Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

You can predict the card you will get out of the range of 52 cards in a deck of cards. The pattern of a large number of outcomes of selecting a card from a full deck would follow a fractal pattern. If you are playing a game with a card sharp you are in trouble with his/her ability to determine the odds of the card chosen if the number of cards is smaller and some cards are removed in the course of the game.


Not sure what your point is. This does not have much to deal with whether mutations are random or not.. Sable patterns of different types of mutations (not necessarily directed} are actually the rule in the history of life. The resulting 'natural selection' based on the diversity of the gene pool is a separate issue and has its own fractal patterns based on the influence of environmental changes

I'm going to give this a rest for now, while I try to figure out what exactly it is you are saying here. I simply don't understand what it is you are claiming and why.

 

[Audie]

Oh. I forgot

@LIIA

I had forgotten to say more about your faulty claim that evolution is about “perfection”.

Evolution isn’t about achieving “perfection”.

For organisms to continually reproduce, even when the environmental conditions have changed, they require to pass on heritable adaptable traits that are advantageous for that ”changed environments“.

The changes don’t have to be large changes.

For instances, trees around the world, are naturally “selected” for their environments.

The types of trees and shrubs with broad leaves in the tropical rainforests, are normally found in the tropic regions, around the equator, where the climate are often hot and wet, with much higher humidity.

Around high mountainous terrains such as alpine, or in the much colder climates of the northern parts of the northern hemisphere, like the taiga regions, the forests found here tends to be of the conifer families. Conifers are more resistant to freezing than deciduous trees.

You won’t find tropical rainforest in the taiga or in alpine regions.

These trees growing in the environment suited for such forests, have nothing to with any tree being “perfect“.

you are being ignorant on the subject of evolution if you are making false claims that organisms are seeking to reach perfection.

Its a great deal worse than merely faulty.

You'd need full half a dozen adjectives
for just the main issues.

 

[Audie]

I'm going to give this a rest for now, while I try to figure out what exactly it is you are saying here. I simply don't understand what it is you are claiming and why.

I quit trying. If a person lacks the
self discipline, and respect
for the gentle reader to organize
thoughts with some economy of
words, I won't respect their maunderings
with my time.

 

[LIIA]

There are limits to what fractal math can explain in nature, but the patterns throughout nature are consistent and predictable.

https://fractalmath.conncoll.edu/materials/FracG8Revised.pdf
What do a tree, the clouds, a rocky coast, our lungs, and many other objects in nature have in common? Until the 1970s no one suspected that a universality could exist between all these forms of nature. Scientists limited themselves to Euclidean geometry to study them.

However, thanks to the discovery by B. Mandelbrot of the fractal theory which studies complex objects, a new description of these natural forms has been established, a description sometimes more relevant than that given by traditional geometry. Fractal geometry has therefore shown the limits of Euclidean geometry to describe complex objects, it has offered new perspectives to sciences and many applications.

The term “fractal” comes from the Latin “fractus” which designates a fractured object, very irregular in shape. It was Mandelbrot who introduced this term to designate these famous mathematical objects. Mandelbrot formalized fractal theory and its vocabulary, the theory quickly proved useful in many disciplines, especially in the understanding of certain natural phenomena.

Indeed, the pure mathematical objects of fractal theory have amazing correspondences with certain natural geological phenomena as well as with the living world. Where are fractal shapes found in nature and how did they appear? Why is kostenlose pornos? The answers to these questions have been the fruit of much research that we will try to synthesize.

What traditional mathematical theories cannot explain
Many mathematical notions were first considered “mathematical monsters” before being domesticated, offering new perspectives and many discoveries. This was the case with the Pythagoreans with the appearance of irrational numbers, in the Renaissance with that of negative numbers and complex numbers, and in the 19th century with the increasingly demanding rigor that called into question many ‘statements admitted so far without demonstration.

Fractal objects, too, have long been considered monsters, and sometimes still are today. From 1875 to 1925, the idea spread that mathematicians like Cantor, Peano, Von Koch, and Hausdorff were makers of pathological objects: they created objects that nature did not know, questioning Euclidean geometry and notions of function and dimension. An example of a monster is the mathematical existence of continuous curves having many points without derivatives.

In 1961, Lewis Fry Richardson was interested in the empirical measurement of the coast of Great Britain: how to measure, with good precision, the length of coast like that of Great Britain? The most approximate method is to measure the distance between the two ends of the coast: this approximation is surely less than the real distance (which takes into account the complexity of the relief).

Read on . . .

Ok, I read your post #7564 as well and the article below that you shared “Fractal Evolution”.

Fractal Evolution

I know now why you said, “I disagree with some of the language in this reference”. But I only wonder if you are pro evolution, why would you share that specific article and encourage others to read it to the end especially if the article entirely embraces perfection of design in nature, rejects Darwinism as ludicrous and specifically embraces creationism/intelligent design? Did you actually read the article all the way to the end? If you did, did you understand the message of this article? Here is a summary.

The article acknowledges the fact of endless observations of superb design in nature and considers the Darwinism notion of randomness as ludicrous notion that reflects the limited capacity of Darwinists not actual observations of nature that are always characterized by perfections of design. It further considers Darwinism as a political program not scientific and concludes that humans are fractals of the Creator and fractal mathematics is a key to the reconciliation of Western religion and science--of metaphysics and physics.

Here are some quotes from the article:

“The book you are reading at this moment participates is this discovery process. What we call Darwinism is a basal paradigmatic program, one on which Western civilization has operated on for over a hundred years. It is not so much scientific program as a political program. If the masses are convinced that existence is without purpose or plan, that "anything goes" and "anything can happen," then of course what's needed is strict top-down controls. Thus we have the so-called "New World Order,"

“Now, we as a civilization seem to be really getting the idea that we and the creator energy are in some sense synonymous. Yes, we are fractals of the Creator.”

“Embracing the understanding that what we call physical existence is, as it were, computer modeled by means of fractal mathematics is a key to the reconciliation of Western religion and science--of metaphysics and physics.”

Fractal Evolution

Regardless of your reasons to share that article, here I’ll elaborate further on the specific message/perspective of the article with respect to nature and fractal mathematics.

In principle, the argument in the article has two folds. First, the observations and Second, the cause/explanation.

First, the “observations” per the article is about the phenomenon of "design" in nature. So I’ll ignore the interpretations/causes for now and focus only on how the article addressed/described the phenomenon of "design" in nature. Here are some quotes:

“The endlessly exquisite designs of nature are the result of”

“The question of "design" in nature was one that troubled Charles Darwin all his Professional life”

“Those who studied the countless superb adaptations of animals and plants had been most gratified by the explanation that such perfection was clearly the result of design by the maker of this world."

“After citing many examples of fantastic design in nature, Mayr goes on to say, "But when we ask how this perfection is brought about,”

In conclusion, the observation is about the design in nature that is described as endless, countless, exquisite, superb, perfect, and fantastic. The question becomes “how this perfection is brought about”.

Second, the cause/explanation.

The article addressed the concept of regular irregularity in nature, the principle of order within the chaos. Infinitely complex shapes in nature are characterized by Self-similarity, a phenomenon of symmetry across scale, i.e., repetition of structure in different scales of magnitude (Pattern inside of pattern)

The article stated, “Mandelbrot and those who took up the tools he provided found endless evidence of the fact that the creation, the explicate realm, is designed via fractal mathematics. In light of these findings, the idea of Mayr and other Darwinists that the perfections of nature are the result of "planlessness" is simply ludicrous."

The physical world, complex architecture of nature, geological phenomena and the living systems are structured along the lines of fractal geometry/ mathematics.

Theoretical biologists began to find fractal organization controlling structures all through the body, fractal description turned out to fit the data.

In conclusion, the physical world and living systems are designed and can be described via fractal geometry/ mathematics. But the descriptive fractal geometry is neither a driving force nor a mechanism; it’s merely a description that fits the observations. The question remains, what is the driving force/mechanism that forces the constituents of reality to adhere to fractal geometry/ mathematics.

Order, rules, control, and design are all exhibited in every observation in the cosmos, life, even at the atomic and subatomic level, but it's never about an entity following a rule; it’s about why the rule itself exist and how it exerts its specific influence on entities? How it forces order vs. chaos? What is the mechanism? Many may think, it just the way it is, the “norm”. The perception of “norm” takes away the wonder.

Those who are not familiar with fractal geometry and want to be able to visualize it may watch the video below from 12:33 to 15:45. The video is about the NDE experience of Mellen Thomas Benedict. I don’t necessarily endorse the video, its only intended to provide some insight on fractal geometry.

This One Message Will Change The Way You View Life - Mellen-Thomas Benedict’s Near-Death Experience - YouTube

 

[LIIA]

Like all outcomes of cause-and-effect events in sequence, this is a misrepresentation of how the sequences outcomes of dice throw happen in reality. The throw of dice regardless of the number of dice or the condition of the dice will show a consistent fractal pattern whether thrown 10 times or a million times.. The individual throw of dice is predictable within a range of outcomes. The long-term pattern remains fractal within the range of possibilities of the long-term pattern.

Note: worn or altered dice will show a pattern consistent with those dice.

https://fractalmath.conncoll.edu/materials/FracG8Revised.pdf

Ok, I guess it’s my English. Let me try again.

I never meant cause-and-effect events in sequence. I don’t mean to throw a single dice multiple time. I meant under same Natural Laws, the number of dice you throw at a time has a huge impact on the outcome/range of possibilities. If you throw 10 dice together, the range of possibilities is about 6 million, if you throw 15 dice, the range of possibilities is about 470 billion. If you throw only 100 dice (together), the range of possibilities is astronomical beyond imagination.

Yes, in theory the outcome is still within a specific predictable range, but this is not the concern. Very quickly as the number of dice increases, the range gets extremely large to the point that the probability of a specific combination to emerge becomes almost impossible.

Even if we assume that time and matter are available (which is not true) to continue with the process till we get the desired combination, we must witness endless undesired combinations emerging before we finally get the desired one. the undesired combinations must be the dominant observation by far. We don’t see that in nature.

Even with Natural Laws and processes in control, we cannot ignore the true range of possible outcomes and its significance as it relates to real world observations.

I will disagree with your conclusions concerning this text, but I will have to take a closer look.

Yes, please take a closer look first and then you may disagree if you wish.

see # 7380
Darwin's Illusion | Page 369 | Religious Forums

See the link for “The Music of life Sourcebook” page 62, 63 & 7

The Music of Life-sourcebook.pdf

 

[LIIA]

That is a bit much of a claim. The burden of proof would be upon you to prove that it collapses.

I already did in #7680 and you do understand it. Don’t you?

Darwin's Illusion | Page 384 | Religious Forums

The ring species concept is based on continuous gene flow between the two ends (that cannot interbreed). If the gene flow is interrupted, neither the ends would qualify as ends of a ring complex, nor the populations constitute a ring species complex. Don’t you understand? Why do you argue?

Once again, articles that you do not understand do not help you.

Really? The article made it very clear that the salamander Ensatina eschscholtzii is not ring species. Stop your nonsense.

See the quote below from the article titled “There are no ring species” about the salamander Ensatina eschscholtzii

“There used to be several examples of “ring species” that were staples of evolution textbooks, the most famous being the salamander Ensatina eschscholtzii in California,.........,This complex, then, was long regarded as the paradigm of ring species, and was (and is still in places) taught as an example of this form of speciation with gene flow. Except it’s wrong."

There are no ring species – Why Evolution Is True

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already did in #7680 and you do understand it. Don’t you?

Darwin's Illusion | Page 384 | Religious Forums

The ring species concept is based on continuous gene flow between the two ends (that cannot interbreed). If the gene flow is interrupted, neither the ends would qualify as ends of a ring complex, nor the populations constitute a ring species complex. Don’t you understand? Why do you argue?


Really? The article made it very clear that the salamander Ensatina eschscholtzii is not ring species. Stop your nonsense.

See the quote below from the article titled “There are no ring species” about the salamander Ensatina eschscholtzii

“There used to be several examples of “ring species” that were staples of evolution textbooks, the most famous being the salamander Ensatina eschscholtzii in California,.........,This complex, then, was long regarded as the paradigm of ring species, and was (and is still in places) taught as an example of this form of speciation with gene flow. Except it’s wrong."

There are no ring species – Why Evolution Is True

No,. Every time that you refer to an old post of yours you are just admitting that you are wrong again. You do not understand why it is still a sound concept even if the classical version does not exist.

And no, it did not "make it clear". That was just quote mining on your part.

Can you debate properly? First off you have to quit admitting that you are wrong and expect anyone to take you seriously. Let's try to focus on that article. No quote mining allowed.

 

[LIIA]

You cannot show one example of "twisting".

You’re not only “twisting” but also entirely and intentionally change the facts to advance a false narrative. You do it all the time.

Professor George Sarton the founder of the discipline of the history of science as well as all credible sources attribute the scientific experimental method to Muslims, and you simply claim otherwise without any sources to support you!! Why would your claims have any value? It’s really pathetic.

You claim the Muslims knowledge was largely lost and Muslims were not the ones that developed the scientific method. But credible sources of the history of science confirm the exact opposite.

The knowledge of the ancient Roman and Greek worlds was neglected/lost during the Dark Ages in Europe, yet it was preserved by the Muslim Scholars.

Scholars of the Renaissance in Europe took not only the knowledge and scientific advancements of the Muslim world but also took from the Muslims the ancient knowledge of the Greek that was lost during the Dark Ages in Europe.

The links below shed more light on the Muslim influence on the history of the scientific method. Here are some quotes.

“The early Islamic ages were a golden age for knowledge, and the history of the scientific method must pay a great deal of respect to some of the brilliant Muslim philosophers of Baghdad and Al-Andalus.

They preserved the knowledge of the Ancient Greeks, including Aristotle, but also added to it, and were the catalyst for the formation of a scientific method recognizable to modern scientists and philosophers.”

“The renaissance was another turning point for the scientific method, where European scholars took the knowledge of the Greeks and the Muslims.”

History of the Scientific Method - How Science Became Important (explorable.com)

History of scientific method - Wikipedia

 

[LIIA]

No,. Every time that you refer to an old post of yours you are just admitting that you are wrong again. You do not understand why it is still a sound concept even if the classical version does not exist.

And no, it did not "make it clear". That was just quote mining on your part.

Can you debate properly? First off you have to quit admitting that you are wrong and expect anyone to take you seriously. Let's try to focus on that article. No quote mining allowed.

Ok,
have fun

 

[Subduction Zone]

You’re not only “twisting” but also entirely and intentionally change the facts to advance a false narrative. You do it all the time.

Professor George Sarton the founder of the discipline of the history of science as well as all credible sources attribute the scientific experimental method to Muslims, and you simply claim otherwise without any sources to support you!! Why would your claims have any value? It’s really pathetic.

You claim the Muslims knowledge was largely lost and Muslims were not the ones that developed the scientific method. But credible sources of the history of science confirm the exact opposite.

The knowledge of the ancient Roman and Greek worlds was neglected/lost during the Dark Ages in Europe, yet it was preserved by the Muslim Scholars.

Scholars of the Renaissance in Europe took not only the knowledge and scientific advancements of the Muslim world but also took from the Muslims the ancient knowledge of the Greek that was lost during the Dark Ages in Europe.

The links below shed more light on the Muslim influence on the history of the scientific method. Here are some quotes.

“The early Islamic ages were a golden age for knowledge, and the history of the scientific method must pay a great deal of respect to some of the brilliant Muslim philosophers of Baghdad and Al-Andalus.

They preserved the knowledge of the Ancient Greeks, including Aristotle, but also added to it, and were the catalyst for the formation of a scientific method recognizable to modern scientists and philosophers.”

“The renaissance was another turning point for the scientific method, where European scholars took the knowledge of the Greeks and the Muslims.”

History of the Scientific Method - How Science Became Important (explorable.com)

History of scientific method - Wikipedia

You are focusing on only one part of the scientific method. I never denied that. Yes, the Muslims did advance the scientific method, before fundamentalism set in, but they did not develop it fully. That was always my point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok,
have fun

It is rather difficult to debate by oneself. If you just want me to continually correct your gross errors I have no problem with that either.

 

[LIIA]

Fundamentalism is a religious disease. Many of our Christians in the US have it now.

Should they get vaccinated?

 

[LIIA]

I never denied that. Yes, the Muslims did advance the scientific method

ok, good

 

[LIIA]

Not all Islam makes the error of creationism as you do. She never said or implied that Islam is creationism. It is just your flawed version that definitely follows creationism.

She said Islam is not creationism and congrats, you now share the credit with her for the most ridiculous claim ever made on this thread.

Do you wish to share credit with her for the second most ridiculous claim as well that the ToE is not the Modern Synthesis? It’s a chance for both of you to be the biggest winners on the thread!! don’t miss it.

 

[LIIA]

there really is no "debate" about this topic. The basics are settled

Sure, there is no debate. I provided the scientific sources, and you provided your wishful thinking. The debate is settled.

 

[LIIA]

It could be determined that at points in time with the ensatina salamander that there was isolation.

And the basic concept still holds. Even though there was isolation he did not say that due to that that the two neighboring species could not breed with each other. The basic premise still holds As one goes around the loop A can breed with B, B can breed with C, C can breed with D, but D cannot breed with A. So what is wrong with the concept?

The concern with Isolation is that the gene flow is interrupted; hence the ensatina salamander complex is not a ring species.

The genetic studies showed sharp genetic breaks (because of the sporadic geographic isolation). You cannot acknowledge the interruption of gene flow and yet consider the complex as ring species. The concept necessitates continuous gene flow end to end.

You do understand. Don’t argue. See #7726

 

[Subduction Zone]

Should they get vaccinated?

there is no vaccine for ignorance.

ok, good

But you still do not understand how and why the Muslims failed.

She said Islam is not creationism and congrats, you now share the credit with her for the most ridiculous claim ever made on this thread.

Do you wish to share credit with her for the second most ridiculous claim as well that the ToE is not the Modern Synthesis? It’s a chance for both of you to be the biggest winners on the thread!! don’t miss it.

No, neither she nor I said anything ridiculous. Why do you denigrate all of the members of your faith? They are not all ignorant science deniers.

Sure, there is no debate. I provided the scientific sources, and you provided your wishful thinking. The debate is settled.

No, you only showed that you do not understand sources at best. So far you have lost the debate. Since yo udo not understand advanced concepts I have been trying to go over the basics with you.

 

[LIIA]

Ah I see. You sounded like a JW, that’s all.

But this does not show a “transformation” of fish into elephants. it shows evolution.

You would not say you are ”transformed” into your grandson. You would say your grandson is “descended” from you. So it is with fish and elephants.

Your grandson is not a variant, not a subspecies, not a new genus, not a new taxonomic family, not a new order, not a new class, not a new phylum, not a new kingdom, not a new domain, NOT a transformation. But fish into elephant is one heck of a transformation.

But forget about fish into elephants, if you go deeper, it’s LUCA into elephants. LUCA is supposedly a small, single-celled organism. So, what are the odds that single-celled organisms (bacteria) on/within your body would transform someday into elephants? (Or maybe into fish first) If that ever happens, then that would give us an idea where LUCA came from. You would be the host of LUCA!

It’s quite a (LOCO/LUCA) story to tell your grandson, after all as Ernst Mayr said, “evolutionary biology” is not an exact science, it should be included with “the Geisteswissenschaften”. See # 331

Darwin's Illusion | Page 17 | Religious Forums

Have fun with your grandson.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The concern with Isolation is that the gene flow is interrupted; hence the ensatina salamander complex is not a ring species.

Only by the classical sense.

The genetic studies showed sharp genetic breaks (because of the sporadic geographic isolation). You cannot acknowledge the interruption of gene flow and yet consider the complex as ring species. The concept necessitates continuous gene flow end to end.

Why not? If A can still breed with B, B with C, C with D but D cannot breed with A the concept is still valid. You seem to be ignoring that fact.

You do understand. Don’t argue. See #7726

Thank you for admitting that you are wrong again.

 

[LIIA]

there is no vaccine for ignorance.

then your case is hopeless