What is the case against Evolution?

[Write4U]

"the direction of greatest satisfaction".

Very similar to "the path of least resistance".

The idea behind science is to be precise, and to peel away the bad metaphors and magical thinking that is inevitably attached to such words.

I guess the term Implicate is one of those ambiguous concepts?

 

[DaveC426913]

Very similar to "the path of least resistance".

Oh I know what it is.
It's just anti-science.

I guess the term Implicate is one of those ambiguous concepts?

Without context, it's certainly ambiguous here.

 

[Write4U]

I'm quite aware of the common use of the terms in logic.
Just never as a law. And not in science.
:facepalm:
Just when I thought we were having a nice conversation...

We are, I hope. Are you going to exclude the "exponential function" from the scientific vocabulary? Or just where it is applied to an exponentially growing diversity of living (and dead) species?

 

[Write4U]

Oh I know what it is.
It's just anti-science.

It is? There are no scientific equations that translate the concepts into scientific language?

"Implicate"

Without context, it's certainly ambiguous here.

LOL, true, I am thinking of David Bohm's hypothesis of a hierarchy of mathematical orders, from which an deterministic Implicate emerges, the mathematical "expectation" of that which is to become expressed in reality.
2 + 2 = expectation? .......4...... BINGO!

 

[exchemist]

We are, I hope. Are you going to exclude the "exponential function" from the scientific vocabulary? Or just where it is applied to an exponentially growing diversity of living (and dead) species?

The exponential function is a powerful mathematical tool, in the right hands.

But seeing you use it is like watching a monkey with an electric hedge trimmer.

 

[exchemist]

It is? There are no scientific equations that translate the concepts into scientific language?

"Implicate" LOL, true, I am thinking of David Bohm's hypothesis of a hierarchy of mathematical orders, from which an deterministic Implicate emerges, the mathematical "expectation" of that which is to become expressed in reality.
2 + 2 = expectation? .......4...... BINGO!

Oh Christ not again.

 

[iceaura]

Not just Darwin - modern evolutionary biologists acknowledge the gap between (current) Darwinian evolution and abiogenesis.

There is no such thing as a "gap" between a theory and and its possible applications.
In this case, there is a "gap" in our knowledge of the many and poorly understood situations involved; we don't know what, if anything, did the evolving. We have only a few constraints, which guide research into the unknown but do not narrow the field of possibilities enough for solid claims.
Right now, we know that Darwinian evolution is an adequate theory: if it applies, that is if differential reproduction and selection actually took place, it is capable of accounting for all observations to date. And it does so better - much better - than any other theory we have so far.
The reproduction at first appears to be the hard part - but we have a whole slew of posited and relevant arenas in which reproduction takes place; clays, crystals, the poorly known world of complex organic and inorganic chemistry in the absence of living beings's interference, etc. We have much to investigate.

Darwinian evolution pointedly does not apply to pre-life.

Nonsense. It's currently being applied to AI, it's being applied to simulations of various kinds, it's used in engineering design of machinery and structures, it's a basic theory and has very wide application throughout the physical universe.

I think that natural selection can apply to anything that self-replicates.

It doesn't even have to self replicate - do it all in one package, so to speak. Replication loops can have stages, involve other agents with no obvious connection, stretch out over time and space with no hard limit. It's important to remember at all times that there were no living beings around, that what can't even begin to happen now because fungi and bacteria and archaea and so forth are always waiting, always hungry, covered the planet back then.

 

[DaveC426913]

"...[the direction of greatest satisfaction" ... is a sloppy, scientifically-ambiguous term...]"

It's just anti-science.

It is? There are no scientific equations that translate the concepts into scientific language?

Here's an idea: why don't we skip the sloppy, ambiguous middleman terms and use the scientific language directly?

That would save a lot of screen real estate currently being burned with
D: "That term has no scientific meaning."
W: "OK, what I really mean is..."

 

[Write4U]

The exponential function is a powerful mathematical tool, in the right hands.

Thanks for recognizing the importance of the exponential function in context of abiogenesis.

But seeing you use it is like watching a monkey with an electric hedge trimmer.

Interesting that I am the only one who seems recognize the importance of this mathematical function in reference to evolution. No one else mentions its importance, but when I do I am a monkey with a hedge trimmer?
Sorry, but your logic is a little askew!

 

[Write4U]

W4U,
It is? There are no scientific equations that translate the concepts into scientific language?

Here's an idea: why don't we skip the sloppy, ambiguous middleman terms and use the scientific language directly?

Wouldn't it be nice if someone came up with that direct scientific language. Any hints of an answer to my question? Or is asking questions a sign of stupidity, not worthy of serious attention?

That would save a lot of screen real estate currently being burned with
D: "That term has no scientific meaning."
W: "OK, what I really mean is..."

You bet it would. Too bad no one seems to willing to help out here...

But I understand, it's so much easier to be critical than it is to offer sound critique and some "answers" to questions. Makes it all sound so important, without saying anything at all.

 

[Write4U]

Oh Christ not again.

Oh Christ, not the "Oh Christs" again!
Ice bucket please, we have a person in distress!

 

[Write4U]

Right now, we know that Darwinian evolution is an adequate theory: if it applies, that is if differential reproduction and selection actually took place, it is capable of accounting for all observations to date. And it does so better - much better - than any other theory we have so far.

I have always looked at "natural selection" as a process which does not "select for" more adaptive traits, but "selects out" the less adapted organisms. But it also includes such random natural events as a meteor causing the extinction of many otherwise successful species and leaves a few 'lucky' ones alive to procreate.

The extinction of the dinosaur led to the exponential growth of the small versatile mammalian species. A Cosmic lottery.

 

[exchemist]

Thanks for recognizing the importance of the exponential function in context of abiogenesis.

Interesting that I am the only one who seems recognize the importance of this mathematical function in reference to evolution. No one else mentions its importance, but when I do I am a monkey with a hedge trimmer?
Sorry, but your logic is a little askew!

No, it's not interesting at all.

You are a person who loves to use these terms, but is incapable of using them properly. We've been over your inability to distinguish between the meaning of "function" in its mathematical sense and in its non-technical, everyday, sense ad nauseam. Ditto with "potential". But you don't listen and you won't learn, so I'm not doing all that yet again. Other people on the forum are also pretty tired of this, as Dave's responses illustrate.

I would love to see one thread, just one, in which you actually manage to take part without mentioning "function", "potential" or "implicate". But I do not believe I will ever see such a wonderful event.

 

[Write4U]

No, it's not interesting at all.

That's is somehow my fault?

You are a person who loves to use these terms, but is incapable of using them properly. We've been over your inability to distinguish between the meaning of "function" in its mathematical sense and in its non-technical, everyday, sense ad nauseam. Ditto with "potential". But you don't listen and you won't learn, so I'm not doing all that yet again. Other people on the forum are also pretty tired of this, as Dave's responses illustrate.

Frankly I am tired of wading through 15 pages of non-productive bickering as you seem to be expert at.

I would love to see one thread, just one, in which you actually manage to take part without mentioning "function", "potential" or "implicate". But I do not believe I will ever see such a wonderful event.

No because the threads where those terms do not apply do not interest ME, do you understand? Make your peace with it, ok. The mods don't seem to object to my posts.

p.s. Evolution is very much a matter of "potential", "implicate" and "function", and if you cannot see that then the scientific shortcoming is on your side of the fence, not mine.

The problem is that most discussion here end up in endless complaints about semantics and insistence on scientific correct language, instead of actually discussing content. My posts directly address the OP, from my perspective, as layman and they are offered "in context".

p.s. that's why I usually accompany my personal statement with links to the "correct" scientific language to give examples of the basis on which I rest my POV.

It is strange that seldom a correction is offered, which I always gratefully accept. Most "critique" is about words instead of content.

Other people on the forum also engage in very fruitful discussions with me and seem to have no problem with my 'verbage'. Of course by demeaning my posts you are also demeaning the people who are actually reciprocating.
Kinda like, "guilt by association".

My posts have as much related content and useful links than anyone here.
I am sorry if it is below your rigorous scientific standards.....give me a break.

 

[Write4U]

Write4U said: ↑
Very similar to "the path of least resistance".

Oh I know what it is.
It's just anti-science.

I don't know where you draw the line .

The path of least resistance is the physical or metaphorical pathway that provides the least resistance to forward motion by a given object or entity, among a set of alternative paths. The concept is often used to describe why an object or entity takes a given path. The way in which water flows is often given as an example for the idea.

Hikers choose the easy way to cross hills.

The path of least resistance applies on a local, not global, reference. For example, water always flows downhill, regardless of whether briefly flowing uphill will help it gain a lower final altitude (with certain exceptions such as superfluids and siphons). In physics, this phenomenon allows the formation of potential wells, where potential energy is stored because of a barrier restricting flow to a lower energy state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_of_least_resistance

WOW, look at those forbidden words used in Wiki definition of "path of least resistance". Seems that this is also connected somehow to the concept of "potential", can you believe it?

Oh, and the probability of the path's meander is about 2/Pi ?

Just trying to stay on topic..............natural evolution and such.

 

[DaveC426913]

OK well, you opened this door...

Wouldn't it be nice if someone came up with that direct scientific language. Any hints of an answer to my question? Or is asking questions a sign of stupidity, not worthy of serious attention?

We answer your questions all the time. So that complaint is false. I'm not sure there's been question you've asked that I haven't answered.

However, we have learned that you only ask enough questions to add to your pet ideas - and then you preach them over and over. You have been told that this is a odious habit, yet you persist - for your own ends, and to the detriment of the forum.

That the scientific answers don't fit into your pet ideas is on you, not on us.

You bet it would. Too bad no one seems to willing to help out here...

You are offered scientific explanations at every turn. So that complaint is false.

Yet you respond by repeating your mantras over and over.

Again, we have been very patient with you; you have no one to blame but yourself if your experience here is less than optimal. Your behavior is selfish.

But I understand, it's so much easier to be critical than it is to offer sound critique and some "answers" to questions. Makes it all sound so important, without saying anything at all.

We answer your questions all the time. So that complaint is false.

That the scientific answers don't fit into your pet ideas is on you, not on us.

I don't think you can claim any moral high ground here.

 

[Write4U]

I don't think you can claim any moral high ground here.

How dare you!
Who is making the accusations here? Seems you are taking the path of least resistance from the moral highground...

 

[DaveC426913]

The problem is that most discussion here end up in endless complaints about semantics and insistence on scientific correct language...

There's a very good reason for this. You are fond of using "weasel words" (that's a real thing by the way). A weasel word is one that has at least two distinct meanings, depending on the context. If you start with the meaning of the word in one context (say, mathematics), and half way through, you start talking about the other meaning of the word in its other context (say, cosmology) then you are weaseling your way from one to the other. This is not in good faith.

Weasel words are a play on words. They do not clarify; they do the opposite of clarify; they obfuscate.

It is strange that seldom a correction is offered...

Corrections are always offered. So that is false.

which I always gratefully accept.

You do not. So that is false. Your reaction takes one of two forms:

- you simply repeat your mantra - like cult followers, trying to reinforce their programming.
- you double down, claiming "I am not wrong Read it again", when you are clearly wrong.

Most "critique" is about words instead of content.

Since this is a forum where we write, words are one the only ways to create content. When you use weasel words, you are mangling content.

And we see you mangling content.

"The universe is made of values." "The universe is made of functions."
Your "concepts" - and thus your content - are based on the manipulation of weasel words.

 

[DaveC426913]

Who is making the accusations here?

You.

This entire page of posts is you, complaining that we're not treating you well.

In fact, we are being (and have been) very patient with you.

 

[Write4U]

OK well, you opened this door...

I reopened the door to the OP subject. Seems you took the wrong door, still harping on my inadequacies.