Inquiring Confirmation For Youtube Comments Invovling Mathematical Miss-use

[S0PH1ST3S]

I found a person using mathematical formulas as a way of bullying through his argument, but as you can see he posts them ambiguisly without defining. Please help? Is he missinterpeting formulas?

 

 

 

The iconoclast

Yesterday 12:40 PM

+George Forsyth sir fossil records violates the mathematical formulation of the evolutionary process. I guess that is too much for you to grasp. i wild suggest you visit your EPSILON DELTA DEFINITION of continuity you learned in your first year in college. you can't talk yourself out of this. there are no intermediate fossils. time is a continuum

The iconoclast

3:04 AM

+Zgg Why don't you impress me by stating and proving formally atleast three claims. that form the basis for any radioactive dating technique.

As for speaking in tongues, the spiritually dead like you interpreted that as drunkenness so it will be useless for me to waste time explaining to someone struggling with elementary euclidean geometry how the green function of the d' Alembertian is but a Dirac delta distribution in space-time.

when i mentioned Youtube i mean you should watch videos and see for yourself how God works through his people. i fear very much that you will not see even if you were shown anything for all atheists are living in denial.

However only those who have eyes can see.

I am aware these are physics related as well but I wanted to hear it from mathematicians since you are the masters of formulas.

Also last statement I want checked is

The iconoclast

12:38 PM

+George Forsyth Just show me sir. it baffles me that evolution is a continuous function of time yet the function has values only at the end point of any closed interval of length say two billions years while we struggle to find any value in between. A continuous function of time will have many intermediate values than boundary values but that is not what is observed

The mathematical model of evolution is very inconsistent with the formal definition continuity of functions.

 

 

 

 

Thanks.

 

[chadn737]

Yeah, he's full of bullshit and making stuff up.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

One thread per topic, please. The duplicates in other sections have been removed.

[swansont]

One obvious issue is that while the function might be continuous, the data aren't - those are physical and discrete. It's a sampling issue, and while that's related to math, it's not a failure of it.

[chadn737]

What he is saying really makes no sense. For instance, what is the "mathematical formulation of the evolutionary process"?

[S0PH1ST3S]

I really don't know guys, I need concise explanations on what these are and how they are attributed/applied. This guy is contributing to the dis-beleif in evolution. That wouldn't be the main problem except he uses physics, theology, and evolution in a horrible woo-woo fashion.

One obvious issue is that while the function might be continuous, the data aren't - those are physical and discrete. It's a sampling issue, and while that's related to math, it's not a failure of it.

Please explain sir?

 

Yeah, he's full of bullshit and making stuff up.

Please explain! I value any contribution!

One obvious issue is that while the function might be continuous, the data aren't - those are physical and discrete. It's a sampling issue, and while that's related to math, it's not a failure of it.

I seam to be an idiot, would you by chance elaborate? And I thought we were leaning toward time as discrete and not continuous?

http://www.researchgate.net/post/On_the_central_inconsistency_in_physics_between_the_old_continuous_formalism_and_discovered_in_the_last_century_ubiquitous_discreteness_in_Nature

[swansont]

Please explain sir?

 

It's like if you were doing an experiment where you wanted to measure g by dropping something. The function is continuous (y =t^2) but you aren't going to get continuous data. No reasonable person would expect that - it's not a valid objection. The function has an infinite number of points. Nobody in any science experiment gets an infinite amount of data (it only seems that way sometimes)

 

The data and the function are not the same thing.

[chadn737]

Evolution deals with life. Which means it occurs in the context of populations of individuals. Individual organisms, individual cells, individual DNA molecules. Throughout evolutionary time there has been a finite number of all of these and each one is a discrete individual data point, not continuous.

 

That being said, its really hard for me to be specific about nonsense. How the heck can somebody counter a nonsensical claim about the "mathematical formulation of the evolutionary process" with specifics? While different aspects of evolution can be modeled mathematically, there is no singular "mathematical formulation" of it. How can I be specific about something that doesn't even make sense? You can't. So challenge him to describe in detail what the mathematical formulation of evolution is, if he can't or refuses to do so, then call him out on it. Openly state that he is making stuff up if he is unable to present specifics on it or at least link to what this magical mathematical formulation is.

[S0PH1ST3S]

I know this out of scientific context, and maybe it is just because I'm young...But I find this peer-checking completly and utterly beautiful.

 

 

green function of the d' Alembertian is but a Dirac delta distribution in space-time ?

Edited July 29, 2014 by S0PH1ST3S

[swansont]

And I thought we were leaning toward time as discrete and not continuous?

 

I think that's under debate and well beyond the scope of the current discussion. I don't think an argument of time possibly not being continuous is the best argument against blatant nonsense.

[S0PH1ST3S]

Would anyone have references I can research upon my own time as to not take up any of yours?

I think that's under debate and well beyond the scope of the current discussion. I don't think an argument of time possibly not being continuous is the best argument against blatant nonsense.

 

This is one of the strong points he continuously argues. I was merely confused and thought it was still up for debate, yet leaning towards discrete. However your post

 

It's like if you were doing an experiment where you wanted to measure g by dropping something. The function is continuous (y =t^2) but you aren't going to get continuous data. No reasonable person would expect that - it's not a valid objection. The function has an infinite number of points. Nobody in any science experiment gets an infinite amount of data (it only seems that way sometimes)

The data and the function are not the same thing.

 

Was extremly helpfull.

Evolution deals with life. Which means it occurs in the context of populations of individuals. Individual organisms, individual cells, individual DNA molecules. Throughout evolutionary time there has been a finite number of all of these and each one is a discrete individual data point, not continuous.

 

That being said, its really hard for me to be specific about nonsense. How the heck can somebody counter a nonsensical claim about the "mathematical formulation of the evolutionary process" with specifics? While different aspects of evolution can be modeled mathematically, there is no singular "mathematical formulation" of it. How can I be specific about something that doesn't even make sense? You can't. So challenge him to describe in detail what the mathematical formulation of evolution is, if he can't or refuses to do so, then call him out on it. Openly state that he is making stuff up if he is unable to present specifics on it or at least link to what this magical mathematical formulation is.

Thank you.

Edited July 29, 2014 by S0PH1ST3S

[ajb]

green function of the d' Alembertian is but a Dirac delta distribution in space-time ?

Well okay, but we would say Green's function and it is not simply a Dirac delta distribution. Anyway, in this context it is just an attempt to suggest intellectual superiority. Same as the epsilon detla proofs I would say. They have little to actually do with fossils and evolution. I would say it is a form of bullying and distraction.

[S0PH1ST3S]

Yeah, I read all night and you are right about Green's Function. Also I can't find what he is relating the epsilon too.

[Phi for All]

I would say it is a form of bullying and distraction.

 

Totally agree. Arguing against evolution like this is straight out of the creationist's handbook. "Chapter Two: Dazzling Brilliance Failed? Try Baffling Bullshit!".

 

[chadn737]

I am still not certain if "baffling bullshit" is honest in that the people who spout it actually believe they know what they are talking about or if they are aware that they are simply making stuff up.

 

Regardless, I find that it is very revealing to challenge the baffling bullshitter to explain and backup their arguments with substance. It has the advantage of exposing them.

Edited July 30, 2014 by chadn737

[S0PH1ST3S]

It does. Oddly enough he started not responding after I was able to get two others to ask the same questions. (( Also caught this same person claiming to be a Physicist after looking back in his comments yesterday)

But it is curious...at some level you have to know that you are twisting random knowledge to fit personal criteria...and then to use it as a way to bully through a dialectic?

How would one take himself seriously academic wise? I mean this thin line of misunderstanding is prevalent everywhere. It makes no sense to be self serving, at least to me.

Thank you guys for helping me out.

Please feel free to define any of the stuff he has stated if you have the knowledge.

[Phi for All]

It does. Oddly enough he started not responding after I was able to get two others to ask the same questions. (( Also caught this same person claiming to be a Physicist after looking back in his comments yesterday)

 

But it is curious...at some level you have to know that you are twisting random knowledge to fit personal criteria...and then to use it as a way to bully through a dialectic?

 

How would one take himself seriously academic wise? I mean this thin line of misunderstanding is prevalent everywhere. It makes no sense to be self serving, at least to me.

 

Thank you guys for helping me out.

 

Please feel free to define any of the stuff he has stated if you have the knowledge.

 

A lot of the stuff creationists say makes sense on a certain level, if you don't have the education to help you think critically. "If we came from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?" seems intuitive if you don't really understand how evolution works.

 

Sometimes, they're just parroting what they've heard. When they're challenged, they have nothing to back up the statement, probably because you're the first person to question their mighty intellect.

 

When you've already made up your mind about something, that's when it's easiest to fool you with shallow words. Creationists don't need much justification to believe anything that denies evolution.

[overtone]

Reproduction, and thus evolution, is not a continuous process.

 

Fossilization, and thus the sequence of events by which "intermediary forms" are added to the universe from which samples of them are drawn, is not a continuous process.

 

Discovery of fossils, the sampling process by which "intermediary forms" are recorded, is not continuous.

 

 

 

evolution is a continuous function of time yet the function has values only at the end point of any closed interval of length say two billions years while we struggle to find any value in between. A continuous function of time will have many intermediate values than boundary values but that is not what is observed

 

If the guy there is having trouble matching some math model to some physical reality, he should work on his modeling skills. The first rule is this: when correct mathematical reasoning leads to conflict with observed reality, it's the assumptions behind the mathematical reasoning that have been disproven - not the physical reality. A proof teaches us where to concentrate our doubts. My first candidate for reconsideration would be "evolution is a continuous function of time". A model based on that is likely to go haywire at some point, I think.

 

Generally, btw, one can get a handle on any creationist argument at the point where they type "evolution is" or "evolutionists say" or "according to evolution" or anything similar. If they knew what evolutionary theory was, or says, or requires, they wouldn't be creationists in the first place.

Edited July 31, 2014 by overtone

[S0PH1ST3S]

It's like if you were doing an experiment where you wanted to measure g by dropping something. The function is continuous (y =t^2) but you aren't going to get continuous data. No reasonable person would expect that - it's not a valid objection. The function has an infinite number of points. Nobody in any science experiment gets an infinite amount of data (it only seems that way sometimes)

 

The data and the function are not the same thing.

He replied with this.

 

 

 

 

when atheist try to explain the lack of intermediate forms in the evolutionary profile of man from African apes, they make the bold claim that the changes from ape to man happened over billions of years due to the ''microness'' of the changes per year. Now my good friend as you progress into time, the genetic information increases along the evolution profile. so if you take a snapshot of time axis from the time T0, the African ape popped up in the profile to the time Tn when the first human popped up, the genetic information between these time boundaries increases and the rate per time ( gradient) increases or decreases depending on how fast the ''mythical'' mutations responsible for speciation change are occuring. there my friend you have the mathematical model of a continuous monotonic function of time. the none existence intermediate genetic information violates its continuity.

 

You have have just received your first lesson in mathematical modelling. Go into this formulation and formally disprove me and i thank you and go away less stupid than before.

 

thk you very much for the typo correction above (this keyboard is dealing with me) . it should read the Green's function for the d alembertian is simply( simply is used to infer that it reduces to something less complex and intuitive) . i used this to communicate parabolically that he who is struggling with fundamentals cannot understand advanced stuff in a particular field of study.

 

as for your explanations on functions above, you sounded like a new convert friend of mine who before receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit tried to speak in tongues. that is utter rubbish and I suggest you edit or remove it altogether in order not to lose face before some math or physics friends of yours who may stumble on this comment thread.

 

Go to a library, borrow a text book of elementary calculus ( I recommend to you books my favourite author , Prof. TM Apostol ) and acquaint yourself with a formal theory of functions or go to MIT opencourseware and get free lectures in first year college calculus.

.

 

The iconoclast

12:07 PM

 

+George Forsyth what you explained was adaptation and adaptation does not lead to speciation. grass eating mouse becoming meat eating mouse is not evolution but adaptation. that is still a mouse. 

Edited July 31, 2014 by S0PH1ST3S

[chadn737]

The data is still discrete. In population and evolutionary genetics, typically you model evolution in terms of generations. Generations are discrete units. If you go from T0 to T1, there is not point intermediate point in the data because the data is discontinuous, being discrete generations. Mutations are also discrete. The DNA molecule is not a "continuous", but consists of discrete bases.

 

Furthermore, demand that he define information in terms that can actually be measured. The term "information" in the context of genetics is poorly defined and is nothing more than handwaving when coming from creationists. They speak abstractly about it as if they have actually quantified it in some means, but they have done no such thing. One does not model evolution in terms of increases or decreases in "information" over time in a continuous manner. We typically model it based on the change in frequency of alleles over generations.

 

This guy is bullshitting you.

Edited July 31, 2014 by chadn737

[overtone]

when atheist try to explain the lack of intermediate forms in the evolutionary profile of man from African apes, they make the bold claim that the changes from ape to man happened over billions of years due to the ''microness'' of the changes per year.

As noted above, you can usually dismiss a creationist's argument at the point where they tell you what "evolutionists" or "evolution" or the like - here the term is "atheist" - say: they are almost always wrong. If they understood evolutionary theory, they probably wouldn't be creationists in the first place.

 

In this case, the claim that standard evolutionary theory says that humans evolved from African apes over billions of years is incorrect, as is the presentation of the term "microness" and the notion that the changes happened "per year". Your creationist there is badly confused and completely wrong about the "bold claim" he says other people are making.

 

He;s wrong here, also:

 

there my friend you have the mathematical model of a continuous monotonic function of time.

If he chooses to model evolutionary change as a continuous mathematical function of time, and his model doesn't work, he has no one to blame but himself. If his model fails to predict the observed density of intermediate forms in the fossil record, then he should go back and fix his model - or discard it. One place to look for problems might be the mismatch between the mathematical nature of "continuity" and the discontinuous nature of biological reproduction and death.

Edited July 31, 2014 by overtone