What is the case against Evolution?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Seattle, Jun 15, 2019.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,012
    Very similar to "the path of least resistance".
    I guess the term Implicate is one of those ambiguous concepts?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,195
    Oh I know what it is.
    It's just anti-science.

    Without context, it's certainly ambiguous here.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,012
    We are, I hope. Are you going to exclude the "exponential function" from the scientific vocabulary? Or just where it is applied to an exponentially growing diversity of living (and dead) species?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,012
    It is? There are no scientific equations that translate the concepts into scientific language?

    "Implicate"
    LOL, true, I am thinking of David Bohm's hypothesis of a hierarchy of mathematical orders, from which an deterministic Implicate emerges, the mathematical "expectation" of that which is to become expressed in reality.
    2 + 2 = expectation? .......4...... BINGO!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2019
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,940
    The exponential function is a powerful mathematical tool, in the right hands.

    But seeing you use it is like watching a monkey with an electric hedge trimmer.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    James R likes this.
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,940
    Oh Christ not again.
     
    Seattle likes this.
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    There is no such thing as a "gap" between a theory and and its possible applications.
    In this case, there is a "gap" in our knowledge of the many and poorly understood situations involved; we don't know what, if anything, did the evolving. We have only a few constraints, which guide research into the unknown but do not narrow the field of possibilities enough for solid claims.
    Right now, we know that Darwinian evolution is an adequate theory: if it applies, that is if differential reproduction and selection actually took place, it is capable of accounting for all observations to date. And it does so better - much better - than any other theory we have so far.
    The reproduction at first appears to be the hard part - but we have a whole slew of posited and relevant arenas in which reproduction takes place; clays, crystals, the poorly known world of complex organic and inorganic chemistry in the absence of living beings's interference, etc. We have much to investigate.
    Nonsense. It's currently being applied to AI, it's being applied to simulations of various kinds, it's used in engineering design of machinery and structures, it's a basic theory and has very wide application throughout the physical universe.
    It doesn't even have to self replicate - do it all in one package, so to speak. Replication loops can have stages, involve other agents with no obvious connection, stretch out over time and space with no hard limit. It's important to remember at all times that there were no living beings around, that what can't even begin to happen now because fungi and bacteria and archaea and so forth are always waiting, always hungry, covered the planet back then.
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,195
    Here's an idea: why don't we skip the sloppy, ambiguous middleman terms and use the scientific language directly?

    That would save a lot of screen real estate currently being burned with
    D: "That term has no scientific meaning."
    W: "OK, what I really mean is..."
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,012
    Thanks for recognizing the importance of the exponential function in context of abiogenesis.
    Interesting that I am the only one who seems recognize the importance of this mathematical function in reference to evolution. No one else mentions its importance, but when I do I am a monkey with a hedge trimmer?
    Sorry, but your logic is a little askew!
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,012
    Wouldn't it be nice if someone came up with that direct scientific language. Any hints of an answer to my question? Or is asking questions a sign of stupidity, not worthy of serious attention?
    You bet it would. Too bad no one seems to willing to help out here...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    But I understand, it's so much easier to be critical than it is to offer sound critique and some "answers" to questions. Makes it all sound so important, without saying anything at all.
     
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,012
    Oh Christ, not the "Oh Christs" again!
    Ice bucket please, we have a person in distress!
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,012
    I have always looked at "natural selection" as a process which does not "select for" more adaptive traits, but "selects out" the less adapted organisms. But it also includes such random natural events as a meteor causing the extinction of many otherwise successful species and leaves a few 'lucky' ones alive to procreate.

    The extinction of the dinosaur led to the exponential growth of the small versatile mammalian species. A Cosmic lottery.
     
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,940
    No, it's not interesting at all.

    You are a person who loves to use these terms, but is incapable of using them properly. We've been over your inability to distinguish between the meaning of "function" in its mathematical sense and in its non-technical, everyday, sense ad nauseam. Ditto with "potential". But you don't listen and you won't learn, so I'm not doing all that yet again. Other people on the forum are also pretty tired of this, as Dave's responses illustrate.

    I would love to see one thread, just one, in which you actually manage to take part without mentioning "function", "potential" or "implicate". But I do not believe I will ever see such a wonderful event.
     
    origin, billvon and Seattle like this.
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,012
    That's is somehow my fault?
    Frankly I am tired of wading through 15 pages of non-productive bickering as you seem to be expert at.
    No because the threads where those terms do not apply do not interest ME, do you understand? Make your peace with it, ok. The mods don't seem to object to my posts.

    p.s. Evolution is very much a matter of "potential", "implicate" and "function", and if you cannot see that then the scientific shortcoming is on your side of the fence, not mine.

    The problem is that most discussion here end up in endless complaints about semantics and insistence on scientific correct language, instead of actually discussing content. My posts directly address the OP, from my perspective, as layman and they are offered "in context".

    p.s. that's why I usually accompany my personal statement with links to the "correct" scientific language to give examples of the basis on which I rest my POV.

    It is strange that seldom a correction is offered, which I always gratefully accept. Most "critique" is about words instead of content.

    Other people on the forum also engage in very fruitful discussions with me and seem to have no problem with my 'verbage'. Of course by demeaning my posts you are also demeaning the people who are actually reciprocating.
    Kinda like, "guilt by association".

    My posts have as much related content and useful links than anyone here.
    I am sorry if it is below your rigorous scientific standards.....give me a break.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2019
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,012
    I don't know where you draw the line .

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Hikers choose the easy way to cross hills.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_of_least_resistance

    WOW, look at those forbidden words used in Wiki definition of "path of least resistance". Seems that this is also connected somehow to the concept of "potential", can you believe it?

    Oh, and the probability of the path's meander is about 2/Pi ?

    Just trying to stay on topic.......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .......natural evolution and such.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2019
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,195
    OK well, you opened this door...

    We answer your questions all the time. So that complaint is false. I'm not sure there's been question you've asked that I haven't answered.

    However, we have learned that you only ask enough questions to add to your pet ideas - and then you preach them over and over. You have been told that this is a odious habit, yet you persist - for your own ends, and to the detriment of the forum.


    That the scientific answers don't fit into your pet ideas is on you, not on us.

    You are offered scientific explanations at every turn. So that complaint is false.

    Yet you respond by repeating your mantras over and over.

    Again, we have been very patient with you; you have no one to blame but yourself if your experience here is less than optimal. Your behavior is selfish.

    We answer your questions all the time. So that complaint is false.

    That
    the scientific answers don't fit into your pet ideas is on you, not on us.

    I don't think you can claim any moral high ground here.
     
    globali and Seattle like this.
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,012
    How dare you!
    Who is making the accusations here? Seems you are taking the path of least resistance from the moral highground...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2019
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,195
    There's a very good reason for this. You are fond of using "weasel words" (that's a real thing by the way). A weasel word is one that has at least two distinct meanings, depending on the context. If you start with the meaning of the word in one context (say, mathematics), and half way through, you start talking about the other meaning of the word in its other context (say, cosmology) then you are weaseling your way from one to the other. This is not in good faith.

    Weasel words are a play on words. They do not clarify; they do the opposite of clarify; they obfuscate.


    Corrections are always offered. So that is false.

    You do not. So that is false. Your reaction takes one of two forms:

    - you simply repeat your mantra - like cult followers, trying to reinforce their programming.
    - you double down, claiming "I am not wrong Read it again", when you are clearly wrong.

    Since this is a forum where we write, words are one the only ways to create content. When you use weasel words, you are mangling content.

    And we see you mangling content.

    "The universe is made of values." "The universe is made of functions."
    Your "concepts" - and thus your content - are based on the manipulation of weasel words.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,195
    You.

    This entire page of posts is you, complaining that we're not treating you well.

    In fact, we are being (and have been) very patient with you.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,012
    I reopened the door to the OP subject. Seems you took the wrong door, still harping on my inadequacies.
     

Share This Page