Why are there girls in the world?

[Paidiske]

By the way, the question in the thread subject should be "Why are there boys?" Girls are needed because they make babies; boys don't.

Also, the default developmental pathway for humans is female. Male development requires specific intervention.

 

[The Barbarian]

Given a line and a point, how many lines parallel to the first should I draw through the point?

I assume your paradigm is 2-dimensional Eucilidean geometry?

 

[The Barbarian]

Also, the default developmental pathway for humans is female. Male development requires specific intervention.

This is a good point. We all start out female, and later, some of us develop into males.

 

[Resha Caner]

I assume your paradigm is 2-dimensional Eucilidean geometry?

I didn't ask you to comment on my paradigm. I asked what should be done.

 

[The Barbarian]

For your problem, under what conditions would the answer be the same for all geometries?

 

[Resha Caner]

For your problem, under what conditions would the answer be the same for all geometries?

Is that a riddle? I don't know of any such condition. I'm always open to new things ... but I don't see much value in continuing to drag this out.

I was trying to head us toward some common ground whereby we might be able to discuss issues of alternative theories - to mechanics ... evolution ... but I'm not seeing any indications you're capable of formulating such a thing.

 

[The Barbarian]

Is that a riddle? I don't know of any such condition. I'm always open to new things ...

If the point is on the line.

 

[The Barbarian]

I was trying to head us toward some common ground whereby we might be able to discuss issues of alternative theories - to mechanics ... evolution ... but I'm not seeing any indications you're capable of formulating such a thing.

In science, theories only exist where there is adequate evidence to support them. What "alternative theories" do you have in mind?

 

[sfs]

You seemed to agree physics and biology tend in different directions, but "not lending itself to mathematical generalization" is a pretty vague response.

It's a vague response to a vague question about a vaguely expressed feeling you have about the difference between two sciences. Biology deals with highly complex systems with lots of feedback loops, in which numerous parts and numerous interactions have critical effects on the behaviors of interest. If there are mathematical generalizations suitable to describe such systems, no one has figured out what they are. If you've got one to propose, develop it and get it published.

Physics deals with systems only to the extent that they are amenable to simple, generalizable description. Where mathematically simple, generalizable descriptions work in biology, as in population genetics, they're used. Most of the time, they don't work. One of the signs that a physicist or astronomer isn't going to cut it in biology is that he or she treats it as if it were physics.

My point is that 'force' was given a mathematical description by Newton, and that motion was derived from the basic definitions. My impression of biology is that the opposite happens. Biologists try to fit mathematical expressions to a variety of pre-existing concepts with no underlying unifying structure that drives mathematical consistency.

Your description seems to have little to do with how physics has actually been done. Newton observed (directly or through the observations of others) the actual motion of physical objects. He then tried to fit a mathematical expression to a pre-existing concept, that of force, with no underlying structure that would unify his treatment with that of, say, optics.

 

[The Barbarian]

Physics deals with systems only to the extent that they are amenable to simple, generalizable description. Where mathematically simple, generalizable descriptions work in biology, as in population genetics, they're used. Most of the time, they don't work. One of the signs that a physicist or astronomer isn't going to cut it in biology is that he or she treats it as if it were physics.

Have you read Irwin Schrödinger's What Is Life? It's a short work, and well worth reading. And he frankly admits that biology is more difficult than physics, for some of the reasons you mentioned.

 

[Resha Caner]

It's a vague response to a vague question about a vaguely expressed feeling you have about the difference between two sciences.

I see. I can't promise to be any better in the future than I have been in the past, but I will try to keep your expectations in mind for future interactions.

Your description seems to have little to do with how physics has actually been done. Newton observed (directly or through the observations of others) the actual motion of physical objects. He then tried to fit a mathematical expression to a pre-existing concept, that of force, with no underlying structure that would unify his treatment with that of, say, optics.

Yes, I see. Though Opticks followed the Principia, and though in his optics Newton proposed a "corpuscular" nature for light (i.e. particles) that matched it's behavior with the laws of motion developed in the Principia, there was no connection - no attempt to link them. Got it.

Thank you for your clarifications.

 

[Resha Caner]

In science, theories only exist where there is adequate evidence to support them.

I should have said "hypothesis". Regardless, my intent was to see if there was any possibility of sparking an idea here. I don't think that's going to happen.

 

[The Barbarian]

I should have said "hypothesis". Regardless, my intent was to see if there was any possibility of sparking an idea here. I don't think that's going to happen.

It won't if you don't tell us about them.

 

[Resha Caner]

It won't if you don't tell us about them.

In my experience, presenting my ideas doesn't spark ideas in others. Rather it draws criticism of my ideas. I value that criticism, and (when I was more active at CF) enjoyed testing my ideas by presenting them here. But I thought the intent of the OP in this thread was to spark some conversation about various ideas, so I was just trying to facilitate that.

I don't recall all the details of how I went about this last time - more just where I ended up. I'm not home at the moment, but later tonight I can dig up some history on the types of question I asked to spark some conversation. One question I recall asking was "Are evolutionary mechanisms time dependent?" And by that I mean, are billions of years required, or can evolution happen much more quickly? ... A bit rhetorical, but it's what I can recall at the moment.

 

[The Barbarian]

One question I recall asking was "Are evolutionary mechanisms time dependent?" And by that I mean, are billions of years required, or can evolution happen much more quickly? ... A bit rhetorical, but it's what I can recall at the moment.

They can happen instantaneously. Whenever the allele frequency in a population changes either by natural selection or genetic drift, those are evolutionary mechanisms. So births and deaths are evolutionary mechanisms.

Even speciation can be instantaneous. O. gigas appeared from a single polyploidy event.

Hall's bacteria evolved a new enzyme system in less than a year, and even evolved a regulator to go with it. A population of lizards that colonized an island in the Adriatic, evolved a new digestive organ in a couple of decades.

Usually, it takes longer than that, though. Pacing of evolution depends on a lot of different factors.

 

[Resha Caner]

They can happen instantaneously.

Yes, that was the answer I expected ... and the answer I got the first time I asked the question. I asked it with a very pointed objective - namely that geology and the age of the earth are often brought into these discussions as an attempted falsification of evolution. But even if geology were to show the earth is only 6000 years old, that still wouldn't falsify evolution.

So, if you hypothesize an alternative to evolution, time shouldn't be a key factor in that hypothesis. IOW, it doesn't seem time is one of the postulates of evolution.

So in search of a postulate we could change in order to produce an alternative hypothesis, we move on to the next question.

 

[Kaon]

Yes, that was the answer I expected ... and the answer I got the first time I asked the question. I asked it with a very pointed objective - namely that geology and the age of the earth are often brought into these discussions as an attempted falsification of evolution. But even if geology were to show the earth is only 6000 years old, that still wouldn't falsify evolution.

So, if you hypothesize an alternative to evolution, time shouldn't be a key factor in that hypothesis. IOW, it doesn't seem time is one of the postulates of evolution.

So in search of a postulate we could change in order to produce an alternative hypothesis, we move on to the next question.

I do not believe evolution, as it were, happened as we know it, or believe to know it. I do not like the term; I think it is a misnomer and misleading. However, I never actually thought about the "time" issue in the context of (dis)proving evolution.

Usually, that would be a clear mathematical problem - seeing as evolution is extrapolated over a very small percentage of observed pattern (and assumes many constant factors in physics and chemistry as well over time.) Multiplying errors produces more error.

However, you are right I believe overall. On the large scale, time presents a problem for evolution. But, even on the smallest scales we have the problem of time - since stand alone, time is arbitrary (frequency measure of transitions,) and otherwise coupled to space as part of a line element in field theory.

This, then, would present a problem with identifying the proper metric with which to ascertain many biological ideas. I think this is especially the case when the sample or object of study (Life) is constantly changing in real "time."


What, besides time, could test the biological strength of evolution and also provide much more quantitative accuracy and precision? You could spatially relocate, generate a way to observe a certain species of life over many of its lifetimes (but, this would restrict the conclusions,) or try to produce life and test the theory by catalyzing a "change" or "mutation." In terms of mathematics, I would stay away from stochastic modelling and lean toward non-linear, non-constant differential equations. Chaos theory would actually describe evolution in mathematics better than current models - but that suggests a creator/engineer (given that the I.C.s need to highly influence the state at a time t > 0.) Not that biology is against an engineer for life, but the strength of evolution lies in the absence of an outside influence intelligently involve. I am including the fantastical because it is only fantastical until it is reality - and all of these are well within the world's technological capabilities.

 

[Resha Caner]

However, you are right I believe overall.

Thanks. Creationists may want to address issues of time at some point, and I have thoughts on that as well. However, I would advise against trying to eat the entire elephant in one bite. It is better to find a small starting point and focus on that.

What, besides time, could test the biological strength of evolution and also provide much more quantitative accuracy and precision?

Let's see if you can answer that for yourself. It will mean more if you can. I looked up some of my notes. In the past, I had actually suggested a rating scale for each proposition, where a score of +2 = "matches current biology", 0 = "it could go either way", and -2 = "opposes current biology". I also laid out the propositions in groups. So, I didn't dribble them out one at a time, but in order to give better flow to the discussion, I didn't dump them all at once either.

The first 3 related more to abiogenesis. Current biology maintains that abiogenesis and evolution are separate. i.e. falsifying any particular hypothesis or theory for abiogenesis won't falsify evolution (so it's another important precept to get out there). However, starting with a few propositions on genesis events helps set the stage. So, here we go:

1. Suppose multiple independent genesis events produce life. How probable is it all of these events would converge on the same (or similar) physics-based mechanisms: 20-some amino acids, RNA/DNA-like self-replication, and a cellular structure? (+2 to -2)

2. Suppose multiple independent genesis events occur at different times. How probable is it conditions would have been suitable for these events during the Cambrian,
Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, and Carboniferous radiations? (+2 to -2)

3. How probable is it different genesis events would produce different expressions (phenotypes)? (-2 to +2)

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes, that was the answer I expected ... and the answer I got the first time I asked the question.

That's what we observe. Don't expect the answer to change.

I asked it with a very pointed objective - namely that geology and the age of the earth are often brought into these discussions as an attempted falsification of evolution. But even if geology were to show the earth is only 6000 years old, that still wouldn't falsify evolution.

It would falsify evolution. This was actually an issue. In the 1800s, Lord Kelvin calculated the age of the Earth from the heat flux, if the Earth had started as a molten ball. He came up with maybe 10 million years. Darwin demurred, pointing out that evolution would need more time that that to account for life's diversity. But the numbers supported Kelvin.

Then radioactivity was discovered, and Kelvin conceded that he had been wrong. Darwin won the argument, because of the evidence for common descent.

So, if you hypothesize an alternative to evolution, time shouldn't be a key factor in that hypothesis. IOW, it doesn't seem time is one of the postulates of evolution.

Not for evolution. But for common descent, yes. No way to avoid that.

So in search of a postulate we could change in order to produce an alternative hypothesis, we move on to the next question.

Not for evolution per se, but for common descent, yes. Deep time is necessary for that.

 

[Kaon]

Thanks. Creationists may want to address issues of time at some point, and I have thoughts on that as well. However, I would advise against trying to eat the entire elephant in one bite. It is better to find a small starting point and focus on that.

I am a mathematician so I sort of have to eat the elephant and the branch in its mouth in one bite. But, I get you.

Time is not my concern anyway, because I fully believe it to be arbitrary (unless coupled to space, for which it is part of a dimensional line element - not a stand alone measure of counting a parameter.)

Let's see if you can answer that for yourself. It will mean more if you can. I looked up some of my notes. In the past, I had actually suggested a rating scale for each proposition, where a score of +2 = "matches current biology", 0 = "it could go either way", and -2 = "opposes current biology". I also laid out the propositions in groups. So, I didn't dribble them out one at a time, but in order to give better flow to the discussion, I didn't dump them all at once either.

The first 3 related more to abiogenesis. Current biology maintains that abiogenesis and evolution are separate. i.e. falsifying any particular hypothesis or theory for abiogenesis won't falsify evolution (so it's another important precept to get out there). However, starting with a few propositions on genesis events helps set the stage. So, here we go:

1. Suppose multiple independent genesis events produce life. How probable is it all of these events would converge on the same (or similar) physics-based mechanisms: 20-some amino acids, RNA/DNA-like self-replication, and a cellular structure? (+2 to -2)

2. Suppose multiple independent genesis events occur at different times. How probable is it conditions would have been suitable for these events during the Cambrian,
Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, and Carboniferous radiations? (+2 to -2)

3. How probable is it different genesis events would produce different expressions (phenotypes)? (-2 to +2)

1. 0

2. 0

3. 0


Perhaps I am handicapped by my specialty, but my first step would be to define the set/collection called genesis.

In other words, I would need to see the elements that make up a particular genesis (fire and ice, electricity, a god, etc.)

Determine the mathematical uniqueness of that particular genesis

Model the extrapolation of the permutations of genesis consequences based on the (un)restricted definition of the geneses.​

I wouldn't know how to score your propositions without relating it to mathematically analytical demand. It would be like you telling me there is a space of math elements but I am not told whether the elements are numbers (and, the types,) vectors, spaces themselves, etc.


Without constraints, I wouldn't be able to ascertain the possibility of anything. The math needs to be right, and since there is too much error (in the form of assumptions of parameters - usually taken as constant over an interval) a mathematical wall is hit before exegeses can begin. That's why I included the fantastical in my possibilities. Those are just as probable as the meat of the theory of evolution (in terms of mathematics.) In fact, as said, chaos theory (non-linear dynamical system analysis) actually explains "evolution," as it were, much better than evolution itself. The problem is that it doesn't culturally mesh with a random act.

The definition of chaos is a system whose activity at a later time t > 0 is dramatically and sometimes entirely a consequence of the initial conditions. That implies a creator, or at least a condition we are overlooking that drives the entire system to this very point.


You can see why as a Christian and mathematician my answer would simply be the Most High God. But, I admire academia's prowess to search for complications even when the method and solution are simple.