First born

[Aman777]

I also didn't mention Joan Roughgarden, Werner Arber or Peter Agre. What of it?

Oops. I thought I was replying to Aman777

It matters not unless your "scholar" is alive today with the "increased knowledge" which ONLY the Christians of the last days have. Dan 12:4

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since there is no concrete evidence, or a way to present evidence in such a way that anyone with the means can reproduce the results independently, you will hear several arguments on how you are not understanding the philosophy/theory correctly.

Very similar to religion.

No, not even close. There will be some disagreement on minor points but there is no lack of concrete evidence for the theory.

And you mentioned an "error" but you never were able to support it.

 

[lesliedellow]

Doesn't matter since NO man who studies ancient theology can make sense of Genesis. Only the Christians of the last days can. Dan 12:4

Oh, that's a new one. So St Paul couldn't understand Genesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It matters not unless your "scholar" is alive today with the "increased knowledge" which ONLY the Christians of the last days have. Dan 12:4

I am sorry, but quotes out of context of the Bible that you did not understand in the first place do not help your claims at all.

 

[Aman777]

Do you realize what you just said? You said that I can't help you with the concept of evidence. You clearly do not understand it. There is no "Lie of evolutionism". You fail every time that you try to support your claims. Wouldn't you like to get just one claim correct sometime during your life?

I view you like Trump. All rhetoric and no evidence of action. If you had any, you would have told us long ago. Does your "evidence" agree with Scripture? Of course not. That sounds like Lucifer who also thought he knew more than God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I view you like Trump. All rhetoric and no evidence of action. If you had any, you would have told us long ago. Does your "evidence" agree with Scripture? Of course not. That sounds like Lucifer who also thought he knew more than God.

Please, I have supported my refutations of you many times. You simply did not understand the refutations or ignored them.

And I have offered to help you to understand what is currently beyond your abilities, yet you ran away.

You need to quit the personal attacks. When you make gross errors you need to own up to them.

And evidence does not agree with your personal interpretation of scripture. That only means that you are wrong. That is all.

 

[Aman777]

Oh, that's a new one. So St Paul couldn't understand Genesis.

Of course not. Paul wrote what the Holy Spirit "moved" him to write from inside him 2Pe 1:21 Only born again Christians of the last days can understand:

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

 

[Aman777]

Please, I have supported my refutations of you many times. You simply did not understand the refutations or ignored them.

And I have offered to help you to understand what is currently beyond your abilities, yet you ran away.

You need to quit the personal attacks. When you make gross errors you need to own up to them.

And evidence does not agree with your personal interpretation of scripture. That only means that you are wrong. That is all.

Again, no "evidence" to support your view. What good is it to be able to define "evidence" when you have NONE? I suggest seeking help from someone who actually has evidence. Have you noticed that those who reject God's Truth all over the boards, whine about "personal attacks"? I have.

 

[lesliedellow]

Of course not. Paul wrote what the Holy Spirit "moved" him to write from inside him 2Pe 1:21 Only born again Christians of the last days can understand:

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Oh well, that still leaves Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Zwingli, Bucer, and all the other reformers, flailing around in the dark.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, no "evidence" to support your view. What good is it to be able to define "evidence" when you have NONE? I suggest seeking help from someone who actually has evidence. Have you noticed that those who reject God's Truth all over the boards, whine about "personal attacks"? I have.

What are you talking about? I have literally mountains of evidence. You are the one that has none.


You have no clue as to what is and what is not evidence. Your fear shows that you know that to be the case.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

No, not even close. There will be some disagreement on minor points but there is no lack of concrete evidence for the theory.

And you mentioned an "error" but you never were able to support it.

Actually, extremely close. And, those disagreements are only reinforced by the magnitude of constants, variables and external forces not included (or known). Concrete evidence for the theory would be something that I could mathematically model without much error. You give me a theory like that, and I will gladly entertain it in terms of the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. A large declaration such as this demands equally large evidence substantial error. Isn't that what people say about the "lofty" claims of religion?

I have mentioned the simplicity of the error associated with evolution in its stochastic modeling several times on these forums. Either it has gone completely over the head, or it was ignored (because of its simplicity.)

I will present it again:

Let's assume we are extrapolating data from a source of hard, concrete evidence over 1000 years. And, let's assume our dating methods are 100% correct up to 40,000 years (this is an extremely liberal latitude.)

The planet is 4,500,000,000 +/- 45,000,000 years. So far, we already acknowledge a 1% error in the age of the planet. Now, we are taking 1000 years of absolute hard data, and extrapolating that data over the age of the planet. Why is this a problem? We have ignored the many variables, external influences and elements of the solution sets that can provide the same answers, but do not work for every collection of parameters in determining the data. In other words, we assumed that this hard data is "good" enough to extend over the rest of the history of earth. We are missing 4,500,000,000 of the history and hard evidence, variables, external forces and perturbations, and parameters for which we are ignorant.

We are working with 0.00002% of the timescale data we need in order to be 100% accurate - assuming we had 1000 years of hard, verifiable evidence. Our dating methods, then, would be 0.000001% of the allowable timescale we can observe - breaking down after 40,000 years.

This is error - precisely because of the missing aforementioned data.


Now, let's see how error compounds in general:

Let r = 2 be the radius of a unit circle. Clearly, we are off by 50% (not 99.99998% with evolutionary evidence.) Then,

P = 2πr = 4π is the circumference of a unit circle - 100% error because our operations carry over linear error.

A = πr^2 = 4π is the area of a unit circle - 300% error because our operation carries over quadratic error.

V = (1/3)4πr^3 = 32π/3 is the volume of a unit circle - a 700% error because our operations carry over cubic error.


Let's take, for example, the exponential decay of some known substance (this is related to dating.) If we choose a rate constant that is only 25% off from the real value (1.25 = k, versus the real value of k = 1,) then lets see how that error evolves. We can say a sample decays as dN/dt = -kN.

A rate constant of 25% error means we have a decay value that is 22% error - if we choose a time of t=1, for example.

Do you see how assumptions, small errors in parameters, and missing information also extrapolates error? And, this is even worse for stochastic modelling, which must make some of take some of these latitudes. No human was alive in 100,000BC, and we depend on extrapolating recorded history (no more than 1000 years) and combining it with what we think we know today (also based on extrapolations). If this type of error is fine with you - if you are comfortable with accepting it in order to accept the theory - then that is your prerogative. I cannot accept that magnitude of error for something that not only declares its scientific authority, but also allows for social judgment placed upon those who do not accept it.


It is religion.

 

[sfs]

Let's assume we are extrapolating data from a source of hard, concrete evidence over 1000 years. And, let's assume our dating methods are 100% correct up to 40,000 years (this is an extremely liberal latitude.)

These assumptions have virtually no connection to the actual assumptions made in evolutionary modeling.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

These assumptions have virtually no connection to the actual assumptions made in evolutionary modeling.

They don't?

What is the limit of carbon dating, for example, before it becomes an unusable parameter precisely because of breakdown?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, extremely close. And, those disagreements are only reinforced by the magnitude of constants, variables and external forces not included (or known). Concrete evidence for the theory would be something that I could mathematically model without much error. You give me a theory like that, and I will gladly entertain it in terms of the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. A large declaration such as this demands equally large evidence substantial error. Isn't that what people say about the "lofty" claims of religion?

You need to substantiate that demand. Why must you be able to model it? Your inability to understand the theory does not mean that it is not well supported by evidence. In fact you would be hard pressed to find a theory that is more thoroughly supported.

I have mentioned the simplicity of the error associated with evolution in its stochastic modeling several times on these forums. Either it has gone completely over the head, or it was ignored (because of its simplicity.)

Or it was ignored because it is an unreasonable demand on your part.

I will present it again:

Let's assume we are extrapolating data from a source of hard, concrete evidence over 1000 years. And, let's assume our dating methods are 100% correct up to 40,000 years (this is an extremely liberal latitude.)

The planet is 4,500,000,000 +/- 45,000,000 years. So far, we already acknowledge a 1% error in the age of the planet. Now, we are taking 1000 years of absolute hard data, and extrapolating that data over the age of the planet. Why is this a problem? We have ignored the many variables, external influences and elements of the solution sets that can provide the same answers, but do not work for every collection of parameters in determining the data. In other words, we assumed that this hard data is "good" enough to extend over the rest of the history of earth. We are missing 4,500,000,000 of the history and hard evidence, variables, external forces and perturbations, and parameters for which we are ignorant.

We are working with 0.00002% of the timescale data we need in order to be 100% accurate - assuming we had 1000 years of hard, verifiable evidence. Our dating methods, then, would be 0.000001% of the allowable timescale we can observe - breaking down after 40,000 years.

This is error - precisely because of the missing aforementioned data.

Well there's your problem. We don't look at evolution from only one short time span and expand from there. It is tested again and again and again over huge time spans. You want a concrete rate, though that is not even implied by the theory. You have built a giant strawman and refuted it. Congratulations. You have wasted your time.

Tell me, do you understand the concept of consilience?

Now, let's see how error compounds in general:

Let r = 2 be the radius of a unit circle. Clearly, we are off by 50% (not 99.99998% with evolutionary evidence.) Then,

P = 2πr = 4π is the circumference of a unit circle - 100% error because our operations carry over linear error.

A = πr^2 = 4π is the area of a unit circle - 300% error because our operation carries over quadratic error.

V = (1/3)4πr^3 = 32π/3 is the volume of a unit circle - a 700% error because our operations carry over cubic error.


Let's take, for example, the exponential decay of some known substance (this is related to dating.) If we choose a rate constant that is only 25% off from the real value (1.25 = k, versus the real value of k = 1,) then lets see how that error evolves. We can say a sample decays as dN/dt = -kN.

A rate constant of 25% error means we have a decay value that is 22% error - if we choose a time of t=1, for example.

Do you see how assumptions, small errors in parameters, and missing information also extrapolates error? And, this is even worse for stochastic modelling, which must make some of take some of these latitudes. No human was alive in 100,000BC, and we depend on extrapolating recorded history (no more than 1000 years) and combining it with what we think we know today (also based on extrapolations). If this type of error is fine with you - if you are comfortable with accepting it in order to accept the theory - then that is your prerogative. I cannot accept that magnitude of error for something that not only declares its scientific authority, but also allows for social judgment placed upon those who do not accept it.


It is religion.

Nope, you merely made a strawman of a theory that you don't like . You have the flaw of religion. Don't project your flaws upon others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They don't?

What is the limit of carbon dating, for example, before it becomes an unusable parameter precisely because of breakdown?

And it has practically nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Once again, you appear to be assuming that there has to be a constant "rate of evolution". That is not the case.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

You need to substantiate that demand. Why must you be able to model it? Your inability to understand the theory does not mean that it is not well supported by evidence. In fact you would be hard pressed to find a theory that is more thoroughly supported.


Or it was ignored because it is an unreasonable demand on your part.



Well there's your problem. We don't look at evolution from only one short time span and expand from there. It is tested again and again and again over huge time spans. You want a concrete rate, though that is not even implied by the theory. You have built a giant strawman and refuted it. Congratulations. You have wasted your time.

Tell me, do you understand the concept of consilience?




Nope, you merely made a strawman of a theory that you don't like . You have the flaw of religion. Don't project your flaws upon others.

Ok.

I think I said before, it is your choice to agree/disagree and ignore or accept whatever you want to accept. For me, evolution is unacceptable. If you want to depend on consilience (another assumption of how data is related besides extrapolation,) then that is your choice. You would need to substantiate the strength of your convergence - which cant be done when your parameters are missing, or break down.

As I said, it is a religion of sorts that requires faith in practice - just like Christianity. I just don't subscribe to the religion/philosophy.

 

[sfs]

They don't?

No, they don't. That's why I said they don't. If we're talking about long-term evolution, the key issue is usually something like estimating the time of nodes on a phylogenetic tree. That's not done by extrapolating current data into the distant past; it's done by radiometrically dating fossils that can be placed more or less accurately on the tree. There are plenty of uncertainties associated with that (uncertainties that are often underreported), but they're on the order of 20% or 50%.

What is the limit of carbon dating, for example, before it becomes an unusable parameter precisely because of breakdown?

What does carbon dating have to do with anything? Nothing involving long-term evolution is dated with carbon dating. Dating methods relevant to the time scale of 100s of millions of years are quite accurate. It's figuring out how to connect fossils to trees that's the problem, particularly since the great majority of organisms don't leave fossil evidence

 

[Ygrene Imref]

And it has practically nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Once again, you appear to be assuming that there has to be a constant "rate of evolution". That is not the case.

Could you answer the question?

And, that is not what I am assuming at all. Do you see how appearances can distort the truth in practice and theory? I am actually trying to illustrate the fundamental problem of the fundamental error in trying to extrapolate 0.000002% of data, and call it "strong evidence."

[Stochastic] modelling is only as good as the error you accept.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

No, they don't. That's why I said they don't. If we're talking about long-term evolution, the key issue is usually something like estimating the time of nodes on a phylogenetic tree. That's not done by extrapolating current data into the distant past; it's done by radiometrically dating fossils that can be placed more or less accurately on the tree. There are plenty of uncertainties associated with that (uncertainties that are often underreported), but they're on the order of 20% or 50%.

What does carbon dating have to do with anything? Nothing involving long-term evolution is dated with carbon dating. Dating methods relevant to the time scale of 100s of millions of years are quite accurate. It's figuring out how to connect fossils to trees that's the problem, particularly since the great majority of organisms don't leave fossil evidence

I am actually trying to get you to observe the fundamental problem with assuming the amount of conclusions evolution assumes.

We don't have to talk about carbon dating, although it is a method of determining the age of organic material. It has a lifetime before it breaks down - and then what? Do you extrapolate an age for organic life in the Triassic age?

I am not attacking evolution because there is nothing to attack. It is a matter of fact the theory begins with error, and then renormializes the data to a point of relatively no error - for the sake of concluding observations are strong enough to be held as scientifically profitable.

The same tactic - renormalization - is used in many fields in order to make human sense of results for which we cannot interpret. It is a statistical reset; it doesn't imply evidence or no error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok.

I think I said before, it is your choice to agree/disagree and ignore or accept whatever you want to accept. For me, evolution is unacceptable. If you want to depend on consilience (another assumption of how data is related besides extrapolation,) then that is your choice. You would need to substantiate the strength of your convergence - which cant be done when your parameters are missing, or break down.

As I said, it is a religion of sorts that requires faith in practice - just like Christianity. I just don't subscribe to the religion/philosophy.

No, there is no choice in agreeing or disagreeing for an honest person. You presented a deeply flawed argument. It holds no water. And no, consilience is not an assumption. You clearly do not understand the concept. Your whole approach is flawed and you can't even state what it is based upon. You assume an "error" and then project it. There is no "error" that you can assume. We can observe what life existed at various times in Earth's history. They fit the fossil model generated by the theory of evolution.

When it comes to DNA you need to talk to sfs. He can tell you how DNA exactly fits into the model generated by the theory of evolution. Your strange approach makes no sense at all. It is a rather dishonest approach that attempts to force an "error" that does not exist.

You have the religion, please don't project your flaws upon others.