Hilbert's Hotel

Diskussionsforum zur Unendlichkeit: Theismus, Atheismus, Primzahlen, Unsterblichkeit, das Universum...
Discussing Infinity: theism and atheism, prime numbers, immortality, cosmology, philosophy...

Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
Zorro Trader GPT
by TipmyPip. 12/04/23 11:34
Newbie Questions
by AndrewAMD. 12/04/23 11:14
Square root rule
by Smallz. 12/02/23 09:15
RTest not found error
by TipmyPip. 12/01/23 21:43
neural function for Python to [Train]
by TipmyPip. 12/01/23 14:47
Xor Memory Problem.
by TipmyPip. 11/28/23 14:23
Training with command line parameters
by TipmyPip. 11/26/23 08:42
Combine USD & BTC Pairs In Asset Loop
by TipmyPip. 11/26/23 08:30
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
A psychological thriller game
SHADOW (2014)
DEAD TASTE
Tactics of World War I
Who's Online Now
2 registered members (TipmyPip, izorro), 556 guests, and 2 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
fairtrader, hus, Vurtis, Harry5, KelvinC
19019 Registered Users
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Re: What are the standards of a theory? [Re: capanno] #110162
02/01/07 11:24
02/01/07 11:24
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
Quote:

Its not a fact that they can produce something that is not their kind.




The evolution doesn't state this, they don't 'produce', but evolve .. something substantially different. If you adapt often enough a species will change (e.a. incompatible with their original species), that's the basic idea.

Quote:

Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended hereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. ...The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake in science."

-I.L. Cohen




Which is a funny quote considered the evidence there is, when did Cohen say this by the way? I can only find this quote on these pro-christian propaganda sites like answeringgenesis.org.

Still, I understand where these kind of quotes come from since supposedly even Darwin himself once said;

Quote:

Charles Darwin, 1858, in a letter, regarding the concluding chapters of his The Origin of the Species. Quoted in "John Lofton's Journal," The Washington Times, February 8, 1984.

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."




That was back in 1858 though.

Cheers


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: What are the standards of a theory? [Re: PHeMoX] #110163
02/01/07 11:40
02/01/07 11:40
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,011
South Africa
capanno Offline
Serious User
capanno  Offline
Serious User

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,011
South Africa
Quote:

The evolution doesn't state this, they don't 'produce', but evolve .. something substantially different. If you adapt often enough a species will change (e.a. incompatible with their original species), that's the basic idea.




With that logic, you might as well say by losing a little money over a looong period of time, you will become rich. You obviously don't know what happens when a species 'adapts'. I recommend you learn some biology 101.

Re: What are the standards of a theory? [Re: capanno] #110164
02/01/07 11:51
02/01/07 11:51
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
If a species falls apart it can not adapt, still adaptation happens and can be witnissed, hence there must be happening more and truth is there is. Mutation and natural selection doesn't cause 'gene erosion' but quite the opposite. I know you do not acknowledge the existence of benificial mutations (and the effect of selections for that matter), but they do exist and happen wether you like it or not.

Cheers


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: What are the standards of a theory? [Re: PHeMoX] #110165
02/01/07 12:09
02/01/07 12:09
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,011
South Africa
capanno Offline
Serious User
capanno  Offline
Serious User

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,011
South Africa
Your missing the whole point. A mutation might be beneficial, but it doesn't add information. A beneficial mutation would be a cat population growing long hair in cold climate. a bacterium turning immune to certain substances.

Re: What are the standards of a theory? [Re: capanno] #110166
02/01/07 12:26
02/01/07 12:26
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
If you have a mutation that's neutral but it produced an error in duplicating information and thát information mutates even more than in essence you've got added information already. In a way information can be like molded clay, hence a mutation can change but doesn't necesarrily have to substract information at all ánd it can even add information because it's molded clay that's able to expand or copy itself.


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: What are the standards of a theory? [Re: PHeMoX] #110167
02/01/07 12:55
02/01/07 12:55
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,011
South Africa
capanno Offline
Serious User
capanno  Offline
Serious User

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,011
South Africa
Quote:

If you have a mutation that's neutral but it produced an error in duplicating information




Examples?

Quote:

and thát information mutates even more than in essence you've got added information already.




How can a scramble of information add new info?

Quote:

In a way information can be like molded clay, hence a mutation can change but doesn't necesarrily have to substract information at all ánd it can even add information because it's molded clay that's able to expand or copy itself.




Nope. Its not like clay, its a very fragile combination of genes. You have to understand the maths involved. Darwin's original idea for evolution was proven wrong shortly after he came up with it. he said that any beneficial mutation, no matter how small, will be kept in the population. The chance of even a benificial mutation surviving is very small, due to the population growth. A mistake can be corrected. So a small mutation, even a neutral one like you said, is not likely to survive. This and other calculations pointed out Darwin's complete twisted understanding of chance. Thats why allot of 'scientists' are now joining the crowd that say that evolution must have happened in large steps, because slow gradual mutations and natural selection does absolutely nothing for them. Large mutations are fatal, and small ones wont survive. And still, these mutations are not what neo darwinians need. They need new info, not scrambled info.

You can copy, reverse, expand, twist, divide, scramble your DNA, you wont add new info. Because of Darwin's mistake about how mutations survive, the neo darwinian theory was invented in the 1950s, trying to accommodate new findings. It failed, just like the great wall of china failed to keep chuck norris out.

Re: What are the standards of a theory? [Re: capanno] #110168
02/02/07 20:08
02/02/07 20:08
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
A
AlbertoT Offline
Serious User
AlbertoT  Offline
Serious User
A

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
A definition of " Theory " is the one provided by JCL taken by Popper

I would like however to quote a definition of theory taken by Einstein

It is strictly speaking applicable to Phisics theories only but I think it is very interesting. Many people sometime misunderstand the true and modern meaning of this word

" You have a watch , for some reason you can not open it .
You notice that the movement of the pointers is syncronized .
You wonder , how can such movement be achieved ?
You look around, you see springs shafts and gears.
You think
"Maybe inside the watch there are springs, shfts and springs similar to the ones I see around me but smaller."
You have created a theory
Your theory is valid as long as it can explain all the properties of the watch
Is the watch really made of springs, shaft and gears ?

No, The technology of the watch might be something completely different

It does not matter
This is not a scientific question
As a scientist you must study the properties of the watch , you must not study the watch "

Nowadays most of the watches are made of electronic circuits but a mechanical model can explain most ( but not all ! ) of the property of the watch

Humanity took some thousand years to get rid of questions such as :

Why does it happen ?
What is the " essence " of ... ?
Is there a goal ?

Re: What are the standards of a theory? [Re: AlbertoT] #110169
02/03/07 14:42
02/03/07 14:42
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
M
Matt_Aufderheide Offline
Expert
Matt_Aufderheide  Offline
Expert
M

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Quote:

Humanity took some thousand years to get rid of questions such as :

Why does it happen ?
What is the " essence " of ... ?
Is there a goal ?




This is an excellent point. Unfortunately I think many poeple cant understand it.


Sphere Engine--the premier A6 graphics plugin.
Re: What are the standards of a theory? [Re: Matt_Aufderheide] #110170
02/03/07 14:51
02/03/07 14:51
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
A
AlbertoT Offline
Serious User
AlbertoT  Offline
Serious User
A

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
The point is that a lot of people feel smart, asking these kind of questions which have never had an answer and will never have
heisst luft

Re: What are the standards of a theory? [Re: AlbertoT] #110171
02/06/07 11:30
02/06/07 11:30
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,815
Finland
Inestical Offline
Rabbit Developer
Inestical  Offline
Rabbit Developer

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,815
Finland
for me;

theory is something you believe something is, but you cannot prove it, or you havn't experienced it.

If you speak theoritically, you speak about something not proven in any way, or in that specific way and is not experienced.

Falsing theory requires proves against it, or experiences against it. Proclaiming another theory does not falsify the other theory.

Conclusion: Theory is an explanation of something not experienced or proved.


"Yesterday was once today's tomorrow."
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  jcl, Lukas, old_bill, Spirit 

Kompaktes W�rterbuch des UnendlichenCompact Dictionary of the Infinite


Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1