Split from Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology

[Strange]

I gave a second though to that comparison between living and inert bodies while awaking this morning.

 

I wasn't comparing living and inert bodies. Were you? Are these random leaps from one topic to another an attempt to prove your point.

 

We know that evolution of species come from mutations being selected by environment, because we know that environment has more effect on species than the inverse

 

Not necessarily true. Humans are currently have a far greater impact on the environment than it is on our evolution. And the entire modern environment (all that toxic oxygen, for example) is the result of the effects of living organisms.

 

But how could we apply the example of a genetic change to an atom? Are atoms affected the same way species are if drastic changes happen in their environment?

 

No. Atoms don't evolve.

 

The Big-bang theory is about how atoms are born and how they have evolved

 

Not really.

 

Simply because they are part of the same homogeneous body.

 

But they won't all change simultaneously.

 

Its a psychological force, of course, which opposes the psychological resistance we offer to change.

 

You seem to be constantly mixing metaphors and reality. There is no such thing as a psychological force. And if there were, there is no real reason it would be resisted. It has already been explained to you, with many examples as evidence, that people are not as resistant to change as you claim.

 

What about chance then? Why chance would not be able to produce our psychological changes?

 

I have no idea. If reason won't change your mind, maybe some random event will.

[Le Repteux]

I wasn't comparing living and inert bodies. Were you?

Yes I was, cause I think that my idea about change applies to any kind of evolution, even to motion.

 

Are these random leaps from one topic to another an attempt to prove your point.

For the same reason as above, I suppose so, but I can't show you how because you don't listen to me!

 

Not necessarily true. Humans currently have a far greater impact on the environment than environment has on our evolution. And the entire modern environment (all that toxic oxygen, for example) is the result of the effects of living organisms.

I knew that you could answer that, but I took a chance that you would know that I knew. Of course we change our environment, we can even change our genes if we want to, nevertheless, our environment is actually telling us who is the boss, as for our genes, I bet that the principle of mutation/selection is not ready to give up, and that of diversity either.

 

No. Atoms don't evolve.

They don't seem to, but they can change direction and speed, which should depend on some sort of random process if my idea about change is correct.

 

Not really.

OK, Big-bang is about how the universe was born and has evolved, thus about how atoms were born and have evolved. Correct?

 

But they won't all change simultaneously.

I said "almost" simultaneously, because I know very well that interactions are not instantaneous.

 

You seem to be constantly mixing metaphors and reality. There is no such thing as a psychological force. And if there were, there is no real reason it would be resisted. It has already been explained to you, with many examples as evidence, that people are not as resistant to change as you claim.

Our discussion here is a proof for both of us that you are wrong, because we both visibly resist to change. This is a fact, not just an idea. Wars depend on that fact. You could at least admit that I am right on that one, but things being as they are, I bet you will resit to do so. Resisting to a change produces a real feeling: it hurts our ego a bit and forces us to react. Can you feel it?

 

I have no idea. If reason won't change your mind, maybe some random event will.

Permit that I stick my foot in the door. You are right on this one, I agree that circumstances may change my mind. Can you do so?

Edited October 30, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Phi for All]

Yes I was, cause I think that my idea about change applies to any kind of evolution, even to motion.

 

But they don't, and people have shown you why. You ignore them and insist on using the word "evolve" in ways that are wrong when applied to evolution.

 

Torturing definitions to fit an idea is one of the biggest reasons why threads like this circle the toilet for 3 pages without explaining anything. It's lazy, inefficient, and definitely not science. Please, please, go back to school. You're obviously smart, but you don't have the proper framework to discuss ideas at this level. Mainstream education gives you a fine brush and a precise canvas to paint on so you can express yourself most accurately, instead of throwing buckets at every wall you see and expecting people to "get" you.

[Le Repteux]

Phi, if you want to discuss, then discuss, if you want to close the thread, then close it, but, PLEASE, don't tell me when, why, what or how to think! You are not in my head and you thus just don't know what I am aiming at. My ideas are about facts, and I stick to them. To me, resisting to change is a fact, and if you think it is not, then say why without menacing me and we shall discuss your ideas about it. Moreover, this thread has been put in the "Speculations" forum, and speculations are about uncertainties, which, unfortunately, are not considered as science on scientific forums. So if you don't want uncertainties on SF, then I think that you should seriously consider closing the Speculations forum, otherwise, please let those who like to speculate do so. Now, if your "please" did not contain any menace, then forget about what I just said, but try to use friendly words when you talk to me. What did you say? Policemen don't have to be friendly? Of course not, but they don't participate to discussions with their police hats either.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Le Repteux

[CharonY]

Sorry, but then it is kind of pointless posting what is in your head, if you have no intention of communicating with others. Communication requires that people agree on certain meanings to convey information. You require people to think like you do and for some reasons agree with you.

What you try is not communication, instead you are shouting into the echo chamber of your mind.

[Strange]

Yes I was, cause I think that my idea about change applies to any kind of evolution, even to motion.

For the same reason as above, I suppose so, but I can't show you how because you don't listen to me!

 

OK. You can kill two birds with one stone here: show you are right and change my mind. What will change my mind is evidence (there is plenty of evidence to show that this is the case). So all you need to do is produce some evidence in place of repeated assertions. Objective, preferably quantitative, evidence for any one of your claims: atoms evolve, Newtons laws are random, whatever.

 

They don't seem to, but they can change direction and speed

 

Which is NOT evolution.

 

which should depend on some sort of random process if my idea about change is correct.

 

As you have provided no evidence to suggest your idea is correct, it can be ignored.

 

OK, Big-bang is about how the universe was born and has evolved, thus about how atoms were born and have evolved. Correct?

 

Atoms don't evolve.

 

Also, that is a fairly useless generalization. On that basis, the big bang is also about how to cook the perfect Black Forest gateaux. But no, it is actually about the way the universe has developed from an early hot dense state. It relies on our knowledge of nuclear processes (among other things) to provide supporting evidence. but it doesn't in itself explain that.

 

Our discussion here is a proof for both of us that you are wrong, because we both visibly resist to change.

 

Unfortunately, one of us is suffering under the considerable disadvantage of being wrong. (That would be you.)

[swansont]

 

Good comment! You are right, there is a big difference between change occurring to a specie and change occurring to a body: the first one is unpredictable while, up to a certain point, the other one is. Let me paint a picture of the different evolutions.The differences in evolutionary processes reside in the duration of the trial and error process compared to the duration of the change in the environment, and on the way the trials are made and selected. For large species, there is numerous trials occurring simultaneously, and their duration is counted in years. For our mind, there is only one essay at a time, and its duration is counted in days.

 

For a macroscopic body, each of its atoms have to change almost simultaneously, and the duration of these changes is counted in femtoseconds. For only one atom, who knows what has to change, but the duration of this change must be incredibly fast. Quantum data show that this change is unpredictable for one atom, but they also show that it becomes predictable in the long run or if numerous trials are made, which explains macroscopic behavior since numerous atoms are involved. These surprising data have brought scientists ideas to their limit, and created controversies between them. If my theory about motion is a bit right, it might help us to better understand quantum effects.

OK then, let me reverse the example: lets admit that you are presently applying a force on my ideas, but that they will not change just because you want them to, so, since we both know that our ideas change with time, what is going to change mine: only time? Time is a concept, it cannot be only time.

 

!

Moderator Note

The topic here is biological evolution, under which the physics of forces, etc. does not fall. Discussion needs to remain on topic.

 

Phi, if you want to discuss, then discuss, if you want to close the thread, then close it, but, PLEASE, don't tell me when, why, what or how to think! You are not in my head and you thus just don't know what I am aiming at. My ideas are about facts, and I stick to them. To me, resisting to change is a fact, and if you think it is not, then say why without menacing me and we shall discuss your ideas about it. Moreover, this thread has been put in the "Speculations" forum, and speculations are about uncertainties, which, unfortunately, are not considered as science on scientific forums. So if you don't want uncertainties on SF, then I think that you should seriously consider closing the Speculations forum, otherwise, please let those who like to speculate do so. Now, if your "please" did not contain any menace, then forget about what I just said, but try to use friendly words when you talk to me. What did you say? Policemen don't have to be friendly? Of course not, but they don't participate to discussions with their police hats either.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

There's plenty of evidence that your ideas are not consistent with facts, and people are free (and encouraged) to detail this. Ignoring such feedback is soapboxing, which is against the rules.

 

Further, Speculations on this forum is not all-encompassing. The speculations discussions we are willing to entertain are limited in scope, and we have rules outlining that scope. Someone who has been here almost 4 months and 250 posts, who has been warned informally and formally, doesn't have the luxury of proclaiming ignorance of the rules or any expectation of leniency that might engender.

 

So it really boils down to this: follow the rules, or get an all-expenses paid vacation away from this site; duration to be negotiated amongst the staff.

 

Don't drag this further off-topic by responding in the thread

 

[Le Repteux]

Sorry, but then it is kind of pointless posting what is in your head, if you have no intention of communicating with others. Communication requires that people agree on certain meanings to convey information. You require people to think like you do and for some reasons agree with you.

What you try is not communication, instead you are shouting into the echo chamber of your mind.

No need to snatch moderators job Charon, they don't need to, but I think that I will help them nevertheless:

 

THREAD CLOSED (at least for me)

Edited October 30, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Phi for All]

Phi, if you want to discuss, then discuss, if you want to close the thread, then close it, but, PLEASE, don't tell me when, why, what or how to think!

This is a Red Herring argument, since I have no control over what you think, and merely commented on the way you attempt to explain your ideas to others. When I moderate, I do so in in green or red modnotes to enforce rules.

 

You are not in my head and you thus just don't know what I am aiming at.

That's my point. I see you trying to get those ideas out of your head and in front of others, but your approach is sloppy and most of the replies to your posts are asking for clarification or trying to correct some bit of science you have wrong, demonstrably wrong. Go ahead and look back at the thread.

 

My ideas are about facts, and I stick to them. To me, resisting to change is a fact, and if you think it is not, then say why without menacing me and we shall discuss your ideas about it.

Change needs to be desirable, and in science that means your explanation has to be better than what the best current explanation is. That's what you need to show us, and you aren't.

 

Moreover, this thread has been put in the "Speculations" forum, and speculations are about uncertainties, which, unfortunately, are not considered as science on scientific forums.

You've got that ass-backwards. It's not the speculative uncertainty that's unscientific, it's your presentation of it, as everyone has been trying to tell you. Stop making this about suppression, or fear of change, or heavy-handed moderation. It's about the rigor-free approach you have to definitions you're mis-using to try and get the thoughts out of your head. That's why you get so much pushback.

 

So if you don't want uncertainties on SF, then I think that you should seriously consider closing the Speculations forum, otherwise, please let those who like to speculate do so. Now, if your "please" did not contain any menace, then forget about what I just said, but try to use friendly words when you talk to me. What did you say? Policemen don't have to be friendly? Of course not, but they don't participate to discussions with their police hats either.

It's my hope that you might see it as a friendly gesture to help you develop a way to make your explanations clearer to those you discuss them with. I don't have anything more to give you at this point, since I don't have the patience or time others have shown you to sort through what you mean and don't mean, what you're talking about when you mention evolution and evolve inappropriately in the same sentence. Science has precise meanings for words, and scientists try to use those meanings when they aren't modeling their concepts mathematically.

 

If you don't use the math, you really should at least use accepted terminology correctly, don't you think?

[Le Repteux]

Sorry Phy, but I cant discuss with Damocles around. Thread closed for me until that guy gets a full paid vacation away from Speculations forum, duration undetermined.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Phi for All]

Sorry Phy, but I cant discuss with Damocles around. Thread closed for me until that guy gets a full paid vacation away from Speculations forum, duration undetermined.

 

It's not persecution, the way you portray it in the above post, that's a strawman argument. It's enforcing the rules you agreed to when you joined, and when you wanted to post your non-mainstream ideas. It's not a punishment, it's the format that everyone else is using. So in essence, what you're arguing here is like saying, "I know I asked you all to sit at my table and play cards, but I don't seem to be able to win, especially when the dealer keeps enforcing the rules. Can we just get rid of him so I can enjoy playing cards??"

 

 

 

Over the years, we've gotten to know quite a bit about what makes productive scientific discussion, and our rules have been adapted to maximize what we've learned. And we've learned that, while it may make you feel good to just blurt out whatever's in your head, it annoys the hell out of people who are taking the time to look for the merit in your ideas. That's what blogs are for, not discussion forums.

 

We discuss to learn, and to learn we need to have a format people trust to be productive. When people have to spend the majority of their time correcting and clarifying what you mean by what you're saying, they lose interest or don't participate at all, and the discussion fails. And I hate it when they fail and the person with the idea blames it on stubborn scientists, too set in their ways, can't stand change, won't listen to new ideas, censorship blah blah blah, anything but what the rest of the people in the conversation are really complaining about; a lack of supportive evidence for assertions made without regard to accepted terminology and methods.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Sorry Phy, but I cant discuss with Damocles around. Thread closed for me until that guy gets a full paid vacation away from Speculations forum, duration undetermined.

Surely Damocles is the one under threat?

For the analogy to work you are Damocles. A little reading of the story might be useful - the modern slant if often that if you wish for yourself in a position of power and prestige then you must also accept the constant danger of a wrong decision and the inherent and permanent perils of command; or sometimes more simply a feeling of impending doom.

The original differs in that it contains a judgement on the sort of person who is always fearful and irresolute - that this sort of man will remain thus whatever position of life he finds himself in, that if you lack virtue then most else in life is unimportant. Damocles is a toadying courtier, scared of his own shadow, and obsequious to all those in power - even when placed on the king's throne he remains fearful, unable to command himself let alone others, and a bit of a wretch.

The sword is placed in that position by the tyrant Dionysius - and has fallen.