Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:29 am

PauloL wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:40 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:22 pm Well you didn't answer so I'll ask it again. What's your point?

I thought you'd use your brains.

psst..We only have one.

From Oxford English Dictionary:

2 Intellectual capacity.
‘I didn't have enough brains for the sciences’

davidm wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 1:11 am
Just a timely reminder to everyone while this creationist troll keeps vomiting his bilge.

Asimov intended his number to support and not dispute evolution.

Carry on catering to this creationist creep.

Asimov's intention doesn't change anything.

Anyway, can you quote Asimov connecting hemoglobin impossibility to evolution and his solution?

Or is that another empty argument of yours, if not an epiphany?

thedoc wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 2:20 am
Evolution works perfectly and explains everything. that you don't understand it, is not my problem.

Brilliant. This is how Evolutionomics is supported.

One challenges with concrete situations and people refute this way.

Doc just forgot to tell Darwin was the most important person in all humanity and his book the source of all knowledge.

Davidm doesn't have his own ideas and is committed to defending Evolutionomics and nothing more than Evolutionomics, so he needs approval from guys in other evolutionists forums who decide for him. Of course, he then embodies those people's ideas to feel they're his own.

Problem is: his peers ordered him to stop answering me and he broke that. Now he risks his reputation and may be expelled from other evolutionists forums.

I ask for solidarity with Davidm. Let's help him.

PauloL wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 8:42 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:29 am

PauloL wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:40 pm

I thought you'd use your brains.

psst..We only have one.

From Oxford English Dictionary:

2 Intellectual capacity.
‘I didn't have enough brains for the sciences’

It depends how you use it. As you have a limited capacity for the complexities of the English language I suggest you avoid trying to argue them with me.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:23 am It depends how you use it. As you have a limited capacity for the complexities of the English language I suggest you avoid trying to argue them with me.

It depends. Great. For the rest, check projection in the dictionary.

PauloL wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:43 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:23 am It depends how you use it. As you have a limited capacity for the complexities of the English language I suggest you avoid trying to argue them with me.

It depends. Great. For the rest, check projection in the dictionary.

Yes. I think you should. Stating facts is not 'projection'. Why don't you stick to what you are good at? Like..........

PauloL wrote:Arising:

Don't you think it ludicrous offering clips to refute reliable sources like Nature and Scientific American?

Sorry can't be bothered to search this whole thread for your links to these sources, can you PM them to me please.

If any sober mathematician could refute Asimov's calculations, please refer it reliably.

What is there to refute? As his premise appears to be wrong given Dawkins explanation of cumulative selection and Aaronson's demonstration of how evolutionary algorithms can work.

Did you not read or watch them?

Your knowledge is too based in clips, don't you think?

I'd have thought that would depend what the content was? But in this case one appears to be from a book and the other from a TV series about such things. How would you like me to get such information?

PauloL wrote:Sure. Of course, the only reliable source of all knowledge is The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, 1859.

Have you read it then?

PauloL wrote:Sure. Of course, the only reliable source of all knowledge is The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, 1859.

Darwin devoted a life time on this matter. His works extend far beyond the first edition of The Origin of Species., notably The Descent of Man., and their improved follow up editions.
But he also wrote a long list of other books related to his study of nature, from monographs on plants, earthworms, and on the expression of the face in ape and man.

You can read them all for free here...

http://darwin-online.org.uk/contents.html

But I doubt you will.

PauloL wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 8:45 am

davidm wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 1:11 am
Just a timely reminder to everyone while this creationist troll keeps vomiting his bilge.

Asimov intended his number to support and not dispute evolution.

Carry on catering to this creationist creep.

Asimov's intention doesn't change anything.

Anyway, can you quote Asimov connecting hemoglobin impossibility to evolution and his solution?

What are you saying? Are you trying to say that the existence of Haemoglobin means that evolution is not true?
You are talking about Isaac Asimov?

Maybe here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Only_a_Trillion

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:41 pm

PauloL wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 8:45 am

davidm wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 1:11 am
Just a timely reminder to everyone while this creationist troll keeps vomiting his bilge.

Asimov intended his number to support and not dispute evolution.

Carry on catering to this creationist creep.

Asimov's intention doesn't change anything.

Anyway, can you quote Asimov connecting hemoglobin impossibility to evolution and his solution?

What are you saying? Are you trying to say that the existence of Haemoglobin means that evolution is not true?
You are talking about Isaac Asimov?

Maybe here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Only_a_Trillion

It seems IA was talking about how chemists managed to discover and understand it.
http://encyclopediaasimova.blogspot.co. ... llion.html

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:39 pm

Thanks for the sources.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:41 pm
What are you saying? Are you trying to say that the existence of Haemoglobin means that evolution is not true?
You are talking about Isaac Asimov?

Maybe here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Only_a_Trillion

You have it here.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=14226&start=645#p330953

Yes, it's Only in a Trillion by Isaac Asimov.

Basically, I asked to explain me how natural selection overcame a probability of 1 in 10E190 to produce a chain of hemoglobin, bearing in mind that such a probability is impossible in Asimov's words (and understandably).

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:50 pm
It seems IA was talking about how chemists managed to discover and understand it.
http://encyclopediaasimova.blogspot.co. ... llion.html

True.

Later they found DNA and everything went clear up.

But the question here is not hemoglobin synthesis, but how hemoglobin was produced ex nihilo.

I used Asimov to illustrate calculations, as I'm not committed to what Asimov used them to.