Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (326175)	12/6/2002 4:34:26 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Not only that, but the reliance upon simulations, however rigorous, can by no means of a certainty account for what happened long ago. When man designs a simulated world to learn of the past, man relies upon artificial, not natural selection. The parameters in the simulation requisite for the development are built-in using the human brain, and that means these parameters are necessarily built with a whole lot of bias. I have seen the results of some of these simulations. The simulation developers seem cursed with a propensity toward sloppy thinking in my opinion. Richard Dawkins published a hack job of a "simulation" in his book "The Blind Watchmaker" that for years now has literally fooled thousands of evolutionary religionists and that even my young kids quickly recognized was logically faulty. Dawkins's "simulation," like all such "simulations" are wondrously limited, not at all accounting for the subtle, but highly significant interplay between genes, populations, environments and the internal structures of organisms that, without a firm knowledge of them makes it very difficult to tell what the organisms truly are. Dawkins's simulation simply displayed a bunch of dang drawings that were created by a computer program in which Dawkins himself built in artificially selected parameters. Big deal. It doesn't tell us much at all about true nature, but it tells us quite a lot about how easily evolutionists inadvertently and repeatedly deceive themselves. It is the problem with all of these simulations and the obvious flaw of it is, no one knows of a certainty exactly what conditions existed ages ago. Even if, after using our brains to artificially select environmental attributes favorable to our hoped for outcomes we saw simulated "evolutionary" development, that does not mean such conditions actually existed. The issue before us is not how we can fabricate simulated evolution, but how evolution supposedly took place in reality. I have long studied for myself these claims, the fossils, the debates over humanoid evolution, the simulations. Even as a child the large amounts of plaster that "scientists" employed to reconstruct alleged fossils was a clue to me that a scam was possibly afoot. Like many, I ignored my justifiable skepticism to marvel at the many "artist renderings," plastered casts, "reconstructions" and colorful pictures of allegedly ancient organisms that in many cases probably never existed - at least not as "scientists" claim they existed. I am now convinced that the relative few scanty fossils "scientists" claim are humanoid are in reality varieties of apes and that they are not transitional at all. The stakes are high such that for me to be convinced of "scientists" claims, I will have to see a much smoother series of transitions than is currently available. The current series is so spotty and appears so trumped up and fabricated that I think were one to approach these fossils without bringing with one assumptions of the truth of evolution, one would reject them out of hand as vindication for human evolution. I am also convinced that soft-sciences like paleontology are utterly fraught with bias, and that they, with goofy "simulations" are obviously too weak to pierce the veil of time such that we can confidently accept their results as truthful. But dass jes me. I really don't want to harp too much against other folk's religion.