Evolution Disclaimer Supported

The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^ | 12/11/02 | WILL SENTELL

[L84AD8]

Great thread! Good points made. AG, you have a wonderful Christian perspective. As do others on this thread. You made some points that I needed today. Thanks!

I didn't read the entire thread, but did anyone mention that Darwin disproved his own theory?

L8

[Aric2000]

I don't know whether to even go here or not.

This thread has been so nice up to this point and all of a sudden someone has to throw this little tidbit in here.

You want it PH or shall we ignore it like it never happened?

[PatrickHenry]

I didn't read the entire thread, but did anyone mention that Darwin disproved his own theory?

Permit me to respond to your question. The answer is no, no one has mentioned that. It would be rather startling news to me, and to several others here. Do you have a reference that you could post for us to review?

[PatrickHenry]

You want it PH or shall we ignore it like it never happened?

It's under control. Sit back and enjoy.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for the kudos and encouragements! I'm very glad the thread has been helpful to you!

I did a quick search looking for the assertion you mentioned and came up empty. As I recall, Gore3000 has posted it on other threads, so I'm pinging him here so that he can give you the summary - hopefully along with the rebuttals, so you can have all the information at one time.

[f.Christian]

S: "Speaking ironically, I might say that all we can hear at the present time is the great anthropic hymnal (( evolution // noise ))*, with even a number of mathematically sophisticated scholars keeping time as the great hymn (( darwin // atheism ))* is intoned (( brainwashing // indoctrination ))* by tapping their feet."

"The rest of us should, of course, practice a certain . . . suspension (( earplugs // helmet // goggles ))* - - - of judgement .

. . . * my additions ! ! !

[Aric2000]

Thank you, I shall indeed sit back and enjoy.

[music_code]

Previously, I stated, "The brain and nervous system is the hardware - period. The software is our soul, which is the seat of the intellect, emotions, and will."

To which you replied: And your evidence for the separate hardware and software is...

To which I answer, are we really having this discussion? That there is more to man than merely his physical apparatus is made manifest by our own human experience. When I laugh and talk and do things with my family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc., I am not interacting with mere chunks of matter, and neither are you. Get serious. Beyond that, this is explicitly declared in the Bible. I know that counts for nothing in your book, but my book trumps yours.

[tortoise]

The brain and nervous system is the hardware - period. The software is our soul, which is the seat of the intellect, emotions, and will. Your PC's computer hardware is complex and designed to do a lot of things, but it will not run without the software drivers. Similarly, our human hardware - the brain and the nervous system - while being infinitely more complex than any man-made computer system - is still non-functional until it is animated by the soul.

With all due respect, this argument is premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of what you are talking about. There is no fundamental distinction between hardware and software; they are interchangeable and identical. Just because we choose to make that distinction based on how our hardware and software is typically designed does not make it meaningful in any type of theoretical sense. In other words, based on your argument the brain IS the soul, which while not what you intended, it is in fact the correct interpretation.

I don't fault you for your limited experience with this domain though; it is a very common and pedestrian misunderstanding. There are classes of universal computing machines in which the data, the program, and the machinery itself are all the exact same thing. This theoretical mathematical machinery looks and behaves a lot like the human brain in virtually every measurable aspect, so there are many people in the field who would state that the brain is a biological approximation of this class of machinery. It is ironic that so-called "neural networks" in computer science are essentially a failed model of universal computation, but a class of mathematically-derived machinery which claims no heritage from biology appears to be the correct analog.

[PatrickHenry]

did anyone mention that Darwin disproved his own theory?

Please don't forget that we're waiting for you to provide a reference or a link to some information on this point.

[Jael]

You folks ought to come over to The Neverending Story and give some lessons! THis is an interesting thread. :-)

[js1138]

...so-called "neural networks" in computer science are essentially a failed model of universal computation, but a class of mathematically-derived machinery which claims no heritage from biology appears to be the correct analog.

I'm really trying to follow this, but it appears that something is missing from the sentence structure. Are neural networks the correct analog, and if so, how are they "failed".

[js1138]

Next stop, 6000.

[f.Christian]

To: gore3000

Couple of true stories - - - interpretations !

"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before the swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." Matthew 7:12


A friends cousin lives next to a poodle 'farm' and the owner was having a problem with the neighborhood dogs raiding the poodle houses // igloos for food. Well the guy heard a ruckus and when he looked in the the dog house . . . a full grown boar came out and smashed // broke - - - his face // nose !

The next one is not so nice !

My best friend . . . 'kahuna' - - - went home to visit his family // friends in Samoa and came back with this story...

His best friend went out to work in his taro patch and when he arrived he found a full grown boar hopelessly with his leg caught in wire fence there protecting his garden. He went over with his machete and when he got next . . .

this is easy to figure out because facing extinction - - - the wire and its leg didn't matter anymore - - -

the boar got loose enough to shred his stomach and the friend came home with the boar and vegetables over his shoulder but the loss of blood was so great he died - - - true story ! ! !

Hear is the interpretation .. .. ..

The garden is the truth and the fence is the lies the boar entangles itself in and if you try to help or kill the boar it will kill you and the closer you get . . . the more danger - - - you are in ! ! !

"For the word-TRUTH of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." Hebrews 4:12

These animals have no conscience // hope - - - DANGEROUS esp when caught in their own lies ! ! !

[tortoise]

I'm really trying to follow this, but it appears that something is missing from the sentence structure. Are neural networks the correct analog, and if so, how are they "failed".

Sorry about that, I agree that the sentence structure was ambiguous.

There is a well-known set of constructs in computer science called "neural networks" because they supposedly were based on the way neurons work in the brain. Neuron models aside, they are pretty poor models of how computation is accomplished in the brain. Neural networks have been with us for 40 years, but are slowing reaching their end in computer science. Meanwhile, in another field of mathematics a new class of models for universal computation have been discovered, some of which look suspiciously like the general structure of the brain and exhibit virtually all the computational qualities that the brain is generally known to exhibit even though they are not derived from any neural or biological models. By many estimates these new computational models are the correct ones for "brain-like" computation, and that neural networks (so named because people mistakenly thought that their biologically inspired model might be used to emulate brain-like computation) are becoming increasingly unimportant since it has long been clear that the biological model they were premised on has serious fundamental flaws.

So there is a small nomenclature wreck where computing models named after the biological brain because that is what they were supposedly modeled after have turned out to advertise more than they deliver. Recent mathematically derived models which have no relation to biology whatsoever map very close to brain-like computers, and far closer than anything else to date (including neural networks).

[gore3000]

As I recall, Gore3000 has posted it on other threads,

I do not think I posted anything where Darwin himself refuted the theory of evolution. However I have posted quite a few on lots of things that disprove it. The fullest is Evidence Disproving Evolution .

[js1138]

So is this new computational model classified, or too complex to describe to mere laymen?

[Alamo-Girl]

Er, perhaps music v radio would be a more useful analogy than software v hardware?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for the kudos and encouragements! I'm glad this thread is helpful. I'll take a peek at the Neverending thread to see what y'all are up to over there. Hugs!!!

[PatrickHenry]

End-of-session placemarker.