Hilbert: It’s so funny how both Neo-Darwinists and Creationists react in the same frightened way to EES. They immediately sense that naturalist EES shreds their fairy tales to pieces.
Hilbert: I really opened the can of worms here…. my conclusion: Bill is at least trying to understand EES. He knows it’s the leading theory of evolution. Everybody else here, including Vox (unfortunately), is just a fantasist, believing Jewish “Jesus Christ” fairy tales…
Hilbert: (in response to my assertion “it took me less than 30 seconds to determine EES is irrelevant.”) Tell me you’re a fanatical crank on a religious mission without telling me… I must say, you managed to deceive me for a moment. I told myself, surely he didn’t mean it this way… but then your mask slipped and it became undeniable… Apparently you even believe in the “Jesus Christ” fairytale and didn’t even realize that Jesus was Jewish and Christianity is just a delusional Jewish sect… Tell me about that empirical evidence again… I really should have noticed it earlier…
Hilbert: Damn, you’re really just a crank. I initially believed you were a serious guy trying to debunk Neo-Darwinism (as others already did). Turns out, McCarthy vs Vox was just two cranks battling each other… I said some of your expressions made you sound like a fanatical amateur and fantasist. Because I thought you weren’t one. But as it turns out, you actually are one. I simply didn’t know this. Now you openly acknowledge you’re not a naturalist but a fantasist who totally ignores the actual empirical evidence supporting the “concept of evolution”… Case closed. Sad, but that’s life. Bye.
According to Wikipedia, EES stands for The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis and consists of a set of theoretical concepts argued to be more comprehensive than the earlier modern synthesis of evolutionary biology that took place between 1918 and 1942. The extended evolutionary synthesis was called for in the 1950s by C. H. Waddington, argued for on the basis of punctuated equilibrium by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in the 1980s, and was reconceptualized in 2007 by Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd B. Müller.
It should not be confused with either the ESS or Evolutionary Stable Strategy, of which Richard Dawkins is so enamored and which is Game Theory applied to attempt to explain observed evolutionary behavior, or the Post-Darwinian Polythesis, which is not just an extension of the modern synthesis, which deals solely with adaptive evolution, but rather, a superset that incorporates both natural selection and ESS with Neutral Theory and various other mechanisms, including relictation. ESS is what I have described as an evolutionary epicycle.
The reason that it took me less than 30 seconds to determine that ESS is as irrelevant as most of the Intelligent Design concepts is because all of the ESS arguments are focused on the adaptive space that natural selection can effect, which a) are at most 2 percent of the average genome and b) don’t even begin to address the same fixation problem that eliminates the possibility of natural selection as a significant generative force. This is why the larger part of the science, the philosophy, the theology, and the general discussion of evolution has been an irrelevant waste of time, money, effort, and ink for the last 160 years.
I had already conclusively proven two things:
- evolution by natural selection is mathematically impossible.
- evolution by neutral drift is both mathematically and empirically impossible.
But now I have conclusively proven one more thing:
- natural selection is empirically irrelevant as an evolutionary mechanism.
Because there is one thing game designers have that no scientists do. And that is unlimited 24-7 access to 96 cores with 512GB RAM and a multicore monster GPU with 96GB RAM, as well as the knowledge of how to effectively make use of that kind of computing power. Which is something we’ll be discussing with the people who made it possible on UATV tonight.