First born

[sfs]

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?

No, you don't. You use dating methods that involve isotopes with much longer lifetimes. So I don't know why you're introducing carbon dating here.

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.

What renormalization? What data? What observations? What the heck are you talking about?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

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.

So, I am not honest.

Thanks. We can end it here before either or us further resort to ad hominem in a scientific/mathematics debate.

I am not a biologist, I must admit. But, I am a mathematician. I know ho to use data sets, how to determine if they are appropriate for a measurement, and how to manipulate them in order to provide a workable, but non-unique solution.

I don't need biology to observe the mathematical error in the theory of evolution. But, I appreciate your reference - if you were being honest.

 

[lesliedellow]

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.

Tell me, are you a biologist? Have you ever worked with biologists?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

Why the hang up with exact ages? The theory of evolution does not rely on specific dates. This is your strawman.

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.

You have yet to identify that error. And no matter how sciency you try to sound you will still be wrong.

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.

No, remormalization if pretty much a physics term. It does not apply to the theory of evolution.

Renormalization - Wikipedia

It merely appears that you have copied terms that you have no understanding of. You are not applying them correctly, that is for sure. In other words:

"Let me talk sciencey and I can win the debate!"

 

[Ygrene Imref]

No, you don't. You use dating methods that involve isotopes with much longer lifetimes. So I don't know why you're introducing carbon dating here.

And how do we determine the lifetimes of isotopes? Do we, for example, assume that there are no external sources of weak force that can alter the lifetime of a substance?

What renormalization? What data? What observations? What the heck are you talking about?

ALL of the data must be renormalized in order to fit a model that does not reflect 99.99992% error, for example - in order to return what one expects. This is often done in many fields to return a workable result (most often a result that doesnt "blow up.")

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Why the hang up with exact ages? The theory of evolution does not rely on specific dates. This is your strawman.



You have yet to identify that error. And no matter how sciency you try to sound you will still be wrong.



No, remormalization if pretty much a physics term. It does not apply to the theory of evolution.

Renormalization - Wikipedia

It merely appears that you have copied terms that you have no understanding of. You are not applying them correctly, that is for sure. In other words:

"Let me talk sciencey and I can win the debate!"

Excellent.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Tell me, are you a biologist? Have you ever worked with biologists?

No, my specialty is topology and field theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, I am not honest.

That is up for you to decide. A person that thinks rationally cannot honestly decide what to believe. Do you understand this?

Thanks. We can end it here before either or us further resort to ad hominem in a scientific/mathematics debate.

I never implied that you were not honest. I merely pointed out that an honest person cannot decide what to believe.

I am not a biologist, I must admit. But, I am a mathematician. I know ho to use data sets, how to determine if they are appropriate for a measurement, and how to manipulate them in order to provide a workable, but non-unique solution.

You don't appear to know how to apply math. But that is not unheard of. Nor do you seem to understand the scientific method. You seem to be assuming that science "proves" ideas. It never does that. It cannot do that. At least not in a mathematical sense.

I don't need biology to observe the mathematical error in the theory of evolution. But, I appreciate your reference - if you were being honest.

And you have yet to state what this "error" is. All that you have demonstrated is your lack of understanding of science.

 

[lesliedellow]

No, my specialty is topology and field theory.

How did I guess?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Excellent.

Too difficult for you to understand?

 

[sfs]

And how do we determine the lifetimes of isotopes?

We measure them.

Do we, for example, assume that there are no external sources of weak force that can alter the lifetime of a substance?

No, we observe an absence of external sources of weak force in the universe. And then we test different dating methods, with different dependence on different isotopes, for consistency in their results. And then we carry out a variety of tests to check that physics as a whole, including decay rates, hasn't changed over billions of years.

ALL of the data must be renormalized in order to fit a model that does not reflect 99.99992% error, for example - in order to return what one expects.

You didn't answer my questions. What data is being renormalized? How? What observations are you talking about? Scientifically, your statement here is completely meaningless to me.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

No, remormalization if pretty much a physics term. It does not apply to the theory of evolution.

Renormalization - Wikipedia

Renormalization means renormalization. It isn't just a physics term at all. In fact, you can even use the physical definition of renormalization and apply it to statistical scaled biology.

As said, this happens often in many fields. And, at a high enough level you must know all disciplines of science overlap.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

That is up for you to decide. A person that thinks rationally cannot honestly decide what to believe. Do you understand this?



I never implied that you were not honest. I merely pointed out that an honest person cannot decide what to believe.



You don't appear to know how to apply math. But that is not unheard of. Nor do you seem to understand the scientific method. You seem to be assuming that science "proves" ideas. It never does that. It cannot do that. At least not in a mathematical sense.



And you have yet to state what this "error" is. All that you have demonstrated is your lack of understanding of science.

Excellent.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

How did I guess?

Because you are incredulous of what I am saying, and you are likely a proponent of what I am opposing?

Or, you could be incredulous of my intellect in general.

I don't actually know.

 

[sfs]

No, my specialty is topology and field theory.

What have you published in those areas?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Renormalization means renormalization. It isn't just a physics term at all. In fact, you can even use the physical definition of renormalization and apply it to statistical scaled biology.

As said, this happens often in many fields. And, at a high enough level you must know all disciplines of science overlap.

Yes, but I am totally unaware of any other sciences besides quantum mechanics using that technique. Just because it is used in some fields does not mean that it needs to be used in all fields.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Excellent.

Does that mean that you understand your error?

I am betting that that is not the case.

 

[sfs]

Renormalization means renormalization. It isn't just a physics term at all. In fact, you can even use the physical definition of renormalization and apply it to statistical scaled biology.

Renormalization is not a term in evolutionary biology.

 

[lesliedellow]

Because you are incredulous of what I am saying, and you are likely a proponent of what I am opposing?

Or, you could be incredulous of my intellect in general.

I don't actually know.

Because you sound like somebody who is holding forth on a subject he has no knowledge of.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

We measure them.

No, we observe an absence of external sources of weak force in the universe. And then we test different dating methods, with different dependence on different isotopes, for consistency in their results. And then we carry out a variety of tests to check that physics as a whole, including decay rates, hasn't changed over billions of years.

Is there ever an assumption made that those isotopes have their particular parameters set as they are today because that has always been the case?

Is there an assumption made that there are no significant weak forces that have externally affected those parameters, for example?

You didn't answer my questions. What data is being renormalized? How? What observations are you talking about? Scientifically, your statement here is completely meaningless to me.

Renormalization is not a physics term only: it is actually a mathematical term often borrowed by physicists. You can renormalize any data to fit what you expect: that is the purpose of renormalization.

I don't know how the data is renormalized to provide a result that is acceptable, but it must be, because the primary and fundamental error one starts with to come to a conclusion about the theory is astronomical. The data must be normalized.

When an answer is ridiculous, you renormalize the data.