1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    27 Jul '13 03:291 edit
    Evolution Through the Lens of Information Theory

    YouTube

    YouTube

    Perry Marshall, Author of "Industrial Ethernet" and Communications Engineer Bill Jenkins give a technical Treatment of Information Theory as it relates to DNA and Evolution.

    The instructor
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    27 Jul '13 03:57
    Error Corrections in DNA Guard Against Random Mutations

    YouTube

    YouTube

    The Instructor
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    27 Jul '13 04:261 edit
    A New Theory of Evolution: Cellular Genetic Engineering

    YouTube

    YouTube

    Evolutionary Programming is Organized Top-Down, not Bottom-Up

    YouTube

    The Evolutionary Algorithm is Intentional - and That's a Testable hypothesis

    YouTube

    Evolution as a Highly Optimized Calculation, Not a Random Walk

    YouTube

    The Instructor
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    27 Jul '13 07:02
    I see you are finally starting to accept evolution as fact.
    But you can still take it to spirituality as I doubt you are here to discuss the actual science of it.
  5. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78534
    27 Jul '13 20:14
    The problem with this point is that there is no reason that "top down" mechanisms shouldn't evolve "bottom up".
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    28 Jul '13 01:36
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    The problem with this point is that there is no reason that "top down" mechanisms shouldn't evolve "bottom up".
    If you had looked at the videos, you would have had it explained to you the reason why it can't happen bottom-up.

    The Instructor
  7. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    28 Jul '13 01:36
    Journalist and Researcher Richard Milton presents a case that what we have been taught about Darwin's theory of evolution is totally wrong and that this most fundamental belief with respect to human origins should be completely re-evaluated by main stream scientific and academic institutions. Author of the book "Shattering The Myths of Darwinism," Richard Milton does not represent the Creationist movement either. He simply states, that Darwin's theory of evolution does not stand up to logical scientific scrutiny. Get the facts in this original uncut interview that was filmed for the production of the NBC Special Documentary "The Mysterious Origins of Man - Rewriting Human History,"

    YouTube

    The Instructor
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    28 Jul '13 04:10
    DNA as a Communication System

    YouTube

    Communication Systems and Codes

    YouTube

    How this DNA & Evolution argument started in the first place

    YouTube

    The Instructor
  9. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78534
    28 Jul '13 11:17
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    If you had looked at the videos, you would have had it explained to you the reason why it can't happen bottom-up.

    The Instructor
    Sorry RJ I almost never follow video links. Partly because I don't trust YouTube to correctly scan every video and advert for malicious code. But mostly because I want something peer reviewed, or at least where I can follow the references. I can think of a plausible bottom up construction, where mechanisms for DNA repair first evolve, and then are regulated up and down depending on environmental factors, which turn into mechanisms for directing evolution. Their explanation will simply be to deny that a set of small quantitative changes can add up to a large qualitative difference.
  10. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    28 Jul '13 13:57
    Seriously this is not science this is preaching creationism.

    Get it out of science forums.
  11. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    28 Jul '13 21:162 edits
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Seriously this is not science this is preaching creationism.

    Get it out of science forums.
    The evilutioninsts do not like to hear the truth discussed about their pet fairy tale theory. It is no intelligence allowed in the Science Forum for they know their fairy tale of a frog to a prince does not stand a chance of being believed when compared to Intelligent Design.

    We are unable to make the right conditions for life to arise even with all our knowledge and planning. So apparently it takes a super intellect with enough knowledge and power to do it, since we don't have it. The Law of Biogenesis states that life arises from life and never arises from non-life. Therefore, that eliminates life arising from pure chance happenings and there is no such thing as natural selection outside of living things.

    So even if this super intellect made the conditions right for life, it is still impossible for life to arise from non-life according to the Law of Biogenesis. The complexity of life also prohibits it from arising by chance. It is pure stupidity to think that it could.


    The Instructor
  12. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    28 Jul '13 21:53
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The evilutioninsts do not like to hear the truth discussed about their pet fairy tale theory. It is no intelligence allowed in the Science Forum for they know their fairy tale of a frog to a prince does not stand a chance of being believed when compared to Intelligent Design.

    We are unable to make the right conditions for life to arise even with all our ...[text shortened]... ts it from arising by chance. It is pure stupidity to think that it could.


    The Instructor
    Make up whatever fantasy you like about being persecuted or silenced.

    Just as long as you stop posting your ID/creationist preaching in science.


    You are not, and have never been, even the tiniest bit interested in actually
    discussing science, you are only interested in preaching your religion.

    As the mods have made abundantly clear, ID and creationism are not science
    and should not be in the science forum.

    Take the hint.
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    28 Jul '13 22:37
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Make up whatever fantasy you like about being persecuted or silenced.

    Just as long as you stop posting your ID/creationist preaching in science.


    You are not, and have never been, even the tiniest bit interested in actually
    discussing science, you are only interested in preaching your religion.

    As the mods have made abundantly clear, ID and creationism are not science
    and should not be in the science forum.

    Take the hint.
    The idea of Intelligent Design has been derived from the study of science, not religion. The fact that it agrees with the creation idea from the Holy Bible does not make it unscientific. The purpose of science is to find the truth about operations and origins of the natural world. If the discoveries lead us in the direction of the creation idea as a possible truth of science, then we should not put on the breaks and refuse to go in that direction just because of the preconceived notion that science and religion can not both be true.

    If scientist see the evidence of intelligent design in nature, they should be allowed to present this evidence and discuss it without prejudice because it sounds too much like the religious idea of Creationism. However, evilutionists wish to limit scientific thought through censorship, so scientist are prevented from thinking outside the box of evilution. This is probably because they know that the evilution theory is in crisis and about to collapse due to the new discoveries of the complexity of the cell and the information coded into the DNA molecule that cries out "Intelligent Design."

    The Instructor
  14. Joined
    03 Sep '12
    Moves
    16252
    28 Jul '13 23:41
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Seriously this is not science this is preaching creationism.

    Get it out of science forums.
    Hmmm. Last I looked he is not in the science forum, this is spirituality. Why not address your concerns there rather than here?
  15. Standard memberlemon lime
    go phish
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    29 Jul '13 00:051 edit
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Seriously this is not science this is preaching creationism.

    Get it out of science forums.
    LOL That's like standing in someones house and telling him to get out of your house.

    I've actually known people who would say things like that... but not for very long. I usually move slowly (and deliberately) away from them until they can't see me, and then I'll run like my life depends on it. If you move too fast they might realise you are trying to get away, so I don't recommend a hasty retreat.

    But seriously, you couldn't wait until he showed up at your house with that?
Back to Top