Is it a hoax?

Subduction Zone · Aug 29, 2017

Ygrene Imref said:
That is the main problem often ignored: there must be a plethora of assumptions that must be made in order for the theory to work. It is interesting that the ancients from which we pull our math and philosophy from did not consider this theory in seriousness.

What "assumptions" must be made? More specifically what unjustified assumptions must be made? So far you have only posted strawman arguments.

The resistance comes from academic pressure, programming and a culture of fear that what some have built their entire professional academic careers on (what their credentials are based on) may be completely false - and all of the years of schooling learning about these things are, in fact, not true/wrong. This is why I just move on after a certain point; this is a common dialectic in academia.

If their ideas are false it should be rather easy to demonstrate that. You do know how the scientific method works, don't you?

If we were just having a philosophical discussion where no one was intellectually threatened, there would be limited insecure exchanges that have been seen on this post, and in these forums.

Please, this is not true. Theists try to use their false beliefs as an excuse to claim that others are going to hell. When your side is continually attacking, and trying to harm others by teaching their nonsense of course there will be responses in kind.

PsychoSarah · Aug 29, 2017

RDKirk said:
Okay, so taking that into consideration....

Considering how lush the environment was for life to originate on earth, if with all that lushness there managed to be only a single cell that managed it (or managed to survive)....

How likely can it be that life developed anywhere that was less lush?

1. When life originated on this planet, it definitively wasn't ideal for life. Heck, life absolutely had to originate in water, because there wasn't a protective layer of ozone in the atmosphere to protect any potential life in the process of developing on land.

2. It's entirely possible it wasn't just one cell that managed to survive but rather, only a single lineage from the earliest times of life managed to persist to modern day. There have been a multitude of mass extinctions in Earth's history that could contribute to this, some killing off over 90% of the life at a time. Alternatively, there are multiple lineages that have persisted to this day, but the earliest cells that could survive were very genetically similar and simple, so the basic ties between the different lineages remain.

3. What life as we know it needs isn't uncommon at all in the universe. For example, water is the most common compound in our universe. Most stars have planets, and with the shear number of stars and planets, even uncommon planet types would exist in abundance.

4. There's absolutely no reason to think that our planet is especially ideal for life at all. Since life on this planet developed and adapted to the environment this planet had, all this indicates is that life could persist on this planet despite any possible environmental obstacles. For all we know, our planet is on the fringe of where life can develop.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 29, 2017

Ygrene Imref said:
I tried to bring up how the mathematics is related to the biology in a simplistic way (when I brought up renormalization, error and the decay rate error example,) but in general there is a problem with assuming the fundamentals stay the same over time - which would give the implication that our measurements of other fundamentals that follow (i.e. decay rates, counts, charge and mass) are also constant over the age of the earth and universe. This is not the case in reality; indeed, it was not the case in the beginning of the universe. For example, coupling constants have drift.

It is tempting to say that the fundamentals have driven to a constant for which we can use, but again this is also based on the assumption that the metrics we use to determine these fundamentals have also remained constant. Some of these fundamentals do vary - not with time, but momenta. The fine structure "constant," for example can change with scattering energy. We have to renormalize coupling constants to evolve correction terms. The renormalization of the Higgs Boson determines the mass of other particles. The neutrino was "found" by assuming spin must be conserved (not only energy and mass,) and proposing a theoretical particle that accounts for this difference. Even now, there is still a problem with neutrino handedness (and flavor oscillation.) This particle is a fundamental particle for weak force.

These fundamentals are taken for granted when applied to theories like evolution, quantum mechanics or even relativity (there is a serious problem with the cosmological constants related to the issues of constants being nonconstant). Coupling constants are assumed to be the same throughout the history of the earth, and are used to justify constant decay rates which we use to date organic and inorganic material. Our U-clocks use this assumption.

The exceptions in practice may be marginal, but they really aren't since we are using a time scale that is very large - on the scale of the magnitude of the inverse of the time it takes a radioisotope to evolve one hyperfine transition between from the ground state. So, the assumptions being made are (at the most fundamental level) open to [large] error counts.

The changes depend on momenta - and these fundamentals do change. It is just that things like supersymmetry and (re)normalization have evolved the fundamentals that we have taken for granted as constants, and therefore apply and extrapolate to other theories and models.

I can show this in the same way I think you have seen me show some other material - written/illustrated. Or, we can continue this discussion privately if you are really that interested. However, I am not going to derail this thread any more in an attempt to explain how a change in fundamentals can change an entire theory that depends on those fundamentals being constant. I have repeatedly said evolution is a theory that works, but it is not the unique solution to the progress of the physical world - including biological processes. I have been flippantly told on these forums to show my scholarly work, or write a paper if I think I know so much about this - or even provide a paper that would suggest a different model. I have done this in real life, and I wont do that on any public forum because long before the Social Media Age I have had my intellectual property "borrowed." The most I have shown since (at the extreme chivvying of some persons) is something that is provable/calculable by reading a text. I have no problem taking the pointed scrutiny of asserting something without showing what people want (even though most of what I have said can be verified on one's own power through the math/physics.) Everyone is responsible for their own intellectual trajectory, and claiming you were just "following orders," while rejecting everything you or the standard finds incredulous is dangerously flawed. We have fought many wars, and killed many people based on scientifically closed status quo. I have provided work on this platform before - verifiable - that was dismissed. So, there is no incentive for me to prove what I have said just so that someone can tell me I don't know what I am talking about, and then I see my work 10 years later printed in Nature (for example, of course.) [/SPIOILER]

In your case, I know we disagree on several scientific issues, but as long as your mind is open (without necessarily accepting anything/everything I say,) we have no problem. We don't have to agree at all, but we also don't have to slap each other in the face by claiming one party doesn't know what they are talking about, and parading credentials on the internet as if it matters, and cannot be fabricated or stolen. As the proverb goes, my "yes" means yes, and my "no" means no. You ask me a question, and I will tell you what I know or think to be true. I am not academically, spiritually, socially or colloquially dishonest.

All very interesting, but - to repeat the question - what, in your view, are the exceptions in this context (evolution) that are significant enough that you thought it worth mentioning?

All I gleaned from that is that you have doubts about the constancy of radioactive decay rates. Are you suggesting that miscalculation of radioactive decay rates invalidates the time-ordering of paleontological finds?

Ygrene Imref · Aug 29, 2017

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
All very interesting, but - to repeat the question - what, in your view, are the exceptions in this context (evolution) that are significant enough that you thought it worth mentioning?

All I gleaned from that is that you have doubts about the constancy of radioactive decay rates. Are you suggesting that miscalculation of radioactive decay rates invalidates the time-ordering of paleontological finds?

Radioactive decay rates are but one of several parameters used for evolution that would be used in error - only one. If I can get one to understand how the dating method of the theory is fundamentally flawed, then everything built from this premise fails also - which is does.

But, the reason why the general exceptions to the quality of the theory of evolution only needs to rest on the mathematics, and the basics I presented is because everything is based on mathematics. To build to the theory of evolution, you need (bio)chemistry and physics - which both use mathematics (when I said mathematics here, and from now on, I mean computational mathematics - like field theory, chromodynamics and gauges.) At the foundation of those disciplines rests exactly the qualms which I mentioned: namely, how the fundamental parameters that are assumed to be constant over any time period are not constant at all. That is the problem.

As said, coupling constants - which determine charge, mass, the fine structure constant, and therefore the parameters of all other disciplines in physical sciences - are not constant. They depend on the energy scaling.

This is why we must renormalize these fundamentals in order to get a well-defined approximation of values. The experimental values of these fundamental constants work, but they are not the unique solutions. And, the amount of error in the experimental value versus the actual (theoretical) values may vary by fractions of percentages, but when we use these erroneous answers in calculations, the error is compounded. This is why I said:

The exceptions in practice may be marginal, but they really aren't since we are using a time scale that is very large - on the scale of the magnitude of the inverse of the time it takes a radioisotope to evolve one hyperfine transition between from the ground state. So, the assumptions being made are (at the most fundamental level) open to [large] error counts.

Moreover, biological processes and systems are also measurements on a very small scale (micro, pico, femto, and atto,) so these error are seen on a measurable and influential scale when studying this part of microbology.

I am not saying evolution is trash; I am saying it is not accurate, or even precise. In the future it may be considered trash as biology moves from micro and nanobiology to femto and attobiology. These large inconsistencies and discrepancies will begin to show up more often, and we will have to "reformulate" the theory of evolution. I don't think anyone can honestly say the theory is correct. But, for now it works as a very gross approximation that is out of order and inconsistent, fundamentally.

It goes way beyond decay rates.

Subduction Zone · Aug 29, 2017

Ygrene Imref said:
Radioactive decay rates are but one of several parameters used for evolution that would be used in error - only one. If I can get one to understand how the dating method of the theory is fundamentally flawed, then everything built from this premise fails also - which is does.

You have yet to show that even radiometric dating, which is not key to the theory of evolution, is "fundamentally flawed". You applied a mathematical method improperly and without a reasonable reason. Once again, by your own standards there was no reason to use renormalization.

But, the reason why the general exceptions to the quality of the theory of evolution only needs to rest on the mathematics, and the basics I presented is because everything is based on mathematics. To build to the theory of evolution, you need (bio)chemistry and physics - which both use mathematics (when I said mathematics here, and from now on, I mean computational mathematics - like field theory, chromodynamics and gauges.) At the foundation of those disciplines rests exactly the qualms which I mentioned: namely, how the fundamental parameters that are assumed to be constant over any time period are not constant at all. That is the problem.

Nope, wrong again. You need to show that those fundamental parameters are not constant. You assume that they are without any rhyme or reason. They have been shown to be reliably constant under the conditions that are found on the Earth. If you want to claim a different state the burden of proof is upon you.

As said, coupling constants - which determine charge, mass, the fine structure constant, and therefore the parameters of all other disciplines in physical sciences - are not constant. They depend on the energy scaling.

Once again, if you want to claim that they are not constant under the conditions found on the Earth the burden of proof is upon you. Yes, some of these can be changed under extreme conditions. Those are not to be found here, at least the last that I heard.

This is why we must renormalize these fundamentals in order to get a well-defined approximation of values. The experimental values of these fundamental constants work, but they are not the unique solutions. And, the amount of error in the experimental value versus the actual (theoretical) values may vary by fractions of percentages, but when we use these erroneous answers in calculations, the error is compounded. This is why I said:

The exceptions in practice may be marginal, but they really aren't since we are using a time scale that is very large - on the scale of the magnitude of the inverse of the time it takes a radioisotope to evolve one hyperfine transition between from the ground state. So, the assumptions being made are (at the most fundamental level) open to [large] error counts.

The "large error counts" would still not have made a huge difference in the age and evolution does nor proceed at a set rate so those errors are meaningless. Do you understand this? And there are many sources that demonstrate that the Earth is old. All that radiometric dating does is to nail down the age.

Moreover, biological processes and systems are also measurements on a very small scale (micro, pico, femto, and atto,) so these error are seen on a measurable and influential scale when studying this part of microbology.

Yep, rates of evolution can vary. So what?

I am not saying evolution is trash; I am saying it is not accurate, or even precise. In the future it may be considered trash as biology moves from micro and nanobiology to femto and attobiology. These large inconsistencies and discrepancies will begin to show up more often, and we will have to "reformulate" the theory of evolution. I don't think anyone can honestly say the theory is correct. But, for now it works as a very gross approximation that is out of order and inconsistent, fundamentally.

It goes way beyond decay rates.

It is not meant to be accurate or precise in the manner of your strawman. No one is claiming that life has to evolved at a set rate, but that seems to be your belief.

Job 33:6 · Aug 29, 2017

sfs said:
Then why do the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees look exactly like accumulated mutations in genomes that were originally identical? Parts of the genome that mutate faster are more genetically different between the two species, for example. Particular kinds of mutation that happen more commonly also show up more commonly when comparing the two, and kinds that happen very frequently show up very frequently.

In other words, if they didn't evolve from a common ancestor, why do they look exactly like they did?

Ive wondered about this for some time. The idea that it isnt similarities in DNA that make up the tree of relatedness, rather it is the differences that make the tree as it is. Could you talk a bit about this?

Job 33:6 · Aug 29, 2017

I see someone in this conversation thinks that if he bolds and underlines words, it makes them truthful.

There was a false and unjustified statement made in the original post. The person suggested that the phylogenetric tree constructed based on genetics, was not identical to other trees.

Well, any geologist who is aware of the fossil succession, including myself, recognizes that the fossil succession does match the phylogenetic tree constructed through genetics, identically. For example, there is no mammal that is more closely related to any amphibian, more-so than any reptile. Just as there is no mammal in the fossil succession, more closely positioned to early fish or amphibians, than prehistoric reptiles.

So...with that said, the original post is a bunch of nonsense.

Job 33:6 · Aug 29, 2017

The phylogenetic tree and the tree of the fossil succession are so well synchronized, that time and time again, predictions of where fossils exist in the earth, are made by first looking at our DNA.

What is there left to debate? There is only one explanation, biological relatedness through time, aka biological evolution.

AV1611VET · Aug 29, 2017

KomatiiteBIF said:
What is there left to debate?

Tree vs Orchard

Ontological Reduction

Job 33:6 · Aug 29, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Tree vs Orchard

Ontological Reduction

You have lost your mind. I am sorry to inform you of this. Do not expect to hear from me, you are ignored.

Ygrene Imref · Aug 29, 2017

KomatiiteBIF said:
I see someone in this conversation thinks that if he bolds and underlines words, it makes them truthful.

There was a false and unjustified statement made in the original post. The person suggested that the phylogenetric tree constructed based on genetics, was not identical to other trees.

Well, any geologist who is aware of the fossil succession, including myself, recognizes that the fossil succession does match the phylogenetic tree constructed through genetics, identically. For example, there is no mammal that is more closely related to any amphibian, more-so than any reptile. Just as there is no mammal in the fossil succession, more closely positioned to early fish or amphibians, than prehistoric reptiles.

So...with that said, the original post is a bunch of nonsense.

I said exactly what I meant if you are talking about me. I could have said the same thing without bolding anything and it would still be true.

The fundamental constants such as charge and mass, charge, decay and the fine structure constant are not constants. They are constant approximations. That is because the coupling constants that evolve them are not constant themselves, but rely on scaling and renormalization.

If you don't believe it, then that is your prerogative. If you want me to prove this I can do it easily. But, not on this thread; I can send you a private proof if you are familiar with field theory.

Insults and appeals to ego don't make you right, cute or learned. It makes you incredulous, and possibly ignorant (literally choosing to ignore what you can easily verify yourself.)

If you aren't talking about me, then my apologies.

Ygrene Imref · Aug 29, 2017

All quantum field theorists [should] know that coupling constants are not constant. These are exercises in your QED, QFT, and QCD courses. It isn't a novel idea save that one may have never heard of it before.

Jimmy D · Aug 30, 2017

After seventeen pages no one has presented any evidence of this "hoax". Unless Tevans has anything else to add I think we can safely say......

Ygrene Imref · Aug 30, 2017

H

Jimmy D said:
After seventeen pages no one has presented any evidence of this "hoax". Unless Tevans has anything else to add I think we can safely say......

Hmm...

"Hoax" may be a misnomer, but erroneous certainly isn't.

DogmaHunter · Aug 30, 2017

xianghua said:
a source that claiming that a spinning motor isnt evidence for design? yeah right...

Yes, the source you linked to fully accepts these features to have an evolutionary background.

It's strange when people try to make a point and then cite a source which says the exact opposite.

AV1611VET · Aug 30, 2017

DogmaHunter said:
It's strange when people try to make a point and then cite a source which says the exact opposite.

Why?

I've done it before.

Even when someone accuses me of making something up.

DogmaHunter · Aug 30, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Why?

I've done it before.

Even when someone accuses me of making something up.

I think you're strange, too.

AV1611VET · Aug 30, 2017

DogmaHunter said:
I think you're strange, too.

In what way, may I ask?

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 30, 2017

Ygrene Imref said:
Radioactive decay rates are but one of several parameters used for evolution that would be used in error - only one. If I can get one to understand how the dating method of the theory is fundamentally flawed, then everything built from this premise fails also - which is does.

You didn't answer my question - "Are you suggesting that miscalculation of radioactive decay rates invalidates the time-ordering of paleontological finds?" (bear in mind that there is a good correlation between radioactive decay dating and the time-ordering of geological strata).

To build to the theory of evolution, you need (bio)chemistry and physics...

No, you don't. Neither Darwin nor Wallace needed them for their basic theory of evolution (they didn't need fossils or DNA either).

I am not saying evolution is trash; I am saying it is not accurate, or even precise.

If it is accurate and precise, that's good enough for most people.

lesliedellow · Aug 30, 2017

AV1611VET said:
In what way, may I ask?

You are the resident eccentric; be proud of your distinction.

At least you are not as far off the rails as some on here.

Is it a hoax?

Regular Member

Chaotic Neutral

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Code Monkey

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Code Monkey

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency