What are the Holes in Evolution?

[AV1611VET]

Sort of, yes. Generally speaking, the better the confidence, the narrower the range of realistic values that the "true" value might be.

Shouldn't that be the other way around, though?

The narrower the range of realistic values that the "true" value might be [whatever that meant], the better the confidence?

 

[Blayz]

Shouldn't that be the other way around, though?

The narrower the range of realistic values that the "true" value might be [whatever that meant], the better the confidence?

The concept is symmetric, so looking at it either way is correct. However, the things we can measure are the value and the confidence limit, so the way I first presented is how it is actually used.

 

[Elduran]

And what "rubbish" would that be, Elduran? And as far as definitions go, please free to correct anything I say - (and I'll do the same).

My point stands: We Christians hold science up to a higher Standard than "scientists" themselves do.

So this would be "holding science to a higher standard" then:

Molal: "Define "kind"."
AV1611VET: "A 'kind', IMO, is an animal at the top of its taxon, containing maximum alleles."
Frumious Bandersnatch: "Maximum alleles? What does that mean?"
AV1611VET: "Beats me."
Frumious Bandersnatch: "Do you even know what alleles are?"
AV1611VET: "I absolutely do not - (for about the fifth time)."
Frumious Bandersnatch: "Which taxon would the animal be at the top of?"
AV1611VET: "I haven't a clue."

You haven't got a clue (self admitted) and you quite happily talk rubbish about science, KNOWING that you haven't got a clue. That's pure nonsense, pure dishonesty and not in any way supporting your case or holding science up to ANY standard, let alone a higher one.

 

[FishFace]

Does the accuracy change as the evidence "changes"?

No the accuracy remains the same, but we can never know with certainty whether it is accurate or not. All anyone can manage - you included - is a good guess.

For example, for years and years, people thought that F = G*m1*m2 / r² was an accurate formula for gravity. It turns it out it was pretty accurate, but not absolutely accurate.

But there was no way anyone could have reasonably come to another conclusion - so science changed its mind (albeit only a fraction) but no-one, not even you, could have done any better.

 

[AV1611VET]

For example, for years and years, people thought that F = G*m1*m2 / r² was an accurate formula for gravity. It turns it out it was pretty accurate, but not absolutely accurate.

The last I checked, 32 feet per second per second, or, I believe, 22 mph per second was the rate.

 

[Elduran]

The last I checked, 32 feet per second per second, or, I believe, 22 mph per second was the rate.

But that assumes that it's a constant everywhere. It's not. The rate of acceleration due to gravity varies depending on the masses in question and the separation.

 

[necroforest]

No, thats an *approximation* of the *average* force of gravity near the surface of the earth.

 

[LittleNipper]

Livestock farming, it’s amazing how many breeds of sheep can be had by manipulating genetic variation, and all this in less than ten thousand years. Imagine if you can the differences that could be reached in 500,000 years or 50,000,000 years. The same story for other domesticated animals including cattle, pigs, goats, chickens and most defiantly dogs.

Well, what you suggest is interesting; however, the conclusion can also be that breeding variations only happen through CREATIVE intervention, and not on its own under everyday circumstances. Left to themselves, creatures would simply procreate with any individual of their specie regardless of appearance and any variation would simply be recycled within the group.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Shouldn't that be the other way around, though?

The narrower the range of realistic values that the "true" value might be [whatever that meant], the better the confidence?

Confidence, statistically speaking, is a function of how "spread out" the data is in any sampling. It is tied to the "standard deviation" of the data. We assume 95% of the data lies in 1.96 standard deviations of the mean, if I recall my stats.

We never really know the TRUE mean of all observations because we never take ALL observations, but we have an estimate of the true mean and the confidence we measure is predicated on the assumption of the data being normally distributed about the mean.

So when we give confidence for a value it is based on the spread of the data.

The narrower the spread of data the more confident we are of the mean of that data.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well, what you suggest is interesting; however, the conclusion can also be that breeding variations only happen through CREATIVE intervention, and not on its own under everyday circumstances. Left to themselves, creatures would simply procreate with any individual of their specie regardless of appearance and any variation would simply be recycled within the group.

Ah, no: 'natural selection' is the phenomenon whereby those individuals with mutations that make them more likely to procreate will procreate more than their competitors, and so those mutations will proliferate throughout the tribe. Its kinda obvious, really.

Mutations are proliferated throughout the tribe, but in such a way that the entire tribe benefits from the proliferated mutations; if one individual gains an immunity to a disease ravaging the tribe, then the entire tribe will eventually have that immunity.
Conversly, detrimental mutations are quickly snuffed out by the same process: those individuals with detrimental mutations do not get to procreate, so it is beyond unlikely that such mutations get to proliferate beyond the mutant.

Left to themselves, 'creatures' would have beneficial mutations proliferated throughout them by the passive action of natural selection.

It is called natural selection because it is just that: natural. There is no external intelligence necessary (which is what makes Common Descent so plausable).

 

[corvus_corax]

My point stands: We Christians hold science up to a higher Standard than "scientists" themselves do.

You are a liar, at least regarding to how you (a christian) hold science.

Witness your own statement-
"The definition of kind"
Not "a" definition.
Not "my" definition.
Not "a guess" about Kind.
Not "Pure BS" about Kind

No----"THE Definition of Kind"

The one , the only definition of what a "kind" is.

And, within 2 posts of YOUR OP, you admitted that you couldn't even define your definition

So 'THE definition of kind' went to "NO definition of Kind" within an hour.

You lied regarding "THE" definition of kind. And you continue to disregard objective empirical evidence.

Like you have said "If ANYTHING- Language, objective empirical evidence, GOD HIMSELF- contradicts my personal interpretation of the 1611 KJV, then EVERYTHING is wrong" (highly paraphrased on my part, and satirized as well)

 

[Elduran]

You are a liar, at least regarding to how you (a christian) hold science.

Witness your own statement-
"The definition of kind"
Not "a" definition.
Not "my" definition.
Not "a guess" about Kind.
Not "Pure BS" about Kind

No----"THE Definition of Kind"

The one , the only definition of what a "kind" is.

And, within 2 posts of YOUR OP, you admitted that you couldn't even define your definition

So 'THE definition of kind' went to "NO definition of Kind" within an hour.

You lied regarding "THE" definition of kind. And you continue to disregard objective empirical evidence.

Like you have said "If ANYTHING- Language, objective empirical evidence, GOD HIMSELF- contradicts my personal interpretation of the 1611 KJV, then EVERYTHING is wrong" (highly paraphrased on my part, and satirized as well)

Pathetic isn't it?

 

[PastorMikeJ]

the cavemen on tv

 

[USincognito]

the cavemen on tv

Actually that would be a hole in the greenlighting process at ABCs programming divison.

 

[AV1611VET]

But that assumes that it's a constant everywhere. It's not. The rate of acceleration due to gravity varies depending on the masses in question and the separation.

So, say, on Jupiter, stuff would fall faster? (Makes sense to me.)

 

[AV1611VET]

The narrower the spread of data the more confident we are of the mean of that data.

Okie-doke!

How "mean" would data have to be, before someone can make a statement like this:

[bible]Acts 1:3[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

You lied regarding "THE" definition of kind. And you continue to disregard objective empirical evidence.

Excuse me?

You need to go back and re-read what I posted.

I gave the definition of kind after prayerfully considering it.

Then I was asked what God's taxon is, and I do not - (that means I don't) - have access to it.

Now if you want to consider that lying, go right ahead.

 

[AV1611VET]

Pathetic isn't it?

Yes.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Okie-doke!

How "mean" would data have to be, before someone can make a statement like this:

[bible]Acts 1:3[/bible]

I can make a statement like that if you would like a demo:

"I saw a dude get hit by a car and have his head removed clean off! Then he died! And then he got up and walked around looking for his head! It was cool! The guys body just meandered aimlessly around the interstate looking for his head, which was pretty surreal considering the head had the eyes! This went on for 154 days straight! But it's California so no one stopped him. Most people didn't even notice it."

OK, done and done!

 

[AV1611VET]

I can make a statement like that if you would like a demo:

"I saw a dude get hit by a car and have his head removed clean off! Then he died! And then he got up and walked around looking for his head! It was cool! The guys body just meandered aimlessly around the interstate looking for his head, which was pretty surreal considering the head had the eyes! This went on for 154 days straight! But it's California so no one stopped him. Most people didn't even notice it."

OK, done and done!

Fair enough --- then all that stuff you said in Post 169, IMO, is wrong - (where it contradicts the Bible, that is).