Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
30 online now:
Diomedes, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 26 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,012 Year: 22,048/19,786 Month: 611/1,834 Week: 111/500 Day: 8/61 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4785
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 14 of 294 (844660)
12-03-2018 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Adequate
12-03-2018 9:40 AM


Mechanical engineering isn't a science though.

Do you consider it stamp collecting?

Via Wiki:

quote:
Mechanical engineering is the discipline that applies engineering, physics, engineering mathematics, and materials science principles to design, analyze, manufacture, and maintain mechanical systems. It is one of the oldest and broadest of the engineering disciplines.

The mechanical engineering field requires an understanding of core areas including mechanics, dynamics, thermodynamics, materials science, structural analysis, and electricity.


It's been about 100+ years or so but when I took my first physics classes the first things discussed were mechanical systems (incline planes, forces, Newton, basic mechanical engineering stuff), and all the math that goes with them.

That seems quite "science" to me as far as specific disciplines go.

But, isn't the kind of "science" we're debating here an issue of philosophy not some specific discipline? Something a person adopts as a guiding principle of knowledge acquisition regardless of discipline?

One can study the science of mechanical engineering or genetics or geology without having their head wrapped around the philosophy of science. To their deficit, for sure, but still ...

To me, being a student of mechanical engineering is to study quite a few of the "sciences". It's just, in this case, the philosophy behind the power of these disciplines is lost on the poor dupe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-03-2018 9:40 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4785
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 25 of 294 (844702)
12-04-2018 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Porkncheese
12-03-2018 10:08 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Lets kill babies, yay. Lets allow adultery and open divorce, yay. Lets allow gay matrriage, yay. Lets allow gays to expose kids to sexual material, info, etc, yay. Lets allow gays to adopt kids, yay. Lets allow kids of 8yo to choose to be gay, yay. Lets allow 8yo kids to choose to be trannies, yay. Lets encourage kids to be gay, yay. Lets give our kids puberty blockers and fund surgeries to help be trannies, yay. Lets send any man to prison on the allegation of a woman, yay. Lets make it impossible for single men to approach women, yay. Lets make it possible for women to call rape if a man doesn't do what she pleases, yay. Let's destroy relations and rewrite the rules of engagement, yay. Lets encourage promisuity in women, yay. Lets assume all men are potential killers and rapists, yay. Lets make mens lives hang on the selfishness of young atheist women that have no morals.

Oh, yes! The Atheist Agenda. Such a wonderful list..I'm glad you converted!

One item you forgot. We atheist don't just kill babies, we eat them, with various sauces and accompanying veggies.

If you're in the Phoenix area at the time I still have some complimentary tickets to InfantaFeast held here on the 16th this month. I'd be honored to take you as my honored guest.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Porkncheese, posted 12-03-2018 10:08 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4785
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 78 of 294 (845182)
12-12-2018 10:59 PM


Maybe we can just wait and see if/when he comes back. Life, believe it or not, does have a tendency to happen outside this forum.

He may be trying to get laid. Hope he bathed first.


Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Pressie, posted 12-13-2018 4:07 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 80 by Pressie, posted 12-13-2018 4:13 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4785
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 86 of 294 (847294)
01-20-2019 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by WookieeB
01-20-2019 1:09 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
But how do they demonstrate the method of change?

They don't. What made you think they did?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by WookieeB, posted 01-20-2019 1:09 AM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4785
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 166 of 294 (847672)
01-25-2019 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Theodoric
01-25-2019 12:16 AM


Re: Heard it all before
I am going to Puerto Rico in March. Anything you want pics of?

Girls. Pretty girls in flowery flowing robes over skimpy bikinis.

Wait ...

That wasn't an open request was it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Theodoric, posted 01-25-2019 12:16 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4785
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(3)
Message 203 of 294 (848001)
01-30-2019 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Faith
01-30-2019 11:05 AM


Don't mind me ... Far be it from me to interfere with all this Science.

Excellent idea. They should proceed as you request.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Faith, posted 01-30-2019 11:05 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4785
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 211 of 294 (848214)
02-01-2019 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by WookieeB
02-01-2019 3:57 PM


So NS keeps a successful variant. Why?

NS has no choice. It isn’t a thinking being with free will. It is process that will take place.

The mutation process is quite random involving copy error, error correction attempts that glitch, whole gene/gene segment duplication, viral insertion, cosmic ray interference at one loci, all anywhere along the entire length of the genome without regard for what molecules are affected or what proteins or protein producing processes, are affected or how.

A lot of the resultant mutations do nothing. A lot of them aren’t so good. Some, though, make it easier to live, love and propagate. Those are the ones that lead to the reproductive differential that is Natural Selection by definition.

We would have to assume whatever you are constituting is a "variant" improves fitness. But NS cannot act on anything until the variant appears. So what is the probability of a variant appearing? NS cannot affect that probability.
Which leads to....

Which leads to nowhere since your premise failed.

PaulK is right (no surprise there).

quote:
No, evolution is more like a hill-climbing search. I.e. it perturbs a parameter and moves to that value if it is higher, then it perturbs again and so on. A random search simply chooses completely random points until it hits the target with no feedback at all.

The parameter being perturbed is the reproductive differential. And the hill being climbed is environmental fitness as determined by increases in reproduction.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by WookieeB, posted 02-01-2019 3:57 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 02-01-2019 5:55 PM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 216 by WookieeB, posted 02-01-2019 7:26 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4785
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 214 of 294 (848236)
02-01-2019 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Faith
02-01-2019 5:55 PM


...with such a low probability of coming up with the right ingredients at the right time.

right ingredients ... right time ... right thing.

No, Dear Lady, not the "right" thing just ... a thing.

Whether it did anything useful or not was yet to be determined.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 02-01-2019 5:55 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 02-01-2019 7:12 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4785
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 217 of 294 (848240)
02-01-2019 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by WookieeB
02-01-2019 6:54 PM


And depending on the landscape, the rate of mutation can limit what NS can do.

Which is kind of odd since NS doesn't actually do anything. It is a measure of difference in reproductive rates.

And at least that is starting to be acknowledged by some the scientific community.

Yes, I am familiar with this source and while some of the non-biologists had some interesting off-center proposals, as far as acknowledging your brand of nonsense ... no ... not even close. You did look at it first before you posted, yes?

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by WookieeB, posted 02-01-2019 6:54 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by WookieeB, posted 02-04-2019 11:36 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4785
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 218 of 294 (848241)
02-01-2019 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Faith
02-01-2019 7:12 PM


You do so love being so wrong.

But, that's ok.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 02-01-2019 7:12 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4785
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 219 of 294 (848242)
02-01-2019 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by WookieeB
02-01-2019 7:26 PM


NS has to evaluate a point presented to it. And what point(s) are presented to NS for evaluation is determined by the mutation process that you described. NS 'evaluates' the point based on the target criteria, which we have been generally referring to as "improved fitness" (or a "successful variant" that you quoted me on). NS then 'selects" the first target hit as presented to it. This evaluation and selection roughly equates to what you referred to later as "the "reproductive differential".

What a convoluted way to say NS has to deal with what it gets, doesn't get to choose what it is, or what to do with it. NS evaluates nothing.

Except there is a political agenda in your words with this personification of a math assignment.

But it is important to understand generally the ratio of deleterious to neutral to beneficial mutations.

Do you think the process cares when there are dozens if not hundreds of mutations in each individual in a population of hundreds of millions in each generation for hundreds or thousands of generations? Not a whit.

And keep your convoluted misunderstandings of staggering probability numbers away. We've been there. They don't work either.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by WookieeB, posted 02-01-2019 7:26 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4785
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 224 of 294 (848410)
02-04-2019 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by WookieeB
02-04-2019 11:36 AM


your further comments suggest you have no concept of what 'search' is.

Your context is that “search” denotes a target to be achieved. Biology doesn’t do that. Your context is just a clumsy attempt to ascribe attributes to NS that do not exist so you can argue against them. It is a strawman.

Depending on the landscape, the rate of mutation can limit what differences in the reproductive rate can be.

No. Only the mutation space can. The number of mutations (rate over time) means little to nothing. On this planet that mutation space involves every molecule and every combination of molecules within a genome (which is every gene sequence available to a population, not an individual). If 100 mutations per individual produces 2 within a population that slightly increase fertility this is the same as 5 mutations per individual producing the same 2 over the same population over the same time. While a higher mutation rate can, and often does, present the processes with more opportunities, since a mutation is random as to both its production and its effect, until it operates within an environment and that effect becomes known, there is no way to constrict reproduction rate by mutation rate.

The quality, if you will, not the quantity of mutation determines the change in reproduction rate.

By the way, if Natural Selection cannot do anything, why is the word "Selection" used at all?

First, because we are an intelligent species with abstract thought processes. We see NS as “selecting” useful mutations when in fact all it does is keep the tally sheet of fecundity/fertility specific within a population that results from a mutation’s mixing (phenotype) with a specific environmental niche.

Second, we do this just to watch creationists scramble around in a rabbit hole.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by WookieeB, posted 02-04-2019 11:36 AM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by WookieeB, posted 02-04-2019 6:47 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4785
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 225 of 294 (848411)
02-04-2019 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by WookieeB
02-04-2019 11:36 AM


What does matter is that they are questioning Darwinian processes.

You didn't read any of the submissions. Either that or your understanding of what they discussed is very poor.

"Darwinian processes" went by way of the DoDo long ago. Darwin is not the be-all/end-all of everything evolution. His concept that this all came from copy changes matched against baby-making is still in the main, just amended, expanded, and in the most excruciating of details.

A lot has been added to the original "Darwinian" concept in the last 150+ years, but the core process remains, Descent with modification. The submissions in your cited resource are more of the same. Proposed additions, added details to known processes, and more. Nothing even close to challenging the deeper paradigm.

Don't talk Darwin. Talk evolution. The latter is much more robust. Read and understand Ernst Mayr, Stephen J Gould, Lynn Margulis ...

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by WookieeB, posted 02-04-2019 11:36 AM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by WookieeB, posted 02-04-2019 7:14 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4785
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 228 of 294 (848451)
02-05-2019 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by WookieeB
02-04-2019 6:47 PM


Cry all you want, but search is a commonly used idea in the literature.

We have a pink crow situation here. I've never seen one. I also haven't read every word ever written by every biologists so I cannot say you are wrong. However, I did spend a few years in Missouri and it rubs off on you so...

Show me.

Cite some literature treating NS as a "search"; "a common explanatory analogy used by scientists to explain how changes in your "reproductive differential" happens."

The cite should be from an evolutionary biologist, of course, the more prominent the better, absent which your cite will be labeled as bogus.

In this case, the target is fitness...

Your source should cite this inanity as well. NS is an accounting mechanism. It doesn't care if the result is increased fitness, decreased fitness or extinction. All the above are possible results with NS dispassionately watching and recording every step.

So which is it? Nothing?.... A little?..... Often does?

Do you doubt the mutation rate can be any/all of these?

But note your numbers for this positive event.

Been down this useless rabbit hole. Not going again.

Besides, I was giving an illustration not an actual case. I feel it was lost on you.

Realistic numbers are way worse than that.

Realistic numbers are way better when one considers their parallel nature rather then serial. (He said as he peered down the rabbit hole he said he wasn't going to look at.)

So we actually can have an abstract description of NS to describe its effects as 'selecting' something.

Such reading comprehension. Re-read my sentence. I said quite the opposite.

"Darwinian processes", "Darwinism", "Neo-Darwinism", "Neo-Darwinian Synthesis" and "The Modern Synthesis" - are all colloquial terms to refer to the basically the same thing.

To a creationist, I can understand that sentiment. It allows you to wiggle around sowing confusion depending on circumstance.

This is a science thread. To alleviate confusion we use quite specific terms for quite specific items. Evolution ≠ Darwin-anything and hasn't since before you were born.

This is a science thread. We talk science here, not your favorite personal vernacular.

I'm not sure why you're so flustered by the term. Mayr, Gould, Marguilis, and many other all used the term(s).

Yes, they did. But only in referring to the old Darwinian paradigm, not the Modern Synthesis.

Really? Go check out the review articles that the Royal Society put out. First article from Muller is pretty clear on the doubts for efficacy of the Modern Synthesis.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/...10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015
I'm in no way saying they are ready to take up the gauntlet of ID. Just pointing out that scientists are seeing the flaws in the traditional evolutionary view of M+NS.

Again, you either did not read this entry or did not comprehend it adequately.

He is pushing his Extended Evolutionary Synthesis as an incorporation of the Modern Synthesis with a laundry list of innovative evolutionary mechanisms, not as some great paradigm shift away from the core paradigm of the Modern Synthesis.

quote:
The theory of evolution is the fundamental conceptual framework of biology all scientific explanations of living phenomena must be consistent with. As it does not describe a universal law regarding a single natural phenomenon, such as gravity, but rather the principles of organismal change over time, based on the highly complex inputs and interactions of a multiplicity of different factors, evolutionary theory cannot be expected to remain static but is subject to change in the light of new empirical evidence. This is a normal process of scientific advancement and not a heretical undertaking as it is sometimes perceived to be. Explanations of organismal diversity have changed significantly during pre- and post-Darwinian periods, and it should not come as a surprise that fresh stimuli arise from the new methodologies and the expanded scope of modern biological research.

Not flaws, WookieeB. Extensions, additions, advancements.

Also, note his use of "pre- and post-Darwinian periods". That academic distinction is going to throw you, isn't it? The Darwinian period was the old stuff. He is giving a historical reference not a synonym.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by WookieeB, posted 02-04-2019 6:47 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Pressie, posted 02-06-2019 4:00 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 230 by WookieeB, posted 02-06-2019 3:04 PM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 232 by WookieeB, posted 02-06-2019 5:55 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4785
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 233 of 294 (848488)
02-06-2019 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by WookieeB
02-06-2019 3:04 PM


Genetic algorithms? Is that your source of an evolutionary biologist using NS “searching” to determine how reproductive differential happens?

Hey. No problem.

I know this subject. I was a nerd of the Bill Joy generation and we schemed the programming of sentience. Genetic algorithms were seen even then as a necessary step in that direction. Good stuff.

This is gonna be fun for me so I’m gonna get verbose. Or is it the other …

For those who don’t know about genetic algorithms…

The infamous “they” cross-code hundreds of modules each with a unique set of algorithms all purposely targeted, fine tuning it used to be called, toward a specific problem, like producing a list of stocks that will go up tomorrow.

The algorithms are actually groups of tables that feed the decision engines. In the tables would be things like the specific stock's past prices, the market indexes, seasonal and cyclic sensitivities and about 100 other variables for each module and each module having varying values in its tables. Then, spanning as much of the “reasonable” variances in the data as you can, you create as many modules as you have the ram available for in your system. Hundreds. Thousands. Run each.

You can maybe get Percy to do it. He knows this stuff. Besides, he doesn't have anything else to do these days.

Check the results against tomorrow’s stock prices. The modules are rated by how close they came to the actual price. Those closest are saved off, the rest are discarded.

Now the magic happens.

You do some fancy mixing and matching between the tables of the saved modules and (keeping the original or parent modules, you really don’t want to make that mistake) create X-hundreds of new modules ready to be tested. You can even make provisions for replacing table values with random values in a highly limited way. You could get pretty wild with some of the mix algorithms. It's true. Nerds used to get wild sometimes.

Rinse. Repeat. X000s of times. It’s the mixing and matching where the mutations take place and tomorrow’s stock price is the environment. You get generations of modules with some rather strong artificial selection.

Enough fun. Back to work.

Is that “searching” using NS?

No. It is targeted. And there certainly is nothing natural about it.

I can understand why you and your sources use the NS nomenclature. We sure did. Replicating as close as possible with what nature has already done, especially in technology, is powerful stuff. Today ram is cheap and multi-threading job blocks by the thousands is routine. The types of targets grow ever more complex, and useful. The old mixing modules are now quite complex (understatement). Evolution is a good guide.

But it is not Natural Selection as the evolution of life on this planet has experienced. It is a targeted forced adaptation.

Targeted Artificial Selection. Not Natural Selection.

I suspect there is a reason for you to insist that it is Natural Selection (or your understanding of what you think NS is). Like maybe, oh, I don’t know, so it can be seen to be as malleable on Earth as it is in Computer? Therefore god?

Sorry. Doesn’t work.

So if NS doesn't do anything, why is it even mentioned with regards to evolution. How does it have anything to do with your "reproductive differential"? Why is it even named the way it is? "Natural Selection" as a term has nothing to do with accounting logs".

Apparently, Darwin called it that just to personally piss you off.

Listen. We really are an abstract-thinking species.

There is this mechanism that causes differences in fecundity/fertility called genetic mutation. But it doesn’t operate in a vacuum. It works better or worse depending on the environment. If one of these mutations has a good effect then that new DNA/RNA complement will spread through the population faster or slower depending on other environment factors. That mutation is having a positive effect.

It is succeeding. It has been chosen. It is anointed. It is elevated beyond its peers. It is good. It is selected for.

See the symbolic language?

But before we can know the mutation really is selected we have to do something. Mother Nature® has to get out her laptop, fire up Excel and plug in a bunch of numbers. Numbers of babies, actually. Your babies, of course, along with the rest of the family, neighborhood, village, nation, population, species, ecosystem, from this generation, the next generation (the second best Star Trek series), and the next one and do this over centuries, millennia, epochs.

You see where this is going?

So we take a look at this spreadsheet and what do we see? We see differences in reproductive success. We see what has been successful at making babies and what hasn’t. What is succeeding at making babies, what is chosen, is anointed, is elevated beyond its peers, is good, is selected for.

The other thing we see in all this data, this ledger of copious baby-making numbers, is that the determinator of this differential was the natural environment. Not anybody or anything but the interface of population to the natural environment is responsible for what reproductive differential we see, what phenotypes were selected and what weren’t. Natural Selection.

What the hell else was Darwin going to call it!

Häagen-Dazs Chocolate Ice Cream? Actually, I’m ok with that.

That would violate the laws of logic (PNC). It either does have an effect or it doesn't. It cannot be both.

Serial thinking. What makes you (serially) think there can be only one mutation rate?

The numbers matter. I'm sorry if you cannot handle realistic numbers, or even your own. That's your problem.

"Ok," he says as he tiptoes around the creationist rabbit hole.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by WookieeB, posted 02-06-2019 3:04 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by WookieeB, posted 02-08-2019 12:13 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019