0
   

Lieber/Stoller alternative to evolution

 
 
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2012 08:05 pm
Somebody finally put this one up on YouTube.......

Evolutionists are quick to claim that anybody wishing to do away with evolution must demonstrate something to replace it with; one answer has always been that you could replace it with just about anything, i.e. you couldn't do worse than a theory requiring an essentially infinite sequence of zero-probability events. In other words, you might could buy off on a theory requiring one or two probabilistic miracles in the history of the world, but not something which stands everything we know about mathematics and probability on its head.

One thing you could use to replace evolution would be any sort of an old Coasters' album from around 1959 with a cut of "Run Red, Run" on it.

Lieber and Stoller described a process for going from a monkey to a man back in the mid 50's, and all which was involved was a simple process of education and assimilation.

Occam's principle thus in fact demands that the Lieber/Stoller process be preferred over evolution since it has equal explanatory power and is substantially simpler.

The Lieber/Stoller alternative:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdVMQbZwP-0

 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 07:02 am
@gungasnake,
It might be that any theory of physical evolution is merely recording the phenomena from a physical perspective. Evolution is a matter of intelligence, and is a process that involves consciousness. For this definition, we must think of everything that is alive as also having a degree of consciousness.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 09:14 pm
Quote:
Well, Red went an baught imself a monkey.
bought im from a pawnshop brokah,
Red taught that monkey how to guzzle beah,
an e taught im how to play stud pokah.
last night they was gamblin in the kitchen.
The monkey he was takin a beatin
The Monkey said 'Red, I'm gonna shoot you dead,
because I know darn well ya been cheatin...
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 09:15 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l6OEJyjesI
magnocrat
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 10:12 am
@gungasnake,
I'm an evolutionist completely persuaded after reading Richard Dawkins book 'The Blind Watchmaker'. Its a difficult read for me as a layman and I must confess I did not completely understand it all.
All we can do as laypeople is give the experts chance to explain their conclusions. The problem is when the experts disagree in those cases I try to keep an open mind.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2015 12:22 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Somebody finally put this one up on YouTube.......

Evolutionists are quick to claim that anybody wishing to do away with evolution must demonstrate something to replace it with; one answer has always been that you could replace it with just about anything, i.e. you couldn't do worse than a theory requiring an essentially infinite sequence of zero-probability events. In other words, you might could buy off on a theory requiring one or two probabilistic miracles in the history of the world, but not something which stands everything we know about mathematics and probability on its head.

One thing you could use to replace evolution would be any sort of an old Coasters' album from around 1959 with a cut of "Run Red, Run" on it.

Lieber and Stoller described a process for going from a monkey to a man back in the mid 50's, and all which was involved was a simple process of education and assimilation.

Occam's principle thus in fact demands that the Lieber/Stoller process be preferred over evolution since it has equal explanatory power and is substantially simpler.

The Lieber/Stoller alternative:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdVMQbZwP-0




Here is the whole situation.

We know that there is a mechanism by which data is transferred to offspring. Which is DNA.

We know that within a species changes can occur through environmental influences where these changes can actually create two separate species with a common relative. This is called ring species where they no longer can mate due to changes in genetics and biology.

We know that many small changes over a long period of time can lead to drastic differences when comparing later generations with their earlier relatives or ancestors.

Why is there even a debate? Because it calls into question the christian biblical stance on it's creation story. The theory of evolution reveals that the biblical explanation is wrong. Christians don't like this because they work from the assumption that the bible can't be wrong therefore the human (scientists) must be in error or misled.

The fact of the matter is evolution is happening. It has led to many different branches of science that are useful and wouldn't even be possible if evolution were not true.

Time and time again as we continue to understand nature and the functions of the universe the god hypothesis gets pushed into the corners where we don't fully understand an aspect of reality. But as soon as we do, it shows a god was not necessary nor was god a good explanation but this never stops a believer from trying to make another excuse for their god's existence.

It is almost always the uneducated who make these claims that evolution isn't happening. They take the word of their pastors, preachers and ministers as concrete knowledge and attempt to push that same stupidity onto the rest of society as if it is a legitimate reason for debate.

There is NO debate. Evolution is a fact.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2015 03:47 pm
@Krumple,


The educated lay person is not aware of how overwhelmingly evolution has been debunked over the last century.

The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:

The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s. Those tests were intended to demonstrate macroevolution; the failure of those tests was so unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists disavowed evolution at the time.

The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...)

The fact that the info code explained the failure of the fruit-fly experiments (the whole thing is driven by information and the only info there ever was in that picture was the info for a fruit fly...)

The discovery of bio-electrical machinery within 1-celled animals.

The question of irreducible complexity.

The Haldane Dilemma. That is, the gigantic spaces of time it would take to spread any genetic change through an entire herd of animals.

The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs. This includes soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains (blind tests at the University of Georgia's dating lab), and native American petroglyphs clearly showing known dinosaur types.

The fact that the Haldane dilemma and the recent findings related to dinosaurs amount to a sort of a time sandwich (evolutionites need quadrillions of years and only have a few tens of thousands).

The dna analysis eliminating neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.

The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types. "Punctuated Equilibria" in fact amounts to an attempt to get around both the Haldane dilemma and the lack of intermediate fossils, but has an entirely new set of overwhelming problems of its own...

The question of genetic entropy.

The obvious evidence of design in nature.

The arguments arising from pure probability and combinatoric considerations.


Here's what I mean when I use the term "combinatoric considerations"...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, the specialized system which allows flight feathers to pivot so as to open on upstrokes and close to trap air on downstrokes (like a venetian blind), a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

I ask you: What could be stupider than that?



gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2015 03:48 pm
Fruit flies breed new generations every few days. Running a continuous decades-long experiment on fruit flies will involve more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything resembling humans on Earth. Evolution is supposed to be driven by random mutation and natural selection; they subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and recombined the mutants every possible way, and all they ever got was fruit flies.

Richard Goldschmidt wrote the results of all of that up in 1940, noting that it was then obvious enough that no combination of mutation and selection could ever produce a new kind of animal. There is no excuse for evolution to ever have been taught in schools after 1940.
Krumple
 
  0  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2015 04:03 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

The question of irreducible complexity.


You could have at least started with this one before going through the first six. Any time anyone brings up irreducible complexity I know they have zero education on the topic of evolution.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2015 04:07 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Fruit flies breed new generations every few days. Running a continuous decades-long experiment on fruit flies will involve more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything resembling humans on Earth. Evolution is supposed to be driven by random mutation and natural selection; they subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and recombined the mutants every possible way, and all they ever got was fruit flies.

Richard Goldschmidt wrote the results of all of that up in 1940, noting that it was then obvious enough that no combination of mutation and selection could ever produce a new kind of animal. There is no excuse for evolution to ever have been taught in schools after 1940.


Oh man you are a moron.

I don't even know if it is worth my time trying to explain the experiment to you because you obviously never looked it over and what they were doing. You just want to assume they were trying to see if fruit flies would evolve into dogs.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  4  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2015 05:36 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
you couldn't do worse than a theory requiring an essentially infinite sequence of zero-probability events.

How many zeros are involved in the probability event of God existing?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2015 05:56 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:

The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s. Those tests were intended to demonstrate macroevolution; the failure of those tests was so unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists disavowed evolution at the time

The experiments of which you speak happened 70 and mor years ago. Weve since, been able to MAP the entire genome of the fruit fly an turn on and off the expressive genes
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2015 05:58 pm
@gungasnake,
ga, youre a broken record. Not worth responding to any more since you don't seem to keep up with nw discoveries in evo-devo,.
Your world seems to hve stopped around World War II,(hereas science has not)

Sorry
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2015 06:09 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
(blind tests at the University of Georgia's dating lab), and native American petroglyphs clearly showing known dinosaur types.

This is, prhaps the saddst lack of knowledge that you keep recycling.

Mary SChweiters radiometric testing of the dino's enclosing sediments were shown to be clearly between 68 million years at the base and 66 My in upper layers that covered the sessiments that enclosed the dinos (from volcanic ash deposits that ere analyzed by K/Ar and K/Ar/Ar an Ar/Ar methods

The C14 tting was sent to U Ga wiyhout any context (qe never submit "blind sampled with exception of laband field QA samples that"ride along" with the rocks)

The C14 was criticized by real paleontologists and it turns out that the guy ho submitted the "blind samples" was the dirextor of a Creation Mueum. (Not an objective scientist)

____________________


Mihipishu nd "drgons" are common fantsy drawings. Do we really see any UnICORNS or DRAGONS from the middle ages? Why don't we see any dinosaur bones from clearly recent deposits? Your argument loses any credibility by trying to assert that the sediments from which the TT rex was found (HELL CREEK FM) has been peppered with chrono samples over 50 years. ALL samples agree. The only samples that disagree are OOtis's C14 samples of the "fossil bone". I think you've lost that argument from the getgo idea is that Otis "FAKED" it.
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2015 03:54 pm
bookmark
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2015 07:45 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
it turns out that the guy ho submitted the "blind samples" was the dirextor of a Creation Mueum.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Now, if the guy DOING (not submitting) the C14 analysis were the director of Creation R US Inc., you might have some rational reason to mention it, but did you actually think that Richard Dawkins or Steve Gould or somebody like that was ever gonna submit dinosaur remains for scientific dating?????

gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2015 07:48 pm
Mishipishu may be a common fantasy drawing now, but the original intention of those glyphs around rivers and lakes was "Caution, one of these ****ing things LIVES here!!!". That's why Lewis and Clark reported their native guides being in mortal terror at the sight of those glyphs.

farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2015 04:33 am
@gungasnake,
That's the point, submitting sample and saying "Do a C14 analysis and an age determination" IMMEDIATELY sounds like a set-up.
1Have cleanups been done?
2Context of samples, how have they been determined and when

Why weren't sampls of ash from below and above also submitted (Since this was a "blind sample"
See how that just appears as a BS sample? How oftn are C14 samples fucked up? NOT ALOT but frequently enough to regard the entire QA process as important to the sample results.
The HELL CREEK FORMATION extends in time from the Cretaceous into the Tertiary. SO Id want to know what part of the Cretaceous we are talking about (and also to tell me whether someone didnt **** up somewhere else)

THERE are soo many things done to insure valid samples that you haven't even considered, I don't think OTIS was trained in handling and sampling for isotope dating (especially if the samples were BLIND).

As far s OTIS submitting the samples, He had a perfect opportunity to "salt" his bones with a 1 pound cut of ethanol nd shellac (its often done to give museum bones a nice little "sheen"), or (even) having soaked the samples in GINGER ALE to absord a little recent carbonates and organic plant material (ginger juice) .
Dont think that faking samples isn't tried , We all know that faking a dinosaur sample with just a few atoms of C14 is easy.
Id like to se follow up on the descriptions of the samples at the lab.


farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2015 04:45 am
@gungasnake,
I have 2 copies of Lewis and Clark's Journals (the Bergon Edited ones), and the only references to any "MONSTERS" is the metion of the dead whale they found while at Fort Klatsup.
Maybe you could present us with where we could find these warnings against dinosaur attack.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2015 05:00 am
@farmerman,
I thought of another one that could be a more "innocent" way that the C14 method even gave dates.
The dates given ere all at the lower end of using the C14 metod anyway. Therefore, I wonder whether Oti's team didn't just WASH the dinosaur bone samples in a mountain stream>
Some bacterial contamination could have easily have occurred without a "deliberate" salting event.
Ill give OTIS a pass for ignorance, not deliberate fraud.

As far as the labs, they have to report out their calibration curves and how they subtracted the background C14 from the sample (or did they jut arbitrarily report out the Lowest value and go with it).
That's lazy but not fraud either, specially if NO CONTEXT was even discussed.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Oddities and Humor - Discussion by edgarblythe
Let's play "Caption the Photo" II - Discussion by gustavratzenhofer
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
Funny Pictures ***Slow Loading*** - Discussion by JerryR
Caption The Cartoon - Discussion by panzade
Geek and Nerd Humor - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Caption The Cartoon Part Deux - Discussion by panzade
IS IT OK FOR ME TO CHEAT? - Question by Setanta
2008 Election: Political Humor - Discussion by Robert Gentel
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Lieber/Stoller alternative to evolution
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/16/2021 at 02:22:29