Politics > Politics-USA > Re: Evolution of Man Doubted in Study<21aie25lobc18q775qpjqi37qs61emdqtv@4ax.com> <44E97A36.4280@lycos.com><44E99B5C.7CCE@lycos.com> <44E99FA5.17E3@lycos.com><44E9A0E6.4A32@lycos.com> <44E9A3FB.2A1A@lycos.com><854le2hk6n1ldcs1k435vje9sdv0ufgmfo@4ax.c
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Timothy Sutter" |
| Date: |
27 Aug 2006 07:23:25 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Evolution of Man Doubted in Study<21aie25lobc18q775qpjqi37qs61emdqtv@4ax.com> <44E97A36.4280@lycos.com><44E99B5C.7CCE@lycos.com> <44E99FA5.17E3@lycos.com><44E9A0E6.4A32@lycos.com> <44E9A3FB.2A1A@lycos.com><854le2hk6n1ldcs1k435vje9sdv0ufgmfo@4ax.c |
Timothy Sutter wrote:
they don't -work- inasmuch as you -guess- what you
want to ascribe as time of divergence and then
you -guess- at how many years you can assign to
each differnce in codon order until you get a
sufficiently straight line based on multiple
-guesses- because you simply -assume-
that the model is correct.
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
No. We use the model to make predictions, and if the predictions
prove correct, then the model works. Thus far the models are far more
successful than any alternative.
no, you use imaginary error bars to place dots on
a preconceived line and then remove the error bars
and say that line represnts real data.
the assumption is that the straight
line correlation exists,
so, you rig the 'predicted' time of divergence with
the 'predicted' rate of change and juggle the points
until they resemble a straight line.
you predict nothing, you make up a number for divergnece,
based on no corroboration and rig the data accordingly.
but look, you take a human sample and a chimp
sample and look at the difference,
you immediately assume that the chimp has not
changed at all and that only the human has changed,
Why would I make such a silly assumption, when it is most unlikely.
so, you have -no- standard reference to tell what
is the codon set -before- presumed divergence.
So?
the whole game is to say that the difference
in two species represent a gradual shift
from one to another.
you haven't -proved- common ancestry.
Science doesn't do proof.
science does like it when you
can fit a model to mathematics,
Fitting a model to mathematics does not enable mathematical proof.
you don't do it anyway,
but, in the case of string theory you'd be correct.
there can be no experimental backing for string theory
short of, some say, building a partical accelerator
the size of the known universe.
just regular old gravity, on the other hand,
can rely on the mathematical backing -to- make
relevant predictions about what can be tossed
in the air and where it will most assuredly land.
the reason the mathematical concepts associated
with quantum mechanics become valid is that they
can be tested in the laboratory and the numbers
a machine spits back are in close adherence
to those calculated on paper.
theromodynamics is an entirely experimental
venture to which mathematical formulations
and theory were constructed.
this thing you are suggesting is pure hokum.
impossible inasmuch as all you -have- is a static
image from -contemporary- dna sample and no view
into archeo-dna sequences.
We have millions of static images from millions of contemporary dna
samples, taken at different times.
in so-called 'evolutionary time frames"
Yep. We have observed evolution in the laboratory. What ignoramuses
like you call "microevolution", but which is indistinguishable from
macroevolution given time.
in a bacterial colony there are also, genotypes
and phenotypes and what you may be regarding as
'new' forms of the bacterium are simply a
different phenotypic variation that had been
the smaller expression of traits and did not
appear on dna footprints until the population
inversion caused by the killing off of the
larger populatioon for which you had poisons
which did not manage to kill off the other phenotypes.
you see only a phenotypic population
inversion and not a new bacterial strain.
you simply bred a doberman bacterial
strain from a collie.
if you have other examples, feel free to say more.
We have static images of DNA
samples for parents and for their children. When the genes of the
children are each identical to portions of the genes of the parents,
except for one base pair or one other simple change, we can reasonably
call that difference a mutation, especially since we know the
chemistry that would allow such a mutation to occur.
i'm not suggesting that mutations
and misprints do not happen.
i am suggesting that there is more in the
mechanism that will prevent change and
rigorously resist change.
You don't know what the word "rigorous" means, since it makes no sense
in that context.
time after time, the algorithms associated
with a given process rigorously carry out
their functionality.
Nor does most of the rest of your ramblings.
you have a plank in your eye.
You simply don't know what you are talking about.
you have a plank in both eyes.
.
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution of Man Doubted in Study |
27 Aug 2006 07:27:30 PM |
|
|
interatively wobbling amid the complex plane.
T = {T^2 + (G + gi)}
as i wobble, i stay in the plane
my heart maintains it's rhythm...
see, there are possible numbers
in the set of (G + gi) where the
magnitude, or distance from 0, of T
will not diverge to infinity.
'i' = [square root of (-1)]
a so-called 'imaginary number'
at T = 0 , you get;
T(2) = 0^2 + (G + gi)
or T = (G + gi)
plug that into T and
do the operation again;
T(3) = (G + gi)^2 + (G = gi)
where (G + gi) is a constant
number in the complex plane.
which is to say, for each set of
repeated operations, (G + gi) is
constant and T varies.
well, for many numbers, the magnitude
of T soon diverges to infinity.
but there are number sets of (G + gi),
for which, the magnitude of T doesn't diverge.
T just wobbles not too far from zero.
those numbers are called 'the mandelbrot set'
and if you graph this set,
you get the funny picture that
looks sort of like a heart.
a 'cardioid' of sorts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution of Man Doubted in Study |
27 Aug 2006 07:28:07 PM |
|
|
but there are number sets of (G + gi),
for which, the magnitude of T doesn't diverge.
T just wobbles not too far from zero.
now you can make up a funny story
and say things like;
the 'real' plane represents the dirt
and the air and the sun and the moon
and the stars and candy and pie and
radios and gumdrops,
and the 'imaginary' plane is the realm
of pure consciousness which is -not-
composed of carbon and nitrogen and
hydrogen and oxygen, but yet exists
and is very much 'real' and where our
conscious initiator of genesis
maintains an eternal existance.
and so, as we find ourselves in the 'complex plane'
where both dirt and pure consciousness may intersect,
we ...; we say more in a bit...
but if we don't get too carried away,
we -can- make relevant statements
about both without destroying either.
yes, 'it' is 'there'
but where 'there' is
corresponds, for now, with the
points in the complex plane.
and those points converge in us.
just remember, the complex plane already
finds 'real' use in our friend quantum mechanics.
and we do not suggest that all
of quantum mechanics is fiction.
no, we do not.
but it employs 'imaginary' numbers.
real information from a purely 'mathematical' device.
....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution of Man Doubted in Study |
27 Aug 2006 07:28:43 PM |
|
|
\> but if we don't get too carried away,
we -can- make relevant statements
about both without destroying either.
but see, even if some were to get carried away
and make claims that "purple kestrels with dog's
heads" fly about in their imaginary world,
and therefore, Timothy Sutter makes them 'real'
well, first, your inventions will invariably be
cut and paste composites of things that you have
seen and heard and smelled and tasted and felt.
and you may have seen 'purple' and 'kestrels'
and dog's heads' but, you may not have seen
them all in one creature.
so, we we relegate that
sort of thing to composition.
could it be possible?
sure, why not, but right now, we aren't
seeing any thing like this flying around.
as an aside comment to the walls,
for us, these creatures who find
themselves in the complex plane,
the act of creation would be in finding things
that may reside in the purely imaginary plane,
and bringing them to 'life' in the real world,
all without ever being able to relegate
the pure higher consciousness to fiction
but instead, we prove the higher consciousness is real
inasmuch as we can begin to declare things
that be not, as though they be, and watch
them become.
and that is how we begin to describe the
Creation of all things, from the source
of our conscious being initiator of genesis.
our Concious Being, declared that which
was not, as if it was, and made it real.
and the light we see, resembles the
Light of God's own pure consciousness.
a little common sense would assist in focusing
your concentrated attention on things which
are more possible than others.
maybe you just can not have a car that
folds up and can be put away in your wallet.
this can be considered impracticable.
and so, a relationship with our
Conscious Being who precedes All
and is responsible for All's being,
is invaluable in considering what can
be possible for us, and what will
remain out of our grasp.
but, this sort of relationship with God
is -not- out of our grasp.
seek -that- first,
and your heart's desires will follow.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution of Man Doubted in Study |
27 Aug 2006 07:29:11 PM |
|
|
and so, a relationship with our
Conscious Being who precedes All
and is responsible for All's being,
is invaluable in considering what can
be possible for us, and what will
remain out of our grasp.
then the question is not;
'is it right to play God?'
but;
'should mankind try to play God without God?'
and we tend to see that mankind,
left to its own device,
squanders its gifts to the considerations
of the temporary dwellings.
as such, it tends to waste its gifts
on what it cannot perpetuate, leaving
no account with the everlasting Deity.
translation;
when mankind adores itself as deity,
he mistakenly tries to elevate the physical creature
into that domain where it can find no place, and
falls back to earth in a crash of flame and ashes.
but we see Jesus...
Jesus, who tore down the temple of the
temporary dwelling to be, raised up,
-transformed-, and to remain,
forever incorruptible.
this is God with us.
God's own plan for us.
the perfecting of God's Creation.
the clay, fired into eternity.
and then we start to mention
how we may adorn our eternal
existance with fineries from God.
True treasures on account with the everlasting.
but, this sort of relationship with God
is -not- out of our grasp.
seek -that- first,
and your heart's desires will follow.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution of Man Doubted in Study |
27 Aug 2006 07:30:08 PM |
|
|
Basis Of Issue Narrative Guidance [BOING]
two pairs of sox
no one says;
at five o'clock, [g + di]
is in the mandelbrot set
but at seven o'clock, [g + di]
is not in the mandelbrot set.
is no one right or wrong?
print this out and place it under your pillow,
and when no one gives you an answer,
you get your two pairs of sox.
that should be clear enough for you.
if it is not clear enough for you,
you get the boot in stead
if you want me to post more posts, just ask
you don't have to goad me,
i'm more than happy to do it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
