Mathematical Arguments

[The Cadet]

So you are insisting that even if they are wrong about how it came to be, they are still right about how it came to be? That 4.5 billion years is based upon the belief in the big bang and the ability of the galaxies, solar systems and the earth to have formed in the allotted time span of 13+ billion years.

No, actually, it's based predominately on radiometric dating of both rocks on this earth and rocks elsewhere in the solar system. Even reducing it just to what we have here on earth, you still have something like 4.3 billion years. Not all of this builds on each other. They don't contradict each other, and they can help fill in details around the edges, but no, even if the big bang model was thrown out on its kiester (which, as numerous people have pointed out to you in the cosmo forums, it hasn't been, and your models make no sense whatsoever), we still have radiometric dating to support the idea that the earth is at least more than 4 billion years old.

So if what you say is true: "I've also never claimed that there is math that supports evolution." then you have nothing more than belief and opinion, correct?

Wat

 

[AV1611VET]

It passes time Gotta love that ability to ignore the real world in favor of Fairie Dust.

LOL @ sig!

 

[crjmurray]

No, actually, it's based predominately on radiometric dating of both rocks on this earth and rocks elsewhere in the solar system. Even reducing it just to what we have here on earth, you still have something like 4.3 billion years. Not all of this builds on each other. They don't contradict each other, and they can help fill in details around the edges, but no, even if the big bang model was thrown out on its kiester (which, as numerous people have pointed out to you in the cosmo forums, it hasn't been, and your models make no sense whatsoever), we still have radiometric dating to support the idea that the earth is at least more than 4 billion years old.



Wat

Justa has confused my posts with yours. It's a common problem because he doesn't seem to actually read the posts. Now I'm going to go read some math. Maybe we'll see some math on evolution in the meantime.

 

[Loudmouth]

Justa has confused my posts with yours. It's a common problem because he doesn't seem to actually read the posts. Now I'm going to go read some math. Maybe we'll see some math on evolution in the meantime.

To help illustrate how math relates to biology, the best place to look is population genetics. One of the simple yet interesting relationships that I have found is the probability of a neutral mutation reaching fixation. That probability is 1/N where N is the effective population size (which isn't the same as the actual population size). For an effective population of 1 million the chances that a specific neutral mutation will reach fixation is 1 in a million. Out of a billion neutral mutation, you are almost assured that quite a few of them will reach fixation. This helps illustrate the sleight of hand when someone tries to argue the probability of something happening when it has already happened, otherwise known as the sharpshooter fallacy.

 

[Loudmouth]

So you are insisting that even if they are wrong about how it came to be, they are still right about how it came to be?

Those "its" are not the same thing. Please stop conflating them.

Do we have to know the origin of the universe in order to know who shot Ronald Reagan? According to you, we need to know everything from the start of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of eukaryotes, right up to the origin of John Hinkley in order to conclude that Hinkley shot Reagan. Afterall, if you can't show the ultimate origin of the Pb in the slug, how can you show that it came from his gun?

Or you could try to be a sane person and realize that we can figure out proximate causes without needing to know ultimate origins. That would also require you to be reasonable and not a crackpot.

 

[crjmurray]

To help illustrate how math relates to biology, the best place to look is population genetics. One of the simple yet interesting relationships that I have found is the probability of a neutral mutation reaching fixation. That probability is 1/N where N is the effective population size (which isn't the same as the actual population size). For an effective population of 1 million the chances that a specific neutral mutation will reach fixation is 1 in a million. Out of a billion neutral mutation, you are almost assured that quite a few of them will reach fixation. This helps illustrate the sleight of hand when someone tries to argue the probability of something happening when it has already happened, otherwise known as the sharpshooter fallacy.

Good example

 

[crjmurray]

All I've seen so far in these papers is that a small handful of people seem to think we cannot mathematically reconcile a singularity with our current knowledge.

 

[crjmurray]

Any math on evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I posted the math. Both general relativity and quantum mechanics breaks down. Do you understand what failure of the math to work means? So now is your opportunity to disprove the mathematicians and show how any math doesn't break down.

If you can't do that, your hypocritical.

No, you posted unsupported claims that have nothing to do with the OP. I do know what it means when it is said that "the math breaks down" you don't. Let me explain it to you. Science as we know it right now can only go back so far before both the math of general relativity and quantum dynamics break down. This has nothing to do with your implication that means that the Big Bang was impossible. It only means that we do not understand physics well enough to explain how it happened yet. Just as the math of Newton's "Law" of Gravity breaks down when the precession of Mercury's orbit comes up. It does not mean that we still could not use Newton to go to the Moon and back. It merely meant that we did not know all of the answers to physics at that time. Einstein's theory of relativity solved that problem. It has not solved all physics problems, nor has quantum dynamics. We still know more than we did in the past as your computer, which is heavily dependent upon quantum mechanics, and a GPS if you have one both show that those two methods do work, they just do not work everywhere.

I see you claiming there is math to support the big bang, evolution, etc., but I never see any math to even get past the first claim....

That is because you have an improper understanding of your first claim. We do not need to fully explain an event to know that it happens. Even before we knew that the Earth rotates we knew that the Sun rose every day. The inability to understand an event does not meant that that event never happened.

Let's get that math out of the way first, since life cant evolve if there is no universe to evolve in... So what math besides general relativity or quantum mechanics are you relying on in support of the big bang? Must be some other math since both of them break down at the event.

We don't need the math for the Big Bang. We know it happened even if we don't know how. Just as your distant ancestors knew that the Sun rose every day even thought they did not know how.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Any math on evolution?

I would think that someone that understands ERV's well such as sfs or Loudmouth could make a good "odds argument" using the odds of ERV's attaching to the same spot in the genomes of our close relatives.

 

[crjmurray]

I would think that someone that understands ERV's well such as sfs or Loudmouth could make a good "odds argument" using the odds of ERV's attaching to the same spot in the genomes of our close relatives.

I'm looking for math against evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm looking for math against evolution.

You might as well look for Sasquatch. He has not been seen since the Sonics left Seattle.

 

[crjmurray]

You might as well look for Sasquatch. He has not been seen since the Sonics left Seattle.

Well posters here have claimed that evolution is mathematically impossible. I want to see that math.

 

[JasonClark]

This is a thread for users to post mathematical arguments. I see a lot of posts claiming that there is mathematical evidence that disproves abiogenisis, evolution, etc. but I never see any math. So to keep other threads less cluttered, users can post their arguments here.

Reminder: ACTUAL MATH

The problem religious people everywhere have is this,
if it can be shown with math or argument that one religion is true it can also do the same for every other religion and I'm sure religious people don't want to do that.

 

[Kylie]

Both general relativity and quantum mechanics breaks down.

SO if you freely admit that quantum mechanics doesn't apply to the Big Bang, how can you then claim that quantum mechanics shows the big bang couldn't have happened? By your own argument, QM doesn't even apply!

 

[DogmaHunter]

But here, you really want the math? Are you sure?

http://www.cscamm.umd.edu/tiglio/GR2012/Syllabus_files/EinsteinSchwarzschild.pdf

"This investigation arose out of discussions the author conducted with Professor H. P. Robertson and with Drs. V. Bargmann and P. Bergmann on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to
the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity.

You are in the wrong thread.
This thread is not about unkowns in the world of cosmology.
This thread is about biology. More specifically, it's a thread where people who make a specific argument concerning evolution and math, to present their math.

If you aren't one of those people, then this thread is not for you.
As it stands now, you are completely off-topic and derailing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So you are insisting that even if they are wrong about how it came to be, they are still right about how it came to be?

No. He's (correctly) insisting that these are different fields of study.
Not one and the same, like you seem to be doing.

In context of evolution, it doesn't matter AT ALL how the universe, the sun, the earth and even life itself came into existence...

Wheter first life on earth was the product of natural chemistry, pink fairy magic, alien engineering or supernatural shenannigans is completely irrelavent to what happened to that life once it was here.

Likewise, it doesn't matter one bit how the universe came to be. The universe exists and we can study it. Wheter it came into existance through a natural process, a cosmic unicorn burping or other supernatural shenannigans.

The fact is that it exists and we can study how it works and what it contains.


But anyhow... still busy trying to derail the thread I see.
Now I'm guilty of engaging off-topic posts as well...

 

[crjmurray]

 

[Lost Angel]

The probability of life forming from inorganic compounds is X chances in Y on the planet earth.

 

[crjmurray]

The probability of life forming from inorganic compounds is X chances in Y on the planet earth.

Thanks