Evolution

Advances in the investigation of the physical universe we live in.

Re: Evolution

Postby Typhoon » Fri Aug 11, 2017 8:55 pm

All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 15171
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby Mr. Perfect » Sat Aug 12, 2017 6:52 am

Desperate to find anything to support your religious beliefs? Don't get your hopes up, they will fail in totality because abiotic genesis of life is not possible.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13770
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Postby Typhoon » Sat Aug 12, 2017 2:33 pm

Mr. Perfect wrote:Desperate to find anything to support your religious beliefs? Don't get your hopes up, they will fail in totality because abiotic genesis of life is not possible.


I'm an atheist.

Rather, I'm having a bit fun at your expense knowing that you'd jump at the bait.

The Simons Foundation was found by Prof. James Harris Simons

famous for the Chern-Simons form

which gave rise an entire rich new field of mathematics Chern Simons theory with many applications in physics, notably topological properties of condensed matter quantum field theory.

He then went on to found the hedge fund Renaissance Capital, which made him a multibillionaire.

His philanthropy is focused on supporting fundamental modern science which you so despise.

Meanwhile creationist have a money-losing allegedly-to-scale land-locked so-called ark*.

Image

"The Voyage Begins Again" has to be one of the most ironic unintentionally hilarious marketing phrases ever conceived.

Unlike Prof. Simons, if only your long-claimed, but never demonstrated, mastery of financial derivatives was real,
you could have funded a so-called ark that at least floats.

The project’s largest source of funding was actually $62 million in junk bonds floated by the town of Willamstown, population less than 4,000, home to the Ark Encounter and the county seat of Grant County, which faced bankruptcy this spring.


Poor suckers, both figuratively and literally.

*That all of the planet's species could even be collected and then fit into that small volume along with food and sanitation requires a suspension of disbelief that defies rational understanding.

Until someone comes up with a better alternative explanation that do not require me to take leave of my senses, reason, and sanity, I'll go with evolution - the theory that explains all observations and experiments to-date with the least assumptions and the hypothesis regarding the the origin of life that is consistent with what we know about the physical universe.

Until then, like noddy filing his scrotum with a bastard file, I'll find some equally more productive use of my time.
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 15171
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby Simple Minded » Sat Aug 12, 2017 3:15 pm

Typhoon wrote:
Until then, like noddy filing his scrotum with a bastard file, I'll find some equally more productive use of my time.


Shaving your scrotum with a tantou, I assume? ;) No Jack-O-Lantern references please!

I have given this thread to the greatest scientific minds in SimpleMindedStan, and they have uploaded the data. The 8088 has been crunching the data for a couple days now, but the early computer model results appear to be one person saying "Since I choose to view my religion as science, I think everyone else should view their science as religion."

Opposing opinions seem to vary from "OOOkkkkaaayyy.... that's nice. Good for you! Have a nice day!" to "Hey, how bout those Red Sox? They're really sumthin huh?"
Sometimes other people "trigger" me. More often than not though, I do it to myself.
Kinda like Marxist sex.
Simple Minded
 
Posts: 6621
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby Parodite » Sat Aug 12, 2017 4:17 pm

I doubt that unique events can be reproduced in a lab. On top of that and making it worse: all events are unique. Yes, loads of them are similar ones, but never similar enough to deserve to be called identical.

If a requirement would be to see something happen in a lab and be reproduced in enough other labs for a theory to be proven, it would make 99,9999999...9 % of all thingsandstuff we observe in the world and the universe at large be forever unexplainable. I doubt that the long chain of events that lead to the birth of any of us on OTNOT can be created in a lab. Yet we came about under rather natural and steamy circumstances no doubt. Expect no holy ghosts to impregnate human females!

Reproducable events in labs are re nmot identical in an absolute sense, but similar enough for a theory to be able to predict things and be applied in technology. But these similar outcomes are not identical. Some quantum theory acolytes do believe identical things exist, even "at the same time on different places", but they can be dismissed as poetic fools not knowing what they are talking about.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4239
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby Mr. Perfect » Sat Aug 12, 2017 9:19 pm

Typhoon wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:Desperate to find anything to support your religious beliefs? Don't get your hopes up, they will fail in totality because abiotic genesis of life is not possible.


I'm an atheist.

Rather, I'm having a bit fun at your expense knowing that you'd jump at the bait.

The Simons Foundation was found by Prof. James Harris Simons

famous for the Chern-Simons form

which gave rise an entire rich new field of mathematics Chern Simons theory with many applications in physics, notably topological properties of condensed matter quantum field theory.

He then went on to found the hedge fund Renaissance Capital, which made him a multibillionaire.

His philanthropy is focused on supporting fundamental modern science which you so despise.

Meanwhile creationist have a money-losing allegedly-to-scale land-locked so-called ark*.

Image

"The Voyage Begins Again" has to be one of the most ironic unintentionally hilarious marketing phrases ever conceived.

Unlike Prof. Simons, if only your long-claimed, but never demonstrated, mastery of financial derivatives was real,
you could have funded a so-called ark that at least floats.

The project’s largest source of funding was actually $62 million in junk bonds floated by the town of Willamstown, population less than 4,000, home to the Ark Encounter and the county seat of Grant County, which faced bankruptcy this spring.


Poor suckers, both figuratively and literally.

*That all of the planet's species could even be collected and then fit into that small volume along with food and sanitation requires a suspension of disbelief that defies rational understanding.

Until someone comes up with a better alternative explanation that do not require me to take leave of my senses, reason, and sanity, I'll go with evolution - the theory that explains all observations and experiments to-date with the least assumptions and the hypothesis regarding the the origin of life that is consistent with what we know about the physical universe.

Until then, like noddy filing his scrotum with a bastard file, I'll find some equally more productive use of my time.

Cool stories. So, still no science to suggest abiotic genesis of life is science? Have you thought about why? (Abiotic genesis of life requires you to take leave of your senses)
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13770
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Postby Mr. Perfect » Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:35 am

Parodite wrote:I doubt that unique events can be reproduced in a lab. On top of that and making it worse: all events are unique. Yes, loads of them are similar ones, but never similar enough to deserve to be called identical.

If a requirement would be to see something happen in a lab and be reproduced in enough other labs for a theory to be proven, it would make 99,9999999...9 % of all thingsandstuff we observe in the world and the universe at large be forever unexplainable. I doubt that the long chain of events that lead to the birth of any of us on OTNOT can be created in a lab. Yet we came about under rather natural and steamy circumstances no doubt. Expect no holy ghosts to impregnate human females!

Reproducable events in labs are re nmot identical in an absolute sense, but similar enough for a theory to be able to predict things and be applied in technology. But these similar outcomes are not identical. Some quantum theory acolytes do believe identical things exist, even "at the same time on different places", but they can be dismissed as poetic fools not knowing what they are talking about.

The term you are looking for is singularity. It describes the big bang because supposedly since it encompassed all things it isn't a sample and can't be replicated. Another example would be the birth of a single person, as replicating that event is not possible but it is science and did happen. The idea of something only happening once. Abiotic genesis of life is not a singularity.

However if you reject replication you reject science. You have it backwards, 99.999999999% of sciencey things can indeed be replicated. I can't think of anything I was taught in college in science that couldn't be replicated, except secular creation myths.

Virgin births are more likely than abiotic genesis.

But the part where you are right is that science has serious limits, and is indeed limited to that which can be observed and tested. That leaves out lots of stuff and we need methods other than science to grapple with them.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13770
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Postby Parodite » Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:43 pm

Some more free rambling and partly in respone to your post.

I would say that all events are singular events, meaning that none can be fully replicated. The "similarity of measurement" in quantum mechanics is stunning and approaches "full similarity" and could be called truly... identical. The ideal of a theory is to be able to predict near-identical outcomes under near identical circumstances. To predict as accurately as possible. Turns out that the smaller things under observation are, the more accurately similar outcomes can be replicated. This is suggestive of the idea that if we could drill down deep or far enough... we would arrive at some singular beginning- or end point. Seems to be more like some sort of event-horizon that is always there but with reality receding, vanishing into that horizon. The appearance of a forever vanishing-singular endpoint/horizon I see as a consequence of the perpetual destruction and creation of things. Sort of optical delusion.

Although maybe for a while the BigBang has been theorized to be a singular beginning point from which all else that exists emerged, I don't think that idea has much support anymore. Speculation about multiverses, where all that is possible branches out into "near infinite" parelel universes is popular on the market. Maybe a BigBang is just one of the ways a new universe emerges. How about a BigSmash, a Failed Fluff or a SmallSneak! :-)

Speculations building on infinite regression or progression in my view are nice toy models but more like conspiracy theories that arise because there is so much we don't know. How can you know what is always new and different, even just so slightly? Knowledge is like a snapshot of what once was and an expectation of what might be based on previous experiences. While the fire just keeps burning.

Replication, as discussed and with the caveats I mentioned, of course is part of science and very important, the cherry on the cake if the replication supports a theory. But science wouldn't get there without theorizing, speculating and talented scientists using there imagination first. How organic life emerged on this planet is one of those questions where a lot of imagination is required if you want a scientific answer. You claim that life cannot have emerged naturally, i.e. in line with current observations of past and present I find over the top. Science always aims beyond the known to move ahead. Let's appreciate those scientists giving it a shot, wait and see.

Virgin births are more likely than abiotic genesis.


I'd say: no, but certainly waaaay too early to tell. :) The good news: when it comes to some of the tough nuts to crack, we are all free to speculate, device theories and put our money on one we like best for reasons a/b/c. Nobody got hurt.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4239
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby Mr. Perfect » Tue Aug 15, 2017 8:10 am

Parodite wrote:Some more free rambling and partly in respone to your post.

I would say that all events are singular events, meaning that none can be fully replicated. The "similarity of measurement" in quantum mechanics is stunning and approaches "full similarity" and could be called truly... identical. The ideal of a theory is to be able to predict near-identical outcomes under near identical circumstances. To predict as accurately as possible. Turns out that the smaller things under observation are, the more accurately similar outcomes can be replicated. This is suggestive of the idea that if we could drill down deep or far enough... we would arrive at some singular beginning- or end point. Seems to be more like some sort of event-horizon that is always there but with reality receding, vanishing into that horizon. The appearance of a forever vanishing-singular endpoint/horizon I see as a consequence of the perpetual destruction and creation of things. Sort of optical delusion.

Many events are not replicatable, but the laws that govern them can be learned by replicated experiment. That's what science is, discovering causal relationships determined by replicated and predictable experiment. To change that would change science and cause disaster.

Although maybe for a while the BigBang has been theorized to be a singular beginning point from which all else that exists emerged, I don't think that idea has much support anymore.

It depends, every priest of scientism has a different story about an event they didn't witness that happened 14 billion years ago.

Speculation about multiverses, where all that is possible branches out into "near infinite" parelel universes is popular on the market. Maybe a BigBang is just one of the ways a new universe emerges. How about a BigSmash, a Failed Fluff or a SmallSneak! :-)

Speculations building on infinite regression or progression in my view are nice toy models but more like conspiracy theories that arise because there is so much we don't know. How can you know what is always new and different, even just so slightly? Knowledge is like a snapshot of what once was and an expectation of what might be based on previous experiences. While the fire just keeps burning.

Replication, as discussed and with the caveats I mentioned, of course is part of science and very important, the cherry on the cake if the replication supports a theory. But science wouldn't get there without theorizing, speculating and talented scientists using there imagination first. How organic life emerged on this planet is one of those questions where a lot of imagination is required if you want a scientific answer. You claim that life cannot have emerged naturally, i.e. in line with current observations of past and present I find over the top. Science always aims beyond the known to move ahead. Let's appreciate those scientists giving it a shot, wait and see.

On a lot of stuff we have waited and have seen and the results are that big bang/abiotic genesis of life are completely impossible. And pretty laughable.

I'd say: no, but certainly waaaay too early to tell. :) The good news: when it comes to some of the tough nuts to crack, we are all free to speculate, device theories and put our money on one we like best for reasons a/b/c. Nobody got hurt.

Hard to say. As CS pointed out many people go looking for Noah's ark, and the is the level intellectually of evolutionists these days. Their creation myths are far more laughable.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13770
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Postby Mr. Perfect » Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:45 am

Parodite wrote:I'd say: no, but certainly waaaay too early to tell. :) The good news: when it comes to some of the tough nuts to crack, we are all free to speculate, device theories and put our money on one we like best for reasons a/b/c. Nobody got hurt.

Addendum:

Not really. Some are free to speculate and theorize, and then usually their speculations begin to be passed off as science, when they are not remotely science. This is the problem with the Church of Secular Scientism. Anything the secular priest says is unquestionable dogma. This must end.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13770
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Postby noddy » Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:24 am

science has discovered that god acquired a fetish for green slime 650 million years ago.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-17/a ... ay/8810630

Solving the mystery lay in ancient rocks

The researchers unearthed the answer to that question in ancient sedimentary rocks from central Australia.

With new technology they were able to look at the rocks differently, removing contaminants that had previously hidden molecules.

By crushing the rocks, they could extract ancient molecules.

"What we found was quite spectacular and was really, totally unexpected," Professor Brocks said.

"We found out that these molecules of more complicated algae increased in a big burst around 650 million years ago."

And being able to pinpoint that timeframe was the key to their breakthrough.

"The reason why that is so exciting is it is just before animals appeared and also exciting because it happened after the biggest climatic catastrophe in Earth's history."
noddy
 
Posts: 5568
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby Mr. Perfect » Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:11 am

noddy wrote:science has discovered that god acquired a fetish for green slime 650 million years ago.

:)

Isn't it funny how they never tell you how they know that (the age).

"What we found was quite spectacular and was really, totally unexpected," Professor Brocks said.

They say this a lot too. On Monday they say they have everything figured out then on Tuesday they make unexpected finds. Makes you wonder what else they will find that they currently don't expect.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13770
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Postby Parodite » Fri Aug 18, 2017 1:09 pm

Mr. Perfect wrote:Many events are not replicatable, but the laws that govern them can be learned by replicated experiment. That's what science is, discovering causal relationships determined by replicated and predictable experiment. To change that would change science and cause disaster.


The idea that events are governed by laws is a misconception. Or debatable at least. What we have are experiences (or measurements which is a special type of experience) and similar experiences re-occuring. Those "laws" derived from them are more like predictors of similar experience. The ability to predict means we expect things to happen that are confirmed later. They could be called laws, but they are then the laws of cognition.

It makes sense to assume events occur outside/beyond our experiences i.e. laws of cognition but it is not obvious how we would best talk about them. Let alone what "laws" need to govern them, if at all such laws would exist. Math and the math of physics may well come closest. But is math governed my laws? What law decides that 1+1=2? Intrinsic sortov laws? I don't think intrinsic laws exists; they are just conceptual analytical tools.

Replicating experiments means we are able to create similar conditions where we basically do the same-similar trick over and over again. Not fundamentally different from baking the same typ of cake in a controlled and automated factory x50.000 daily. Learning how to repeat things.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4239
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby Parodite » Fri Aug 18, 2017 1:21 pm

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Parodite wrote:I'd say: no, but certainly waaaay too early to tell. :) The good news: when it comes to some of the tough nuts to crack, we are all free to speculate, device theories and put our money on one we like best for reasons a/b/c. Nobody got hurt.

Addendum:

Not really. Some are free to speculate and theorize, and then usually their speculations begin to be passed off as science, when they are not remotely science. This is the problem with the Church of Secular Scientism. Anything the secular priest says is unquestionable dogma. This must end.


The theory that organic life emerged naturally makes sense because eveything we observe and know thus emerges (and disappears) naturally. Unless you see miracle in everything natural - which is what I tend to do. Can strongly recommend it :)

Bigbang also is a viable theory given the red shift etc.
Last edited by Parodite on Fri Aug 18, 2017 1:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4239
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby Mr. Perfect » Sat Aug 26, 2017 8:56 am

Confused evolutionists. Can't even define life yet, but they are SURE how it came into being and that it evolves.

Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13770
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Postby Mr. Perfect » Sat Aug 26, 2017 8:59 am

Evolutionists still confused on what their theory really is, how it "works".

Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13770
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Postby Simple Minded » Sat Aug 26, 2017 3:11 pm

It's high time to put this thread to rest....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs6H5nNZb1M
Sometimes other people "trigger" me. More often than not though, I do it to myself.
Kinda like Marxist sex.
Simple Minded
 
Posts: 6621
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby Mr. Perfect » Mon Aug 28, 2017 9:37 am

Lol, SM goes with strawmen, noddy went from gaslighting to obtuseness and solipsism, and CS went full suppression.

Cognitive Dissonance makes the human mind do strange things.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13770
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Postby NapLajoieonSteroids » Mon Aug 28, 2017 1:45 pm

Mr. Perfect wrote:Evolutionists still confused on what their theory really is, how it "works".



It works digitally.

That video is a fine example of noddy's point about the "lumpers vs splitters" muddle.

I am not surprised a man who spearheaded the human genome project is a splitter-type and would want to categorize everything into ever more distinct niches.
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
 
Posts: 3049
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby noddy » Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:44 am

huh.

all that can be said was said many pages ago and zero information was transferred.


a) assert evolutionists believe something
b) laugh at how much they hedge on that belief and dont have proof for it

to my mind their is such a basic disconnect that you must be just trolling, the entire premise of the argument is your assertation about what you think other people believe.

what i have left is absurdity and obnoxiousness because this has long sincce descended into that.

Image

show me on the teddy bear where the evolutionist touched you.
noddy
 
Posts: 5568
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby Simple Minded » Tue Aug 29, 2017 3:16 am

Mr. Perfect wrote:Lol, SM goes with strawmen, noddy went from gaslighting to obtuseness and solipsism, and CS went full suppression.

Cognitive Dissonance makes the human mind do strange things.


The Lord works in mystrious ways.....

Once again Mr. P, you fail to recognize when I'm on your side. My Ancient Aliens are your god. Where did the aliens come from? Probably made by their gods!

Everyone wins!
Sometimes other people "trigger" me. More often than not though, I do it to myself.
Kinda like Marxist sex.
Simple Minded
 
Posts: 6621
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby Simple Minded » Tue Aug 29, 2017 3:21 am

noddy wrote:huh.

all that can be said was said many pages ago and zero information was transferred.


a) assert evolutionists believe something
b) laugh at how much they hedge on that belief and dont have proof for it

to my mind their is such a basic disconnect that you must be just trolling, the entire premise of the argument is your assertation about what you think other people believe.

what i have left is absurdity and obnoxiousness because this has long sincce descended into that.

Image

show me on the teddy bear where the evolutionist touched you.


Yep! Not everyone agrees with me....... it boggles my mind that so many people be wrong so often! lol

If only I try harder, they will change what I imagine their to be beliefs into something I find more agreeable. I think...

As much as that roo loves the teddy bear, they will never have kids..... but if they did, it would disprove Darwin and also be the start of a new religion.

Transanimate-inanimate-ism.
Sometimes other people "trigger" me. More often than not though, I do it to myself.
Kinda like Marxist sex.
Simple Minded
 
Posts: 6621
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby Mr. Perfect » Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:40 am

noddy wrote:huh.

all that can be said was said many pages ago and zero information was transferred.

a) assert evolutionists believe something
b) laugh at how much they hedge on that belief and dont have proof for it

to my mind their is such a basic disconnect that you must be just trolling, the entire premise of the argument is your assertation about what you think other people believe.

When evolutionists tell me what they believe what do you want me to do with it.

what i have left is absurdity and obnoxiousness because this has long sincce descended into that.

Image

show me on the teddy bear where the evolutionist touched you.

In the wallet. Evolution is a state funded religion and it has to come to an end. There is no science to support any of it.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13770
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Postby noddy » Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:21 am

Mr. Perfect wrote:When evolutionists tell me what they believe what do you want me to do with it.


assert, deny and repeat, never back down, never surrender.

Mr. Perfect wrote:In the wallet. Evolution is a state funded religion and it has to come to an end. There is no science to support any of it.


the refund would probably be less than the admin fee to separate it out from general science class.

I had to sit in divinity classes when i went to school even though im an atheist.

those guys believe in jewish space aliens making humans by hand out of mud and they didnt even have fossils or genetic studies to back it up, so the current approach is a tiny step forward .
noddy
 
Posts: 5568
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby Mr. Perfect » Tue Aug 29, 2017 9:09 am

Lol, so you did get touched by a theist. In my defense we are not all Catholics (lol is that in bad taste).
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13770
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

PreviousNext

Return to Science + Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest