New Model of Evolution Finally Reveals How Cooperation Evolves

[Sunstone]

Ignorance can't defeat anyone. It is you lack of understanding science that has defeated you.

How very true, O Wise One. You are such a knowledgeable genius that I confess I can teach you nothing.

 

[Sunstone]

That is pure ignorance of science. Let's see you falsify that there is more than 1 blood type. Do you evo ever use your God' given mind and think about what is being said? You accept the doctrines of your religion , the same way I accept the doctrines of mine---by faith alone.



It is amusing but sad that those who claim evolution has been scientifically proven also say science does not prove things, which is obviously wrong. Then they have the audacity to say creationist don't like science. We have a higher view of real science than you do.

I confess I am in awe of the sheer brilliance of this post. Awe, I tell you!

 

[sayak83]

Proven means it can be repeated and observed. It has been proven that their is more than one blood type.

The business of real science is to prove/disprove the ideas of man, so further truths can be made that will benefit mankind.

That is not what proven means.
The results that were demonstrated in the paper in the OP can be repeated and observed.

 

[sayak83]

New Model of Evolution Finally Reveals How Cooperation Evolves

Please discuss.

OK the paper itself uses a mathematical model that is applicable for physical systems involving energy and spin of magnetic particles and shows that these mathematical techniques can be successfully applied to model coperative-competitive interactions in evolutionary biology. This is useful to know. But it's important to know that

1) The results reproduced here were already known. The novelty is that these mathematical models can elegantly be applied to reproduce these results and shows promise for further applications.

2) Just because the mathematical model is applicable does not mean that the terms have the same physical significance. There was nothing in the system that can be construed as a "magnetic field" or "energy". The techniques are used successfully, but the physical meanings remain biological, not of physics.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

How do we know there is more than one blood type? Can we rely on what said on that subject?.

Not even sure what you're on about, there definitely are more than one blood groups, though that has nothing to do with this thread.

Guess again. I am not a young earther and I never bring religion into a discussion of science.

I'm not guessing anything mate, I'm not playing 'hide and go seek' with you. State your beliefs and we can have a discussion, otherwise I have nothing to say to you.

Then why did you mention it? Even if your didn't, the other evos have expresed mutations and time, result in a change of species. Their problem is that they can't explain how times changes the laws of genetics.

Omega, you are all over the place, but you seem to be desperate to prove evolution is erroneous. Go to college, get the qualifications, then you can start your own research, publish a paper and win the Nobel prize. I'll look out for you in the peer reviewed journals.

 

[omega2xx]

To say science proves anything is the most ignorant statement one can make about science. The second most ignorant statement is we only act if things can be proved one way or the other and not otherwise. Nothing in health or criminal justice system can be proved, ever, only made more or less likely by the evidence and hence suggesting one way to act rather than others.

Nothing in our ordinary life experiences are things that can be proved. Proof belongs only and exclusively to the abstract realm of mathematics and deductive logic. Any other use of the word in common tongue is simply wrong and shows merely the limited understanding of science and math among the public. Guilt or innocence for example can never be proved, by definition, and is only made more or less likely by the evidence. Neither can it be proved that the earth is round, or that fire is hot etc. The word does not apply.

proof | logic

Here is the correct definition from Britannica
proof, in logic, an argument that establishes the validity of a proposition. Although proofs may be based on inductive logic, in general the term proof connotes a rigorous deduction. In formal axiomatic systems of logic and mathematics, a proof is a finite sequence of well-formed formulas (generated in accordance with accepted formation rules) in which: (1) each formula is either an axiom or is derived from some previous formula or formulas by a valid inference; and (2) the last formula is that which is to be proved.

Since one cannot create such a formal sequence for propositions like "Sam killed john" one cannot prove or disprove such a statement. Thus the term does not apply.

To think science has not proved there is more than one blood type, and that can't be falsified, truly is sad and beyond belief.

 

[omega2xx]

How very true, O Wise One. You are such a knowledgeable genius that I confess I can teach you nothing.

Then spe3nd some time teaching yourself about science.


It is the heart which perceives God and not the reason. Blaise Pascal

 

[omega2xx]

That is not what proven means.

It does on real science, but not in the pseudo science known as evolution.

The results that were demonstrated in the paper in the OP can be repeated and observed.

By several of their statements they did prove their theory. Of course they can do it again, but it still would not prove their theory.


It is the heart which perceives God and not the reason. Blaise Pascal

 

[omega2xx]

Not even sure what you're on about, there definitely are more than one blood groups, though that has nothing to do with this thread.

It was in response to someone says science does not prove anything.

I'm not guessing anything mate, I'm not playing 'hide and go seek' with you. State your beliefs and we can have a discussion, otherwise I have nothing to say to you.

If you want to discuss my beliefs, do it on what I post. If you want my beliefs on anything specific, just mention it and I will tell you.

Omega, you are all over the place, but you seem to be desperate to prove evolution is erroneous. Go to college, get the qualifications, then you can start your own research, publish a paper and win the Nobel prize. I'll look out for you in the peer reviewed journals.

If all you can do is make asinine comments, go back to the playground and have a + day.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

If all you can do is make asinine comments, go back to the playground and have a + day.

Yep, having read your other posts on this thread, I cant see us having anything like an enjoyable discussion, it just seems to be assertions and insults. I wasn't joking about going to college if you are convinced evolution is 'pseudo-science' btw, never too late to study and learn. Thanks for the exchange.

 

[omega2xx]

Yep, having read your other posts on this thread, I cant see us having anything like an enjoyable discussion, it just seems to be assertions and insults. I wasn't joking about going to college if you are convinced evolution is 'pseudo-science' btw, never too late to study and learn. Thanks for the exchange.

My comment was meant to be humorous sarcasm. If you took it as an insult, I apologize.

One does not have to have a degree in biology to understand basic biology. One can learn from personal study.

Instead of going back to the play ground, take you own advice. It will help if you start with a basic course in genetics. I am not joking either.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

My comment was meant to be humorous sarcasm. If you took it as an insult, I apologize.

One does not have to have a degree in biology to understand basic biology. One can learn from personal study.

Instead of going back to the play ground, take you own advice. It will help if you start with a basic course in genetics. I am not joking either.

My degree is in Chemistry, though to get there I had to study some biology as well. Nothing wrong with "personal study" as long as it is from a reputable source, recognised experts in the field and not religious people or conspiracy theorists with beliefs to sell.
As it happens mate my next reading material will be a book by Richard Dawkins, "The Greatest Show on Earth", looking forward to it!

 

[omega2xx]

My degree is in Chemistry, though to get there I had to study some biology as well. Nothing wrong with "personal study" as long as it is from a reputable source, recognised experts in the field and not religious people or conspiracy theorists with beliefs to sell.

Many Christian scientist are as well qualified as anyone in the fields of science. The evolutionist have a belief to sell as much as Christians do.

As it happens mate my next reading material will be a book by Richard Dawkins, "The Greatest Show on Earth", looking forward to it!

The greatest show on earth was :In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." If his book contains any real verifiable evidence, pleas pass it on to me.

My current reading and studying is a book inspired by God., Amos. It mentions 2 start systems that God named, Plieades and Orion, which is very interesting if you understand what they represent.

 

[sayak83]

It does on real science, but not in the pseudo science known as evolution.



By several of their statements they did prove their theory. Of course they can do it again, but it still would not prove their theory.


It is the heart which perceives God and not the reason. Blaise Pascal

There exists not a single real field of science where anything is ever proved. Only creationists deluded by the lying spiel of fundamentalist talking heads think otherwise.

 

[sayak83]

My degree is in Chemistry, though to get there I had to study some biology as well. Nothing wrong with "personal study" as long as it is from a reputable source, recognised experts in the field and not religious people or conspiracy theorists with beliefs to sell.
As it happens mate my next reading material will be a book by Richard Dawkins, "The Greatest Show on Earth", looking forward to it!

It's a very good book. One you would enjoy reading.

 

[sayak83]

Many Christian scientist are as well qualified as anyone in the fields of science. The evolutionist have a belief to sell as much as Christians do.



The greatest show on earth was :In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." If his book contains any real verifiable evidence, pleas pass it on to me.

My current reading and studying is a book inspired by God., Amos. It mentions 2 start systems that God named, Plieades and Orion, which is very interesting if you understand what they represent.

Please name the last science textbook you have read and the year in which you read it? Could you mention your degree in science as well please?
To answer my own question:-

I am currently reading a science textbook called "An Introduction to Atmospheric Physics" by David Andrews

I am graduate in mechanical engineering. Masters in fluid mechanics and thermodynamics. PhD in Fuel Chemistry and Energy Science and post doctorate in associated fields of reaction chemistry.

Please name the scientific papers where the scientists claim to have proved their theory. You have them surely?

 

[omega2xx]

There exists not a single real field of science where anything is ever proved. Only creationists deluded by the lying spiel of fundamentalist talking heads think otherwise.

That is evo bolony from those who do not understand science.. I has been proven there is more than one type of blood and science can prove what type you have. You need to have the high view of science that the creationists have.,

 

[omega2xx]

Please name the last science textbook you have read and the year in which you read it? Could you mention your degree in science as well please?
To answer my own question:-

I am currently reading a science textbook called "An Introduction to Atmospheric Physics" by David Andrews

I am graduate in mechanical engineering. Masters in fluid mechanics and thermodynamics. PhD in Fuel Chemistry and Energy Science and post doctorate in associated fields of reaction chemistry.

Please name the scientific papers where the scientists claim to have proved their theory. You have them surely?

No thanks, that is a silly game that proves nothing. . Maybe you need a course is basic genetics.

 

[sayak83]

No thanks, that is a silly game that proves nothing. . Maybe you need a course is basic genetics.

Not going to admit to your complete absence of science education and scientific reading? Cool, it's blatantly transparent to all of us.

I took the course in basic genetics two years ago. You have taken one? Which textbook did you follow in your course?

 

[omega2xx]

Not going to admit to your complete absence of science education and scientific reading? Cool, it's blatantly transparent to all of us.

Wonderful. Now we have someone who can explain, scientifically of course, how a mutation can be the mechanism for a change of species.

I took the course in basic genetics two years ago. You have taken one? Which textbook did you follow in your course?

It is not necessary to take a course in something to be knowledge in the subject, although basic genetics is taught in some high school general science classes.

I learned about mutations from "Institute for Creation Research." The have well qualified scientists in biology, and they say mutations cannot add information to he offspring. Unlike your professor they tell why it cant happen. You can't give me one example of it ever happening.

You have to rely on the unproved ideas of small changes over many years, but time will not change the laws of genetics.