|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
 Posted - 01/05/2011 : 16:32:28 [Permalink]
|
[i]Originally posted by JerryB
Oh, I don't really believe we are apes, ...
|
And that renders everything else you've said irrelevant. What you 'believe' doesn't matter, science is based on facts and evidence. The rest of you can knock yourselves out with this doofus, but I probably won't bother. |
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2011 : 17:26:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
CONCLUSION:
Dave is correct in that there was really no reason to even go to math on that study because the results of the study are so blatantly obvious that they speak for themselves.
|
Yes.
| However, studies are words and words can be twisted. One cannot twist math. That is the reason I went there. |
Yes, you went there and took the authors' words and numbers out of context and then misrepresented them for your own agenda.
| So what does this all mean? |
It means that those of us who have a basic understanding of evolution laugh at your attempts to rationalise your creationist views of life.
| It means that there was NO complex evolution in the human genome since man branched from a common ancestor with Chimp. |
No there wasn't. We never pretended there was, that's your delusion not ours. There was no complex evolution in the genome from man's and chimp's common ancestor, to current date. There are ~0.8% nucleotide substitutions differing between man and chimp, and half of those happened in the human linage: only 0.4% of the nucleotides!
Very little has actually happened since then.
| Then why aren't we still an apeoid? |
Ah, but we still are!
Why, do you think that Man is somehow elevated from the rest of the animal kingdom, set apart from the rest? Touched by the Grace Of God?
And you wonder why we're convinced that you're a creationist... 
Sheesh!
| There is the question. How did we become so much more complex: people made up of doctors, engineers and computer programmers driving nice cars and flying strapped in a seat 5 miles in the air coast to coast chatting with our girlfriends on the laptop? |
It sounds like a question born out of incredulity of the reason for our progress.
Name the logical fallacy...
| The truth is that not only was there no complex evolution in the human genome for the last 6 million years, there is no concrete evidence that there EVER WAS. |
Disregarding the "no complex evolution" for a while: The only obvious alternative to "no evolution" is that Man was CREATED with the genome it now has.
And you wonder why I label you a creationist? You are also disregarding the fact that we haven't found any Cro Mangon remains older than a few 10'000 years. No Neanderthals older than a few 100'000 years, no Homo Erectus older than 2 millions years old, no Australopithecus afarensis older than 4My...
Unless you're claiming that all those species were also separately created?
| Was it a Darwinian magic "poof" then that morphed us into people? |
Classic creationist strawman, laced with a healthy dose of incredulity and projection. Creationists believe that God created species, therefore they project their supernatural beliefs on that evolutionary change has to come through some similar kind of supernatural magic.
| We can see in the fossil record (i.e. the Cambrian Explosion, etc.) all kinds of organisms seemingly coming onto the record relatively quickly, fully formed and ready to go in their environment. How can this be if Darwinian gradualism is a legit hypothesis? |
That's the kind of questions creationists ask when they aren't up to date on scientific consensus on Cambrian Explosion, Punctuated Equilibrium, and Darwinian gradualism. You know, if you opened up a thread specifically to address the Cambrian Explosion and its relevance to Punctuated Equilibrium and evolution, we could easily do several pages on the subject in order to bring you up to speed on current science.
| I'm sure that neither side in this 150 year conundrum would seriously consider poofs in the origins scenario, but there has to be SOMETHING out there that caused this. |
How about natural selection acting on random mutations?
Both experimentation and real life observations has provided evidence than even in very short time spans (less than 20 years) evolution can create novel, species-defining adaptions to the environment.
No poofs necessary, and both instances I linked to has been very thoroughly documented.
| Due to the evidence I've presented here and much more, I feel that the best explanation is design. |
And yet, none of the things you have submitted to this forum has qualified as evidence. A lot of posturing, and a blatant lack of justification for the things you have submitted. As skeptics, we have no choice but to reject your "evidence". Not because we are afraid of the implications, but simply because it fails to measure up to scientific standard.
| And I don't mean a guy in heaven waving a wand and "poofing" us into existence either. |
No, but you also don't hesitate to call it "God". Which immediately brings your motive into question. The second you bring in a supernatural entity into the equation, you fail science.
| I have posted some work by chairman of the Mathematical Physics Department at Tulane University, Frank Tipler. Tipler mathematically shows quantum mechanics acting within the universe. |
Most scientists working in the field of quantum mechanics agree that QM acts within the universe.
He constructs a single pocket of increasingly higher level organization evolving to the ultimate "Omega Point" which he implies to be a pocket of quantum mechanics that acts as an intelligent observer from the future backward to the past.
He writes: "I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." |
This is where it goes horribly wrong.
You write: [Tipler] implies...
I'm not a native English speaker, but even I understand the implication of the word "implies".
Also, a number of scientists have criticized Tipler of making too many unfounded assumptions in his Omega Point hypothesis work.
At least one critical assumption in his work has been refuted by cosmologists, with evidence.
| Could this be the designer? Why rule it out without at least considering the possibility? |
You are wrong if you think we ruled Tipler's Omega Point out without at least considering the possibility. As I mentioned above: At least one of the most critical assumptions Tipler founded his work on has been proven false. A fatal flaw which invalidates all his work. Then, other critics has identified a number of other assumptions Tipler made without proper justification on which his work rests.
Even if the math he presents are flawless, with bad assumptions going in, the result will be garbage.
Do I KNOW that this is the designer?
No, but Dave and I both agree that microstates define the macrostate. And if we were designed, wouldn't it make sense that the design would begin at the quantum level and progress to the molecular level eventually reaching a macrostate called homo sapiens? |
It would make sense, because it's a circular reasoning. Starting with the assumption that there is a designer, then jump through a number of hoops from microstates to a macrostate and from there drawing the conclusion that we've been designed.
We know that the number of nucleotides in a genome can increase through insertions and duplications. Natural selection picks out the mutations that produce the most viable lives. Nature and Natural Selection is "the designer".
| Evolution would take it from there, of course, as mutations and natural selection began to work their charms. |
I find it perplexing that you accept than evolution happens, yet deny that species can evolve though it.
It's like stating that both Opel Calibra and Saab 9-3 have both evolved through a few generations, then just as quickly deny that they share the same chassis.
| So perhaps both sides of this argument are a little right and a little wrong. We have much to learn as Hawking continues the search for his god particle, man explores Mars and curious people like Dave and I continue to search for truth. |
Dave is looking for truth, you seem more interested in spreading your delusion. Hawking continues his quest, but what the fuck is a god particle? A figment of yours or Tipler's imaginations possibly, but not Hawking's. Peter Higgs postulated the existence of the Higgs field and an accompanying boson which could explain mass.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2011 : 17:28:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Keep an open mind.
|
I am.
I'm just not buying every single trinket I see at the Bazaar of the Bizarre.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2011 : 18:10:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Fine you say he was not wrong, that translates logically then, into he was right. Of course, it is obvious to any non-biased observer in here that you are struggling in this debate and are just trying to save face by burying the argument in obfuscating mathematics that don't even make sense to a you, much less anyone else. |
The math makes perfect sense to me. The fact that you are asking me for references which demonstrate that one can negate both sides of an equation and still have it be true does nothing less than demonstrate your algebraic illiteracy.But to put this debate to bed, I am going to use the exact math he suggested and the exact formula in the way he said to use it.
The original math:
W = (41469.4 + 1.6)! / (41469.4)!(1.6)! --- 3.66 x 10^173494 / 2.14 x 10^173487
W = 1.71 x 10^7 |
Schrödinger would never have suggested calculating W as you have done, using the numbers you have used. So you fail at using "the exact math he suggested." You will find your above calculation nowhere in his book, What is Life. Attributing it to him when he's not here to defend himself is nothing less than a bald-faced lie and so morally repugnant. You obviously know only enough about the math to be able to type numbers into Windows Calculator and click the buttons that the a university web page tells you to click, but nothing more. So, because you are so mathematically illiterate, you're proving nothing more than that the Dunning-Kruger Effect is real and very dangerous.Now we can do Boltzmann's math:
S = K log W, S = (1.38 x 10^-23) log(1.71 x 10^7)
S = 9.98 x 10^-23
Entropy is positive showing the genome disordering as we would expect from the study... |
No, only you think the study is showing the opposite of what the authors say. Only you think that it's appropriate to model mutations as a uniform binary distribution of independent statistical events. Only you think that entropy is a rate. The rest of us - "we" - would expect no such thing.| ...and you claim it would be positive regardless of what we would do. |
No, that's a lie. If you don't understand the rules of algebra, as you clearly don't, you can get negative numbers, but they won't mean anything.Wrong. Were the mutations beneficial we simply would use -entropy = K log 1/D. Where D is the same as W according to Schrodinger. Let's try it:
W = 1.71 x 10^7
Now we can do Boltzmann/Schrodinger math:
-entropy = K log 1/D, -entropy = (1.38 x 10^-23) log 1/(1.71 x 10^7)
-entropy = -9.98 x 10^-23
Now what's the problem... |
The problem is that you're not finishing the calculation. You've calculated -entropy. Now finish and calculate entropy. entropy = 9.98×1023, just like in your original calculation. The sign of the entropy doesn't change just because you've started with the reciprocal of the microstates. If it were to do so, a lot of fundamental algebra would be wrong.| ........A 2 actually means 7 or something.........BAHAHAhahahah..... |
The fact that you are unable to do something as simple as correctly describe my argument further cements the conclusion that you are unable to do any mathematics more sophisticated than pushing the buttons of a calculator.| Tell me when we are having fun. |
I think it's quite funny that you're so proudly displaying your inability to comprehend simple algebraic transformations of equations.| Oh, and I still want a link to someone who agrees with you on the ridiculous formula you just made up.....S = -k log 1/W.....Where is it? |
I have already given you a link to a math book that can provide the remedial lessons you'll need to understand why -S = k log (1/W) is algebraically identical to S = -k log (1/W). You called my proof "nonsense," but you're unable to articulate any mis-step I might have made. That's because there are none, but you obviously don't have the middle-school mathematical skills to figure that out, and you're so desperate to save your failed hypothesis that you are unwilling to admit that you're wrong. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2011 : 18:54:48 [Permalink]
|
And Schrodinger told you this:
"If D is a measure of disorder, its reciprocal, 1/D, can be regarded as a direct measure of order. Since the logarithm of 1/D is just minus the logarithm of D, we can write Boltzmann's equation thus:
-(entropy) = k log (1/D)."
http://dieoff.org/page150.htm
W = 1.71 x 10^7
Now we can do Boltzmann/Schrodinger math:
-entropy = K log 1/D, -entropy = (1.38 x 10^-23) log 1/(1.71 x 10^7)
-entropy = -9.98 x 10^-23
If D is a measure of disorder, its reciprocal, 1/D, can be regarded as a direct measure of order.
I want to know how the famous physicist is wrong on this simple formula. I want to know how this math is wrong. You know that D is correct from the link I sent you from the physics department in Wales. Thus far you are only paving the road with dazzling Bullshit.
Dave, in debating people on the Internet ever since there was an Internet, you are the absolute most intellectually dishonest person I have ever had the displeasure of discussing anything with and the second runner up isn't anywhere close. And if you don't think every unbiased person reading in on this don't see that; You are simply stupid.
I don't care that your silly math makes perfect sense to you, I want a link to this inane formula you just pulled out of your butt: S = -K log 1/W.
Thermodynamics has been around for 300 years and no one but you has ever heard of it.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2011 : 19:02:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Now we can do Boltzmann's math:
S = K log W, S = (1.38 x 10^-23) log(1.71 x 10^7)
S = 9.98 x 10^-23 |
Oh, another reason that I know you're clueless, Jerry, is that to both Boltzmann and Schrödinger, "log" meant "natural log" unless otherwise specified. You're hitting the "log" button on Windows Calculator, but to do the math "exactly" like they would have, you need to hit the "ln" button. For W = 1.71×107, it's really S = 2.30×10-22. But don't worry too much about that. As I already said, logs are interconvertible simply by multiplying by a constant. And it's only an error of 5.6 milliDembskis, an error unit that I had a part in formalizing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2011 : 19:03:59 [Permalink]
|
| OK this is getting circular. JerryB is saying that both the positive result and the negative result mean the same thing in their respective equations. Dave W. disagrees. I think we are at an impass. As for me, Dave W.'s math is correct but I do not understand yet if JerryB is correct in his assertion. I do understand thermodynamics but not how it applies to evolution. It has been fun though. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2011 : 19:17:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
I want to know how the famous physicist is wrong on this simple formula. |
He wasn't wrong. You are wrong.| I want to know how this math is wrong. |
I've already told you that.| You know that D is correct from the link I sent you from the physics department in Wales. |
No, your value for D comes from nonsense numbers that you plugged in. You used Windows Calculator correctly, but you destroyed any meaning in the numbers because you don't understand what the formulae are for, and so don't know what the input means.| Thus far you are only paving the road with dazzling Bullshit. |
You're projecting.| Dave, in debating people on the Internet ever since there was an Internet, you are the absolute most intellectually dishonest person I have ever had the displeasure of discussing anything with and the second runner up isn't anywhere close. And if you don't think every unbiased person reading in on this don't see that; You are simply stupid. |
You are possibly at the absolute nadir of self-awareness, Jerry. Really, I've never seen anyone as unaware of their own failings as you. At least the creationists have the excuse of being dazzled by faith.| I don't care that your silly math makes perfect sense to you, I want a link to this inane formula you just pulled out of your butt: S = -K log 1/W. |
Once again, you are asking for a reference for 7th-grade algebra. That you don't understand this says that you're completely daft.| Thermodynamics has been around for 300 years and no one but you has ever heard of it. |
No, everyone who got through Algebra I understands that the equations are algebraically equivalent. Same numbers in, same numbers out. Which side of the equals sign the unary minus sign appears on is a matter of convention and/or convenience, as one can change it simply by multiplying both sides by -1. If -a=b, then a=-b. It's that simple, but you completely fail to comprehend it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2011 : 20:42:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
I think we are at an impass. |
We've been at impasse for quite some time now, actually. Sorry that it's getting tedious. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2011 : 23:07:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
... but I do not understand yet if JerryB is correct in his assertion. |
1. He is using an equation inappropriately.
2. The numbers he is using are wrong: the 1.6 new deleterious mutations per diploid genome per generation were NOT, as JerryB claimed, "diffused down lineages from progenitors to progeny" but rather eliminated by natural selection.
Garbage In + Garbage Processing = (Fill in blank) Output.
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2011 : 23:29:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
OK this is getting circular. JerryB is saying that both the positive result and the negative result mean the same thing in their respective equations. Dave W. disagrees. I think we are at an impass. As for me, Dave W.'s math is correct but I do not understand yet if JerryB is correct in his assertion. I do understand thermodynamics but not how it applies to evolution. It has been fun though.
|
It doesn't apply (second law). At all. It is a nonsense creationist tactic that can be thoroughly discredited by most highschool freshman. The earth is not a closed system, nor is the genome of any species. Poor Jerry can't even respond to that, so he has instead chosen to ignore it. It's sad really.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 05:47:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Originally posted by Robb
OK this is getting circular. JerryB is saying that both the positive result and the negative result mean the same thing in their respective equations. Dave W. disagrees. I think we are at an impass. As for me, Dave W.'s math is correct but I do not understand yet if JerryB is correct in his assertion. I do understand thermodynamics but not how it applies to evolution. It has been fun though.
|
It doesn't apply (second law). At all. It is a nonsense creationist tactic that can be thoroughly discredited by most highschool freshman. The earth is not a closed system, nor is the genome of any species. Poor Jerry can't even respond to that, so he has instead chosen to ignore it. It's sad really.
|
I haven't responded to it because it'd just ignorance of science and anyone reading in will know that. Have you just not been reading?
We've been discussing Schrodinger's work in open system thermodynamics only for about 50 posts now.
Oh, and you need to email Ilya Prigogine and have him give back that Nobel prize he won for his work in open system thermodynamics some years back. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 05:56:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Fripp
...I become a "Skeptic Regular".
**applause**
Thank you, thank you. You like me. You really like me!
|
Congratulations, Fripp!
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 07:08:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
We've been discussing Schrodinger's work in open system thermodynamics only for about 50 posts now. |
So tell us why entropy increasing in an open system means anything. In an open system, any trend in entropy which might exist (none has to) depends upon the system itself. Genomes ought to trend towards low-energy states for whatever environment they find themselves in, but those environments constantly change, so any entropy found in a genome (if that's even a meaningful measure) will necessarily go up and down over time as various genes are selected in or out as the genome collects information from the environment, and the organisms created by the genome modify that same environment. So genomes won't be in any sort of equilibrium with their environment for very long (if at all), and so using Boltzmann's formula is inappropriate for yet another reason. Instead, the generalized formula for finding entropy should have been selected - at the very least - but that would have forced you, Jerry, to select probabilities for various possible microstates, and you just don't know that data. So, given what you do know (not much besides a couple of data points you clearly don't understand and how to click the buttons on Windows Calculator), you picked an inappropriate formula to run the numbers through and got some garbage out which you think is treasure. As a kid, I used to have a lot of fun playing in the mud, too, but I never once thought that it was gold.| Oh, and you need to email Ilya Prigogine and have him give back that Nobel prize he won for his work in open system thermodynamics some years back. |
Did he run counts of nucleotides through Boltzmann's formula? If so, then no, he shouldn't have been awarded a Nobel. Shame he died seven years ago, and so can't read emails. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 07:17:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
I do understand thermodynamics but not how it applies to evolution. |
That's one of the major problems Jerry has.
Boltzmann made his work on ideal gasses. But there is no analogue between a gas and a genome. Nucleotides do not fly around in an enclosed space.
DNA could be considered a string of information. We can read the nucleotides, but we don't yet have the means to translate it to stuff like physical appearence or resistance against toxins or decease. Because the genome has lots of non-coding parts, a DNA-string can't compare to an audio signal which we can measure noise as entropy. Nor can it be considered compressed data, since in some cases, different nucleotide sequences can produce the same proteins; a mutation can change an active coding gene, without changing the decoded message.
Finally, selection pressure is constantly acting on the organism. Which means that negative mutations are weeded out. The harsh living condition that nature provides act as the gardener, keeping the population in balance by taking out the weakest (those with bad mutations) out of the gene-pool. As such, we are constantly "adding energy" to the system.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Intelligent Design is Stupid
