In this article, the first definition applies: Rational decisions are those grounded on solid statistics and objective facts, resulting in the same choices as would be computed by a logical robot.
Sorry Vegans: Here's How Meat-Eating Made Us Human
But even if we were able to live life according to such detailed calculations, doing so would put us at a massive disadvantage. But in a world of uncertainty, not everything is known—the future may be different from the past—then statistics by itself cannot provide you with the best answer anymore. They can also be incredibly accurate at selecting the best option. Heuristics tune out the noise, which can mislead an overly-complicated analysis. This explains why simply dividing your money equally among assets can outperform even the most sophisticated portfolios.
However, Gigerenzer insists that such biases are only weaknesses in very narrow settings. Cognitive biases tend to be highlighted in lab experiments, where the human decisions are contrasted with probability theory. No predictions. No mechanism. All you can do is look at whatever happened, point to it, and say "look what God hath wrought.
Tell us your test for God. If you're "not supposed to test God" -- then get the heck out of science. Maybe I should have said, "Complexity building can't go on forever at the same rate of energy transfer. I'm not sure what current thinking on this is.
Let your gut guide you
Citizen Z - when I said "vast majority" of mutations, I was being charitable. To my knowledge, no naturally occurring beneficial genetic mutation has ever been observed. Citing bacteria and viruses won't work, because they are ultimately harmful to their host, which is evidence in favor of my position. That's why we have to spend so much time, money and energy developing new responses to mutating viruses in order to protect people's health and save their lives. RamblingDude - your idea sort of works, except no one can demonstrate that any other exception exists to the Second Law anywhere in the universe.
So how do you explain "The Privileged Planet," and why is it the sole exception we know about?
April Fools’ 12222: Perception-driven data visualization
But even this is weak ultimately, because even you admit the sun is wearing out, meaning eventually the earth will go dark and lifeless. So much for increasing order and complexity. Plus, even if I give you the sun as a source of energy, you've got to have a mechanism to convert that energy into more advanced forms of life. All evolutionists have are genetic mutations, but that won't work because they invariably are harmful or fatal to the organism and therefore make it weaker and less likely to survive than stronger and more able. If you are incapable of understanding, or admitting, or accepting this simple truth then I am quite done with you.
I have a wall to go talk to that has more intellectual capacity and integrity. Can someone who's a more competent biologist than me confirm that this is indeed yet more evidence of evolution in action? Lizards that, in response to a change of environment, develop new complicated structures in their gut, to help them digest the hugely increased quantity of plant matter? What for? Why don't you just follow the links? Are you afraid of something?
Why don't you even follow the link to Answers in Fucking Genesis that says your "arguments" shouldn't be used because they're wrong? You seem to have overlooked the allusions to Heisenberg's uncertainty relation. More importantly, you seem to have glossed over the explanation why this is simply irrelevant for the theory of evolution. Evolution is descent with heritable modification -- there is no descent, inheritance, or modification in the origin of energy. The total amount of energy, matter included, is conserved.
It says that entropy cannot decrease in an isolated system. An isolated system is one that neither matter nor other forms of energy can enter or leave. The Earth is not a closed system. For crying out loud, the sun shines.
How Darwin's theory of evolution viewed women as inferior - Big Think
That's what comment 75 alludes to, in the form of a joke that you evidently didn't get. Because he has underestimated your sheer ignorance. Your ignorance, that is, of taphonomy go look up what this word means and of the things we have found. The most famous example is Tiktaalik go google for it. Lastly, follow this link pdf file.
Firstly, everything that is good enough to function at all is selected for, no matter if it could be even better. It is relative to the other existing solutions, not to some absolute standard.
Witness the stupid design of the vertebrate eye, the recurrent laryngeal nerve, the relative positions of esophagus and trachea, the relative positions of the birth canal and the pelvis, the fact that DNA falls apart when stored in water so that we spend lots of energy to constantly repair it, and so on for hours and hours. Secondly, has it never crossed your mind that what is harmful under one set of circumstances, in one environment, can be beneficial in another?
Textbook cases abound: sickle-cell anemia, lactose tolerance, skin color, and so on. I conclude that you simply don't know what you are talking about, that you haven't grasped the uttermost basics, and that you really believe that thousands upon thousands of biologists, chemists and physicists have, for years, been stupid enough to not notice that the theory of evolution contradicts basic physics. Think a little on where the stupidity really lies. Your ignorance is not an argument against evolution.
Beneficial mutations have been observed. Citing bacteria and viruses does work because the mutations are beneficial for their own survival. You haven't bothered to educate yourself on the subject, and it looks like you couldn't think your way out of a wet paper bag, so I don't think I'll be responding to you further. In addition to SteveM's explanation, calling something a "law" doesn't make it a Law, just like calling a cat's tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
Shorter Bryan: "At my current, carefully-protected level of ignorance of evolutionary biology, I don't see how evolution could work. Therefore evolution is wrong. Because it's irrelevant to the argument, I forgot that it's not even true that the theory of evolution predicts an increase in complexity. It predicts diversification.
- Humans are born irrational, and that has made us better decision-makers!
- 1. An abstract of the presentations to follow!
- Messages From The Heart.
- Darwinian differences: How the theory of evolution viewed women as inferior;
- There but for the.
- Navigation menu;
That's all. If all living things die, evolution will end. That should really be obvious. So, even if the theory of evolution actually did predict "increasing order and complexity" see above: it does not , its realm of validity would end there. It's a theory about populations. Living things have populations; languages have populations; certain computer simulations have populations; and that's it.
The theory of evolution is not a theory about the universe as a whole. Of course. Due to mutations, the lizards have variously complicated guts; normally, simpler guts are beneficial, because they require less energy to grow and maintain and are good enough for digesting insects; on the other island, more complicated guts are beneficial, because they allow the digestion of plants, which are easier to get than insects.
So, in the old environment, simpler guts are selected for, while in the new one, more complicated guts are selected for. As I just wrote: what is beneficial and what is harmful depends on the environment. I think MC Hawking most succinctly put to rest the whole 'second law of thermodynamics' argument against evolution:.
Creationists always try to use the second law to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw the Second Law is quite precise about where it applies Only in a closed system must the entropy count rise The earth's not a closed system, it's powered by the sun so fuck the damn creationists, [DJ] Doomsday, get my gun. Bryan Fisher, PK, other idiots, read 'em and weep. It's funny how you just try to blithely ignore the hundreds of comments here where people have already given you the explanations and refutations you claim to be asking for The more I contemplate this non sequitur, the more it begins to look as if Mr.
- Main navigation!
- Banning Abortions: A How-To Guide;
- Tenzie Mackenzie.
- 0. Introduction and table of contents.
Fischer is projecting religious features into a science theory, and then complaining -- rightfully -- that it is just another religion. In his version, it is. He seems to be working from a rather bizarre understanding of evolution -- one which, he says "predicts increasing order and complexity. Now, my understanding is that it's not strictly true that evolution predicts increasing order and complexity -- species die out, and sometimes they go from more complex to less. But there can be no possible conflict between the theory of evolution and the death of the sun UNLESS you see evolution, not in terms of an explanation for "increasing order and complexity," but as a Driving Force working towards the teleological goal of increasing order and complexity.
If the earth is destroyed, then, in Mr. Fischer's view, evolution doesn't stop. It's shown to have been wrong in the first place. Evolution was supposed to make sure all those flowers and insects and animals kept on getting "better and better," growing and progressing under the Law of Evolution. A comet smashes into the planet? The sun blows up, or the universe gets cold and dies out? Looks like evolution didn't manage to do its job.