Charles Darwin Knew: Science and Freedom

BreakPoint with Charles Colson | 1 Mar 04 | Charles Colson

[VadeRetro]

To hone your debating skills?

I worry that some people might actually be taken in with some of this Risible stuff. I should relax and let survival of the fittest happen.

[Elsie]

They live and pass on their genes.

Therefore, Jachass the Movie is a Evolutionary force that will, in the long run, improve the minds of humns.

[VadeRetro]

At any given time, in some specific population, it is selecting weakerer, or dumberer, or slower, or less armored, or more randomly being grabbed as a shark's meal.

Actually, that's false. The "true" lawyerly reposte would be that at any given time, somwhere, somehow stronger is not being selected (because smarter or faster is), or smarter is not being selected (because armored is), or faster is not being selected (because some other specialization is the key), etc. At least, I can think of no likely positive advantage in genuine incapacity.

[Elsie]

My flip    Your flip   Results

  Heads      Heads       Same

  Heads      Tails       Different

  Tails      Heads       Different

  Tails      Tails       Same

 

 

You get to guess either S or D, and there is an even chance you'll be right or wrong.  Just HOW is this 'computer' supposed to be able to do this any better than a human?

[Elsie]

;^)

[Elsie]

I just had a strange thought.... (Quit it! They're not ALL strange!)

I wonder if "C" believing parents have more or less children the "E" believing ones.........

[VadeRetro]

I wonder if "C" believing parents have more or less children the "E" believing ones.........

Yes, unless it's the same. (Time for beddy-bye in the East.)

[Elsie]

Kinda like the bumper sticker that states...

"I smoke and I vote!"

---

I've wanted to have some small stickers of my own, to place next to their's that says...

I DON'T smoke, so, on average, I'll live longer than you and therefore vote more often!"

[Elsie]

It's a little past 11 here in flyover country, so I should be off to snooze myself. See you guys tomorrow....

[RightWingNilla]

bedtime placemarker

[Doctor Stochastic]

There are places where you can bet on these things.

[Doctor Stochastic]

In my day, the Central Limit Theorem was the only real element of statistics.

That's why it's called Central. Just as important is the Glivenko-Cantelli Theorem which says that with probability one, the sample distribution converges to the underlying distribution.

[general_re]

Simply say how my summary of certain hypotheses of evolutionists are inaccurate. You made the assertion.

Err, no - you don't get to shift the burden of proof like that. You have the task of showing that your implicit assertion - that your summary was somehow accurate - is in fact true. Support is your job here, not mine.

Why did you suspect that I invented this notion of things jumping from trees eventually growing wings and flying away?

Why do I say you "invented" it? Because your "summary" bears precious little resemblance to the thing you are ostensibly summarizing. But why stop there? Let's just imagine another inventive scenario, so long as we're holding a creative writing workshop:

"Once upon a time a population of fish that were mammalian ancestors threw themselves onto the land enough times, killing themselves, that they eventually grew legs, the mammalian lung, the mammalian heart, etc.etc..... and walked away."

But of course, that's absurd. Nobody argues such a thing, although it's easy to see why you choose to attack this sort of strawman.

Creatures don't "evolve" by doing things that result in death until they suddenly and magically "evolve" the thing they need in order to survive their previous death sentence. You don't evolve lungs by jumping on to land any more than you evolve wings by jumping out of trees. And nobody - except you, apparently - thinks otherwise. It is an inane scenario you present - you're right about that much. Fortunately, the theory of evolution is in no danger from your "refutation" of it, since no serious student of the theory claims that it works in the manner you present.

Congratulations. Instead of attacking the theory of evolution, you've successfully torched my buddy here:

I hesitate to guess what your next trick will be.

There is a universal sense that all is not as it should be. This statement is self evident and evident in the self.

Which is shorthand for "I'm not going to bother supporting my assertions," apparently.

Also anyone with any common sense also believes in the basic categorical discriminations of civilization and ought to be concerned with the impact of "descriptive" mythological narratives that go against civilization.

"Anyone with common sense agrees with me" is merely a cheap rhetorical trick, devoid of any substance at all. You will, of course, pardon me if I suggest that a pattern is emerging here.

Especially when such narratives are made up to suit a conclusion that's already been decided on a priori.

Specific cases of same being left entirely up to the reader's imagination, I guess. You clearly have the gift of speaking at length without really saying anything of substance - I predict that a long and fruitful career in politics is yours for the taking, if you wish it.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Well, with a real coin, the computer can probably compute the bias faster than most people. If you just have a person say "heads" or "tails," the computer can pick up bias easily. Against a "truly fair coin" (should one exist), both humans and the computer can do no better than 50%.

[Virginia-American]

[id predictions]

One trouble with all of these is that you "didn't show your work" - how do you get from some hypothesis of the so-called "theory" of ID to the specific prediction.

Remember, if you postulate a suffficiently-powerful designer, anything goes.

· Transposable LINE-1 (junk) actually serves a purpose.

This may actually be testable. It would be surprising, but certainly wouldn't be incompatable with standard biology.

· Functional parts will be reused in unrelated species.

It is already known that, occasionally, a virus can copy a gene from one organism to an "unrelated" one. So, presumably you mean something more here. Standard biology predicts that there will never be evidence for a transitional between, say, mammals and birds. No bird with mammalian hair (it is possible for feathers to resemble hair, eg kiwis) or hearts, no feathered mammals or mammals with gizzards, etc etc. Are you seriously predicting things like that will one day be found!?

· Intelligent and purposeful information will be found in DNA (encoded information).

You mean like the digits of pi, or a copyright notice? This "prediction" sounds a bit like a psychic's predictions - it's so vague that a lot of things could be retrofitted to it.

· Mindlessness cannot create consciousness.

This is already known to be false - see, for example, Calvin's Throwing Madonna. This gives a step-by-step progression from ape to human brains. So the "cannot" is not true. What I think you're trying to say is that we're just soooo special that our brains just couldn't have evolved. Even if this were true, you need to prove it.

· Absolutes exist beyond mankind.

Too vague to make any sense of. What did you have in mind?

So: Out of five "predictions", two are testable (#1 and #2), and the rest are too vague to take seriously.

Let's wait until a few of these have actually been refined and then tested before we start calling ID science or a theory.

And let's be honest enough to say that if no use is found for LINE elements, and no functional parts have been found reused, and no coding is found in DNA, etc, that ID has in fact been disproved. How long do you think it will take?

[CobaltBlue]

My older son, who is studying programming, says that law is a lot of "if-then" statements. I said, yes, if-then statements with lots of looping.

Sometimes I analogize it to plumbing - if you don't put the pipes together just right, when you turn on the tap, you don't get any water. So the lawyer's job is to put all the pipe together tightly, in correct sequence.

Laypeople just know that they want water, they don't know how to lay pipe.

In real life it's actually more like putting together a Rube Goldberg device - you step on the cat's tail and she knocks over a billiard ball that starts a chain reaction that eventually tips over a bucket and water comes out. Every step of the way has to happen just so.

But if you're the one standing there expecting water, it's natural to blame the other side's lawyer - or your own - instead of realizing that somewhere along the line something was omitted.

[Elsie]

Well, with a real coin, the computer can probably compute the bias faster than most people.

Only if the DESIGN if the coin has been 3D modeled INTO the computer.

---

I'm sure that this was NOT done, only a perfect coin was simulated.

I STILL want to see this data, program, algorythm, whatever.

Way too many people see the words "a computer did it" and shut down any more logical thinking.

[Elsie]

<-- KIWI feathers up close.

 

 

from --> http://www.kiwirecovery.org.nz/Kiwi/AboutTheBird/NewZealandsIcon/KiwiCharacteristics/FeathersLikeHair.htm

---

 

This evolved to keep the kiwi safe from aerial predators that hunted using sight and sound, such as the now extinct goshawk.

 

This sure sounds like  direction (From biologists!  )

[Elsie]

This evolved to keep the kiwi safe from aerial predators that hunted using sight and sound, such as the now extinct goshawk.

HA HA!!

Sneaky little kiwi evolved so good that the poor old goshawk starved himself to death!

[Doctor Stochastic]

Only if the DESIGN if the coin has been 3D modeled INTO the computer.

Not necessary. Inferences can be made from observing outcomes, no design data is needed. To predict a coin with no worse than 50% chance, two strategies are available: first, pick the last outcome and second, pick the outcome which has dominated so far. Both are better than picking heads or tails at random.