Chuck Norris and Evolution...

[Starrman]

...or, 'The death of my avatar.'

<----------- Take a look to the scary guy with the Uzi's over there, he's apparently kicked his own brain's ass - eventually this opening will make no sense as I am in the market for a new avatar now:

From here - an article written by Chuck Norris (shudder):

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52567


Highlight:
"Alleged Chuck Norris Fact: "There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live." It's funny. It's cute. But here's what I really think about the theory of evolution: It's not real. It is not the way we got here. In fact, the life you see on this planet is really just a list of creatures God has allowed to live. We are not creations of random chance. We are not accidents. There is a God, a Creator, who made you and me. We were made in His image, which separates us from all other creatures."

[Freethinker]

Apparently his critical thinking ability is on par with his acting ability.

[SPQR]

If you've ever watched Walker, Texas Ranger, my family watches it just to make fun of it kinda like MST3K, you'd of realized long ago where old Chuck stands with regards to religion. I for one am not all that surprised by this bit of information.

[T'ai Chi]

So what's your point? You disagree with Norris' beliefs (that apparently have really hampered his ability to function in the real world...), so what?

[Foster Zygote]

We are not creations of random chance. We are not accidents.

Well he's right on both of those counts. Too bad he doesn't realize that the theory of evolution claims neither to be true.

Steven

[T'ai Chi]

So the skeptical movement boils down to heckling.

Carry on. :)

[Ducky]

So the skeptical movement boils down to heckling.

Carry on. :)

...says the heckler.

[joobz]

Norris can believe what he likes. I'd only get my pitchfork and torch out if he tried to make his beliefs taught in science class.

BTW, favorite Norris fact:
"Chuck Norris doesn't sleep, he waits."

[SteveGrenard]

They both also have evolved to kick-box

[Rodney]

Well he's right on both of those counts. Too bad he doesn't realize that the theory of evolution claims neither to be true.

Steven In evolutionary theory, how is information added, if not by random mutations?

[thaiboxerken]

He doesn't mention which god. Why is that?

[plindboe]

In evolutionary theory, how is information added, if not by random mutations?

Combined with natural selection, it makes the end results anything but random.

[Jeff Corey]

So the skeptical movement boils down to heckling.

Carry on. :)

Movement? Again with the movement movement?

[a_unique_person]

Apparently his critical thinking ability is on par with his acting ability.

Or his shaving ability.

[aargh57]

Why change your avatar? If you liked his cheesy movies,T.V. shows, and crapola exercise products then why should one of his woo beliefs turn you off? I like a lot of movies that nutbags are in. In fact, if I quit watching anything that had anyone with a belief I found nutty, I'd watch very little in the form of T.V. or film.

[Foster Zygote]

So the skeptical movement boils down to heckling.

Carry on. :)

Errrm... Who are you talking to? You don't respond to real posts and now you are responding to imaginary ones? Seriously, there's only one post, mine, between your last two and it wasn't even directed to you and it certainly wasn't heckling you or anyone else.

Steven

[thaiboxerken]

I used to admire Norris, until I found out that he has a totally nutball conception of the universe.

[Mojo]

So the skeptical movement boils down to heckling.

Carry on. :)

...says the heckler.He's probably talking about the "Organised Skeptical Movement" that he claimed to be part of here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65726). ...our movement...I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the anyone else on this board, because while he referred to "our organized skeptical movement", he never actually said who else was a member, who was organising it, or what its aims or policies were.

But if the single declared member of this "movement" that I have encountered is anything to go by, it does appear to boil down to heckling.

[Zep]

No skeptic is more DISorganised than me...

[T'ai Chi]

Combined with natural selection, it makes the end results anything but random.

Check out

http://www.statisticool.com/evolution.htm

It is fine to call it random if you're a mathy type.

[Bob Klase]

So the skeptical movement boils down to heckling.


Only if you've ignored the thousands of other posts on this web site (along with the rest of the real world). Apparently you have.

[Rodney]

Check out

http://www.statisticool.com/evolution.htm

It is fine to call it random if you're a mathy type.
Thanks for the link. These paragraphs state it very well:

"That is, following Dawkins and many others, evolution is the non-random selection of random variation.

"In probability theory, it is known that if X is a random variable, then for a non-trivial function f, f(X) is a random variable. Therefore, because evolution is a non-trivial function of variables, some of which are random, evolution is a random variable, and therefore it is correct to call it random.

"To summarize, while evolution could reasonably be considered and described as biologically or practically non-random, it is technically, mathematically random. To say that calling evolution random is 'the opposite of truth' and 'false' could itself be viewed as the opposite of truth and false."

[plindboe]

A selection of a random sample is not random, it's that simple.

As wiki says "The term randomness is often used in statistics to signify well defined statistical properties, such as lack of bias or correlation." We might start up with something random (the mutation), but it's processed by bias (natural selection), so we end up with something that is not random at all.

ETA: The mistake the math buff makes is making no demands of X. X might be random, but there's the selection only to use it in the equation in the cases where it is something specific, so in effect the X we use isn't really a random variable after all, but is selected for.

[Polaris]

He doesn't mention which god. Why is that?

Because he's modest.

And he can slam a revolving door.

[Roboramma]

Who cares if evolution is random? It's clearly not random in the way that creationists mean. It isn't the "747 in a junk yard" kind of random. And that's what all those who talk about evolution and randomness are trying to propagate. Or if not, it's the falsehood that they've been convinced of.

[Foster Zygote]

T'ai, you seem to want evolution to either be non-random and completely predictable, or random and completely unpredictable. Try this analogy on for size:

Let's say we have a simple wheeled robot. It has a tricycle arrangement with the rear wheels being driven and the front steering. We want our robot to negotiate an irregular track going clockwise. There are two programs controlling the robot. The first steers the front wheel in a completely random manner. About every five seconds the front wheel will steer to either the center, right or left position. But the second program controls the drive wheels and it is not random. It only allows the robot to move forward when the steering wheel is oriented so that the robot can make progress around the track. It may not be possible to determine the exact path the robot will take but it is possible to predict that it will lap the circuit.

You seem to be claiming that because the evolutionary changes in a species cannot be predicted with certainty into the future that this means that evolution is entirely random akin to the idea of a Boeing 747 spontaneously generating from a scrap heap hit by a tornado. I notice that you quote a passage by Dawkins on your site.

The belief that Darwinian evolution is 'random' is not merely false. It is the exact opposite of the truth. Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is cumulative (natural) selection which is quintessentially nonrandom. (The Blind Watchmaker, p. 49)

You don't seem to have read the book though.

Steven

[Hawkeye]

Death of Starrman's avatar, part two: Chuck Norris on the Bible (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlaWbCbZhAA)

[Cheap Thrills]

Highlight:
"Alleged Chuck Norris Fact: "There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live." It's funny. It's cute. But here's what I really think about the theory of evolution: It's not real. It is not the way we got here. In fact, the life you see on this planet is really just a list of creatures God has allowed to live. We are not creations of random chance. We are not accidents. There is a God, a Creator, who made you and me. We were made in His image, which separates us from all other creatures."

Chuck's fulsome backhair only strengthens the case that we are descended from the apes! See here (http://www.fightingmaster.com/masters/brucelee/chuck.htm).

[pipelineaudio]

the real question is : wtf has chuck been feeding Nia Peebles? She has expanded in rather untoward ways since hanging out with him

[Morrigan]

He doesn't mention which god. Why is that?
Scroll down, he mentions Jesus just a bit further down.

Chuck Norris has always sucked ass. Jack Bauer named his cat Chuck Norris. Why?


Because Chuck Norris is a pussy.

[Cheap Thrills]

If you haven't seen "Saturday Night Live"'s hilarious digital short pseudo-metal music video which spoofs Norris, see it here (http://www.yikers.com/video_snl_spoofs_chuck_norris.html).

[Cello Man]

For martial artists who have/had a wonderful understanding of philosophy, look no further than Bruce Lee.

http://www.amazon.com/Striking-Thoughts-Wisdom-Living-Library/dp/0804834717/sr=8-1/qid=1162163332/ref=sr_1_1/102-6582925-3044158?ie=UTF8&s=books

[bjb]

Evolution is not random. Mutations are random but the mutations that survive, propogate, and even dominate are determined by natural selection. Someone who is good with statistics will know that imposing a non-random process upon a truly random process results in a process that is not random.

[T'ai Chi]

Only if you've ignored the thousands of other posts on this web site (along with the rest of the real world).

Case in point. :)

[Rodney]

T'ai, you seem to want evolution to either be non-random and completely predictable, or random and completely unpredictable. Try this analogy on for size:

Let's say we have a simple wheeled robot. It has a tricycle arrangement with the rear wheels being driven and the front steering. We want our robot to negotiate an irregular track going clockwise. There are two programs controlling the robot. The first steers the front wheel in a completely random manner. About every five seconds the front wheel will steer to either the center, right or left position. But the second program controls the drive wheels and it is not random. It only allows the robot to move forward when the steering wheel is oriented so that the robot can make progress around the track. It may not be possible to determine the exact path the robot will take but it is possible to predict that it will lap the circuit.

You seem to be claiming that because the evolutionary changes in a species cannot be predicted with certainty into the future that this means that evolution is entirely random akin to the idea of a Boeing 747 spontaneously generating from a scrap heap hit by a tornado. I notice that you quote a passage by Dawkins on your site. Your analogy is flawed because, according to Darwinian theory, an organism's complexity can be increased only via random mutations. Natural selection does not add complexity.

You don't seem to have read the book though.

Steven If the book consists of false statements such as -- "Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe" -- why would he want to?

[T'ai Chi]

Someone who is good with statistics will know that imposing a non-random process upon a truly random process results in a process that is not random.

Are you saying you really believe evolution is not a stochastic process?

[Mark A. Siefert]

Norris can believe what he likes. I'd only get my pitchfork and torch out if he tried to make his beliefs taught in science class.


Then start start sharpening that pitchfork:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/116219.html

[SteveGrenard]

the real question is : wtf has chuck been feeding Nia Peebles? She has expanded in rather untoward ways since hanging out with him

As long as she hasn't expanded like this:

[bjb]

Your analogy is flawed because, according to Darwinian theory, an organism's complexity can be increased only via random mutations. Natural selection does not add complexity.

Help, I'm about to agree with Rodney! If additional complexity is a favorable mutation, then natural selection will 'select' it. But the more complex mutation has to come first before natural selection can allow the mutation to succeed (or fail).

I have to add that I hate analogies. They are almost always flawed in some way. I have found it simpler to deal with the subject at hand than to play endless analogy games with robots and 747's. Analogies are good for constructing illogical arguements that can fool most people, though. If I were to become a politican, pundit, psychic, or other professional liar, I might use analogies more often.

[Foster Zygote]

First, Rodney, let me thank you for quoting my entire post. It's about the only way T'ai Chi will ever read it as he's put me, like many others, on 'ignore' for having the audacity to do such things as make counter points to his arguments.
Your analogy is flawed because, according to Darwinian theory, an organism's complexity can be increased only via random mutations. Natural selection does not add complexity.
The above was not meant to be an analogy of biological evolution, it was meant to be an illustration of a concept. I agree with bjb that analogy is a flawed tool and I try to avoid using it. But when someone repeatedly demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to grasp a more complex concept one often has to resort to simplified illustrations in the hope that something will get through and open a door of comprehension.

A species evolves because of genetic mutations, environmental pressures and natural selection. When you state that "natural selection does not add complexity" are you claiming that natural selection does not contribute to the evolution of a species? If you are then you are completely wrong. Natural selection is the driving force behind evolution. T'ai Chi is making a common error among supporters of ID and creationism. He is over emphasizing the random part of the equation and trying to express it as a mathematical formula that doesn't apply to evolution. He's trying to claim that the vast majority of evolutionary biologists are supporting the notion that the complexity of biology resulted from ridiculously unlikely random events and that therefor some intelligence is required to steer the process. But evolution is not random. The fact that there is a random element does not make it random either, at least not in the way T'ai Chi wants it to be. There is a selective force involved. Random expressed genetic mutations, do not pass randomly to successive generations. The environment places on an organism pressures which effect an organisms ability to successfully pass on its genes to its offspring. Expressed gene mutations that increase an organism's reproductive success will increase in frequency within the breeding population with successive generations. Expressed gene mutations which decrease an organism's reproductive success will decrease in frequency within the breeding population with successive generations. Random gene mutations may increase the variety of traits on which natural selection can act but ultimately the driving force of evolution is selective, not random.
If the book consists of false statements such as -- "Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe" -- why would he want to?
Well, if he is going to quote it as evidence then he should be able to say he has read it and comprehended it. All he's doing is cherry picking a statement that he claims to be false. However the entire subject matter of The Blind Watchmaker is devoted to explaining that, indeed, evolution is not a "random" process in the way that creationists and IDers try to claim. The statement "chance is a minor ingredient is the Darwinian recipe" is not false, it is true. Chance is not the driving force of evolution, selection is.

Steven

[Rodney]

First, Rodney, let me thank you for quoting my entire post. It's about the only way T'ai Chi will ever read it as he's put me, like many others, on 'ignore' for having the audacity to do such things as make counter points to his arguments.

The above was not meant to be an analogy of biological evolution, it was meant to be an illustration of a concept. I agree with bjb that analogy is a flawed tool and I try to avoid using it. But when someone repeatedly demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to grasp a more complex concept one often has to resort to simplified illustrations in the hope that something will get through and open a door of comprehension.

A species evolves because of genetic mutations, environmental pressures and natural selection. When you state that "natural selection does not add complexity" are you claiming that natural selection does not contribute to the evolution of a species? If you are then you are completely wrong. Natural selection is the driving force behind evolution. T'ai Chi is making a common error among supporters of ID and creationism. He is over emphasizing the random part of the equation and trying to express it as a mathematical formula that doesn't apply to evolution. He's trying to claim that the vast majority of evolutionary biologists are supporting the notion that the complexity of biology resulted from ridiculously unlikely random events and that therefor some intelligence is required to steer the process. But evolution is not random. The fact that there is a random element does not make it random either, at least not in the way T'ai Chi wants it to be. There is a selective force involved. Random expressed genetic mutations, do not pass randomly to successive generations. The environment places on an organism pressures which effect an organisms ability to successfully pass on its genes to its offspring. Expressed gene mutations that increase an organism's reproductive success will increase in frequency within the breeding population with successive generations. Expressed gene mutations which decrease an organism's reproductive success will decrease in frequency within the breeding population with successive generations. Random gene mutations may increase the variety of traits on which natural selection can act but ultimately the driving force of evolution is selective, not random.

Well, if he is going to quote it as evidence then he should be able to say he has read it and comprehended it. All he's doing is cherry picking a statement that he claims to be false. However the entire subject matter of The Blind Watchmaker is devoted to explaining that, indeed, evolution is not a "random" process in the way that creationists and IDers try to claim. The statement "chance is a minor ingredient is the Darwinian recipe" is not false, it is true. Chance is not the driving force of evolution, selection is.

StevenThanks for the explanation, Steven, but I must disagree with both you and Dawkins. The point that I think you're missing is that evolution cannot progress at all without genetic mutations. Yes, environmental pressures and natural selection can work evolutionary wonders GIVEN those mutations, but they can't change a species one iota -- let alone bring a new species into existence -- without them. So, I just don't understand the statement that "chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe."

[senorpogo]

If you've ever watched Walker, Texas Ranger, my family watches it just to make fun of it kinda like MST3K, you'd of realized long ago where old Chuck stands with regards to religion.

For a while on Late Night with Conan O'Brian they had a Walker, Texas Ranger lever. When pulled, it would treat the audience to a short clip of Walker.

The clips were, without a doubt, some of the funniest television I've ever seen.

[ponderingturtle]

Thanks for the explanation, Steven, but I must disagree with both you and Dawkins. The point that I think you're missing is that evolution cannot progress at all without genetic mutations. Yes, environmental pressures and natural selection can work evolutionary wonders GIVEN those mutations, but they can't change a species one iota -- let alone bring a new species into existence -- without them. So, I just don't understand the statement that "chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe."

So different breeds of dog are created solely through mutation?

[NotJesus]

Fools. Chuck Norris did not evolve. He was intelligently designed to kick your ass!

[Rodney]

So different breeds of dog are created solely through mutation?No, but according to evolutionary theory, neither dogs nor any other species could have come into existence without mutations. Again, I concede that environmental pressures and natural selection can work evolutionary wonders given those mutations, but it's disingenuous to say that "chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe."

[joobz]

No, but according to evolutionary theory, neither dogs nor any other species could have come into existence without mutations. Again, I concede that environmental pressures and natural selection can work evolutionary wonders given those mutations, but it's disingenuous to say that "chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe."
Sure, random events are needed to drive it, but that doesn't mean that the final result is random. That's the whole point.

This occurs a lot in nature in a lot of well established, easy to predict settings.

1.) Diffusion: Random molecular motion and collisions result in the predictable flux of material down a concentration gradient according to ****'s First and Second Law.
2.) Chemical Reaction Kinetics: Random Molecular Motion (again) resulting in molecule-molecule collisions. The rate of collisions and energy of collision determine success of rate of molecular reaction. These properties decreibe Free energy curves whose activation energy is used for the direct calculation of the rate of reaciton.
3.) Polymer Radius of Gyration vs. MW relationships: Determined predictively by random walk models.
4.) Chemotaxis: The movement of cells up a concentration gradient is done by random motion, sampling of the environment and the reanalysis of the surroundings
5.) Statistics: the summation of random events converge to some predicted probability.

While randomness is found in all of these and can be considered to "drive" them, they are not random at all.

[Foster Zygote]

No, but according to evolutionary theory, neither dogs nor any other species could have come into existence without mutations. Again, I concede that environmental pressures and natural selection can work evolutionary wonders given those mutations, but it's disingenuous to say that "chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe."

Perhaps you could clarify exactly what Dawkins meant when he said "minor". Did he mean "insignificant" or "negligible"? Did he mean "unimportant"? Or could it be that, taken in the context of what he was writing about (which anyone who has read the whole book will understand), he meant that evolution is not, as suggested by creationists and IDers, the result of ridiculously improbable random accidents? Could he simply be stating that the driving force of evolution is the selection part of the system and not the random part?

No where in the small quote used by T'ai Chi on his site, or anywhere else in the entire book, does Dawkins suggest that the random mutation of genes is not a necessary factor in evolution. He's simply telling creationist/ID types that evolution is not "random" because it is driven primarily by selection.

Steven

[The Atheist]

...or, 'The death of my avatar.'Phew. I am so glad that's what this thread is about.

I was a bit worried that scientists had used Norris as proof that evolution hadn't really happened.

[Flo]

Phew. I am so glad that's what this thread is about.

I was a bit worried that scientists had used Norris as proof that evolution hadn't really happened.


He might be used as a good proof in the "only 10% of the brain ...", though ;) .

[Roboramma]

Thanks for the explanation, Steven, but I must disagree with both you and Dawkins. The point that I think you're missing is that evolution cannot progress at all without genetic mutations. Yes, environmental pressures and natural selection can work evolutionary wonders GIVEN those mutations, but they can't change a species one iota -- let alone bring a new species into existence -- without them. So, I just don't understand the statement that "chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe."

I have to ask though, what you think you are illuminating making this point.

Yes, evolution requires random mutation. No one here will disagree with that. The thing is though, the outcome is still non-random.

Casinos have within them thousands of random events going on. Yet they make money. How, because they know that the outcome is non-random.
No, I'm not trying to equate evolution by natural selection to a casino. I'm only pointing out that there are times when something can be made up of random processes and yet still have non-random outcomes.

If evolution were a purely random process, we could not make any predictions about the organisms that we see in nature. But we can. For instance, if you tell me enough about a species, I (or at least an expert) can predict the sex-ratio.
Why? Isn't the sex-ratio also something that is subject to random mutation? Sure, in fact, that's the whole point - because there will be variaiton, which is caused by that random mutation, there is something for selction to work on.

I think you can agree to all of that, Rodney. What I don't understand is what you disagree with. What are you trying to say when you point out that "evolution is random"? That it is unlikely to occur?

When creationists say, "evolution is random" they know the sorts of conclusions that the average person will draw from that. The problem is that those conclusions are false if they don't take into account the other aspect of evolution that isn't random - natural selection. If you said, "Evoltion is selection on random variation." or something, I think I wouldn't have a problem with it. The problem with saying "evolution is random" is that implies that it is purely random, or that the outcome is random.
Neither of which is true.

[Rodney]

I think you can agree to all of that, Rodney. What I don't understand is what you disagree with. What are you trying to say when you point out that "evolution is random"? That it is unlikely to occur? That the odds of progressing from a single-celled organism to man is very unlikely to occur. However, if there is a model that demonstrates it is not all that unlikely, I'd be happy to consider that model.

[qayak]

That the odds of progressing from a single-celled organism to man is very unlikely to occur. However, if there is a model that demonstrates it is not all that unlikely, I'd be happy to consider that model.


We know of one planet with life on it and that planet progressed from single celled organisms to man. That makes the odds, at this point, 100%.

You put man at the top of the evolutionary chain. This is not so. Man does not hold any special position as far as evolution is concerned. On another planet with life, man may never come about. In fact, not a single species that exists today or has ever existed on Earth need arise there. Undoubtedly though, evolution would be the driving force behind life on any planet.

The creatures alive today are the result of evolution thus far. It isn't over,

[joobz]

We know of one planet with life on it and that planet progressed from single celled organisms to man. That makes the odds, at this point, 100%.

You put man at the top of the evolutionary chain. This is not so. Man does not hold any special position as far as evolution is concerned. On another planet with life, man may never come about. In fact, not a single species that exists today or has ever existed on Earth need arise there. Undoubtedly though, evolution would be the driving force behind life on any planet.

The creatures alive today are the result of evolution thus far. It isn't over,
But evolution for man is on Hiatus....at least until until Hardy Weinberg equilibrium isn't met.

Well, at least according to evolution by jerks.:D

[joobz]

That the odds of progressing from a single-celled organism to man is very unlikely to occur. However, if there is a model that demonstrates it is not all that unlikely, I'd be happy to consider that model.
that's the interesting thing about nature. To prove something impossible is one thing, To prove that some other process happened is another. However, Unlikely isn't a strong enough reason to prove against it.

Lots of unlikely things actaully happen.

Quantum tunneling is unlikely, but occurs. It's the basis of the Scanning tunneling microscope.

[Rodney]

We know of one planet with life on it and that planet progressed from single celled organisms to man. That makes the odds, at this point, 100%. That's not a model, that's a tautology.

[Foster Zygote]

That the odds of progressing from a single-celled organism to man is very unlikely to occur. However, if there is a model that demonstrates it is not all that unlikely, I'd be happy to consider that model.

Just how unlikely it is is a question we cannot answer until we know more about abiogenesis and the density of life throughout the universe. You should know that many, if not most, evolutionary biologists have considered the possibility that life is extremely unlikely to arise on any given planet. But extremely unlikely is not the same as impossible. There are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy and there are hundreds of billions of other galaxies. Many of these galaxies are globular clusters containing trillions of stars. Recent astronomical discoveries strengthen the hypothesis that most stars will have planetary systems. Even if life is extremely rare it should not be surprising that life could evolve on at least one planet in the universe.

Of course, it may well be that life generates from natural chemistry pretty much any place in which the conditions are favorable, and considering the variety of biology on Earth the parameters defining those favorable conditions could be quite broad. The universe just might be teeming with life. We just don't know yet.

Steven

[Foster Zygote]

That's not a model, that's a tautology.

How is that a tautology? Please define the circular nature of the statement.

Steven

[Gulliver]

That the odds of progressing from a single-celled organism to man is very unlikely to occur. However, if there is a model that demonstrates it is not all that unlikely, I'd be happy to consider that model.

You've asked us to provide a model that simply doesn't exist. However, such a model is not required. The odds of the progression you mention (from single-celled organism to man) are all but zero. But it is not zero. Darwin's Science only requires us to believe that random mutation and natural selection leads to better adaption to the local environment over time, and provides for the origin of species.

That we end up being one of the products of billions of years of evolution is only one possible outcome.

Let me try a relevent (and bizarre) analogy.

Imagine that we represent each complex organism by a string of coin tosses.
Imagine the analogue for a single mutation is a coin toss.
Imagine that the analogue for the single-cell organism is no tosses.
Imagine evolution occurs over a 1,000,000 days.
Imagine that each organism experiences one mutation every day.
Imagine that the analogue for man is a set of 1,000,000 consectutive "head" coin tosses.
Imagine that there are 1,000,000 single-cell organisms in the initial population.
Remember that each organism will go through 1,000,000 mutations, one on each "day".
Imagine that the analogue for natural selection is you. Every day, you replace an organism with a lower number of "heads" with a duplicate of another better adapted (that is with more "heads") organism.

I hope that when you consider this analogy that you'll come to the conclusion that highly adaptive organism are indeed predicted by Darwin's Science.

Hope that helps,
Gulliver

[Rodney]

How is that a tautology? Please define the circular nature of the statement.Steven qayak stated:

"We know of one planet with life on it and that planet progressed from single celled organisms to man. That makes the odds, at this point, 100%."

That's a tautology because we don't know if life would progress that way on another planet. Yes, there once were only single celled organisms on earth and at some point man entered the picture, but it is unclear how likely that transition was. So, maybe the odds are 100% or maybe they are close to zero.

[qayak]

You stated:

"We know of one planet with life on it and that planet progressed from single celled organisms to man. That makes the odds, at this point, 100%."

He didn't make the statement, I did.

That's a tautology because we don't know if life would progress that way on another planet. Yes, there once were only single celled organisms on earth and at some point man entered the picture, but it is unclear how likely that transition was. So, maybe the odds are 100% or maybe they are close to zero.

My statement was in response to your statement: "That the odds of progressing from a single-celled organism to man is very unlikely to occur. However, if there is a model that demonstrates it is not all that unlikely, I'd be happy to consider that model."

The fact is, there is only one known working model of evolution which happens to be on this planet. You are correct in saying that we do not know if life would progress that way on another planet but you cannot show that it wouldn't. Is there some evidence that evolution is a one off occurance that leads you to believe it wouldn't happen anywhere else?

Based on the known evidence as of this moment, the chances of life progressing from single cell to man (or any intelligent lifeform) is 100%.

[Rodney]

You've asked us to provide a model that simply doesn't exist. However, such a model is not required. The odds of the progression you mention (from single-celled organism to man) are all but zero. A rather major concession. ;)

But it is not zero. Darwin's Science only requires us to believe that random mutation and natural selection leads to better adaption to the local environment over time, and provides for the origin of species.

That we end up being one of the products of billions of years of evolution is only one possible outcome.

Let me try a relevent (and bizarre) analogy.

Imagine that we represent each complex organism by a string of coin tosses.
Imagine the analogue for a single mutation is a coin toss.
Imagine that the analogue for the single-cell organism is no tosses.
Imagine evolution occurs over a 1,000,000 days.
Imagine that each organism experiences one mutation every day.
Imagine that the analogue for man is a set of 1,000,000 consectutive "head" coin tosses.
Imagine that there are 1,000,000 single-cell organisms in the initial population.
Remember that each organism will go through 1,000,000 mutations, one on each "day".
Imagine that the analogue for natural selection is you. Every day, you replace an organism with a lower number of "heads" with a duplicate of another better adapted (that is with more "heads") organism.

I hope that when you consider this analogy that you'll come to the conclusion that highly adaptive organism are indeed predicted by Darwin's Science.

Hope that helps,
Gulliver I agree about highly adaptive organisms, but see no evidence that random mutations, natural selection, and environmental pressures could plausibly have produced man in less than four billion years.

[Foster Zygote]

You stated:

"We know of one planet with life on it and that planet progressed from single celled organisms to man. That makes the odds, at this point, 100%."

That's a tautology because we don't know if life would progress that way on another planet. Yes, there once were only single celled organisms on earth and at some point man entered the picture, but it is unclear how likely that transition was. So, maybe the odds are 100% or maybe they are close to zero.

I'm not convinced you really know what a tautology is. A tautology is a circular argument. "How do we know that the Bible is the word of God? Because the Bible says so. How do we know the Bible is correct? Because it is the word of God."

You asked for a model that demonstrated that the evolution of intelligent beings from single cells was not unlikely. Gayak provided you with the only known model of evolution, our planet. Life on Earth is evidence that life is at least likely enough to have arisen on one planet. The fact that we have only dipped our toes in the ocean of space leaves many possibilities open. Now if we were to find life on Europa, beneath the ice, that would change everything.

But all this aside, it's already been demonstrated to you that "unlikely" is a very weak objection to evolutionary theory. Even if it is extremely unlikely for abiogenesis to occur, the number of potential places for life to evolve would be staggering.

Steven

[Foster Zygote]

A rather major concession. ;)
I suspect what Gulliver meant was that the odds of evolution repeating the descent of humans from the origin of life is virtually zero.
I agree about highly adaptive organisms, but see no evidence that random mutations, natural selection, and environmental pressures could plausibly have produced man in less than four billion years.
Considering that you had no understanding of the scientific definition of "theory" until it was explained to you, I'm not inclined to give much weight to your evaluation of the evidence.

Steven

[Rodney]

He didn't make the statement, I did. Sorry, I just corrected that.

My statement was in response to your statement: "That the odds of progressing from a single-celled organism to man is very unlikely to occur. However, if there is a model that demonstrates it is not all that unlikely, I'd be happy to consider that model."

The fact is, there is only one known working model of evolution which happens to be on this planet. It's inappropriate to call that a "working model," just as it would be inappropriate to say that "there is only one known working model of global warming which happens to be on this planet." A model is a (mathematical) representation. What I'm looking for is such a representation that shows, among other things, how man could have evolved from a single-celled organism in fewer than four billion years.

You are correct in saying that we do not know if life would progress that way on another planet but you cannot show that it wouldn't. Is there some evidence that evolution is a one off occurance that leads you to believe it wouldn't happen anywhere else? We still don't know whether (Darwinist) evolution; i.e., random mutations, natural selection, and environmental pressures, can plausibly explain the progression of life on this planet. That is the question under consideration here.

Based on the known evidence as of this moment, the chances of life progressing from single cell to man (or any intelligent lifeform) is 100%. We obviously have different approaches to this issue. :)

[Foster Zygote]

We still don't know whether (Darwinist) evolution; i.e., random mutations, natural selection, and environmental pressures, can explain the progression of life on this planet.
"We"? The majority of us who are debating this issue don't share your doubts. We know enough about evolution to understand the it offers by far the very best explanation for the progression of life on Earth.
That is the question under consideration here.
Under consideration by whom?

Steven

[joobz]

Sorry, I just corrected that.

It's inappropriate to call that a "working model," just as it would be inappropriate to say that "there is only one known working model of global warming which happens to be on this planet." A model is a (mathematical) representation. What I'm looking for is such a representation that shows, among other things, how man could have evolved from a single-celled organism in fewer than four billion years.

We still don't know whether (Darwinist) evolution; i.e., random mutations, natural selection, and environmental pressures, can explain the progression of life on this planet. That is the question under consideration here.

We obviously have different approaches to this issue. :)
Tell me, what model have that demonstrates it doesn't work?
Your use of claiming no mathmatical model to describe is weak.
our current level of capacity at modelling evolution is highly simplistic. We can show through simulations that complexity increases can happen. To make claims that we can model the timing of it is just silly. What kinetics do you select? What variations and pressures do you use?

How about looking at protein similarities between species.
Let's look at a single protein. catalase for instance. It's found in nearly all cells. It is a tetrameric protein with a total Molecular weight of 232000 Da. Tell me the likelyhood that all species have catalase with a HEME core and similar structure. What is the likelyhood that all species will have this identical protein (with some variation in the backbone sequence) with identical function? And then what is the likelyhood of variation in backbone sequence to follow the presumed evolutionary distance between variation in species?

Now this same effect occurs for many proteins. In fact whole areas of evolutionary exploration are used as a basis for determining protein function. the more preserved a protein is across species the more likely that protein is in cell survival.

[bjb]

I have to disagree that intelligent life is inevitable. It is possible, but it depends upon the environment and on competetion from other species. For example, suppose the Earth had more water and all of the dry land was covered. It is unlikely that a species could evolve that would discover fire or develop tools, two important factors in our evolution. Looking at the sea life we have today, there are a lot of smart animals but none that have developed agriculture, tool-making, etc., the kinds of technologies we recognize as the products of human intelligence. The problem with this sort of environment is that there isn't a need for this sort of intelligence so it just won't evolve.

Now suppose you were an alien and you visited Earth back when dinosaurs were dominant. Would you expect a T. Rex to learn how to make tools or a Triceratops to make fire? No, because all of these creatures were already well-adapted to their environment. If you hadn't noticed the tiny mammals crawling beneath the leaves, you might have left the Earth believing that highly intelligent creatures would never have a chance to develop on this planet.

I would say that based on the evidence we have, it isn't always a given that intelligent life will evolve. I believe life can begin on many other planets but evolving intelligent life is a different story. It may have happened on Mars but then the climate changed and at best, there might be multicellular plant life still on Mars. There might also be life on the moons of Jupiter or Saturn but again, it isn't going to be intelligent life because the environment is all wrong. I still believe evolution produced intelligent life on this planet, but we are here because of our planet's environment and geology as well as evolution.

[Bob Klase]

I agree about highly adaptive organisms, but see no evidence that random mutations, natural selection, and environmental pressures could plausibly have produced man in less than four billion years.

Can you tell how how long it would take to plausibly produce man, and how you arrived at that number?

[Foster Zygote]

I have to disagree that intelligent life is inevitable.

Not only is it not inevitable, but there is no guarantee that it will continue. Those who want us to be at the center of the universe seem to have a hard time with that fact.

Steven

[qayak]

We still don't know whether (Darwinist) evolution; i.e., random mutations, natural selection, and environmental pressures, can plausibly explain the progression of life on this planet. That is the question under consideration here.

Actually, there is a computer model on mutations available on-line. My niece used it in her biology class and e-mailed me the link several years ago. I have since deleted it but a search would probably find it.

Dawkins discusses creating such a program in his book The Blind Watchmaker (Chapter 3 Accumulating Small Change). In the appendix he goes into further detail about the program.

Dawkins' program is available here:

http://www.virtualimage.co.uk/html/body_biology.html

[Foster Zygote]

Say Rodney, Joobz has made some interesting points. Could you respond to them please?

Steven

[SirPhilip]

Hear hear! For everyone else who sighs; not all men are equal (yet), and it's refreshing to see someone with discipline and virtue like him trying to represent God instead of the grotesque, hypocritical, and mediocre that talk the loudest.

"I forgot how much I needed others and especially God. Whether we are famous or not, we all need God. We also need other people."

A beautifully eloquent statement as well.

[Hawk one]

"I forgot how much I needed others and especially Santa Claus. Whether we are famous or not, we all need Santa Claus. We also need other people."

It's even more beautiful this way. :)

[SirPhilip]

So what's your point? You disagree with Norris' beliefs (that apparently have really hampered his ability to function in the real world...), so what? It's a very, very common leap people take with respect to naturalism. While I found his personal statements inspiring, it makes little sense why God would make his presence obvious through obvious natural means, when such a thing would void real faith.

[SirPhilip]

"I forgot how much I needed others and especially Santa Claus. Whether we are famous or not, we all need Santa Claus. We also need other people." It's even more beautiful this way. :) Michaelangelo's God. Santa. Randi. A garden gnome to greet one on the front porch at dawn's tea hour. Jedis. John Lennon. Philosophers. Conflicted island-hopping naturalists. The evidence is in: the world is just better with pleasant bearded men. Deal with it. :teacher:

[Hawk one]

God. Santa. Randi. A garden gnome to greet one at dawn's tea hour. Jedis. John Lennon. Philosophers. Conflicted island-hopping naturalists. The evidence is in, and the world is just better with pleasant bearded men. Deal with it. :teacher:

Yeah, all those religious wars and prosecutions and inquisitions and the 9/11 attack and that crap based on a fairy-tale has definitely made the world a better place to live...[/sarcasm]

Whereas Randi does exist, and if you think that not letting frauds getting away with fooling other people is a good thing, he certainly has made the world a better place.

Exactly where is the comparison?

[qayak]

I think Chuck is taking himself too seriously. This phenomenon he is talking about is a joke that has been going on for several years. I first saw it on martial arts forums where people wanted to cut loose with absurdities but had to keep the discussion martial arts related.

The game then became to see how ridiculous of a claim you could dream up for Chuck. It is absolutely amazing to me that he thinks people believe this stuff. Most don't even believe he is a martial artist! :D

[GrnMtSkeptic]

If Chuck Norris punched God in the nose, would God's nose bleed?

[Roboramma]

That the odds of progressing from a single-celled organism to man is very unlikely to occur.
I don't see how this follows from "evolution is random". Could you explain?

Are you saying that given the initial conditions of a planet with single-celled organisms, if you wait 4 billion years, you're unlikely to find homo sapiens? If so, I agree completely.

Similarly, if I and twenty million other people buy lottery tickets, I might expect one of them to win, but I don't expect that person to be me.

[Gulliver]

I suspect what Gulliver meant was that the odds of evolution repeating the descent of humans from the origin of life is virtually zero.
Sorry, thanks for the support, but no, I stand by my origin statement. Darwin's Science provides only that more complex, better adaptive species will originate. While man is a very complex, very well adapted species, we are by far a very unlikey outcome from the random events of the planet's past. However, given our existence, we can conclude that the roll of billions of dices came up with the numbers that created our species. It's a little like the news reporter who claims that the odds of Mr. John Smith winning the $50,000,000 lottery on the 5th of May on his 55th birthday were nearly impossible, but it happened. It's newsworthy perhaps, but we know for statistics that there's absolutely no reason to amazed at an improbable event after it has happened. We need conclude only that a species as complex and adaptive as man could originate from this Science.

I agree about highly adaptive organisms, but see no evidence that random mutations, natural selection, and environmental pressures could plausibly have produced man in less than four billion years.

10 trillion days with mutations occuring on biosphere of 7 million species each with an average of millions of members should cause anyone to suspect at the very least that Evolution deserves serious consideration.

So there's really two questions: 1) Could such a complex species as man evolve in the history of the Earth? and 2) Is it possible that man was that complex species on our planet? The first answer, based on a great deal of research and math, is "yes". The second answer, based on observation, is, "Wow, we did win that lottery!"

Still trying,
Gulliver

[GrnMtSkeptic]

qayak stated:

"We know of one planet with life on it and that planet progressed from single celled organisms to man. That makes the odds, at this point, 100%."

That's a tautology because we don't know if life would progress that way on another planet. Yes, there once were only single celled organisms on earth and at some point man entered the picture, but it is unclear how likely that transition was. So, maybe the odds are 100% or maybe they are close to zero.

I think the salient point is that life does exist, so the probability in question is not the probability that life will arise, but the probability that given that life does exist that it came about due to natural causes. These are two very different probabilities.

[SirPhilip]

Yeah, all those religious wars and prosecutions and inquisitions and the 9/11 attack and that crap based on a fairy-tale has definitely made the world a better place to live...[/sarcasm] Chill out, I was being light-hearted.

Exactly where is the comparison? Santa Claus is a fictional flying materialist. God is an invisible omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent presence everyone shares in various degrees. Exactly where is the comparison? :shy:

[SirPhilip]

If Chuck Norris punched God in the nose, would God's nose bleed? A better question is, if God had to sit through Meng Long Guojiang, would his eyes bleed?

[T'ai Chi]

So "Foster Zygote" wants to pretend that math applies to everything except evolution. That's fine, but one has to examine the rationality of that belief.

Does "Foster Zygote" believe evolution is a stochastic process? Yes or No?

[T'ai Chi]

Yes, evolution requires random mutation. No one here will disagree with that. The thing is though, the outcome is still non-random.


Do you believe math can model evolution?

If so, can you show an example of a non-trivial function that has at least one random input but the outcome is not random?

If not, how can you honestly claim evolution is not random?
(in the technical sense of the word random of course, not the common incorrect use of the word random)

[GrnMtSkeptic]

If so, can you show an example of a non-trivial function that has at least one random input but the outcome is not random?

Genetic algorithms.

[T'ai Chi]

Is that a Yes or a No?

[GrnMtSkeptic]

A better question is, if God had to sit through Meng Long Guojiang, would his eyes bleed?

If Santa had to sit through Meng Long Guojiang, would his eyes bleed?

[Bob Klase]

10 trillion days with mutations occuring on biosphere...

I'm not real good at math, but according to my calculator 4 billion years would be 1.46 trillion days, not 10 trillion. Of course I didn't allow for leap years.

[Gulliver]

I'm not real good at math, but according to my calculator 4 billion years would be 1.46 trillion days, not 10 trillion. Of course I didn't allow for leap years.

I agree. Thanks.

[Rodney]

Actually, there is a computer model on mutations available on-line. My niece used it in her biology class and e-mailed me the link several years ago. I have since deleted it but a search would probably find it.

Dawkins discusses creating such a program in his book The Blind Watchmaker (Chapter 3 Accumulating Small Change). In the appendix he goes into further detail about the program.

Dawkins' program is available here:

http://www.virtualimage.co.uk/html/body_biology.html

Here is an on-line review of Dawkins's program: http://www.alternativescience.com/biomorphs.htm

Excerpt: "In reality, the biomorphs do not correspond in any way at all with living things, except in the purely trivial way that Dawkins sees some resemblance in their shapes. The only thing about the 'biomorphs' that is biological is Richard Dawkins, their creator.

"As far as the 'spitfire' and the 'lunar lander' are concerned there is not even a fancied biological resemblance.

"The program he wrote and the computer he used have no analog at all in the real biological world. Indeed, if he set out to create an experiment that simulates evolution, he has only succeeded in making one that simulates special creation, with himself in the omnipotent role.

"His program is not a true representation of random mutation coupled with natural selection. On the contrary it is dependent on artificial selection in which he controls the rate of occurrence of mutations. Despite Dawkins's own imaginative interpretations, and even with the deck stacked in his favour, his biomorphs show no real novelty arising -- no cases of bears turning into whales.

"Most important of all, it is Dawkins, not blind fate, who chooses which are the lucky individuals to receive the next mutation and of course he chooses the most promising ones ('I began to breed ... from whichever child looked most like an insect.') That is why they have ended up looking like recognizable images from his memory. If his mutations really occurred randomly, as in the real world, Dawkins would still be sitting in front of his screen watching a small dot and waiting for it do something.

"Above all, his computer experiment falsifies the most important central claim of mechanistic Darwinian thinking; that, through natural processes, living things could come into being without any precursor."

[Rodney]

Tell me, what model have that demonstrates it doesn't work? The burden is always on the proponents of the theory.

Your use of claiming no mathmatical model to describe is weak.
Our current level of capacity at modelling evolution is highly simplistic. We can show through simulations that complexity increases can happen. To make claims that we can model the timing of it is just silly. What kinetics do you select? What variations and pressures do you use? You can make any assumptions that you like consistent with the known facts. If someone could develop a plausible model of how evolution progressed on earth, fame and fortune would await, and so there is plenty of incentive to do just that. The fact that no one has been able to do that suggests that there is something wrong with the theory. Not that it is completely wrong, but just missing something of major importance.

[Foster Zygote]

So "Foster Zygote" wants to pretend that math applies to everything except evolution. That's fine, but one has to examine the rationality of that belief.

Does "Foster Zygote" believe evolution is a stochastic process? Yes or No?

What's with the quotation marks? Are you only responding to my posts as read in the quotations of others? Do you have me on 'ignore' or will you actually read my answers and respond to them?

Let's agree on a definition of "stochastic" first.

From Wolfram Math World:
Stochastic is synonymous with "random." The word is of Greek origin and means "pertaining to chance" (Parzen 1962, p. 7). It is used to indicate that a particular subject is seen from point of view of randomness. Stochastic is often used as counterpart of the word "deterministic," which means that random phenomena are not involved. Therefore, stochastic models are based on random trials, while deterministic models always produce the same output for a given starting condition.

If evolution were replayed again from the beginning the odds that the result would be identical to present biology are as good as zero. In that sense, evolution is certainly not deterministic. Yet we shouldn't be surprised if many forms of life resultant from the replay were familiar. The eye has evolved independently several times. Very distantly related species have evolved very similar adaptations to similar environmental challenges.

If "stochastic" is defined as any system with any random element then yes, evolution could be said to be stochastic. But there is a much more important factor that trumps the ID claim that you appear to be making: SELECTION. Natural selection is what drives evolution, not random genetic mutation. If I collect pebbles on a beach selectively, accepting only those with a certain mass then the results of my collection cannot be said to be "random" even though the pool of pebbles from which I make my selection contains a random assortments of masses.

It's not that math doesn't apply to evolution, it's that the model you are applying is too simple.

Steven

[Foster Zygote]

Do you believe math can model evolution?

If so, can you show an example of a non-trivial function that has at least one random input but the outcome is not random?

If not, how can you honestly claim evolution is not random?
(in the technical sense of the word random of course, not the common incorrect use of the word random)

How can you ask that question when the answer is in the very post you quoted?

Roborama:
Casinos have within them thousands of random events going on. Yet they make money. How, because they know that the outcome is non-random.
Or there's this from Joobz:
1.) Diffusion: Random molecular motion and collisions result in the predictable flux of material down a concentration gradient according to ****'s First and Second Law.
2.) Chemical Reaction Kinetics: Random Molecular Motion (again) resulting in molecule-molecule collisions. The rate of collisions and energy of collision determine success of rate of molecular reaction. These properties decreibe Free energy curves whose activation energy is used for the direct calculation of the rate of reaciton.
3.) Polymer Radius of Gyration vs. MW relationships: Determined predictively by random walk models.
4.) Chemotaxis: The movement of cells up a concentration gradient is done by random motion, sampling of the environment and the reanalysis of the surroundings
5.) Statistics: the summation of random events converge to some predicted probability.

While randomness is found in all of these and can be considered to "drive" them, they are not random at all.

You're claiming a false dichotomy. You're claiming that something must be either 100% deterministic or 100% random.

Steven

[Foster Zygote]

Here is an on-line review of Dawkins's program:

Anyone who's actually read The Blind Watchmaker would know that Dawkins never intended the biomorph model to be an analogy for evolution. He clearly states that in the biomorph model he is the selective force. He makes it perfectly clear that the biomorphs are simply an illustration of how selection works.

Steven

[Rodney]

Anyone who's actually read The Blind Watchmaker would know that Dawkins never intended the biomorph model to be an analogy for evolution. He clearly states that in the biomorph model he is the selective force. He makes it perfectly clear that the biomorphs are simply an illustration of how selection works.
Steven

Oh? Then why does Dawkins state:

"Nothing in my biologist's intuition, nothing in my 20 years experience of programming computers, and nothing in my wildest dreams, prepared me for what actually emerged on the screen. I can't remember exactly when in the sequence it first began to dawn on me that an evolved resemblance to something like an insect was possible. With a wild surmise, I began to breed generation after generation, from whichever child looked most like an insect. My incredulity grew in parallel with the evolving resemblance. . . Admittedly they have eight legs like a spider, instead of six like an insect, but even so! I still cannot conceal from you my feeling of exhultation as I first watched these exquisite creatures emerging before my eyes."

[GrnMtSkeptic]

"With a wild surmise, I began to breed generation after generation, from whichever child looked most like an insect."

[T'ai Chi]

It is an intelligently designed program.

Next. :)

[GrnMtSkeptic]

It is an intelligently designed program.

Next. :)

I'm sure there is a point there somewhere. But maybe not.

[Foster Zygote]

Oh? Then why does Dawkins state:

"Nothing in my biologist's intuition, nothing in my 20 years experience of programming computers, and nothing in my wildest dreams, prepared me for what actually emerged on the screen. I can't remember exactly when in the sequence it first began to dawn on me that an evolved resemblance to something like an insect was possible. With a wild surmise, I began to breed generation after generation, from whichever child looked most like an insect. My incredulity grew in parallel with the evolving resemblance. . . Admittedly they have eight legs like a spider, instead of six like an insect, but even so! I still cannot conceal from you my feeling of exhultation as I first watched these exquisite creatures emerging before my eyes."

I find nothing in the selected quote that would seem to support your point. No where in that quote does Dawkins suggest or even imply that the biomorph computer model is a direct analogy of evolution. He simply relates his surprise that the simple, illustrative computer model he devised was able to do so much more than he expected. In support of my position let me offer another quote from The Blind Watchmaker.

The human eye has an active role to play in the story. It is the selecting agent. It surveys the litter of progeny and chooses one for breeding. The chosen one then becomes the parent of the next generation, and a litter of its mutant children are displayed simultaneously on the screen. The human eye is here doing exactly what it does in the breeding of pedigree dogs or prize roses. Our model, in other words, is strictly a model of artificial selection, not natural selection. The criterion for 'success' is not the direct criterion of survival, as it is in true natural selection. In true natural selection, if a body has what it takes to survive, its genes automatically survive because they are inside it. So the genes that survive tend to be, automatically, those genes that confer on bodies the qualities that assist them to survive. In the computer model, on the other hand, the selection criterion is not survival, but the ability to appeal to human whim. Not necessarily idle, casual whim, for we can resolve to select consistently for some quality such as 'resemblance to a weeping willow'. pg57

You'll note that he no where claims that the biomorph model is anything more that a simple illustration of how selection can act on random mutations.

Steven

[T'ai Chi]

I'm sure there is a point there somewhere.

I wondered the same thing with Dawkins' program.

For starters, it doesn't show no watchmaker, but rather it shows a watchmaker, or at least a proto-watch maker.

[T'ai Chi]

If the code for Dawkins' program self assembled out of nothing to form coherent code that created those biomorphs, then we might have something.

[Foster Zygote]

It is an intelligently designed program.

Next. :)

So then you think the biomorph model is an excellent analogy for the workings of evolution? Does this mean you are in direct conflict with Rodney's claim?

If you really intend to offer the biomorph model as evidence of intelligent design then that's about the weakest argument I've ever read. It's a simple model intended only to illustrate that selection of which randomly mutated offspring get to reproduce can lead to a non-random result.

Now, do you intend to address my earlier responses to you? You do realize that when you ask a question or issue a challenge that is answered or met by someone, and you then fail to respond, that the majority of readers assume that you have no substantial response to offer, yes?

Steven

[Gulliver]

If the code for Dawkins' program self assembled out of nothing to form coherent code that created those biomorphs, then we might have something.

Excuse me, but unless you've got a reason not to accept the scientfically established evolution, that it's exactly what happen. Perhaps mankind was just a means to that end?

[Foster Zygote]

If the code for Dawkins' program self assembled out of nothing to form coherent code that created those biomorphs, then we might have something.

You're making the same logical errors as Paley. The watch or the computer code are both human artifacts. They are not self reproducing organisms. They only exist because a biological system evolved to the point that it could conceive of them and create them. One could argue that they did in fact emerge from the same origin as life on Earth. And there is no evidence that that origin had to be intelligent.

Steven

[T'ai Chi]

Excuse me, but unless you've got a reason not to accept the scientfically established evolution, that it's exactly what happen. Perhaps mankind was just a means to that end?

So you're claiming Dawkin's didn't design the code?

??

[GrnMtSkeptic]

You're making the same logical errors as Paley. The watch or the computer code are both human artifacts. They are not self reproducing organisms. They only exist because a biological system evolved to the point that it could conceive of them and create them. One could argue that they did in fact emerge from the same origin as life on Earth. And there is no evidence that that origin had to be intelligent.

Steven

I kind of like Chi's argument - if A was created by an intelligence, the B which I claim looks similar must also have been created by an intelligence. Hence, since the flying spaghetti monster was a fiction created by a man, then all gods must be fictions created by men.

[joobz]

The burden is always on the proponents of the theory.I agree that burden of proof is on the researcher. Except, models have been shown that evolution can create increasing complexity. That is really the best we can do with the data we have. If you had some model to show conclusively that based upon current ideas evolution didn't happen. I'd be happy to see it. The problem is using time as a gauge is just naive. I've made this point several times now. and the point still stands.

You can make any assumptions that you like consistent with the known facts. If someone could develop a plausible model of how evolution progressed on earth, fame and fortune would await, and so there is plenty of incentive to do just that. The fact that no one has been able to do that suggests that there is something wrong with the theory.
That is one interpretation. The other is that there is still not enough proccessing power to model the situation. at best right now molecular dynamics simulations of small state spaces (a small 100 nm section of lipid membrane) can take 100s of processing hours to obtain a few 100femtoseconds worth of data. Now, think about what it'd take to model accurately interacting evolutionary species in several phases with locational restrictions and temporal effects up through millenia and still include ALL we know about biology. This is the true challenge.
You'd need a computer like Deepthought to do it, and after all that time we'd probably still get an answer of 42.

Not that it is completely wrong, but just missing something of major importance.[/quote]

I agree that there may be something missing in the info. But right now evolution describes best what we know. And NOTHING in biology and medical science has come in that has argued against it. That's no small feat considering our ability in genomics and proteomics and bioinformatics.

[Foster Zygote]

So you're claiming Dawkin's didn't design the code?

??

Did you lose your comprehension skills in the war?

Steven

[Foster Zygote]

And NOTHING in biology and medical science has come in that has argued against it. That's no small feat considering our ability in genomics and proteomics and bioinformatics.

That's what impresses me most. All of the huge advances in biochemistry in the last few decades have not only failed to contradict evolutionary theory, they have, in fact, immensely reinforced it.

[Rodney]

I find nothing in the selected quote that would seem to support your point. No where in that quote does Dawkins suggest or even imply that the biomorph computer model is a direct analogy of evolution. He simply relates his surprise that the simple, illustrative computer model he devised was able to do so much more than he expected. In support of my position let me offer another quote from The Blind Watchmaker.

You'll note that he no where claims that the biomorph model is anything more that a simple illustration of how selection can act on random mutations.

Steven

Forget for a minute that you and Dawkins agree about Darwinist evolution. If a creationist said something as over the top as -- "Nothing in my biologist's intuition, nothing in my 20 years experience of programming computers, and nothing in my wildest dreams, prepared me for what actually emerged on the screen" -- what would your reaction be?

[Starrman]

So what's your point? You disagree with Norris' beliefs (that apparently have really hampered his ability to function in the real world...), so what?

My point is that Chuck Norris believes stupid things, and that it was ironic for me, a skeptic, to have him in my avatar. I have no idea if it hampers his ability in the real world. It certainly hampers others if they listen to him.

So the skeptical movement boils down to heckling.

Carry on. :)

No - I boiled down to heckling, by myself. I shared the article for anyone who might want to join me in heckling the silly beliefs he expressed. Why would you take one thread started by a nobody like me and label it a movement?

[joobz]

It is an intelligently designed program.

Next. :)


I again feel like the issue between ID and Ev is just off topic with eachother.

Evolution describes a process, ID describes an intent.

Something "intelligently designed" still must be there through some process, through some mechanism.
If the actual argument is that ID states that something was wished into existance by something else, then that's magic, not intelligent design.

So sure, the program code was created intelligently. But that has no bearing on refuting Ev or the process the code describes.

[T'ai Chi]

Hence, since the flying spaghetti monster was a fiction created by a man, then all gods must be fictions created by men.

Except now you're making an error, since we know, for certain, FSM was a recent invention to mock religion. We don't know the same thing for sure about the notion of god(s).

Of course watches and computer code are not reproducing biological organisms. In fact, biological organisms are many many many orders of magnitude more complex than watches and computer code.

[Starrman]

For a while on Late Night with Conan O'Brian they had a Walker, Texas Ranger lever. When pulled, it would treat the audience to a short clip of Walker.

The clips were, without a doubt, some of the funniest television I've ever seen.


I remember one where Conan pulled the lever; cut to Chuck Norris squatting in a completely empty field, smelling his fingers - he says, 'an airplane crashed here.'

[GrnMtSkeptic]

Except now you're making an error, since we know, for certain, FSM was a recent invention to mock religion. We don't know the same thing for sure about the notion of god(s).

Of course watches and computer code are not reproducing biological organisms. In fact, biological organisms are many many many orders of magnitude more complex than watches and computer code.


Just following your line of reasoning.

[Foster Zygote]

So you're claiming Dawkin's didn't design the code?

??

Hello? T'ai? Are you still ignoring my posts? Why is that? You may be ignoring myself and others, but everyone else can see those posts and they will no doubt wonder why you do not address them. I can assure you that there is no better way to give the impression that your arguments lack substance and/or that you are unable to defend them than by ignoring questions about them.

Steven

[Foster Zygote]

I remember one where Conan pulled the lever; cut to Chuck Norris squatting in a completely empty field, smelling his fingers - he says, 'an airplane crashed here.'

I must say your new avatar is a great improvement.:)

Steven

[joobz]

I remember one where Conan pulled the lever; cut to Chuck Norris squatting in a completely empty field, smelling his fingers - he says, 'an airplane crashed here.'
Yeah, Chuck bashing is funny, but I got to admit...
As child in the 80's, I loved Chuck Norris, Jean Claude van Damme, Bruce Lee, Barry Gordy's the Last Dragon, and even...Gymkata.

really, any movie with karate I ate up, even bad karate.

[Foster Zygote]

Of course watches and computer code are not reproducing biological organisms. In fact, biological organisms are many many many orders of magnitude more complex than watches and computer code.

You really haven't read The Blind Watchmaker have you? How can you post that quote on your website if you haven't even read the book to understand its context?

Steven

[Foster Zygote]

Yeah, Chuck bashing is funny, but I got to admit...
As child in the 80's, I loved Chuck Norris, Jean Claude van Damme, Bruce Lee, Barry Gordy's the Last Dragon, and even...Gymkata.

really, any movie with karate I ate up, even bad karate.

Ooooh! Remember Hard Boiled? That rocked!:D

Steven

[Starrman]

Yeah, Chuck bashing is funny, but I got to admit...
As child in the 80's, I loved Chuck Norris, Jean Claude van Damme, Bruce Lee, Barry Gordy's the Last Dragon, and even...Gymkata.

really, any movie with karate I ate up, even bad karate.

I'm just as guilty - and had forgotten about 'The Last Dragon' (have you got the glow? Who is the Master?) and Gymkata - (was that a martial arts movie, or a gymnastics movie?).

Best Chuck Norris movie of all time - 'Silent Rage'.

Oh - and evolution is a fact. Just to keep the thread on topic.

[Foster Zygote]

Forget for a minute that you and Dawkins agree about Darwinist evolution. If a creationist said something as over the top as -- "Nothing in my biologist's intuition, nothing in my 20 years experience of programming computers, and nothing in my wildest dreams, prepared me for what actually emerged on the screen" -- what would your reaction be?

My reaction would be along the lines of: "Huh, he wrote a little program to see what it would do and the result was much more than he anticipated. He was rather tickled by this." Seriously, what are we supposed to get from the paragraph you quoted? From the context in which you posted that quote it seems you were implying that there was something in it that showed that Dawkins did intend biomorphs to be a full blown analogy for evolution. I pointed out that there was no such evidence in the quote and provided another that showed that Dawkins does, in fact, only claim the biomorph model to be a simple illustration of a concept. That's when you asked the question to which I've responded above, a question that makes little sense to me.

Steven

[ZirconBlue]

Hello? T'ai? Are you still ignoring my posts? Why is that? You may be ignoring myself and others, but everyone else can see those posts and they will no doubt wonder why you do not address them. I can assure you that there is no better way to give the impression that your arguments lack substance and/or that you are unable to defend them than by ignoring questions about them.

Steven

This is interesting. On one hand, we have Rodney apparently claiming that unless we develop a model to show that what happened happened, then it didn't actually happen. On the other, we have T'ai Chi, who seemingly believes that any man-made model of evolution is evidence of Intelligent Design. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[SirPhilip]

If Santa had to sit through Meng Long Guojiang, would his eyes bleed? Well, he's been forced to visit the Crouch's house several times without any protection from reflection blindness, so my guess is in the negative; and don't start this "Santa isn't real" crap, because anyone who can handle that is almost certainly a real man. Actually, as 99.98% of men's eyes would bleed and 99.99% of women's would implode in such a situation, Santa must be a god. It also means the Crouch's are probably demonic entities, but this has already been widely assumed as they don't appear to posess a soul.

[bjb]

As an electrical engineer, I've been using math models to study physical systems for many, many years. The problem with computer math models is that they're only as good as the amount of detail you're willing to put into them. This means you really have to work hard and not leave anything out if you want your model to look like the real-life behavior of the physicial system (transducer, navigation sensor, electrical power converter, etc.) that you are trying to model. Even though it is desirable to use a math model that is as detailed as possible, there are times when a simplified model can produce useful results.

A simplified model is not intended to duplicate reality but can give insight into how certain aspects of the system behaves when changes are made. For example, I can use a simplified model of an electrical power converter to study the effect of using different types of transistors in the switching circuits. I can try different components and show that one type gives more efficiency than another, or perhaps one type is more stable, that sort of thing. In this way, the simplified model helps me decide which type of transistor is best for my application. Notice that I didn't write a 100% accurate model for the entire converter but I was still able to prove something important about its behavior.

In the engineering world, it is common to find both types of models. A large, complicated model of the entire system can be used to verify our understanding of the entire physical system, but smaller, simplified models are also used to demonstrate the effects of the various parts of the system. One issue with this approach is that the results from the simplified model need to be examined very critically. In the above example, the simple model I used to study only the transistors in my power converter is likely to produce innacurate data for the overall performance of the device. The efficiency numbers are going to be way too high and someone might believe my other results are totally bogus. But it is wrong to take too much meaning from these simplified models. They are designed to study certain aspects accurately, but not everything.

This evolution model seems to be a simplified model that only studies a small part of the evolutionary process. I haven't looked at it too closely, so I don't know that it models every factor that is important to evolution, such as environmental factors or competetion from other species. Even if it doesn't, it can still have a value in showing how a species can mutate. I think Dawkins intended the model to study certain biological aspects of evolution and show they are consistent with the observed results.

Perhaps in the future, a very arge and complicated model can be constructed and the whole evolution story can be verified by simulation. Personally, I think this would be a very good idea. Until then, it is a good idea not to make too many conclusions based on simplified models. The model can be used to demonstrate a few concepts, but it does not prove every single aspect of evolution. It wasn't designed to do that. Similarly, it is not fair to point out any flaws in the model and claim the entire theory of evolution is false. Of course, if the day comes when the full model is ready, and it fails to back up the theory of evolution, then the evolutionary biologists are going to have a lot of questions to answer!

[qayak]

Here is an on-line review of Dawkins's program:

Which is why you should go and read what Dawkins was using the program for. The program is simple, not nearly as complex as real life and yet it accounts for as wide a species variation as is required to explain life on Earth.

The person writing the review sidestepped this and instead focused on the fact that it is only Dawkins imagination that makes the biomorphs look like spitfires, bats and lamps. Guess what, no one has ever said otherwise. Dawkins named them purely for his own pleasure because the name means nothing to the experiment.

I am sure, that with so many of the top brains in science working on evolution, they will miss the obvious problems and it will be some half-witted religious fundamentalist that will actually shoot it down. :bs:

In fact, scientists have been the ones to find all the problems and, thus far, resolve those problems. They have no vested interest in evolution being right or wrong. They have a vested interest in being the first to prove what is true.

I realize that nobody is above lying and cheating but a scientist who does these things will be found out pretty quickly. Seldom does a hoax go on for very long. On the other hand, religious groups thrive on lying and cheating. There is no peer review of their work, only other relious groups grasping at anything to keep their beliefs relevent in the modern world. Few if any religions want to change in light of new evidence. They want to believe that the founders of their religion got everything right thousands of years ago.

So, you have not been able to poke a single hole in evolution or Dawkins ideas. You have not shown a problem that has not already been addressed by a scientist long before, and you have not changed your view based on your failures, so how can there be any discussion with you?

The only question left to ask you is: "What would it take to change your mind?" Because, it seems that everything has been done and you still haven't changed.

[qayak]

You really haven't read The Blind Watchmaker have you? How can you post that quote on your website if you haven't even read the book to understand its context?

He believes in the old adage: "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story!"

[qayak]

Except now you're making an error, since we know, for certain, FSM was a recent invention to mock religion. We don't know the same thing for sure about the notion of god(s).

But we do know. You may not because you seem to not research anything that spews from your keyboard but there is a pretty good history regarding how Christianity came to be the way it is. Check it out sometime. Check out evolution too.

Evolution is a fact, religion is a crutch for those who can't handle facts.

[qayak]

Forget for a minute that you and Dawkins agree about Darwinist evolution. If a creationist said something as over the top as -- "Nothing in my biologist's intuition, nothing in my 20 years experience of programming computers, and nothing in my wildest dreams, prepared me for what actually emerged on the screen" -- what would your reaction be?

Exactly what my reaction was: "Wow! With all his experience, he still did not grasp the enormity of this. It was hard for me to fathom until I saw it with my own eyes and I can imagine there will be people who will never be able to grasp this. It is just too mind boggling for them!"

[joobz]

As an electrical engineer, I've been using math models to study physical systems for many, many years....
sorry for truncating your message. Very nicely stated.
Although, One problem inherent in the complicated model game is that you end up with a ton of parameters that can easily be varied to fit whatever outcome you want.

Unless you can know a priori what coefficients to use, you'll still have to prove that you just aren't creating a mathmatical silly puddy that can be stretched and contorted to take what ever shape you like.

but overall, I agree with you 100%

[bjb]

Unless you can know a priori what coefficients to use, you'll still have to prove that you just aren't creating a mathmatical silly puddy that can be stretched and contorted to take what ever shape you like.

Yes, tweaking a model is a factor I considered, but I left it out of my post. Making sure the coeffients and the model itself are valid is called 'model validation' (big surprise). In the past, I've been able to create math models that came very, very close to real, measured behavior, only to be accused of 'tweaking' my model values until it worked. But my technique is to base the coefficients upon observed behavior under certain simple conditions. For example, I might measure the behavior of my power converter under two or three different conditions. Based on simple measurements, I calculate what the coefficients should be. Then I put them into my model and let it run for the simple cases as well as more complicated cases that I haven't run yet. If I did my job right, the model will match the simple conditions I tested in the first place as well as predict behavior under other, more complicated conditions that I didn't measure. This ability to use data from simple tests to predict the outcome of complicated tests is one of the real benefits of computer models, but the model itself needs to be traceable to a source of real data, otherwise it might just as well be a program that prints out a file of data that I expected to measure.

In the case of Dawkins' program, I didn't look closely enough to figure out where he gets his coefficients and equations. If he has to use unrealistic numbers to "Silly Putty" the program until it produced the results he expected, then there's a problem. But if he is using conservative numbers and still observing evolution, then his program really does demonstrate something important.

If someone is skeptical of his program and thinks he used fake numbers to get the 'right' answer, they are welcome to examine it in detail, find faults, and make Dawkins defend himself. I have done this with math models produced by others and I've been able to show their programs were very faulty and produced unrealistically favorable results. Of course, I also had to write the correct math model that matched up with the test data to do so, and that was quite a lot of work. But this is how science works. Scientists and even engineers should expect their work to be challenged, so they'd better be sure their work can withstand any challenge before they publish their results.

[T'ai Chi]

But we do know.


No. You do not "know". You believe strongly. You are making an inference based on your understanding of the strength of the data, and based on the inferences and understanding of others.


...there is a pretty good history regarding how Christianity came to be the way it is.


What don't you understand about


We don't know the same thing for sure about the notion of god(s).


?

The notion of god(s) is independent of any specific religion and independent of what people write about god(s) (ie. if they explain them in human terms, with human attributes, etc.). Nothing you've appealed to has even slightly dented the possibility of such things.


Evolution is a fact, religion is a crutch for those who can't handle facts.

That Newton, what a slouch!

[joobz]

BRB:
fully agree again. I've generally shied away from too much intensive modelling of my work. You can easily lose yourself in it and be far removed from the experiments you were initially trying to model.

I kept in the realm of simple random walk models for angiogenesis and similar features(which is more simulation than first principles modelling). I like it when simple rules result in ellegant outcomes.

[qayak]

The notion of god(s) is independent of any specific religion and independent of what people write about god(s) (ie. if they explain them in human terms, with human attributes, etc.). Nothing you've appealed to has even slightly dented the possibility of such things.


Wrong, we know exactly how the Christian god came about and it was purely the imaginings of a single human being, St. Augustine. The Christian god is as made up as the FSM.

[qayak]

That Newton, what a slouch!

Strawman. As everyone has strengths and weaknesses you are using Newton's great science achievements to try and show that all his other beliefs were as great. In truth, he achieved outstanding results in science, but didn't do so well on the religious end. When it comes to reasoning about religion, Newton was, in fact, a slouch. Of course, he could have seen religion as so insignificant and absurd that he never bothered to give it any thought and just followed the path of least resistance.

Brilliant scientist does not necessarily equal brilliant anything else.

[thaiboxerken]

So "Foster Zygote" wants to pretend that math applies to everything except evolution.


The claim that the mathematical probability of life evolving is high is made by many but seems to never be supported with an actual proof. Why is that?

[Gulliver]

The claim that the mathematical probability of life evolving is high is made by many but seems to never be supported with an actual proof. Why is that?
How about a quick Google search on "probability of life evolving"? Check out the hit: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html for 19 scientific endeavors to support that proof. Perhaps, you need to do some reading, sir.

[thaiboxerken]

How about a proof? So far, you've just given a web page that talks about people who have attempted to come up with proofs.

[Gulliver]

How about a proof? So far, you've just given a web page that talks about people who have attempted to come up with proofs.
Sir, the scientific definition of a proof is exactly that: a preponderance of peer-reviewed publications that withstand the scrunity of the scientific community over years.

Sir, I suggest that you read the references listed on the webpages before you criticize our community of failing to prove our point. It's time for you to educate yourself and stop asking us for what is available readily to you.

We've proven that Evolution is a fact through scientific efforts over 180 years. We've taken the time to write our ideas down and submit them to critical review. That's science.

Determinedly,
Gulliver

[Rodney]

Exactly what my reaction was: "Wow! With all his experience, he still did not grasp the enormity of this. It was hard for me to fathom until I saw it with my own eyes and I can imagine there will be people who will never be able to grasp this. It is just too mind boggling for them!"
And my reaction to Dawkins' reaction is: The man is such a zealot that he doesn't realize that his computer program is meaningless. Dawkins is like a Christian fundamentalist finding an ordinary cup and getting all excited because he thinks he's found the Holy Grail.

[Foster Zygote]

And my reaction to Dawkins' reaction is: The man is such a zealot that he doesn't realize that his computer program is meaningless. Dawkins is like a Christian fundamentalist finding an ordinary cup and getting all excited because he thinks he's found the Holy Grail.

You're trying way too hard now. You haven't been able to provide any substantial evidence to support your position so you now resort to tangential character attacks. Dawkins plainly cares about his work, but that does not make him a "zealot". Also, his model is not meaningless any more than the models described by bjb or Joobz as used in their work are meaningless. Dawkins states quite clearly in the quote I provided that he only sees the biomorph program as a basic model for understanding a simple form of selection acting on a random system of mutations. He's never tried to assign to it the importance that you claim he does. In The Blind Watchmaker he introduces the idea early on in order to act as a primer for the discussion of the very real biology that is the subject of the rest of the book. The only "meaning" of the biomorph program is to show that when a selective force is applied to random variations in successive generations it is possible to select for certain traits. But because the program was written on a Mac in the mid '80s it obviously cannot be sophisticated enough to replicate something as staggeringly complex as environment and biochemistry and therefor natural selection. In fact, as has been pointed out, your demand that someone provide an accurate model of evolution by natural selection in the real world is ludicrous. That would take a computer that makes your present computer look like a $25 Casio wristwatch.

Steven

[CFLarsen]

No. You do not "know". You believe strongly. You are making an inference based on your understanding of the strength of the data, and based on the inferences and understanding of others.

What can we "know", then?

[qayak]

No. You do not "know". You believe strongly. You are making an inference based on your understanding of the strength of the data, and based on the inferences and understanding of others.

No, we have the words of the man who did it.

The words of the person directly responsible for an event in history is the only real history. All the rest is just educated guessing which is not necessarily wrong but not nearly as reliable.

[SirPhilip]

Evolution is a fact, religion is a crutch for those who can't handle facts. Facts are a crutch for those who can't handle evolution. :deadhorse

[Foster Zygote]

Facts are a crutch for those who can't handle evolution. :deadhorse

Perhaps you meant to write something else, because the above makes no sense.

Steven

[SirPhilip]

Perhaps you meant to write something else, because the above makes no sense. You think so?

[Gulliver]

You think so?

Sir,
It is incumbent on the writer to express his or her thoughts clearly. Here you've confused others.

For most reasonable people, facts are useful foundations, not crutches. Facts, by far, support the science of Evolution. I'm sure I speak for others here when I say you've made no sense.
Respectfully,
Gulliver

[bjb]

Perhaps you meant to write something else, because the above makes no sense.

Steven

I also felt it was a non-sequitur. Nobody expresses themselves clearly 100% of the time. There's nothing wrong with having to clarify your statements every so often.

[Foster Zygote]

You think so?

Yes, I am one of three so far who found your statement to be confusing. That is why I asked if you hadn't perhaps made an error. Could you clarify your statement?

Steven

[joobz]

Yes, I am one of three so far who found your statement to be confusing. That is why I asked if you hadn't perhaps made an error. Could you clarify your statement?

Steven

Guys, I'd not put too much stock in this statement.

Sir Phillip quoted the statement:
religion is a crutch for those who can't handle facts.
He just switched the subject with the direct object. to make
Facts are a crutch for those who can't handle evolution.

The key is his self proclaimed status as a "Gurilla Dialectician".(sp?)

Anyways, I'd lie if i said I knew much about philosphy, but I believe that kind of game is played to determine if a statement can be disected to make sense. Either an attempt to find a logical inconsistency or to expose a discourse that has become redundant (hence the dead horse image).

In either case, It funny to read, but doesn't require to much attack.

[Foster Zygote]

Guys, I'd not put too much stock in this statement.

Sir Phillip quoted the statement:

He just switched the subject with the direct object. to make


The key is his self proclaimed status as a "Gurilla Dialectician".(sp?)

Anyways, I'd lie if i said I knew much about philosphy, but I believe that kind of game is played to determine if a statement can be disected to make se