AndyHolland, evolution

OK, Andy, I'm not exactly sure where you stand on evolution at all. At first you said you were not a creationist, now you imply different.

So, I want to know exactly what your opinions are regarding evolution, the age of the earth, abiogenesis (not part of evolution, but relevant) intelligent design, and so on.

You've talked a lot about carbon and oxygen and some stuff about plants. Could you outline all of these, because I'm having trouble following exactly what you're saying and where you stand.

Cheers,

Chris.
(I like)dinner.

[Professor Chaos]

Here's what Andy Holland thinks about evolution.

Oh, and here's his myspace page.

I'm not reading anything on myspace, generally. Almost all myspace pages are obnoxious and illegible - that was no exception.

So, onto the other lies, let's get started. However, Andy, a succinct summary would still be helpful.

Andy wrote

What Darwin taught was that the weak die and strong survive in his book on "the Descent of Man." In point of fact, the fossil record clearly shows 'the meek inherit the Earth.' Sea Biscuit beats War-Admiral, David beats Goliath on a regular basis throughout the ages. That it is the small and despised "species" that remain should be marvelous in our eyes.

In which case, the Sea Biscuit, and David, were the stronger, were they not? If they were weaker, then, on average, they would die more often. You're trying to put your specific and narrow-minded view of "strong" in a place where it doesn't apply. Strong is defined as what survives, so of course it is better at surviving.

Darwin's mechanism of Natural Selection is both insufficient and unnecessary. If a billion monkeys each pound out a character on a typewriter each every second, it takes 70,000 x 13.7 Billion Years (age of Universe) to get a 50-50 chance of rendering a miscapitalized "Mary had a little lamb". It took nearly a decade with banks of supercomputers to _map_ the genetic code. Darwinism is dead.

So, assuming that a fitness algorithm is applied each time, and the monkeys build progressively off that, as happens in evolution, we get a much better probability. Assuming a 104-key keyboard, plus capitalisation that gives us a rough estimate of a 1/150 chance of getting the right letter each time. Assuming each keystroke takes a second (a long estimate) then the monkey has a (very) approximate chance of creating a correctly capitalised "Mary had a little lamb" in 150*23 = 57 minutes, 30 seconds.

This is the classic straw-man. Evolution does not operate like a tornado in a junkyard. You need to learn what evolution really is, before you can argue about it.

[a different tim]

Does he do anal?

FishFace wrote

I'm not reading anything on myspace, generally. Almost all myspace pages are obnoxious and illegible - that was no exception.

So, onto the other lies, let's get started. However, Andy, a succinct summary would still be helpful.

In which case, the Sea Biscuit, and David, were the stronger, were they not? If they were weaker, then, on average, they would die more often. You're trying to put your specific and narrow-minded view of "strong" in a place where it doesn't apply. Strong is defined as what survives, so of course it is better at surviving.

It has nothing to do with "strong" or "weak" (and I think FF is saying the same thing). That concept grew out of Social Darwinism of the late 19th-early 20th centuries, and has nothing to do with the evolution of species. Darwin did not teach that the weak died and the strong survived. He taught that a population of organisms was more likely to thrive in an environment for which they were adapted than in one for which they were not adapted.

It's been about three decades since I studied this stuff, but I still remember the example of a particular species of moth in an English town that had entered the Industrial Age. Over the decades, many of the buildings in this town got quite dark due to pollution from soot and smoke. Lighter moths stood out against the dark background and thus were more easily spotted by predators than darker colored moths. Over time, the moth population became quite dark, because the darker moths were more "fit" for the environment than were the lighter moths (of whom Darwin would have said they were selected against).

Then as it happened, the townspeople made a conscious effort to curb pollution and to clean up their buildings. What happened when the dark buildings were restored to their previous light condition? The darker moths stood out and were more likely to be eaten by predators than the light ones -- thus the darker moths were no longer "fit" for the environment. Gradually but inevitably, the moth population became lighter because lighter moths were now being selected for. Natural selection at work before our very eyes, not just an unproven "theory" that assholes like Hovind can ignore.

Newk

Edited for grammar and spelling.

An article for your enjoyment:

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

Professor Chaos wrote

Here's what Andy Holland thinks about evolution.

Oh, and here's his myspace page.

Oh my god! He's a baptist stereotype! Who would'a thunk it.

[Tenspace]

Professor Chaos wrote

Here's what Andy Holland thinks about evolution.

Oh, and here's his myspace page.

I don't think that page belongs to the Andy Holland here.

[Choobus]

oh shit, there are two and hollands? Fuck!

Are they both dicks?

[Professor Chaos]

Two FUNDY Andy Hollands, no less!

Ten, why do you think they're different?

[Sternwallow]

This item concerns Ann Coulter's book and evolution.

http://www.powells.com/review/2006_08_10

At last the secret is out! Evolution lets you kill and steal and have sex with dogs (Ann Coulter excepted).

[Choobus]

Andy Coulter

Andy Holland

Dicks

coincidence? I think not

FishFace wrote

I'm not reading anything on myspace, generally. Almost all myspace pages are obnoxious and illegible - that was no exception.

So, onto the other lies, let's get started. However, Andy, a succinct summary would still be helpful.

In which case, the Sea Biscuit, and David, were the stronger, were they not? If they were weaker, then, on average, they would die more often. You're trying to put your specific and narrow-minded view of "strong" in a place where it doesn't apply. Strong is defined as what survives, so of course it is better at surviving.

So, assuming that a fitness algorithm is applied each time, and the monkeys build progressively off that, as happens in evolution, we get a much better probability. Assuming a 104-key keyboard, plus capitalisation that gives us a rough estimate of a 1/150 chance of getting the right letter each time. Assuming each keystroke takes a second (a long estimate) then the monkey has a (very) approximate chance of creating a correctly capitalised "Mary had a little lamb" in 150*23 = 57 minutes, 30 seconds.

This is the classic straw-man. Evolution does not operate like a tornado in a junkyard. You need to learn what evolution really is, before you can argue about it.

How do the monkeys build progressively - through an algorithm of course! The case simply shows it is a non-random process and on that we both agree. Now that it is a non-random process, forget about survival which is random and non-deterministic.*

Add to that collaboration of organisms and organisms within an ecosystem, and very quickly "survival of the fittest" becomes meaningless, which was the point. The composition of the atmosphere and the energy required are more nails on the 19th century coffin.

I believe God created the Universe. I believe that it took eons - billions of years - yet it also took just 6 days. And that point of view and the prediction of your point of view was well expressed by St. Peter in his second Epistle.

If you do not believe in social Darwinism, then why would you believe in Darwinism at all. If it is good enough for species, why isn't it good enough for the Fatherland?

And that is also a good point. The theory itself is meaningless, its just a theory - here today, gone tomorrow. Truths are deeper, more profound and eternal. The irony is that your side seems incapable of apprehending the goodness of things, yet seeks greatness at all costs. So it confirms what the Theologian wrote, 'your light is darkness (death) and great is that darkness.'

andy holland
sinner

*David used a "lucky" stone throw to kill Goliath - but it was not luck, it was God. 99.9999999....% of the time anybody else would have missed or hit to no effect. Just like St. Theodora with her forest hair on top of her Church, a prediction from the 11th century (but just because the roots are in the walls, that is not amazing). What are the odds there? And that is my point, super nature is still natural, just highly improbable. And the same with the Exodus, and the same with many of Jesus miracles that are technically possible for the Son of Man, but exceedingly improbable.

*David used a "lucky" stone throw to kill Goliath - but it was not luck, it was God. 99.9999999....% of the time anybody else would have missed or hit to no effect.

This is bullshit. The Israelites are well-known for using a sling and stones in battle. They would have been very skilled with the weapon. Andy, why don't you try withstanding a stone smashing into your head at 100mph.

If you do not believe in social Darwinism, then why would you believe in Darwinism at all. If it is good enough for species, why isn't it good enough for the Fatherland?

This is just nonsense. Social Darwinism is based on Darwinism, not the other way around. You need to brush up on your logic.