tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post2006982777510529188..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: Professor Kleiner on Neurobabble and Aristotlemregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-30435170770509177972011-08-24T13:22:26.940-04:002011-08-24T13:22:26.940-04:00@bach:
1) Define natural
2) Provide your data ab...@bach:<br /><br />1) Define natural<br /><br />2) Provide your data about the multiverse that supports your assertion that it is natural<br /><br />3) What caused the multiverse? (Aquinas' second way)Mike Egnornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-14473505806589022282011-08-24T07:49:11.126-04:002011-08-24T07:49:11.126-04:00No Michael,
The Multiverse isn't supernatural...No Michael,<br /><br />The Multiverse isn't supernatural. It's natural.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-23098707695269877842011-08-22T11:28:46.916-04:002011-08-22T11:28:46.916-04:00@bachfiend:
[I said that the evidence for the Mul...@bachfiend:<br /><br />[I said that the evidence for the Multiverse are quantum physical phenomena such as interference. It's not speculation.]<br /><br />If the Multiverse is a subset of our universe, it is natural. If it (or any portion of it) is not a subset of our universe, it is super-natural. <br /><br />Logic, bachfiend, logic.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-78064738263211406262011-08-22T08:10:01.740-04:002011-08-22T08:10:01.740-04:00Michael,
I said that the evidence for the Multive...Michael,<br /><br />I said that the evidence for the Multiverse are quantum physical phenomena such as interference. It's not speculation.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-22684485885453539222011-08-22T07:14:20.979-04:002011-08-22T07:14:20.979-04:00(once again, I'm unable to post under my googl...(once again, I'm unable to post under my google account, hence the Anonymous post)<br /><br />RickK said...<br /><br />Ok, then we're agreed.<br /><br />There is no evidence of divine magic or divine creation, even in the creation of the universe. There is only the logic of a 13th Century theologian.<br /><br />And there are no examples of divine magic as a definitive cause since the birth of the universe.<br /><br />So your statement that "special creation" is the most parsimonious answer to gaps in the fossil record is premised upon the assumption of the existence of something for which there is no evidence.<br /><br />After all, if your only argument for special creation is to invoke Thomas Aquinas, that's hardly parsimonious.<br /><br />Good, I'm glad that's settled.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-62264362297841198312011-08-21T22:12:37.203-04:002011-08-21T22:12:37.203-04:00@RickK:
[Oh don't bother to post Aquinas, PLE...@RickK:<br /><br />[Oh don't bother to post Aquinas, PLEASE.]<br /><br />You're out of luck. <br /><br />[The simple question "then who created God" destroys the first three "ways".]<br /><br />As you'll see, that is a stupid reply. The prerequisite for refuting an argument is understanding the argument. You fail to meet that prerequisite. <br /><br />[And if God is granted an exception, then you've started with two assumptions without evidence: that God exists, and that God is immune from Aquinas's logic.]<br /><br />God's existence is the conclusion of the argument, not the assumption for the argument.<br /><br />[That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.]<br /><br />The argument has never been refuted, and it won't be refuted by you. As you will see, you don't even understand it. <br /><br />[Find something better - something that actually FITS THE DATA! You're a scientist - do you only accept the conclusions from data from 9 to 5 and ignore it for the rest of your life?]<br /><br />Aquinas' Five way are based on logic, with only minimal sense data required.<br /><br />[We are sitting on thin islands of rock floating atop a vast ocean of molten rock held together by an invisible force in roughly the shape of a sphere hurtling through an unimaginably large vacuum while spinning at 1000 miles per hour.]<br /><br />And your explanation for the existence of this universe is that 'shit happened'. Great foundation for science, huh? <br /><br />[Thomas Aquinas would have considered you mad if you told him that, yet it is the truth.]<br /><br />Aquinas' Five Ways had no dependence whatsoever on any theory of cosmology. He actually assumed an eternal universe, because it was the greatest challenge to his proofs. They worked anyway.<br /><br />[My children understand more about the true origins of the Earth and of humanity than Aquinas and every great mind upon which he built his philosophy combined.]<br /><br />Your children understand nothing about the classical arguments for God's existence. They base their worldview on smug ignorance of their own metaphysical stance. Just like you. <br /><br />[The theological logic of ancient philosophers is NOT evidence, Michael.]<br /><br />Of course not. It's logic. What a stupid thing to say. <br /><br />[And your appeal to the existence of the universe remains a cop out.]<br /><br />You have no answer for my observation that the existence of the universe can only be explained by the existence of a Prime Mover/First Cause/Necessary Existence outside of the universe. <br /><br />[You are unable to provide an example where the divine/supernatural was EVER the correct, definitive answer.]<br /><br />Refute Aquinas' Five Ways, and I'll do more than smirk at your silly arguments. <br /><br />[So I will bring this nonsense back to reality and restate:Given its ancient and unbroken record of failure, divine magic is NEVER the parsimonious answer, Michael. Not for your "special creation" and not for any other question to which we don't know the full answer.]<br /><br />The assertion that 'shit happened' explains the universe is magic. Aquinas's assertions are logical and rational. <br /><br />"Every mystery ever solved turned out to be... NOT magic"<br />-- Tim Minchin"<br /><br />God is not magic. Explaining the universe without God requires all sorts of magic.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-21357306875222213972011-08-21T17:27:56.226-04:002011-08-21T17:27:56.226-04:00Oh don't bother to post Aquinas, PLEASE.
Th...Oh don't bother to post Aquinas, PLEASE. <br /><br />The simple question "then who created God" destroys the first three "ways".<br /><br />And if God is granted an exception, then you've started with two assumptions without evidence: that God exists, and that God is immune from Aquinas's logic.<br /><br />That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.<br /><br />Find something better - something that actually FITS THE DATA! You're a scientist - do you only accept the conclusions from data from 9 to 5 and ignore it for the rest of your life?<br /><br />We are sitting on thin islands of rock floating atop a vast ocean of molten rock held together by an invisible force in roughly the shape of a sphere hurtling through an unimaginably large vacuum while spinning at 1000 miles per hour. <br /><br />Thomas Aquinas would have considered you mad if you told him that, yet it is the truth. My children understand more about the true origins of the Earth and of humanity than Aquinas and every great mind upon which he built his philosophy combined.<br /><br />The theological logic of ancient philosophers is NOT evidence, Michael. And your appeal to the existence of the universe remains a cop out.<br /><br />You are unable to provide an example where the divine/supernatural was EVER the correct, definitive answer. So I will bring this nonsense back to reality and restate:<br /><br />Given its ancient and unbroken record of failure, divine magic is NEVER the parsimonious answer, Michael. Not for your "special creation" and not for any other question to which we don't know the full answer.<br /><br />"Every mystery ever solved turned out to be... NOT magic"<br />-- Tim MinchinRickKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01920475944850060506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-30079621749320569672011-08-21T10:12:22.291-04:002011-08-21T10:12:22.291-04:00"brackets", not rackets. I need more cof..."brackets", not rackets. I need more coffee.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-45258771388274743392011-08-21T10:11:01.876-04:002011-08-21T10:11:01.876-04:00I keep forgetting rackets. The first paragraph abo...I keep forgetting rackets. The first paragraph above is a quote from RickK.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-18192446682137109932011-08-21T10:10:28.533-04:002011-08-21T10:10:28.533-04:00@RickK:
Please provide an example where the divin...@RickK:<br /><br />Please provide an example where the divine/supernatural is as definitive an answer for some natural event as, say, germs and genetics are for explaining diseases.<br /><br />Each of Aquinas's Five Ways demonstrate the existence of a Prime Mover/First Cause/Necessary Being... etc. that is necessary to explain the existence of every aspect of nature at every moment. <br /><br />These arguments are very strong. I'm posting on Aquinas First Way tomorrow, and I'll cover all of them in time. <br /><br />So, aside from the need for a supernatural explanation for the Big Bang, the entire universe, and everything in it at every moment, I can't think of anything else that needs a supernatural explanation.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-20208466357451583652011-08-21T09:51:59.284-04:002011-08-21T09:51:59.284-04:00@bachfend:
[The eternal universe is still accepte...@bachfend:<br /><br />[The eternal universe is still accepted science. The 'Big Bang' as part of an eternally inflating Multiverse is accepted science. The Multiverse's existence is demonstrated by quantum physical phenomena such as interference.]<br /><br />The evidence for the multiverse? Why is speculation about universes outside of nature not 'super-natural' speculation?mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-22824155367029609262011-08-21T04:13:03.025-04:002011-08-21T04:13:03.025-04:00Ah, nope Michael - you can't appeal to somethi...Ah, nope Michael - you can't appeal to something that hasn't or can't be definitively answered because of lack of data. That's a cowardly cop out, and if you're intellectually honest, you know this.<br /><br />Please provide an example where the divine/supernatural is as definitive an answer for some natural event as, say, germs and genetics are for explaining diseases.<br /><br />After all you're a neurosurgeon - you should be able to come up with SOME example a little closer to home than the farthest reaches of cosmology, can't you Michael?RickKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01920475944850060506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-77782622356523945942011-08-20T21:26:31.499-04:002011-08-20T21:26:31.499-04:00Michael,
The eternal universe is still accepted s...Michael,<br /><br />The eternal universe is still accepted science. The 'Big Bang' as part of an eternally inflating Multiverse is accepted science. The Multiverse's existence is demonstrated by quantum physical phenomena such as interference.<br /><br />You are at least in good company. Ken Miller who rejects your ID because it posits God as an incompetent serial creator, agrees erroneously with you that the start of this part of the universe indicates a creator. Even if it did, it wouldn't indicate that it was Jehovah.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-83491838646335639412011-08-20T20:07:40.999-04:002011-08-20T20:07:40.999-04:00@RickK:
[Go ahead, Michael - since you are such ...@RickK:<br /><br /> [Go ahead, Michael - since you are such a big fan of quotes from history - please list your favorite examples of natural explanations being definitively replaced by divine/supernatural explanations.]<br /><br />Example:Origin of universe:<br /><br />"Natural" explanation: eternal universe (accepted science until 20th century)<br /><br />"Supernatural explanation: Big Bang (creation ex-nihilo is by definition supernatural)<br /><br />All of Creation is now best explained as arising ex-nihilo. "From nothing" is not a natural cause. <br /><br />Aside from the universe and everything in it, you make a good point. <br /><br />.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-7071477141950715542011-08-20T14:11:15.025-04:002011-08-20T14:11:15.025-04:00M.E. said: "But the most parsimonious explana...M.E. said: "But the most parsimonious explanation for the discontinuous fossil record is special creation."<br /><br />Ahhh... yes, I can see how you'd come to that conclusion given how effective supernatural or divine causation have been in explaining other natural phenomena. Just THINK of all those times throughout history where a natural explanation was definitively overturned by a supernatural or divine explanation. Go ahead, Michael - since you are such a big fan of quotes from history - please list your favorite examples of natural explanations being definitively replaced by divine/supernatural explanations.<br /><br />If you can list several examples, then invoking "special creation" might indeed be the parsimonious explanation. But in the absence of such examples, then invoking The Matrix would be a similarly parsimonious explanation - or invoking the actions of midichlorians - or invoking the vomit of Mbombo.<br /><br />Now, there ARE just a couple of examples I can think of where divine/supernatural explanations were replaced by natural explanations.<br /><br /><br />The Sun - was a god, now a ball of fusing hydrogen<br />The Moon - was a god(dess), now a big round dusty rock<br />The stars - were gods or spirits, more flaming gas balls<br />The tides - were attributed to gods, now gravity<br />The seasons - attributed to gods, now Earth's tilt<br />Earthquakes - were caused by gods, now plate tectonics<br />Lightning - was thrown by a god, now static electricity<br />Rain & drought - was God, now atmospheric moisture<br />Health & disease - was God, now germs & genetics<br />Schizophrenia - was demonic possession, now brain chemicals<br />Epilepsy - was divine possession, now neurology<br />Origin of species - was God, now science (evolution)<br />Identity & personality - was the soul, now neuroscience<br /><br />Shall I continue?<br /><br />Given its ancient and unbroken record of failure, divine magic is NEVER the parsimonious answer, Michael.<br /><br />"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today."<br />— Isaac Asimov<br /><br />As for the fossil record, when scientists are able to fill gaps in the fossil record by using evolutionary theory, geology, plate tectonics and models of ancient environments to predict when and where a fossil can be found for a previously undiscovered intermediate species, then the whole "discontinuity of the fossil record" argument dies. They do this regularly, so the "discontinuity of the fossil record" is a dead argument.<br /><br />Besides, I don't need to name all your ancestors back 5000 years to conclude you actually had ancestors - that you are the product of many generations of human physical reproduction and not a magical creation. <br /><br />There is more DNA evidence for common descent than there is for every criminal trial in history combined. The fossils are just icing on the cake - convenient little snapshots of how things really looked way back then.RickKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01920475944850060506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-26409833764053398222011-08-20T13:25:46.833-04:002011-08-20T13:25:46.833-04:00Bach. It is just like Carl Sagan. The Big Bang has...Bach. It is just like Carl Sagan. The Big Bang has goo evidence to it but I believe the universe is eternal.<br /><br />Which could be depending on how much the multiverse can preve AKA everything XD.Edwardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-75577450968150466352011-08-20T06:19:58.012-04:002011-08-20T06:19:58.012-04:00Michael,
Can you consider your last 3 sentences o...Michael,<br /><br />Can you consider your last 3 sentences of your last comment, and tell me that you haven't taken leave of your senses. 'I'm not a young earth creationist, and I don't really believe in special creation. I accept common descent, although it is by no means proven. But the most parsimonious explanation for the discontinuous fossil record is special creation'.<br /><br />Anyway, the most parsimonious explanation for the 'discontinuous' fossil record (it isn't really, it would be discontinuous if you had trilobites and then whales with nothing in between) would be missing the fossils in between. The less parsimonious explanation would be that God allowed a species to go extinct and then create a species almost exactly the same. Miller's serial incompetent creator in factbachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-40125653144068076272011-08-19T14:36:20.876-04:002011-08-19T14:36:20.876-04:00@bachfiend
"Punctuated equilibrium is easily...@bachfiend<br /><br />"Punctuated equilibrium is easily explained..."<br /><br />'Evolution' is a hodgepodge of genuine science, sloppy science, and fanciful stories. To professionally survive, an evolutionary biologist must respect certain ideological boundaries. Atheism for instance. <br /><br />'Punctuated equilibrium' is a public confession by Gould and Elderidge that the fossil record didn't support gradualism, which was the hallmark of Darwinism. The sudden appearance of different forms in the fossil record is the rule, not the exception. <br /><br />Darwinism is stories, and punctuated equilibrium is just another story. It has nothing really to do with science. It's about defending ideology.<br /><br />The discontinuous fossil record should have demolished Darwin's theory soon after its publication. <br /><br />I am not a young earth creationist, and I don't really believe in special creation. I accept common descent, although it is by no means proven.<br /><br />But the most parsimonious explanation for the discontinuous fossil record is special creation.Mike Egnornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-46976326326032588402011-08-18T23:56:18.825-04:002011-08-18T23:56:18.825-04:00The Entire code was not different per se. It was a...The Entire code was not different per se. It was a small difference... BUT, if were to have a son with that "difference" he would die. His proteins would be all fucked up. I gonna have to read the bloody codes data base u_u" ... I hate work!<br /><br />I think of the catastrophes as the hardcore Natural Selection that Darwin needed to .... errr save his theory. Otherwise natural selection gets weak all over again, and random mutations would eventually F*** a especie. You ... in his early models anyway.<br /><br />It is okay man XD ahahhaha ... probably we gonna talk about evolution again in some other time... you retired ... DAMN! ... I feel so out of place in this blog XD!Edwardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-18304054657538814192011-08-18T23:04:48.858-04:002011-08-18T23:04:48.858-04:00Edward,
This is my last comment on this thread (e...Edward,<br /><br />This is my last comment on this thread (even though I'm retired, there still aren't enough hours in the day to read more than 6 blogs with more than 2 threads).<br /><br />The differences between different codes are minor. Of the more than 10 to the 84th power possibilities, there are perhaps 17 or 18 variants known which differ in just the meaning of 1 or 2 triplet codons. Scientists would be extremely excited (creationists probably too) if an organism with a massively different code, one in which all or most of the triplets meant something completely different, or perhaps one which used groups of 4 instead of 3 base pairs with extra amino acids. But of all the possibilities that exist, they all cluster in one very tiny area of the range of possibilities.<br /><br />Extinction is almost the rule. Almost 100% of past species have gone extinct after an average of about 3 million years. See my explanation of punctuated equilibrium. In the scenario I described, the larger population was well adapted but a geographical barrier disappeared and they were outcompeted and went extinct quickly.<br /><br />Mass extinctions due to catastrophes don't favor mutants, it just favors the hardy generalists. When the Indian Deccan Traps supervolcano wiped out the nonavian dinosaurs 65 MYA (I think the Chicxulub impact theory increasingly implausible), the smaller hardier mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, etc were able to survive, just, it wouldn't have been pleasant, and the large dinosaurs (and pterodactyls and pleiosaurs) went under.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-74540595002007182632011-08-18T20:54:59.129-04:002011-08-18T20:54:59.129-04:00But the exceptions if I am not mistaken are really...But the exceptions if I am not mistaken are really vital. Dunno... Would have to check XD. Last time I was checking the code I just looked at all that and said... YOu know what ... fuck it XD too lazy to find patterns in this even though the whole thing was already made for researchers to look at it and know right away what they were talking about.<br /><br />I find kind of funny. Although I can see primitive especies being simpler at the genetic code... There is still all the sstuff necessary to make the cell work, and depending on the leve of fine tuning, the evolutionary pathways become in the great majority deathtraps.<br /><br />I think that Common descent and Common design of systems like orthogenesis that force different thing to look alike because they are sort of ... going to perfecction or something like that, are hard to compare. For instance I would choose Common descent simply because it has less pieces... not because it is necessarily the best explanation... meaning, I would not be certain IF I am correct.<br /><br />Actually the dynamic was to get 1 in a population of 100. Is that if a model maybe closer to reality. Taking in consideration deaths by all sorts of causes, How overall fit the group in question is and even going to the point of checking their overall gene characteristics, could be, of course, much better model. But have you noticed that Species A would just be a humongous part of the population until it reaches the max population for the current resources. Then we add the idea that the most adapted creatures would eventually win, but that is IF, they fight against each other and IF, there is some kind of resource drop and the mutants die for some reason... who knows maybe that just have no Lucky Genes XD. <br /><br />I mean look at catastrophes, they would bloody explain major extinctions and explain why the mutants won in the end of the day and how the next evolutionary step took place... but I bet that the sheer amount of catastrophes necessary to wipe out all ancestral species XD would be rediculously high.<br /><br />Just saying... it neve adds up, unless if I take in consideration that evolution has a guide. I mean Ortogenesis had a objective... Of course people would get all worried because it removes the Niihilistic view of Evolution and that would piss off all sorts of people, but it DOES solve gaps. Instead of hoping that the blind man in the middle of nowhere find the water jar and survive, you just put a guy that can see XD.<br /><br /><br />Actually ... I Think they are YEC XD... they are just no hardcore, because their reading material seem pretty much ripped off creationists sites I found in English. I remember readding something about Hyper-Evolution. You know what I like the most about Evolution... especulation. Was probably something that I liked the most in Biology, and bothered my poor teacher with it hahhahaha ... yeah since then I didn't believe in Darwinian evolution u_U call me a fundamentalist...Edwardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-74085569337911018032011-08-18T20:25:26.179-04:002011-08-18T20:25:26.179-04:00Edward,
I don't have the time to read all of ...Edward,<br /><br />I don't have the time to read all of your comments, so I'll just restrict myself to one;<br /><br />The genetic code across all species is basically the same, with very minor exceptions. All species have extremely similar codes, with very occasional codons coding for slightly different amino acids OS acting as a stop signal.<br /><br />Scientists are actively looking for lifeforms on Earth with a completely different genetic code, as the next best thing to finding life elsewhere in the solar system let alone Universe, the assumption being that it would mean that life has arisen twice on Earth, and therefore it must have been easy to happen, and would also happen easily elsewhere. Or perhaps not.<br /><br />At any rate, using the amino acids and a triplet code, the total number of possible codes is enormous, more than 10 to the power of 84. Presumably the variants in the code arose with simpler lifeforms with fewer genes where the slight changes that happened didn't have bad effects. Changing the code in humans now would be disastrous.<br /><br />Of course, it doesn't rule out common design, although the other convergence of evidence strongly favors common descent.<br /><br />Actually mutations aren't rare in each generation. There's more than 1. Two groups actually went to the trouble of determining the genome within individuals within families and a surprising number of mutations in all the genes were found in the offspring over the parents. It was mentioned in SGU podcast a while back, I didn't take much notice of it (it was a small study after all), and most of the changes were very minor. We have always assumed error correction in DNA was very good, but that's largely due to the fact that we didn't have the technology to look at DNA in detail. Just finding the alterations in 3 billion base pairs takes powerful computers (I have enough trouble avoiding typographical errors in what I'm typing, spell check causes some lovely typos).<br /><br />Another thing; species don't change into another species in one generation. Populations change into another species over extremely large numbers of generations over very long periods of time, and it's only because all the ancestors have died that speciation occurs.<br /><br />Brazilian creationist groups being in favor of evolution doesn't surprise me. There's old Earth creationism in addition to young Earth creationism. Also some YECs want hyperevolution to get all the extant species from the limited number of kinds Noah took on board the Ark just 4000 years ago.<br /><br />Got to walk the dog ...bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-43718604284080632752011-08-18T18:58:05.591-04:002011-08-18T18:58:05.591-04:00Imperial College of London. No wobbles on laser me...Imperial College of London. No wobbles on laser means that electrons are round. Hmmmm I can't critique just as of nowwww hahhahaha. But perhaps later when i learn more about it. <br /><br />By the way ... there was no academic paper about it T_T, how sad, these guys find these things and there is no hype XD. <br /><br />However I still need to see the experiment. u_u After all... who knows. There could be a experimental procedure problem n_n!!!!... Yeah I am Evil Bach... I pretty go after the defect of things muhahhahaha ... Trust me, it has a higher purpose to create my model for over model searching system for science \o/. which will probably be another crackpot theory but hey ... it is worth a shot.Edwardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-76475085722472361032011-08-18T18:47:16.145-04:002011-08-18T18:47:16.145-04:00Species Dynamics
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...Species Dynamics<br /><br />- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<br /><br />Although the obvious problem of naming which especies is which in the fossils ( without saying that you CAN use the definition os especies you desire while you publish a paper T_T!!! ); There is something that is more intriguing. See, for instance if we had 100 beings from especies A. Now imagine that for every breeding cycle one of them evolves, just one. <br /><br />The 98 A's will have 49 A's and the extra A will breed with Mr or Ms X. Now get a deck of cards and remove the K, Q, J and Jokers so only 1 through 10 will be in your deck. <br /><br />1 to 10 is 10 possible evolutionary pathways. Take a card and create your evolved buddy.<br /><br />Now at the second Breeding cycle we have 148 A's and 1 Mr 2 let's say and a baby A2<br /><br />Do it again and again until you have 100 Mutants from 1 evolutionary pathway. <br /><br />If you want you can flip a coin to see who lives and who dies XD, just to get things more real.<br /><br /><br />Now... Bach if the logic is flawed... it could be... you see that A will be a freaking HUGE part of the population, the hybrids will be a good part, and those 1 to 10 will be very marginal. Imagine that everysingle one them can actually reproduce... isn't it weird that possibly the evolutionary step is more likely a hybrid that most like has nothing in common with the mutants 1 to 10 and possibly nothing in comming with themselves and ... has the A gene pool but FULL of extra stuff ????<br /><br /><br />Is it me or we naturally, at least in this level of mutation, 1 per cycle, is just not enough to create the next great evolutionary step? See like our ancestor did. <br /><br /><br />O_O justtt think about thislittle simulation... don't read stuff on TO and PT hahahaha and no books... use logic mate! Is this model a good simplyfied model of the dynamics that a especies will "see" during their evolutionary proccess?Edwardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-71954467687658856172011-08-18T18:46:51.122-04:002011-08-18T18:46:51.122-04:00Models
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
I got your poi...Models<br /><br />- - - - - - - - - - - - - <br /><br />I got your point. There is a bit of a difference between the metaphysical Hylemorphism dualism model and the more physical Daltonian model. How ever I understanf your point. Actually you seem to following quite in the footsteps of Comte, seriously XD, I have this positivist vibe from your rhetoric skills <br /><br />- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<br /><br />Dalton<br /><br />- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<br /><br />Yeah, but see Dalton thought the atom as solid. for realz. That is why we had to improve his model.<br /><br />- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<br /><br />Common Ancestry... Universal or multiple trees<br /><br />- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<br /><br />Well I remember reading that the genetic code of all living beings have different command libraries. Like the same commando changes completely in a different especies. Is this has something to do with epigenetics ???<br /><br />Anyway, I think multiple evolutionary trees are far more likely THAN Universal life tree, because you would have to change commands all of a sudden, creating the hopeful monster problem, or hoping that new strain of genes with different commands<br /><br />- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<br /><br />The Spheric ELECTRONS!<br /><br />- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<br /><br />Mind showing me u_u the information... because... well I want to see it, and object just for the lulz XD.<br /><br />And about strings... yeah that thing makews no sense.<br /><br />- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<br /><br />Search Engine <br /><br />- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<br /><br />I think it could be the different countries. For instance I usually end up getting American sites when I write in English, but hardly find other english speaking sites. Maybe it is just my location. <br /><br />Creationism in Brazil is very ... sort of marginal. Is not like we don't people that believe in full fledged 6000 year old Earth creationism; But they tend to be really nice and cool about their positions. I was impressed, to find out that we had 3 Creationism Organizations and the biggest one was in favor of teaching standard Evolution model ( Darwinism/Neo-Darwinism or Modern Synthesis which is Neo-Darwinism expanded 0_0 ). I thought they would be going to evolutions throat, but they are all cool about it. SO different from what I read from USA.<br /><br />- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Edwardnoreply@blogger.com