What would refute creationism?

[TagliatelliMonster]

I used to be a development engineer, doing what is called applied science. Applied science has to be more in touch with reality than theoretical science; evolutionary theory.

/facepalm

There is no applied science without theoretical frameworks underpinning those sciences, Einstein.

If I needed to make a new type of widget, it needs to hold up under reality conditions as well as be cheap and reproducible on the factory floor. I can't use theoretical materials, unless I first develop these first to be useful and cheap.

You seem to be confusing "theoretical" with "hypothetical".

In terms of the evolutionary theory, how can I use that theory to make a better human?

You seem to have no idea at all how evolution theory informs the entire medical world.

You also don't seem to understand how evolution theory has applications that go well beyond the biological world.

Ever heared of genetic algorithms? It's an optimization method that has applications in just about anything in terms of solving design problems. It also has practical applications in machine learning / AI and as a search heuristic.

The fuel distribution system of Boeings was optimized with such an algorithm, to name just one example.

Just about ANY optimization module worthy of the name offers GA capability.

In plain words: a GA takes a human design and then makes it better.

It is not factory safe

Ignorant.
Plenty of products, or parts, or systems are optimized using practical applications of evolution theory.

It is more designed like a game of chance. If we try to use it to tell the future, we will need to use the same math as gambling casinos.

No.

This casino approach is not my first choice

It was Boeing's first choice for solving plenty of design problems in their aircraft.
And along with boeing, MANY other companies.
It's also the first choice in plenty of AI and machine learning applications.


Clearly you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

Before I do that, let me try the Creationist theory instead.

lol

what's that?
"abracadabra" - "poof"?

Is this theory useful and scalable? This theory is less based on material science and more based on addressing the imagination and human nature; neural conscious environment. A better human could mean humans that are more healthy or fit. However, a better human could also mean humans who are better people, in the neural character sense.

Instead of making a new human from scratch, why not use the theory on current humans; since the theory says humans have will and choice. One application of the theory is to show people the proper place for their ego. The ego is often the source of most problems, since each ego subjectivity and objectivity seeks to become the center of its own universe, which can divide people and cause conflicts. The conflict causes the ego to dig in or try to expand.

Creationism uses the theory of a deterministic God, who is above all humans. He is the one who has brought us to this place in space and time, based on a logical plan. Instead of allowing the ego to try to become the center of its own little subjective universe, what would happen if we make the ego a satellite around the theory of God, who by definition, made us all by some form of causal determinism?

We do not need to start life from scratch to form a better human, but to simply use what we already have in terms of a sequences of deterministic events that led to today. This will help the ego find a better way to relate to reality and to each other. This approach will use the ego, to evolve the ego, via its innate will and choice.

I will need volunteers to see if this can work, be scaled and finally go into production; religions. Science is good at the material world but religion is more about the neural world view of consciousness. I like having both tools in my development science tool box.

What a bunch of ignorant drivel.

 

[Subduction Zone]

/facepalm

There is no applied science without theoretical frameworks underpinning those sciences, Einstein.



You seem to be confusing "theoretical" with "hypothetical".






You seem to have no idea at all how evolution theory informs the entire medical world.

You also don't seem to understand how evolution theory has applications that go well beyond the biological world.

Ever heared of genetic algorithms? It's an optimization method that has applications in just about anything in terms of solving design problems. It also has practical applications in machine learning / AI and as a search heuristic.

The fuel distribution system of Boeings was optimized with such an algorithm, to name just one example.

Just about ANY optimization module worthy of the name offers GA capability.

In plain words: a GA takes a human design and then makes it better.




Ignorant.
Plenty of products, or parts, or systems are optimized using practical applications of evolution theory.





No.



It was Boeing's first choice for solving plenty of design problems in their aircraft.
And along with boeing, MANY other companies.
It's also the first choice in plenty of AI and machine learning applications.


Clearly you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.




lol

what's that?
"abracadabra" - "poof"?



What a bunch of ignorant drivel.

I know. I tried to get him back on track. He sounds like an old school mechanical engineer from before even CAD/CAM. Dang computers are too theoretical

 

[leroy]

Yes. Many. But I don't feel like going back in the thread.
So let's just see how you deal with the 3 posts that followed the one you are quoting instead.

Done, plese let me know if you disgaree with anything

 

[leroy]

No, it is easy. You don't need to go over your past mistakes. You will make them again. And you will make new ones.

Of Couse, since you haven been capable of quoting any mistake, I am likely to repeat them, until someone corrects me

 

[leroy]

A

Your posts indicate that you don't understand the theory of evolution and you reject it out of ignorance. Details regarding the timing of evolutionary events is not a challenge to the theory.

Yes that was exactly my point, that “small details” don’t invalidate the theory


This is why I keep asking if you disagree with anything, because we seem to agree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Done, plese let me know if you disgaree with anything

Oh we will.

 

[leroy]

First list what those "good reasons" were to think eyes were SC before Darwin.

The pattern is complex and seemed unlikely

With Darwin we noticed that the pattern is complex but not “unlikely” but rather very probable given natural selection

 

[leroy]

He did not.



That's not an attribute.
That's a mechanism by which eyes can come about.
So you are saying that the mechanism by which something comes about, is part of the criteria that qualify something as SC or not?

.

Eyes follow the laws of natrual selection, that is an atribute of the eye, even if a particular pair of where designed, these eyes would still follow the laws of natural selection which favor “good efficient eyes” and therefore the pattern would not be SC


In other words, eyes are not SC regardless on how they originated


I honestly think this is very easy to understand, why are you having so much trouble in understanding this?

That's a mechanism by which eyes can come about.
So you are saying that the mechanism by which something comes about, is part of the criteria that qualify something as SC or not?

No I am saying that eyes are not SC because they follow the laws of natural selection , weather if they came about through this mechanism or some other mechanism it´s irrelevant eyes would still be “no-SC”

 

[leroy]

Interesting, yet dismissed with a hand wave. Evidence exists for self-replication in important molecules of life. But of course, you don't have an interest in what works.

and what makes you think that I woudl disagree with that?

Since we do not have a theory of abiogenesis, nothing would falsify it. You cannot falsify a theory that hasn't been formulated. Do you think that you can?

yes

Claims and hypothesis can be falsified even if they are not a “scientific theory”


What you are basically saying is that “ I know that nature did it and nothing, no evidence real or hypothetical would convince to the contrary”

Have you noticed There is no much difference between fanatic YEC and you ?

 

[leroy]

You ignore what others post. Do you think that goes unnoticed?

Please quote a comment that I have ignored, I am human, I can make mistakes, perhaps I overead something.

The conversation is this forums look like this

1 you say “Leroy you ignored my comment”

2 I answer: can you quote it so that I can address

3 you reply: no


Do you honestly think that this is the way one should behave in a forum where people are suppose to share ideas with each other?

 

[leroy]

No that’s not supporting the assertion:

​

That’s is just another assertion. You are just making another claim.

If you were “SUPPORTING” your many “assertions”, you would provide the one or more of the following:

1. Cite a peer-reviewed and tested paper or more, that back your assertion.
2. Provide the necessary evidence, experiments & data.

Since, you are no scientist, your best bet is to use option 1, because option 2 required hard works from scientists.

You didn’t do either of them, so your assertion is “unsupported”, that was just another one of your unsubstantiated claims.

No that’s not supporting the assertion:

​

That’s is just another assertion. You are just making another claim.

If you were “SUPPORTING” your many “assertions”, you would provide the one or more of the following:

1. Cite a peer-reviewed and tested paper or more, that back your assertion.
2. Provide the necessary evidence, experiments & data.

Since, you are no scientist, your best bet is to use option 1, because option 2 required hard works from scientists.

You didn’t do either of them, so your assertion is “unsupported”, that was just another one of your unsubstantiated claims.

sure,
the author of this article
Natural genetic engineering in evolution - PubMed


proposes a different mechanism that explains how organisms change and adapt

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The pattern is complex and seemed unlikely

What a sophisticated list of criteria.

There's your argument of ignorance, right there.
There's your "criteria" that you need to know how it comes about before even asking the question.

With Darwin we noticed that the pattern is complex but not “unlikely” but rather very probable given natural selection

Exactly.
Darwin explained how it can come about naturally.

So just like I said and have been saying all along....
It's not at all about the "pattern" or "properties" of an object.
It's about not knowing how nature can produce it.


Once again, tnx for playing.

You may now resume your ostrich defense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Eyes follow the laws of natrual selection, that is an atribute of the eye

It is not.

, even if a particular pair of where designed, these eyes would still follow the laws of natural selection which favor “good efficient eyes” and therefore the pattern would not be SC

Right, because knowing how something originates, or can originate, is part of the criteria.
This why NOT knowing how it comes about, qualifies it as SC.
This is why knowing how it can come about naturally, disqualifies it as SC.
This is why knowing how it came about artificially makes it SC again.


Just like all of us have been saying all along: argument from ignorance. And a blatant one at that.

In other words, eyes are not SC regardless on how they originated

You have just finished saying the opposite.
Before Darwin: qualified as SC
After Darwin (ie: after explaining how it originates naturally): disqualified as SC.

I honestly think this is very easy to understand

So do we.

No I am saying that eyes are not SC because they follow the laws of natural selection

Which is the natural process that can produce them.

Natural selection isn't a property of the eye. It does not change the workings of it, it doesn't change how many parts it has, it doesn't change how those parts interact, it doesn't change anything about the eye.

It merely explains how it can come about naturally.

, weather if they came about through this mechanism or some other mechanism it´s irrelevant eyes would still be “no-SC”

You are contradicting yourself, since before knowing about the mechanism, as per your own acknowledgement, they would qualify as SC.

make up your mind.

 

[leroy]

What a sophisticated list of criteria.

There's your argument of ignorance, right there.
There's your "criteria" that you need to know how it comes about before even asking the question.




Exactly.
Darwin explained how it can come about naturally.

So just like I said and have been saying all along....
It's not at all about the "pattern" or "properties" of an object.
It's about not knowing how nature can produce it.


Once again, tnx for playing.

You may now resume your ostrich defense.

Yes Darwin discovered/noticed that eyes have the property of following the laws natural selection and suggested that eyes could have come in to being through that mechanism.

Do you disagree with the statement above.?


Before Darwin, we didn’t know that eyes have this property of following natural selection

Agree?

 

[Subduction Zone]

sure,
the author of this article
Natural genetic engineering in evolution - PubMed


proposes a different mechanism that explains how organisms change and adapt

Does he?...I can only read the abstract. Was it well accepted? Was it rejected by others?

Right now it is just a "" So what?"

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again I am not claiming that Demski (or me) is right beyond reasonable doubt like in a court room, nor that ID is a scientific theory.


All I am saying is that ID is based on testable and falsifiable premises that are probably true.

P1 SC is likelly to be caused by a mind

P2 the first life was SC

Therefore the first life is likelly to have come from a mind


The argument is testable and falsifiable, and evidence for the premises have been provided



Ok the quote my specific response and explain why you think is based on ignorance or personal incredulity

And it fails on the very first premise. You don't get to any "therefore" when you fail on the first premise.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ok why you think SC is a failed concept?


SC is just a description pattern with specific characteristics, what could possibly be invalid in this concept?

It has gained zero traction in the evidence-based scientific community, for starters.

 

[leroy]

It is not.



Right, because knowing how something originates, or can originate, is part of the criteria.

Not necesairly


The criteria is pattern with meaning or function that:

1 is complex (has many parts) and many possible combinations

2 few possible combinations have meaning of function

3 combinations with meaning and function are as unlikely as any other combination

Knowing how it came about is not part of the criteria, knowing it´s origin might help but it is not necessary

This why NOT knowing how it comes about, qualifies it as SC.

We don’t know how dark matter came to be, but still dark matter is not SC thereefore not know how it came about doesnt mean SC

This is why knowing how it can come about naturally, disqualifies it as SC.

Maybe, but you don’t need to know that in order to disqualify it

This is why knowing how it came about artificially makes it SC again.

I can dig a hole, this hole would be ID, but not SC therefore design doesn’t mean SC






Which is the natural process that can produce them.

Natural selection isn't a property of the eye. It does not change the workings of it, it doesn't change how many parts it has, it doesn't change how those parts interact, it doesn't change anything about the eye.

It merely explains how it can come about naturally.




You are contradicting yourself, since before knowing about the mechanism, as per your own acknowledgement, they would qualify as SC.

make up your mind.[/QUOTE]

 

[leroy]

Does he?...I can only read the abstract. Was it well accepted? Was it rejected by others?

Right now it is just a "" So what?"

So nothing, all I am saying is that there might be other mechanisms apart from random variation and natural selection. I simply presented a possible mechanism

You agreed with this point a few months ago………………did you change you rmind?

 

[leroy]

And it fails on the very first premise. You don't get to any "therefore" when you fail on the first premise.

why do you think premise 1 is wrong?