Rapid Emergence

[Resha Caner]

Science is based in experiment not models. That is why theoretical physics isn't science.

A second reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling. And an example from my field to go with it: accelerometers. An accelerometer is used to measure acceleration in mechanics experiments. How does it work? It is based on the model F = ma. A small mass is mounted on a piezoelectric crystal. The charge from the crystal is converted to an electric signal, which is then interpreted as a force (using another model which previously correlated crystal charge due to compression to force). Once we know force, we can calculate it with a = F/m. Note how at this link they refer to the fact that all of this is based on a theory and acceleration cannot be directly measured: http://www.explainthatstuff.com/accelerometers.html

Given the unfortunate point to which this has come, you will need to back up any further statements with references or I will simply ignore them. Or maybe one of our resident physicists will need to step in because it's obvious you're not going to listen to me.

 

[OliviaMay]

A second reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling. And an example from my field to go with it: accelerometers. An accelerometer is used to measure acceleration in mechanics experiments. How does it work? It is based on the model F = ma. A small mass is mounted on a piezoelectric crystal. The charge from the crystal is converted to an electric signal, which is then interpreted as a force (using another model which previously correlated crystal charge due to compression to force). Once we force, we can calculate it with a = F/m. Note how at this link they refer to the fact that all of this is based on a theory and acceleration cannot be directly measured: http://www.explainthatstuff.com/accelerometers.html

Given the unfortunate point to which this has come, you will need to back up any further statements with references or I will simply ignore them. Or maybe one of our resident physicists will need to step in because it's obvious you're not going to listen to me.

Science requires observation. If there is no observation there is no science. Colloquial use of the word science to mean math is incorrect.

If you want to show there were multiple events I am willing to look, but let's all get on the same page.

 

[Resha Caner]

Also, I just don't get what the whole point is.

Do you want to understand the point?

 

[Resha Caner]

Science requires observation.

Yes, and I said as much in one of my replies to you.

 

[OliviaMay]

Do you want to understand the point?

What is the point in discussing things not related to the OP? If the OP is to establish multiple events than that should happen. Proving it isn't impossible does not do that. I am not aware biology hold otherwise anyway. They just hold it isn't established with evidence.

 

[OliviaMay]

Yes, and I said as much in one of my replies to you.

So what observed evidence is there that there were multiple events?

 

[SkyWriting]

My objection is to universal common descent - the idea that all life descended from a single population of simple organisms.

Actually, it had to be from just one.
No, there are no examples of complex coming from simple.
So you're on track.

 

[Resha Caner]

What is the point in discussing things not related to the OP?

You were the one who made the claim mathematical models are not science. If you don't want to discuss it, don't bring it up.

So what observed evidence is there that there were multiple events?

None. What observed evidence is there of any biogenesis event? I was speculating at that point and freely admit it.

Were one of our resident biologists to say biology proposes current life descended from multiple completely isolated biogenesis events that would be news to me. I realize they don't rule out the possibility, but my understanding is that current life is thought to have come from a single population.

 

[OliviaMay]

You were the one who made the claim mathematical models are not science. If you don't want to discuss it, don't bring it up.

Science is observation. Models are not science.

None. What observed evidence is there of any biogenesis event? I was speculating at that point and freely admit it.

Were one of our resident biologists to say biology proposes current life descended from multiple completely isolated biogenesis events that would be news to me. I realize they don't rule out the possibility, but my understanding is that current life is thought to have come from a single population.

Life is here. How it started is not known. We know at least one event occurred. Evidence suggests that there was a singular event which most life is descended from. There may be other life from a different event, but we don't see that life or don't recognize it as life.

Your theory isn't impossible, but I don't see anything that supports it.

 

[Resha Caner]

Science is observation. Models are not science.

Back up your statements. Otherwise they mean nothing.

Your theory isn't impossible, but I don't see anything that supports it.

It's my hypothesis, not my theory. Further, I asked in post #16 if you wanted to discuss my overarching hypothesis or the one I submitted in the paper. Since you won't answer my questions, it's hard to have a discussion with you, but my speculation about biogenesis was not the hypothesis in the paper.

 

[OliviaMay]

Back up your statements. Otherwise they mean nothing.

Science is the application of the scientific method. That method requires observation of phenomena.

It's my hypothesis, not my theory. Further, I asked in post #16 if you wanted to discuss my overarching hypothesis or the one I submitted in the paper. Since you won't answer my questions, it's hard to have a discussion with you, but my speculation about biogenesis was not the hypothesis in the paper.

What is your hypothesis? Either one will do. Let's work with one hypothesis. If you state it we can go from there.

 

[Resha Caner]

Science is the application of the scientific method. That method requires observation of phenomena.

Not good enough. Cite a source.

Observation is not the totality of science. If I simply observe and then do nothing with that observation, I accomplish nothing. Science also uses models, and a large number of those models are mathematical in nature. I cited multiple sources to back up what I said. How about you?

What is your hypothesis? Either one will do. Let's work with one hypothesis. If you state it we can go from there.

For step 1 it was rather mundane. I only used it to set up step 2. The hypothesis had 2 parts:
1) In order to achieve higher complexity in an aTAM structure, rules must be added
2) Adding rules increases the probability of manifesting higher complexity aTAM structures but also increases their randomness*

I had hoped to prove the strong form that complexity asymptotically approached a limit but I couldn't find a closed-form solution. That's why I had to use DOE, which only validates the weak form of the hypothesis. Had it been published, it might have spurred someone better at math than I to prove the strong form.

*Note (edit): Somewhat embarassing but I typed hypothesis #2 incorrectly. I was trying to follow the end of the Pirates/Royals game while I typed - a bad idea. At least the Royals won.

 

[OliviaMay]

Not good enough. Cite a source.

Observation is not the totality of science. If I simply observe and then do nothing with that observation, I accomplish nothing. Science also uses models, and a large number of those models are mathematical in nature. I cited multiple sources to back up what I said. How about you?

Sorry didn't realize elementary school science needed sources. Here is what the dictionary has to say.


sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

For step 1 it was rather mundane. I only used it to set up step 2. The hypothesis had 2 parts:
1) In order to achieve higher complexity in an aTAM structure, rules must be added
2) Adding rules reduces the probability of manifesting higher complexity aTAM structures

I had hoped to prove the strong form that complexity asymptotically approached a limit but I couldn't find a closed-form solution. That's why I had to use DOE, which only validates the weak form of the hypothesis. Had it been published, it might have spurred someone better at math than I to prove the strong form.

So your are experimenting with models. Those models don't necessarily have anything to do with reality. So you are running a science experiment about math? That isn't biology.

 

[whois]

www.programmed-aging.org/theories/evolution_issues.html

 

[OliviaMay]

www.programmed-aging.org/theories/evolution_issues.html

Why is that kids blog so important?

 

[whois]

Why is that kids blog so important?

the material seems to be in line with the contents of the thread.
that's why.

 

[OliviaMay]

the material seems to be in line with the contents of the thread.
that's why.

He doesn't know what he is talking about unfortunately. Should have gone to school.

 

[The Cadet]

You sure seem to like to impress with fancy talk. That isn't a good indicator of your intentions.

Mathematical models are not science. What program are you using to run said models?

Actually, if I may interject, mathematical models can provide extremely valuable insight. This is how we build cladograms, using mathematical theorems designed to offer us the most parsimonious pattern. What this means needs to be interpreted in the light of evidence using the scientific method, but once we understand that, the model becomes an integral part. In the case of evolution, the fact that these algorithms offer a nested hierarchy is sure-fire evidence of common descent:

No, there are no examples of complex coming from simple.

Take a piece of paper (simple input). Fold it in half repeatedly, then unfold so that the folds open to 90° angles (simple instruction). With enough folding the pattern which comes out on the other side is this:



Which I think is kind of cool, personally, and pretty darn complex, despite the utter simplicity of the instructions. I'd say this is a pretty clear-cut example, personally.

 

[Resha Caner]

Sorry didn't realize elementary school science needed sources. Here is what the dictionary has to say.


sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

How is this relevant to your claim? Are you saying common dictionaries are adequate for addressing technical issues? I suppose you think this refutes me because it doesn't mention models. However, it doesn't mention the scientific method either. You might suppose the phrase "systematic study" implies the scientific method. However, systematic study also implies organization, pattern identification, and hence models.

IOW, your source is so vague it could be used to support any number of things.

So your are experimenting with models. Those models don't necessarily have anything to do with reality. So you are running a science experiment about math? That isn't biology.

I offered to familiarize you with this topic, but you declined. Therefore you speak only from ignorance. DNA computing is a huge topic of research with papers published in a wide array of biological journals. I would suggest you go to Google Books and look at the conference proceedings for the 10th International Conference on DNA Computing. There are many papers on aTAM. Or you could go to the International Journal for Natural Computing (http://rd.springer.com/journal/11047). Again, many papers on aTAM.

You said you wanted to discuss the hypothesis. When you're ready to discuss it rather than trying to avoid me, let me know.

 

[Resha Caner]

No, there are no examples of complex coming from simple.
So you're on track.

That isn't what I was saying.