Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

[Dragan Glas]

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

Greetings,

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.

No, I don't "have to" show you.

As everyone here has been telling you - population genetics is not used to predict or "derive a specific DNA sequence 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.

No, I don't "need to derive Tiktaalik" or anything else from population genetics.

See above.

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.

By refusing to learn from those who know more than you, you insist in going through life in a fog of unknowing.

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.

But I'm not just arguing with you - I'm arguing with those on whom you base your opinions.

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?

As I've already explained, in the English-speaking world, the word, "truth", is normally used in the relative sense, unless explicitly stated that it's being used in the absolute sense.

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

You shouldn't have bothered.

Given your inability at reading between-the-lines, I felt I had to be clear.

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.

Because you're unable to accept any evidence accepted by the scientific community does not mean that it doesn't work.

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?

Did you not read the post where I mentioned the Drake equation?

Let me quote it for you - and then you do the calculation!

Again, what's to calculate?

One could use the Drake equation, which only calculates the number of possible intelligent species.

But you'd then have to factor in...

1) the probability of a EBE picking our star system out of the countless number of star systems in the universe: 1 out of - for all practical purposes - a number approaching infinity;
2) the probability of their coming to our world at the right point in history: 1 in 4.6 billion years;
3) the probability of their learning the three specific languages used on the Rosetta Stone out of all the languages extant at the time: ? ;
4) the probability that they have the sense of humour to do such a thing as fake this - given that they may never return...

When all's said and done, the probability is infinitesimal: P -> 0.

Again!

Got it?

And nor am I.

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

Well - since you're determined to go through life in a fog of unknowing and too lazy to read the earlier post, I've restated the relevant section above for you to do the calculation.

If you're not prepared to do that, don't keep banging-on about it.

Which is a lie.

Which one of those two statements is a lie?

You said:

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

Both of those statements are false.

No, they are not.

Some Muslims accept evolution - many do not.

Ergo, your claim is false.

Under my definition, all of them do.

Another one of your word-definitions that is false.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Царь Славян]

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

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?

There is a difference between a prediction that you hear from psychics and a scientific prediction. Psychics simply make up stories. Scientific predictions are logical consequences of a particular theory. A prediction logically follows from teh prediction. Which meas that a prediction, by definition by predicting something, excludes something else. And to propperly know what a theory predicts, we use either logic or math.

Scientists usually use math, psychics do not. So if you say that the Sun will rise tommorow, this is a prediction based on a scientific model of the solar system and of gravity. We can mathematically derive from those two models that Sun will rise tommorw, and we can know the specific time this will happen. The Sun will not rise 10 hours later at the position we do not expect it to. That prediction is based on math. The fact that you didn't use it know simply meas that you are well aquainted with a well known model and you did not have to use math. But it was already done before you. Somebody else did it.

On the other hand, a psychic would predict that you will meet a love of your life tommorown. Based on no math whatsoever. And I think that we all kno that this is totally different than the prediction above. Its simply a story that does not logically follow from the theory. Probably because the psychic has no theory whatsoever and is simply making things up.

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.

If you don't use math then you predictions are not precise. Sometimes we need to be a bit more specific then what you described above. In the case of evolution, where we know that the prediction in any case, will be a life form. So to be more specific we need to use math to show that our prediction predicts exactly the right life form.

What do you say about this prediction.

It will rain tommorow, or it may not.

As you can see, this prediction is right 100% of the time. Just like saying that animals will change according to their environment. But if I use math and calcualte just how much rain is going to fall tommorow, my prediction is specific, thus making it a valid prediction. And if I do not find such an amount of raid tommorow, my prediction failed.

 

[Царь Славян]

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

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.

How do you know ANY fossil had ANY children? That's what I want to know.

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

Its the wrongest conclusion ever. How do you know those animals were not sterile?

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.

Like what?

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...

If it goes back 50,000 years then you cant cross check datings older than that. You can't check some rock that is supposed to be 300 million years old.

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.

The dates of the layers were already known before the radiometric dating was used. Tell me how was it known?

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

LOL. The fact that they are present does not mean that the decay chain started from the top one!

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?

Oh but they do change. The first article shows that decay rate can be influenced by chemical envirnonment. The second one talks about how mechanical motion, particualry rotation increases or decreases teh decay rate. Third one talks about change in alpha decay in stars. The fourth one talks about induced beta decay. And the fifth one shows increase of a nuclear decay rate by cavitation in vater. And teh sixth one shows a billion fold accelerated decay produced in the lab.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V61-3X7V3XB-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=07a8757deec576a3400ae5f599bea9f4

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x1q13217t2427059/
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1971Ap&SS..11..451P
http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/81/4/42001/fulltext

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVM-4W0SJXT-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=45ca0f483bfe8b1670cc93d63de448f1

http://www.ca.infn.it/~oldeman/resneu/p5190_1.pdf

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".)

Okay, how do you know that?

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.

He's on my ignore list, I do not intend to.

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.

No, its a story. Because a horse would be an equaly likely prediction.

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.

The horse would have evolved fromt eh animal that Tiktaalik supposedly evolved.

A live, naturally occurring Croco-Duck. (Or Gira-phant. Or Wha-gle. Etc.)

Perfectly explainable by evolutoin.

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.)

The fact that I haven't found it doesn't mean they do not exist.

Humans with wings. (Or horses with wings, etc.)

If birds have supposedly evolved wings, then humans and horses could too.

Any mythological creature. (Like the Pegasus, Sphinx, etc.)

Again, no reason why evolution could not produce that.

A truly irreducibly complex system. (Not the disproved Flagellum, blood clotting factor, eye, etc.)

How were they disproven?

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

Why?

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

Show me where.

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

Why not?

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.

You can't predict what the intermediate species will look like. Simply morphina the closest possible image between teh two is not a logical deduction but an induction.

 

[Царь Славян]

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

No, I don't "have to" show you.

As everyone here has been telling you - population genetics is not used to predict or "derive a specific DNA sequence at a specific point in time".

Then stop claiming that evolution predicts anything.

No, I don't "need to derive Tiktaalik" or anything else from population genetics.

See above.

Then stop claiming that evolution predicts anything.

By refusing to learn from those who know more than you, you insist in going through life in a fog of unknowing.

He doesn't know more than me. Anything.

But I'm not just arguing with you - I'm arguing with those on whom you base your opinions.

No, you never came in contact with them, ever. William Paley is not alive now.

As I've already explained, in the English-speaking world, the word, "truth", is normally used in the relative sense, unless explicitly stated that it's being used in the absolute sense.

That doesn't mean that I was wrong.

Given your inability at reading between-the-lines, I felt I had to be clear.

You felt wrong.

Because you're unable to accept any evidence accepted by the scientific community does not mean that it doesn't work.

Last time I checked, I accpet genetics. So how can you say I do not accept scientific evidence?

Did you not read the post where I mentioned the Drake equation?

Let me quote it for you - and then you do the calculation!

I'm not doing your work for you.

Well - since you're determined to go through life in a fog of unknowing and too lazy to read the earlier post, I've restated the relevant section above for you to do the calculation.

If you're not prepared to do that, don't keep banging-on about it.

Why should I do your work for you?

Both of those statements are false.

By my definition it is not.

Another one of your word-definitions that is false.

If you are free to have your own definitions, then so am I. You said that ID proponents are Biblical literalists. I am not a Biblical literalist but I am an ID proponent. Yet you defined ID proponents as Biblical literalists.

 

[australopithecus]

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

How do you know ANY fossil had ANY children? That's what I want to know.

I've heard this bollocks before. You don't post erratic and pointless posts on Facebook groups do you? But I digress...

Whether or not an individual reproduced is irrelevant. As has been pointed out to you, and every creationist on the internet, evolution is a process that happens to populations, not individuals. Your continued non sequitur is laughable. Par for the course really.

If you are free to have your own definitions, then so am I. You said that ID proponents are Biblical literalists. I am not a Biblical literalist but I am an ID proponent. Yet you defined ID proponents as Biblical literalists.

No, you're not. You don't get to redefine words for some childish non-point you're failing to make. ID proponents are creationists. Not all creationsists are Biblical literalists, they don't even have to be religious. You assert a creator/designer then you're asserting creationism. You're continued evolution = Muslim nonsense is childish, petty trolling. It's not funny and it's not productive. Grow up.

 

[Dragan Glas]

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

Greetings,

No, I don't "have to" show you.

As everyone here has been telling you - population genetics is not used to predict or "derive a specific DNA sequence at a specific point in time".

Then stop claiming that evolution predicts anything.

No, I don't "need to derive Tiktaalik" or anything else from population genetics.

See above.

Then stop claiming that evolution predicts anything.

No - the scientific community can predict fossils, and I'm asserting that they can do that. Your inability to accept that the scientific community can do that, doesn't change that fact.

By refusing to learn from those who know more than you, you insist in going through life in a fog of unknowing.

He doesn't know more than me. Anything.

So you claim!

What proof have you got that that's true? Scientific credentials? Peer-reviewed papers?

But I'm not just arguing with you - I'm arguing with those on whom you base your opinions.

No, you never came in contact with them, ever. William Paley is not alive now.

But his ideas are well-known - and have been overturned.

Darwin started out as a "Paleyian" and ended up agnostic.

And if you are a "Paleyian", then you believe in God - ergo, you are a Creationist!!

As I've already explained, in the English-speaking world, the word, "truth", is normally used in the relative sense, unless explicitly stated that it's being used in the absolute sense.

That doesn't mean that I was wrong.

In the context of everyday English-usage, you were.

Given your inability at reading between-the-lines, I felt I had to be clear.

You felt wrong.

Nevertheless, your uncertainty of whether evolution stops or merely slows down shows that I was right to do so.

Because you're unable to accept any evidence accepted by the scientific community does not mean that it doesn't work.

Last time I checked, I accpet genetics. So how can you say I do not accept scientific evidence?

You accept genetics - yet reject evolution??

Even though that field proves evolution??

Evidence from genetics. The genomes of all organisms contain overwhelming evidence for evolution. All living species share the same basic mechanism of heredity using DNA (or RNA in some viruses) to encode genes that are passed from parent to offspring, and which are transcribed and translated into proteins during each organism's life. Using DNA sequences, biologists quantify the genetic similarities and differences among species, in order to determine which species are more closely related to one another and which are more distantly related. In doing so, biologists use essentially the same evidence and logic used to determine paternity in lawsuits. The pattern of genetic relatedness between all species indicates a branching tree that implies divergence from a common ancestor. Within this tree of life, there are also occasional reticulations where two branches fuse, rather than separate. (For example, mitochondria are organelles found in the cells of plants and animals. Mitochondria have their own genes, which are more similar to genes in bacteria than to genes on the chromosomes in the cell nucleus. Thus, one of our distant ancestors arose from a symbiosis of two different cell types.) The genetic similarity between species, which exists by virtue of evolution from the same ancestral form, is an essential fact that underlies biomedical research. This similarity allows us to begin to understand the effects of our own genes by conducting research on genes from other species. For example, genes that control the process of DNA repair in bacteria, flies, and mice have been discovered to influence certain cancers in humans. These findings also suggest strategies for intervention that can be explored in other species before testing on humans.

Did you not read the post where I mentioned the Drake equation?

Let me quote it for you - and then you do the calculation!

I'm not doing your work for you.

Fine - here's the answer: P -> 0.

Well - since you're determined to go through life in a fog of unknowing and too lazy to read the earlier post, I've restated the relevant section above for you to do the calculation.

If you're not prepared to do that, don't keep banging-on about it.

Why should I do your work for you?

Never mind, I've done it for you.

Both of those statements are false.

By my definition it is not.

Your definition is false.

Another one of your word-definitions that is false.

If you are free to have your own definitions, then so am I. You said that ID proponents are Biblical literalists. I am not a Biblical literalist but I am an ID proponent. Yet you defined ID proponents as Biblical literalists.

ID was proven, in a court of law, to be nothing more than Creationism with the words "Creator/Creation" replaced with the words "Designer/Design".

Here are the videos to prove it.

The award-winning Nova programme "Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial":



Dr. Kenneth Miller's lecture on the trial:



Kindest regards,

James

 

[Inferno]

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

How do you know ANY fossil had ANY children? That's what I want to know.

You're going to great lengths to save your precious Creationism and you're ridiculing yourself in the process. I've heard a lot of crazy things from Creationists, but this is by far the most ridiculous things ever. And that's with "Spontaneous Nostril Combustions" and the like floating around.
IF they were indeed sterile, then it's strange that we find
1) individuals of the exact same species, sometimes at the same time, sometimes a few ten/hundred thousand years apart.
2) a proliferation of species that indicate an evolutionary procession. (ie small, incremental, gradual changes)

Like what?

Like I said, ALL of it. So "like what" is a bit of a daft question. The phylogenetic tree, the fossil record, DNA evidence, Atavisms, Vestigial structures, etc. I'm a perfect example of evolution, as I have one more vestigial structure than people usually have: I can wave my ears. That's evolution, baby!

If it goes back 50,000 years then you cant cross check datings older than that. You can't check some rock that is supposed to be 300 million years old.

I didn't say that, did I? I said that we can cross-reference C-14 with Dendrochronology. Here, once again, is a list of modern dating methods. Check which ones are used for the same ages and rocks and there you go.

The dates of the layers were already known before the radiometric dating was used. Tell me how was it known?

Uh, no they weren't. We knew that X was older than Y, but we didn't know that X was 300 million years old and Y 250 million.

Oh but they do change. The first article shows that decay rate can be influenced by chemical envirnonment. The second one talks about how mechanical motion, particualry rotation increases or decreases teh decay rate. Third one talks about change in alpha decay in stars. The fourth one talks about induced beta decay. And the fifth one shows increase of a nuclear decay rate by cavitation in vater. And teh sixth one shows a billion fold accelerated decay produced in the lab.

Hey, I was actually shown wrong about something. Thanks for that.
However, it doesn't change things. Note that these things don't happen in the natural world. The only thing that does happen is a change in their decay rate when subjected to solar flares.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36108
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156

These only change the rates by 0.1% or less.

Okay, how do you know that?

We see it around us.

He's on my ignore list, I do not intend to.

In that case, I'll post a completely different pdf, one that I didn't copy from his post.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1103/1103.0097v1.pdf

No, its a story. Because a horse would be an equaly likely prediction.

If you don't understand evolution, yes. If you have any understanding about it at all, wrong.
Here's the guy who discovered it (Neil Shubin, Ph.D.) explaining why only Tiktaalik could have fit there. That's why we predicted Tiktaalik and not anything else. And that's why I'm also telling you that anything else would NOT have fit the prediction and would have shown evolution to be in error.

The horse would have evolved fromt eh animal that Tiktaalik supposedly evolved.

Evolution wouldn't be able to account for that.

Perfectly explainable by evolutoin.

Didn't you watch the video I posted? It would actually go against at least one Law of evolution. (In this case Mayr's Law of Monophyly) Heck, even Darwin explained that we wouldn't be looking for a blend of two modern creatures.

The fact that I haven't found it doesn't mean they do not exist.

Find it. When you do, I will admit that you're right and hang my head in shame. Until you do, stop spouting crap.

If birds have supposedly evolved wings, then humans and horses could too.

No, because we don't have the underlying structure. I've already explained this with a metaphor: You can't build a house directly on sand, you need an underlying structure that permits it. Since neither humans nor horses have this underlying structure, finding a winged horse would reduce evolution to ashes.

Again, no reason why evolution could not produce that.

Again, you're wrong. Mythological creatures are either blends of two modern creatures, creatures with body-parts that wouldn't be able to work on their underlying structures or other impossibilities. (Like speaking even though the larynx of an eagle is not made for that.)

How were they disproven?

1) By actually tracing their evolution.
2) By showing that IC in general was flawed. (Mouse-trap)
3) By showing how the individual examples were flawed.
For example:
Structure ------------------- Disproof
Flagellum ----------------- Type III secretion system
Blood clotting ------------ Blood clotting of Dolphins
Eye ------------------------- Tens of intermediary stages
etc

Show me where.

You mean "who predicted Tiktaalik and why the horse wouldn't fit"? Watch the talk I linked to above.
Or did you mean the universal support for evolution? That would be this one here then.

Why not?

I've already explained this: Because the underlying structure would not permit it. Like I've said before, it's akin to trying to build a house on sand.

You can't predict what the intermediate species will look like. Simply morphina the closest possible image between teh two is not a logical deduction but an induction.

I can predict what it should look like and I can predict what changes it must go through. The first part is inductive, the second necessarily deductive. That second part is why your "horse intermediary" would never work.

 

[Rumraket]

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

Tsar's still around getting his ass handed to him I see. Funny stuff...
Dragan Glas, Inferno and others.. your patience is legendary.

One still has to wonder just how impressed these supposed "onlookers" are that Tsar is attempting to impress. :roll:

 

[borrofburi]

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

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?

There is a difference between a prediction that you hear from psychics and a scientific prediction. Psychics simply make up stories. Scientific predictions are logical consequences of a particular theory. A prediction logically follows from teh prediction. Which meas that a prediction, by definition by predicting something, excludes something else. And to propperly know what a theory predicts, we use either logic or math.

Scientists usually use math, psychics do not. So if you say that the Sun will rise tommorow, this is a prediction based on a scientific model of the solar system and of gravity. We can mathematically derive from those two models that Sun will rise tommorw, and we can know the specific time this will happen. The Sun will not rise 10 hours later at the position we do not expect it to. That prediction is based on math. The fact that you didn't use it know simply meas that you are well aquainted with a well known model and you did not have to use math. But it was already done before you. Somebody else did it.

On the other hand, a psychic would predict that you will meet a love of your life tommorown. Based on no math whatsoever. And I think that we all kno that this is totally different than the prediction above. Its simply a story that does not logically follow from the theory. Probably because the psychic has no theory whatsoever and is simply making things up.

Ok so then you agree that predictions can be made without math (you admitted to at least three types of predictions above: making shit up, mathematical modeling, logical consequences of hypotheses).

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.

If you don't use math then you predictions are not precise. Sometimes we need to be a bit more specific then what you described above. In the case of evolution, where we know that the prediction in any case, will be a life form. So to be more specific we need to use math to show that our prediction predicts exactly the right life form.

What do you say about this prediction.

It will rain tommorow, or it may not.

As you can see, this prediction is right 100% of the time. Just like saying that animals will change according to their environment. But if I use math and calcualte just how much rain is going to fall tommorow, my prediction is specific, thus making it a valid prediction. And if I do not find such an amount of raid tommorow, my prediction failed.

What do you say about this prediction:
It will rain tomorrow.

As you can see there's no math involved in this prediction, yet it's still a prediction. If every time I said "it's going to rain tomorrow" it actually did rain the following day, and every day that I didn't say "it's going to rain tomorrow" it didn't rain, it would be a damn accurate prediction and indicate I had some model (potentially not mathematical, maybe it's just a trick knee that hurts before rain comes) that predicts rain. Yet there's no math involved.

 

[Inferno]

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

How do you know ANY fossil had ANY children? That's what I want to know.

Thanks to Gnug for getting me searching, here is your answer:

Because we've actually found fossil whales with in utero fetus!

 

[Dragan Glas]

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

Greetings,

Tsar's still around getting his ass handed to him I see. Funny stuff...
Dragan Glas, Inferno and others.. your patience is legendary.

One still has to wonder just how impressed these supposed "onlookers" are that Tsar is attempting to impress. :roll:

Well, you're impressed, Rumraket! :lol:

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Rumraket]

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

Haha, I truly am... you guys are doing great. Not far before you reach the ratskep record of 53 pages, if you add this thread and the other ones with Tsar crap together :lol:

 

[Dragan Glas]

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

Greetings,

How do you know ANY fossil had ANY children? That's what I want to know.

Thanks to Gnug for getting me searching, here is your answer:

Because we've actually found fossil whales with in utero fetus!

He'll probably argue: "That, at least, proves that the adults were fertile, although those young didn't survive, therefore - no proof!".

Since, as has been pointed out, we're dealing with populations, not individuals, we can assume that other specimens of these species did survive and breed - since we find later fossils with morphological traits consistent with their being descended from the earlier fossils - or, rather, similar fossils.

If one wishes "absolute proof", one way is mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) passed down through the maternal line.

Not for dinosaurs, though!

This mtDNA can trace back - given the right circumstances of preservation (permafrost) - perhaps up to a million years.

This is how we know (in the absolute sense) that modern man is not directly descended from chimpanzees or Neanderthals.

And, of course, given the time-lines involved, this completely blows the "6000 years" belief out of the water.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Царь Славян]

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

No - the scientific community can predict fossils, and I'm asserting that they can do that. Your inability to accept that the scientific community can do that, doesn't change that fact.

They might as well be able to do that, but not based on evolution. I saw no one derive any fossile from evolution. Stories do not count.

So you claim!

What proof have you got that that's true? Scientific credentials? Peer-reviewed papers?

Because I say so.

But his ideas are well-known - and have been overturned.

Darwin started out as a "Paleyian" and ended up agnostic.

And if you are a "Paleyian", then you believe in God - ergo, you are a Creationist!!

A bunch of non-sequiturs. If you agree with someone on something, that doesn't mean youa gree with that same person on everything.

In the context of everyday English-usage, you were.

I wasn't using everyday English. I was talking philosophically.

You accept genetics - yet reject evolution??

Even though that field proves evolution??

No, because similarity does not lead to common descent. Its your assumption that it does.

Fine - here's the answer: P -> 0.

What number is P?

Your definition is false.

According to me it's not.

ID was proven, in a court of law, to be nothing more than Creationism with the words "Creator/Creation" replaced with the words "Designer/Design".

I'm not watching videos. And science is not decided in courts, but labs.

 

[Царь Славян]

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

1) individuals of the exact same species, sometimes at the same time, sometimes a few ten/hundred thousand years apart.

How do you know they are the samse species in the first place? You assume they are. How do you know they are?

2) a proliferation of species that indicate an evolutionary procession. (ie small, incremental, gradual changes)

No. You simply see fossils in the ground. You do not know what direction they are evolving into. Putting them on a piece of paper, and lining them up how you think they are evolving, and connecting them with lines, is not what happens in nature. You don't know that that actually happened.

Like I said, ALL of it. So "like what" is a bit of a daft question. The phylogenetic tree, the fossil record, DNA evidence, Atavisms, Vestigial structures, etc. I'm a perfect example of evolution, as I have one more vestigial structure than people usually have: I can wave my ears. That's evolution, baby!

No. All of those point to my theory of Invisible Pink Unicorn being true! Unless you can show otherwise.

I didn't say that, did I? I said that we can cross-reference C-14 with Dendrochronology. Here, once again, is a list of modern dating methods. Check which ones are used for the same ages and rocks and there you go.

And dendochronology goes back how much?

Uh, no they weren't. We knew that X was older than Y, but we didn't know that X was 300 million years old and Y 250 million.

Okay, HOW did we know that?

However, it doesn't change things. Note that these things don't happen in the natural world.

What the hell is this supposed to mean? Where the hell are experiments supposed to be performed? They are done in the lab, and anything that happens in the lab can also happen in the nature. Besides, one of the articles talked about it happening right now in stars. Thus, in pure nature.

I mean, if you don't expect lab experiments, then you can't accept ANY lab experiment EVER done. And that would mean that what Lenski did with his bacteria doesn't count. Yup, let's throw out all lab experiments ever produced.

Also take a look at this. The Oklo reactor. This is a naturally occuring nuclear reaction that haddifferent decay rates. The different dating method, measured the same specimen, and gave out different results.

Apparent inconsistencies between ages deduced from 40K /40Ar and U/Pb ratios for samples found at the Oklo natural reactor site [10] could be due to environmental effects on the electron-capture decay rate of 40K [11]. Because of their relevance in a number of important areas of science, we decided to carefully measure the decay rates of 7Be and 40K under several different conditions to look for variations in these quantities.

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp;jsessionid=CF2F3BA9374E4B3D01756F1EE59D09CB?purl=/789157-9oovmR/

The only thing that does happen is a change in their decay rate when subjected to solar flares.

I actually used that argument before, and I have been shown that this is better explained by instruments being effected by the radiation itself. So I do not stand by that anymore.

These only change the rates by 0.1% or less.

In one of the experiments the decay rate was increased by a billion fold.

We see it around us.

More details please.

In that case, I'll post a completely different pdf, one that I didn't copy from his post.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1103/1103.0097v1.pdf

What's this supposed to be?

If you don't understand evolution, yes. If you have any understanding about it at all, wrong.
Here's the guy who discovered it (Neil Shubin, Ph.D.) explaining why only Tiktaalik could have fit there. That's why we predicted Tiktaalik and not anything else. And that's why I'm also telling you that anything else would NOT have fit the prediction and would have shown evolution to be in error.

I'm not looking at videos. You tell me why a horse wouldn't fit there.

Evolution wouldn't be able to account for that.

Why?

Didn't you watch the video I posted? It would actually go against at least one Law of evolution. (In this case Mayr's Law of Monophyly) Heck, even Darwin explained that we wouldn't be looking for a blend of two modern creatures.

You mean something like this?

Find it. When you do, I will admit that you're right and hang my head in shame. Until you do, stop spouting crap.

I have no reason to find it. Evolutionists kept saying that evolution was true, even before they found Tiktaalik. Finding it or not didn't change anything.

No, because we don't have the underlying structure. I've already explained this with a metaphor: You can't build a house directly on sand, you need an underlying structure that permits it. Since neither humans nor horses have this underlying structure, finding a winged horse would reduce evolution to ashes.

Perfectly meaningless statement. A single cell has no underlying structure to evolve arms or legs. Yet according to you, it did evolve that, since single cell evolved to a human. So according to you, structures can be gained.

Again, you're wrong. Mythological creatures are either blends of two modern creatures, creatures with body-parts that wouldn't be able to work on their underlying structures or other impossibilities. (Like speaking even though the larynx of an eagle is not made for that.)

The only reason you see them as not fitting is because you are not used to them. You only see dogs having dog features, and elephants having elephant features. But if a creature evolved to have something in between a dog and an elephant, then that's just what it would be, and then you would not be claiming that its a mix. Because dogs and elephants would not exist, but this other animal would. Furthermore, by your definition, other animals can then also be called a mix of all different features.

1) By actually tracing their evolution.
2) By showing that IC in general was flawed. (Mouse-trap)
3) By showing how the individual examples were flawed.
For example:
Structure ------------------- Disproof
Flagellum ----------------- Type III secretion system
Blood clotting ------------ Blood clotting of Dolphins
Eye ------------------------- Tens of intermediary stages
etc

Does evolution have enough probabilistic resources to transform a T3SS into a flagellum?

Or did you mean the universal support for evolution? That would be this one here then.

The only interesting thing they said was this:

Bush uses phylogenetic trees to study changes in HA and to look for patterns between strains. She hopes to predict which strains may be responsible for the next year's flu and design more effective and better-targeted vaccines.

Phylogenetics itself does not tell you that all life is connected by common descent. It is an assumption based on similarity of the creatures.

I've already explained this: Because the underlying structure would not permit it. Like I've said before, it's akin to trying to build a house on sand.

Why?

I can predict what it should look like and I can predict what changes it must go through. The first part is inductive, the second necessarily deductive. That second part is why your "horse intermediary" would never work.

The inductive part is a story, not a prediction.

Thanks to Gnug for getting me searching, here is your answer:

Because we've actually found fossil whales with in utero fetus!

Not all fossils are found like that. And guess, what, that fetus died! So I guess it had no children that lived. And that's the end for that lineage.

So my question remains. How do you know, that any of those fossils had any children? Some probably did. Because animals are alive today, and someone must have gave birth to them. My question is, how do you know its the animals you find in the fossils record.

 

[Царь Славян]

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

Ok so then you agree that predictions can be made without math (you admitted to at least three types of predictions above: making shit up, mathematical modeling, logical consequences of hypotheses).

Making shit up is obviously not a prediction. Deriving an event with math is a prediction. Logical deduction is also a prediction.

What do you say about this prediction:
It will rain tomorrow.
As you can see there's no math involved in this prediction, yet it's still a prediction. If every time I said "it's going to rain tomorrow" it actually did rain the following day, and every day that I didn't say "it's going to rain tomorrow" it didn't rain, it would be a damn accurate prediction and indicate I had some model (potentially not mathematical, maybe it's just a trick knee that hurts before rain comes) that predicts rain. Yet there's no math involved.

Unless you can show me what you used to come to that prediction, its a story. You either have to calculated the weater pattern, or use a logical deduction form your theory. If you don't have any of those, its not a prediction but a story.

 

[Deleted member 619]

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

Still reasserting the same ignorant guff, despite having already been schooled on why there is no requirement for an individual to have had progeny for it to be considered a transition.

Accusations of Darwin's bestiality can't be far away now.

 

[australopithecus]

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

What proof have you got that that's true? Scientific credentials? Peer-reviewed papers?

Because I say so.

Your arrogant dishonesty is seemingly infinite, and you presume to lecture us? Seriously?

 

[lrkun]

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

Unless you can show me what you used to come to that prediction, its a story. You either have to calculated the weater pattern, or use a logical deduction form your theory. If you don't have any of those, its not a prediction but a story.

Buy SAS. Here's the webpage. http://www.sas.com/technologies/analytics/statistics/stat/index.html

It's so sad that I can't stop myself from laughing. I know it's a fallacy to laugh at another's argument, but this is just to much. It's like one having no discernment having a pebble as a pet. I don't know if I should pity tsarp or ignore him.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1103/1103.0097v1.pdf

I think tsarp made a mistake since his link doesn't open and my earlier one does.

 

[Dragan Glas]

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

Greetings,

No - the scientific community can predict fossils, and I'm asserting that they can do that. Your inability to accept that the scientific community can do that, doesn't change that fact.

They might as well be able to do that, but not based on evolution. I saw no one derive any fossile from evolution. Stories do not count.

You have been arguing throughout that scientists have been unable to predict anything using the theory of evolution.

Evolutionary biology comprises a multitude of scientific fields: evolution is not just a stand-alone "theory".

Throughout you've been claiming that predicting transitional fossils between two other fossils is not a prediction.

In answering borrofburi above, you state:

Making shit up is obviously not a prediction. Deriving an event with math is a prediction. Logical deduction is also a prediction.

What do you think is predicting a transitional fossil? Logical deduction based on morphological traits! Ergo, a prediction.

So you claim!

What proof have you got that that's true? Scientific credentials? Peer-reviewed papers?

Because I say so.

So, you're God now, are you?

But his ideas are well-known - and have been overturned.

Darwin started out as a "Paleyian" and ended up agnostic.

And if you are a "Paleyian", then you believe in God - ergo, you are a Creationist!!

A bunch of non-sequiturs.

Not if you know anything about Paley and Darwin, they're not.

If you agree with someone on something, that doesn't mean youa gree with that same person on everything.

So, with what parts of Paleyianism do you agree?

In the context of everyday English-usage, you were.

I wasn't using everyday English. I was talking philosophically.

We're talking in the everyday sense when we say "the train is moving" - if you choose to turn introspective and ask "What is truth?", then we're not going to get anywhere. are we?

You accept genetics - yet reject evolution??

Even though that field proves evolution??

No, because similarity does not lead to common descent. Its your assumption that it does.

"Similarity" in what?

And it's not "my" assumption - or, indeed, "a" assumption: it's a evidence-based logical deduction of scientists.

Fine - here's the answer: P -> 0.

What number is P?

A number approaching zero.

Your definition is false.

According to me it's not.

Definitions are based on a commonly-recognized, independent source.

Such as dictionaries - I defy you to find a dictionary that defines someone who accepts evolution as a Muslim - or vice versa.

ID was proven, in a court of law, to be nothing more than Creationism with the words "Creator/Creation" replaced with the words "Designer/Design".

I'm not watching videos.

You should - both are well-worth the time to watch. You'll learn so much!

And science is not decided in courts, but labs.

The definition of "Science" was - and rightly so - decided in a court-of-law: ID and Creationism are not Science.

Kindest regards,

James