Is it a hoax?

SkyWriting said:

So the level of debate will drop below 40%. I agree.
If support levels are not important, why are you referring to them?

Click to expand...

You brought up support levels first when you smeared America:

"PRINCETON, NJ -- More than four in 10 Americans continue to believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago, a view that has changed little over the past three decades."

Subduction Zone said:

You brought up support levels first when you smeared America:

"PRINCETON, NJ -- More than four in 10 Americans continue to believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago, a view that has changed little over the past three decades."

Click to expand...

I was not involved in the survey
nor commented on it.

SkyWriting said:

I was not involved in the survey
nor commented on it.

Click to expand...

You can't even follow the conversations that you participate in.

pitabread said:

Yeah, this is wrong and consequently everything stemming from this premise is also wrong.

Evolution is a useful, applied science; yes, even the 'macroevolution' bits of it that give so many creationists fits.

It's why it's not going away, despite all the creationist bluster that keeps being posted on this forum.

Click to expand...

If you say so, I won't prevent or argue with you from opining with that philosophical trajectory.

But, the mathematical error is colossal. If you prefer a theory that works that is lined with mathematical error, compounded on mathematical error - then evolution is a fine philosophy. It works, it just is not the unique solution. I don't subscribe to the philosophy, but I know many do.

And, I am not a creationist, so the argumentative positioning that includes that as a qualification for assessment should be removed in future discussion.

Ygrene Imref said:

But, the mathematical error is colossal. If you prefer a theory that works that is lined with mathematical error, compounded on mathematical error - then evolution is a fine philosophy.

Click to expand...

What mathematical error? Lots of fine mathematicians have worked on evolution, and I don't recall any of them noticing a colossal math error.

SkyWriting said:

If support levels are not important, why are you referring to them?

Click to expand...

You brought it up, not me.

Ygrene Imref said:

If you say so, I won't prevent or argue with you from opining with that philosophical trajectory.

But, the mathematical error is colossal. If you prefer a theory that works that is lined with mathematical error, compounded on mathematical error - then evolution is a fine philosophy. It works, it just is not the unique solution. I don't subscribe to the philosophy, but I know many do.

And, I am not a creationist, so the argumentative positioning that includes that as a qualification for assessment should be removed in future discussion.

Click to expand...

Care to give us specifics on this mathematical error?

sfs said:

What mathematical error? Lots of fine mathematicians have worked on evolution, and I don't recall any of them noticing a colossal math error.

Click to expand...

I just posted it for another poster above. The error is fundamental. Those mathematicians must accept a certain amount of error - and then assume the error is useful - in order to model their data. They must. (I know a couple of biophysicists and mathematical modellers for biological processes. We have discussed this very thing in, and outside University.)

bhsmte said:

Care to give us specifics on this mathematical error?

Click to expand...

Sure, I have posted it above. The error is fundamental.

Ygrene Imref said:

I just posted it for another poster above. The error is fundamental. Those mathematicians must accept a certain amount of error - and then assume the error is useful - in order to model their data. They must. (I know a couple of biophysicists and mathematical modellers for biological processes. We have discussed this very thing in, and outside University.)

Click to expand...

I'm a mathematical modeler for biological processes and I know lots of other modelers. There are indeed uncertainties in modeling, but your post seemed to have nothing to do with them.

Ygrene Imref said:

Sure, I have posted it above. The error is fundamental.

Click to expand...

You did not post what this error is, you only claim there is an error. Please post the specific error.

bhsmte said:

You did not post what this error is, you only claim there is an error. Please post the specific error.

Click to expand...

AH! You are right, it was for another thread.

I will post.

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 said:

I'm a mathematical modeler for biological processes and I know lots of other modelers. There are indeed uncertainties in modeling, but your post seemed to have nothing to do with them.

Click to expand...

Seemed...

Do you see how our processes - in thought and in practice - can distort the truth?

Ygrene Imref said:

Seemed...

Do you see how our processes - in thought and in practice - can distort the truth?

Click to expand...

Not in any meaningful way.

Ygrene Imref said:

It is religion.

Click to expand...

No.

Ygrene Imref said:

Do you see how our processes - in thought and in practice - can distort the truth?

Click to expand...

Our processes -- in thought and in practice -- are the only way we have of arriving at the truth. Our grasp of truth is always going to be imperfect, but that's hardly news, nor is it evidence of a colossal error by scientists.

pitabread said:

No.

Click to expand...

O.K.

DogmaHunter said:

... Additionally, there might actually be an investigation on those 100 people, who have just been caught lying under oath.....

Click to expand...

When more than two people without obvious connection are involved, it's more likely to be honest error. Witnesses can easily be mistaken, and the mistakes people make are often the result of common perceptual errors; also witnesses that talk to each other about what they've seen tend to come to a degree of consensus and can adopt what others report seeing into their own memory of the event without being consciously aware of doing so. A number of experiments have demonstrated this - it's just one more situation where false memories can occur or be induced.

The legal system has been rather slow to pick up on these problems, but they're now being taken seriously - see The Memory Doctor.

People can even be induced to remember committing a crime they never did (which explains many false confessions). See Constructing Rich False Memories of a Crime.