Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
27 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, PaulK (3 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,616 Year: 16,652/19,786 Month: 777/2,598 Week: 23/251 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Population Genetics
zcoder
Member (Idle past 4463 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 03-19-2007


Message 46 of 90 (390480)
03-20-2007 3:31 PM


Chiroptera,
My occupation is not in this feild, mine is in
electronics engineering and programming.

thanks for the link, I do apriciate it couse I
have always been a true beleiver in keeping a open
mind while searching for facts. unlike some people I know.
I do my home work. I now need time to read these sites
to gain more knowledge, enough to take that to the Univercity
to find professional articles on it.

Thank again.

Zcoder....


Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Wounded King, posted 03-20-2007 5:25 PM zcoder has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 47 of 90 (390483)
03-20-2007 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by zcoder
03-20-2007 2:39 PM


Re: Meaning of Theory
In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation

try again. this is incredibl convoluted.
a logical explanation is more than just a speculation. A mathematical description is not conjecture. theories are not opinions.

you have confused the layman's term "theory" with the science term "theory".

what you call "speculation, conjecture" is more like a hypothesis.

A: hey, this is an odd fact. (observation)
B: yeah. i wonder if a magnetic field is causing it? (hypothesis).
A: could be. let's try and experiment around with that idea. (experimentation)
B: sure, okay. experiment done. what does this data mean?
A: hmm, well, if it was the magnetic field causing this, we should see X effect. we're seeing effect Y.
B: let's run some more experiments
A: okay
B: odd. same result. effect Y appears over and over.
A: conlcusion? magnetic field does not explain observation.

theory: magnetic field is not responsible for odd fact.

as you see, the theory is the last thing to come out of the science process. it has predictive power. this theory predicts that whenever we see the odd fact, a magnetic field does not explain it. when other people see the same result, the theory is confirmed.

ol' Al wrote out discovered a theory (largely using math), which predicted a certain thing. the 1919 team you mentioned confirmed the theory.

theory in science is not speculation, conjecture, opinion. It is an explanation of observations we make, and a theory becomes stronger the more and more it is confirmed. It is a logical explanation of what we observe, based off of what we know. It is not opinion because the theory is being worked with and confirmed by more than one person or group of people. It is not speculation or conjecture because it has been confirmed.

theory is not fact. theory is an explanation of facts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by zcoder, posted 03-20-2007 2:39 PM zcoder has not yet responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2349 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 48 of 90 (390489)
03-20-2007 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by zcoder
03-20-2007 3:31 PM


enough to take that to the Univercity
to find professional articles on it.

Thank again.

One of the virtues of recent trends in academic publishing is that to a large extent you no longer need to go to a university library to get access to even recently published research.

There are open access publishers such as PLOS and Biomedcentral not to mention the centralised databases of abstracted reference material such as Entrez which often have links to the full texts of older papers, many journals release their papers after a year or so to open access, Entrez also hosts Pubmed central which is a searchable database of free access full-text journal articles.

If there is any particular topic you want to find papers on I'm sure we could find some on these sources that everyone can get access to.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by zcoder, posted 03-20-2007 3:31 PM zcoder has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Allopatrik, posted 03-21-2007 12:24 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3754 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 49 of 90 (390507)
03-20-2007 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by zcoder
03-20-2007 1:37 PM


zcoder wrote:

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...


Brilliant observation, zcoder! I'm not sure that even ol' Darwin was clever enough to see that. May I call it "Zcoder's Law"?

—HM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by zcoder, posted 03-20-2007 1:37 PM zcoder has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by anglagard, posted 03-20-2007 10:17 PM Fosdick has responded
 Message 53 by ringo, posted 03-20-2007 10:26 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 90 (390510)
03-20-2007 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by zcoder
03-20-2007 1:37 PM


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. Yes, you can line up a dog and a cat and a person, but where is the transitional form
that split into the two species?

It's up there, farther back in the tree, at the spot where the branch containing the dog and the branch containing the cat meet. That convergence is their most recent common ancestor from which they're both descended.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by zcoder, posted 03-20-2007 1:37 PM zcoder has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 51 of 90 (390524)
03-20-2007 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Fosdick
03-20-2007 7:57 PM


Hoot Mon writes:

Brilliant observation, zcoder! I'm not sure that even ol' Darwin was clever enough to see that. May I call it "Zcoder's Law"?

I'm not sure why anyone would call the equivalent of "I never seen a cat become a dog, therefore evolution is wrong," anything but complete ignorance of what the Theory of Evolution is about.

Why would anyone want to take such extreme credit for ignorance? To embarrass any descendants?

Edited by anglagard, : grameracticalism

Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.


Light things float and heavy things sink - any unbiased kindergardner

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God -Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Fosdick, posted 03-20-2007 7:57 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Fosdick, posted 03-21-2007 12:55 PM anglagard has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 52 of 90 (390525)
03-20-2007 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by zcoder
03-20-2007 2:39 PM


Re: Meaning of Theory
quote:
But my close friend at westlen Univerity Dr. Michael Baden
would say you will try to say theory is also fact. but it can't
be both.

Is the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System not an explanation of the fact that the sun is the center of our solar system?

Is the Germ Theory of Disease not an explanation of the fact that many diseases are caused by germs?

Is the Atomic Theory of Matter not an explanation of the fact that matter is made up of atoms?

And by the way, there's no such thing as "westlen university". Are you spelling it correctly?

The only "Dr. Michael Baden" I was able to find information on is an MD, not a scientist, a forensic pathologist and host of HBO's show Autopsy.

Edited by nator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by zcoder, posted 03-20-2007 2:39 PM zcoder has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17276
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 53 of 90 (390526)
03-20-2007 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Fosdick
03-20-2007 7:57 PM


Hoot mon writes:

Brilliant observation, zcoder!

Sarcasm should come with an instruction manual. ;)

In the hands of a clumsy amateur, it's like a cow playing the piano.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Fosdick, posted 03-20-2007 7:57 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2007 10:34 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20111
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 54 of 90 (390527)
03-20-2007 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by ringo
03-20-2007 10:26 PM


In the hands of a clumsy amateur, it's like a cow playing the piano.

Especially when it behooves one to play moovingly?


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by ringo, posted 03-20-2007 10:26 PM ringo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by zcoder, posted 03-21-2007 6:28 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 72 by Fosdick, posted 03-21-2007 11:45 AM RAZD has responded

  
zcoder
Member (Idle past 4463 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 03-19-2007


Message 55 of 90 (390564)
03-21-2007 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by RAZD
03-20-2007 10:34 PM


Now wait a minute, I don't need to be bashed becouse I said I have a
delima to understand, after all I asked for leads then I took the
inishative to look it up. and like I said my real feild is in
Electronics and programming.

I am still going through the text and learning, I also found more
then I expected. I just don't understand the members on this forum.

I also visit a programming forum and WE never treat the newbies to
programming like this, infact, having a problem in understanding
something becouse of a lack of info, is a healthy process to earning.

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.

This is only a hobby for me that this time. I hope to have my head
wraped around all the info I just gathered up.

I don't mean to come off as you all do to me but with that said I
also understand that in this forum it can be hard to tell how
something was said, and in what tone.

So I will still hope that most of all this is just a big miss understanding into how something was taken.

I hope to be done with my research soon.

Zcoder....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2007 10:34 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2007 7:39 AM zcoder has not yet responded
 Message 74 by Fosdick, posted 03-21-2007 12:05 PM zcoder has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20111
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 56 of 90 (390571)
03-21-2007 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by zcoder
03-21-2007 6:28 AM


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.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by zcoder, posted 03-21-2007 6:28 AM zcoder has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20111
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 57 of 90 (390572)
03-21-2007 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by zcoder
03-20-2007 1:37 PM


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.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by zcoder, posted 03-20-2007 1:37 PM zcoder has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by zcoder, posted 03-21-2007 9:11 AM RAZD has responded

  
zcoder
Member (Idle past 4463 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 03-19-2007


Message 58 of 90 (390584)
03-21-2007 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by RAZD
03-21-2007 8:05 AM


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.

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.

But so far (AAAS) and (NAS) both have published the said finds on Ediacaran
and the mammaliforms but there is no real conclusive evadence about any
form of evolution among these. so I was now checking out the finds from
Neanderthal, to Cro-Magnon, to Homo sapien. with a open mind that this
could be evolution or a species that died out.

But I am finding the evadence to be blured in deed, and now I am treading
in waters that clearly shows me why the sciences are broke into two types
of science's evolution, creation.

It's funny how I go into this learning stuff I had not known, but still not
finding my answer for eather side. In away, both sides have holes here
and there, only becouse of the time we are in I am sure.

So this is a delema in deed. Sort of like being in a pickle.
hey, but it's a fun journey, and I am sure My journey will never
result in my answer, but will give me a more inlightened outlook.

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. Asking the question "does God exist?"
would be pointless. My answer would be "No, He doesn't," regardless of whether God truly
exists or not. The question would be impossible to answer from an evidentiary standpoint
simply because anything which God might have done (that is, any supernatural act which might
serve as evidence for His existence) would have to be explained away in terms of natural causes,
not because we know what those natural causes could possibly be, but simply because a supernatural
God is not allowed to exist.

And then the otherway around IF you already believe in god then every thing you learn in advancement
in science is evadence of what god created meaning from DNA to what DNA is build of.

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.

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.

All I can do is respect all members even if I get bashed. after all someone should take the ethical stance.

Zcoder....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2007 8:05 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by nator, posted 03-21-2007 9:22 AM zcoder has responded
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2007 6:58 PM zcoder has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 59 of 90 (390585)
03-21-2007 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by zcoder
03-21-2007 9:11 AM


quote:
But I am finding the evadence to be blured in deed, and now I am treading in waters that clearly shows me why the sciences are broke into two types of science's evolution, creation.

The thing is, though, that Creation "science" isn't actually science at all. They do not use the methods of science.

Creation "science's" promotors only call what they do "science" because they are attempting to gain the credability and prestige and legitimacy that real science has.

Creation "science" is merely scientific-sounding misinformation, lies, and falsehoods designed to fool the religious gullible and ignorant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by zcoder, posted 03-21-2007 9:11 AM zcoder has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by zcoder, posted 03-21-2007 10:07 AM nator has not yet responded

    
zcoder
Member (Idle past 4463 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 03-19-2007


Message 60 of 90 (390601)
03-21-2007 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by nator
03-21-2007 9:22 AM



The thing is, though, that Creation "science" isn't actually science at all. They do not use the methods of science.
Creation "science's" promotors only call what they do "science" because they are attempting to gain the credability and prestige and legitimacy that real science has.
Creation "science" is merely scientific-sounding misinformation, lies, and falsehoods designed to fool the religious gullible and ignorant.

I am in the middle of the issue, and as I see it, there are christian scientists who use the same scientific research and tests.
for instance Alan Shepherd - astronaut or Albert Einstein - physicist both are christians and are scientists in their own fields.
and there are many more.

It is not fair to cast them off as not good at science based on their religion.
I could make the judment that Atheists will always dis-believe god even if they measured his presents and calculated it.
But that would be a radical statement and not true, or fair to these people just becouse of their beliefs.
I try to sway away from being dishonest and radical in my assertions of people.

Zcoder....

Edited by zcoder, : quote fix


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by nator, posted 03-21-2007 9:22 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Wounded King, posted 03-21-2007 10:18 AM zcoder has responded
 Message 63 by ringo, posted 03-21-2007 10:49 AM zcoder 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