|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1182 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is the lowest multiplication rate for Humans ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Exchange a system in which you have nothing to win, for a system in which you have nothing to lose. So now it's Pascal's Wager too? Even though I would assume that Blaise was sincere when he had come up with it, it's turned into the second biggest religious confidence game that promises you the certainty of winning while it takes everything away from you. Read my page on "Afterlife Insurance" at http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/wager.html for more details on why Pascal's Wager is being used. Edited by dwise1, : Subtitle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 1182 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
-
Hi Ringo, They are equals because both options equate to a certainty, and at the same time both options equate to a possibility. - E.g.: If a person does choose the 'nothing to lose' option, it's a 100 % Certainty that (s)he will be losing the moments of knowing the foods once more. -
quote: Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : 100% Certainty Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : 3rd. Paragraph
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Hi Taq, There was a distinction to be made, bringing up the difference between both perspectives since the evolution theory ( in regards to the origin of life ) utilizes a common transcendental vision of the reality. This distinction is already known by the equation Emanentism Vs Transcendentalism.
So all we have are empty assertions as to why abiogenesis is impossible. Even more, we have already shown that your own math requires the Earth to be just a few weeks old given the population of bacteria. How do you explain this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
CrazyDiamond7 writes:
That isn't true, though. You said:
They are equals because both options equate to a certainty... quote:There is no certainty of happiness. You also said:
quote:If I chose not to go into the casino, I have nothing to win and nothing to lose. If I chose to go into the casino, I have something to win but everything to lose. There's nothing equal in your "equations".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi CrazyDiamond7
Why not see when a theory becomes obsolete A theory is obsolete when it has been proven false or it is superseded by a new theory that explains the known information in a more complete or simpler manner.
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities. (2) The process of divergent speciation involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other. (3) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of evolution over generations, and the process of divergent speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us. Evolution has not been proven wrong, and it's reality is observable in the world around you -- both (1) and (2) have been observed to occur, and thus are based on fact as opposed to theory. There is no documented incidence where (1) and (2) are incapable of explaining the diversity of life as we see it. The original theory (of descent with modification via natural selection) has actually been improved by identifying additional mechanisms, including the underlying genetic mechanisms that are the basis of inheritance of genetic traits.
It is mathematically impossible that a population of 2,000 people would have taken a time longer than Ten thousand years to reach 1 million. Curiously, mathematics is hopelessly incapable of proving reality wrong, so if your mathematical results do not match the reality around you, then you have made a mistake in the math. Your mathematical model is wrong. Mathematics can only model reality, and any discrepancy between model and reality is in the failure of the model to be a complete explanation. For instance, Newton's Law of Gravity:
F = GMm/d2 This explained observed data fairly well, but there were a couple of anomalies (orbit of Mercury is one). These anomalies did not prove the theory to be invalid or obsolete, just that it was incomplete in its ability to explain all the data. Then we got relativity:
e = mc2 and even this does not explain all the data completely, hence the invocation of dark matter and energy to balance the equations ... BUT the thing to note here is that Newton's Law of Gravity is not invalidated -- first because Einsteins Relativity equations devolve into Newton's law in most everyday situations, and as a result it was used to calculate the Mars rocket trajectories (the unknowns in the the calculations causing greater difference\error than the equations). Rather the use of the formula is restricted to those cases where relativity devolves into Newton. Similarly any new theory that would make evolution obsolete will not invalidate the application of the theory, but add to it, as it adds to our base of information and understanding of life, the universe, and everything (D.N.Adams). The mathematics of population dynamics is much more complicated than your simplistic system. I suggest reading Robert Fischer on this topic. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clarity Edited by RAZD, : ...by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 1182 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
-
Ringo, For many people it's better to die than live without their regular foods ( which are their happiness and at the same time 100% certainty that they will die ). and for many, the money they lose in the casino is worth the pleasure and happiness of participating in the casino once more. And if you tell them what the real happiness isthen they would tell you: that happiness ( without regular foods ) is not a Certainty but just a possibility. -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 1182 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
-
Hi RAZD, What becomes obsolete are specifically 2 concepts: Origin of life and Human Origins. 1st concept - the fundamental basis of the evolution theory = the origin of life starting occasionally somewhere in the past, and having a beginning outside of what is already living. Up to the present, the evolution theory ( in regards to the origin of life ) is not a teaching based on perception of the reality or ascertained truth of the facts. - 2nd concept - that the size of the Human brain would be product of natural selection. This concept becomes obsolete by Four different means, ‘Math proof of the Population Growth Models’, 'Evidence of Simultaneity - Previous Non-miscegenation of the European population', 'Impossibility of creating a beginning of life outside of what is already living' and ‘Physical proof that results from Genesis Experiment’. - Therefore, a theory becomes obsolete not only when it has been proven false but also when 2 or more concepts are not a teaching based on perception of the reality or real science ( ascertained truth of the facts ). - And what about the Evidence of Simultaneity, Did the Humans spread to Europe during the time proposed for their multiplication by the natural selection theory ? -
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi CrazyDiamond7
1st concept - the fundamental basis of the evolution theory = the origin of life starting occasionally somewhere in the past, and having a beginning outside of what is already living. Up to the present, the evolution theory ( in regards to the origin of life ) is not a teaching based on perception of the reality or ascertained truth of the facts. Sadly, for you, the origin of life is abiogenesis, not evolution theory per se. Misunderstanding this is indicative of using misunderstanding and incomplete knowledge. The science of abiogenesis is relatively new, and there are exciting studies being done in the field, but none of them involve evolution per se. See again what the process of evolution involves Message 35:
quote: Note that it is rather impossible to have this process work without a living breeding population to start with -- biological evolution starts after breeding populations have developed, ... Note further that it is rather impossible to have divergent speciation without first having a living breeding population to diverge from, Message 35 again:
(2) The process of divergent speciation involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other. ... and finally, please note that when you are talking about the Theory of Evolution, then you are necessarily talking about biological evolution, again Message 35:
quote: Now if you want to discuss where we are in the study of abiogenesis, I can recommend you start with two other threads -- see:
Up to the present, Actually, we have several observed facts involving abiogenesis:
Based on these observations, it would appear possible that life formed from self-replicating molecules somewhere between 4.55 billion and 3.7 billion years ago, and this would appear to be an hypothesis worthy of additional study and investigation in order to expand our knowledge of the natural history of life on earth.
2nd concept - that the size of the Human brain would be product of natural selection. ... The size of the human brain is likely due to run-away sexual selection, a process that occurs much faster than natural selection based on individual survival. See 2nd concept - that the size of the Human brain would be product of natural selection. This concept becomes obsolete by Four different means, ‘Math proof of the Population Growth Models’, 'Evidence of Simultaneity - Previous Non-miscegenation of the European population', 'Impossibility of creating a beginning of life outside of what is already living' and ‘Physical proof that results from Genesis Experiment’. [/qs] Again your ‘Math proof of the Population Growth Models’ only proves that your math is faulty or incomplete, not that the information\data\observations are wrong. Math is a way to model reality, and the validity of the model is related to how well it represents the information\data\observations.
... All of non-Russian Europe fits into the map of Brazil where the language became One. ... This is only valid as an observation if you list all the pre-colonial languages of the indigenous people, rather than Portuguese, else you are comparing apples to oranges.
Therefore, a theory becomes obsolete not only when it has been proven false ... ... which has not happened ...
... but also when 2 or more concepts are not a teaching based on perception ... ... which has not been demonstrated ...
... of the reality or real science ( ascertained truth of the facts ). Curiously, science is not about "ascertained truth" - rather it is about determining what is probably the best explanation for the information\data\observations available -- so the best science can hope to do is approximate truth through testing and invalidation of false concepts (eliminating false ideas).
Europe isn't so large that it could originate so much different languages and ethnies through a system of miscegenation ... ... so therefore your proposed "system of miscegenation" does not explain the evidence and most like is what is in error: the model does not match the information\data\observations. Curiously, DNA patterns for populations appears to match language patterns, thus demonstrating that the inheritable traits of the breeding population -- in genes and memes(1) -- generally match and tend to validate the evolutionary model for the spread of humans on earth. Enjoy. (1) - memes are culturally conveyed concepts\behavior rather than genetic traits, taught to members of a culture and thus passed from generation to generation in much the way genes are, and this would include languages.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Observation shows that when Humans spread to a territory all by themselves, this fact does not originate groups of different languages and ethnies. To the contrary, it brings miscegenation and then causes some languages and ethnies to disappear. This and the rest of your stuff is just plain nuts. We have a great place to California was settled by 15-12,000 years ago by a very small number of groups. When it was "discovered" by the Spanish there were many different languages. From wiki: North America is notable for its linguistic diversity, especially in California. California alone has 18 families consisting of 74 languages (compared to the mere 3 families in all of Europe: Basque, Indo-European, and Uralic). Note: this does not even include dialects! And all this divergence occurred in a mere 12-15,000 years. Your ideas: Do not pass "Go." Do not collect $200.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
CrazyDiamond7 writes:
Yes, for some people. For many people.... It is a certainty that somebody will get cancer but cancer isn't a certainty for everybody. Similarly, "happiness" is not a certainty for everybody. Your "equations" don't add up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 1182 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
-
RAZD, If the evolution theory is not fundamentally based on a specific conception of abiogenesis ( or origin-of-life outside of what is already living ), how do you know that life only arose once or occasionally? - Knowing that the evolution theory is based on the concept that organisms evolved from creatures similar from themselves ( Or, more specifically, from organisms in the cambrian explosion ) and all sharing a common ancestor, It is plain to see that the alleged separation between evolution and origin of life ( or abiogenesis ) is what best covers up camouflaging the impossibility of life having had an origin ( or beginning ) outside of what is living.
quote: - Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : paragraph 2 Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : concept that organisms
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
CrazyDiamond7 writes: If the evolution theory is not fundamentally based on a specific conception of abiogenesis... Evolution is a theory about how species come about, not how life came about. It is consistent with multiple "conceptions of abiogenesis." It doesn't matter if life on Earth was seeded from outer space or arose here from scratch or was created by God or Zeus. Darwin's book was titled Origin of Species, not Origin of Life. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
how do you know that life only arose once or occasionally? We don't know for sure, but the observed facts of genetics strongly suggest that it did.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi CrazyDiamond7
If the evolution theory is not fundamentally based on a specific conception of abiogenesis ( or origin-of-life outside of what is already living ), how do you know that life only arose once or occasionally? We don't ... nor do we NEED to know in order to study the evolution of life on earth. Your quote is full of arguments based on false or misleading information. Garbage in = garbage out.
... lead to thinking of the Darwinian view of abiogenesis ... There is no such thing. Abiogenesis and Evolution are different aspect of life sciences. People that use the term Dawinism and similar (Darwinian) when they are purportedly addressing evolution are intentionally misrepresenting evolutionary science. Darwin's work is a part of the science of evolution, and does not involve elements of evolution not known or conceived of in his time -- like genetics.
... The idea that other forms of origin-of-life might affect all of this never enters the thinking ... Because it absolutely does not affect the application of evolutionary biology science and to study the diversity of life on this planet. Evolution happens, it has been observed, therefore it is capable of being studied via scientific principles.
... people who believe those things are nutty ... Ah yes, the victim card ... People that think there needs to be a link are underinformed or misinformed or both. We do not need to KNOW the origin of species "A" to study it's subsequent evolution and observe if the breeding population divides into two or more daughter populations (speciation - see Message 35) and to document the change in species from one generation to the next (evolution - see Message 35)
2.Embarrassment it could be that many Darwinists know that studies of abiogenesis have been woeful at best. ... LOL. The study of abiogenesis is one of the most exciting fields of science today, see links provided in Message 38 for just a summary view of the amount of investigation taking place.
... Despite the fact that Darwinism is rooted on assumptions that include abiogenesis, ... Logical fallacy of using the conclusion as evidence for the conclusion ... rather sad argument.
... , they are worried that the failure of abiogenesis studies will reflect poorly on evolutionary theory. ... LOL. Just as we are worried that the studies of gravity will reflect poorly on evolutionary theory ... that is to say not at all. The studies of abiogenesis have, and will continue, to reflect well on the process of science in expanding out knowledge of the universe and life. Once you understand that they are not linked then you can understand that no matter what abiogenesis discovers regarding the beginning of life on earth, the study of the evolution of life of earth will still be based on evolution and the scientific process -- we will still observe evolution and speciation and alterations in the diversity of life by these processes.
3.Tradition the notions of universal common ancestry, RM+NS, and abiogenesis are so thoroughly embedded in evolutionary tradition, that practitioners have difficulty separating out the received wisdom from the empirical data. Therefore, even though they know that evolutionary theory _should_ be separate from abiogenesis, they have too much institutional baggage to deal with the issue on a broad scale, and noting the implications it could have across the board. Those who attempt to do so in one area are shot down by others more entrenched in evolutionary tradition. ROFLOL. Trying to cast scientific study as the rote learning of beliefs (how religions are taught) demonstrates abject failure to understand science and scientific processes. Science advances by showing previous concepts to be wrong, faulty, or incomplete. Science lives to overturn traditional thought not wallow in it.
The biggest problem I have is not as much with Darwinists having this concept of abiogenesis or with them basing their theory on it. All ID-based theories likewise have their own conceptions of the origin-of-life that their theories come from, some of which include common ancestry. The problem is the deceptive tactics of pretending that their theory is separable from abiogenesis. That is simply not intellectually honest What you need to understand is that there is a difference between linked and dependent. All science is linked into understanding "Life, the Universe, and oh Everything" (Douglas Adams), but each field is independently studied. The study of geology is linked to the study of how planets formed, and the study of how planets formed is linked to the study of gravity, and the study of gravity is linked to the study of how the universe began ... but each can be studied independently. Geology does not become inseparable from Astronomy or Physics, it isn't dependent on KNOWING how the earth formed: the earth is here, we can touch it, we can feel it, we can study how it has changed over time and try to understand the forces and processes that cause those changes. Life is here, we can touch it, we can feel it, we can study how it has changed over time and try to understand the forces and processes that cause those changes. That study is the science of biological evolution. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : (oops) correction per Straggler Edited by RAZD, : codingby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
RAZ writes: Geology does not become inseparable from Astrology or Physics, it isn't dependent on KNOWING how the earth formed... You mean astronomy rather than astrology. Typo aside - Good post.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024