-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is evolution as reliable as gravity?
- Thread starter Just_me_Mike
- Start date
dust1n
Zindīq
We can't even find particles 21 billion years old.
The age of the universe is thought to be 13 3/4 billion years old, give or take a couple hundred million.
But as far as the 'out of Africa' theory, here is some more information on why our current frame work from the evolution of humans is quite off.
Forbidden Archeology - Michael A. Cremo
Last edited:
dust1n
Zindīq
There are some observations that are not adequately accounted for, which may point to the need for better theories of gravity or perhaps be explained in other ways.
Rotation curve of a typical spiral galaxy: predicted (A) and observed (B). The discrepancy between the curves is attributed to dark matter.- Extra fast stars: Stars in galaxies follow a distribution of velocities where stars on the outskirts are moving faster than they should according to the observed distributions of normal matter. Galaxies within galaxy clusters show a similar pattern. Dark matter, which would interact gravitationally but not electromagnetically, would account for the discrepancy. Various modifications to Newtonian dynamics have also been proposed. Another possibility is that a distortion of space-time having a negative curvature exists between stars on the outer perimeter of galaxies. Negative curvature of space-time would bend light rays apart so as to make objects appear separated by a larger distance. Their actual distance would therefore be much closer, which could account for the apparent deviation from Newton's inverse square law of gravity.
- Pioneer anomaly: The two Pioneer spacecraft seem to be slowing down in a way which has yet to be explained.[21]
- Flyby anomaly: Various spacecraft have experienced greater accelerations during slingshot maneuvers than expected.
- Accelerating expansion: The metric expansion of space seems to be speeding up. Dark energy has been proposed to explain this. A recent alternative explanation is that the geometry of space is not homogeneous (due to clusters of galaxies) and that when the data are reinterpreted to take this into account, the expansion is not speeding up after all,[22] however this conclusion is disputed.[23]
- Anomalous increase of the astronomical unit: Recent measurements indicate that planetary orbits are widening faster than if this was solely through the sun losing mass by radiating energy.
- Extra energetic photons: Photons travelling through galaxy clusters should gain energy and then lose it again on the way out. The accelerating expansion of the universe should stop the photons returning all the energy, but even taking this into account photons from the cosmic microwave background radiation gain twice as much energy as expected. This may indicate that gravity falls off faster than inverse-squared at certain distance scales.[24]
- Dark flow: Surveys of galaxy motions have detected a mystery dark flow towards an unseen mass. Such a large mass is too large to have accumulated since the Big Bang using current models and may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales.[24]
- Extra massive hydrogen clouds: The spectral lines of the Lyman-alpha forest suggest that hydrogen clouds are more clumped together at certain scales than expected and, like dark flow, may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales.[24]
Gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
dust1n
Zindīq
Last edited:
Basically Hardy and Weinberg's equation shows how if certain conditions are met evolution will not occur- the point being that these conditions do not exist in nature and evolution is mathematically certain:
1) Mutation is not happening.
2) Natural selection is not happening.
3) The population is limited or infinite.
4) Every member of the population successfully reproduces.
5) Mating is 100% random.
6) Every organism gives birth to the exact same number of offspring.
7) And no migration occurs. The population is sedentary.
So genetic drift, segregation distorters, and gene flow are all inevitable in nature and thus the equilibium is impossible and evolution is absolutely guaranteed.
I copy and pasted myself.
So... p= frequency of the dominant allele (A); q= frequency of the recessive allele (a).
Thus a population in stasis would be: p+q= 1.0
(p+q)2 = 1
...making p2+2pq+q2=1 of which these three terms show the frequencies of the genotypes: p2 = homozygous dominant: frequency of AA2pq = heterozygous: frequency of Aa
q2 = homozygous recessive: frequency of aa
Here's a HW calculator. It's way cool!
Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium calculator
newhope101
Active Member
There are some observations that are not adequately accounted for, which may point to the need for better theories of gravity or perhaps be explained in other ways.
Rotation curve of a typical spiral galaxy: predicted (A) and observed (B). The discrepancy between the curves is attributed to dark matter.
- Extra fast stars: Stars in galaxies follow a distribution of velocities where stars on the outskirts are moving faster than they should according to the observed distributions of normal matter. Galaxies within galaxy clusters show a similar pattern. Dark matter, which would interact gravitationally but not electromagnetically, would account for the discrepancy. Various modifications to Newtonian dynamics have also been proposed. Another possibility is that a distortion of space-time having a negative curvature exists between stars on the outer perimeter of galaxies. Negative curvature of space-time would bend light rays apart so as to make objects appear separated by a larger distance. Their actual distance would therefore be much closer, which could account for the apparent deviation from Newton's inverse square law of gravity.
- Pioneer anomaly: The two Pioneer spacecraft seem to be slowing down in a way which has yet to be explained.[21]
- Flyby anomaly: Various spacecraft have experienced greater accelerations during slingshot maneuvers than expected.
- Accelerating expansion: The metric expansion of space seems to be speeding up. Dark energy has been proposed to explain this. A recent alternative explanation is that the geometry of space is not homogeneous (due to clusters of galaxies) and that when the data are reinterpreted to take this into account, the expansion is not speeding up after all,[22] however this conclusion is disputed.[23]
- Anomalous increase of the astronomical unit: Recent measurements indicate that planetary orbits are widening faster than if this was solely through the sun losing mass by radiating energy.
- Extra energetic photons: Photons travelling through galaxy clusters should gain energy and then lose it again on the way out. The accelerating expansion of the universe should stop the photons returning all the energy, but even taking this into account photons from the cosmic microwave background radiation gain twice as much energy as expected. This may indicate that gravity falls off faster than inverse-squared at certain distance scales.[24]
- Dark flow: Surveys of galaxy motions have detected a mystery dark flow towards an unseen mass. Such a large mass is too large to have accumulated since the Big Bang using current models and may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales.[24]
Gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Extra massive hydrogen clouds: The spectral lines of the Lyman-alpha forest suggest that hydrogen clouds are more clumped together at certain scales than expected and, like dark flow, may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales.[24]
Ok, You have convinced me ALL your science is crap! Well done! Actually, when a creationist plays this line to illustrate that scientists do not know what they are on about we get a bashing. It appears that this thread is crearionist heaven.
Now to really annoy me why don't you play the science knows it all line again and refute yourself.......
I think Mike really knew what he was doing when he started this thread....the spider awaits the fly....
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
No, it just shows you don't understand science and the scientific process.
You seem to expect scientists to say they have all the answers... and if they don't then science is invalid.
Creationists are the only ones who claim to have all the answers and when it's pointed out that they don't... you tend to go on a screed about science.
You only get "a bashing" when you expose your ignorance of science and the scientific method.
wa:do
You seem to expect scientists to say they have all the answers... and if they don't then science is invalid.
Creationists are the only ones who claim to have all the answers and when it's pointed out that they don't... you tend to go on a screed about science.
You only get "a bashing" when you expose your ignorance of science and the scientific method.
wa:do
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Ugh.
You are the one who claimed that gravity theory never changes. Nobody here has ever said (or probably ever will say) that "science knows it all". That is a pathetic straw man and you know it.
Your point was that evolution was not a science like gravity, because you claimed "Gravity works every time and the model does not change". We have showed you that this is simply not the case, as all theories are open to change depending on new discoveries and new information arising. Therefore, by your own logic, evolution is just as much a science as gravity.
And, to re-state a point that has been made a million times to creationists like you who simply refuse to understand how science works:
The fact that scientific models change over time to fit the available facts makes them more reliable, not less reliable. Rational inquiry is an ever on-going process that expands over time as our knowledge of the universe and the methods with which we can view the universe increase over time. The fact that scientists are willing to make changes to their scientific models based on the available evidence does not mean "they don't know what they are talking about". It simply means their knowledge increases over time. The fact that models such as evolution and gravity can be changed (in some areas) over time does nothing to diminished the multitude of established facts observed by each model. For example, just because we discover that certain animals do not share the precise lineage we predicted that they would does nothing to diminish the lineages we have already traced, nor does it detract credibility from the fact that evolution occurs. Much in the same way, just because we do not understand how gravity functions in extreme circumstances does not suddenly mean that we don't know that the earth's gravitational pull is stronger than the moon's, etc. This is basic logic that even a child could understand.
newhope101
Active Member
In so much as we understand what gravity is.... Gravity is a slippery fish for physics.
Like gravity, evolution is universally accepted by those that actually work in the field... like gravity there is healthy debate on the details of how it functions.
for those that like supporting mathematics... here is one principle in Evolution: Hardy-Weinburg
See, biologists can do math too! :jiggy:
wa:do
Yes, biologists can do maths....but approximating solutions would never have gotten man to the moon and neither would probabilities. Sorry...not real science!!!
So what are you saying Wolf? Is evolutionary science like gravitational science? Or are you just here to be a fence sitter and pounce at every opportunity to strutt your stuff?
Wiki: Evolutionary algorithms often perform well approximating solutions to all types of problems because they ideally do not make any assumption about the underlying fitness landscape; this generality is shown by successes in fields as diverse as engineering, art, biology, economics, marketing, genetics, operations research, robotics, social sciences, physics, politics and chemistry[citation needed].
Apart from their use as mathematical optimizers, evolutionary computation and algorithms have also been used as an experimental framework within which to validate theories about biological evolution and natural selection, particularly through work in the field of artificial life. Techniques from evolutionary algorithms applied to the modeling of biological evolution are generally limited to explorations of microevolutionary processes, however some computer simulations, such as Tierra and Avida, attempt to model macroevolutionary dynamics.
In most of real applications of EAs, computational complexity is a prohibiting factor. In fact, this computational complexity is due to fitness function evaluation. Fitness approximation is one of the solutions to overcome this difficulty.
Another possible limitation of many evolutionary algorithms is their lack of a clear genotype-phenotype distinction. In nature, the fertilized egg cell undergoes a complex process known as embryogenesis to become a mature phenotype. This indirect encoding is believed to make the genetic search more robust (i.e. reduce the probability of fatal mutations), and also may improve the evolvability of the organism[1][2]. Such indirect (aka generative or developmental) encodings also enable evolution to exploit the regularity in the environment [3]. Recent work in the field of artificial embryogeny, or artificial developmental systems, seeks to address these concerns.
Jukes and Cantor's one-parameter model
JC69 is the simplest of the models of nucleotide substitution.[1] The model assumes that all nucleotides has the same rate (μ) of change to any other nucleotides. The probability that any nucleotide x remains the same from time 0 to time 1 is;
Pxx(1) = 1 − 3μPxx(t) must be read; probability (or proportion, in this case it is equivalent) that x becomes x at time t. For the probability that any nucleotide x changes to any other nucleotide y we write Pxy(t). The probability for time t + 1 is;
Pxx(t + 1) = (1 − 3μ
Pxx(t) + μ(1 − Pxx(t))The second part of the equation denotes the probability that the nucleotide was changed from time 0 and 1, but then got back to its initial states on time 2. The model can be rewritten in a differential equation with the solution;
Mostly known under the name K80, this model was developed by Kimura in 1980 as it became clear that all nucleotides substitutions weren't occurring at an equal rate. Most often, transitions (changes between A and G or C and T) are more common than transversions.[
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
I'm saying you don't understand science.... thus far you have given no one any reason to think otherwise.
Like I said earlier:
Which you just did again with your usual cut and paste "look at the monkey" style.
wa:do
Like I said earlier:
Which you just did again with your usual cut and paste "look at the monkey" style.
wa:do
dust1n
Zindīq
Basically Hardy and Weinberg's equation shows how if certain conditions are met evolution will not occur- the point being that these conditions do not exist in nature and evolution is mathematically certain:
1) Mutation is not happening.
2) Natural selection is not happening.
3) The population is limited or infinite.
4) Every member of the population successfully reproduces.
5) Mating is 100% random.
6) Every organism gives birth to the exact same number of offspring.
7) And no migration occurs. The population is sedentary.
So genetic drift, segregation distorters, and gene flow are all inevitable in nature and thus the equilibium is impossible and evolution is absolutely guaranteed.
I copy and pasted myself.
So... p= frequency of the dominant allele (A); q= frequency of the recessive allele (a).
Thus a population in stasis would be: p+q= 1.0
(p+q)2 = 1
...making p2+2pq+q2=1 of which these three terms show the frequencies of the genotypes: p2 = homozygous dominant: frequency of AA2pq = heterozygous: frequency of Aa
q2 = homozygous recessive: frequency of aa
Here's a HW calculator. It's way cool!
Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium calculator
LOL.. it is so hard!!!
dust1n
Zindīq
Jeez, talk about defense mechanism.
In order me to play the line again, I would have had to play that line in the first place... which I didn't do, neither did anyone else. In fact, you were the asserting the stone cold validity of gravity.
Do you not know what the scientific method even is?
At least science has to be ability to ADMIT WHAT IT HAS NOT UNDERSTOOD.
dust1n
Zindīq
Of course what others think have no bearing on your opinion. Your opinion holds absolutely no weight and that doesn't seem to be bearing on it either.
You are the one whining. I haven't seen anyone else whining. Perhaps you could put me to the post?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Do you even realize that NASA space craft are navigated optically? There are a lot of errors made during calculations of trajectories, and these mistakes were corrected manually. There is also a very wide margin of error involved in making these calculations, as far as I'm aware.
Does this mean you have a better model when it comes to grvaity? If not, it appears like your crap stinks even worse then ours.
newhope101
Active Member
Yes, biologists can do maths....but approximating solutions would never have gotten man to the moon and neither would probabilities. Sorry...not real science!!!
So what are you saying Wolf? Is evolutionary science like gravitational science? Or are you just here to be a fence sitter and pounce at every opportunity to strutt your stuff?
Wiki: Evolutionary algorithms often perform well approximating solutions to all types of problems because they ideally do not make any assumption about the underlying fitness landscape; this generality is shown by successes in fields as diverse as engineering, art, biology, economics, marketing, genetics, operations research, robotics, social sciences, physics, politics and chemistry[citation needed].
Apart from their use as mathematical optimizers, evolutionary computation and algorithms have also been used as an experimental framework within which to validate theories about biological evolution and natural selection, particularly through work in the field of artificial life. Techniques from evolutionary algorithms applied to the modeling of biological evolution are generally limited to explorations of microevolutionary processes, however some computer simulations, such as Tierra and Avida, attempt to model macroevolutionary dynamics.
In most of real applications of EAs, computational complexity is a prohibiting factor. In fact, this computational complexity is due to fitness function evaluation. Fitness approximation is one of the solutions to overcome this difficulty.
Another possible limitation of many evolutionary algorithms is their lack of a clear genotype-phenotype distinction. In nature, the fertilized egg cell undergoes a complex process known as embryogenesis to become a mature phenotype. This indirect encoding is believed to make the genetic search more robust (i.e. reduce the probability of fatal mutations), and also may improve the evolvability of the organism[1][2]. Such indirect (aka generative or developmental) encodings also enable evolution to exploit the regularity in the environment [3]. Recent work in the field of artificial embryogeny, or artificial developmental systems, seeks to address these concerns.
Jukes and Cantor's one-parameter model
JC69 is the simplest of the models of nucleotide substitution.[1] The model assumes that all nucleotides has the same rate (μ) of change to any other nucleotides. The probability that any nucleotide x remains the same from time 0 to time 1 is;
Pxx(1) = 1 − 3μPxx(t) must be read; probability (or proportion, in this case it is equivalent) that x becomes x at time t. For the probability that any nucleotide x changes to any other nucleotide y we write Pxy(t). The probability for time t + 1 is;
Pxx(t + 1) = (1 − 3μ
Or if we want to know the probability of nuleotide x to change to nucleotide y;
With time, the probability will approach 0.25 (25%). Kimura's two-parameters model
Mostly known under the name K80, this model was developed by Kimura in 1980 as it became clear that all nucleotides substitutions weren't occurring at an equal rate. Most often, transitions (changes between A and G or C and T) are more common than transversions.[
There is no probability if all conditions are known.
Velocity:
v = gt
v = ±√(2gy)
Distance
y = gt2/2
y = v2/2g
Time
t = v/g
t = √(2y/g)
There is no need for probability (ie all conditions are known) in gravitational equations. This is real science..certainty as opposed to chance.
Heck.. I thought you guys were smart enough to know the difference!
Mr Heisenberg (& all modern physicists) would disagree.
Or another way to phrase it is that it's impossible to know all conditions simultaneously in quantum mechanics.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Are you accounting for the local variations in gravitational force?
Gravity isn't the same everywhere on Earth, in some places it's stronger than in others....
Poor Newton couldn't have know about that, but modern physicists do.
wa:do
Gravity isn't the same everywhere on Earth, in some places it's stronger than in others....
Poor Newton couldn't have know about that, but modern physicists do.
wa:do
I'd add that this is just variation in density of the junk composing the Earth.
Of course, the fundamental nature of gravity doesn't vary from place to place.....as far as we know.