Objective Of Discussion

[Enoch 2021 411]

 

In discussing the limitations of a theory and how Newton's theory was eclipsed by Einstein's more general theories, you provided a YouTube talk on how Einstein was wrong and,

You wrote:

Einstein's were more robust?

 

Resp:

In the presentation, the speaker brought up this tensor equation.

 

Guv = -kTuv, u,v = 0,1,2,3

 

Please explain to me the speaker's rationale as to why it is inconsistent with black holes. Please forgive my ignorance. I didn't take tensors (so ashamed).

 

You watched the video and then ask this question? Sorta of a walking on the North Shore of Hawaii and exclaiming "What Ocean?" scenario?

 

Start @ the 3:36 mark. Then "Pay Real Close Attention" from 6:25 - 7:35 to feel the full force of the Begging The Question (Fallacy) ....

 

 

 

You may also gather, that there are no know solutions to any of Einstein's Field Equations for 2 or more masses; ERGO, his equations describe one of two scenario's:

 

A. A Universe that contains only One Mass. OR

 

B. A Universe that contains Absolutely NOTHING

 

Which one do you wanna pick, then roll with?

 

Have a nice day

[Enoch 2021 411]

Enoch,

 

You also didn't account for the fact that stars have been observed racing around a black patch of sky near the center of the Milky Way. Hmm, I wonder what could be in the center. Hint: Stephen Hawking :^)

 

 

I haven't the first clue. Maybe it's Invisible Gummy Bears? <----- that has the same Scientific Vigor applied to it as Black Hole Causation.

 

Define: Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy).....?

 

 

But you do make a point. Einstein is not the end all and be all of science. Perhaps this dovetails with one of my personal objectives: to teach and promote science. I provide this as "elephant giving", not "elephant hurling". I give this to you and hope you will get something of it. One guy who has been battling it out with Stephen Hawking for decades is Leonard Susskind from Cal Berkely. He's like the old man winter of quantum mechanics. Standing on the shoulders of the likes of Paul Dirac and Richard Feynman, he and Hawking in their quarrels have gone way past Einstein. If you want to see where we're at right now, get anything from that guy. As an example, here's, Quantum Complexity Inside Black Holes | Leonard Susskind, http://youtu.be/FpSriHE1r4E.

 

 

Yea, I surely never heard of Susskind, who's he?

 

Call Susskind and tell him to replace The Begging The Question/Argument from Ignorance (Fallacies) ---- Black Holes, with the next Begging The Question/Argument from Ignorance Fallacy ---Invisible Gummy Bears..... and Re-Compute.

 

The really scary part is you thinking this is "Science".

 

 

Oh, since one of your personal objectives is to teach and promote "Science"; can you start here.... How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software? No sense in describing the Steak without unequivocally establishing the "HOW" for the Cow's existence, Yes? Proceed Sir....

[Enoch 2021 411]

Enoch2021:

Well that's all you can do is "say", I just simply show....it's called the Scientific Method:

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

Step 2: Lit Review

Step 3: Hypothesis

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Step 5: Analyze Data

Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7: Report Results

And the Validated Repeatedly QM Experiments put an Exclamation Point on it with a Triple Stamp and no Quitsies.

 

 

 

Beautiful poetry... :^)

I certainly discussed the analysis phase up above. You wanted me to agree that you can only observe things real-time. I constructed a scenario that refutes this idea in the Epistemology Corner discussion because I feel that is where it belongs. So go there if you want or not... your choice.

 

Since one of your personal objectives is to teach and promote "Science"; then,

 

Lets try it this way....: What is the Main Difference between A Scientific Hypothesis and a Scientific Theory?

 

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation.

What's the Difference Between a Scientific Hypothesis, a Theory and a Law?

A hypothesis an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1775842/scientific-hypothesis

A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing.

http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law/

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

So, we can now answer the question; "What is the Main Difference between a Scientific Hypothesis and a Scientific Theory?"

It's Experiments/TESTS. A Scientific Theory results from a Validated Hypothesis/Hypotheses via TESTING.

What are the Main Characteristics of Experiments/TESTS? Variables:

1. constant variables are variables that are kept constant or unchanging.

2. The independent variable is the one factor that you are changing.

3. The dependent variable is the variable you observe, to see whether it is affected by your independent variable.

An independent variable is the presumed cause, whereas the dependent variable is the presumed effect.

http://www2.uncp.edu/home/collierw/ivdv.htm

Question #1: How are you keeping your constant variables "Constant" when your not Observing the Subject?

Question #2: What are your Constant Variables when you're not Observing the Subject or on a Past Event?

Question #3: What is the Independent Variable of your TEST of something you're not Observing?

Question #4: What is the Independent Variable of your TEST you are conducting on a Past Event?

Question #5: How can you Observe the Dependent Variable when your not OBSERVING IT, or have yet to OBSERVE IT, or never will OBSERVE IT!!

Practical Exercise (Unobserved Hypothesis): Humans descended from Colonial Protists.

Please Validate the Scientific Theory; that is, please show the Experiments (Including all the Variables) that VALIDATE the Hypothesis.....?

Question #6: According to the definitions for a Scientific Hypothesis above, is this a "VALID" Scientific Hypothesis?

Why or Why not?

regards

[svigil777 17]

Enoch,

 

You said: "How Did Stupid Atoms Write There Own Software?"

Resp:
This question is as fascinating as, "How does consciousness arise from stupid neurons?" Each neuron fires away and hasn't the slightest knowledge that it exists, nor does it care. But, when wired to other neurons, cognition happens and one of us wakes up. It's spooky and we want to attribute spirits and souls to it. However, you guessed it, John Searle has studied the matter and teaches what we know in his class, Philosophy of Mind, at UC Berekely. According to him, "Consciousness is to the brain as digestion is to the stomach, plain and simple." That's as best I can recall.

 

One objective of this web site could be to identify those things we don't know and gain consensus on those issues. We do not know the answer to either of these questions. Regarding the former, Dawkins says that we might be looking for some event that is so rare, it virtually guarantees that we won't find it. Elsewhere, it has been suggested that the initial assemblage of atoms may not even have occurred on this planet or even in this solar system. We may not have evidence on this until we can travel outside to other planets and other stars.

 

To my: Please explain to me the speaker's rationale as to why it is inconsistent with black holes. Please forgive my ignorance. I didn't take tensors (so ashamed).

 

You said: You watched the video and then ask this question? Sorta of a walking on the North Shore of Hawaii and exclaiming "What Ocean?" scenario?"
- Crothers video attached, Non-existence of Black Holes, Failure of General Relativity

 

Resp: I am so embarrassed for you.

To my:

You also didn't account for the fact that stars have been observed racing around a black patch of sky near the center of the Milky Way. Hmm, I wonder what could be in the center. Hint: Stephen Hawking :^)

 

You said:

I haven't the first clue. Maybe it's Invisible Gummy Bears? <----- that has the same Scientific Vigor applied to it as Black Hole Causation. Define: Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy).....?

 

Resp: Hmm, if they have sufficient mass, then maybe those fast moving stars are racing around your "Invisible Gummy Bears". That's another interesting possibility. Please develop your theory us in more detail and we'll publish it in "Nature" magazine :^)

 

To my:

But you do make a point. Einstein is not the end all and be all of science. Perhaps this dovetails with one of my personal objectives: to teach and promote science. I provide this as "elephant giving", not "elephant hurling". I give this to you and hope you will get something of it. One guy who has been battling it out with Stephen Hawking for decades is Leonard Susskind from Cal Berkely. He's like the old man winter of quantum mechanics. Standing on the shoulders of the likes of Paul Dirac and Richard Feynman, he and Hawking in their quarrels have gone way past Einstein. If you want to see where we're at right now, get anything from that guy. As an example, here's, Quantum Complexity Inside Black Holes | Leonard Susskind,

.

 

 

You wrote: Yea, I surely never heard of Susskind, who's he?

 

Call Susskind and tell him to replace The Begging The Question/Argument from Ignorance (Fallacies) ---- Black Holes, with the next Begging The Question/Argument from Ignorance Fallacy ---Invisible Gummy Bears..... and Re-Compute.

 

Resp: He's world famous. He's a great teacher. He is in a footrace with Stephen Hawking at a level that is far above my paycode.
https://physics.stanford.edu/people/faculty/leonard-susskind

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

 

It's kinda sad you didn't listen to his reference. In there, he said something along the lines of, "Here are some results of the latest ideas... assuming you believe in black holes." ba-dump! He's a rather humble man and he doesn't take this stuff too seriously. It was very early in the video and pretty funny, actually. Elsewhere, he taught on string theory in a detailed fashion. At the end of the class, he talked about some of its criticisms. He acknowledged that at the time there was no evidence it was true. Later, the Higgs Boson was found. So, string theory is now placed on an experimental footing.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=/science-nature/how-the-higgs-boson-was-found-4723520/

 

You wrote:

The really scary part is you thinking this is "Science".

 

Resp:

That's simply an autobiographical statement about what's happening in your head. It means nothing.

 

You wrote: Well that's all you can do is "say"...

 

Resp:

Ok, you can look scientific method up on the net... good...

 

The answer to your questions 1-6 need to be restated in the form of test requirements: "The test design shall yada yada yada." You build that into your test design.

 

Here's an article that got some attention recently. A few of us were buzzing about the accuracy of the finding, "

A Third Of Male Students Say They’d Rape A Woman If There Were No Consequences, A Study Reveals". There was one guy who saying it wasn't true and appealing to his background in the topic. I was saying I thought it could be true because of my studies. And then it occurred to me. We could go to the actual study and look at the experimental design. Then, we could make a more accurate assessment.

 

I think for each finding, you have to go to the specific experimental design and try to pick it apart. This is something Robert Sapolsky loved to do in his class on Intro to Human Behavioral Biology at Stanford. I thoroughly enjoyed showing why other scientists had been found wrong and picking apart their experimental designs.

[svigil777 17]

'a bit of a re-write on the last paragraph...

I think for each finding, you have to go to the specific experimental design and try to pick it apart. This is something Robert Sapolsky loved to do in his class on Intro to Human Behavioral Biology at Stanford. I thoroughly enjoyed him showing why other scientists had been found wrong and picking apart their experimental designs. Sapolsky thought that if you can pick apart other's experimental designs, you should be able to put better ones together yourself.

Something off topic:

Whether one has faith, wishes for faith, or despises faith, it would seem anyone could appreciate, Bach: A Passionate Life. My favorite part is 44 minutes in, amazing violin.

[svigil777 17]

"...whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

You cannot discuss things you don't understand. If you do, it's dishones.

Wittgenstein His Life and Philosophy, 26:30 minute marker.

[Enoch 2021 411]

Enoch,

 

You said: "How Did Stupid Atoms Write There Own Software?"

 

Resp:

This question is as fascinating as, "How does consciousness arise from stupid neurons?" Each neuron fires away and hasn't the slightest knowledge that it exists, nor does it care. But, when wired to other neurons, cognition happens and one of us wakes up. It's spooky and we want to attribute spirits and souls to it. However, you guessed it, John Searle has studied the matter and teaches what we know in his class, Philosophy of Mind, at UC Berekely. According to him, "Consciousness is to the brain as digestion is to the stomach, plain and simple." That's as best I can recall.

 

 

Red Herring (Fallacy). Still don't know, eh. Let me explain it to ya....

 

Lets try a practical example: Paul Revere, the; One if by Land and Two if by Sea....ahhh, "CODE". Before Paul Created the Meaning/SOFTWARE/MESSAGE, The Worlds Most Powerful Computers stacked and working together could never ever ever "Crack" this "Code". The Receiver/"TRANSLATOR" couldn't have either, Why? Each have NO "Context"....UNTIL the "Language"---"PROGRAM" was CREATED then shared and "AGREED" upon between the Transmitter and Receiver. What's the "CODE": 1 Light or 2 Lights, Correct. What INFORMATION/Message is the Light sending, lol? What do the lights Symbolize---The Software: 1 Lump of Sugar or 2 Lumps , 1 Giraffe or 2 Salamanders, 1 Beer or 2, Or....1 light = 2 Beers and 2 lights = 1 Giraffe! Who Makes the Call, The Lights???

Without the SOFTWARE/MESSAGE AND Language/Program AGREED UPON Preemptively between the Source and Destination, the CODE is Utterly Meaningless....Noise! The Software is not "Physically" apart of the CODE. When you see 1 light, 2 Beers aren't riding a Light Wave to you. The Spelled out Phrase "2 Beers" is not being carried to your Retina on Photons.

Did the Light CREATE the CODE and SOFTWARE, then...Prearrange a meeting with The Patriots in which they came to an agreement @ the Old North Church? Or did an INTELLIGENT MIND create the "CODE" and the Software then share that with the Receiver?

Could Paul have said, "dump the Lights, let's use a Cannon" (1 or 2 Blasts) and still have the same affect? Is that the reason why 2 Nobel Prize Winners had this to say concerning the issue...

"The Laws of Genetics have never depended upon knowing what genes are chemically and would hold true even if they were made of green cheese".

Ed Lewis PhD Genetics, Nobel Laureate

"The meaning of the message will not be found in the physics and chemistry of the paper and ink"

Roger Sperry (neurobiologist and Nobel laureate)

And by these Incontrovertible TRUTHS, don't they DIRECTLY take to the Woodshed and Bludgeon Utterly Senseless any nonsense of Chemistry/Physics (Natural Law) having any other role than @ most The Medium in this Symphony? Who's the Conductor/"Programmer"!!

 

 

One objective of this web site could be to identify those things we don't know and gain consensus on those issues.

 

 

You'd like a Vote, eh? Can you show us the "VOTE" Step in the Scientific Method.....?

 

Perhaps a Political Science or Cake Decorating Thread is in order, they value such tenets.

 

 

We do not know the answer to either of these questions.

 

 

Ya mean "you" don't/Won't---- know the answer. The only other choice you have is to Ascribe the Authorship of War and Peace to the Ink Molecules.

 

 

Regarding the former, Dawkins says

 

 

Who cares what he says!!! I wouldn't trust him if he told me the air pressure in his tires

 

 

"Elsewhere, it has been suggested that the initial assemblage of atoms may not even have occurred on this planet or even in this solar system. We may not have evidence on this until we can travel outside to other planets and other stars."

 

 

You don't have the evidence....and you essentially just punted, different Genesis Location, Same Questions

 

 

You said: You watched the video and then ask this question? Sorta of a walking on the North Shore of Hawaii and exclaiming "What Ocean?" scenario?"

- Crothers video attached, Non-existence of Black Holes, Failure of General Relativity

Resp: I am so embarrassed for you.

 

 

I don't suffer Obtuse; well, not for long anyway.

 

 

You wrote: Yea, I surely never heard of Susskind, who's he?

Call Susskind and tell him to replace The Begging The Question/Argument from Ignorance (Fallacies) ---- Black Holes, with the next Begging The Question/Argument from Ignorance Fallacy ---Invisible Gummy Bears..... and Re-Compute.

 

 

I was being Facetious. I've already watched his entire Catalog, years ago....He's Extrapolating from a Fantasy. Send him the Crother's video lol...that'll tighten his shot group. Maybe he can figure out how you get Gravity from an Empty Universe.

 

 

He's world famous.

 

 

So was Claudius Ptolemaeus

 

 

You said:

I haven't the first clue. Maybe it's Invisible Gummy Bears? <----- that has the same Scientific Vigor applied to it as Black Hole Causation. Define: Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy).....?

Resp: Hmm, if they have sufficient mass, then maybe those fast moving stars are racing around your "Invisible Gummy Bears". That's another interesting possibility. Please develop your theory us in more detail and we'll publish it in "Nature" magazine :^)

 

 

 

I can't get to a Scientific "Theory"! All I could ever do is Conjure Causation, there's no way to TEST IT....it's Cosmological. Until such time, it will forever stay in that: gray--- mysterious--- Argument from Ignorance ----cold... Unverified Hypothesis Stage:

 

“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.”

Gunn, J., cited in: Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 3171848–1850, 2007.

 

 

The answer to your questions 1-6 need to be restated in the form of test requirements: "The test design shall yada yada yada." You build that into your test design.

 

 

Go ahead...it's not my "Invalid" Hypothesis. It was a Practical Exercise for you (Remember your No Observation Hypothesis?)

 

 

I think for each finding, you have to go to the specific experimental design and try to pick it apart. This is something Robert Sapolsky loved to do in his class on Intro to Human Behavioral Biology at Stanford. I thoroughly enjoyed showing why other scientists had been found wrong and picking apart their experimental designs.

 

 

I had to take a Full-Semester Course "Evaluating Research" @ University and was dreading it; turned out, it was one of the Funnest Courses I ever took (funny, how that happens). Once we banged out what to look for, all we did for the whole year was take Journal Articles and put them through the Crucible. Most took less than 2 minutes to take to the Woodshed and Bludgeon Senseless.

 

I can remember vividly the class "and Professor" LOL-ing...you know the "tear Jerkin can't breathe variety", many many times. Those were the days.

[svigil777 17]

You wrote:

Did the Light CREATE the CODE and SOFTWARE, then...Prearrange a meeting with The Patriots in which they came to an agreement @ the Old North Church? Or did an INTELLIGENT MIND create the "CODE" and the Software then share that with the Receiver?

 

Resp:

Personally, I don’t think your use of software is a powerful methaphor. And we’ve done this with every technology that’s come along. According to historian Courtenay Raia, people have used the telephone, the telegraph and even the cotton gin as their metaphor, ha ha ha!

 

But, you’ve told a story. You’ve used metaphors and an analogy. The next step would be to write up something more formal, more concise, and then put together a hypothesis. Then, you can start looking for evidence that supports or refutes your hypothesis.

 

You wrote:

And by these Incontrovertible TRUTHS, don't they DIRECTLY take to the Woodshed and Bludgeon Utterly Senseless any nonsense of Chemistry/Physics (Natural Law) having any other role than @ most The Medium in this Symphony? Who's the Conductor/"Programmer"!!

Resp:

“Incontrovertible TRUTHS”? Where? I missed it. You’re asking a question. But really, you’re not asking a question. So, again. Where is your formal theory?

Let’s translate this to the topic “Objective for Discussion”. Is the objective for you to present your theory? That would be a fair objective.

You wrote:

You'd like a Vote, eh? Can you show us the "VOTE" Step in the Scientific Method.....?

Resp:

Actually, yes. It’s called “Peer Review”. But really, it’s not the vote. We’re not going by a popularity contest. I know you know this. What is your point?

You wrote:

Ya mean "you" don't/Won't---- know the answer. The only other choice you have is to Ascribe the Authorship of War and Peace to the Ink Molecules.

It’s a free country. You can think anything you want.

You wrote:

Regarding the former, Dawkins says

Who cares what he says!!! I wouldn't trust him if he told me the air pressure in his tires

Resp:

Again, that is an autobiographical statement on the state your brain with regard to Dawkins. It is meaningless in rational discourse.

But I have to say, I sense a deep hostility in your words.

I was thinking about your hostility last night. Somehow the words of an old song came up that I used to love when I was a conservative Christian. Soaring in harmony, they would sing, “They will know us by our love. They will know us by our love.”

I’m not hearing any love here. I realize it has nothing to do with the accuracy/inaccuracy of what you are saying. But, it’s annoying, and I think that your pastor would have words to say about it. I know mine would. Anyways, it’s getting annoying. I’m going to stop replying to your posts if you persist in the vein. I don’t think the “Objective for Discusson” is just mean spirited bullcrap.

You wrote:

You don't have the evidence....and you essentially just punted, different Genesis Location, Same Questions

Whatever.

You wrote:

Resp: I am so embarrassed for you.

I don't suffer Obtuse; well, not for long anyway.

Resp:

I was just reporting the state of my brain at that moment.

You wrote:

You wrote: Yea, I surely never heard of Susskind, who's he?

Call Susskind and tell him to replace The Begging The Question/Argument from Ignorance (Fallacies) ---- Black Holes, with the next Begging The Question/Argument from Ignorance Fallacy ---Invisible Gummy Bears..... and Re-Compute.

I was being Facetious. I've already watched his entire Catalog, years ago....He's Extrapolating from a Fantasy.

Resp:

Now you’re reporting on the state of your brain.

You wrote:

Send him the Crother's video lol...that'll tighten his shot group. Maybe he can figure out how you get Gravity from an Empty Universe.

Resp:

‘wrong guy. Lawrence Krauss is the one to go to for that question.

You wrote:

He's world famous.

So was Claudius Ptolemaeus

Resp: Whatever.

You wrote:

I can't get to a Scientific "Theory"! All I could ever do is Conjure Causation, there's no way to TEST IT....it's Cosmological. Until such time, it will forever stay in that: gray--- mysterious--- Argument from Ignorance ----cold... Unverified Hypothesis Stage:

Resp:

I don’t doubt you can’t get to a scientific theory. Go to The Epistemology Corner. We’ll try to help you :^)

You wrote:

“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.”

Gunn, J., cited in: Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 3171848–1850, 2007.

Resp:

I’ll try to get a hold of this to look at it.

You wrote:

Go ahead...it's not my "Invalid" Hypothesis. It was a Practical Exercise for you (Remember your No Observation Hypothesis?)

Resp: Off topic.

You wrote:

I had to take a Full-Semester Course "Evaluating Research" @ University and was dreading it; turned out, it was one of the Funnest Courses I ever took (funny, how that happens). Once we banged out what to look for, all we did for the whole year was take Journal Articles and put them through the Crucible. Most took less than 2 minutes to take to the Woodshed and Bludgeon Senseless.

I can remember vividly the class "and Professor" LOL-ing...you know the "tear Jerkin can't breathe variety", many many times. Those were the days.

Good memory, I think the one thing in common is that we like to bludgeon a bad argument. We can be abusive and get away with it ;^)

[Enoch 2021 411]

Let's go with one subject @ a time for focus...

 

You wrote:

Did the Light CREATE the CODE and SOFTWARE, then...Prearrange a meeting with The Patriots in which they came to an agreement @ the Old North Church? Or did an INTELLIGENT MIND create the "CODE" and the Software then share that with the Receiver?

 

Resp:

Personally, I don’t think your use of software is a powerful methaphor.

 

Metaphor? Did you see any Rhetorical Devices that lead you to such a conclusion? Do you see any here...

 

"Life is basically the result of an Information Process, a SOFTWARE process, our Genetic Code is our Software".

Craig Venter PhD (Genomics Pioneer NIH, Celera Genomics)

 

He didn't say "Computer Software" he said "Software". They are Algorithms--- (Programs)---Literally!

 

If you disagree... please show me where, or the instructions for, on DNA Proper: Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase.....?

 

"Genes are not analogous to messages; genes are messages. Genes are literal programs. They are sent from a source by a transmitter through a channel (Fig. 3) within the context of a viable cell. They are decoded by a receiver and arrive eventually at a final destination. At this destination, the instantiated messages catalyze needed biochemical reactions. Both cellular and extracellular enzyme functions are involved (e.g., extracellular microbial cellulases, proteases, and nucleases)."

Abel, DL., Trevors, JT., Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric; Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2005, 2:29; doi: 10.1186/ 1742-4682-2-29

 

 

The next step would be to write up something more formal, more concise, and then put together a hypothesis. Then, you can start looking for evidence that supports or refutes your hypothesis.

 

 

It's already been formulated (Source: http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29 )....

 

Science has often progressed through the formulation of null hypotheses. Falsification allows elimination of plausible postulates. The main contentions of this paper are offered in that context. We invite potential collaborators to join us in our active pursuit of falsification of these null hypotheses.

Testable hypotheses about FSC [Functional Sequence Complexity]:

 

What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses:

Null hypothesis #1

Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #2

Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #3

Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #4

Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time.

We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified.

 

In other words, and in summary: Show how Stupid Atoms Wrote Their Own Software.....?

 

Go ahead....? I'll get the Popcorn

[svigil777 17]

All right, Dawkins used the metaphor--yes metaphor--and I didn't like his use of it. I forget why. I think you have me convinced. Dawkins was right! But I'm going to reserve judgement for a while.

 

I think the reason I thought the genes were not software was that they are not simply instructions but are in fact hardware. That is, they ARE the computer... more like combinatorial logic in a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA)...

In any case, smoke your cigar, Enoch and enjoy it. I think you deserve a good smoke, ha ha ha!

I want to create a separate thread, however, to discuss it further--assuming I come up with anything to say. Also, there are more than just a few points I made upstairs that you have not responded to.

In addition, you suggested that we needed real-time observations. I provided an example to the contrary. Fairness suggests that you address that in Epistemology Corner.

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Enoch 2021 411]

 

I want to create a separate thread, however, to discuss it further--assuming I come up with anything to say. Also, there are more than just a few points I made upstairs that you have not responded to.

 

 

 

What do you wish to discuss further? The Weather, Favorite Sports Teams, Favorite Colors, et al...? If so, PM me...could be interesting, and I'll get to it when I get a chance..

 

Unless you can Falsify any of the 4 Null Hypotheses (above), you know what you requested be formalized and presented, then what's left to talk about?

 

Your Position is, there is "NO GOD":....well it appears you haven't been keeping up on current events, because I just Summarily Imploded that position @ it's Core.

 

It's Tantamount to coming to the Stamp on the Forehead Obvious Conclusion that it took an Intelligent Mind, with not only Prescience.... but an Exponentially Specifically Complex Skillful Engineering Acumen that's "other worldly", to bring the Aerojet Rocketdyne RS-25 into existence (FROM DUST); THEN...

Dismissing that assessment/conclusion---- all "Whistlin Past The Graveyard" like, and wanting to continue the discussion...focusing on other peoples opinions/conjectures/"beliefs" regarding how the Wind and Waves "may be" responsible for the Aerojet Rocketdyne RS-25.

 

 

Forgive me but....I don't think so. I have other pressing matters, including but not limited to...cleaning the grout in the kids bathroom.

 

Conversely, if you wish to discuss "who".... and the sheer Mindbogglingly Magnificence of the "OTHER WORLDLY" Intelligence directly spoken about above, then that's another Story. I will cancel all other plans Immediately and give you my full attention.

 

regards

[Schera Do 74]

...

Your Position is, there is "NO GOD":....well it appears you haven't been keeping up on current events, because I just Summarily Imploded that position @ it's Core.

...

.

If this is true, then it is more than a little noteworthy, as we all have been waiting for the plot to resolve for quite some time.

 

Would someone be so kind as to point to the so-called implosion?

[Enoch 2021 411]

.

If this is true, then it is more than a little noteworthy, as we all have been waiting for the plot to resolve for quite some time.

 

Would someone be so kind as to point to the so-called implosion?

 

 

Sure....{5 POSTS ABOVE YOUR POST ....#32, JUST SCROLL UP}:

 

Lets try a practical example: Paul Revere, the; One if by Land and Two if by Sea....ahhh, "CODE". Before Paul Created the Meaning/SOFTWARE/MESSAGE, The Worlds Most Powerful Computers stacked and working together could never ever ever "Crack" this "Code". The Receiver/"TRANSLATOR" couldn't have either, Why? Each have NO "Context"....UNTIL the "Language"---"PROGRAM" was CREATED then shared and "AGREED" upon between the Transmitter and Receiver. What's the "CODE": 1 Light or 2 Lights, Correct. What INFORMATION/Message is the Light sending, lol? What do the lights Symbolize---The Software: 1 Lump of Sugar or 2 Lumps , 1 Giraffe or 2 Salamanders, 1 Beer or 2, Or....1 light = 2 Beers and 2 lights = 1 Giraffe! Who Makes the Call, The Lights???

Without the SOFTWARE/MESSAGE AND Language/Program AGREED UPON Preemptively between the Source and Destination, the CODE is Utterly Meaningless....Noise! The Software is not "Physically" apart of the CODE. When you see 1 light, 2 Beers aren't riding a Light Wave to you. The Spelled out Phrase "2 Beers" is not being carried to your Retina on Photons.

Did the Light CREATE the CODE and SOFTWARE, then...Prearrange a meeting with The Patriots in which they came to an agreement @ the Old North Church? Or did an INTELLIGENT MIND create the "CODE" and the Software then share that with the Receiver?

Could Paul have said, "dump the Lights, let's use a Cannon" (1 or 2 Blasts) and still have the same affect? Is that the reason why 2 Nobel Prize Winners had this to say concerning the issue...

"The Laws of Genetics have never depended upon knowing what genes are chemically and would hold true even if they were made of green cheese".

Ed Lewis PhD Genetics, Nobel Laureate

"The meaning of the message will not be found in the physics and chemistry of the paper and ink"

Roger Sperry (neurobiologist and Nobel laureate)

And by these Incontrovertible TRUTHS, don't they DIRECTLY take to the Woodshed and Bludgeon Utterly Senseless any nonsense of Chemistry/Physics (Natural Law) having any other role than @ most The Medium in this Symphony? Who's the Conductor/"Programmer"!!

And then here.... {3 POSTS ABOVE YOUR POST ....#34 JUST SCROLL UP}:

(Source: http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29 )....

Science has often progressed through the formulation of null hypotheses. Falsification allows elimination of plausible postulates. The main contentions of this paper are offered in that context. We invite potential collaborators to join us in our active pursuit of falsification of these null hypotheses.

Testable hypotheses about FSC [Functional Sequence Complexity]:

 

What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses:

Null hypothesis #1

Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #2

Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #3

Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #4

Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time.

We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified.

 

In other words, and in summary: Show how Stupid Atoms Wrote Their Own Software.....?

[svigil777 17]

Enoch,

 

This responds to your Post #36.

 

Your Position is, there is "NO GOD":....well it appears you haven't been keeping up on current events, because I just Summarily Imploded that position @ it's Core.

 

 

You’re the guy who refused to explain the tensor equation you presented in post #11… I asked you to explain it to me in Post #14, Post #26 and in Post #29. This leads me to believe you didn’t even understand the equation that you presented.

 

What do you wish to discuss further?

 

I told you that I would be willing to discuss your Off Topic post in another thread if you care to create one.

 

I will provide a few short notes, however. I did look at your Paper, Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information, written by David L Abel¹ and Jack T Trevors². Perhaps you don’t understand this paper either.

 

I found the abstract mostly unintelligible and was wondering if others had anything to say on the paper. It doesn’t seem to be an important paper. In ten years, nobody has commented on it that I could find. However, it’s possible I have seen it before presented by an ID theorist. (To me, this doesn't really count). I can look further if you create a thread for the topic.

 

So, I did a bit of research on these two authors. I found this on one of David L. Abel’s papers:

 

It’s drivel. The whole thing is one long windy argument from assertion, as in the penultimate sentence above, which is simply the bald claim that higher order functions of human functions like cognition cannot be derived from chemistry and physics. The paper itself contains no data at all — no experiments, measurements, or observations — but it is full of novel acronyms.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/02/02/more-bad-science-in-the-litera/

 

Curiously, this was in the abstract of one of Jack T. Trevors’ papers.

 

 

Is there a possible biological explanation for religion? That is, is there a genetic basis for believing in mystical, supernatural beings when there is no scientific evidence for their existence? Can we explain why some people prefer to accept myth over science? Why do so many people still accept creation and refuse to embrace evolution?

http://philpapers.org/rec/SAIHSE

 

Rule #3 from EvolutionFairyTale Rules says:

 

Your post should not be simply a link or links to articles/websites, or a wholesale cut&paste of an article/web-page... This shows the reader you understand the topic you are debating and makes for more productive discussion.

 

Rule #11 says the following is disallowed:

 

Needless repetition.

 

 

So, let’s make a deal. I’ll stop asking for you to explain your tensor equation that you don’t understand… Einstein’s equation, actually. And you can stop asking me to address your paper in this thread… Deal? Otherwise, I will have to assume that your “Objective” is to obfuscate the fact that you are terrified with the idea of discussing the “Objective for Discussion”.

 

As I stated earlier, my proposed objective is “Getting to the truth”. If you believe in God and that God created the truth, then that’s not something you should be afraid of.

[Enoch 2021 411]

 

You’re the guy who refused to explain the tensor equation you presented in post #11… I asked you to explain it to me in Post #14, Post #26 and in Post #29. This leads me to believe you didn’t even understand the equation that you presented.

 

 

I didn't present it, Stephen Crother's did.... I just posted it. He explained it so a 5 year old could understand it. Then I pointed you to the exact time in the Video presentation that it was clearly explained.

 

I surely understand it...would you like me to write down the same exact thing he said... "PLAINLY"?

 

I told you that I would be willing to discuss your Off Topic post in another thread if you care to create one.

I will provide a few short notes, however. I did look at your Paper, Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information, written by David L Abel¹ and Jack T Trevors². Perhaps you don’t understand this paper either.

I found the abstract mostly unintelligible and was wondering if others had anything to say on the paper. It doesn’t seem to be an important paper. In ten years, nobody has commented on it that I could find. However, it’s possible I have seen it before presented by an ID theorist. (To me, this doesn't really count). I can look further if you create a thread for the topic.

So, I did a bit of research on these two authors. I found this on one of David L. Abel’s papers:

It’s drivel. The whole thing is one long windy argument from assertion, as in the penultimate sentence above, which is simply the bald claim that higher order functions of human functions like cognition cannot be derived from chemistry and physics. The paper itself contains no data at all — no experiments, measurements, or observations — but it is full of novel acronyms.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/02/02/more-bad-science-in-the-litera/

Curiously, this was in the abstract of one of Jack T. Trevors’ papers.

Is there a possible biological explanation for religion? That is, is there a genetic basis for believing in mystical, supernatural beings when there is no scientific evidence for their existence? Can we explain why some people prefer to accept myth over science? Why do so many people still accept creation and refuse to embrace evolution?

http://philpapers.org/rec/SAIHSE

 

 

Thanks for the "Color Commentary". Define Logical Fallacies (Baseless Assertions, Genetic, Ad Hominem, Red Herring...) ??

 

You clearly can't refute the message, so you decide to post what someone else thinks of a completely Irrelevant Paper? ....

 

This: “Is Life Unique?” by David Abel, that your PZ Meyers "Science Blog" exclaims..."It's Drivel ....." ...is not even "The Paper" I linked sir!

 

What's next, are you gonna attack via treatise on Sir Isaac Newton and his postulates concerning Universal Gravitation, by posting drafts of what atheists thought of his Commentaries of Daniel and Revelation?

 

 

 

Rule #3 from EvolutionFairyTale Rules says:

Your post should not be simply a link or links to articles/websites, or a wholesale cut&paste of an article/web-page... This shows the reader you understand the topic you are debating and makes for more productive discussion.

Rule #11 says the following is disallowed:

Needless repetition.

 

What are you Incoherently Implying here?

 

Let's have Bonedigger review...I'll abide by his ruling here.

 

 

So, let’s make a deal. I’ll stop asking for you to explain your tensor equation that you don’t understand… Einstein’s equation, actually. And you can stop asking me to address your paper in this thread… Deal? Otherwise, I will have to assume that your “Objective” is to obfuscate the fact that you are terrified with the idea of discussing the “Objective for Discussion”.

As I stated earlier, my proposed objective is “Getting to the truth”. If you believe in God and that God created the truth, then that’s not something you should be afraid of.

 

 

 

 

I first posted: "How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software" in Post #7.....why is it "all of a sudden" in Post #39?

 

It isn't because you have no "Cogent" rebuttal and are forced to play Romper Room Games to Obfuscate/Divert attention away from that Very Fact? Do you think that it's not "Stamp on The Forehead" obvious to anyone that has read this thread??

[svigil777 17]

Response to Post #40 Enoch 2021.

 

I surely understand it...would you like me to write down the same exact thing he said... "PLAINLY"?

 

Do I want you to parrot what Crothers said? No, please don’t. He failed to describe how Einstein’s tensor equation worked. Worse, he used only arm waving to describe why it was wrong. He did not use anything in the way of a mathematical proof to show that it was wrong.

 

I want you to do what he failed to do. Please describe how Einstein’s tensor equation works and what he (Einstein) meant to accomplish with the equation. Next, I want you to prove using mathematical constructs why his equation is wrong.

 

And I just want to underscore the beauty of this scenario. It was Einstein’s work that formed the foundation for creating the bomb that we used to win the Second World War. All our GPS systems depend upon his work in relativity. Einstein is greatly respected to this day. And, if string theory is to be counted as useful, then it has to contend with Einstein’s equations. They cannot be simply swept aside. You are saying not only that Crothers knows how it is that Einstein is wrong. You are saying that you, personally, understand how Einstein’s equation is wrong. That is an impressive fact of the first order if you can show it to be true.

 

Have you taken any classes on tensors? If so, what class at what university? I have not taken tensors. However, I have taken a full year of engineering calculus and analytic geometry. I have taken advanced linear algebra and advanced differential equations at the University of Washington. I also took some linear programming and some multi-variate calculus. But, I didn’t complete those classes. I also took a year of engineering physics and studied the results of quantum mechanics, though I didn’t get into the quantum mechanical derivations themselves. I’ve also studied black holes and string theory from Leonard Susskind of UC Berkeley.

 

Suffice it to say, if you’re giving me balderdash, I’ll know in the first couple lines. If you dare put anything down, I’ll learn tensors if I have to. But, I doubt it’ll take anything more sophisticated than high school algebra to show your error. So go ahead. Take your best shot. The moment I catch your first error, your entire proof is shot to pieces.

 

Go for it.

[MarkForbes 167]

.....

Call Susskind and tell him to replace The Begging The Question/Argument from Ignorance (Fallacies) ---- Black Holes,  with the next Begging The Question/Argument from Ignorance Fallacy ---Invisible Gummy Bears..... and Re-Compute.

 

The really scary part is you thinking this is "Science".

 Wouldn't he point out that those are just "mathematical models" constructed with "what we know from physics and astronomy"?

 

 

 

Oh, since one of your personal objectives is to teach and promote "Science"; can you start here.... How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software?  No sense in describing the Steak without unequivocally establishing the "HOW" for the Cow's existence, Yes?  Proceed Sir....

 

One sometimes got to start with "describing the Steak" the path from farm to food consumption is also observable, repeatable, plausible. 

 

The path from atoms to atom bomb engineer is another issue. Of course it's valid to assume that the engineer also started from conception (sperm fertilizes egg) over growing in the mothers womb to eating and grow up, studying, researching and then performing the profession. Obviously that doesn't come from just mixing a myriad of molecules together. There has to be more involved in that. 

[Enoch 2021 411]

 

Wouldn't he point out that those are just "mathematical models" constructed with "what we know from physics and astronomy"?

 

 

Well #1, Math isn't Physics...

 

"That's the whole point about Physics, it's not Mathematics; so it's not a set of axioms from which you derive results.  The rules of the game you prepare to change and subsume in an even broader framework."

Venkataraman Balakrishnan; Professor of Physics, ITT Madras

Introduction to Quantum Physics; Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. (Time 54:55)

 

 

And #2, " Models" aren't SCIENCE...

 

"The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity."

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

"A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a limitation on its validity." 

http://physics.about.com/od/physics101thebasics/a/hypothesis.htm

 

Allow me to translate: Pseudo-Science !! ... a "Model" is conjured when the 'alleged' Hypothesis is UN-TESTABLE!!! That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with.

 

Have him wake us up AFTER the incoherent walk down "Just So" Story Telling Lane  

 

 

One sometimes got to start with "describing the Steak" the path from farm to food consumption is also observable, repeatable, plausible. 

 

 

Well in "REAL" Science, we're more interested in "EXPLANATIONS" not "Descriptions"...any idiot can "Describe" something.

 

 

 

 

The path from atoms to atom bomb engineer is another issue. 

 

 

 

It's not 'Another' Issue...it's the MAIN ISSUE, i.e., the Whole Ball of Wax.  Without it, you're Extrapolating from Fairytales or in the parlance of our time ---  A Textbook Begging The Question Fallacy. 

 

 

 

Of course it's valid to assume that the engineer also started from conception (sperm fertilizes egg) over growing in the mothers womb to eating and grow up, studying, researching and then performing the profession.

 

 

Yes, but that's a "Thanks Captain Obvious" point.

 

 

 

regards

[Blitzking 1,152]

Well #1, Math isn't Physics...

 

"That's the whole point about Physics, it's not Mathematics; so it's not a set of axioms from which you derive results.  The rules of the game you prepare to change and subsume in an even broader framework."

Venkataraman Balakrishnan; Professor of Physics, ITT Madras

Introduction to Quantum Physics; Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. (Time 54:55)

 

 

And #2, " Models" aren't SCIENCE...

 

"The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity."

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

"A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a limitation on its validity." 

http://physics.about.com/od/physics101thebasics/a/hypothesis.htm

 

Allow me to translate: Pseudo-Science !! ... a "Model" is conjured when the 'alleged' Hypothesis is UN-TESTABLE!!! That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with.

 

Have him wake us up AFTER the incoherent walk down "Just So" Story Telling Lane  

 

 

 

Well in "REAL" Science, we're more interested in "EXPLANATIONS" not "Descriptions"...any idiot can "Describe" something.

 

 

 

 

It's not 'Another' Issue...it's the MAIN ISSUE, i.e., the Whole Ball of Wax.  Without it, you're Extrapolating from Fairytales or in the parlance of our time ---  A Textbook Begging The Question Fallacy. 

 

 

 

 

Yes, but that's a "Thanks Captain Obvious" point.

 

 

 

regards

 

Good to hear from you Enoch!  You have been sorely missed around here!!

[Enoch 2021 411]

Good to hear from you Enoch!  You have been sorely missed around here!!

 

 

Appreciate it

[piasan 657]

Well #1, Math isn't Physics...

Strawman (fallacy).  No one said math is physics.

 

And #2, " Models" aren't SCIENCE...

 

"The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity."

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

"A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a limitation on its validity." 

http://physics.about.com/od/physics101thebasics/a/hypothesis.htm

Another strawman (fallacy).

 

No one said models are science either.

 

Mathematics and models are tools used to do science.

[Enoch 2021 411]

 

Strawman (fallacy).  No one said math is physics.

 

 

 

It's not. (If you wanna see a REAL TEXTBOOK Straw Man (Fallacy) go review your trainwreck treatise on Entropy). Nobody said it EXPLICITLY, but it surely was heavily IMPLICIT...

 

"Wouldn't he point out that those are just "mathematical models" constructed with "what we know from physics and astronomy"?

 

 

If somebody wrote a book about "A MAN", but never actually called him a man, but wrote: " HE, son, grandson, bachelor, male, ect ..." even though "MAN" was never written EXPLICITLY can we reasonably conclude the IMPLICIT ??

 

 

Another strawman (fallacy). No one said models are science either.

 

 

This isn't a Straw Man Fallacy either.  SEE response directly above: IN TOTO. 

 

 

Mathematics and models are tools used to do science.

 

 

Well: hammers, wrenches, screwdrivers, sockets, are tools used to construct Bicycles; yet, neither individually (or collectively)... are Bicycles.

 

 

 

regards

[piasan 657]

 Wouldn't he point out that those are just "mathematical models" constructed with "what we know from physics and astronomy"?

Well #1, Math isn't Physics...

Strawman (fallacy).  No one said math is physics.

It's not. (If you wanna see a REAL TEXTBOOK Straw Man (Fallacy) go review your trainwreck treatise on Entropy). Nobody said it EXPLICITLY, but it surely was heavily IMPLICIT...

Another strawman ..... no one implied math is physics either.

 

As for trainwrecks, I could not even begin to approach your flat earthism in the "So Earth is a Sphere" discussion.

 

And #2, " Models" aren't SCIENCE...

Another strawman (fallacy).

 

No one said models are science either.

This isn't a Straw Man Fallacy either.  SEE response directly above: IN TOTO. 

Likewise.... SEE response directly above: IN TOTO.

 

One thing I've noticed about our YEC logicians they are even better at ignoring fallacies committed by their side than finding (alleged) fallacies by their opponents.

 

Mathematics and models are tools used to do science.

Well: hammers, wrenches, screwdrivers, sockets, are tools used to construct Bicycles; yet, neither individually (or collectively)... are Bicycles.

Exactly.  We are able to distinguish the tools used to do something (such as making a bicycle) from the thing itself (the bicycle).  Or, as in the case at hand, the mathematics and models used to do science from the science itself.  Something that seems to confuse Enoch. 

[Blitzking 1,152]

Another strawman ..... no one implied math is physics either.

 

As for trainwrecks, I could not even begin to approach your flat earthism in the "So Earth is a Sphere" discussion.

 

Likewise.... SEE response directly above: IN TOTO.

 

One thing I've noticed about our YEC logicians they are even better at ignoring fallacies committed by their side than finding (alleged) fallacies by their opponents.

 

Exactly.  We are able to distinguish the tools used to do something (such as making a bicycle) from the thing itself (the bicycle).  Or, as in the case at hand, the mathematics and models used to do science from the science itself.  Something that seems to confuse Enoch. 

 

"

Another strawman ..... no one implied math is physics either.

 

"As for trainwrecks, I could not even begin to approach your flat earthism in the "So Earth is a Sphere" discussion."

 

 

Typical MYO Mindless Mud to (Bad) Manners ( Darwinists) , getting killed in this debate so resorting to bringing up Ad Homs that have ZERO to do with the discussion..

 

After all, there exists ... Are you ready for this?,,,, Drum roll,,, Here we go.. ZERO Empirical Scientific Evidence to support Darwinian single common ancestor for all flora and fauna..

 

Of course it would be very easy to show me I'm wrong and simply produce some... don't worry, I know its hard having to defend Satan's Greatest Lie from Hell..

 

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"

 

Tricky Rick Dawkins (in a brief moment of candor)