/lit/ - Literature

>>12201730
why is Darwin on the bottom?
has anyone ever caused more butthurt than him, im starting to think no

>>12201730
why is Leibniz that low? Guy is a contender for the biggest brain in history.

>>12201737
>why is Darwin on the bottom?
read pic related. Darwinism is a delusion. most scientists who have studied it don't find it credible. only 'scientists' in pseudo-scientific fields like Jordan Peterson take darwin seriously. Von Neumann (genius tier mathematician) absolutely laughed at darwinism.

>>12201757
w-what did he mean by this?

>>12201757
Most of the geniuses in the time before Darwinism became orthodoxy laughed at it.

>>12201757
Can you provide any solid evidence to back up these claims?

>>12201730
The Foundation for Exploration

>>12201730
>tao, ramanujan
>anything but shit tier

>>12201774
he posted a book which i assume we're to read
https://ia601601.us.archive.org/12/items/B-001-000-169/B-001-000-169.pdf

i am highly skeptical but ill read a chapter or two and report back

>>12201763
it means, take a course in probability theory.
the idea that 'random' genetic mutations gives rise to speciation defies logic.
>>12201774
yes. but you are religiously tied to the idea, so there's no point in discussing it.

>>12201785
read Berlinski too, his prose is really enjoyable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOtGb8hKyWE

It's a troll post. Leibniz, the guy who literally outdid Newton, is in the sub-par tier ffs.

>>12201730
Bump Gödel up to at least demi-god tier, he's way better than Riemann and Poincare

>>12201789
>the idea that 'random' genetic mutations gives rise to speciation defies logic
big if true

>>12201797
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyxUwaq00Rc

>>12201789
>the idea that 'random' genetic mutations gives rise to speciation defies logic.
Drooling retard level. Don’t you have bible verses to study?

>>12201859
do you have any understanding of stochastic processes at all? even just at an undergrad level?

>>12201757
Mathematics isn't science

>>12201870
Then how do new species emerge?

>>12201877
You’re right. It’s so much more beautiful and useful than everything else classified as science that it shouldn’t belong in the same category.

>>12201883
It isn't in the same category in fact, tard
Mathematics is an art form, science is a method
Why would the opinion of an artist count in science?

>>12201881
>Then how do new species emerge?
i don't know. nor did I claim to. my only point is darwin's theory is insufficient

>>12201730
>sky daddy sky daddy, evil science men are hurting my feelings, whaa whaa

>>12201891
>Why would the opinion of an artist count in science?
because Darwin relies heavily on stochastic mechanisms, a branch of math.

>>12201891
Well for one thing he wasn’t just any “artist”. If you were 800 times smarter you wouldn’t be half as smart or as intellectually diverse as Von Neumann.

Why are you fags still posting in this shitty thread?

Has nothing to do with lit, and the list posted is utter garbage.

>>12201748
Plus he is more relatable since he was a /lit/fag who learned maths and dabbed on all of the math nerds

>>12201894
We already know that.
>>12201912
Why did you took my comment as an attack to Von Neumann, who I deeply admire and respect?

Again, if Darwin is wrong, how does speciation happen?
And again, how does darwinism goes against intelligent design?

>>12201730
anything by Buddha

>>12201930
>Again, if Darwin is wrong, how does speciation happen?
i don't have to answer this.
>And again, how does darwinism goes against intelligent design?
key point of darwin: RANDOM mutations. now please, go actually try and study this stuff.

>>12201940
>i don't have to answer this.
ffs

>>12201943
>ffs
what? are you an idiot?

>>12201930
>And again, how does darwinism goes against intelligent design?
lmfao

>>12201935
Nothing is by the Buddha, it was all written 300 years after his death

>>12201940
What's the difference between God and Chaos for men?
Also, there are many times in our planet's history when divine intervention could explain what happened. For example, the process from unicellular to multicellular organisms, the Cambrian explosion etc...
This doesn't deny that neodarwinian evolution happens
The theories are perfectly compatible
Are you american by chance?

>>12201953
American by chance?

>>12201757
>>12201883
Yikes from me dawg
(t. Chemical Engineer and Biotech)

>>12201891
>Mathematics is an art form
In that it is all man made fabrications

>>12201870
>implying that it isn’t random within confines

>>12201789
I'm not religiously tied to the idea, I just think that everything I've read/studied on the matter seems to make sense and I've never been presented with a competent refutation.

How does random mutation giving rise to speciation defy logic? If reproduction occurred in a vacuum that claim may hold some water, but the amount of environmental factors putting pressure on species as they evolve is sufficient enough to direct evolution over the time scales at hand. Also, you seem to be under the impression that as life evolves it becomes "more ordered", which is ridiculous since order necessarily requires a base of comparison. Is a squirrel less random than a cow? Is a modern human less random than a Neanderthal? It's all random, things just get better at surviving over time

>>12202081
A neanderthal is a modern human. They are not a subspecies, that's a 20th century myth

>>12201730
Where my main man Nash

>>12201730
Science Discovers the Physiological Value of Continence.

>>12202086
Why would you say neanderthals being a subspecies is a myth? They certainly coexisted with modern day humans and (likely) interbred with them, but this wouldn't constitute them not being a subspecies.

>>12202162
does 'subspecies' even fucking mean anything. I swear biologists just make this shit up

There are animals that can make fertile offspring, and those that can't. That seems like the only real division

>>12201999
>In that it is all man made fabrications
Math is literally the only thing that exists
But of course, a sniveling engineer subhuman wouldn't understand this

>>12202213
>exists as an absolute
>requires presupposed absolutes (axioms) to exist

choose one, my friend.

>>12202176
A subspecies is essentially an offshoot of a still active species that, while it is able to breed with its "parent" species, is still markably distinct from said parent species. Neanderthals are a good example because while they have many of the same features as humans, they had several defining characteristics that were present among all members of the species. They were similar to but different than modern humans

Hey! I'm a mathematician too! We'll, I was anyway... until I realized math was just a useless swindle--a surrogate activity. Any "useful" math just benefits the evil techno-industrial system!

Read "Technological Slavery" and "Anti-Tech Revolution" !!!

>>12201757
evolutionary theory has progressed beyond darwinian thought (chemical evolution being the sort of the intellectual edge we're trying to get at now) but evolution is still the basis by which we understand biology at any real systemic functional level

>>12202360
>symbolic thought

>>12202081
I'd say that a lot of Darwinism is "just so" theory this is something I came across at university. Most of Darwin research on how a certain species emerged has little evidence and more often than not, just a story. For instance, a evolutionary biologist may postulate that we lost hair everywhere except the head because it was sexually selected for. Although it makes immediate sense, scientifically speaking, it has no evidence. Scientific rationalism demands empirical measurable evidence for a theory but in the field of evolutionary biology, there's surprisingly little evidence. I'd think some simulation of the emergence of life then tracking how it speciates might serve as a good piece of evidence for evolution.

>>12203848
Secondly, the point OP is making is something I thought about as well. Darwinism makes sense but it's flaw might be that it is a irrational solution to the theory of evolution. What does this mean? I'd say that Darwinism exploits the potential of a unfathomably large space of time and almost infinite possibilities of outcomes.
I admit that the principles of Darwinism is logically sound but just like explanation of how our planet came to be, a satisfying explanation of the emergence of complex life has not been discovered yet

>>12201730
This list is kind of brainlet tho

>>12201757
based and redpilled

>>12201757
pseud

>>12203848
the fact that we dont understand a selection of certain feature does nto disprove evolution theory

>>12201730
The one you don't read.
Reading is for incel losers only.

>Tao 2 levels above Lagrange and Laplace
>Higgs the same level as Lagrange and Laplace