User Tag List

View Poll Results: Creationism vs Evolution

Voters
21. You may not vote on this poll
  • Creationism

    1 4.76%
  • Evolution

    20 95.24%
First 4567 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 70

  1. #51
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    That is poor reasoning. Most people are more likely to act on a strong recommendation from someone they know and respect personally than a blanket injunction from a public figure. They don't acknowledge the seriousness of a situation until it hits close to home. (Consider Senator Rob Portman who changed his mind about gay marriage after learning his son was gay.)
    Actually, it seems to have been borne out in practice: as those who plotted to kill Christ, also wanted to kill Lazarus, as his being raised from the dead only contributed to Christ's fame and detracted from their influence.


    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Generally true. Almost by definition, though, lasting changes in a species must be an improvement in terms of species survival or at least neutral. Otherwise over time, they would die out.
    A little nitpick there: it depends on the exact *mix* of external causes of death, and those can change independent of the genetics of the creatures in question.
    Posit for example the sickle-cell mutation. Great for resisting malaria. And yet it is a single-nucleotide polymorhphism: even if both parents are "carriers" (have one gene for it, one normal gene), there is only a 1-in-4 chance a child will have the disease.

    What is the timing of when the sickle-cell mutation began and (as it were) became "established" in the human population, compared to when Malaria first began infecting people?

    Or, going the other direction, sometimes the environment changes and mayhap the genetics will need some time to catch up :
    squirrels zigzag across the road, which is great for avoiding larger, less sure-footed predators, but not so good at avoiding being smushed under tires.
    And yet we see no tendency of squirrels to avoid zig-zagging.

    Is the "selection pressure" not great enough? Or has not enough time passed?

    I think one of the biggest issues to be investigated in evolution, is comparing the rate of environmental changes to the rate of mutations;
    and a better characterization for "sensitivity analysis" between a given "unit" of environmental change and the expected/"required" genetic changes.

    (Wouldn't it be likely, as organisms grow more complex, that there would be different evolutionary clocks, dependent both on the system and/or organism, and the rate of change of the environment? -- e.g. horseshoe crabs and sharks are pretty much unchanged, as far as we know, over 200 million years; but Smilodon died out with the most recent ice ages, being a flash in the pan of maybe 2-3 million years.
    But how many generations did it take to grow those way cool fangs, what specifically favored them over normal sized choppers, and how much selection pressure must have been exerted -- or lack of a barrier -- to allow them those canines to grow to the proportions they did?)
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  2. #52
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Your point here is unclear. Are you saying there is no merit in seeing observations corroborated by multiple groups over time, as documented by separate accounts published in the peer-reviewed literature? Or are you discounting the role of meta-surveys, that gather already-existing data to support/refute some broader conclusion? There is utility and validity in both. Indeed the first is one of the hallmarks of scientific method: the need for reproducibility of results.
    Mere assent based on popularity, is NOT science. Too much of what passes for AGW does not adhere to good protocol : e.g. "the dog ate my original data sets" combined with personal attacks on critics.
    As Feynman said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." So sending your datasets to those who wish to refute your model, is a great way to refine the theory.
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  3. #53
    is indra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    MBTI
    jedi
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    1,334

    Default

    Creationism is so lulzy as to make me sad.
    Likes Hard liked this post

  4. #54
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    Actually, it seems to have been borne out in practice: as those who plotted to kill Christ, also wanted to kill Lazarus, as his being raised from the dead only contributed to Christ's fame and detracted from their influence.
    Not sure how killing Jesus or Lazarus relates to one's likelihood to take the word of your brother over that of a prophet.

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    Is the "selection pressure" not great enough? Or has not enough time passed?

    I think one of the biggest issues to be investigated in evolution, is comparing the rate of environmental changes to the rate of mutations;
    and a better characterization for "sensitivity analysis" between a given "unit" of environmental change and the expected/"required" genetic changes.

    (Wouldn't it be likely, as organisms grow more complex, that there would be different evolutionary clocks, dependent both on the system and/or organism, and the rate of change of the environment? -- e.g. horseshoe crabs and sharks are pretty much unchanged, as far as we know, over 200 million years; but Smilodon died out with the most recent ice ages, being a flash in the pan of maybe 2-3 million years.
    But how many generations did it take to grow those way cool fangs, what specifically favored them over normal sized choppers, and how much selection pressure must have been exerted -- or lack of a barrier -- to allow them those canines to grow to the proportions they did?)
    I suspect the highlighted conditions. Also, that some species "luck out" and end up with a robust set of characteristics, while others keep getting the short end of the stick, or at least have traits that are less broadly suitable as the environment changes.

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    Mere assent based on popularity, is NOT science. Too much of what passes for AGW does not adhere to good protocol : e.g. "the dog ate my original data sets" combined with personal attacks on critics.
    As Feynman said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." So sending your datasets to those who wish to refute your model, is a great way to refine the theory.
    What is AGW? Reproducibility is not popularity.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  5. #55
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Not sure how killing Jesus or Lazarus relates to one's likelihood to take the word of your brother over that of a prophet.
    Jesus told many parables with the Pharisees and Sadducees as their rhetorical target; the week before Passover, Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead; rather than converting,
    the chief priests decided to put Lazarus to death at the same time as conspiring against Jesus, since the buzz over Jesus' miracles was causing people to turn from
    the conventional rabbinical authorities: thus *demonstrating* the conclusion in the earlier parable, that if people did not listen to the prophets (and the religious leaders
    of the time were experts in studying the Law and the Prophets...), they would not be convinced, even if someone rose from the dead.


    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I suspect the highlighted conditions. Also, that some species "luck out" and end up with a robust set of characteristics, while others keep getting the short end of the stick, or at least have traits that are less broadly suitable as the environment changes.


    What is AGW? Reproducibility is not popularity.
    AGW= 'anthropogenic global warming'. And neither is popularity sufficient evidence of reproducibility (in a scientific sense, not the printing-press sense.)
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  6. #56
    Chumped. Obsidius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Actually, evolution has not been proven. Scientific explanations for natural phenomena are never really proven, they gain acceptance over time by not being disproven. They account for all available evidence, whereas discounted rival theories do not. Eventually some new evidence comes along that a theory cannot account for, and the theory is then modified, or sometimes entirely discarded. In this way, quantum mechanics builds on classical mechanics, explaining phenomena that the older theory cannot.

    Arguing for any theory on the basis of popularity, however, is completely unscientific. Actually, it would be dumb to decide what spiritual "theory" to accept based on popularity, but the yardstick there is quite different.
    Oh, of course, I guess what I mean is that it's based upon probability. So, we have a phenomena, and explanations for said phenomena, and for this specific phenomena, Evolutions is just patently the most probable, by virtue of aforementioned and other evidence.
    Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion man.

  7. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    I'd agree with you in general, perhaps, but IIRC, relativity was not developed to account for any outstanding anomalies; and thermodynamics, while it accords quite well with the atomic / molecular theory of matter, was not developed with it in mind.
    I am fairly sure the anomalies that lead to relativity have to do with inconsistencies related applying Maxwell's equations in different reference frames. The speed of electromagnetic radiation in a vacuum is constant even when you switch to a moving reference frame. In addition, in the rest frame of an electron, it creates no magnetic field, but when we use a reference frame in which it's moving, the electron does create a magnetic field. Taken to an extreme, what happens then when we try to put ourselves into the rest frame of electromagnetic radiation?

    I find the history of this fascinating, and you've prompted me to remind myself of it. But is the relevance to an evolution vs. creationism debate?

    Thermodynamics is connected to the atomic theory through statistical mechanics. Boltzmann, Gibbs, and the others certainly had atomic theory in mind when they developed the statistical connections to heat.

    Again fascinating, but, relevance?


    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    A little nitpick there: it depends on the exact *mix* of external causes of death, and those can change independent of the genetics of the creatures in question.
    Posit for example the sickle-cell mutation. Great for resisting malaria. And yet it is a single-nucleotide polymorhphism: even if both parents are "carriers" (have one gene for it, one normal gene), there is only a 1-in-4 chance a child will have the disease.

    What is the timing of when the sickle-cell mutation began and (as it were) became "established" in the human population, compared to when Malaria first began infecting people?

    Or, going the other direction, sometimes the environment changes and mayhap the genetics will need some time to catch up :
    squirrels zigzag across the road, which is great for avoiding larger, less sure-footed predators, but not so good at avoiding being smushed under tires.
    And yet we see no tendency of squirrels to avoid zig-zagging.

    Is the "selection pressure" not great enough? Or has not enough time passed?

    I think one of the biggest issues to be investigated in evolution, is comparing the rate of environmental changes to the rate of mutations;
    and a better characterization for "sensitivity analysis" between a given "unit" of environmental change and the expected/"required" genetic changes.

    (Wouldn't it be likely, as organisms grow more complex, that there would be different evolutionary clocks, dependent both on the system and/or organism, and the rate of change of the environment? -- e.g. horseshoe crabs and sharks are pretty much unchanged, as far as we know, over 200 million years; but Smilodon died out with the most recent ice ages, being a flash in the pan of maybe 2-3 million years.
    But how many generations did it take to grow those way cool fangs, what specifically favored them over normal sized choppers, and how much selection pressure must have been exerted -- or lack of a barrier -- to allow them those canines to grow to the proportions they did?)
    I find all these questions fascinating, and I am pretty sure there are plenty of others who have investigated similar questions.

    The squirrels at my university do not zigzag, they run straight to where they are going.

    Regarding modeling mutation rate, genetic drift, and such, there are actually many proposed models that do decent jobs of matching observations. (Models of DNA evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

    The Kimura two parameter model, and Jukes Cantor were the favorite ones that I learned. Many of the techniques to answer the questions you asked can be found bioinformatics coursework. Perhaps you have a second career in this field

    The connection to evolution in these later questions is clear, but I am not sure how creationism ties in.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  8. #58
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I am fairly sure the anomalies that lead to relativity have to do with inconsistencies related applying Maxwell's equations in different reference frames. The speed of electromagnetic radiation in a vacuum is constant even when you switch to a moving reference frame. In addition, in the rest frame of an electron, it creates no magnetic field, but when we use a reference frame in which it's moving, the electron does create a magnetic field. Taken to an extreme, what happens then when we try to put ourselves into the rest frame of electromagnetic radiation?

    I find the history of this fascinating, and you've prompted me to remind myself of it. But is the relevance to an evolution vs. creationism debate?
    Not directly; I suggested it was near to a hijack; and was prompted by something in the post I was responding to.

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Thermodynamics is connected to the atomic theory through statistical mechanics. Boltzmann, Gibbs, and the others certainly had atomic theory in mind when they developed the statistical connections to heat.

    Again fascinating, but, relevance?
    By Thermo, I was thinking of *classical* thermodynamics -- Carnot cycles, reversibility, and the like.
    Yes, stat mech gives the connection: but it is a testament to the earlier scientists' genius and rigor that their principles dovetailed so well, where other areas (ultraviolet catastrophe, photoelectric effect) went AGAINST classical physics and needed the atomic theory to 'save' them, not flesh them out.

    Connection to thread is through the back door. (Macroscopic properties of systems, sensitively dependent upon averaged properties of many individual components.)





    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I find all these questions fascinating, and I am pretty sure there are plenty of others who have investigated similar questions.

    The squirrels at my university do not zigzag, they run straight to where they are going.
    Odd. Every squirrel I've ever seen on the road darts back and forth as though they can't make up their minds.
    Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side.
    Why did the squirrel cross the road? Playing chicken with the traffic.

    Regarding modeling mutation rate, genetic drift, and such, there are actually many proposed models that do decent jobs of matching observations. (Models of DNA evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

    The Kimura two parameter model, and Jukes Cantor were the favorite ones that I learned. Many of the techniques to answer the questions you asked can be found bioinformatics coursework. Perhaps you have a second career in this field

    The connection to evolution in these later questions is clear, but I am not sure how creationism ties in.[/QUOTE]

    Hmm, skimmed wikipedia; interesting, but it looked more like the joke about the physicist asked to predict the best horses to bet on for a horse race, and he comes back months later saying he didn't have a definitive answer, but the case of the spherical horse was very interesting.

    Codons only got mentioned in the last line; and it is codons which specify the amino acid ordering of proteins; there is no modeling nor discussion of the *feedback* from the environment to the population of individuals, and from the individuals to the alleles chosen...in other words, these models are starting at one end of a time series, with sequence S1...and comparing to a far later state of the time series, with sequence Sn. And these models are looking solely at the DNA sequence
    in vitro as it were, and over time: I was considering the distribution *within a species*, and how that is a function of the environment; and then, how *that* changes over time, correlating to environmental changes.


    The changes are not strictly random: for some changes to the gene, create disease states which result in the individual dying before breeding; other changes to the gene result in a survival advantage, and (over time) DNA sequences with that change show up more often in a population; but some genetic changes are the result of entire sequences being moved from one chromosome to another (resulting in correlation of certain frequency changes, rather than all independent point changes in frequency); and the survivability is dependent upon the external environment.


    (Think of the nylon bug, for example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria); experiments on it basically had a bunch of germs of whatever species in a tank, incubated with plenty of moisture and heat, and no nourishment except the nylon; over time a series of mutations allowed some of the critters to *subsist* on nylon. IIRC, several rounds of the experiment showed that the same mutation kept recurring. But in the real world, you don't always get a large predation free environment, with just the one food source; this would affect the RATE at which such mutations propagate, should they occur. And presumably there are other complex organic substances which would never be able to be used as food without explicit genetic engineering.)
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  9. #59
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    You had written:
    I am fairly sure the anomalies that lead to relativity have to do with inconsistencies related applying Maxwell's equations in different reference frames. The speed of electromagnetic radiation in a vacuum is constant even when you switch to a moving reference frame. In addition, in the rest frame of an electron, it creates no magnetic field, but when we use a reference frame in which it's moving, the electron does create a magnetic field. Taken to an extreme, what happens then when we try to put ourselves into the rest frame of electromagnetic radiation?
    *snaps fingers* -- I remember now. The title of the paper was On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, but the first part -- which was all I'd read -- was on the definition of simultaneity. Which means I'd forgotten the introduction, and mistaken the setup of concepts and relation to familiar objects, for the motivation.

    Sample link: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...el/specrel.pdf

    Thanks for the correction / reminder!
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  10. #60
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frosty6226 View Post
    I'd like to create a poll and see if in fact she was right, or if I am right in what the majority of the population truly believes. For the purpose of the survey, im going to limit it to the two answers below, but feel free to respond and explain in the comments
    Within the context of that poll, you will likely get more votes for evolution, but that has more to do with the progressive nature of the community. Globally I believe the UN survey was something like 86% follow organized religions, most of which preach creationism.

    Either way, what does it matter how many people believe in it?

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution vs. Intelligent Design/Creationism
    By Anentropic IxTx in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 161
    Last Post: 11-10-2013, 11:56 PM
  2. MBTI vs the MBTI Step II test
    By Totenkindly in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-31-2008, 09:25 PM
  3. Dawkins and Evolution, a discussion (moved to new thread)
    By hereandnow in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-18-2007, 11:41 AM
  4. Does SJ vs SP account for gender bias?
    By Tayshaun in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-17-2007, 08:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO