The simple brilliance of Darwin's revelation

[zaangalewa]

In fact, you know nothing.

Colin norris - Do you really think you are the sailor who is able to travel in most far parts of the nearly endless universe and to find there something when you are not even able to find what's in front of your eyes here on our planet?

You've diverted because Dawkins gave irrefutable proof of evolution which can be repeated.

I do not discuss this totally idiotic English discussion "creation vs evolution" and Richard Dawkins is in my eyes an idiot with an extremly bad behavior. But why should a nobel price winner in biology not be able to be an uneducated extremistic atheistic sectarian who seems not able to accept anything else than the own selfishness?

I don't care if you can give Chinese sign language in reverse.

What if aliens speak Chanese? What if they are Catholics? What about if they dance the CanCan? ...

Evolution is fact and no amount of denial or God or religious threats will change that.

Did you ever notice what I said about evolution or do you notice only this what your drugs tell your brain before it will become psychotic?

The human race had been conned by fraudulent charlatans who preyed on feeble minded fools like you.

Says a fraudulent charlatan who believes in the own lies?

 

[Mac-7]

The simple brilliance of Darwin's revelation

This revelation was natural selection. Evolution appeared, to Darwin, to be a fact that explained the existence of every organism on the planet. And a mechanism to explain this fact was proposed by Darwin: natural selection. But how did Darwin puzzle this out?

By the simple brilliance of recognizing "survivorship bias". Survivorship bias causes us to miss the forest for the trees.

My favorite illustration of this -- for its simplicity -- is Abraham Wald's (who coined the term "survivorship") analysis of how best to armor our bombers during WW II. He was presented with the following information, which shows where returning bombers were hit by enemy strikes:

View attachment 548978
Without recognizing survivorship bias, one might think that the (limited resource, have to conserve weight) armor should be increased in the spots where the bullet holes are concentrated. This would seem to be where most bullet strikes occur, per the data. So more armor should be spent in those places, right?

No. One would better spend the armor on the places where returning planes show fewer strikes. Why? Because the bombers that were hit in those areas did not make it back. They splashed.

Darwin's revelation of natural selection owes itself to the same turn of thought. The other models that are not observed? They died off, and the more successful models propagated instead. That being the case, selection bias would greatly influence what we observe today.

Darwin's answer to the cause of that bias was the brilliant idea of natural selection.

Evolution does not explain Creation except as the Dumb Luck theory of how we got here

There is obviously intelligent design at work also

 

[zaangalewa]

Our species was not in existence a billion years ago.

As far as I know not any multi-cellular organism was existing a billion years ago. But something was existing what leaded to this what we are now. So we were existing for sure as a concrete possibility of the future of our universe a billion years ago. Now we know which possibility became real - but we don't know anything about any other possibility which not became real. History knows not experiments - what on the other side also means the methods of natural science are not fully compatible with history.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

By the way - if I would be an alien on my own then I would also not know what in your way "to discuss" could had been "useful" and I also would not give a damn for the survival of this weird species who's calling oneself "homo sapiens sapiens"

Well, maybe that's a comment on YOUR morality and ethics. Even in the "pathetic" human race (as you apparently see it), we have figured out how to care about, sympathize with, and even empathize with other animals (apes, horses, dogs).

You seem so certain that an advanced race would view us the way we view insects. But this race would recognize a degree of sentience and empathy in our species, just as we recognize it in apes and horses and dogs (but less so in insects). Why would such an advanced race automatically be cruel? Maybe this is a projection of your own view of the human race and how YOU would act, if you had dominion over humans.

Maybe this even reflects your beliefs in a cruel and vain god, whom you see as having dominion over humans. So naturally you would assume the same cruelty and vanity of any "higher being".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evolution does not explain Creation except as the Dumb Luck theory of how we got here

Neither does electromagnetic theory, or game theory. These things are not meant to and don't attempt to explain creation.

There is obviously intelligent design at work also

It seems obvious that there is not. Else, for example, we would not have spent 200,000 years living in agony and dying at age 30 from our teeth. We had to engineer our own ways not to live a life of suffering and toil. Maybe...."unintelligent, negligent design" would be more appropriate, when referring to the mythical god character's hand in evolution.

 

[Mac-7]

Seems obvious that there is not. Else we would not have spent 200,000 years living in agony and dying at age 30 from our teeth. We had to engineer our own ways not to live a life of suffering and toil. Maybe...."unintelligent, negligent design" would be more appropriate, when referring to the mythical god character's hand in evolution.

Unless you have created living world’s dont question the one who has

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Unless you have created living world’s dont question the one who has

Unless you have talked to god and can prove that insane nonsense to me, don't pretend to speak for mythical god characters. Perhaps your preferred god is not as vain, cruel, and insecure as you think she is and does not mind being questioned.

 

[james bond]

Neither does electromagnetic theory, or game theory. These things are not meant to and don't attempt to explain creation.

Creation of living organisms from non-life is by the supernatural. Humans, the most intelligent beings on the planet, can't create life from non-life. Miller-Urey didn't work exactly. It didn't produce the right stuff to form a single-cell.

 

[Mac-7]

Unless you have talked to god and can prove that insane nonsense to me,

I have no interest in proving anything to you

Your future does not interest me

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I have no interest in proving anything to you

Well that's good, since you have zero evidence. How frustrating it would be for you if you DID care about convincing rational adults of your magical beliefs, given that you have no evidence. So your current stance is probably best for your peace of mind.

 

[Mac-7]

Well that's good, since you have zero evidence.

I dont need evidence because I dont care if you believe it or not

The Age of Evangelism is over for you

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I dont need evidence because I dont care if you believe it or not

You don't need evidence because you believe things without evidence. That's what faith is. It's not a virtue, or something to be respected. Belief without evidence is childish and anti-intellectual.

 

[Mac-7]

You don't need evidence because you believe things without evidence.

Why do you care?

You have no faith and I do

I think many libs like you are insecure in their lack of belief

 

[Anomalism]

Belief without evidence is childish and anti-intellectual.

I agree. Atheists are childish and anti-intellectual because they believe something without having evidence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why do you care?

You have no faith and I do

I think many libs like you are insecure in their lack of belief

Did i come to you? Who came to a science thread talking about creationism?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I agree. Atheists are childish and anti-intellectual because they believe something without having evidence.

Oops, sorry, that is stupid and wrong and an old, failed canard by faithers who, having no intelligent way of elevating their own childish faith, can only try to drag other ideas down into the murk with them.

 

[Anomalism]

Oops, sorry, that is stupid and wrong and an old, failed canard by faithers who, having no intelligent way of elevating their own childish faith, can only try to drag other ideas down into the murk with them.

It's true. The basic concept of theism has just as much evidence to support it as atheism does, which is none. Atheists in many ways are even louder and more obnoxious with their faith than theists in my experience. You can swim da Nile all you want, but that's all it is my friend. It's your arrogance that prevents you from seeing all of the ways you're similar to the people you're criticizing.

 

[ding]

The simple brilliance of Darwin's revelation

This revelation was natural selection. Evolution appeared, to Darwin, to be a fact that explained the existence of every organism on the planet. And a mechanism to explain this fact was proposed by Darwin: natural selection. But how did Darwin puzzle this out?

By the simple brilliance of recognizing "survivorship bias". Survivorship bias causes us to miss the forest for the trees.

My favorite illustration of this -- for its simplicity -- is Abraham Wald's (who coined the term "survivorship") analysis of how best to armor our bombers during WW II. He was presented with the following information, which shows where returning bombers were hit by enemy strikes:

View attachment 548978
Without recognizing survivorship bias, one might think that the (limited resource, have to conserve weight) armor should be increased in the spots where the bullet holes are concentrated. This would seem to be where most bullet strikes occur, per the data. So more armor should be spent in those places, right?

No. One would better spend the armor on the places where returning planes show fewer strikes. Why? Because the bombers that were hit in those areas did not make it back. They splashed.

Darwin's revelation of natural selection owes itself to the same turn of thought. The other models that are not observed? They died off, and the more successful models propagated instead. That being the case, selection bias would greatly influence what we observe today.

Darwin's answer to the cause of that bias was the brilliant idea of natural selection.

So according to Darwinism, religion offers functional advantages over atheism?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The basic concept of theism has just as much evidence to support it as atheism does, which is none.

You are referring to the special case: gnostic atheism. Really, atheism in general is just not accepting a belief in gods. In that case, no, there is no claim that needs to be supported by evidence or argument. Just lack of a belief.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So according to Darwinism, religion offers functional advantages over atheism?

If that is your opinion, you are entitled to it. I would not agree on theism. But I can see some ways adopting magical belief in anthropomorphic gods may have been an advantage to early humans living a subsistence existence.