient than design

I could quotemine a dozen evolutionists all saying words to the effect that evolution is a chance process

Barbarian chuckles:
I notice you tried to do that with Darwin, and got yourself embarrassed again. .

Berlinski mocks this by saying that there must be a Head Monkey there making the decisions about whether to retain the letter there or not!

Berlinksi still hasn't heard about natural selection.

I find that quite amusing.

Me, too.

Barbarian observes:
Natural selection, as you learned, can make great changes by making small incremental changes. Would you like to see an example?

If there was any such thing, you’d have brought it up already.

I have. Hall's bacteria evolved a new irreducibly complex enzyme system by random mutation and natural selection. I've shown you a number of times, but you keep forgetting. I wish there was some way to help you remember.

There isn’t, so what are you going to do about it?

Keep reminding you. I'm a very patient guy.

Remember, I’m looking for something that will produce the Cambrian explosion of species, genera, etc etc.

Random mutation and natural selection.

No intelligence is required. Hall's bacterial, for example, evolved a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system, by small steps from random mutations, organized by natural selection.

And this magnificent example produced which new genus or species?

That's much easier. You were shown several directly observed speciations. That can sometimes happen by a single mutation.

Now, are you Darwin's or Dawkins' disciple?

Barbarian observes:
I merely read what they wrote, and see what I think makes sense. As you learned, it's a big help if you know what you're talking about. Read and learn.

Well if you could possibly think that abiogenesis is evolution

But you know better, now. Remember when you told us Dawkins said that the first organisms came about by chance, that means abiogenesis. What happens after that is evolution.

They flatly contradict each other, and you would be lying to say otherwise.

Show us that.

(can't show it)

Barbarian suggests:
Let's say that a hundred coins are tossed and they all fall into a counting machine that counts the heads and tails. But the machine has a defect; it scans the coin, but the scan that detects tails only works every odd coin.

You'll end with a non-random result, biased toward heads, but the tosses were entirely random. Surprise.

We have a machine. Intelligently designed and constructed.

Unless God created it. Then it would be like the laws under which evolution works.

The machine is defective.

Unless the creator wanted a non-random result. Then it works fine.

NS, according to you, works perfectly.

Nope. Evolutionary theory says that natural selection tends to remove unfavorable traits and to preserve good ones. That's all He needs for it to do what He wants it to do.

As you admitted, the counting is biased and unfair.

So is natural selection. Thank you.

Faulty is the proper description. The dice are loaded. I fail to see any non-random process here.

If not, you don't know what "non-random" means.

Everything in it is designed

Nope. This one, God created.

and works to produce a predictable result.

Like natural selection. Very good.

If you went to a gaming table with such dice, you’d be shot.

Take that up with the Guy who created the machine.

It's simple. A random process, like flipping coins or mutations, when acted upon by a non-random process like natural selection, produces a non-random result.

You have smuggled in the Head Monkey again. Not allowed.

God did that, too. Natural selection is just His natural laws at work. Mike needs to take that one up with Him, too.

Good luck, Mike.

 

[cupid dave]

It's part of a deception, "In the day you eat thereof ye shall be as god, knowing..."

But the problem is: knowledge does not save.

We can't discuss these topics and debate without admitting that your knowledge is what you are using to maintain your arguments concerning what you believe the bible actually says.

In fact, without the knowledge to read,you would be dependent, as were the generations at the time of Jesus, to learn about the scriotures from people who did have the knowledge to read them.
And, if you were an ignorant oerson, you were even more susceptible to the persausions of those people to have you believe what they told you to believe.

I think you do a disserve to attack the knowledge of scientists as if knowledge is the enemy and what ignorant people have decided scripture means is the best source for your own information and understanding of God.

People read Genesis, for instance, and say dumb things like "the original sin was eating from the Tree of Knowledge."
They did n;\'t rad that.
They heard someone say that.

The verse actually says, the sin was "eating from the Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil."

That is quite different, isn't it?
Read the scripture which tells you ow important knowledge is to your salvation:


Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

 

[Sparkey]

We can't discuss these topics and debate without admitting that your knowledge is what you are using to maintain your arguments concerning what you believe the bible actually says.

In fact, without the knowledge to read,you would be dependent, as were the generations at the time of Jesus, to learn about the scriotures from people who did have the knowledge to read them.
And, if you were an ignorant oerson, you were even more susceptible to the persausions of those people to have you believe what they told you to believe.

I think you do a disserve to attack the knowledge of scientists as if knowledge is the enemy and what ignorant people have decided scripture means is the best source for your own information and understanding of God.

People read Genesis, for instance, and say dumb things like "the original sin was eating from the Tree of Knowledge."
They did n;\'t rad that.
They heard someone say that.

The verse actually says, the sin was "eating from the Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil."

That is quite different, isn't it?
Read the scripture which tells you ow important knowledge is to your salvation:


Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

You misunderstand me. Did I say that knowledge was sin? Did I say Adam's sin was eating from the tree of knowledge? No. Your strawman fails.

 

[Asyncritus]

I will deal with your fudging the issue in detail later.

Here, however, are some quotes from talkorigins which may help your incomprehension. All from talkorigins http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

There you are, go check.

MONOD: Nobel prizewinner

The initial elementary events which open the way to evolution in the intensely conservative systems called living beings are microscopic, fortuitous, and totally unrelated to whatever may be their effects upon teleonomic functioning.

[Know what fortuitous means?]

But once incorporated in the DNA structure, the accident -- essentially unpredictable because always singular -- will be mechanically and faithfully replicated and translated: that is to say, both multiplied and transposed into millions or thousands of millions of copies. Drawn from the realm of pure chance, the accident enters into that of necessity, of the most implacable certainties. For natural selection operates at the macroscopic level, the level of organisms.

[Its perfectly simple. Chance mutations, good or bad, get copied accurately and precisely. Therefore if evolution depends on mutations - and it does - it depends on chance.

You can argue till you're blue in the face that selection somehow avoids chance - but from the above, it is perfectly clear that chance is all that it has to work on.]

TALKORIGINS

Another conclusion to be drawn is that there is no set goal to selection.

[In your cockeyed examples of coin selection, there is a set goal which is, the rejection of your selected items. A fault in your machine could have been set by the owner, to maximise his profits, in which case there is intelligent direction].

Variants arise naturally in all populations. Each population has its traits spread out over a distribution curve.

Therefore, randomness must enter into evolution per se, if it does, at the level of Ecological Rules; that is, in the ecological struggle [Sober 1984].

[Sober is wrong, as Monod has shown. The randomness has entered already, at the genetic level, and is compounded by the ecological Rules, as he calls them.]

Another way to say this is just that the changes that get encoded in genes occur with no forethought to the eventual needs of the organism (or the species) that carries those genes.

Error rates in replication are indeed very low ("Typical rates of mutation are between 10exp(-10) and 10 exp (-12) mutations per base pair of DNA per generation", Chris Colby's Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ).

[This is the most destructive statement I have ever read in talkorigins. If those are the rates of mutation, then there is not a hope in hell of the Cambrian explosion having taken place by means of mutations and natural selection. Not a one.

You have yet to produce any figures about a. the number of new species in theCambrian b. the rates of speciation needed to produce that vast number and c. relate that to that incredibly low mutation rate that talkorigins gives. I'm waiting expectantly.]

The causes of mutations are not evolutionary processes; the changes to organisms that result from mutations are. In other words: given that organisms accrue different traits (from whatever causes, and which we now know are mutations) evolution is the result of these in terms of ecological benefits.

[This is another pathetic wriggle. He has just shown that the mutation rate is so low it couldn't produce a crab-louse in the Cambrian. And yet can even think that it could produce the world we see around us today from a 'common ancestor'!!!! How ridiculous can you get???] Heh heh heh! :toofunny

What stupidity!

Dawkins:

Well, yes, there is something behind the misunderstood rumour, a feeble basis to the distortion. one stage in the Darwinian process is indeed a chance process -- mutation. Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic variation is offered up for selection and it is usually described as random.

[And as we have seen, the rate is so pathetically low that evolutionary hopes are hung very high out to dry by them!]

For example, mutations have well-understood physical causes, and to this extent they are non-random. ... the great majority of mutations, however caused, are random with respect to quality, and that means they are usually bad because there are more ways of getting worse than of getting better. [Dawkins 1996:70-71]

[Excellent stuff, Richard! But because the cause of something random is known, that does not permit our calling it a non- random occurrence.

they are usually bad because there are more ways of getting worse than of getting better.]

Heh heh heh! So where's your improvement now, from 'common ancestor' Joe up to whales, sequoias and mankind? Finished off for good. Well done, O great Richard! I salute thee!

Dawkins both accepts the role of chance in evolution through mutations and denies, as this FAQ does, that evolution thereby involves deep improbability.

[In short, he contradicts himself every time he opens his mouth on the subject!

So do you, Barbarian. Your position is untenable. Sorry. Evolution is based on chance - never mind the wriggling.]

 

[cupid dave]

You misunderstand me. Did I say that knowledge was sin? Did I say Adam's sin was eating from the tree of knowledge? No. Your strawman fails.

Oh,...
My fault.

I wasn't sure what you meant and believed you had said that which I see you did not.

Good.
Knowledge is a wonderful thing which we ust use to puzzle out in our mind what actually Exusts beside this thining we are so certain is going on mentally.

Rene Descartes began there, himself, when he too made this exact same observation.
He had previously wrestled with the meaning of "life."

Descartes was arguing in his own head, with himself, about whether life was a dream or real.
He had no evidence or hard concrete support for anything that he thought, until he realized that he knew positively, he was thinking and asking questions.

That, i.e.; asking himself questions, was real.
It was the only fact he was absolutely certain about.
So, he concluded that since he thought these questions, "he" existed, something referred to as this other "he'" had to be.

I go to the next step.
I say since Data comes into this thinking from what I deduce to be my own sensory apparatus.
Something beside me, and my thinking, must also exist because it is the source of thoughts, feelings, inputs I did not think about until they came to me.

This incoming Data says to me, "I am, too."
It says to me some entity that is not me claims "I am."
"I am, also" is from the voice of that "other" entity which I hav now proven to myself exists.

I have proven to me that I exist, because I know I am thinking.
I KNOW this "other" that claims "I am" also exists because the incoming sensory Data is not coming from me.

My own thoughts convince me I exist.
These other thoughts that are coming into my mind from outside of my own thinking are proof of this "I am" claim.
I accept that "other" as an entity I call Reality.

Reality is "talking" to me
Reality insisting it also exists.
Reality demands that I need to acknowledge it.
It is clear I both need things from Reality and can be harmed by this companion to the Life I apparently am "enjoying."

To better understand and identify this other Entity, I have been onstructing a model I imagine represents that entity.
I call my model The Truth because I believe I have deduced a direct correspondence between that "god-like" almighty entity which is not me, the "thingee" that claims "I am," and my mental model I call Truth.

By now, having great faith in that mental model, I actually accept that the model is that Entity, itself, external to me.
I am interacting with the model as if it is the High Priest who intercedes between that actual Reality and myself.

 

[Adam]

Clearly you do not intend to get "it."

But that is Ok.
In regard to Guilford, he is a well respected psychologist in the field of Intelligence.
He is very active in the task of AI (Artifical Intelligence), and has contributed ideas that are very interesting.

Don't know what you consider "active,' but Guilford has been dead since 1987.

 

[Barbarian]

I will deal with your fudging the issue in detail later.

You do so much better dealing with imaginary things, after all.

Here, however, are some quotes from talkorigins which may help your incomprehension.

Sorry, show me something from the literature. As you learned, all those Noble laureates said it wasn't by chance. Darwin said it wasn't by chance. And you can't find a textbook that says evolution is a matter of chance.

MONOD: Nobel prizewinner, writing about the origin of life, not evolution:
The initial elementary events which open the way to evolution in the intensely conservative systems called living beings are microscopic, fortuitous, and totally unrelated to whatever may be their effects upon teleonomic functioning.


[Know what fortuitous means?]

Yep. He thinks the initial events causing the first living things were by luck. But you forgot again; abiogenesis is not evolution.

(Monod now explains why evolution isn't by chance)
But once incorporated in the DNA structure, the accident -- essentially unpredictable because always singular -- will be mechanically and faithfully replicated and translated: that is to say, both multiplied and transposed into millions or thousands of millions of copies. Drawn from the realm of pure chance, the accident enters into that of necessity, of the most implacable certainties. For natural selection operates at the macroscopic level, the level of organisms.

Surprise. Just what I told you. A random event, plus a non-random event, is a non-random event.

[In your cockeyed examples of coin selection, there is a set goal which is, the rejection of your selected items.

Nope. Just a slight defect in the machine that makes it malfunction every other time.

A fault in your machine could have been set by the owner, to maximise his profits, in which case there is intelligent direction].

Or could just be a mistake. But as you see, a non-random event makes the random coin tosses come out as a non-random sequence.

Here's hint as to why God can use such things:
The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency†St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).

This is the most destructive statement I have ever read in talkorigins. If those are the rates of mutation, then there is not a hope in hell of the Cambrian explosion having taken place by means of mutations and natural selection. Not a one.

Interesting belief. Show us your numbers.

You have yet to produce any figures about a. the number of new species in theCambrian

Let's say there are a million.

b. the rates of speciation needed to produce that vast number and

Hmm... 60 million years, a million new species, um... one every 6 years. Not much, even for a period of unprecedented radiation of species.

c. relate that to that incredibly low mutation rate that talkorigins gives. I'm waiting expectantly.]

The rate is several per organism, per generation. That's not per species; it's per organism. We all have a few mutations that weren't present in either of our parents.

First direct whole-genome measure of human mutation predicts 60 new mutations in each of us

Each one of us receives approximately 60 new mutations in our genome from our parents.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-06/wtsi-waa060911.php

Surprise.

The percent of favorable mutations depends on the organism and how fit is is with respect to the environment. With the changed environment of the Cambrian, the rate goes up (this is called "disruptive selection"), and is for example, why the evolution of insects in Hawaii was so rapid.

So do you, Barbarian. Your position is untenable. Sorry. Evolution is based on chance - never mind the wriggling.]

And now you know better. Try to remember, this time.

 

[cupid dave]

Don't know what you consider "active,' but Guilford has been dead since 1987.

I mean his insights are being utilized by researchers inti Articial Intelligence today.


Intelligence, AI and Symbolic Analysis
April 24, 2010

Intelligence is an umbrella term describing a property of the mind including related abilities, such as the capacities for abstract thought, reasoning, planning, problem solving, communication, and learning.

Problem solving is the most promising area of these from the point-of-view of symbolic analysis

There is much research on what is intelligence and how to define it.

J. P. Guilford is one of them, these researchers.
He explored the scope of the adult intellect by providing the concept of intelligence with a strong, comprehensive theoretical backing.

The Structure-of-Intellect model (SI model) was designed as a cross classification system with intersections in the model providing the basis for abilities similar to periodic table in chemistry.

/////
Here is a Cubic Chemical Periodic Chart which neatly organizes the elements in the classical form found on two dimensonal Wall Charts:

Here we have an excellent example (The Periodic Chart) of what I am saying in regard to this Pattern.

The Periodic Chart can be presented, geometrically, to represent a Graphic Organizer that parallels what we do mentally, implying even that the mind has categories or specific "Spaces" where information is sent and retrived.

The three-dimensional cube—shaped model of this proposed theory of the Urim and Thummim includes five content categories, (the way in which information is presented on a test; visual, auditory, symbolic, semantic, and behavioral),...

These Five (5) Content Areas are symbolized by the five parts of the this cube:

.... six operation categories (what is done on a test; evaluation, convergent production, divergent production, memory retention, memory recording, and cognition), and six product categories (the form in which information is processed on a test; units, classes, relations, systems, transformations, and implications), i.e. 12 Spaces on the Urim and Thummim:

The intersection of three categories provides a frame of reference for generating one or more new hypothetical factors of intelligence.
This triade is found one one face of the eight faces inside the cube shaped graphic organizer:



Again, the article continues:
Mapping Guilford’s cube to Symbolic Analysis
An interesting idea is to map Guilford’s cube to symbolic analysis, the AHO objects.
In the atomistic model every atom is a symbol and has a formal contents. Operations for atoms allow studying its impacts and transformations automatically (this is the AI-approach).


(I find it extremely coincidental to Guilford's Cube and this writers suggestion, that thinking and organization is the crux of what Guilford is suggesting as one of the mechanisms of Intelligence.
In particular, with regard to that amazing organizational idea of The Periodic Chart of the Elements.

These researchers, including Guilford, would have loved the KOFH UNIVERSAL which demonstrates how it images the Chemical Periodic Chart of the Elements:

The whole subject of General High School Chemistry can be shown to conform to the geometric pattern represented by the triangular spaces on the faces of these five geometric parts of the Cube.

Here we see a student grappling with a model of the Periodic Chart she constructed as part of a hands-on assignment that required each students to construct one of these 3-D Spacial organizers of the 12 Chemical families.

Inside the Cube are eight more faces. Seven of these faces are available to represent the seven members of the B-Transition Metals, and the special triade on that eighth face for the 8 group which contains a triad of three elements, Fe, Ni, and Co.

This 8B Group triade is displayed on the Spatial Organizer inside, on the eighth face of the Tetrahedron.

 

[Adam]

Sir, I am talking about what you said.

Verbatim: "He is very active in the task of AI...."

Backpedaling and changing the subject is not owning your mistakes. People who don't acknowledge their mistakes, especially when this obvious, cannot be trusted on anything they say.

 

[Asyncritus]

CupidDave

The material you're presenting is not connected with the subject under discussion on this thread.

May I kindly suggest that you start another, and import the stuff you've put up here into that one?

Avoids confusion.

Thanks

Async

 

[Asyncritus]

Hey Barbarian

It's difficult to overexaggerate your incomprehension of simple English.

Here are you saying that Monod is talking about abiogenesis, and that you don't want to hear what talkorigins, that famous anti-creationist site , has to say about evolution not being a chance thing.

Monod is not talking about abiogenesis. He couldn't be, because he's going on about MUTATIONS producing the raw material on which natural selection acts.

MUTATIONS can only take place in already existing, living organisms: Monod:in the intensely conservative systems called living beings. Therefore, they are ALREADY ALIVE. Tough luck pal.

So pretty poor try, but try reading the passage again. Without the rose-coloured glasses on, please.

Which lands you in another pretty pickle. You've been up to your neck in it, but dont seem able to recognise that fact.

If, as I said, and Monod agrees with me, mutations are chance occurrences, FORTUITOUS is his word, then you certainly do not have a process with any direction in it.

If you go picking out stuff from a garbage heap, all you'll have is selected garbage. But garbage nonetheless.

Same here. If NS selects (bad word that for you, isn't it?) from fortuitously produced mutations, then the only thing it will produce is fortuitous alterations.

So evolution's main driver is chance mutations. Which is what I have been saying all along. And now, (I notice you didn't even bother with the Dawkins quotations. Why not I wonder? Hm, let me guess...!) here's Dawkins, the high priest of evolution, actually supporting me, (evolution's most relentless enemy)! Here he is again:

Well, yes, there is something behind the misunderstood rumour, a feeble basis to the distortion. one stage in the Darwinian process is indeed a chance process -- mutation. Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic variation is offered up for selection and it is usually described as random.

[And as we have seen, the rate is so pathetically low that evolutionary hopes are hung very high out to dry by them!]

For example, mutations have well-understood physical causes, and to this extent they are non-random. ... the great majority of mutations, however caused, are random with respect to quality, and that means they are usually bad because there are more ways of getting worse than of getting better. [Dawkins 1996:70-71]

[Excellent stuff, Richard! But because the cause of something random is known, that does not permit our calling it a non- random occurrence.

they are usually bad because there are more ways of getting worse than of getting better.]

Heh heh heh! So where's your improvement now, from 'common ancestor' Joe up to whales, sequoias and mankind? Finished off for good. Well done, O great Richard! I salute thee!

Dawkins both accepts the role of chance in evolution through mutations and denies, as this FAQ does, that evolution thereby involves deep improbability.

[In short, he contradicts himself every time he opens his mouth on the subject!]

How's that for demolition of your case? Dawkins and Monod both singing from the same hymn sheet! Heh heh heh!

 

[Barbarian]

Here are you saying that Monod is talking about abiogenesis

Yep. He's referring to the supposed chance origins of the first organisms, from which all the rest evolved by mutation and natural selection. The only difference with Darwin, is Darwin supposed God did it.

and that you don't want to hear what talkorigins, that famous anti-creationist site , has to say about evolution not being a chance thing.

Nope. I didn't say that, either. But let's see what they say on that site...

The five propositions below seem to be the most common misconceptions based on a Creationist straw-man version of evolution. If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don't know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.

Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.

Explanations of why these statements are wrong are given below.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Surprise. T.O., it turns out, has a search engine. Took less than 10 seconds to find that. Exactly the opposite of what you told me they said.

Which lands you in another pretty pickle. You've been up to your neck in it, but dont seem able to recognise that fact.

See above. Nice try.

If, as I said, and Monod agrees with me, mutations are chance occurrences, FORTUITOUS is his word, then you certainly do not have a process with any direction in it.

If there wasn't natural selection, you'd be right. But you're wrong.

Same here. If NS selects (bad word that for you, isn't it?) from fortuitously produced mutations, then the only thing it will produce is fortuitous alterations.

You're wrong about that, too. Engineers are now finding that highly complex things like optimized diesel engines are easier to get by random mutation and natural selection than by design. Of course, God already knew that, um?

So evolution's main driver is chance mutations.

And natural selection. That was Darwin's great discovery. A source of variation, and a way of picking out the useful variation are required.

(Async appeals to Dawkins, his "High Priest")

Haven't read much Dawkins, and given your history, I doubt if you honestly quoted him. Find some facts.

Heh heh heh! So where's your improvement now, from 'common ancestor' Joe up to whales, sequoias and mankind?

As you learned, every individual has many mutations. The Cambrian would have had perhaps a dozen to a hundred per individual organism, over many millions of years. That's a huge amount of variation, well able to account for the changes. If you don't think so, I'm sure everyone would be happy to see your math.

Are you beginning to see why quote-mining makes you so easy to handle?

 

[cupid dave]

CupidDave

The material you're presenting is not connected with the subject under discussion on this thread.

May I kindly suggest that you start another, and import the stuff you've put up here into that one?

Avoids confusion.

Thanks

Async

You are sort of right,... since I have been diverted from my point about God counting.


I am nevertheless trying to show how God counts.


What seems to happen is that some people will quibble about some rather insignificant part of what I post in this less than formal presentation about one thing or another.
Then they infer the major point does not follow at all, based uoon their former criticism.

Like Adam, here, above, he is focused on whether Guilford is alive or dead today, inferring that what Guilford thought when alive is not immaterial if he is dead.

So I do go off track to clear that up.
I show Guilford's thinking is immortal, in that if the AI researcher can develop it further for us.

The reason Guilford came up, in the discussion, was that, by delineating this Theory of the Urim and Thummim, I argue God is showing us his mathematical Group Theory.


My point about the OP is that God is Truth, inside our head, and to interact with this God we must use this Urim and Thummim which is a mathematical tool using number theory called Group Theory.

One good examlpe of using Group Theory to prove mathematically what Jesus said, about Love thy enemy was worth the noble Prize in Mathematics when Nash showed this approach to be superior to Selfishness.


Now if you are offended by these off the track discussions and Adam is focused on their importance, I am between the proverbial Hard Place and the Rock.

 

[cupid dave]

Here are you saying that Monod is talking about abiogenesis



/////


Yep. He's referring to the supposed chance origins of the first organisms, from which all the rest evolved by mutation and natural selection. The only difference with Darwin, is Darwin supposed God did it.
QUOTE]


Barbarian, I appeal to you here in regard to how discussions get off track necessarily.

Above you and Asyn are way off whether "God can count - can evolution."
To wit, Abiogensis is far and afield from this issue.


My point is that Jesus said even the hair on your head is numbered.
Apparently Jesus supports the idea that God, the father, uses numbers in some way to define what he creates.

The issue then becomes whether Evolution has incorporated the mathematical logic in us, i.e.; the end product of God's work.

I say yes.
What has evolved is a virtual Urim and Thummim device inside our head.

 

[Adam]

Like Adam, here, above, he is focused on whether Guilford is alive or dead today, inferring that what Guilford thought when alive is not immaterial if he is dead.



Now if you are offended by these off the track discussions and Adam is focused on their importance, I am between the proverbial Hard Place and the Rock.

What Guilford thought is immaterial because he has been dismissed as a quack by modern psychologists as well as his contemporaries, not because he is dead.

The reason I brought that up is because it is an example that what you present is full of innaccuracies. I could go on to show how Guilford is not influential in AI, but none of that is relevant to this topic.

If you claim that a man is "very active" in AI, when he has been dead nearly 20 years, then obviously you have no insight into the discussion since you don't know even the details of whether he is alive or not.

Since you chose to assert that he is very active, having no verifying information on the subject, it is apparent that you went with an assumption having no actual facts.

It is safe to say that the other claims you have made are also not fact-based. Since these made up claims are irrelevant as well as inaccurate, I don't think there is any need to entertain what you have claimed here any further.

 

[Asyncritus]

Yep. He's referring to the supposed chance origins of the first organisms, from which all the rest evolved by mutation and natural selection. The only difference with Darwin, is Darwin supposed God did it.

Why not give up the unequal battle? Here you are, saying that I am quotemining - it's all you've got, really. But I gave the link to talkorigins, and it's there in full for you to go check.

Have you done so?

If you have, and you still persist with the quotemining accusation, and I have given the whole piece they quoted, then you're accusing talkorigins of quotemining! That's a good example of shooting yourself in the foot.

Do you still stand by your accusation? If so, justify it by finding the whole passage they quoted, and we'll see.

If they are quotemining, then tough luck. It's your side that's guilty. If they're not quotemining, then you have to find a new tack.

Whichever, you're in very deep trouble.

Nope. I didn't say that, either. But let's see what they say on that site...

The five propositions below seem to be the most common misconceptions based on a Creationist straw-man version of evolution. If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don't know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.

The customary crap.

Do they know enough about it? I doubt it. Not one of them has a critical bone in their heads - other kinds of solid bone maybe - but the brainless swallowing and regurgitating that goes on there is intellectually disgraceful, to say the least.

Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.

Explanations of why these statements are wrong are given below.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Surprise. T.O., it turns out, has a search engine. Took less than 10 seconds to find that. Exactly the opposite of what you told me they said.

Did you follow the link I gave? I bet you didn't. You don't dare. Here it is again: go search. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

Then admit you're talking nonsense.

If, as I said, and Monod agrees with me, mutations are chance occurrences, FORTUITOUS is his word, then you certainly do not have a process with any direction in it.

If there wasn't natural selection, you'd be right. But you're wrong.

You're in very deep trouble again. I asked you what FORTUITOUS (his word) meant. Maybe you said what it meant, but I don't recall. Here's the dictionary:
for·tu·i·tous/fôrˈt(y)o͞oitəs/

Adjective:

1. Happening by accident or chance rather than design.
2. Happening by a lucky chance; fortunate.

You got that now? Monod says mutations are FORTUITOUS, meaning happening by accident, chance, NOT by design.

And that is IN EXISTING CELLS. He's NOT talking about abiogenesis.

I hope your English is up to this, but I'm beginning to doubt it.

You're wrong about that, too. Engineers are now finding that highly complex things like optimized diesel engines are easier to get by random mutation and natural selection than by design. Of course, God already knew that, um?

Engineers have brains. Intelligence. Design ability. Can recognise something good when it pops up by chance on their COMPUTER PROGRAMS.

Natural selection has none of these.

So spare us the tripe.

And natural selection. That was Darwin's great discovery. A source of variation, and a way of picking out the useful variation are required.

And the number of such is insignificant in the great scheme of things, as you've seen from the rate of mutation we know pretty exactly. And don't forget, your high priest Dawkins said:

...the great majority of mutations, however caused, are random with respect to quality, and that means they are usually bad because there are more ways of getting worse than of getting better. [Dawkins 1996:70-71]

So even that insignificant number of insignificant mutations is usually bad.

How can you get the Cambrian explosion from that depressing statistic?

Haven't read much Dawkins, and given your history, I doubt if you honestly quoted him. Find some facts.

Write to talkorigins about their misuse of Dawkins. They'll set you right. Here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

As you learned, every individual has many mutations. The Cambrian would have had perhaps a dozen to a hundred per individual organism, over many millions of years. That's a huge amount of variation, well able to account for the changes. If you don't think so, I'm sure everyone would be happy to see your math.

You really don't get it, do you?

That's not a lot of variation - because a huge percentage of that fanciful figure of yours is either neutral or damaging. Dawkins said so. Remember him?

they [mutations] are usually bad because there are more ways of getting worse than of getting better.

Are you beginning to see why quote-mining makes you so easy to handle?

As I said, talkorigins quoted these people, not me.

But if that's the best you can do, then your case is in an extremely bad way - 'sick unto death' is the Biblical expression.