Evolution question.

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You don't know what is real science - that's one of your problems.

This vapid babbling won't help you. Especially after stumbling so bad over established science.

 

[Woodznutz]

Meanwhile I know this too. I did not know that you are an atheist.

What makes you think I'm an atheist?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What makes you think I'm an atheist?

Nothing. He is being a dishonest troll.

 

[Woodznutz]

I did not know that you are an atheist who thinks god is man made and women have nothing to say. I wasted my and your time by trying to tell you something what you perhaps never will like to understand. Eve was by the way not able to know what god said to Adam while she was inexistent. Also this story is no excuse for your extremely strange opinion about women as a kind of second class man. With Josef, the stepfather of god, (it also not exists a "book of Josef") unfortunatelly you seem not to be comparable.

See 1 Corinthians 11: 1-10.

 

[alang1216]

Uh... what? Do you think humans looked significantly different 500 years ago? They didn't.

Humans looked similar back then but technology has change immensely. Dental implants, joint replacements, organ transplants, etc., have begun to change us dramatically and that change will only accelerate.

Can you name a single one? I doubt it. They aren't my assumptions anyway. Genetic drift and gene flow are well described concepts. They are also facts.

You assume that we'll patiently wait for biology to change us. We have never waited and won't in the future. If we weren't strong enough to lift something we built technology to help, we didn't wait for natural selection. It is our technology and culture that is rapidly evolving, not our biology.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Humans looked similar back then but technology has change immensely. Dental implants, joint replacements, organ transplants, etc., have begun to change us dramatically and that change will only accelerate.


You assume that we'll patiently wait for biology to change us. We have never waited and won't in the future. If we weren't strong enough to lift something we built technology to help, we didn't wait for natural selection. It is our technology and culture that is rapidly evolving, not our biology.

It's a great point, but I'm not really assuming that. I am just saying that the species will change, naturally. But I would agree, we may change ourselves even more quickly.

 

[scruffy]

It's a great point, but I'm not really assuming that. I am just saying that the species will change, naturally. But I would agree, we may change ourselves even more quickly.

lol

The Covid vaccine takes nose jobs to a new level.

 

[scruffy]

If the cornerstone of evolution is the extinction of species with 'undesirable traits'

No. It isn't. We already talked about niches, and their importance. But look here - I have a minute and I'll show you something, because you seem like a smart person.

First of all - we hear over and over again, even from highly ignorant so-called scientists, about the impossibility of combinatorial evolution. Because they don't understand dynamics - which in all fairness is a complicated topic.

But the thing to realize, is evolution is biophysical, it has to do with molecules, more than species. I said earlier, the magic is in the underlying rules. So here is a concrete example, and once you understand it you'll see how it pertains directly to molecular (biophysical, combinatorial) evolution.
To understand what this paper is really telling us, we have to understand "catastrophe theory", which is part of the math around stochastic dynamics.
Rene Thom is the father of catastrophe theory. He showed there are only 7 catastrophes in 3 dimensions.

Catastrophe theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So here in this example, we are dealing with "stochastic" dynamics which means random generators, and specifically the randomness is in the electron clouds of two atoms, as they approach each other and prepare to bond. Each atom has an electron cloud which is "fuzzy", according to the quantum theory we don't know where the electron is at any given time. So what happens when two of these fuzzy electron clouds get near each other?

Answer: they interact.

If they only interact a little, then the respective atoms might "collide", and subsequently each go their merry way.
But if they interact a lot, a chemical BOND may form, and how exactly that happens, involves a catastrophe (in this case a "cusp" catastrophe, one of Thom's seven types). At some point, there is "enough" interaction so the system transitions into a different dynamic, and the electrons become shared between the two nuclei.

https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/cphc.202200343

Okay - so once understand this, we can observe the following behavior empirically:

The act of bonding, CHANGES the distributions underlying both generators.

What that means is, the electron now has a DIFFERENT probability of being in any given place. The act of chemical bonding has changed the probability with which subsequent bonds occur.

This is the behavior underlying self organizing systems. It happens for example, in the physical process of annealing, where local behavior is constrained by a global Hamiltonian. It also happens in neural networks, where the memory matrix forms "attractors" in the phase space, which individuate out of initial randomness.

And, when probabilities change, they can make reactions either more difficult or less difficult. One of the things that can happen is "positive feedback", a process that's usually involved in the creation of polymers (like amino acid chains). So for example, two dimers are more likely to bond than two monomers, that kind of thing.

The point being, the probabilities are not linear. They are demonstrably unlinear, non-linear. They undergo catastrophes at the moment of chemical bonding.

In this way, information can be concentrated, in seeming (local) violation of the Second Law. The local violation is made possible by non-local non-linear interactions that ultimately depend on the "fuzziness" of the electron cloud.

Every chemical bond changes the subsequent bonding probability.

 

[zaangalewa]

This vapid babbling won't help you. Especially after stumbling so bad over established science.

What you call "establisyhed science " is an ideology and not philosophy nor science. Otherwise you would be able top explain what you think about when you try to use your misunderstandings of the spiritual stories around Adam and Eve in comparison with your lack of knowledge about the theory of biological evolution.

 

[Michelle420]

It seems to me this thread is about not wanting to go to the dentist.

 

[Woodznutz]

No. It isn't. We already talked about niches, and their importance. But look here - I have a minute and I'll show you something, because you seem like a smart person.

First of all - we hear over and over again, even from highly ignorant so-called scientists, about the impossibility of combinatorial evolution. Because they don't understand dynamics - which in all fairness is a complicated topic.

But the thing to realize, is evolution is biophysical, it has to do with molecules, more than species. I said earlier, the magic is in the underlying rules. So here is a concrete example, and once you understand it you'll see how it pertains directly to molecular (biophysical, combinatorial) evolution.
To understand what this paper is really telling us, we have to understand "catastrophe theory", which is part of the math around stochastic dynamics.
Rene Thom is the father of catastrophe theory. He showed there are only 7 catastrophes in 3 dimensions.

Catastrophe theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So here in this example, we are dealing with "stochastic" dynamics which means random generators, and specifically the randomness is in the electron clouds of two atoms, as they approach each other and prepare to bond. Each atom has an electron cloud which is "fuzzy", according to the quantum theory we don't know where the electron is at any given time. So what happens when two of these fuzzy electron clouds get near each other?

Answer: they interact.

If they only interact a little, then the respective atoms might "collide", and subsequently each go their merry way.
But if they interact a lot, a chemical BOND may form, and how exactly that happens, involves a catastrophe (in this case a "cusp" catastrophe, one of Thom's seven types). At some point, there is "enough" interaction so the system transitions into a different dynamic, and the electrons become shared between the two nuclei.

https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/cphc.202200343

Okay - so once understand this, we can observe the following behavior empirically:

The act of bonding, CHANGES the distributions underlying both generators.

What that means is, the electron now has a DIFFERENT probability of being in any given place. The act of chemical bonding has changed the probability with which subsequent bonds occur.

This is the behavior underlying self organizing systems. It happens for example, in the physical process of annealing, where local behavior is constrained by a global Hamiltonian. It also happens in neural networks, where the memory matrix forms "attractors" in the phase space, which individuate out of initial randomness.

And, when probabilities change, they can make reactions either more difficult or less difficult. One of the things that can happen is "positive feedback", a process that's usually involved in the creation of polymers (like amino acid chains). So for example, two dimers are more likely to bond than two monomers, that kind of thing.

The point being, the probabilities are not linear. They are demonstrably unlinear, non-linear. They undergo catastrophes at the moment of chemical bonding.

In this way, information can be concentrated, in seeming (local) violation of the Second Law. The local violation is made possible by non-local non-linear interactions that ultimately depend on the "fuzziness" of the electron cloud.

Every chemical bond changes the subsequent bonding probability.

Interesting, but way over my head.

 

[Woodznutz]

It seems to me this thread is about not wanting to go to the dentist.

Actually, not needing to go to an endodontist or maxillofacial surgeon.

 

[scruffy]

Interesting, but way over my head.

Dynamics is a complicated topic. It covers things like control systems theory.
The general idea is, anything that's coupled has oscillatory solutions.

For example, let's say you have two populations of nerve cells, call them E and I (for excitatory and inhibitory), and let's say they're all wired together ("omniconnected"). Then we can write equations in the form

E(t+1) = aE(t) + b I(t)
I(t+1) = cE(t) + d I(t)

which are coupled differential equations.

The general solutions are

E = Ae^it + Be^-it and
I = Ce^it + De^-it

Where the matrix

(a, b)
(c, d)

is called the "weight matrix" or "coupling matrix".

If you plot all the possible solutions of E vs I, that graph is called the "phase space" of the system.

So, when you just pick a set of initial conditions and start the system at that point, there will be combination of exponential and periodic behavior. The oscillations (if any) can increase or decrease in magnitude over time, and a stable orbit is called a "cycle" and a stable orbit achieved from multiple starting states is called a "limit cycle". Brain waves, are limit cycles. They are periodic population behaviors that have a preferred frequency. In the case of alpha brain waves it's around 10 hz. If you start the system at a slightly lower or slightly higher frequency, the dynamic will move towards the attractor.

A perfect sin-cosine interaction looks like a circle in phase space. Most interactions don't. For example here is the limit cycle of a Van der Pol oscillator.

Limit cycle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

These are two dimensional coupled oscillators, when the number of dimensions is infinite we get a Hilbert space that can be resolved with infinite series (Fourier transforms).

That's dynamics in a nutshell.

Catastrophes are when the limit cycle "falls off a cliff", so to speak. The trajectory undergoes a bump, which according to Thom can take one of only seven shapes.

Catastrophes are sometimes but not always associated with chaotic behavior.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What you call "establisyhed science " is an ideology and not philosophy nor science.

100% False.

The mRNA and Y-chromosome studies are published, peer reviewed science.

You just don't know anything about them. Just go read up a little. It's information the layman can understand.

 

[zaangalewa]

100% False.

On what reason?

The mRNA and Y-chromosome studies are published, peer reviewed science.

The xrxklaksl grmtps and tsksltsks are also published in the Andromeda galaxy. What do you like to say with this two words which I perhaps knew a long time before your was born at all,

You just don't know anything about them. Just go read up a little. It's information the layman can understand.

The problem is: Your empty phrases contain no real information and you try to tear down everyone else to your very deep level of intentional ignorance with your delusion to know what you do not know.

 

[scruffy]

Interesting, but way over my head.

Do you understand why I'm showing you these things?

"Two dimensional coupled oscillators", and charge clouds?

Quantum theory tells us that those charge clouds are coupled, even when they're a gazillion miles away. In other words, the entire fabric of the universe is coupled to itself.

This is why non-local interactions matter.

Furthermore - the interaction between these distant electrons is not just static electricity, it is periodic and it has a preferred frequency. It is multi-dimensional because of "spin", which is where electrodynamics comes in.

This is a very different picture from a battery and a Leyden jar, isn't it?

Where this leads, for example, is the modern study of quantum tunneling in DNA and along microtubules. "Information transfer", which rides on top of the chemical and electrical structure.

Ultimately, at a very fundamental level, information is related to physical symmetries. So if you speak of design, that's where you have to look - the information. DNA polymers are many steps removed from information transfer in a living cell, they're merely a substrate, a backbone.

In electrodynamic theory, what supports distant interactions is what they call a "field". In a way, it's almost like an aether, you can conceive of it that way - but it's not that, it"s something different. Field interactions obey the dynamics of spacetime, they are in fact the very fabric of the universe.

For instance - when two negatively charged electrons interact, it's not like one creates a field that reaches out to the other. The electron field is pervasive, it's a property of the universe. What happens instead is more like, one of the electrons communicates its presence to the field, and the other electron "feels" the field, which in this case because of the symmetries results in a repulsive force.

THIS would be a robust and clever design.

If it could be shown that such a thing was designed.

 

[zaangalewa]

What makes you think I'm an atheist?

God's truths were revealed to and recorded by men. Jesus was a man. Mary didn't teach us anything
Woodnutz

 

[Woodznutz]

God's truths were revealed to and recorded by men. Jesus was a man. Mary didn't teach us anything
Woodnutz

Why do those (true) statements make me an atheist?

 

[Woodznutz]

Do you understand why I'm showing you these things?

"Two dimensional coupled oscillators", and charge clouds?

Quantum theory tells us that those charge clouds are coupled, even when they're a gazillion miles away. In other words, the entire fabric of the universe is coupled to itself.

This is why non-local interactions matter.

Furthermore - the interaction between these distant electrons is not just static electricity, it is periodic and it has a preferred frequency. It is multi-dimensional because of "spin", which is where electrodynamics comes in.

This is a very different picture from a battery and a Leyden jar, isn't it?

Where this leads, for example, is the modern study of quantum tunneling in DNA and along microtubules. "Information transfer", which rides on top of the chemical and electrical structure.

Ultimately, at a very fundamental level, information is related to physical symmetries. So if you speak of design, that's where you have to look - the information. DNA polymers are many steps removed from information transfer in a living cell, they're merely a substrate, a backbone.

In electrodynamic theory, what supports distant interactions is what they call a "field". In a way, it's almost like an aether, you can conceive of it that way - but it's not that, it"s something different. Field interactions obey the dynamics of spacetime, they are in fact the very fabric of the universe.

For instance - when two negatively charged electrons interact, it's not like one creates a field that reaches out to the other. The electron field is pervasive, it's a property of the universe. What happens instead is more like, one of the electrons communicates its presence to the field, and the other electron "feels" the field, which in this case because of the symmetries results in a repulsive force.

THIS would be a robust and clever design.

If it could be shown that such a thing was designed.

That just demonstrates that God's design has lots of moving parts. The final product is clearly the result of intentional design.

 

[scruffy]

That just demonstrates that God's design has lots of moving parts. The final product is clearly the result of intentional design.

That's saying something different than "evolution is wrong".