Transition from chemistry to biology

So Sir Fred Hoyle has a very low understanding how mathemathics work,since he used mathemathics to refute evolution?You sounds like an idiot on that reasoning.Review your elementary mathemathics please...

So Sir Fred Hoyle does not know well how mathemathics work since he use mathemathics to refute evolution?You sound like an idiot on that reasoning.

Yes, Fred Hoyle demonstrated extreme ignorance when it came to evolution and mathematics, and lost much respect in the scientific establishment. His desperate clinging to his Steady State concepts lost him even more respect. Very sad actually. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

what are you? 18? Your comments are revealing you as very young, and very inexperienced.Before continuing with mathematics, you need to brush up your English as it is close to unintelligible. This is an english-speaking debate forum. Perhaps one in your own tongue would be more suitable? You are? I find it hard to believe given the very poor reasoning skills you have demonstrated here. Me? I was a professional mathematican/phsyicist for eight years before becoming a financial mathematician and then a teacher of mathematics. So I know a little Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

He did no such thing. He showed that such substances as rotting meat do not spontaneously change to fully formed maggots. He was not experimenting whether it was possible for substances such as amino acids, sacharrides, purines, pyrimadines, Tetra pyrrols etc could be formed and condenced into longer chains as proteins, RNA, DNA, or large tetra pyrrol substances as Chlorophyl, Heme, or cyanocobalamin.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Hey traste,Having fun making up random responses to information that invalidates your opinions?In Message 145 you state: The problem you have, is that those definitions are the ones used in the science. Thus they are the definitions that are applicable if you are talking about the science. If you are criticizing the science, then these are the definitions you MUST use, as they are the ones that apply to the science - otherwise you are just babbling uniformed nonsense while pretending to be informed. You can fool yourself, but not anyone in the sciences. Curiously, mathematics was at the core of the genetic infusion back into evolution, resulting in the modern synthesis. The maths revolved around population genetics and the relation between mendelian genetic inheritance and natural selection of phenotypes. Many mathematical models have been made to show how evolution works.Population genetics - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Population genetics is the study of the allele frequency distribution and change under the influence of the four evolutionary processes: natural selection, genetic drift, mutation and gene flow. It also takes account of population subdivision and population structure in space. As such, it attempts to explain such phenomena as adaptation and speciation. Population genetics was a vital ingredient in the modern evolutionary synthesis, its primary founders were Sewall Wright, J. B. S. Haldane and R. A. Fisher, who also laid the foundations for the related discipline of quantitative genetics.

---

This occurred back in the 1930's so your claim of maths not being involved in evolution is very current.Reproductive value (population genetics) - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Fisher's reproductive value was defined by R. A. Fisher in his 1930 book The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection as the expected reproduction of an individual from their current age onward, given that they have survived to their current age. It is used in describing populations with age structure.

---

and this is still a robust field within the science of evolution: Sample pages of recent book on population geneticsThis sampling from a (gasp) modern (2004) book, and the sample shown is related to Wright-Fisher model of genetic drift, while the book as a whole:

quote:

---

This concise introduction offers students and researchers an overview of the discipline that connects genetics and evolution. Addressing the theories behind population genetics and relevant empirical evidence, John Gillespie discusses genetic drift, natural selection, nonrandom mating, quantitative genetics, and the evolutionary advantage of sex. First published to wide acclaim in 1998, this brilliant primer has been updated to include new sections on molecular evolution, genetic drift, genetic load, the stationary distribution, and two-locus dynamics. This book is indispensable for students working in a laboratory setting or studying free-ranging populations.

---

Population Genetics: A Concise Guide
By John H. Gillespie
Edition: 2, illustrated, revised
Published by JHU Press, 2004
ISBN 0801880092, 9780801880094
214 pagesYou can do a google on fisher population genetics and get pages and pages of results. A gold-mine for someone who wants to learn.And yes, the mathematics supports evolution (just in case you can't be bothered looking into it). Of course, the fact that the mathematical models support what actually occurs should be no surprise: math only models reality, so a good model can model and predict reality, while a bad model (like the formation of proteins de novo) can't. When there is a difference of opinion, math loses to reality.In Message 182 you state: Yes, he amply demonstrated that when the mathematical model does not match reality it is the mathematical model that is discarded. Of course he also demonstrated ignorance of how evolution works, so it is not surprising that his model did not reflect reality.Enjoy.btw - your "habit" of posting many short replies, often to the same person and the same post causes a lot of extra messages to be posted than are necessary. There is generally a limit of ~300 posts to a thread, so if you really want to deal with the issue before we get their, you (I'm sure you can calculate it) need to be more effective in your use of posts. One technique would involve a complete response to each person eliminating necessary multiple posts, and another is to combine responses to posts from the same person as I have done with you. Edited by RAZD, : subtitleEdited by RAZD, : example.Edited by RAZD, : clarity

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

It seems to me from your reply that your answer to both my questions... ... was 'No!'. Do you actually know what the experiments were or do you only know the creationist talking point version of science?TTFN,WK

Hi, Traste.Please use quote boxes: it makes it easier to know what you're responding to. You've reversed the methodology of science, Traste. Scientists learned long ago that you can't really prove anything with 100% certainty.We design experiments to disprove our hypotheses. If our experiment fails, we regard this as evidence that our hypothesis is valid. And, the hypothesis remains valid until one of our experiments succeeds in disproving it.-----There are two possibilities for the origin of life: spontaneity (randomness) and teleology (purpose).Ironically, spontaneous generation was a teleological hypothesis: it proposed a directed, consistent transformation of one entity (dead matter) into another.The disproof of teleological ideas like spontaneous generation is actually support for spontaneity-based ideas like the Theory of Evolution and abiogenesis.

---

-Bluejay/Mantis/ThylacosmilusDarwin loves you.

This is a common misunderstanding of evolution, and what it neglects from the equations is selection. So let's play the Creolution game to show how selection works on randomness.We will each throw 10 dice (to make calculating averages easy) and ... Each throw represents a generation, and 10 dice are used to represent a population, the evolutionist selection of eliminating 1's represents natural selection operating against the individual organisms that don't succeed in survival and breeding, while the randomness of the dice represents random mutations.Care to place any wagers on which team will reach 100 positive moves first?You are, after all (at least by assertion), a mathematician familiar with calculating probabilities.Note, if you get this pattern: Then you can say the great god escher did it.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : format

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

Another way of modeling evolution is to throw 25 dice, trying to get all sixes.The mathematician, knowing nothing of biology, would be throwing those 25 dice for years.The biologist would throw the 25 dice, keep those that were sixes and throw the rest until all were sixes. Elapsed time about 3 minutes.The mathematicians who come up with the huge odds against (whatever) are using the first method. The on-line lecture I linked to above presents a good example of the second method; it modeled genetic networks and found that they were very robust, and that a lot of pathways led to the same network.Creationists won't buy that approach, of course.(There was one creationist on another website who insisted that the odds against evolution were 1⁷²⁰ against! We just couldn't make him see the error of that number. Another told us that the "law of thermal documents" showed evolution couldn't possibly happen!)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I ran a quick spreadsheet with random generators for the dice, and after 100 generations the score was Creo 13 to Evo 52, and after 200 generations it was Creo 8 to Evo 92.Even just a little selection can thus cause significant change over time.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

The following video may help.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0BTW does anybody know of more simulations that present this pattern in evolution? This idea of stretches of apparent stasis was a stumbling block for me for quite awhile..

Yes, when you ignore all evidence to the contrary the only conclusion left is that magic did it.You are absolutely correct.Of course if you need to deny all the evidence of the universe in order to enable your belief to stand, then it is a poor belief, because it has no reference to the richness of reality.The other problem is that when you have eliminated any way to distinguish truth from fantasy, you have not shown, cannot show, that your belief is worth anything compared to the belief of anyone else. The result is as pointless as solipsism and last-thursdayism.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

As long as you accept they are entirely different ideas - what you call them is irrelevant. If you think that today's biochemists propose that the origins of life are that modern life sprang complete from rotting meat - that's when you run into problems. The question I asked you, which you seemed to have forgotten was in a completely different thread. It was Message 210 and I asked you "Do you know how much energy is required to 'further chemical reaction'? How does this compare with the quantity of energy next to an underwater thermal vent?". I imagine your answer is 'I don't know. But I can find another human who has said what I just said.'. Calling Hitching an 'evolutionist' just goes to show how useless that term is. Most would regard him as an evolution-denying hack, who also writes books about psi energy and dowsing.Until such time as you can actually provide an answer to the question your assertion that "beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy for further chemical reactionand water in any condition inhibits the growth of more advanced molecules(I MEAN COMPLEX MOLECULES)." is a bare, unsupported assertion...did Hitching provide any calculations here at all?Do you own, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, or anything else by Hitching by any chance? Have you read it? Or did you just pull that quote from a creationist/evolution-denying website? Is this your best? A sequence of out of context quotes, in response to a question asked in a totally different thread? I have already stated "It is true that water can be problematic when it comes to certain chemical reactions.", so telling me that some biochemists have said the same thing seems a little pointless - don't you think? The point is, though water can be problematic it doesn't present an terminal barrier. I even gave you a source, where a biochemist explains how such chemical reactions can take place in aqueous solutions. I assume you didn't read that? To paraphrase you - "Or your only so concern to the idea that denies evolution?"If you were honest, you would at least cite the articles and dates when these people said it. I'll give you the first one, Dickerson, R. E., 1978, Chemical evolution and the origin of life: Scientific American, v. 239, no. 3, p. 70-108. Dickerson starts with that quote, and then goes on to describe some ways polymerization could have proceeded in an aqueous environment. Scientists like starting by telling you the problem, and then telling you what the solution is. If you remember high school science you were usually encouraged to start with something like 'Define the problem'.

Out of interest I ran this again to compare using 10 dice and using 50 dice for the population. The results were:

For 10 dice:
Creo	 Creo	 Evo	 Evo
Average	 Score	Average	Score
3.46	 -17	 4.02	  91
​
For 50 dice:
Creo	 Creo	 Evo	 Evo
Average	 Score	Average	Score
3.48	  -3	 4.00	  95

You will see that the overall average is what would be predicted from averaging 1 thru 6 (3.5) and 2 thru 6 (4.0). Both of these averages are set to result in stasis in the scoring, but the slight shift in the standard deviation distribution results in significant advantage to selection over just random mutation.You can also see from all these results that they are close to predicted results of no overall significant gain or loss in the creolution model (should tend to 0 as number of generations increase), and that the predicted results for the evolution model should have ~1/2 of the distribution resulting in a positive step.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •