Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

[lrkun]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Царь Славян's needs to visit this website.

http://www.biology4kids.com/files/studies_scimethod.htm

THE WHOLE PROCESS
There are different terms used to describe scientific ideas based on the amount of confirmed experimental evidence.

Hypothesis
- a statement that uses a few observations
- an idea based on observations without experimental evidence
Theory
- uses many observations and has loads of experimental evidence
- can be applied to unrelated facts and new relationships
- flexible enough to be modified if new data/evidence introduced
Law
- stands the test of time, often without change
- experimentally confirmed over and over
- can create true predictions for different situations
- has uniformity and is universal

You may also hear about the term "model." A model is a scientific statement that has some experimental validity or is a scientific concept that is only accurate under limited situations. Models do not work or apply under all situations in all environments. They are not universal ideas like a law or theory.

http://www.biology4kids.com/files/studies_evolution.html

READ THE WHOLE PAGE FIRST
The idea of evolution is a simple one. Things change. Right now we're just talking about the word, not the philosophical idea. The process of cars changing over the past 100 years can be thought of as an evolution in engineering. When an organism changes over many generations, it might be better suited to live, or more likely to die. To describe what happens, scientists have a few terms.

NATURAL SELECTION
We were just talking about that. Sometimes you've got a skill that helps you survive; sometimes you don't. If you were a 500 pound bird with little tiny wings and little tiny legs, chances are you wouldn't move around too well. One day you might run out of food and die. Oh well, you were just selected for extinction.

CONVERGENT EVOLUTION
This is when two totally different species develop similar traits. They have come up with the same solution to a problem but from different directions. It's not a conscious choice to develop an eye or a way of hearing. Outside natural factors create a situation where that skill is a benefit.

For example, you are a plant and I am an animal. We both have animals hunting us and eating us. We need protection. So we both develop spines to poke the hunters. The spines are made in different ways but do the same job. You are a cactus and I am a porcupine.

DIVERGENT EVOLUTION
This is when your development starts at one place and splits in different directions. We start as the same species, but then as more generations develop, my group becomes good at one thing and yours at another.

Bird beaks are a good example for this one. One species of bird can develop in different directions depending on what type of food it eats. Their beaks develop different shapes after many generations. Charles Darwin used bird development in many of his scientific papers.

COEVOLUTION
This is when two different species change and evolve over time together. They are usually dependent on each other for survival. Flowers and insects are good examples of this type of coevolution.

If you have seen really fancy orchids, they often depend on a single species of bug to help them reproduce. As one species changes, the other will make mirror changes so that it can continue to survive.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Greetings,

Non sequitur.

Just because equations aren't used to predict specific organisms doesn't mean that the theory of evolution doesn't - much less, can't - predict them.

You have been given any number of examples of how Tiktaalik was predicted from existing fossils and found using knowledge of the age of rocks and strata - and Inferno has shown you Miller's talk on chromosome 2 (all without mathematics) - yet you persist in this childish effort to disprove evolution because it doesn't use mathematical equations to predict organisms.

No, that is a simple story. Because a horse could just as well be put in the place of Tiktaalik.

*snip*

Now, its your turn. Here you have a time scale. From the first single cell organism, at 0 years, to a full human at 3.6 billion years. Now I want you to predict what animals should exist and places in between. If you can't do that the way I did with the falling body. Then you can't say that evolution predicts ANYTHING.

Evolution is not a mathematical model for predicting the rate of fall of a body.

Let me give you a similar challenge.

Replace the cell with the singularity and the human with the universe as it is now.

Now I want you to predict each stage of the universe when and where they should exist in between. If you can't do that then you can't say that physics predicts anything.

When you're ready to acknowledge that physics and biology are not the same, I'll continue with the discussion.

Yet, in the other thread, you persist in claiming that mathematical models are not relevant to Nature!

Lie.

Liar.

Then stop arguing against Shubin's - and others, like Miller, who know what they're talking about - assertions!

In case you don't know, Miller wrote the standard textbook on biology used in US schools.

I'm not arguing with them, I'm arguing with you.

As I'm using their knowledge and understanding of biology, in arguing with me, you're arguing with them.

"A onion, by any other name, will still make your eyes water."

But they did not know what I was talking about in the first place.

Irrelevant.

The fact that you have your own incorrect ideas about what words and concepts mean, simply means that you're unable to have a meaningful conversation with anyone else until you replace your definitions with those used by the rest of the English-speaking world.

Not really - it wouldn't have indicated whether, in the absence of dynamic drivers, the rate of evolution slows or comes to a complete stop.

Hence, my emphasis.

By teh fact that you already had to say that something causes evolution, it is implied, that without it it would stop.

No, it might simply slow down - not come to a stop.

Possible - not necessarily probable.

And if its possible, then evolution predicts that too. Thus, it predicts nothing precisely.

It's all relative - there's nothing precise about the theory of evolution or its predictions.

You don't need to - it's obvious!!

"Infinitesimal probability" = one divided by a number approaching infinity = ??

Its not obvious. I know what an infinitesmal probability is. The point is that you did not calculate that probability. You just asserted it.

Because it doesn't need calculation!

I gave you the events with their likely probabilities - all you have to do is multiply them!

The answer is as above!

No, you simply said that its an infinitesmal probability. How did you come to that conclusion?

If you re-read my earlier post where I mentioned the Drake equation, I gave you the other criteria and their probabilities - all you had to do was calculate the overall probability.

You still haven't done that and, instead, ask how I did that!

If you believe that a "Intelligence", which lies outside Nature, did something, then you are a Creationist.

Your attempt to divert attention from that fact will not work.

Okay, I agree. Ans people who believe in evolution, are by definition Muslim. Thus, you are a Muslim.

That's a complete untruth.

Prove that assertion or withdraw.

Again, you have your own special definition.

Theistic Evolutionists are mainstream Creationists - they accept the "Big Bang", they just put God as the "First Cause" before it.

YECs, OECs, and ID-ers are on the fringe - they are "literalists", who put a date for Creation which is later than that of the "Big Bang" - in complete denial of reality and the Direct Word..

Thanks for explaining that. So, how does it feel to be a Muslim?

Prove I'm a Muslim or withdraw.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Evolution is not a mathematical model for predicting the rate of fall of a body.

Did I ever say that it was?

Replace the cell with the singularity and the human with the universe as it is now.

Now I want you to predict each stage of the universe when and where they should exist in between. If you can't do that then you can't say that physics predicts anything.

When you're ready to acknowledge that physics and biology are not the same, I'll continue with the discussion.

Physics does not claim that it can predict something like that. On the other hand, you said that evolution predicts a Tiktaalik, then go on, predict it.

As I'm using their knowledge and understanding of biology, in arguing with me, you're arguing with them.

I'm also using knowledge from other people. But I'm not telling you to read their book. Because you are NOT arguing with them. You are arguing with me.

Irrelevant.

The fact that you have your own incorrect ideas about what words and concepts mean, simply means that you're unable to have a meaningful conversation with anyone else until you replace your definitions with those used by the rest of the English-speaking world.

False. They are not incorrect.

No, it might simply slow down - not come to a stop.

But it won't precisely do one or the other.

It's all relative - there's nothing precise about the theory of evolution or its predictions.

And this has been my point all along. In other words its useless.

Because it doesn't need calculation!

If you are a God and you have all the knowledge, then sure you don't. But if you are not, then you do need to calculate it.

If you re-read my earlier post where I mentioned the Drake equation, I gave you the other criteria and their probabilities - all you had to do was calculate the overall probability.

You still haven't done that and, instead, ask how I did that!

I'm not going to do your work for you.

That's a complete untruth.

Prove that assertion or withdraw.

You have your definition, I have mine.

Prove I'm a Muslim or withdraw.

People who believe in evolution are muslim. You believe in evolution, thus you are a muslim.

 

[australopithecus]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Okay, I agree. Ans people who believe in evolution, are by definition Muslim. Thus, you are a Muslim.

Again you're being purposely antagonistic and idiotic. Stop.

 

[lrkun]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Guys,

Be honest. Why continue to argue with one who's not capable of arguing? Does it not render the task an exercise in futility, illogical, and unreasonable?

Think about it.

---

Anyway, if Tsar's interested, let him read this. It's non-linear math, my favorite, but I suspect he won't understand a thing.

March 2, 2011 - Nonlinear deterministic equations in biological evolution: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1103/1103.0097v1.pdf

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Who says they are transitional? I see they are similar, but how do you know they are related?

Who says that they have to be related to be transitional? This is yet another demonstration of not understanding how it works. There is no requirement for an organism, or a species, to even have left descendents in order for it to be considered transitional. All that is required is that it show a progression of features between the simpler organisms in earlier strata, and therefore earlier times, to the more complex organisms found in later strata, or later times. Indeed, even them showing progression between simple and complex is not a requirement, all that is actually required is a progression.

Radiometric dating is based on the geologic column. The dating methods of absolute dating is based on relative dating. That dating was made before radiometric dating was made. So tell me, how does dating by the geologic column work. How do you know the ages of the layers in the geologic column?

Ah, so you didn't bother reading THIS POST when you were beaten around the head with it at RDF, and in which how radiometric dating works is explained in detail and how it applies to in geology?

So, over time evolution did produce all the diversity of life on Earth, right?

Fixed it for you.

But history is not natural science last time I checked.

What does that have to do with the many methods by which rigorous predictions can be made?

Classic non-sequitur.

If its not testable, then don't say that evolution predicts it.

Evolution did predict it, as demonstrated by myself and others throughout the course of this thread.

We need equations because without them, you can make anything up. You do understand that instead of a Tiktaalik in that sequence, there could have been a horse? A fish, could have evolved into a horse, and then a horse could have evolved to a fish-like creature, that is the alleged ancestor of Tiktaalik.

Except that that wouldn't be a prediction of evolutionary theory, it would be a falsification of evolutionary theory. Interestingly, this never happened. Instead, evolutionary theory was vindicated by having its prediction supported in spades in the form of Tiktaalik, in precisely the same way it's been vindicated by every relevant discovery ever made, and in precisely the same way that no discovery has yet challenged its veracity in more than 150 years.

No, if you are going to say that evolution is an exact science, then you need equations. Why the hell would Population genetics exist if it is not needed?

Ignorant fuckwittery, and more importantly, ignorant fuckwittery that has already been fucked up the arse with a legion of cheese-covered sticks. Population genetics is an area of research dealing with fucking populations, not individual organisms or the progression of morphologies in the fossil record. This is precisely the same kind of cretinous false conflation as thinking that evolutionary theory should deal with the instantiation of the cosmos.

 

[Inferno]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Who says they are transitional? I see they are similar, but how do you know they are related?

Observation 1: We see that species evolve and are related. (By this I mean Dogs and Wolves, all Humans, etc.)
Observation 2: We see slightly more ancient skeletal forms (known as fossils, if fossilization has occurred) going back in time and we can see them close in on one point. (Or diverging from that point, depending on what way you look at it.)
(By this I mean that we see similar Organisms like Chimpanzees that have ancestral forms and they become more and more like our ancestors.)

The only conclusion one can draw from this is that they are indeed related. No other idea, hypothesis or theory can explain this, except if you posit a prankster God who makes all the evidence point to evolution. (In which case we'd still have to accept evolution because we wouldn't be able to distinguish between said prankster and evolution.)

Radiometric dating is based on the geologic column. The dating methods of absolute dating is based on relative dating. That dating was made before radiometric dating was made. So tell me, how does dating by the geologic column work. How do you know the ages of the layers in the geologic column?

Wrong again.
First of all, how do we know that we're correct?
We can cross-check the dates from Carbon-14 with Dendrochronology and we can cross-check other "clocks" independently, too.
Secondly, absolute dating can't be based on relative dating because relative dating doesn't put an age on the rock. In relative dating you "simply" say: "Well that rock is in this strata and this other one in the other so X is older than Y." But that in itself doesn't give you a time stamp. That can only come through absolute dating. It's really an easy process, read the Wiki page for starters.
Here's a rather thorough explanation.

So, over time evolution would produce all the diversity of life on Earth, right?

Indeed.

But history is not natural science last time I checked.

True, but you once again fail to see my point. I pointed out that you were wrong in stating that you can't make predictions without equations. I showed you an example from biology (Tiktaalik and Human Chromosome Number 2) and then explained it using history.
I find that this is a rather good technique when I teach my students and they have a personal opposition (political, religious, etc) to the issue. I present them the idea either with a metaphor or from a different field. They can accept the idea because they don't make the connection between what they've just opposed to and this "different" idea. When I then link the two, they can't help but agree.

If its not testable, then don't say that evolution predicts it.

I didn't say that "it" (it being the relatedness of Tiktaalik) can't be tested, I said that you were wrong to assume that we can use DNA to test it. The DNA isn't present anymore, so how can we test the DNA? Instead we can look at the morphology of Tiktaalik, the age, etc.
If this is still too complicated to grasp, here's what I was saying: Your premise of using DNA to test the relatedness was a bad one because there's no DNA left over to test.

We need equations because without them, you can make anything up. You do understand that instead of a Tiktaalik in that sequence, there could have been a horse? A fish, could have evolved into a horse, and then a horse could have evolved to a fish-like creature, that is the alleged ancestor of Tiktaalik.

NO, that's exactly the point. If we WOULD have found a horse, we would have known that evolution is wrong. That's why J.B.S Haldane famously said, when asked what would destroy evolution: "Fossil rabbits in the Cambrian."

Why can't a horse be the transitional form instead of Tiktaalik? It's so easy to see! I'll try to use another example here.

If you see a light going from very dim to very bright indeed, you wouldn't expect the light to turn off in the middle of the process and then resuming again seconds later. (This is assuming that the bulb doesn't burn out, but that's the flaw of the metaphor, not the actual process.) You have a video filming this process and it's one minute long, but you're missing the seconds 40-45. You now construct your "theory" that the light starts dim and gets very bright, continuing gradually. If your theory is "correct", you would expect the light to get gradually brighter between 40-45. If it suddenly becomes very bright or if it suddenly becomes very dim, your "theory" would be wrong.

So why can't a horse be the transitional form instead of Tiktaalik? Because the underlying structures are such that evolution would never be able to account for such a dramatic burst and then a sudden re-evolving of a similar structure as before.
Why? Because there's nothing to build on.
It's like asking a builder to build a house directly on sand. It won't work.

This gets us back to: No, we don't need equations and it's really frustrating that you keep repeating this crap even though many others and I have shown you to be wrong about it for the last few pages.

No, if you are going to say that evolution is an exact science, then you need equations. Why the hell would Population genetics exist if it is not needed?

Who said that it was not needed? Nobody. I specifically showed you that you're using it wrong. Equations about population mechanics have their area of application.
This is akin to you asking me to use Newton's formulas to work out the characteristics of light. It simply won't work.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Incidentally, the post linked in my above post is a cracking good read for anybody who's interested in learning about radiometric dating. The amount of win distilled therein in a very approachable and easily absorbable presentation is something to behold, as are almost all the posts of the legendary Blue Flutterby.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Now, its your turn. Here you have a time scale. From the first single cell organism, at 0 years, to a full human at 3.6 billion years. Now I want you to predict what animals should exist and places in between. If you can't do that the way I did with the falling body. Then you can't say that evolution predicts ANYTHING.

Oh my fucking God. This has gotten to a level WAY above extreme stupidity. You, sir, are absolutely incapable of rationalizing for even a fucking second. You are incapable of fucking considering the SLIGHTEST chance that what you think is even 1/over9000 percent wrong. You are incapable of realizing when you're mistaken and when you've been buried deep down inside the hot, dense, flaming layers of the Earth. You are incapable of accepting reality.

You are incapable of shutting the fuck up. Yes, it's a bloody virtue these days. I guess evolution is, in fact, DEAD wrong, there's no way it could produce something like you. You are, INDEED, genetically UNPREDICTABLE. You were right. There's no way evolution could predict such a being. Even a monkey knows how to shut up.


I'm done with these bollocks. Like some here on LoR, and on the countless other forums, I'm done with you.

Kudos, you've been beaten by a 14-year-old kid.

And in case I'm being ignored, this still serves as a good-bye-go-to-hell post.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Greetings,

Evolution is not a mathematical model for predicting the rate of fall of a body.

Did I ever say that it was?

You're behaving as if it is.

Replace the cell with the singularity and the human with the universe as it is now.

Now I want you to predict each stage of the universe when and where they should exist in between. If you can't do that then you can't say that physics predicts anything.

When you're ready to acknowledge that physics and biology are not the same, I'll continue with the discussion.

Physics does not claim that it can predict something like that. On the other hand, you said that evolution predicts a Tiktaalik, then go on, predict it.

Already have done - as the various links we've posted show.

Here's another one about Tiktaalik...from the man himself:

As I'm using their knowledge and understanding of biology, in arguing with me, you're arguing with them.

I'm also using knowledge from other people. But I'm not telling you to read their book. Because you are NOT arguing with them. You are arguing with me.

If your sources are the DI and other pseudo-scientific "sources", then it's obvious why you don't.

Irrelevant.

The fact that you have your own incorrect ideas about what words and concepts mean, simply means that you're unable to have a meaningful conversation with anyone else until you replace your definitions with those used by the rest of the English-speaking world.

False. They are not incorrect.

I've already pointed out about your misuse of the word "truth" as "absolute" instead of "relative" - clearly, your usage is incorrect.

No, it might simply slow down - not come to a stop.

But it won't precisely do one or the other.

Which is why I explicitly stated that it would slow down.

It's all relative - there's nothing precise about the theory of evolution or its predictions.

And this has been my point all along. In other words its useless.

As usual, it's "all or nothing" with you.

It is extremely useful - as anyone in the field of biological sciences will tell you.

Because it doesn't need calculation!

If you are a God and you have all the knowledge, then sure you don't. But if you are not, then you do need to calculate it.

I've already shown that it is not necessary to calculate it - it's obvious that one divided by a number approaching infinity means that the probability of an event approaches zero.

If you re-read my earlier post where I mentioned the Drake equation, I gave you the other criteria and their probabilities - all you had to do was calculate the overall probability.

You still haven't done that and, instead, ask how I did that!

I'm not going to do your work for you.

And nor am I.

That's a complete untruth.

Prove that assertion or withdraw.

You have your definition, I have mine.

Which is a lie.

Prove I'm a Muslim or withdraw.

People who believe in evolution are muslim. You believe in evolution, thus you are a muslim.

No, they are not.

Some Muslims accept evolution - many do not.

Ergo, your claim is false.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Evolution is not a mathematical model for predicting the rate of fall of a body.

Did I ever say that it was?

So in the aether thread you've "disproven" relativity with a thought experiment but here evolution can't be true unless it's a mathematical model.

In the evolution thread you've "disproven" evolution because it's not mathematical but in the aether thread relativity can't be true because you've created a fictional place where it's not possible to determine something qualitatively (i.e., a thought experiment with major restrictions)....

So here's what i see: evolution is wrong because it can't make mathematical perfectly precise and accurate predictions in chaotic systems, and relativity is wrong because it can't do qualitative predictions without experiments (or the numbers that would result from those experiments). By this I can conclude that all science and indeed all knowledge is wrong: if it's mathematical I can create a situation where it can't make a qualitative prediction without experiment, and if it's not mathematical then I just point out that it can't make mathematically perfect and precise and accurate predictions in chaotic systems.

Also there's this self contradiction problem: with evolution you demand math is the standard while rejecting anything that isn't math, but with relativity you demand that your highly limited ("only a ball!" you insist) fictional "thought experiment" is the standard while rejecting all math. So you both reject math and reject things that aren't math (well now that's self contradictory, math can't be both the standard and not the standard).

So tsar: how is anything true? How is the above not self-contradictory? What's the standard?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Greetings,

For those who may have missed it, I've added a link, in my previous post, to a YouTube video lecture given by Dr. Neil Shubin to commemorate the Year of Darwin.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Nice. I'll check that out tomorrow night.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Observation 1: We see that species evolve and are related. (By this I mean Dogs and Wolves, all Humans, etc.)

True.

Observation 2: We see slightly more ancient skeletal forms (known as fossils, if fossilization has occurred) going back in time and we can see them close in on one point. (Or diverging from that point, depending on what way you look at it.)
(By this I mean that we see similar Organisms like Chimpanzees that have ancestral forms and they become more and more like our ancestors.)

No, because you can't actually show that anny fossil you find in teh dirt is related to any other one. Maybe none of those fossils had any kids. How do you know they did?

The only conclusion one can draw from this is that they are indeed related.

No. You assume that. You can't show that any fossil is related to any other. Period.

No other idea, hypothesis or theory can explain this, except if you posit a prankster God who makes all the evidence point to evolution. (In which case we'd still have to accept evolution because we wouldn't be able to distinguish between said prankster and evolution.)

No evidence points to evolution since evolution doesn't predict anything.

We can cross-check the dates from Carbon-14 with Dendrochronology and we can cross-check other "clocks" independently, too.

C-14 dating only goes few thousand years back.

Secondly, absolute dating can't be based on relative dating because relative dating doesn't put an age on the rock. In relative dating you "simply" say: "Well that rock is in this strata and this other one in the other so X is older than Y."

Yes, you first determine in which layer you found the fossil, and then you date it.

But that in itself doesn't give you a time stamp. That can only come through absolute dating. It's really an easy process, read the Wiki page for starters.
Here's a rather thorough explanation.

It doesn't work, since its based on 4 assumptions that have either been shown to be false, or can't be checked at all. They are as follows:

1.) - The decay chain started fromt he top.
2.) - Decay rates do not change.
3.) - External forces can't change the decay rate.
4.) - All daughter elements were produced by decay only.

Number 1.) and 4.) can not be checked in any way shape or form. If you can check them, please do tell me how.

Indeed.

Would evolution have enough probabilistic resources for that?

True, but you once again fail to see my point. I pointed out that you were wrong in stating that you can't make predictions without equations.

Any other way to predict something without equations would be with a logical deduction. Which means that it logically has to follow from your theory, if it does not, it's just a story.

I showed you an example from biology (Tiktaalik and Human Chromosome Number 2) and then explained it using history.

No. Untill you do it the way I did it for a falling body, its not a prediction but a STORY.

I didn't say that "it" (it being the relatedness of Tiktaalik) can't be tested, I said that you were wrong to assume that we can use DNA to test it. The DNA isn't present anymore, so how can we test the DNA? Instead we can look at the morphology of Tiktaalik, the age, etc.
If this is still too complicated to grasp, here's what I was saying: Your premise of using DNA to test the relatedness was a bad one because there's no DNA left over to test.

But then you have nothing left to test. If you can't show me why this specific morphology is predicted by evolution, then you have nothing else left. Simply saying that it fits in an alleged gap is not a prediction.

NO, that's exactly the point. If we WOULD have found a horse, we would have known that evolution is wrong.

Wrong. That would simply mean that horse evolved earlier than it was first though. Its an equally valid interpretation.

That's why J.B.S Haldane famously said, when asked what would destroy evolution: "Fossil rabbits in the Cambrian."

And he was wrong. Another interpretation is that rabbits are older than we thought, or that something else evolved into rabbit like animals and then went extinct.

Why can't a horse be the transitional form instead of Tiktaalik? It's so easy to see! I'll try to use another example here.

No, its not easy to see. It fits perfectly.

So why can't a horse be the transitional form instead of Tiktaalik? Because the underlying structures are such that evolution would never be able to account for such a dramatic burst and then a sudden re-evolving of a similar structure as before.

Says who!?

Why? Because there's nothing to build on.

Yes there is, its called an ancestor.

It's like asking a builder to build a house directly on sand. It won't work.

Tiktaalik and its ancestors are not sand last time I checked.

This gets us back to: No, we don't need equations and it's really frustrating that you keep repeating this crap even though many others and I have shown you to be wrong about it for the last few pages.

Either equations or a logical deduction. Everything else is a story.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

You're behaving as if it is.

No. I'm showing yout hat you need to show me how you use Population genetics to derive a specific DNA sequence at a specific point in time. Just like I derived the precise altitude at a specific point in time.

Already have done - as the various links we've posted show.

Stories are not predictions. You need to derive Tiktaalik from the equations of Population genetics.

Here's another one about Tiktaalik...from the man himself:

Oh, its Gran Master Shubin himself! I told you I'm not wasting my time with youtube videos.

If your sources are the DI and other pseudo-scientific "sources", then it's obvious why you don't.

No, its because I want you to argue with me, not with others.

I've already pointed out about your misuse of the word "truth" as "absolute" instead of "relative" - clearly, your usage is incorrect.

Using word truth to mean absolute truth is incorrect? Why?

Which is why I explicitly stated that it would slow down.

You shouldn't have bothered.

As usual, it's "all or nothing" with you.

It is extremely useful - as anyone in the field of biological sciences will tell you.

I don't care what they have to say. Unless they can actually use it. But they can't. At least you haven't shown me that they can.

I've already shown that it is not necessary to calculate it - it's obvious that one divided by a number approaching infinity means that the probability of an event approaches zero.

How did you get that number approaching infinity?

And nor am I.

I know, you are not doing your work. I can see that.

Which is a lie.

Which one of those two statements is a lie?

No, they are not.

Some Muslims accept evolution - many do not.

Ergo, your claim is false.

Under my definition, all of them do.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

So in the aether thread you've "disproven" relativity with a thought experiment but here evolution can't be true unless it's a mathematical model.

FALSE! Evrything you say is a misrepresentation of my words. Evolution can be true without math. But without math or logical deductions, it can't predict anything.

In the evolution thread you've "disproven" evolution because it's not mathematical but in the aether thread relativity can't be true because you've created a fictional place where it's not possible to determine something qualitatively (i.e., a thought experiment with major restrictions)....

FALSE on all accounts.

So here's what i see: evolution is wrong because it can't make mathematical perfectly precise and accurate predictions in chaotic systems, and relativity is wrong because it can't do qualitative predictions without experiments (or the numbers that would result from those experiments).

FALSE. Evolution could still be true, it just can't make predictions.

By this I can conclude that all science and indeed all knowledge is wrong: if it's mathematical I can create a situation where it can't make a qualitative prediction without experiment, and if it's not mathematical then I just point out that it can't make mathematically perfect and precise and accurate predictions in chaotic systems.

FALSE!!!! Everything you say it wrong. Everything! You have completely misunderstood everything I said.

I have no produced an environment where no experiment can be performed. I produced an environment where YOUR theory breaks down. The method you are trying to use to perform the experiment breaks down because it can not conceptually tell apart one from the other. I just made it so simple that you could actually understand it.

Also there's this self contradiction problem: with evolution you demand math is the standard while rejecting anything that isn't math,

FALSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I accept any evidence. But if you are going to PREDICT something, you will do it by math or deductive logic.

but with relativity you demand that your highly limited ("only a ball!" you insist) fictional "thought experiment" is the standard while rejecting all math.

FALSE! I don't reject math with relativity. As I said before, a mathematical model that is mathematically valid can describe a physically impossible event. Such as relativity being able to tell use which frame of reference is inertial.

If you want EMPIRICAL evidence for a physical theory, you need physical evidence, not math. But to make a physical theory, that can also predict something, you need math also. Math itself is not enough for there to be empirical evidence for a theory. Its just one component that enables you to predict something based on your theory.

So you both reject math and reject things that aren't math (well now that's self contradictory, math can't be both the standard and not the standard).

So tsar: how is anything true? How is the above not self-contradictory? What's the standard?

As you have noticed above. You have misunderstood everything. Please don't bother anymore, there is no reason to bother anymore.

 

[lrkun]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

:3 i did post a mathematical model in my previous post. Since there is one, therefore tsar, as again demonstrated, is wrong.

 

[MineMineMine]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

In the evolution thread you've "disproven" evolution because it's not mathematical but in the aether thread relativity can't be true because you've created a fictional place where it's not possible to determine something qualitatively (i.e., a thought experiment with major restrictions)....

FALSE on all accounts.

Yelling false is not an argument nor does it substitutes for one.

So here's what i see: evolution is wrong because it can't make mathematical perfectly precise and accurate predictions in chaotic systems, and relativity is wrong because it can't do qualitative predictions without experiments (or the numbers that would result from those experiments).

FALSE. Evolution could still be true, it just can't make predictions.

Except for the multiple times it made accurate predictions? A lot of which have already been pointed out to you.

I accept any evidence.

This has already been dis proven multiply times here

but with relativity you demand that your highly limited ("only a ball!" you insist) fictional "thought experiment" is the standard while rejecting all math.

FALSE! I don't reject math with relativity. As I said before, a mathematical model that is mathematically valid can describe a physically impossible event. Such as relativity being able to tell use which frame of reference is inertial.

If you want EMPIRICAL evidence for a physical theory, you need physical evidence, not math. But to make a physical theory, that can also predict something, you need math also. Math itself is not enough for there to be empirical evidence for a theory. Its just one component that enables you to predict something based on your theory.

So you basically demand that math model to describe an impossible event and then see empirical evidence of that event?

So you both reject math and reject things that aren't math (well now that's self contradictory, math can't be both the standard and not the standard).

So tsar: how is anything true? How is the above not self-contradictory? What's the standard?

As you have noticed above. You have misunderstood everything. Please don't bother anymore, there is no reason to bother anymore.

I'm pretty sure that the majorty here understands you in a similar way as borrofburi did. So in other words: No one understands you ... poor poor you

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

So in the aether thread you've "disproven" relativity with a thought experiment but here evolution can't be true unless it's a mathematical model.

FALSE! Evrything you say is a misrepresentation of my words. Evolution can be true without math. But without math or logical deductions, it can't predict anything.

So if I say "the sun will rise tomorrow" that's not a prediction? If I say "you'll meet the love of your life tomorrow", that's not a prediction? If I say "tomorrow will be a shitty day for you" that's not a prediction? If I say "from the stars I predict that your boss will fire you" that's not a prediction?

If you want EMPIRICAL evidence for a physical theory, you need physical evidence, not math. But to make a physical theory, that can also predict something, you need math also. Math itself is not enough for there to be empirical evidence for a theory. Its just one component that enables you to predict something based on your theory.

Except to have empirical evidence for any hypothesis we have to check that the real world conforms to how we expect it to behave. We do that by predictions and expectations. I predict according to borrofburi's hypothesis of breakfast cereals that rice squares cereal (a cereal I've never had) will probably grow mushy if let in milk or water for an hour; if it doesn't, then my current hypothesis of breakfast cereal behavior is wrong: the real world contradicts my hypothesis. But if it does then my current hypothesis is emerically strengthened: yet another breakfast cereal conforms to my expectations/predictions.

I don't need to mathematically say that "it'll be .223 mushy after 17 minutes" for it to be a prediction or expectation of reality. According to my understanding of earth, the sun will rise tomorrow and pass roughly overhead, barring cloud cover and extreme lattitudes; that's a prediction, I don''t have to say that I expect that at 0900 hours the sun will be at 33 degrees south and 17 degrees east for it to be a prediction.

 

[Inferno]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

No, because you can't actually show that anny fossil you find in teh dirt is related to any other one. Maybe none of those fossils had any kids. How do you know they did?

Again, you're absolutely wrong about it.
First of all, it was already pointed out to you that it doesn't matter if this particular individual had offspring or not. If we had all of the fossils of all the individuals that ever lived and none of them left any ancestors then yes, that would pose a problem. But that's a completely false assumption as we have only a few individuals. It therefore does not matter if this individual left any offspring since it could just as easily have been a different individual in its family.
Secondly, I implicitly stated that the relation of fossils is the CONCLUSION we draw from this, NOT the observation.

Here, look:

The only conclusion one can draw from this is that they are indeed related.

No. You assume that. You can't show that any fossil is related to any other. Period.

Wrong. We don't assume it, we deduce it from all of the observable evidence. What alternative is there?

No other idea, hypothesis or theory can explain this, except if you posit a prankster God who makes all the evidence point to evolution. (In which case we'd still have to accept evolution because we wouldn't be able to distinguish between said prankster and evolution.)

No evidence points to evolution since evolution doesn't predict anything.

Even if it were true that evolution can't predict anything (we can predict things with ToE, as we have all demonstrated and Irkun has even provided formulas) it would be absolute crap to say that "no evidence points to evolution". ALL of the available evidence points to evolution. Name a single fact of biology and it points to evolution and ONLY evolution.

C-14 dating only goes few thousand years back.

It goes back roughly 50,000 years. Your point being? You're not really suggesting what I think you're suggesting, are you?
The point of that particular quote was to show you that we can independently verify those dates, because we can use two or more techniques to measure the date of X. If they all give the same dates, then we're correct. That apparently flew right over your head...

Yes, you first determine in which layer you found the fossil, and then you date it.

And yet, those techniques are independent of each other. Didn't you read the link I provided you with? It might be the best explanation of how radiometric dating works short of going to a specialist and letting him explain it to you.

1.) - The decay chain started fromt he top.

Wrong. We can easily check that. You check if all the daughter components are present (small bits at least) and then you know.

2.) - Decay rates do not change.
3.) - External forces can't change the decay rate.

There is absolutely no evidence that they can change. We've done everything that humans can do in laboratories and we haven't managed to speed up or slow down the rates of change. If you ever manage to speed it up or slow it down, you may come here and triumphantly tell me to put my head into the sand but until someone actually manages that, we have to go with "decay rates do NOT as a matter of fact change".
Oh and by the way, you could make billions with speeding up decay rates, the nuclear industry would kill for that.

Also, those points are the exact same.

Read this link and then come back with a proper understanding of radiometric dating.

Also, what's your point? Are you saying that the Earth is young? Are you by any chance a YEC?

Would evolution have enough probabilistic resources for that?

Not only "would", but it DOES! I'm glad that you're finally getting the point. (You're not really getting it though, are you? Your next post will probably be "nu-uh, there is not enough evidence".)

Any other way to predict something without equations would be with a logical deduction. Which means that it logically has to follow from your theory, if it does not, it's just a story.

Excellent. Have a cookie.

You've just admitted that your previous statements were wrong and that takes courage. Well done Tsar, well done. Now that you've finally understood, I hope that we can move on and you can drop this ridiculous YEC idea.

No. Untill you do it the way I did it for a falling body, its not a prediction but a STORY.

This completely contradicts what you've just said above. You're not even consistent within two lines... In any case, check out Irkun's pdf and you've got exactly what you're looking for.

But then you have nothing left to test. If you can't show me why this specific morphology is predicted by evolution, then you have nothing else left. Simply saying that it fits in an alleged gap is not a prediction.

And I never did that, did I? I specifically showed you how scientists predicted the exact structure of Tiktaalik, which is what you ask for in your second sentence. They found the fossil five years after they set out to find it and only then did we have the confirmation that it did indeed fit the "gap". That is the textbook definition of a prediction and I've explained that to you time and again. I don't know why you can't understand it, but I have explained it.

Wrong. That would simply mean that horse evolved earlier than it was first though. Its an equally valid interpretation.

You're telling me that I'm wrong? That's rich...
I've already explained why a horse could not have evolved at that time. There was no underlying structure to go on. If we were to find a horse 380 million years ago, evolution would be wrong. It is NOT an equally valid interpretation because there is nothing to support this interpretation.

And he was wrong. Another interpretation is that rabbits are older than we thought, or that something else evolved into rabbit like animals and then went extinct.

I nearly choked from laughing when I read this. Are you serious? You're going to tell me that you (a mere layman who doesn't understand anything about evolution) can tell someone like J.B.S. Haldane (Not even going to mention what he did) that he got the "interpretation" of the theory wrong that he's been working on for all his life? You're going to suggest that ToE could have been interpreted differently?
Oh no, sunny-boy, no you don't.

I'm going to make this very easy for you. Contrary to you, I have an understanding of what a theory is and has to live up to. One of the things you need in order to qualify something as a theory is "falsifiability". If you can't falsify it, it's not a theory. Here's AronRa explaining how you can falsify evolution.

If you don't want to watch that video, here's a short summary of what would falsify evolution:
A live, naturally occurring Croco-Duck. (Or Gira-phant. Or Wha-gle. Etc.)
Fossil rabbits in the Cambrian. (As explained above, you're absolutely wrong in stating that evolution could account for this. You want to show that evolution is wrong? Then find me ANYTHING on this list.)
Humans with wings. (Or horses with wings, etc.)
Any mythological creature. (Like the Pegasus, Sphinx, etc.)
A truly irreducibly complex system. (Not the disproved Flagellum, blood clotting factor, eye, etc.)
And so on.

No, its not easy to see. It fits perfectly.

Not if evolution is true. If evolution is true, it would NOT fit.

Says who!?

The theory of evolution and all proper biologists. So basically everybody who knows anything about the subject.

Yes there is, its called an ancestor.

No, there isn't. The underlying structure would NOT permit it.

Tiktaalik and its ancestors are not sand last time I checked.

Are you incapable of understanding what a metaphor is? Here...

Either equations or a logical deduction. Everything else is a story.

Great. Logical deduction it is. If species X and Z are related and if species X is older than Z then we should find species Z (which can only look like this and not any other way) between X and Z. And we found it.
Thank you for agreeing with me.

Now, I have two requests:
1) Learn something about evolution. Here's an excellent introductory course.
2) Do you agree with this flowchart? Are you capable of a rational discussion?

Even if you do answer "Yes" I won't trust your answers because you have already shown that you don't adhere to them, but then at least I know where we stand.