Theory or vaporware? Can anyone show me?

[CTD]

I've been pretty specific about what I'm interested in. It really should be a simple matter of asking "Hey, anyone got a link to the Theory of Evolution?", getting a helpful response and being done. If I'd asked to see Ohm's Law, I expect that might've happened in spite of all the emotions we see on display.

 

I have made the most reasonable request I can rightly imagine, but we all know it cannot be met. So here we go. Mudslinging won't get you one step closer to finding a "theory", ...assuming you'd actually go looking for one.

[A Tripolation]

Whoa CTD. I understand where you're coming from, I'm a theist, but you have no damn right to be calling these people godless.

You can't honestly tell me, one religious person to another, that creationism makes any sense...at ALL.

 

I invite you to look at this wonderful thread. Scroll down to the part where it says "Examples of how deism and evolution can be compatible". I'm not certain whether you accept evolution or not...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Perhaps they do things different here. Most places it is customary to extract the pertinent text from larger documents.

 

It may be that you don't think it worth your time to dig through and see if there is any pertinent text. If so, I understand.

 

It wouldn't hurt for some of the faithful to head over and pick through the pile, one supposes... Might they not just get lucky?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

#5

 

see how quick and easy that is? I don't waste your time; please don't waste mine.

Ah. Discounting the fact that there are two #5s in your original post, my current problem is that you do not define what you want very well.

 

But here's an attempt:

 

The theory of evolution, in one falsifiable hypothesis: "Species change over time through mechanisms such as natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift."

 

The details can be found in any of the links posted so far.

 

Or is that not what you wanted? Your post is not very clear, just rather long.

[Sayonara]

Or is that not what you wanted? Your post is not very clear, just rather long.

Not to mention the rather obvious question mark that hangs over why exactly he thinks he will find this "Theory of Evolution" he's so desperately seeking on SFN, as opposed to in the peer-reviewed literature.

[CaptainPanic]

I've been pretty specific about what I'm interested in. It really should be a simple matter of asking "Hey, anyone got a link to the Theory of Evolution?", getting a helpful response and being done. If I'd asked to see Ohm's Law, I expect that might've happened in spite of all the emotions we see on display.

 

I have made the most reasonable request I can rightly imagine, but we all know it cannot be met. So here we go. Mudslinging won't get you one step closer to finding a "theory", ...assuming you'd actually go looking for one.

 

Yeah, Ohm's Law is short.

The theory of thermodynamics is not. Yet the theories make sense.

 

I could give you Ohm's Law. I cannot give you the theory behind all thermodynamics. In fact, I'd rather give you the theory of evolution than thermodynamics.

[Sisyphus]

You actually haven't been clear at all about what you're asking for, CTD. At first I thought it was just a description of the theory of evolution, but several people have provided that (in thread and via links), and you still keep saying "nobody can satisfy this simple request!" What is your simple request, if not a description of the theory of evolution? Is there anything that someone could say that would satisfy it?

 

You also made some nonsequitor comments about the "godless." Can I take this to mean (and I apologize if this is incorrect) that the falseness of evolution is a matter of religious faith for you, unswayable by anything? If so, what are you doing here? Why discuss it (or anything), if the conclusion is foregone?

[Sayonara]

He's running the "evolution is not a theory" bit, only with recrimination and what is supposed to be intellectual table-turning.

 

Because that's never been done before.

[Edtharan]

{2} The dictionary doesn't make a critical distinction when it defines 'theory'. The meaning of the term changes substantially depending on placement.

This is the whole crux of your problem.

 

As you state: "the term changes substantially depending on placement"

 

Yes. the placement is :Scientific Theory, not "Theory in general".

 

As such, Evolution is a scientific theory (and an extremely well tested one at that).

 

One of the requirements of a scientific theory is that it needs to be stated mathematically. This has been done for evolution. The mathematics used (and it is a valid use of the maths) is that of Algorithmic Maths.

 

Algorithms are like a computer program, but unlike normal computer programs they are not designed for a specific type of computer.

 

the concept goes back to before the days of computers to a guy called Allan Turing.

 

Turing came up with a (at the time) hypothetical machine we called a Turing Machine. This was a machine that read symbols off a "tape" and then translated them into another set of symbols.

 

The problem with this is that any machine designed to read the symbols and translate them into the correct symbols would only work for that set of symbols. If you change the symbols or the machine, then you would not get the correct output.

 

However, Turing when a step further and proposed a machine that not only read the symbols on a tape, but also read how to translate those symbols into the correct ouput. He showed that such a machine could be designed so that it would be able to perform the role of any other Turing Machine. It would be a Universal Turing Machine.

 

We have now created such Universal Turing Machines, we call them: Computers.

 

Now, at the same time as Allan Turing, there was a woman by the name of Ada Lovelace (she worked with Turing). Ada was very important as she was the first computer programmer. Between them they came up with the idea of a set of instructions, called an algorithm that the Universal Turing Machine followed.

 

As it was a machine, then any function it did would be able to be described mathematically.

 

So, using this it can be shown, that any set of instructions (algorithm) that a Universal Turing Machine can perform is valid mathematically. Translating one set of symbols into another is called a "Function".

 

Evolution is performed on computer all the time. Things from hull designs for boats to new medicines to aeroplanes to mobile phones to trafic flow all use Evolution to make them work.

 

What has also been shown is that DNA and living organisms act as a Universal Turing Machine (there are even computers that work using DNA).

 

Now, as any Universal Turing Machine can emulate any other Turing Machine (even Universal Turing Machines), this means that any "algorithm" that can be implemented on one Turing Machine can be implemented on any Universal Turing Machine.

 

So, if we can have the Algorithm for evolution run on a computer, then it has to be able to be run on the biological Universal Turing Machine that is living organisms.

 

But this, Evolution is not longer really a theory. It is so much more. It is a Law. It is an inviolate as the Law 1 + 1 = 2 and is as mathematically absolute.

 

So anyone claiming that Evolution can not occur has to also be claiming that the mathematical basis that it is described with must also be false, and that is based (ultimately) on that 1 + 1 = 2. So anyone denying Evolution is also denying that 1 + 1 = 2.

[CTD]

Ah. Discounting the fact that there are two #5s in your original post, my current problem is that you do not define what you want very well.

Yes there are two 5's. I noticed that and was surprised it took so long for it to come up. But it is a legitimate (although quite trivial) complaint, and said legitimacy probably makes it a lower priority than the complaints I've seen.

 

I have indeed defined what I want. I have asked in very simple terms recently, and in very detailed, specific, no-weaseling-out terms originally, as I'm not entirely inexperienced.

 

You may be familiar with

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17113

 

which advises those who would understand how science works to see

http://www2.nau.edu/~gaud/bio372/class/behavior/sciproc.htm

 

On the righthand side there is a diagram. I'm after the second box from the top, which, if the stories we're told are true, equals the bottom box in the diagram. I'm confident you prefer to speak of it as the latter. But proper procedure will require me to evaluate it as the former if it ever turns up, you hopefully understand.

 

But here's an attempt:

 

The theory of evolution, in one falsifiable hypothesis: "Species change over time through mechanisms such as natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift."

 

The details can be found in any of the links posted so far.

 

Or is that not what you wanted? Your post is not very clear, just rather long.

6

 

I'll explain. That lifeforms change from generation to generation is observation - not theory. The remainder simply claims explanations exist for the observation. That's hardly a falsifiable claim.

 

Probably the best response yet. Concise, subtle, and amusing.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You actually haven't been clear at all about what you're asking for, CTD. At first I thought it was just a description of the theory of evolution, but several people have provided that (in thread and via links), and you still keep saying "nobody can satisfy this simple request!" What is your simple request, if not a description of the theory of evolution? Is there anything that someone could say that would satisfy it?

 

You also made some nonsequitor comments about the "godless." Can I take this to mean (and I apologize if this is incorrect) that the falseness of evolution is a matter of religious faith for you, unswayable by anything? If so, what are you doing here? Why discuss it (or anything), if the conclusion is foregone?

Know what? I'll leave it to the readership to contemplate for themselves how in the whole wide universe I could possibly have been any clearer. I have specified what I want and what I don't want. We all know which is available.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

6

 

I'll explain. That lifeforms change from generation to generation is observation - not theory. The remainder simply claims explanations exist for the observation. That's hardly a falsifiable claim.

 

Probably the best response yet. Concise, subtle, and amusing.

 

Ah. So my formulation of the hypothesis wasn't strong enough for you. Well, let's take the same sentence and invert it:

 

"Natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift cause species to change over time."

 

Is that specific enough? It's certainly falsifiable -- we could determine if those mechanisms actually do cause species to change.

 

Or are you looking for a formulation of the hypothesis that all species evolved from one common ancestor?

[CTD]

Whoa CTD. I understand where you're coming from, I'm a theist, but you have no damn right to be calling these people godless.

You can't honestly tell me, one religious person to another, that creationism makes any sense...at ALL.

 

I invite you to look at this wonderful thread. Scroll down to the part where it says "Examples of how deism and evolution can be compatible". I'm not certain whether you accept evolution or not...

I did not call them 'godless' - quite the opposite. They are not without gods they are without God. Neither did I say it was the case universally, so don't try to lay that to my credit either.

 

I accept that allele frequencies change all the time. According to the introduction spiel, that means I accept evolution. Do I accept any of the garbage produced over the ages in order to dispute or undermine history? Not a bit.

 

Am I inclined to take advice from people who misinterpret practically everything I write? Take a guess!

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Yeah, Ohm's Law is short.

The theory of thermodynamics is not. Yet the theories make sense.

 

I could give you Ohm's Law. I cannot give you the theory behind all thermodynamics. In fact, I'd rather give you the theory of evolution than thermodynamics.

You simply misapply the term 'theory'. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Laws of Thermodynamics are none of them all that long. The entire body of Thermodynamic theory is another story. 'Thermodynamic theory' is not the equivalent of 'the theory of thermodynamics'. It's pretty simple how English works.

 

There are reasons English speakers of the past invented the system. Clearly there was an attempt to avoid, as opposed to creating confusion. Please feel free to fault this motive, or otherwise argue against compliance with the established convention.

[iNow]

[Sisyphus]

 

Know what? I'll leave it to the readership to contemplate for themselves how in the whole wide universe I could possibly have been any clearer. I have specified what I want and what I don't want. We all know which is available.

 

It is apparent that nobody but you seems to think your request is clear. You have seemingly specified what you want, but rejected apparently valid answers. You accuse everyone else of a conspiracy to deliberately misunderstand you. I think it would be reasonable to also consider the possibility that you're not asking a coherent question.

 

Also, you should answer my questions:

 

1) Is there any type of answer that would be satisfactory?

2) Is this a religious matter for you?

3) If the answer to 2 is yes, why are you here?

[toastywombel]

Lol did he get banned?

[insane_alien]

not yeat but if he continues the way he's going then he will be soon. probably after several suspensions

[A Tripolation]

I accept that allele frequencies change all the time. According to the introduction spiel, that means I accept evolution. Do I accept any of the garbage produced over the ages in order to dispute or undermine history? Not a bit.

 

Ummm...I'm quite unaware of the sociopolitical implications of evolution...aside from the theists who hate it because it somehow disproves God, when it seeks to do no such thing.

 

Am I inclined to take advice from people who misinterpret practically everything I write? Take a guess!

 

Try and actually address the links people are giving you' date=' then.

 

 

There are reasons English speakers of the past invented the system. Clearly there was an attempt to avoid, as opposed to creating confusion. Please feel free to fault this motive, or otherwise argue against compliance with the established convention.

 

Hmmm.... is it possible for the Godless to "waste time"? They allegedly have no freewill to do otherwise. I'll be pondering that one. Might be those people have no business employing the phrase.

 

Ok, you didn't specifically call them Godless. But it was such a strong implication that you might as well have. Such are the rules of comprehending English. I figured an omniscient being would know that. (See how I didn't call you by name, but you took it to say I was calling you omniscient? Semantics is a funny thing.)

 

And tell me, if God did have a guiding hand over how we evolved (I'm deist, so I don't believe he did), then why exactly are we so imperfect as a species? Why do we suffer so much? These are questions that easily falsify a PERFECT God constantly watching over us.

[Mr Skeptic]

Right then, let's follow the graph you shared:

Observation: Species have several similarities.

Observation: Species have several differences.

Observation: Individuals reproduce.

Observation: Mutations occur, which can cause differences.

Observation: Mutations can be passed on to offspring.

Observation: Some mutations are beneficial, some neutral, and some harmful.

Observation: Fitter individuals tend to have more surviving offspring.

 

From these observations you can get some hypotheses, though I shall deal only with the bolded one:

Hypothesis: Though the probability mutations providing a selective advantage is much lower than of one providing a selective disadvantage, they can nevertheless be more likely to accumulate because the probability of a mutation reaching fixation is dependent on its selective advantage and the population size. Link provides evidence for this and equations.

Hypothesis: Species have a common ancestor, and diverged from it via an accumulation of mutations.

 

Prediction: The differences between species must "look" like they are the result of mutation and selection. Specifically:

1) The observed differences must be able to be accounted for by known mutation mechanisms.

2) The amount of difference must be compatible with known mutation rates, allele frequency change rates, and the amount of time they were separated.

3) There must not be many more coincidences than expected.

 

Experiment: Many experiments were done confirming the above predictions. My favorite, a retrovirus that was inserted into one of Homo sapien's ancestors' DNA was reconstructed. The virus was able to cause an infection, showing that what they reconstructed really is a virus.

 

Of note is that the above experiment demonstrates that intelligent design is false or that said designer is a deceiver, since putting deactivated and mutated retroviruses in DNA is pretty much exactly opposite what an intelligent agent would do.

 

Oh, wait. This isn't what you wanted. What you wanted was to ignore things that go against your faith, wasn't it? Go on, ignore this and prove that you really do stick your head in the sand.

 

PS: If you give some indication that you are honestly looking for the truth, you will be treated with far more respect by myself and almost everyone. As it is, the appearance is that you just want to stir up trouble. My apologies if I am mistaken in this.

 

PPS: If I made a mistake above, feel free to correct it yourselves (just reference this sentence and copy/edit the above).

Edited October 20, 2009 by Mr Skeptic

[toastywombel]

Boom! That just happened!

[CTD]

Not to mention the rather obvious question mark that hangs over why exactly he thinks he will find this "Theory of Evolution" he's so desperately seeking on SFN, as opposed to in the peer-reviewed literature.

You assume one cannot search for something more than one place? Guess you never lost anything, huh?

[Moontanman]

CTD you don't want a theory you just want to raise hell

 

He wants to get to heaven toasty, he has to drag us down to get points with god.

 

"if you want to get to heaven, you have to raise a little hell!">

[CTD]

This is the whole crux of your problem.

 

As you state: "the term changes substantially depending on placement"

 

Yes. the placement is :Scientific Theory, not "Theory in general".

 

As such, Evolution is a scientific theory (and an extremely well tested one at that).

 

One of the requirements of a scientific theory is that it needs to be stated mathematically. This has been done for evolution. The mathematics used (and it is a valid use of the maths) is that of Algorithmic Maths.

 

Algorithms are like a computer program, but unlike normal computer programs they are not designed for a specific type of computer.

 

the concept goes back to before the days of computers to a guy called Allan Turing.

 

Turing came up with a (at the time) hypothetical machine we called a Turing Machine. This was a machine that read symbols off a "tape" and then translated them into another set of symbols.

 

The problem with this is that any machine designed to read the symbols and translate them into the correct symbols would only work for that set of symbols. If you change the symbols or the machine, then you would not get the correct output.

 

However, Turing when a step further and proposed a machine that not only read the symbols on a tape, but also read how to translate those symbols into the correct ouput. He showed that such a machine could be designed so that it would be able to perform the role of any other Turing Machine. It would be a Universal Turing Machine.

 

We have now created such Universal Turing Machines, we call them: Computers.

 

Now, at the same time as Allan Turing, there was a woman by the name of Ada Lovelace (she worked with Turing). Ada was very important as she was the first computer programmer. Between them they came up with the idea of a set of instructions, called an algorithm that the Universal Turing Machine followed.

 

As it was a machine, then any function it did would be able to be described mathematically.

 

So, using this it can be shown, that any set of instructions (algorithm) that a Universal Turing Machine can perform is valid mathematically. Translating one set of symbols into another is called a "Function".

 

Evolution is performed on computer all the time. Things from hull designs for boats to new medicines to aeroplanes to mobile phones to trafic flow all use Evolution to make them work.

 

What has also been shown is that DNA and living organisms act as a Universal Turing Machine (there are even computers that work using DNA).

 

Now, as any Universal Turing Machine can emulate any other Turing Machine (even Universal Turing Machines), this means that any "algorithm" that can be implemented on one Turing Machine can be implemented on any Universal Turing Machine.

 

So, if we can have the Algorithm for evolution run on a computer, then it has to be able to be run on the biological Universal Turing Machine that is living organisms.

 

But this, Evolution is not longer really a theory. It is so much more. It is a Law. It is an inviolate as the Law 1 + 1 = 2 and is as mathematically absolute.

 

So anyone claiming that Evolution can not occur has to also be claiming that the mathematical basis that it is described with must also be false, and that is based (ultimately) on that 1 + 1 = 2. So anyone denying Evolution is also denying that 1 + 1 = 2.

Now here is the crux of your problem: you need to read what is said before responding. Nothing except the unsubstantiated assertion "As such, Evolution is a scientific theory (and an extremely well tested one at that)." in your post has any bearing on the existence of a "theory of evolution".

 

I have already stated that I've heard tell of such a "theory". The point you somehow miss is that I'd like to see it.

 

I have also already stated that I believe allele frequencies change over time. Why do you behave as if I don't? And if you must spend time "preaching to the converted", please try to dredge up a convincing, relevant sermon.

[A Tripolation]

He wants to get to heaven toasty, he has to drag us down to get points with god.

 

*Crap guys!!! They're onto us!*

*Hastily extinguishes torch and throws down pitchfork*

 

I was so not trying to get an angry theist mob started to go burn down Moonatnman's house.

I was uh...uh...

 

 

No, but seriously. We're not that bad.

[Moontanman]

I live in a cave dude, fires don't worry me, cave bears are a problem though.....

[A Tripolation]

The point you somehow miss is that I'd like to see it.

 

 

Ohhhhhhhhh. Now I get it.

Listen good.

We can't SEE evolution occur. It takes time periods far longer than your life for evolution to "occur"...it takes tens of thousands of years, to result in new species.

 

Can you SEE gravity? Can you SEE Earth's magnetic field?

Going by your logic, you aren't allowed to believe in the Theory of Gravity or the Dynamo Theory.

 

Quick side note.

You want to see evolution happen fast?

Called viruses and bacteria. They evolve incredibly fast.

[toastywombel]

Ohhhhhhhhh. Now I get it.

Listen good.

We can't SEE evolution occur. It takes time periods far longer than your life for evolution to "occur"...it takes tens of thousands of years, to result in new species.

 

Can you SEE gravity? Can you SEE Earth's magnetic field?

Going by your logic, you aren't allowed to believe in the Theory of Gravity or the Dynamo Theory.

 

Quick side note.

You want to see evolution happen fast?

Called viruses and bacteria. They evolve incredibly fast.

 

You can see some aspects of adaption which over time leads to evolution. Example males and females now are on average taller and bigger than males and females from the 1950's. Also bacteria and viruses adapt to the medicines that we come out with, all the time. That is why we always need a new flu vaccine and if you do not finish your anti-biotics round, the bacteria will become immune to those anti-biotics. But your point is a good one. Just because we cannot see "it", does not mean "it" doesn't exist.