|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Population Genetics | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
If your mathematical model does not reflect reality IT is wrong not reality.
Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : opty we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Did you have a specific grievance with the computation? Only one: it is refuted by the evidence. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I repeat: the mathematical model proposed does not reflect reality, therefore it is false. It is invalid. It is wrong.
Math can never prove reality wrong. This is the essential difference between science and pseudoscience - when a concept is falsified, invalidated, it is discarded by science. Therefore there is no need to show the thesis is invalid, rather the shoe is on the foot of those pushing the thesis to explain how it can account for reality being different than it's computation OR they change the computation until it matches. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Likewise, RAZD simply saying, "the math is wrong, its all wrong," doesn't explain how or why. If its wrong, I want to be shown why. It's wrong because it doesn't explain the facts. That is WHY it is wrong. No matter what the math is or how it is developed or what assumptions it is based on, evaluation of the math is unnecessary when it doesn' t model reality: it is wrong. This is also why all those calculations of probability are inherently wrong: life exists, either it happened naturally or was created makes no difference, the calculation cannot show that it could not happen naturally. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It's wrong because it doesn't explain the facts. That is WHY it is wrong. randman writes: Message 189 In other words, if data does not support ToE, then the data must be wrong because ToE is a fact. This really is the basic approach of evolutionism. RAZD echoes the same error. You build a "model" of the Eiffel Tower using playing cards, making a tower with boxed sides and layers. I tell you the model is false because it does not model the Eiffel Tower. You complain that I have not addressed your use of playing cards in making the model and that nobody shows that the use of playing cards is wrong. It is not the use of playing cards that makes the model wrong. It is wrong because stacks of rectangular boxes do not model the Eiffel Tower. A house of cards is not reality. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : changed link readout compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray
... it was a problem for a population needing to fix beneficial mutations in a rapidly deteriorating environment. In other words it explains extinctions, but not survival.
The dilemma is, populations of organisms with long generation times cannot fix the mutations needed to adapt to drastic ecological changes fast enough But it is not restrictive on other populations. It does not affect short generation populations, nor does it affect the survival of long generation populations outside the area of stress, which can then later radiate back into an extinction evacuated niche. Given that this is the pattern of evolution that we actually see following extinction events, this is no surprise either. The bottom line is that a mathematical calculation cannot possibly force reality to behave according to the calculations, all it can do is model what happens: the better the model the better the relationship to reality, but if the model fails to represent reality it is the model that is in error. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In the hands of a clumsy amateur, it's like a cow playing the piano. Especially when it behooves one to play moovingly? compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
welcome to the fray zcoder
Now wait a minute, I don't need to be bashed ... Sensitive? Those comments were directed at Hoot, if anyone.
I am just beginning my journey into science so I agree I have a ways to go. at least I am doing my home work. and I thank those who gave me leads. That's the way to do it. Ask questions of what you don't understand.
I hope to be done with my research soon. I hope to never be done with mine.
I am still going through the text and learning, I also found more then I expected. And you have only begun the trip. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
couse I was really wondering about that, really and so I did some fact finding to see for my self the overwhelming evidence in detail couse if I adope the theroy of evolution I must have all answers to be fact not assumptions. But I ran into a brick wall. Part of your problem is that you insist on having all the answers to be fact: no science does this. Theory extends what we know to be facts to explain the rest of the evidence as best it can - the better the theory the more evidence is explained. Evolution has been observed, speciation has occurred and been observed. This is a fact. Extending that same process to other cases where speciation is not been directly observed but inferred from the evidence is theory.
But they had to change their theory of that tree for a cladogram: http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/p_tree.shtml#cladogram You need to use other sources of information than creationist ones wehen studying science. The statements on that website are not true. Science uses both the tree of life and cladograms, they are just different ways of looking at the same information and showing the same overall relationships. Cladograms are just branches on the tree of life, looked at in greater detail. Cladograms are also sometimes based on genetic information alone, and when this is the case the results are so close to the old tree of life arrangement that it reinforces the whole picture. This is secondary evidence of the same overall structure, it would be predicted by evolution, not by any other process, not by creationism, so it acts as a test of the theory, a test that was passed.
And when I searched more I found a tree of life, I observe something surprising”no species on one branch changes into a species on another branch. In each case the species is distinct. There are no links where one species changes into another. Again you need to go to original information. That no species on one branch changes into one on another is predicted by evolution - descent from common ancestors means the branching is like a family tree. A species changing into one on another branch would NOT be evolution but something else, more like divine intervention or ID. All individuals are transitions, and many species are grouped into classifications based on some arbitrary distinctions, especially along time-lines and where speciation events are not defining barriers between species. Within each of these species there is variation with time in the characteristics. Often the amount of change between the last sample of a previous species and the first sample of the next species is significantly less that the variation within the whole group of either species. Classification is an arbitrary distinction made by humans to assist their understanding, and it is not hard and fast (there are oftem disputes about how many species are involved and which fossils fall into what groups) -- except where speciation events can be identified. Hope that helps. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Your right about the fact that I should not use creationist infomation, But I also can't use evolutionists infomation. For instance, I can read evolutionists infomation for leads and understand that side of the coin, and then I can read the creationist infomation on that side also. Rather than distinguish between creationist information and evolutionist information, I would suggest looking at the distinction between scientific information and just assertion of concepts. Scientific information would be based on theory, evidence predictions and testing of concepts. Assertions of opinions are relatively worthless, especially where there is contradictory information or evidence. As you note, many scientists are christians eh? It is relatively easy to find evidence for almost any position: you can probably cite some that is readily observable any day or night that the earth is the center of the universe around which all else revolves. In spite of such evidence almost nobody believes in a geocentric universe -- just some folks normally described as deluded or irrational or similar. Why is this? Because of the rather overwhelming evidence that contradicts this concept. Scientific information looks at all the evidence and tries to explain all of it. If any explanation is contradicted by evidence then that explanation is discarded and another one developed that answers those contradictions. Any position that is asserted to be true or valid but that does not deal with any contradictory evidence or information is not being scientific - or fully rational:
An example of this kind of position is the age of the earth: the amount of evidence for an old earth is as overwhelming and pervasive as the evidence that the earth orbits the sun in an outer arm of a rather ordinary galaxy. Again, it is easy to find evidence for an young earth - due to constant tectonic activity - but there should be absolutely no evidence for an old earth if that was the case. The failure to deal with the contradictory evidence is not scientific, and the position asserted in the face of contradiction is one of delusion rather than reality. See Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) for an introduction to that evidence.
Then taking the two views and start my search using info from sources like (AAAS) and (NAS) this way I can confirm arguments of both sides, to see who's argument is in true regards with (AAAS) and (NAS) who by the way should be on no sides. This is good, but still not going to original sources of information - scientific studies where theories are actually tested. I can also suggest The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), and one of their website pages in particular, Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective, by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
quote: These are people committed to science AND christianity - they see no conflict between belief and scientific knowledge.
Anyway I now understand why some people are evolustionists while others are creationists, and it all comes from what your predisposition is before you started your learning all this. For example, IF am already dedicated to the philosophical idea that nothing can exist outside of the natural realm (i.e. there can be no supernatural God), then no amount of evidence could convince me otherwise. This is known logically as a false dichotomy: creationism and evolution are NOT divided by belief in god vs non-belief. There are many people that fall on the evolutionist side of the argument that are people of faith, many of them are christian. If I am already dedicated to the philosophical idea that god created the universe in such a way that the natural laws govern the ways things happen, then those laws apply to the natural realm and can be used to understand how it works - whether it was created or not. This leaves me free to evaluate all the information on the basis of how well it explains the details of how it works. On the other hand, if I am dedicated to the concept that the earth is young in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, then I am in denial of evidence for how it works AND in denial of the way the universe was made.
But so far my journey is early, but already I have concluded only one fact and that is that both sides have already proven that the universe had a starting point. sorry if thats not an accurate description, I am trying not to use the word created. That is not entirely accurate either. The "big bang" theory is still theory, a widely held one, but still not "proven" (a level of certainty that rarely exists in reality), and there are some others that involve possible recurring universes.
Anyway I am in no way done, so I am sure I will have more things I run into and I might post it to see if others could inject more on it in hopes that, that may lead me to more understanding, or possiblilites. I just hope it wont be taken wrong. and if my predisposition seems to appear as a creationist then it might be becouse I am from a religious background. Having a religious background is not a problem. Where the problem with creationists comes in is in denial of the contradictory evidence and the failure of creationism to deal with the issues. Where you end up is your path to truth. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
As one should in the first moovement of Beethoven's 5th Symphony? Or the mooonlight sonota compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Likewise I said in other posts that I don't buy into the young-earth thingy. The question is, then whether your trust the information from websites that do promote the "young-eath thingy" as fact - given that the "young-earth thingy" information is false, can you trust any other information on that site to be true? I would not trust an evolutionist site that had false or misleading information - and we can go through a list of what creationists claim are common evolutionist "hoaxes" and screen for sites that don't promote those and see what that result is (with one caveat: if the site deals with the creationist claim and shows that it is false information that is acceptable eh?). This would eliminate most of the creationist sites from being potential sources of information: because they are untrustworthy on the age of the earth, they are likely to be untrustworthy on other topics involving science. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024