Fine Tuning

Peter1000 · Feb 20, 2017

="Nihilist Virus, post: 70887196, member: 381700"]Theories encompass laws. To be brutally honest, you need several years of education before we can have a meaningful discussion.

My experience is not a lot different than a lot of other people, even scientists, so look at this website:
Should Evolution Be A Law Rather Than A Theory?

Here are a couple of snipets from this site:
1) The problem is based on the dichotomy between the colloquial use of the word theory and the scientific use. This is a dichotomy that the public is not generally aware of.

2) It's not just a disjunct, however. The two definitions of the word are diametrically opposed.

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

My take is that science has put in definition 1. above for the very reason of helping the theory of evolution out of a tight spot. The normal definition is 6. and 30 years ago it was probably 1. But because science could not in all honesty move the theory of evolution to the law of evolution, it changed the definition of theory and now say there is nothing higher or more factual or more lawful than a 'theory'. Good luck with that.
The scientist in this article is ready to just unilaterally change the name from the theory of evolution to the law of evolution, like that is going to make it a law and everything will change and give it the respect he thinks it deserves.

The heavy rock argument is self-referencing. The continuum hypothesis is not. They are nothing alike, so I don't know what you think you're answering.

You can come up with any hypothesis you wish and it will make no difference to me. Apparently you are affected by these shallow mind games and it has affected your real world view. To bad.

Every year I believe my Lions will win the Super Bowl. Guess what happens?

To keep it close to the same, you would have to believe the Lions and keep their commandments and then you would experience a championship. When that happens you might want to consider believing in the Lord Creator and keeping His commandments and then expect Him to say hello to you. Again, it would be worth the journey.

Peter1000 · Feb 20, 2017

TagliatelliMonster said:
No.
Laws are descriptive. Generalised abstractions of sets of facts, if you will.
Theories are explanatory. Theories explain laws. They don't turn into laws.

As said, theories explain laws. They don't turn into laws.

If theories do not turn into laws, which you say above, what law does the theory of evolution explain perfectly, without any holes or questions?

Peter1000 · Feb 20, 2017

TagliatelliMonster said:
It's not a hypothesis.

It's an inference from the data/math of big bang cosmology.

Are you saying:
1) that we have actual data/math from the Planck Epoch during the big bang cosmology?

Or are you saying:
2) we have data/math from a computed model simulation that is supposed to represent what we think happened during the Planck Epoch during the big bang cosmology. The Planck epoch lasted 10^-43 seconds, which is way, way, way, way less than 1 second.

TagliatelliMonster · Feb 21, 2017

Peter1000 said:
If theories do not turn into laws, which you say above, what law does the theory of evolution explain perfectly, without any holes or questions?

You should really go read a little about how science works, because your questions are exposing a deep rooted ignorance on the matter.

Biology doesn't really have laws, like you have laws in physics, which are usually described in some kind of equation. Biology simply doesn't work like that.

Evolution theory explains many things though:

- The geographic distribution of species
- the nested hierarchy found in dna
- the nested hierarchy found in comparative anatomy
- the fossil record
- ...

TagliatelliMonster · Feb 21, 2017

Peter1000 said:
Are you saying:
1) that we have actual data/math from the Planck Epoch during the big bang cosmology?

We have the equations of big bang cosmology.

Or are you saying:
2) we have data/math from a computed model simulation that is supposed to represent what we think happened during the Planck Epoch during the big bang cosmology. The Planck epoch lasted 10^-43 seconds, which is way, way, way, way less than 1 second.

I'm saying the opposite. We do not know what happened in that first moment. Physics, like we understand it, breaks down at that point.

Peter1000 · Feb 23, 2017

TagliatelliMonster said:
We have the equations of big bang cosmology.

I'm saying the opposite. We do not know what happened in that first moment. Physics, like we understand it, breaks down at that point.

Did the equations come from actual data, like an echo from the Planck Epoch?

Or is the data a best guess scenerio? Computed by what scientists think happened and then launching a simulation, and collecting data from this best-guess simulation?

What period of time do you start getting actual data for? You say you do not know what happened in the first moment, so what moment during the big bang cosmology do you know what actually happened?

Nihilist Virus · Feb 23, 2017

Peter1000 said:
My experience is not a lot different than a lot of other people, even scientists, so look at this website:
Should Evolution Be A Law Rather Than A Theory?

Here are a couple of snipets from this site:
1) The problem is based on the dichotomy between the colloquial use of the word theory and the scientific use. This is a dichotomy that the public is not generally aware of.

2) It's not just a disjunct, however. The two definitions of the word are diametrically opposed.

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

My take is that science has put in definition 1. above for the very reason of helping the theory of evolution out of a tight spot. The normal definition is 6. and 30 years ago it was probably 1. But because science could not in all honesty move the theory of evolution to the law of evolution, it changed the definition of theory and now say there is nothing higher or more factual or more lawful than a 'theory'. Good luck with that.
The scientist in this article is ready to just unilaterally change the name from the theory of evolution to the law of evolution, like that is going to make it a law and everything will change and give it the respect he thinks it deserves.

You can come up with any hypothesis you wish and it will make no difference to me. Apparently you are affected by these shallow mind games and it has affected your real world view. To bad.

To keep it close to the same, you would have to believe the Lions and keep their commandments and then you would experience a championship. When that happens you might want to consider believing in the Lord Creator and keeping His commandments and then expect Him to say hello to you. Again, it would be worth the journey.

Nothing you have stated makes any sense. Call evolution whatever you like, it's still true and it's not up for debate. ERVs erase all doubt.

TagliatelliMonster · Feb 24, 2017

Peter1000 said:
Did the equations come from actual data, like an echo from the Planck Epoch?

Or is the data a best guess scenerio? Computed by what scientists think happened and then launching a simulation, and collecting data from this best-guess simulation?

What period of time do you start getting actual data for? You say you do not know what happened in the first moment, so what moment during the big bang cosmology do you know what actually happened?

The equations are the model and they were concluded just like an other model in science. Through study and testing.

Peter1000 · Feb 24, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
Nothing you have stated makes any sense. Call evolution whatever you like, it's still true and it's not up for debate. ERVs erase all doubt.

That's interesting, a large part of what I stated came from a scientific website.

You need to get off your computer and go out and smell the roses. Evolution is one of the most hotly debated subjects in the world today. To say 'its true and its not up for debate just leads one to believe you have a myopic view of the world, so myopic that you cannot see or hear any opinion other than your own.

I on the other hand am willing to listen to the other side and if they present anything that makes sense, I am willing to incorporate that into my thinking. So far in my entire life, I have found very little to help me believe that life came from non-life. That vertibrates, came from invertibrates. That monkeys and men have a common ancestor, etc., etc., etc.

The only thing I have seen is that evolution can prove what I call 'adaptation'. The different species of birds for instance came about from adapting to their surroundings. That does make sense to me. So you see big birds, little birds, birds with big bills, and birds with litle bills, birds with intracate bills and birds with elongated bills. So the birds species are many and evolutionary adaptation makes sense. But they are birds, of the Animal Kingdom, all of them.

But tell me that a bird evolved into a spider, from an entirely different Animal Phylum, or vice-versa, then there is a problem with the evidence of that procedure. You can theory all you want, but so what, show me the slow intermediate steps through the fossil record that proves the point, then we can discuss the reality of it.

So in the real world, the debate rages on, just like on this rather smallish chat room.

Nihilist Virus · Feb 24, 2017

Peter1000 said:
That's interesting, a large part of what I stated came from a scientific website.

You need to get off your computer and go out and smell the roses. Evolution is one of the most hotly debated subjects in the world today. To say 'its true and its not up for debate just leads one to believe you have a myopic view of the world, so myopic that you cannot see or hear any opinion other than your own.

Hotly debated among biologists or among people who don't know what they're talking about?

I on the other hand am willing to listen to the other side and if they present anything that makes sense, I am willing to incorporate that into my thinking. So far in my entire life, I have found very little to help me believe that life came from non-life. That vertibrates, came from invertibrates. That monkeys and men have a common ancestor, etc., etc., etc.

I just told you about ERVs. You didn't respond to that despite that being the only thing of substance I even said. Do you not know what they are?

Google "ERV virus". It's redundant, like saying "VIN number", but googling it that way gets the best search results.

See, viruses cannot copy their genetic material on their own so they have to embed themselves into a host's DNA and wait for it to be copied. Viruses lack any kind of awareness and so sometimes they embed themselves and then lie dormant. If they embed themselves in a gamete, and that gamete is used to create a fetus, then the viral signature will be inherited by the offspring in its noncoding DNA.

We share many of these signatures with the other apes, and we share more with other humans and less with, say, cats. The nested inclusion directly proves common ancestry and it is statistically impossible for it to be there by chance.

The only thing I have seen is that evolution can prove what I call 'adaptation'. The different species of birds for instance came about from adapting to their surroundings. That does make sense to me. So you see big birds, little birds, birds with big bills, and birds with litle bills, birds with intracate bills and birds with elongated bills. So the birds species are many and evolutionary adaptation makes sense. But they are birds, of the Chordata Phylum of the Animal Kingdom, all of them.

But tell me that a bird evolved into a spider, from an entirely different Animal Phylum, or vice-versa, then there is a problem with the evidence of that procedure. You can theory all you want, but so what, show me the slow intermediate steps through the fossil record that proves the point, then we can discuss the reality of it.

That doesn't even make sense and is not a prediction of evolution. Why did you use the "common ancestor" lingo above only to revert to this drivel?

You can't outgrow your ancestry. The descendants of birds will always be vertebrates. Birds and spiders are so vastly different and what you are saying is literally incoherent. It is only when you trace their lineage backward that you see them both converging on a basic, common form.

So in the real world, the debate rages on, just like on this rather smallish chat room.

LOL, no.

Peter1000 · Mar 1, 2017

TagliatelliMonster said:
The equations are the model and they were concluded just like an other model in science. Through study and testing.

Good luck with your man-made model.

I'm sure they approximate the actual event.

The results have to be stimulating to the scientists that created the model and ran it over and over until they got the data they wanted to keep their agenda and funding alive and well.

Peter1000 · Mar 1, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
Hotly debated among biologists or among people who don't know what they're talking about?

I just told you about ERVs. You didn't respond to that despite that being the only thing of substance I even said. Do you not know what they are?

Google "ERV virus". It's redundant, like saying "VIN number", but googling it that way gets the best search results.

See, viruses cannot copy their genetic material on their own so they have to embed themselves into a host's DNA and wait for it to be copied. Viruses lack any kind of awareness and so sometimes they embed themselves and then lie dormant. If they embed themselves in a gamete, and that gamete is used to create a fetus, then the viral signature will be inherited by the offspring in its noncoding DNA.

We share many of these signatures with the other apes, and we share more with other humans and less with, say, cats. The nested inclusion directly proves common ancestry and it is statistically impossible for it to be there by chance.

That doesn't even make sense and is not a prediction of evolution. Why did you use the "common ancestor" lingo above only to revert to this drivel?

You can't outgrow your ancestry. The descendants of birds will always be vertebrates. Birds and spiders are so vastly different and what you are saying is literally incoherent. It is only when you trace their lineage backward that you see them both converging on a basic, common form.

LOL, no.

Your erv virus is certainly not a doubt breaker. Are you kidding me, there are so many holes in the whole erv theory of perfect placement and purpose, that to say identification of common ancestry is a perfect, no doubt science is silly and is still just a guess.

There are similar placements of erv's in the host, there are even some exact placements, but does that really mean there is a common ancestor?

What happens if 1 part of an animal population has erv, but another part of the population of the same animal does not have erv, what does that mean?

So I will throw you a softball, name me the common ancestor of the chimpansee and man. That's the easiest one I can think of, and I have heard about a furry little thing that is the common ancestor, but does erv confirm it? Let me know.

Nihilist Virus · Mar 2, 2017

Peter1000 said:
Your erv virus is certainly not a doubt breaker.

Then you don't know what ERVs are.

Are you kidding me,

No.

there are so many holes in the whole erv theory of perfect placement

Name one.

and purpose,

Purpose? Go to "you don't know what ERVs are."

that to say identification of common ancestry is a perfect, no doubt science is silly and is still just a guess.

No.

There are similar placements of erv's in the host, there are even some exact placements, but does that really mean there is a common ancestor?

Are your genes inherited from your ancestors?

What happens if 1 part of an animal population has erv, but another part of the population of the same animal does not have erv, what does that mean?

It means that the ERV was recently inherited by a member of the population.

So I will throw you a softball, name me the common ancestor of the chimpansee and man.

There's only one?

That's the easiest one I can think of, and I have heard about a furry little thing that is the common ancestor, but does erv confirm it? Let me know.

I'm done letting you know. Use the internet or don't. You've been shown the truth, but I can't make you understand it or care. That part is on you.

TagliatelliMonster · Mar 2, 2017

Peter1000 said:
Good luck with your man-made model.

Man-made models are the only ones at our disposal.

And they seem to work quite well. I mean... you ARE reading this, right?

I'm sure they approximate the actual event.

It's the best we can do at this point.

The results have to be stimulating to the scientists that created the model and ran it over and over until they got the data they wanted to keep their agenda and funding alive and well.

No, that's not how it works.

But whatever makes you sleep at night.

TagliatelliMonster · Mar 2, 2017

Peter1000 said:
There are similar placements of erv's in the host, there are even some exact placements, but does that really mean there is a common ancestor?

Yes.

What happens if 1 part of an animal population has erv, but another part of the population of the same animal does not have erv, what does that mean?

Of the top of my head... I'ld say that it might mean that the ERV is a rather recent one that has not yet achieved fixation (= present in as good as all members of the population). It might still achieve fixation in the future or it might mutate out of the genome entirely.

If that's the case, now we have a very nice prediction that can be tested.

In such scenario, we should not find this ERV in other species, since it is a relatively new one which occured in the current species population, not an ancestral species, and is still spreading within that population.

Genetics... it works.

So I will throw you a softball, name me the common ancestor of the chimpansee and man. That's the easiest one I can think of, and I have heard about a furry little thing that is the common ancestor, but does erv confirm it? Let me know.

That's like asking you a picture of your face of when you were exactly 14 years, 4 months, 5 days, 3 hours, 21 minutes and 5 seconds old, to "prove" that you are aging.

If you'ld know a thing or two about paleontology, fossilization, evolution science, etc, you'ld realise that this is not a reasonable request to make.

You'ld also realise that it's not actually necessary in order to be able to determine that humans and chimps share relatively young common ancestors.

Just like we don't need to know who your parents were exactly, in order to determine that you and your sister are siblings.

Peter1000 · Mar 2, 2017

="Nihilist Virus, post: 70934740, member: 381700"]Then you don't know what ERVs are.

Well if I don't then the erv is not as doubt-proof as you would to imagine.

Name one.

OK, lets take the Koala bear. The northern Koala bear population has erv. The southern Koala bear does not. If erv is the perfect device to peg the Koala bear common ancestor, then this says that the exact same Koala bear comes from 2 different common ancestors, 1 with erv, and 1 without erv. How can that be? 2 common ancetors giving rise to the same Koala bear. Not very strong evidence.

Are your genes inherited from your ancestors?

Yes, from my human ancestor, not from a Lemur 1 million years ago.

It means that the ERV was recently inherited by a member of the population.

By recent do you mean 50 years ago? Or like the Koala bears, they figure the erv in the northern population was inserted 5,000,000 years ago. So why does the southern population not have a erv?

I'm done letting you know. Use the internet or don't. You've been shown the truth, but I can't make you understand it or care. That part is on you.

Too bad. You must have just come accross erv recently, otherwise you would have used your doubt-proof theory long ago. Erv is interesting, but not full-proof.

Theists say that God has used erv to increase divergency in the species populations. And it has worked. For it to be other than that the only word you can use for erv theory is the word 'exact'. Sorry you can't use that word to describe erv placement all the time. You must use 'similar', 'many times', and you have to use 'some do', 'some don't' have erv, which ruins your theory.

Peter1000 · Mar 2, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
Hotly debated among biologists or among people who don't know what they're talking about?

I just told you about ERVs. You didn't respond to that despite that being the only thing of substance I even said. Do you not know what they are?

Google "ERV virus". It's redundant, like saying "VIN number", but googling it that way gets the best search results.

See, viruses cannot copy their genetic material on their own so they have to embed themselves into a host's DNA and wait for it to be copied. Viruses lack any kind of awareness and so sometimes they embed themselves and then lie dormant. If they embed themselves in a gamete, and that gamete is used to create a fetus, then the viral signature will be inherited by the offspring in its noncoding DNA.

We share many of these signatures with the other apes, and we share more with other humans and less with, say, cats. The nested inclusion directly proves common ancestry and it is statistically impossible for it to be there by chance.

Click to expand...

That doesn't even make sense and is not a prediction of evolution. Why did you use the "common ancestor" lingo above only to revert to this drivel?

You can't outgrow your ancestry. The descendants of birds will always be vertebrates. Birds and spiders are so vastly different and what you are saying is literally incoherent. It is only when you trace their lineage backward that you see them both converging on a basic, common form.

LOL, no.

We share many of these signatures with the other apes, and we share more with other humans and less with, say, cats. The nested inclusion directly proves common ancestry and it is statistically impossible for it to be there by chance.

If you say that erv lack any kind of awareness and that it is statistically impossible for it to be there by chance, you realize what door you are opening?

Since the nested inclusion is not always exact, then the door swings open for God to use erv to do His work. His work is to create a mechanism to increase the rate of diversion within a species. We say the erv is the tool that God chose to do it.

Since you can't use this information to give me any details as to my common ancestor with the apes, who we are closely related to, I figure you can't tell me anything about other more complex relationships. So your erv theory does not prove anything. So go with God and why He created erv.

TagliatelliMonster · Mar 3, 2017

Peter1000 said:
Well if I don't then the erv is not as doubt-proof as you would to imagine.

OK, lets take the Koala bear. The northern Koala bear population has erv. The southern Koala bear does not. If erv is the perfect device to peg the Koala bear common ancestor, then this says that the exact same Koala bear comes from 2 different common ancestors, 1 with erv, and 1 without erv. How can that be? 2 common ancetors giving rise to the same Koala bear. Not very strong evidence.

Yes, from my human ancestor, not from a Lemur 1 million years ago.

By recent do you mean 50 years ago? Or like the Koala bears, they figure the erv in the northern population was inserted 5,000,000 years ago. So why does the southern population not have a erv?

Citation for your koala bear example?

Peter1000 · Mar 3, 2017

TagliatelliMonster said:
Yes.

Of the top of my head... I'ld say that it might mean that the ERV is a rather recent one that has not yet achieved fixation (= present in as good as all members of the population). It might still achieve fixation in the future or it might mutate out of the genome entirely.

If that's the case, now we have a very nice prediction that can be tested.

In such scenario, we should not find this ERV in other species, since it is a relatively new one which occured in the current species population, not an ancestral species, and is still spreading within that population.

Genetics... it works.

That's like asking you a picture of your face of when you were exactly 14 years, 4 months, 5 days, 3 hours, 21 minutes and 5 seconds old, to "prove" that you are aging.

If you'ld know a thing or two about paleontology, fossilization, evolution science, etc, you'ld realise that this is not a reasonable request to make.

You'ld also realise that it's not actually necessary in order to be able to determine that humans and chimps share relatively young common ancestors.

Just like we don't need to know who your parents were exactly, in order to determine that you and your sister are siblings.

It is exactly the kind of question you should be able to answer, having been given the level of 'no doubt' information you think erv answers.

Your right, genetics does work. But try to reconstruct it from the beginning and you have nothing. It has proven to be so complex, even a single celled animal is beyond science and religion to answer important questions.

Look at erv in the Koala bear population. How does half the population have them and half does not? If the Koala really did have a common ancestor that had erv, all of the population of Koala would have the same erv in exactly the same placement in the genome. Since this is not the case, Koala did not have a common ancestor. I suspect further research into all animals wil turn up the same kinds of results.

Peter1000 · Mar 3, 2017

TagliatelliMonster said:
Citation for your koala bear example?

A retrovirus is invading the Koala genome

Fine Tuning

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency