Evolutionary Thoery is about as useful as an art museum

[MarkDuffy]

The reason the Creation vs. Evolution debate can't be resolved is because there's no practical consequence to believing either, no matter how much some Evolutionists idiotically insist that you can't do, or even wouldn't want to do, science without believing Evolution.

Evolutionary computation - Wikipedia Just because people like you don't believe in it, doesn't mean the scientists don't. And they do use evolution for practical purposes. Can Creationism claim the same? And btw not believing in evolution means you have to not believe in genetics, biology, math, chemistry, physics, archaeology, anthropology and geology. Every one of these sciences can proof evolution.

That is an example of Computer Science being used by Evolutionary scientists, not the other way around. Evolutionary theory is not being used to advance computer technology. Again, I am not disputing the legitimacy of evolutionary theory and when I say theory I am not trying to disparage it as "only a theory". This is neither a criticism of the legitimacy of evolutionary theory nor an endorsement of creationism. In the end, technology is all that matters and I do not see how evolutionary theory is significantly contributing to the Military Industrial complex, i.e. the crowning achievement of humanity.

I was wondering where you had gone.

Thankx for confirming my very first scientific conclusion from the OP.

This is a joke thread

 

[Uncensored2008]

I am not a Creationist or even a Christian. I simply don't see the importance of studying Evolution. There are a lot of things people find interesting. Heck, some people find impressionist paintings interesting. That doesn't make them useful. I can not fathom any purpose of math and science other than to serve as a foundation for technological innovation. I do not see how Evolution is contributing much in terms of better cars, planes, computers, firearms, bombs, rockets, etc.

Not one penny of taxpayer money should go towards art, music, or other non-productive fields. I have never bought a painting or a music album. I am not missing out on anything. Most music annoys me and realism is the only legitimate form of art.

Of course, evolutionary science is not a detriment to society like the arts and humanities are. If we got rid of the arts and humanities, we would all be better off. They are poisonous to us as a species. For example, we spend huge amounts of money researching and trying to treat people with psychological illnesses when simply rounding them up and institutionalizing them into concentrated populations is actually much more effective at protecting society at a lower cost.

Evolution is the foundation of all of biology, which itself is the foundation of all of medicine. Most crusty old people complaining that "evolution is useless" would have been dead long ago, if not for evolutionary theory. That's a fact.

No, it is not.

Evolution has almost nothing to do with biology.

LOL

Would you rather we put it into physics or chemistry texts?

I'd rather education be privatized completely.

You would and have avoided anything past the most elementary education quite successfully. That is completely evident from your posts.

I have a Ph.D., shit fer brains.

You watch MSLSD and think that makes your 3rd grade education superior.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I am not a Creationist or even a Christian. I simply don't see the importance of studying Evolution. There are a lot of things people find interesting. Heck, some people find impressionist paintings interesting. That doesn't make them useful. I can not fathom any purpose of math and science other than to serve as a foundation for technological innovation. I do not see how Evolution is contributing much in terms of better cars, planes, computers, firearms, bombs, rockets, etc.

Not one penny of taxpayer money should go towards art, music, or other non-productive fields. I have never bought a painting or a music album. I am not missing out on anything. Most music annoys me and realism is the only legitimate form of art.

Of course, evolutionary science is not a detriment to society like the arts and humanities are. If we got rid of the arts and humanities, we would all be better off. They are poisonous to us as a species. For example, we spend huge amounts of money researching and trying to treat people with psychological illnesses when simply rounding them up and institutionalizing them into concentrated populations is actually much more effective at protecting society at a lower cost.

Evolution is the foundation of all of biology, which itself is the foundation of all of medicine. Most crusty old people complaining that "evolution is useless" would have been dead long ago, if not for evolutionary theory. That's a fact.

No, it is not.

Evolution has almost nothing to do with biology.

LOL

Would you rather we put it into physics or chemistry texts?

I'd rather education be privatized completely.

WTF? Do you always suffer from tourettes?

First you post evolution is fact and then it is not biology. Now Privatization?

Reality confuses you? You must be a Communist....

Three facts;

Evolution is a proven fact.
Evolution has nothing to do with biology per se
Education should be privatized

What part can you not grasp?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Education was privatized early in this nations history. Only the rich could afford to hire a tutor to teach their children. But people in townships banded together and all paid a certain amount so a teacher could teach all their children. Socialism on the small scale. But as the demands of industry increased for better educated workers, counties and states became involved. And as we realized that, as a nation, we needed many highly educated people, the Federal Government became involved. Were we to try to go back to privatized education, we would soon be competing with Uganda, rather than the EU.

That is not socialism, stupid.

Socialism is the government controlling the means of production. Cooperative schools are the opposite of socialism.

Ignorance is the foundation of leftism. You and your fellow dolts are Communists precisely because you are ignorant and lack any actual education.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I am not a Creationist or even a Christian. I simply don't see the importance of studying Evolution. There are a lot of things people find interesting. Heck, some people find impressionist paintings interesting. That doesn't make them useful. I can not fathom any purpose of math and science other than to serve as a foundation for technological innovation. I do not see how Evolution is contributing much in terms of better cars, planes, computers, firearms, bombs, rockets, etc.

Not one penny of taxpayer money should go towards art, music, or other non-productive fields. I have never bought a painting or a music album. I am not missing out on anything. Most music annoys me and realism is the only legitimate form of art.

Of course, evolutionary science is not a detriment to society like the arts and humanities are. If we got rid of the arts and humanities, we would all be better off. They are poisonous to us as a species. For example, we spend huge amounts of money researching and trying to treat people with psychological illnesses when simply rounding them up and institutionalizing them into concentrated populations is actually much more effective at protecting society at a lower cost.

That is just soooooooooooooo incredibly ignorant.

Evolution is everywhere. Evolution of a storm. Evolution of the economy. Evolution of an illness. And on and on.

Evolution of the solar system.

Evolution of the planet.

When scientists make disease resistant plants, it's forced evolution.

It's everywhere. Why would it be everywhere, and yet, people just popped into existence? That's stupid.

Good god but you're fucking stupid.

No wonder you're a leftist pile of shit.

Evolution of a storm has to do with the progression of a species to a more effective organism?

You have no idea what evolution means, you repeat at rote what you think the party wants you to say.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
To be fair, the best IDers (and this is actually most) believe in all of evolution, but man is special creation. The only reason for God is to specifically create US.

Darwin's On the origin of species was universally accepted. It was his Decent of Man that started the war on science.

Why do you make shit up? If facts are sufficient to defeat ignorance, why do you fabricate tales that have utterly no bearing in reality?

The war on science is perpetrated by ignorant fools who believe that "consensus" to dogma is the basis of science rather than diligent research and falsification of hypothesis.

Have any of you Communists actually finished elementary school? Clearly not.

 

[forkup]

So computer scientists say they base something on the theory of evolution, but you are 100 percent confident it doesn't support it? A strong claim that is claiming the exact opposite of those who use it. This, of course is the problem with discussing something with a creationist. You feel that your faith has the same power as facts.

You have to do more than slap a label "evolution" onto an algorithm to show there's practical value in the Theory of Evolution.

The Wikipedia article on Evolutionary Computation says it's "a family of algorithms for global optimization." Optimization is not Evolution. Optimization adjusts variables. Evolution requires indefinite additions of practical novelty. Even if Evolutionary Computation could create novelty, it's your job to demonstrate it, which hasn't been done.

The trouble with discussing something with an Evolutionist is they believe their faith is the same as facts.

I don't slap any label on anything. The people who developed Evolutionary computation put the label on it. They did it because THEY developed it based on the biological theory of evolution. MIT Press Journals. It has practical applications and gets consistent results Evolutionary Computation in Practice
So since you will feel almost certainly, that you know better then people at MIT. Feel free to dispute, real world results with faith.
-One last thing, explain why after all the proof science has given, the burden of proof is still completely on the scientific community? You know its like having a puzzle consisting of 10000 pieces and we (evolutionists) have 9999 pieces in place showing a clear picture of a canary. While you (creationists) claim since there is 1 piece missing the picture is just as likely that of an elephant.

 

[forkup]

The reason the Creation vs. Evolution debate can't be resolved is because there's no practical consequence to believing either, no matter how much some Evolutionists idiotically insist that you can't do, or even wouldn't want to do, science without believing Evolution.

Evolutionary computation - Wikipedia Just because people like you don't believe in it, doesn't mean the scientists don't. And they do use evolution for practical purposes. Can Creationism claim the same? And btw not believing in evolution means you have to not believe in genetics, biology, math, chemistry, physics, archaeology, anthropology and geology. Every one of these sciences can proof evolution.

That is an example of Computer Science being used by Evolutionary scientists, not the other way around. Evolutionary theory is not being used to advance computer technology. Again, I am not disputing the legitimacy of evolutionary theory and when I say theory I am not trying to disparage it as "only a theory". This is neither a criticism of the legitimacy of evolutionary theory nor an endorsement of creationism. In the end, technology is all that matters and I do not see how evolutionary theory is significantly contributing to the Military Industrial complex, i.e. the crowning achievement of humanity.

MIT Press Journals I didn't realise MIT is known for it's evolutionary scientists.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Evolution is the foundation of all of biology, which itself is the foundation of all of medicine. Most crusty old people complaining that "evolution is useless" would have been dead long ago, if not for evolutionary theory. That's a fact.

No, it is not.

Evolution has almost nothing to do with biology.

LOL

Would you rather we put it into physics or chemistry texts?

I'd rather education be privatized completely.

WTF? Do you always suffer from tourettes?

First you post evolution is fact and then it is not biology. Now Privatization?

Reality confuses you? You must be a Communist....

Three facts;

Evolution is a proven fact.
Evolution has nothing to do with biology per se
Education should be privatized

What part can you not grasp?

I accept your surrender

 

[deanrd]

I am not a Creationist or even a Christian. I simply don't see the importance of studying Evolution. There are a lot of things people find interesting. Heck, some people find impressionist paintings interesting. That doesn't make them useful. I can not fathom any purpose of math and science other than to serve as a foundation for technological innovation. I do not see how Evolution is contributing much in terms of better cars, planes, computers, firearms, bombs, rockets, etc.

Not one penny of taxpayer money should go towards art, music, or other non-productive fields. I have never bought a painting or a music album. I am not missing out on anything. Most music annoys me and realism is the only legitimate form of art.

Of course, evolutionary science is not a detriment to society like the arts and humanities are. If we got rid of the arts and humanities, we would all be better off. They are poisonous to us as a species. For example, we spend huge amounts of money researching and trying to treat people with psychological illnesses when simply rounding them up and institutionalizing them into concentrated populations is actually much more effective at protecting society at a lower cost.

That is just soooooooooooooo incredibly ignorant.

Evolution is everywhere. Evolution of a storm. Evolution of the economy. Evolution of an illness. And on and on.

Evolution of the solar system.

Evolution of the planet.

When scientists make disease resistant plants, it's forced evolution.

It's everywhere. Why would it be everywhere, and yet, people just popped into existence? That's stupid.

To be fair, the best IDers (and this is actually most) believe in all of evolution, but man is special creation. The only reason for God is to specifically create US.

Darwin's On the origin of species was universally accepted. It was his Decent of Man that started the war on science.

Man is "special"?

Yeah we are. No argument there.

Not all men. Look at let him die and feed the poor and they will breed and Alt Right conservatives. They're monsters.

 

[Old Rocks]

I am not a Creationist or even a Christian. I simply don't see the importance of studying Evolution. There are a lot of things people find interesting. Heck, some people find impressionist paintings interesting. That doesn't make them useful. I can not fathom any purpose of math and science other than to serve as a foundation for technological innovation. I do not see how Evolution is contributing much in terms of better cars, planes, computers, firearms, bombs, rockets, etc.

Not one penny of taxpayer money should go towards art, music, or other non-productive fields. I have never bought a painting or a music album. I am not missing out on anything. Most music annoys me and realism is the only legitimate form of art.

Of course, evolutionary science is not a detriment to society like the arts and humanities are. If we got rid of the arts and humanities, we would all be better off. They are poisonous to us as a species. For example, we spend huge amounts of money researching and trying to treat people with psychological illnesses when simply rounding them up and institutionalizing them into concentrated populations is actually much more effective at protecting society at a lower cost.

That is just soooooooooooooo incredibly ignorant.

Evolution is everywhere. Evolution of a storm. Evolution of the economy. Evolution of an illness. And on and on.

Evolution of the solar system.

Evolution of the planet.

When scientists make disease resistant plants, it's forced evolution.

It's everywhere. Why would it be everywhere, and yet, people just popped into existence? That's stupid.

Good god but you're fucking stupid.

No wonder you're a leftist pile of shit.

Evolution of a storm has to do with the progression of a species to a more effective organism?

You have no idea what evolution means, you repeat at rote what you think the party wants you to say.

LOL. OK, Mr. Phd, here is the definition of evolution;

Definition of EVOLUTION

Definition of evolution
ne of a set of prescribed movements
2a :a process of change in a certain direction :unfolding
b :the action or an instance of forming and giving something off :emission
1
d :something evolved
:the process of working out or developing
4a :descent with modification from preexisting species :cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms :the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations

• Evolution is a process of continuous branching and diversification from common trunks. This pattern of irreversible separation gives life's history its basic directionality.
• —Stephen Jay Gould

; also :the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization)

• Since 1950, developments in molecular biology have had a growing influence on the theory of evolution.
• —Nature

• In Darwinian evolution, the basic mechanism is genetic mutation, followed by selection of the organisms most likely to survive.
• —Pamela Weintraub

b :the historical development of a biological group (such as a race or species) :phylogeny
:the extraction of a mathematical root
:a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

Yes, storms evolve, as do societies, and many other things that change over time.

 

[MarkDuffy]

I am not a Creationist or even a Christian. I simply don't see the importance of studying Evolution. There are a lot of things people find interesting. Heck, some people find impressionist paintings interesting. That doesn't make them useful. I can not fathom any purpose of math and science other than to serve as a foundation for technological innovation. I do not see how Evolution is contributing much in terms of better cars, planes, computers, firearms, bombs, rockets, etc.

Not one penny of taxpayer money should go towards art, music, or other non-productive fields. I have never bought a painting or a music album. I am not missing out on anything. Most music annoys me and realism is the only legitimate form of art.

Of course, evolutionary science is not a detriment to society like the arts and humanities are. If we got rid of the arts and humanities, we would all be better off. They are poisonous to us as a species. For example, we spend huge amounts of money researching and trying to treat people with psychological illnesses when simply rounding them up and institutionalizing them into concentrated populations is actually much more effective at protecting society at a lower cost.

That is just soooooooooooooo incredibly ignorant.

Evolution is everywhere. Evolution of a storm. Evolution of the economy. Evolution of an illness. And on and on.

Evolution of the solar system.

Evolution of the planet.

When scientists make disease resistant plants, it's forced evolution.

It's everywhere. Why would it be everywhere, and yet, people just popped into existence? That's stupid.

Good god but you're fucking stupid.

No wonder you're a leftist pile of shit.

Evolution of a storm has to do with the progression of a species to a more effective organism?

You have no idea what evolution means, you repeat at rote what you think the party wants you to say.

LOL. OK, Mr. Phd, here is the definition of evolution;

Definition of EVOLUTION

Definition of evolution
ne of a set of prescribed movements
2a :a process of change in a certain direction :unfolding
b :the action or an instance of forming and giving something off :emission
1
d :something evolved
:the process of working out or developing
4a :descent with modification from preexisting species :cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms :the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations

• Evolution is a process of continuous branching and diversification from common trunks. This pattern of irreversible separation gives life's history its basic directionality.
• —Stephen Jay Gould

; also :the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization)

• Since 1950, developments in molecular biology have had a growing influence on the theory of evolution.
• —Nature

• In Darwinian evolution, the basic mechanism is genetic mutation, followed by selection of the organisms most likely to survive.
• —Pamela Weintraub

b :the historical development of a biological group (such as a race or species) :phylogeny
:the extraction of a mathematical root
:a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

Yes, storms evolve, as do societies, and many other things that change over time.

Still laughing. He is in the corner with nothing to say.

He could, however, qualify it to biological evolution, but he would have to admit evolution was biology.

LOL

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I am not a Creationist or even a Christian. I simply don't see the importance of studying Evolution. There are a lot of things people find interesting. Heck, some people find impressionist paintings interesting. That doesn't make them useful. I can not fathom any purpose of math and science other than to serve as a foundation for technological innovation. I do not see how Evolution is contributing much in terms of better cars, planes, computers, firearms, bombs, rockets, etc.

Not one penny of taxpayer money should go towards art, music, or other non-productive fields. I have never bought a painting or a music album. I am not missing out on anything. Most music annoys me and realism is the only legitimate form of art.

Of course, evolutionary science is not a detriment to society like the arts and humanities are. If we got rid of the arts and humanities, we would all be better off. They are poisonous to us as a species. For example, we spend huge amounts of money researching and trying to treat people with psychological illnesses when simply rounding them up and institutionalizing them into concentrated populations is actually much more effective at protecting society at a lower cost.

Evolution is the foundation of all of biology, which itself is the foundation of all of medicine. Most crusty old people complaining that "evolution is useless" would have been dead long ago, if not for evolutionary theory. That's a fact.

No, it is not.

Evolution has almost nothing to do with biology.

Haha....I see we got us a reeeeeal expert, here...

 

[BulletProof]

In mathematics, there were whole branches created before they had any known use. And now are considered indispensible.

Math is logically true, whether useful or not. And, on one is obligated to believe math that hasn't been found useful. Evolution is useless. And, the embarrassingly pathetic posts in this thread defending Evolution demonstrate the inability of its believers to identify a use for it.

If Evolution predicted genetics, maybe it would have been useful. But, on the contrary, Mendel, who discovered genes, had his findings ignored by the Evolutionist community during his life because genes explained the variation Darwin observed without offering any potential, per se, for Evolution. Evolutionists rejected scientific findings because they wanted something that offered unlimited variation.

Why was Mendel's Work Ignored? on JSTOR

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In mathematics, there were whole branches created before they had any known use. And now are considered indispensible.

Math is logically true, whether useful or not. And, on one is obligated to believe math that hasn't been found useful. Evolution is useless. And, the embarrassingly pathetic posts in this thread defending Evolution demonstrate the inability of its believers to identify a use for it.

If Evolution predicted genetics, maybe it would have been useful. But, on the contrary, Mendel, who discovered genes, had his findings ignored by the Evolutionist community during his life because genes explained the variation Darwin observed without offering any potential, per se, for Evolution. Evolutionists rejected scientific findings because they wanted something that offered unlimited variation.

Why was Mendel's Work Ignored? on JSTOR

Oh my, what a laughable pile of shit that was

 

[BulletProof]

Oh my, what a laughable pile of shit that was

If it were a pile of sh1t, you would feel right at home in it.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Initial reception of Mendel's work
Mendel presented his paper, "Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden" ("Experiments on Plant Hybridization"), at two meetings of the Natural History Society of Brno in Moravia on 8 February and 8 March 1865.[22] It generated a few favorable reports in local newspapers,[23] but was ignored by the scientific community. When Mendel's paper was published in 1866 in Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereins Brünn,[24] it was seen as essentially about hybridization rather than inheritance, had little impact, and was only cited about three times over the next thirty-five years. His paper was criticized at the time, but is now considered a seminal work.[25] Notably, Charles Darwin was unaware of Mendel's paper, and it is envisaged that if he had, genetics as we know it now might have taken hold much earlier.[26][27] Mendel's scientific biography thus provides one more example of the failure of obscure, highly-original, innovators to receive the attention they deserve.[28]

Rediscovery of Mendel's work
It would appear that the forty odd scientists who listened to Mendel's two path-breaking lectures failed to understand his work. Later, he also carried a correspondence with Carl Naegeli, one of the leading biologists of the time, but Naegli too failed to appreciate Mendel's discoveries. At times, Mendel must have entertained doubts about his work, but not always: "My time will come," he reportedly told a friend.[8]

During Mendel's own lifetime, most biologists held the idea that all characteristics were passed to the next generation through blending inheritance, in which the traits from each parent are averaged. Instances of this phenomenon are now explained by the action of multiple genes with quantitative effects. Charles Darwin tried unsuccessfully to explain inheritance through a theory of pangenesis. It was not until the early twentieth century that the importance of Mendel's ideas was realized.

By 1900, research aimed at finding a successful theory of discontinuous inheritance rather than blending inheritance led to independent duplication of his work by Hugo de Vries and Carl Correns, and the rediscovery of Mendel's writings and laws. Both acknowledged Mendel's priority, and it is thought probable that de Vries did not understand the results he had found until after reading Mendel.[5] Though Erich von Tschermak was originally also credited with rediscovery, this is no longer accepted because he did not understand Mendel's laws.[37] Though de Vries later lost interest in Mendelism, other biologists started to establish modern genetics as a science.[5] All three of these researchers, each from a different country, published their rediscovery of Mendel's work within a two-month span in the Spring of 1900.[38]

Gregor Mendel - Wikipedia

The shortcomings of the blending inheritance model were not completely lost to every 19th century thinker, despite the predominance of this hypothesis at that time. In fact, these inadequacies made for an atmosphere in which many equally unconvincing 19th century "arm-chair" hypotheses were formulated and circulated in attempts to explain inheritance more adequately (see inheritance of acquired characters, maternal impression, telegony, preformationism, Geoffroyism, Lamarckism). Pangenesis was Charles Darwin's Lamarkian attempt to explain inheritance. But despite Darwin's misguided Lamarkian leanings, he rightly had strong doubts about the blending inheritance hypothesis, as evidenced in his private correspondence:

In a letter to T.H. Huxley, dated November 12, 1857, Darwin wrote:

"I have lately been inclined to speculate very crudely & indistinctly, that propagation by true fertilisation, will turn out to be a sort of mixture & not true fusion, of two distinct individuals, or rather of innumerable individuals, as each parent has its parents & ancestors:— I can understand on no other view the way in which crossed forms go back to so large an extent to ancestral forms."[2]

In a letter to Alfred Wallace, dated February 6, 1866, Darwin mentioned conducting hybridization experiments with pea plants that were not unlike those done by Gregor Mendel:

"... I do not think you understand what I mean by the non-blending of certain varieties. It does not refer to fertility; an instance I will explain. I crossed the Painted Lady and Purple sweetpeas, which are very differently coloured varieties, and got, even out of the same pod, both varieties perfect but not intermediate. Something of this kind I should think must occur at least with your butterflies & the three forms of Lythrum; tho’ those cases are in appearance so wonderful. I do not know that they are really more so than every female in the world producing distinct male and female offspring..."[3]

Blending inheritance leads to the averaging out of every characteristic, which as the engineer Fleeming Jenkinpointed out, makes evolution by natural selection impossible.
Moreover, Darwin's reservations regarding blending inheritance were further reinforced by the inherent conflict this hypothesis had with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, published in his seminal work On the Origin of Species (1859). This incompatibility was best summarized by Fleeming Jenkin in his critique entitled "Review of 'The origin of species'" published in The North British Review, June 1867.[4] As a staunch defender of blending inheritance, Fleming attempted to criticize Darwin's proposed process of natural selection, a very slow and gradual process, by noting that any favorable trait that might arise in a lineage would have "blended away" (via blending inheritance) long before natural selection had time to work.

Blending inheritance - Wikipedia