Hi Jojo, For sake of forum, and also to avoid frustration that comes from debating with irrational people I am applying a filter to discard all messages from you.
Colin On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > Now you see the point. Natural Selection would chose the Individuals who > outsurvice others; but that choice may not be optimal for the further > propagation of the species. In fact, if a mutation causes one to > outsurvive others but causes that individual to be infertile; natural > selection would still chose that individual. Now you are beginning to see > the fallacy of Natural Selection as a mechanism of life. > > Outsurvival and Reproductive Fecundity normally does not come hand in > hand. For example, a person who have more male steriods/hormones would > grow to be physically bigger and thus would outsurvive others; but with the > increased steriod levels come the price of less reproductive fecundity. > Natural Selection would fail in this case. > > Humans are not perfect and our DNA are full of errors because of our > decline due to the curse of Sin. Humans have been declining in both > physical attributes as well as mental ability ever since. The Bible speaks > of people who can run continuously for hours and then fight continously for > a day without getting tired and without eating. We do not have those > abilities anymore. We will never see the likes of Isaac Newton, Micheal > Faraday, Louis Pasteur and Albert Einstein anymore. We are just not as > smart as our ancestors. Can you find an Individual who can speak and write > 40 languages fluently today? Just as recently as 1611, you can find them. > > We are so arrogant to think that humans are at the peak of development > today that we fail to see the declining status of our physical and mental > capacities. > > Doesn't Darwinian Evolution say we should be improving? > > Jojo > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Colin Hercus <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 07, 2012 9:23 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic > Improbability > > Jojo, > > You say "survival is not necessary the best of all possible outcomes" and > I totally agree, but survival which also includes success at breeding is > what got us here and possibly also why we aren't perfect. Humans aren't > perfect and certainly we're not the best possible outcome for evolution. > I think a planet that failed to evolve an intelligent species may last > longer than one that did. > > Colin > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ** >> I am familiar with genetic programming. Richard Dawkins like to use >> these to point out that an "evolutionary" approach works to reach certain >> results. While interesting, it has nothing much to do with the real >> Darwinian Evolution. If anything, genetic programming proves that >> Darwinian Evolution is faulty. Why? Because in the end, genetic >> programming requires intelligence to set the goal or criteria of the >> algorithm. Random processes can not decide what the final goal is. >> >> Darwinists always like to misrepresent what Natural Selection can do. >> It's as if Natural Selection is this all encompassing process that can >> decide "a priori" what the good results are. They always like to imply >> that Natural Selection can somehow foresee a future result and work toward >> it. No, natural selection does not work that way. Natural selection can >> not decide between any of the many future results. It takes intelligence >> and the foresight of Intelligence to do that. Natural Selection simply >> chooses those who survive, each generation along the way; and survival is >> not necessary the best of all possible outcomes. >> >> Genetic algorithms does not in any way have the foresight to determine >> what the best results are. In fact, many of the claimed successes of >> genetic programming can be solved more efficiently by more deterministic >> algorithms. Genetic algorithms are "simulations", and simulation program >> are not the best way to solve problems. Simulation implies the random >> testing of results based on random inputs to the problem. Not the best way. >> >> And before you claim you know more about programming than I, let me just >> say I'm an Electrical Engineer and I have programmed many times before. >> >> Jojo >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Colin Hercus <[email protected]> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 07, 2012 4:02 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic >> Improbability >> >> Hi Jojo, >> >> You might also read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming >> and some of the related links. >> >> Colin >> >> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> ** >>> Amino Acids are just the building blocks, the letters of the alphabet >>> for building complex protein molecules. You have to chain them correctly >>> in the proper sequence to get even the simplest protein of 50 animo acids. >>> The chances of this occuring randomly is staggering in its own right, let >>> alone come up with 300-500 of these proteins to come up with the simplest >>> self-replicating life. >>> >>> Having amino acids is a far cry from the simplest protein and definitely >>> a far far far cry to the simplest life form. It's like saying since we >>> found the letters A - Z, the novel "Romeo and Juliet" can be easily found >>> also. >>> >>> I have read your wikipedia articles, and I am suitably "impressed" by >>> the level of its scholarship and integrity. >>> >>> >>> Jojo >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Colin Hercus <[email protected]> >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 07, 2012 2:45 PM >>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic >>> Improbability >>> >>> Hi Jojo, >>> >>> I'd hate to say I read it on Wikipedia, but there's also more scientific >>> sources than that. I'm not about to go do the research for you, I suggest >>> you check it out yourself. Abiogenesis is a problem and scientists are >>> working on it. That's a lot of why we looking for life on other planets, >>> other solar systems and in extreme environments on earth. Amino acids have >>> been found in comet tails, they're really not that complicated. >>> >>> Colin >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> ** >>>> You don't know that. But even if it was, that still does not solve >>>> your abiogenesis problem. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> *From:* Colin Hercus <[email protected]> >>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:40 PM >>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic >>>> Improbability >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Abd, I appreciate your comments. >>>>> >>>>> After reading your post below and rereading it and rereading it >>>>> several times, I am still at a lost on what you are contending. Please >>>>> restate your contentions in simpler prose that dumb people like me can >>>>> understand. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, While we know that amino acids can be created from non-life >>>>> simple hydrocarbons, the conditions do not match known earth atmospheric >>>>> conditions. I believe you are alluding to the Urey-Miller experiment >>>>> where >>>>> they successfully created amino acids from base molecular H20 and some >>>>> simple hydrocarbons. But one thing you need to realize, it never created >>>>> any self-replicating molecules, it never create any "life" >>>>> >>>>> The Urey-Miller experiment was successful but did not simulate the >>>>> correct conditions. For one, it was performed on a "Reducing" Atmosphere >>>>> of hydrocarbon gases, not the oxidative atmosphere with oxygen. When the >>>>> experiment was redone with oxygen, the oxidizing action of oxygen >>>>> destroyed >>>>> the animo acids just as quickly as it was created. Hence, the experiment >>>>> was designed on top of faulty assumptions. >>>>> >>>> No, the earths atmosphere was reducing before we had photo synthesis >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
