Balancing out.

[TheNewAge]

RWG, are you homeschooled?

I doubt she'll answer, but if she is homeschooled, she is a great argument in favor of the diversity of experience and knowledge one gains from a public education.

 

[Mathematician]

Okay Vipertaja, I'll bite.

First a gratuitous evidence for creation, the Big Bang. The best science shows that the universe was created out of nothing.

I have two decades of field experience researching desert predators and a 223 page analysis of stochastic, nonlinear, gradient descent optimization. What happens in nature and in analysis is not divergence to the optimum, but convergence to a saddle point.

That is, to the extent evolution is possible, everything converges towards the same traits and properties.

An example, it is a well-known observation amoung predator hunters that the kit fox and the gray fox share precisely the same ecological nuche in areas where kit fox live. We understand that kit fox (which are not hunted) are typically about 6 lbs for a full grown male. Gray fox in that same area will almost certainly be 6-8 lbs. No coyotes or bobcats will be found in that area (by the methods used by predator hunters).

In areas where no kit fox live, any gray fox will be over 15 lbs. In records of hundreds of foxes going back as many as 50 years by dozens of my fellow researchers, no mature male gray fox between 10 and 15 pounds has ever been taken.

In areas where coyotes run with either gray fox or bobcat, the adult male coyotes run 24 to 28 lbs and the females 20 to 25.

In areas where coyotes are the only predator, they are almost always over 30 lbs and usually approach 40.

We've seen kit fox and small gray fox get their butts kicked by jack rabbits. A large gray fox can easily take a rabbit and can successfully hunt a fawn. Large coyotes can successfully take deer but small coyotes can't.

The principle of the ecological niche would seem to indicate that kit fox would specialize on mice, small birds, and insects, and gray fox would grow larger and specialize on rabbits. Instead they grow to the same size and directly compete against each other for the same food sources.

The same principle would seem to indicate that coyotes and gray fox would grow to diverse sizes and specialize on food sources. Yet we also see that they grow to within their species limits of being the same size, and compete directly against each other.

It's in the absence of competition between species that you see the species going to what you would think is the optimum size.

Over the last few decades, coyotes have moved into former wolf habitats. It has taken just a few generations for these coyotes to reach sizes rivaling that of the wolves that used to inhabit those areas.

Given this experience, it seems reasonable that there is a tremendous amount of preassure towards convergence of the species, that is, all species evolve towards one common species. Each species hits its limits in just a few generations and stays there.

Given this strong tendency towards convergence, any preferred mutations would certainly be those that favored further convergence. Working backwards from convergence, implies that any divergence must be part of the initial condition.

I put together a mathematical model to test this behavior. The "environment" had two optimal solutions. Species A converges to traits X and Species B converges to traits Y. Or, Species A converges to traits Y and Species B converges to traits X. Stochastic gradient descent was used to control the evolution. (That is, we always used random steps in a downhill direction.) If we started close to one of the optimal solutions, both species evolved to their optimum.

However, if we started anywhere above the saddle point, both species converged to traits (X+Y)/2. Even though it was downhill from there to either optimum, the system stayed stuck at the suboptimium saddle point. In mathematical terms, the downhill direction was in the null space of the evolution-direction matrix.

Simply put. Evolution implies convergence of species to one suboptimal species. The original diversity of species must have been created.

 

[vipertaja]

Okay Vipertaja, I'll bite.

Care to cite some sources to go with that?
I don't recall seing this argument before, I'll give you that.

 

[Mathematician]

Tocis,

I've yet to meet any creationist who doesn't try to explain the sediments found pretty much everywhere with The Flood(TM). Now, scientifically (remember, no "goddidit" here!), where did all that water come from, and where did it disappear to?

You've now met one. Each sediment deposit needs it's own explanation. For eample, the Nile River delta has approximately 2 million similar layers, of which at least 4000 to 5000 of them are part of recorded history.

As for the Flood, the Bible clearly tells of a local event with severe local consequences. There are even people in the Bible who's ancestors escaped the Flood, not by being on the boat, but by being elsewhere. This was common knowledge amoung educated Jews and Christians 2000 years ago but seems to have been forgotten.

Everyone,

It's interesting how one of you issues a challenge, then you all immediately start congratulating each other on how you've already won. Thinking one has all the answers to all the questions demonstrates a small mind with an equally small imagination. It's not very becoming.

 

[vipertaja]

It's interesting how one of you issues a challenge, then you all immediately start congratulating each other on how you've already won. Thinking one has all the answers to all the questions demonstrates a small mind with an equally small imagination. It's not very becoming.

There is a certain arrogance in this bit of text as well, as it implies you think
you are essentially better. However stating such thoughts tends to often
imply the opposite.

 

[Mathematician]

Phred, Phred, Phred,

This is nonsense. There is no evidence of any sort of vapor canopy, nor subterranean deposits. There is evidence that the mountains of the Earth have been around much longer than 6,000 years and no evidence that they were ever covered in water. To make statements like this one, without supporting evidence, is ignorant at best and deliberately misleading at worst.

At a uniform, worldwide temperature of 100 degrees F, the vapor pressure of water is equivalent to about 1 cubit of water. So the young lady's vapor canopy would account for at most that much water.

RWG doesn't know how to figure that out, so it's not right for you to accuse her of deliberately misleading anyone. She believes what she's been told by people she trusts. All of us do to some extent. And to some extent it's commendable.

We're all ignorant. We can't study everything.

One hundred years ago, Young Earth Creationism was part of the unique doctrines of the Seventh Day Adventists who were widely view as a cult. It's saddenning to me how many SDA doctrines have been adopted by churches that still refer to the SDA as a cult.

 

[Edx]

Each species hits its limits in just a few generations and stays there..

Evidence?

Ed

 

[GoSeminoles!]

I doubt she'll answer, but if she is homeschooled, she is a great argument in favor of the diversity of experience and knowledge one gains from a public education.

I used to teach economics in college and some of my best students were home-schooled. I am actually very much in favor of it. Diversity of experiences can be had easily by participating in the local school district's sports and other extra-curriculars.

 

[Edx]

I used to teach economics in college and some of my best students were home-schooled. .

Well obviously it depends on the teacher. The problem with home schooling is YECs or Neo Nazies or other such groups being allowed to.

Ed

 

[Mathematician]

Vipertaja,

Care to cite some sources to go with that?
I don't recall seing this argument before, I'll give you that.

For the field research, it's private notes of numerous predator hunters.

For the analysis and simulations, it's my PhD thesis. University of California, 1996.

I don't mind sharing it with you, but I don't know how to do that without getting my name plastered all over the internet.

 

[vipertaja]

Vipertaja,

For the field research, it's private notes of numerous predator hunters.

For the analysis and simulations, it's my PhD thesis. University of California, 1996.

I don't mind sharing it with you, but I don't know how to do that without getting my name plastered all over the internet.

Well you do see the problem with that, don't you?
You should have sources available to everyone here so that someone with
knowlege in the field can attempt to answer. Surely you have based this
off of something and have some links somewhat related to it?
Right now you're basically just saying it is so, wheather it actually is true
or not.

 

[OC1]

Mathematician-

I am sure that you greatly simplified your research in your post (since you didn't mention things like climate, prey availability, terrain, "predation on the predators", geographic isolation, etc.) that can also affect predator size.

But even so I think this conclusion:

Simply put. Evolution implies convergence of species to one suboptimal species. The original diversity of species must have been created.

Is a bit of a stretch.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

That is, to the extent evolution is possible, everything converges towards the same traits and properties.

Let's see your support for this claim...

An example, it is a well-known observation amoung predator hunters that the kit fox and the gray fox share precisely the same ecological nuche in areas where kit fox live. We understand that kit fox (which are not hunted) are typically about 6 lbs for a full grown male. Gray fox in that same area will almost certainly be 6-8 lbs. No coyotes or bobcats will be found in that area (by the methods used by predator hunters).

In areas where no kit fox live, any gray fox will be over 15 lbs. In records of hundreds of foxes going back as many as 50 years by dozens of my fellow researchers, no mature male gray fox between 10 and 15 pounds has ever been taken.

In areas where coyotes run with either gray fox or bobcat, the adult male coyotes run 24 to 28 lbs and the females 20 to 25.

In areas where coyotes are the only predator, they are almost always over 30 lbs and usually approach 40.

We've seen kit fox and small gray fox get their butts kicked by jack rabbits. A large gray fox can easily take a rabbit and can successfully hunt a fawn. Large coyotes can successfully take deer but small coyotes can't.

The principle of the ecological niche would seem to indicate that kit fox would specialize on mice, small birds, and insects, and gray fox would grow larger and specialize on rabbits. Instead they grow to the same size and directly compete against each other for the same food sources.

The same principle would seem to indicate that coyotes and gray fox would grow to diverse sizes and specialize on food sources. Yet we also see that they grow to within their species limits of being the same size, and compete directly against each other.

It's in the absence of competition between species that you see the species going to what you would think is the optimum size.

Over the last few decades, coyotes have moved into former wolf habitats. It has taken just a few generations for these coyotes to reach sizes rivaling that of the wolves that used to inhabit those areas.

All of the above is hardly surprising, and is just what evolutionary theory would predict. All you are talking about is various similar species in the same environment. Foxes, coyotes, and wolves are obviously very similar animals, and you are talking about them in very similar environments. It would be surprising if they DIDN'T evolve to the same size, given the fact that they hunt, eat, digest etc. in very similar ways. What is the best food for one is pretty much the best food for all...so they all tend to evolve to the optimal size to hunt that food. What's surprising about that?

One of the most important factors in evolution is environment. Animals evolve to be best suited to their environment. The reason for the diversity of animal forms in our world is because of the diversity of environments, not because of any inherent tendency of them to evolve 'apart'. Picking a bunch of similar animals in the same environment and thinking you've demonstrated something about evolution converging on a single design is simply unwarranted.

Given this experience, it seems reasonable that there is a tremendous amount of preassure towards convergence of the species, that is, all species evolve towards one common species.

No, it doesn't. There's no evidence for this at all.

Each species hits its limits in just a few generations and stays there.

Got any support for this claim?

Given this strong tendency towards convergence, any preferred mutations would certainly be those that favored further convergence. Working backwards from convergence, implies that any divergence must be part of the initial condition.

Except that there isn't any strong tendency towards convergence.

Simply put. Evolution implies convergence of species to one suboptimal species. The original diversity of species must have been created.

Simply put. No it doesn't, and nothing you've shown indicates that it does.

 

[Beastt]

Well obviously it depends on the teacher. The problem with home schooling is YECs or Neo Nazies or other such groups being allowed to.

Ed

We might do well to add neo-conservatives to your list. But I wish to emphasize the fact that it isn't the location but the education that counts. A good number of home schooled students do quite well on SATs and college entrance exams.

 

[vipertaja]

Soo...essentially the argument is that animals are converging because
they're about the same size and compete for the prey that is available in that
enviroment? And essentially this all somehow leads to creation being outcome?
I freely admit I'm not deeply knowledgable about your dusty desert predators
over there nor am I an expert in evolution.

Somehow I fail to connect the animal size and eviroment with convergence
and most of all creation. Not only fail to connect but I got totally lost at that
point no matter how I tried to read it. Usually I can at least see what the
opponent somewhat aims to say with his claim.

One way or another, it'd still be nice if you could cite a few links that deal
with this thing...unless you claim you invented it yourself? I'm sure smarter
people than myself would appreciate it too.

 

[Physics_guy]

Hey, I am just a physicist (also from UC, BTW - Cal to be exact for grad school at least - Go Bears!), but I do find it interesting that you spent 2 decades doing this research studying desert predators. Kinda a harsh environment with limited prey options, right? Wouldn't one expect few super predators and limited size development given the limited available energy sources?

Wonder if you would see the same results had you spent two decades modeling the rainforest predators - or the survival adaptations of the non-mammalian desert fauna (which are numerous and do not show much convergence I would think other than all dealing with the heat and limited water availability).

 

[Mathematician]

Physics_guy,

Hey, I am just a physicist (also from UC, BTW - Cal to be exact for grad school at least - Go Bears!), but I do find it interesting that you spent 20 decades doing this research studying desert predators. Kinda a harsh environment with limited prey options, right? Wouldn't one expect few super predators and limited size development given the limited available energy sources?

Wonder if you would see the same results had you spent two decades modeling the rainforest predators - or the survival adaptations of the non-mammalian desert fauna (which are numerous and do not show much convergence I would think other than all dealing with the heat and limited water availability).

Just a physicist? Irvine gave me the 3rd degree. My wife got me a plate frame that said Phinally Done.

I must have made a typo. I thought I said 2 decades.

It's a harsh environment, but prey is limited everywhere and the options in the desert are quite varied. There's mule deer, sheep, goats, wild horses, asses, jack rabbits, cottontails, dozens of different species of small rodents, snakes, lizards, and insects. Each of these predators eats everything from the largest game their size allows them to tackle on down to insects. Wild sheep are pretty rare and horses and asses are too big for any desert coyote. But the DFG stats indicate that deer are most plentiful where gray fox and small coyotes compete against each other. Large coyotes can take down deer quite efficiently, but the small coyotes in those areas can't.

My limited experience with rainforest is the Lake Ozette area in Washington State. Eagles were the only predators near the lake.

As for other desert fauna, one of the common claims of creationism is that each species has its inherent limits. I'm sure that evolutionists generally recognize this (though from some of the responses above, I wonder). (Evolutionists generally claim these limits change slowly over millennia. Creationists generally claim that these limits never change or changed quickly after Noah's Flood but don't change now.)

This species limit problem forms a barrier that, assuming evolution, could not be broached in a reasonable observation time. But the theory should work quickly with any two species that share similar ecological niches and have sufficient diversity inside the current species limits.

 

[Physics_guy]

This species limit problem forms a barrier that, assuming evolution, could not be broached in a reasonable observation time. But the theory should work quickly with any two species that share similar ecological niches and have sufficient diversity inside the current species limits.

Really, in 20 years? What is that, about 6 six generations for these mammals? I wouldn't expect most biologists to think that it has changed that much over that time.

Also I still think you are too much discounting the energy and heat sink problems of larger size - there are no large predators in deserts for a reason.

My limited experience with rainforest is the Lake Ozette area in Washington State. Eagles were the only predators near the lake.

Just wondering, but were there no bears? Thought they were plentiful in WA. Just an aside.

 

[Morallyangelic]

Okay now, here's a classical question for the creationists:

I've yet to meet any creationist who doesn't try to explain the sediments found pretty much everywhere with The Flood(TM). Now, scientifically (remember, no "goddidit" here!), where did all that water come from, and where did it disappear to?

(Note that, if you want to claim that the earth was simply "flat" (i. e. without mountains) before The Flood(TM), I'll demand that you explain how the energy needed to transform a "flat" earth into the mountainous planet we know today within some months at most didn't release enough energy to... well... let's just say "vaporize all oceans" and leave it at that)

6And God said, "Let there be space between the waters, to separate water from water." 7And so it was. God made this space to separate the waters above from the waters below. 8And God called the space "sky." This happened on the second day.

This verse specifically mentions water above the sky. I think there was a layer of water above the earth and then the " Fountains of the deep " broke open and the world was flooded. I think that explains some of the fault lines we see in the earth and it also explains how people were able to live to be 900 years old.

In my non expert opinion I'd say the water is still here for the most part. 70% of the Earth's surface is covered in water.

 

[Jet Black]

This verse specifically mentions water above the sky. I think there was a layer of water above the earth

why didn't it boil?

and then the " Fountains of the deep " broke open and the world was flooded. I think that explains some of the fault lines we see in the earth

how does it explain them?

and it also explains how people were able to live to be 900 years old.

how?

In my non expert opinion I'd say the water is still here for the most part. 70% of the Earth's surface is covered in water.

not very deep is it? It would be a bit hard to have a global flood with that amount of water.