Evolution is a psuedoscience, myth, and simply just a religion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-08-2015, 01:39 PM
RE: Evolution is a psuedoscience, myth, and simply just a religion
The peppered moth article reminded me of the Italian wall lizards, introduced to an island off the coast of Croatia in 1971 then interrupted by the Croatian war. Upon return....

Quote:Researchers found that the lizards developed cecal valves—muscles between the large and small intestine—that slowed down food digestion in fermenting chambers, which allowed their bodies to process the vegetation's cellulose into volatile fatty acids.

"They evolved an expanded gut to allow them to process these leaves," Irschick said, adding it was something that had not been documented before. "This was a brand-new structure."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...ion_2.html

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like dancefortwo's post
21-08-2015, 02:40 PM
RE: Evolution is a psuedoscience, myth, and simply just a religion
(20-08-2015 09:45 PM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 09:42 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  GirlyMan would like to see that data and your math..

ATB in your research, if you have mathematical questions just ask.

Is the Collatz Conjecture correct?

(I was going to ask about the continuum hypothesis, but the Collatz Conjecture is close enough to his speed for him to actually make an attempt at it. And I'm mean like that.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
21-08-2015, 03:15 PM
RE: Evolution is a psuedoscience, myth, and simply just a religion
(21-08-2015 02:40 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 09:45 PM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  ATB in your research, if you have mathematical questions just ask.

Is the Collatz Conjecture correct?

(I was going to ask about the continuum hypothesis, but the Collatz Conjecture is close enough to his speed for him to actually make an attempt at it. And I'm mean like that.)

If there is going to be a proof, it will likely be that it was shown that a term of the form 2ⁿ must eventually occur.
When a term of that from appears, 1 results n steps later.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2015, 03:24 PM
RE: Evolution is a psuedoscience, myth, and simply just a religion
(21-08-2015 08:12 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  I will just set this here, a crumb of information for you while you single-handedly solve the universe's biggest questions.

Whales happen to have an excellent fossil record, courtesy of their aquatic habits and early fossilized bones. How they evolved has emerged within only the last 20 years. This is one of our best examples of an evolutionary transition, since we have a chronologically ordered series of fossils, perhaps a lineage of ancestors and descendents, showing their movement from land to water.

Whales like their relatives, the Dolphins and porpoises, are mammals. They are warm blooded, produce live young who may feed with milk, and have hair around their blowholes. Evidence from whale DNA, as well as vestigial traits like their rudimentary pelvis in hind legs, show that their ancestors lived on land. Whales almost certainly evolved from a series of the artiodactyls: the group of mammals that have an even number of toes, such as camels and pigs. Biologists now believe that the closest living relative of Whales is the hippopotamus. But whales have their own unique features that set them apart from their terrestrial relatives. These include the absence of rear legs, front limbs that are shaped like paddles, a flattened fluke-like tail, and blowhole, a short neck, simple conical teeth, special features of the ear that allow them to hear underwater, and robust projections on top of the vertebrae to anchor the strong swimming muscles of the tail. Thanks to an amazing series of fossils found in the Middle East, we can trace the evolution of each of these traits, except for the bonus tail which doesn’t fossilized, from a terrestrial to an aquatic form.

The sequence begins with a recently discovered fossil of a close relative of whales, a raccoon sized animal called Indohyus. Letting 48 million years ago it was an artiodactyl. It is closely related to whales because it has special features of the years in teeth seen only in modern whales and their aquatic ancestors. Although Indohyus appears slightly later than the largely aquatic ancestors of Whales, it is probably very close to the what the whale ancestor looked like. And it was at least partially aquatic.

We know this because it’s bones were denser than those of fully terrestrial mammals, which kept the creature from bobbing about in the water, and because the isotopes extracted from its teeth show that it absorbed a lot of oxygen from water. It probably waded in shallow streams or lakes to graze on vegetation. While Indohyus was not the ancestor of whales, it was most certainly its cousin. If we go back 4 million more years, to 52 million years ago, we see what might well be at ancestor. It is a fossil skull from a wolf sized creature called Pakicetus, which is a bit more will like than Indohyus, having simpler teeth and whale like ears.

Pakicetus still look nothing like a modern whale, surgery had been around to see it, you wouldn’t have guessed it or its close relatives would give rise to a dramatic evolutionary radiation.

Then follows in rapid order, a series of fossils that become more and more aquatic with time. At 50 million years ago there is the remarkable Ambulocetus (walking whale), with an elongated skull and reduced but still robust limbs, limbs that still ended in hooves that reveal its ancestry. And probably spent most of his time in shallow water, and would have waddled awkwardly on land much like a seal.

Rodhocetus (47 million years ago) is even more aquatic. Its nostrils have moved somewhat backward, and has a more elongated skull. With stout extensions on the backbone to Anchor its tail muscles, it must have been a good swimmer, but was handicapped on land by small pelvis and hind limbs. Finally at 40 million years ago, we find the fossils Basilosarus and Dorundon… Clearly fully aquatic mammals, with short necks and blowhole. School. They could not spent any time on land, for their pelvis and hind limbs were reduced and were unconnected to the rest of Skeleton.
So as you see, to the uneducated the posit that whales came from mammals may seem ridiculous, but knowledge and close examination of the transitional fossil record shows otherwise. (Coyne 2009, pp48-51)

Reference:
Coyne, J. (2009) Why evolution is true. London. Penguin books limited

Maybe Coyne pointed this out in his book. (add another to my to-read list)

Whale evolution shows that evolution IS mindless. Species can evolve to leave the water and they can evolve to go right back to the water.

This invalidates the idea that there is a master designer or you are forced to believe the master designer is schizophrenic and can't decide which direction to evolve an animal in.

God debating with himself on what the next evolutionary step for whales should be:

[Image: which-way-did-he-go-george-which-w.jpg]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2015, 03:26 PM (This post was last modified: 21-08-2015 04:28 PM by Mathilda.)
RE: Evolution is a psuedoscience, myth, and simply just a religion
(21-08-2015 10:38 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  All right, DJJ has shown he doesn't know much math past arithmetic, geometry, and MAYBE trig, and that he screws that up pretty easily. He's had time to answer these questions and declined to do so. I thought what I did here was clever, and I enjoy explaining math, so I thought I'd go through these and explain what all this means so that maybe people who have read this far will gain more brain cells than they've lost. ... that's not LIKELY, mind you, but still.

(1) Something has virtually zero probability if it is technically a possible outcome of an experiment, but any attempt to assign a positive probability to it results in a value that is too high. For example, consider randomly picking a number on the interval [0,1] (uniform probability distribution). What are the odds that you get 0.5? Not close to it, no, that value EXACTLY. It's technically possible, but any positive value we might assign the probability will be too high. It's virtually zero.

(2) Yes, it's possible. Going back to the example from (1), EVERY SINGLE number on the interval [0,1] would have virtually zero probability. But combine them all into the set of all values on the interval [0,1], and you'd get something with 100% probability.

I included 1 and 2 in overly-optimistic anticipation of some of the probability games that anti-evolutionists like to play.

(3) Equilibriums are locations in dynamic systems where the particle (state, person, whatever we're tracking) holds steady over time, perfectly balanced by the dynamics acting upon it. Stable equilibriums are achieved when the dynamics of the local neighborhood tends to direct the particle to the equilibrium -- think of a marble at or near the bottom of a bowl. If you're off by a little bit, local forces will move you back there, in a manner that will dampen error and deviation. Unstable equilibriums are achieved when the dynamics direct particles away from the equilibrium. If you're off by a little bit, you get driven further off, in a manner that will magnify error and deviation. Think of a marble balanced on top of a globe.

While I would hesitate to imply that a stable equilibrium corresponds to perfect fitness for an evolutionary niche (these are complicated concepts and I wouldn't wish to oversimplify), the CONCEPT of a stable equilibrium (or, perhaps better, a steady cycle) is very relevant. Lots of anti-evolutionary arguments fail to grasp how the dynamics of fitness and natural selection serve to keep species stable.

(4) Markov chains are memoryless random processes in which a state undergoes a transformation to another state, with the probability of potential new states a function of the present state. A good simple example is the game chutes and ladders. You've got pieces on the board in particular places and it's one person's turn -- that's the state. It doesn't matter how you got there, the rules are the same regardless -- that's what memoryless means. That person rolls a die, moves their piece to a new location based on the roll of the die and the layout of the chutes and ladders on the board, and the turn passes to the next person. That's the random process which transforms the state of the board.

Markov chains are powerful tools useful in modelling all sorts of things that go through a transformation process over time. Population dynamics are a good example. Using them requires a good understanding of conditional probability, which many anti-evolutionist arguments lack.

(5) This question was a trap. Evolutionary game theory deals with games (scenarios where multiple players select strategies and the outcome for each player depends on the strategies selected by all players) that are iterated multiple times, with strategies and payoffs varying based on past outcomes. It's only connection with biological evolution is that the game changes over time (though it can be useful in modelling biological evolution). I wanted to see how much of a Pavlovian attack response I could get to anything with the word "evolution" in it. Evil_monster

(6) Information theory deals with how information can be preserved, distorted, lost, and reconstructed. A good metaphor for information theory is trying to decipher a radio signal that's got a lot of static in it... say, an audio stream of someone talking. Some pops of static don't stop us from making out the words at all. Others can eat up a syllable, word, or phrase, and yet we can reconstruct it from context. More static can be filtered out with good equipment. Still more information loss can be avoided with redundancy -- if the speaker repeats herself, or rebroadcasts a copy of the message. The original message is the "information" of information theory. Entropy is information that is lost to the static beyond any mathematical hope of reconstruction. In both biological evolution and intelligent design, the "information" is the genetic traits of the original life form, and the entropy are mutations that alter it beyond recognition.I need to bounce ideas of you sometime. I reckon I have a shot at formally describing intelligence in terms of dynamical systems.

Anti-evolutionists love to conflate this with the entropy described in the Second law of Thermodynamics. Aside from using the same word and having a similar theme, the two are quite distinct, but to hear them talk they're actually the same concept and the same scientific rule. They will demand to know how we can get new information in a universe where the second law of thermodynamics is inviolate. The answer is that new traits adapted to environmental pressures arising and proliferating following the original organism are not, in information theory, the information. They're the STATIC. Evolution IS information entropy. It's like trying to listen to a transmission of pop music that's getting more and more corrupted by hip-hop from a nearby station until all you can hear is hip-hop. The original is increasingly lost, irretrievably deformed by the fingerprint left by the environment.

(7) This was another "gotcha, you don't know basic math vocabulary" question. It's continuous in a lay sense of the word, in that it's an ongoing process. But in a mathematical sense, it is discrete and not continuous, as it is made up of several individual atomic changes (from one generation to the next) rather than a smooth, unbroken process.

(8) In lay terms, chaos is a situation where very minor differences in starting conditions produce huge differences in outcomes. This is a problem in science and engineering because we usually have a limit to how precisely we can engineer or measure starting conditions, and if starting conditions vary by amount smaller than that limit it can produce catastrophic deviations from our expectations. The "butterfly effect" of a sequence in events in which a butterfly flapping its wings produces a hurricane is meant as an illustration of this. Another example might be how a few genetic mutations produced blue-green algae, leading to a huge transformation in the environment and probably the largest mass extinction Earth has ever known.

Complexity is where very complicated and optimized processes can arise from simple combinations. Colonies of ants can act in extremely intelligent ways even if the individual ants are pretty dumb. Market economies can optimize distribution better than centrally-controlled ones, just by freeing individual agents to act for their individual good. Incredibly stable and interdependent ecologies can arise from organisms acting according to their own unthinking, self-centered instincts. In a way this is a thematic opposite of chaos theory, in which wide-spread freedom of variables produces a steady, optimized outcome.

There's no straightforward answer for this one. This is essay-question material. I put it in as a test of thinking process, skill in selecting the right tool for the right job, and either knowledge or ability to research. The short answer is probably "both, using this one in this way and that one in that way". It's really a test of creativity and ability to apply math. Someone who doesn't know how to construct a complicated model using multiple mathematical disciplines wouldn't be able to provide a coherent answer. It also forces a person to grapple with the rigged probabilities of evolution, which is something that anti-evolutionists avoid like the plague.

(9) Definitions of infinity vary depending on the class of object being considered and the metric being used for distance, but thematically, a set, field, interval, region, whatever, is infinite if no object of finite measure can contain it. If I'm considering a shape drawn on the real number plane, if I can contain it by drawing a circle of a finite radius (eg, a radius that's an actual number like 1068) that contains the entire shape within its boundaries, then the shape itself is finite. If no such finite containing shape can be drawn, then it is infinite. Circles are preferred because they can do the job just as well as anything else and are closely tied in their definition to the distance measure.

Anti-evolutionists love to abuse infinity, especially on the subject of time and probability, usually without knowing what the term means or how it is applied.

(10) This is a great go-to question for challenging intelligent design people. On my first day of AI class, the professor emphasized to us that we don't have a good definition for intelligence. An artificial intelligence is, basically speaking, any computer program that does things that we think of as requiring intelligence to do (play chess, process human language, do math)... and we can't define it better than that. Our only test for what is or isn't intelligent is the Turing test, which amounts to "can it do it as well as a human or better?". It's a bit like what the judge said about what is and isn't pornography: "I can't define it exactly, but I know it when I see it."

This is a bit of a problem for intelligent design and their demand that their designer be intelligent. What counts as intelligent?

A genetic algorithm is what happens when a computer programmer turns laziness into genius, in a manner that overrides the laziness and replaces it with OCD perfectionism. (If you know many programmers, you'll know that this is more plausible than it sounds.) Basically, the programmer either can't figure out how to write a program, or doesn't want to go to the hard work of doing so. Instead, he writes a program to write the program, and the program-writing program that he writes (say that 10 times fast) works on evolutionary principles of fitness, mutation, and inheritance. The genetic algorithm (the program-writing-program) is given a set of parameters to gauge how good a program it writes is -- some measure of fitness, usually a set of performance benchmarks to meet or a weighting of costs to avoid. It then creates a "herd" of programs, gauges their fitness, culls the worst of them, adds copies of the best, and randomly changes some of the code. Iterate through this a few thousand times, and you've evolved your final product.

This is either one of the most brilliant or most idiotic things the human species has ever done. Possibly both.

[Image: genetic_algorithms.png]

So here's the thing. This IS evolution by selection... just of algorithms rather than biological species. And it works. It's time-consuming and resource-intensive, but for some really hard problems it produces better algorithms than humans can, and can solve some problems that humans can't. If the genetic algorithm (the program governing mutation, reproduction, and selection by fitness) is an artificial intelligence, then its biological analogue, evolution, is a natural intelligence.

Which would mean that, yes, we are intelligently designed.


I really loved this Reltzik. I'm never that confident with Maths because I missed out on being taught the fundamentals at school and then just picked up and learnt stuff as I needed it. Some things I didn't know at all (virtually zero probability for example), other stuff I knew and others I had partially forgotten and wouldn't have been confident describing it formally. So it's really clarified a few things in my mind. It has also made me see some connections or understood what I knew in a different light. For example relating dynamical systems to evolution. One thing I'd love to crack is how a self organising process can start reproducing and evolving.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2015, 04:42 PM (This post was last modified: 21-08-2015 04:52 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: Evolution is a psuedoscience, myth, and simply just a religion
(21-08-2015 03:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-08-2015 02:40 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  Is the Collatz Conjecture correct?

(I was going to ask about the continuum hypothesis, but the Collatz Conjecture is close enough to his speed for him to actually make an attempt at it. And I'm mean like that.)

If there is going to be a proof, it will likely be that it was shown that a term of the form 2ⁿ must eventually occur.
When a term of that from appears, 1 results n steps later.

Yup! Some other fun facts:

A counterexample would require either a cycle or an infinitely increasing series.

We can ignore all values congruent to 0 mod 3. After we hit our first odd number, all subsequent elements will be congruent to either 1 mod 3 or 2 mod 3. Values that are 0 mod 3 are therefore not part of a cycle and may be trimmed from the beginning of an infinitely increasing series.

Of interest are circumstances of "double decay", where we get a term of 0 mod 4 and thus divide by 2 at least twice in a row. Without these, the pattern would increase forever. But they are inevitable. If our element is less than 2^n, then we will reach a term congruent to 0 mod 4 in at most 2n iterations. (It might be 2n+1, I forget. Right around there, though.)

Elements congruent to 4 mod 6 are particularly common. Any odd element will become an element congruent to 4 mod 6 upon the next iteration. An element congruent to 2 mod 6 will either become an odd element congruent to 1 mod 6, or become an even element congruent to 4 mod 6, upon the next iteration.

(21-08-2015 03:26 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  I really loved this Reltzik. I'm never that confident with Maths because I missed out on being taught the fundamentals at school and then just picked up and learnt stuff as I needed it. Some things I didn't know at all (virtually zero probability for example), other stuff I knew and others I had partially forgotten and wouldn't have been confident describing it formally. So it's really clarified a few things in my mind. It has also made me see some connections or understood what I knew in a different light. For example relating dynamical systems to evolution. One thing I'd love to crack is how a self organising process can start reproducing and evolving.

Glad you liked it! I didn't really have the discipline to finish my Masters, because I was always chasing after some fun theory (see above) or focusing on teaching the students I was TAing instead of paying attention to what I was supposed to be studying. But that did let me pick up a bunch of random stuff that ties together in interesting ways!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2015, 09:01 PM (This post was last modified: 21-08-2015 09:11 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: Evolution is a psuedoscience, myth, and simply just a religion
(21-08-2015 01:22 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 11:52 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  I stopped reading after one sentence because in that one sentence you managed to be wrong at a bare minimum of 5 times.




That you're an idiot.

Methinks you have been hitting the bottle toooo long. Sober up and get back to us.

Lol every time with you people, like fuckin' clock work. Laugh out loadLaugh out load

Son trust me...you do NOT want me to get back to you. How about you write sentence that don't contain more errors then words and then get back to me. Or you could go get an education or, baring that, engage in a intimate sexual relationship with your own eye socket.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
21-08-2015, 09:24 PM
RE: Evolution is a psuedoscience, myth, and simply just a religion
Quote:Color is just a variation, albino species are usually exactly like the normal color of that species.... just as with humans. Albinos are just people... they are mutated into a new race.

Facepalm
That is one of THE most ignorant things I've ever heard. Clearly you are a lying, dishonest SOB. You are neither a biologist or a scientist.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
21-08-2015, 09:36 PM
RE: Evolution is a psuedoscience, myth, and simply just a religion
All I can add is I know from the report that came along with a song presentation from a schoolhood friend of mine in Sophomore Highschool biology that "Albino Squirrels are Crazy"

But they are not another species/race

I am also reminded of once reading some strange anthropomorphic animorph like slash/furry stories of a melannistic tiger boy and other albino creatures/normal ones in this world. This is the level of why am I thinking these things again that DJJ is bringing to the table. Not sure why it's relevant but eh.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2015, 09:40 PM
RE: Evolution is a psuedoscience, myth, and simply just a religion
(21-08-2015 09:01 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Son trust me...you do NOT want me to get back to you. How about you write a sentence that don't contain more errors than words and then get back to me. Or you could go get an education or, baring that, engage in a intimate sexual relationship with your own eye socket.

"...write a sentence that don't contain more errors than words..." Laughat

You kill me. Laugh out load

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: