Mathematics Can't Prove Evolution

[itfitzme]

1. So many authors of 'dime novels' rely on the concept "Cherchez la femme."
"Cherchez la femme is a French phrase which literally means "look for the woman." The implication is that a man behaves out of character or in an otherwise inexplicable manner because he is trying to cover up an affair with a woman, or trying to impress or gain favor with a woman."
Cherchez la femme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

" ...out of character..." or behavior "...otherwise inexplicable..." based on that mysterious emotion.....

2. Mathematicians.....often the same. You might recall Swift's satire, Gulliver's Travels,"
"... in the common actions and behavior of life, I have not seen a more clumsy, awkward, and unhandy people, nor so slow and perplexed in their conceptions upon all other subjects, except those of mathematics and music. They are very bad reasoners, and vehemently given to opposition, unless when they happen to be of the right opinion, which is seldom their case. Imagination, fancy, and invention, they are wholly strangers to, nor have any words in their language by which those ideas can be expressed; the whole compass of their thoughts and mind being shut up within the two forementioned sciences."






3. Swift makes a point that, even today, is largely true: It seems that for those thoroughly immersed in the science of mathematics, including the real world in their calculations, takes a distant second place.





4. What happens, then, when sciences such as physics, cosmology, chemistry, or biology, use the calculations and other mathematical constructions in their experiments/conclusions? Well, if the precursor is wrong in its assumptions....so will be said conclusions.
True?

5. Cut to the chase: in pure mathematics we can create any reality by starting with seemingly arbitrary assumptions. The mathematician gets to define terms, and proceed to theorems, lemmas, or corollaries....and that will remain mathematical reality.

a. That's different from physics, for example, where a result believed to be true can always be replaced later if experimentation that better reflects reality. Einstein's general theory of relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics in understanding gravitation (but...when speeds are less than 'c' or masses less than that of the sun, Newton still works pretty well...except, maybe for the shift in Mercury's perihelion.....).




6. OK....here is a major difference: physics tries to insert reality into its theories via experimentation, while math is content with reliance on reasoning.
A theory can be built around mathematical equations in physics, but it is then used to make testable predictions. And that becomes 'proven' until such time as another physicist comes up with a better model...

7. In "The Road to Reality," Roger Penrose speaks of three distinct worlds that interact: the physical universe, the human mind, and mathematics. Think in terms of a Venn Diagram....
....but the overlap is well below complete.





a. So....if physics irons out the wrinkles by experimentation....one would be inclined to accept the conmputations.

Cosmology, theories of evolution, have no such compensation.

Therefore, mathematics can't be used to prove evolution.

You obviously haven't studied physics or read Einstein's original works. It is all founded in the language of mathematics. It is because physics discusses everything in terms of physical measurements. Everything is derived, mathematically from the base units such as kilograms, meters, and seconds. Newton invented, along with borrowing from others, calculus in order to describe motion, force, and gravity. Maxwell's equations are a purely mathematical description of electrodynamics and provedmthe speed of light is independent contant undrer conditions. Eintstein's "On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies", also known as special relativity, is a purely mathematical proof.

The greatest achievmemts in physics have been solve by measuring in experiment., representing in formula, then reconciling these in mathematics.

Philosophising, which is what you do, is attempting to use words as if they were measurements of nature and attempt to create formulas by stringing them together as sentences. It then attempts to reveal relationships by manipulating sentences to create prefered meaning from the vauge and generalized feelings that the words imply.

This practice was abandoned thousands of years ago as having any relevance.

The joke goes, "What is the difference between a mathematician and a philospher?"

Answer, "The mathematician needs a pencil, paper, and a wastebasket. The philosopher only needs the pencil and paper."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A key to life is water and a climate that keeps it in liquid form. Can't have soup without water

Why is that? Liquid methane should work just as well. In fact ANY liquid should work

Frankie boy, do you have any idea of how special water is? If we find life on the Jovian planets, it will more than likely be life not as we know it. And that would not surprise me in the least.

As for your statements concerning 'just any liquid', that merely demonstrates that you have zero understanding of chemistry. But we already knew that.

Oh Rlry?

What about methane makes it so helpless in organic chemsitry

 

[itfitzme]

Oh, side note: Newtons laws of conservation of energy amd momentum are a consequence of the mathematical relationships that describe the collisions, of moving bodies, before and aftermtue collision. Energy is force times distance and yields conservation on energy because the distance is shared between the bodies is same as if the forces. Force times distance equals work which is energy. Conservation of momentum is a conseuence of both bodies sharing the same time interval as they do the force. Impulse is force times time.

 

[itfitzme]

Why is that? Liquid methane should work just as well. In fact ANY liquid should work

Frankie boy, do you have any idea of how special water is? If we find life on the Jovian planets, it will more than likely be life not as we know it. And that would not surprise me in the least.

As for your statements concerning 'just any liquid', that merely demonstrates that you have zero understanding of chemistry. But we already knew that.

Oh Rlry?

What about methane makes it so helpless in organic chemsitry

It is electrically bi polar. Among thrpe consequenses of this is that it becomes less dense in solid form. The ice floats on the surface of the pond leaving the living organisms happy at the bottom of the pond.

That is one thing.

I don't know if methane has the same property or not.

 

[itfitzme]

There is no fossil record that documents the progression depicted by Darwin.

There are individual fossils over which scientists continue to argue.

Being so dogmatic makes your contention very easy to debunk.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxLO6kKwGQ0"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxLO6kKwGQ0[/ame]

Horse Evolution

Must I prove that you are a brain-numbed moron????

Must I?


Watch how "your contention very easy to debunk."


The horse propaganda is for high school students.....seems you have not graduated to a higher level of awareness.


a. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29




b. Popular presentations that suggest a simple, gradual, and progressive straight-line of evolution from Hyracotherium to Equus are not supported by the actual fossil data. Most evolutionary scientists now acknowledge that this is the case. For instance, Soper (1997 p.890), in Biological Science, writes:


c. The history of the horse does not show a gradual transition regularly spaced in time and locality, and neither is the fossil record totally complete.
Similarly, in the textbook Advanced Biology, Roberts et al (2000 p.733) say:

...palaeontologists believe that there were numerous complications. For one thing, the rate at which evolution took place was probably not uniform, but sporadic and irregular. For another, there are thought to have been times when certain of the trends were reversed when, for instance, horses became smaller for a while.

..... non-evolutionary scientists say that this simply records changes within the horse basic type and that there is little evidence to suggest that horses developed from a non-horse ancestor. Since the magnitude and type of change represented by the horse series can be accommodated by both evolutionary and non-evolutionary theories it cannot, therefore, distinguish between them. At best, in terms of the origins debate, the horse series is neutral data.
Horse Evolution


e. There are several huge gaps in the fossil record relating to the evolution of horses. Now...if you need to support Darwin....you need to ignore the gaps. But scientists don'd ignore them. Numerous papers have commented on them, including:
1. MacFadden, B.J., Cladistic analysis of primitive equids, with notes on other perissodactyls, Systematic Zoology 25:1–14, March 1976; and Simpson, G.G.,Horses, Oxford University Press, New York, 122–123, 203, 1951




And you say????

That you have said nothing relevant.

That is always the issue. You string words together with sentence structure but the meaning of the objects has no relevant relationship to the subject.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. So many authors of 'dime novels' rely on the concept "Cherchez la femme."
"Cherchez la femme is a French phrase which literally means "look for the woman." The implication is that a man behaves out of character or in an otherwise inexplicable manner because he is trying to cover up an affair with a woman, or trying to impress or gain favor with a woman."
Cherchez la femme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

" ...out of character..." or behavior "...otherwise inexplicable..." based on that mysterious emotion.....

2. Mathematicians.....often the same. You might recall Swift's satire, Gulliver's Travels,"
"... in the common actions and behavior of life, I have not seen a more clumsy, awkward, and unhandy people, nor so slow and perplexed in their conceptions upon all other subjects, except those of mathematics and music. They are very bad reasoners, and vehemently given to opposition, unless when they happen to be of the right opinion, which is seldom their case. Imagination, fancy, and invention, they are wholly strangers to, nor have any words in their language by which those ideas can be expressed; the whole compass of their thoughts and mind being shut up within the two forementioned sciences."






3. Swift makes a point that, even today, is largely true: It seems that for those thoroughly immersed in the science of mathematics, including the real world in their calculations, takes a distant second place.





4. What happens, then, when sciences such as physics, cosmology, chemistry, or biology, use the calculations and other mathematical constructions in their experiments/conclusions? Well, if the precursor is wrong in its assumptions....so will be said conclusions.
True?

5. Cut to the chase: in pure mathematics we can create any reality by starting with seemingly arbitrary assumptions. The mathematician gets to define terms, and proceed to theorems, lemmas, or corollaries....and that will remain mathematical reality.

a. That's different from physics, for example, where a result believed to be true can always be replaced later if experimentation that better reflects reality. Einstein's general theory of relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics in understanding gravitation (but...when speeds are less than 'c' or masses less than that of the sun, Newton still works pretty well...except, maybe for the shift in Mercury's perihelion.....).




6. OK....here is a major difference: physics tries to insert reality into its theories via experimentation, while math is content with reliance on reasoning.
A theory can be built around mathematical equations in physics, but it is then used to make testable predictions. And that becomes 'proven' until such time as another physicist comes up with a better model...

7. In "The Road to Reality," Roger Penrose speaks of three distinct worlds that interact: the physical universe, the human mind, and mathematics. Think in terms of a Venn Diagram....
....but the overlap is well below complete.





a. So....if physics irons out the wrinkles by experimentation....one would be inclined to accept the conmputations.

Cosmology, theories of evolution, have no such compensation.

Therefore, mathematics can't be used to prove evolution.

You obviously haven't studied physics or read Einstein's original works. It is all founded in the language of mathematics. It is because physics discusses everything in terms of physical measurements. Everything is derived, mathematically from the base units such as kilograms, meters, and seconds. Newton invented, along with borrowing from others, calculus in order to describe motion, force, and gravity. Maxwell's equations are a purely mathematical description of electrodynamics and provedmthe speed of light is independent contant undrer conditions. Eintstein's "On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies", also known as special relativity, is a purely mathematical proof.

The greatest achievmemts in physics have been solve by measuring in experiment., representing in formula, then reconciling these in mathematics.

Philosophising, which is what you do, is attempting to use words as if they were measurements of nature and attempt to create formulas by stringing them together as sentences. It then attempts to reveal relationships by manipulating sentences to create prefered meaning from the vauge and generalized feelings that the words imply.

This practice was abandoned thousands of years ago as having any relevance.

The joke goes, "What is the difference between a mathematician and a philospher?"

Answer, "The mathematician needs a pencil, paper, and a wastebasket. The philosopher only needs the pencil and paper."

You clearly have no ability to comprehend the post to which you've, ostensibly, replied.



Best of luck with the treatments.

 

[konradv]

There is no fossil record that documents the progression depicted by Darwin.

There are individual fossils over which scientists continue to argue.

Being so dogmatic makes your contention very easy to debunk.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxLO6kKwGQ0"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxLO6kKwGQ0[/ame]

Horse Evolution

Must I prove that you are a brain-numbed moron????

Must I?


Watch how "your contention very easy to debunk."


The horse propaganda is for high school students.....seems you have not graduated to a higher level of awareness.


a. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29

b. Popular presentations that suggest a simple, gradual, and progressive straight-line of evolution from Hyracotherium to Equus are not supported by the actual fossil data. Most evolutionary scientists now acknowledge that this is the case. For instance, Soper (1997 p.890), in Biological Science, writes:

c. The history of the horse does not show a gradual transition regularly spaced in time and locality, and neither is the fossil record totally complete.
Similarly, in the textbook Advanced Biology, Roberts et al (2000 p.733) say:

...palaeontologists believe that there were numerous complications. For one thing, the rate at which evolution took place was probably not uniform, but sporadic and irregular. For another, there are thought to have been times when certain of the trends were reversed when, for instance, horses became smaller for a while.

..... non-evolutionary scientists say that this simply records changes within the horse basic type and that there is little evidence to suggest that horses developed from a non-horse ancestor. Since the magnitude and type of change represented by the horse series can be accommodated by both evolutionary and non-evolutionary theories it cannot, therefore, distinguish between them. At best, in terms of the origins debate, the horse series is neutral data.
Horse Evolution

e. There are several huge gaps in the fossil record relating to the evolution of horses. Now...if you need to support Darwin....you need to ignore the gaps. But scientists don'd ignore them. Numerous papers have commented on them, including:
1. MacFadden, B.J., Cladistic analysis of primitive equids, with notes on other perissodactyls, Systematic Zoology 25:1–14, March 1976; and Simpson, G.G.,Horses, Oxford University Press, New York, 122–123, 203, 1951

And you say????

I say you keep repeating the same things without taking into account anyone else's arguments. What you consider knowledge I see as the arrogance of myopia. I explained why you don't see all the intermediate forms but you fail to even acknowledge it and act as if it were never said. That's not the way to truth. That's just living in a self-made echo chamber.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Being so dogmatic makes your contention very easy to debunk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxLO6kKwGQ0

Horse Evolution

Must I prove that you are a brain-numbed moron????

Must I?


Watch how "your contention very easy to debunk."


The horse propaganda is for high school students.....seems you have not graduated to a higher level of awareness.


a. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29

b. Popular presentations that suggest a simple, gradual, and progressive straight-line of evolution from Hyracotherium to Equus are not supported by the actual fossil data. Most evolutionary scientists now acknowledge that this is the case. For instance, Soper (1997 p.890), in Biological Science, writes:

c. The history of the horse does not show a gradual transition regularly spaced in time and locality, and neither is the fossil record totally complete.
Similarly, in the textbook Advanced Biology, Roberts et al (2000 p.733) say:

...palaeontologists believe that there were numerous complications. For one thing, the rate at which evolution took place was probably not uniform, but sporadic and irregular. For another, there are thought to have been times when certain of the trends were reversed when, for instance, horses became smaller for a while.

..... non-evolutionary scientists say that this simply records changes within the horse basic type and that there is little evidence to suggest that horses developed from a non-horse ancestor. Since the magnitude and type of change represented by the horse series can be accommodated by both evolutionary and non-evolutionary theories it cannot, therefore, distinguish between them. At best, in terms of the origins debate, the horse series is neutral data.
Horse Evolution

e. There are several huge gaps in the fossil record relating to the evolution of horses. Now...if you need to support Darwin....you need to ignore the gaps. But scientists don'd ignore them. Numerous papers have commented on them, including:
1. MacFadden, B.J., Cladistic analysis of primitive equids, with notes on other perissodactyls, Systematic Zoology 25:1–14, March 1976; and Simpson, G.G.,Horses, Oxford University Press, New York, 122–123, 203, 1951

And you say????

I say you keep repeating the same things without taking into account anyone else's arguments. What you consider knowledge I see as the arrogance of myopia. I explained why you don't see all the intermediate forms but you fail to even acknowledge it and act as if it were never said. That's not the way to truth. That's just living in a self-made echo chamber.

"I explained why you don't see all the intermediate forms...."

Yet, you tried to fob this off as proof of the fossil record?

So......no proof is proof?

Dunce.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Being so dogmatic makes your contention very easy to debunk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxLO6kKwGQ0

Horse Evolution

Must I prove that you are a brain-numbed moron????

Must I?


Watch how "your contention very easy to debunk."


The horse propaganda is for high school students.....seems you have not graduated to a higher level of awareness.


a. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29




b. Popular presentations that suggest a simple, gradual, and progressive straight-line of evolution from Hyracotherium to Equus are not supported by the actual fossil data. Most evolutionary scientists now acknowledge that this is the case. For instance, Soper (1997 p.890), in Biological Science, writes:


c. The history of the horse does not show a gradual transition regularly spaced in time and locality, and neither is the fossil record totally complete.
Similarly, in the textbook Advanced Biology, Roberts et al (2000 p.733) say:

...palaeontologists believe that there were numerous complications. For one thing, the rate at which evolution took place was probably not uniform, but sporadic and irregular. For another, there are thought to have been times when certain of the trends were reversed when, for instance, horses became smaller for a while.

..... non-evolutionary scientists say that this simply records changes within the horse basic type and that there is little evidence to suggest that horses developed from a non-horse ancestor. Since the magnitude and type of change represented by the horse series can be accommodated by both evolutionary and non-evolutionary theories it cannot, therefore, distinguish between them. At best, in terms of the origins debate, the horse series is neutral data.
Horse Evolution


e. There are several huge gaps in the fossil record relating to the evolution of horses. Now...if you need to support Darwin....you need to ignore the gaps. But scientists don'd ignore them. Numerous papers have commented on them, including:
1. MacFadden, B.J., Cladistic analysis of primitive equids, with notes on other perissodactyls, Systematic Zoology 25:1–14, March 1976; and Simpson, G.G.,Horses, Oxford University Press, New York, 122–123, 203, 1951




And you say????

That you have said nothing relevant.

That is always the issue. You string words together with sentence structure but the meaning of the objects has no relevant relationship to the subject.

Pretending not to understand is not quite the same as disputing.

In fact, it is disingenuous and puerile.

As are you.

 

[konradv]

Must I prove that you are a brain-numbed moron????

Must I?


Watch how "your contention very easy to debunk."


The horse propaganda is for high school students.....seems you have not graduated to a higher level of awareness.


a. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29

b. Popular presentations that suggest a simple, gradual, and progressive straight-line of evolution from Hyracotherium to Equus are not supported by the actual fossil data. Most evolutionary scientists now acknowledge that this is the case. For instance, Soper (1997 p.890), in Biological Science, writes:

c. The history of the horse does not show a gradual transition regularly spaced in time and locality, and neither is the fossil record totally complete.
Similarly, in the textbook Advanced Biology, Roberts et al (2000 p.733) say:

...palaeontologists believe that there were numerous complications. For one thing, the rate at which evolution took place was probably not uniform, but sporadic and irregular. For another, there are thought to have been times when certain of the trends were reversed when, for instance, horses became smaller for a while.

..... non-evolutionary scientists say that this simply records changes within the horse basic type and that there is little evidence to suggest that horses developed from a non-horse ancestor. Since the magnitude and type of change represented by the horse series can be accommodated by both evolutionary and non-evolutionary theories it cannot, therefore, distinguish between them. At best, in terms of the origins debate, the horse series is neutral data.
Horse Evolution

e. There are several huge gaps in the fossil record relating to the evolution of horses. Now...if you need to support Darwin....you need to ignore the gaps. But scientists don'd ignore them. Numerous papers have commented on them, including:
1. MacFadden, B.J., Cladistic analysis of primitive equids, with notes on other perissodactyls, Systematic Zoology 25:1–14, March 1976; and Simpson, G.G.,Horses, Oxford University Press, New York, 122–123, 203, 1951

And you say????

I say you keep repeating the same things without taking into account anyone else's arguments. What you consider knowledge I see as the arrogance of myopia. I explained why you don't see all the intermediate forms but you fail to even acknowledge it and act as if it were never said. That's not the way to truth. That's just living in a self-made echo chamber.

"I explained why you don't see all the intermediate forms...."

Yet, you tried to fob this off as proof of the fossil record?

So......no proof is proof?

Dunce.

Incorrect..., AGAIN! I proposed a reason for the lack if intermediate forms to debunk your claim claim that evolution was contraindicated. It seems you can't help twisting arguments to confuse rather than elucidate the arguments. That's intellectual dishonesty, which you have in spades.

 

[Steven_R]

The joke goes, "What is the difference between a mathematician and a philospher?"

Answer, "The mathematician needs a pencil, paper, and a wastebasket. The philosopher only needs the pencil and paper."

A physician really wants to be a biologist.
A biologist really wants to be a chemist.
A chemist really wants to be a physicist.
A physicist really wants to be a mathematician.
A mathematician really wants to be a philosopher.
A philosopher really wants to be employed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I say you keep repeating the same things without taking into account anyone else's arguments. What you consider knowledge I see as the arrogance of myopia. I explained why you don't see all the intermediate forms but you fail to even acknowledge it and act as if it were never said. That's not the way to truth. That's just living in a self-made echo chamber.

"I explained why you don't see all the intermediate forms...."

Yet, you tried to fob this off as proof of the fossil record?

So......no proof is proof?

Dunce.

Incorrect..., AGAIN! I proposed a reason for the lack if intermediate forms to debunk your claim claim that evolution was contraindicated. It seems you can't help twisting arguments to confuse rather than elucidate the arguments. That's intellectual dishonesty, which you have in spades.

AGAIN all you have done is refute your attempt to use an incomplete fossil record as though it was a complete one.


No knowledgeable scientist, believing in Darwin's speculation, believes that the equus record supports it.


Only you.

 

[konradv]

"I explained why you don't see all the intermediate forms...."

Yet, you tried to fob this off as proof of the fossil record?

So......no proof is proof?

Dunce.

Incorrect..., AGAIN! I proposed a reason for the lack if intermediate forms to debunk your claim claim that evolution was contraindicated. It seems you can't help twisting arguments to confuse rather than elucidate the arguments. That's intellectual dishonesty, which you have in spades.

AGAIN all you have done is refute your attempt to use an incomplete fossil record as though it was a complete one.

No knowledgeable scientist, believing in Darwin's speculation, believes that the equus record supports it.

Only you.

Once again you propose an unsupportable absolute! Do you actually think a single knowledgeable scientists couldn't be found that supports the story of horse evolution I cited? You're talking yourself into a corner you can't possibly escape. I'd be willing to wager there are more such scientists that support my contention than yours. You also repeat the falsehood that I'm attempting to use an incomplete fossil record as a complete one. I acknowledge the record is incomplete for reasons I stated before. My conclusions are actually the result of deductive reasoning. You should try it some time.

 

[Vikrant]

Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium states that allele and genotype frequency in a population will remain constant from generation to generation if there is no evolution occurring in the given population. The factors that induce evolution are mating preference, mutation, selection bias, genetic drift, gene flow and meiotic drive. There is no population where at least one of these factors that induce evolution is not present. So what is the use of Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium? It is used to demonstrate that evolution is taking place in a given population.

Let us take an example of single locus with two alleles. We are going to take advantage of simple calculus technique called function to derive and demonstrate Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium.

Alleles A and a with following two frequencies:
f(A) = p
f(a) = q

Homozygotes:
f(AA) = p^2
f(aa) = q^2

Heterozygotes:
f(Aa) = 2pq

The functions described above take allele(s) as input (argument) and the output (value) is called genotype proportion. So, p, q, p^2, q^2 and 2pq are genotype proportions.

So that gives following equilibriums (I have mentioned these in my previous post):
p^2 + q^2 = p^2 + q^2 + 2pq = 1

We can only say that there was no evolutionary change in the next generation if the population satisfies following:

F(A) = f(A)
F(a) = f(a)

(Function F() denotes the frequency for the next generation.)

In the experiments, it has been demonstrated that the above mentioned equilibrium is never achieved, which proves that evolution is happening generation by generation. You do not need fossil records to prove evolution is happening. Just pick few flowers or some bugs and calculate the allele frequency shift in the next generation and you will see that the evolution is taking place.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium states that allele and genotype frequency in a population will remain constant from generation to generation if there is no evolution occurring in the given population. The factors that induce evolution are mating preference, mutation, selection bias, genetic drift, gene flow and meiotic drive. There is no population where at least one of these factors that induce evolution is not present. So what is the use of Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium? It is used to demonstrate that evolution is taking place in a given population.

Let us take an example of single locus with two alleles. We are going to take advantage of simple calculus technique called function to derive and demonstrate Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium.

Alleles A and a with following two frequencies:
f(A) = p
f(a) = q

Homozygotes:
f(AA) = p^2
f(aa) = q^2

Heterozygotes:
f(Aa) = 2pq

The functions described above take allele(s) as input (argument) and the output (value) is called genotype proportion. So, p, q, p^2, q^2 and 2pq are genotype proportions.

So that gives following equilibriums (I have mentioned these in my previous post):
p^2 + q^2 = p^2 + q^2 + 2pq = 1

We can only say that there was no evolutionary change in the next generation if the population satisfies following:

F(A) = f(A)
F(a) = f(a)

(Function F() denotes the frequency for the next generation.)

In the experiments, it has been demonstrated that the above mentioned equilibrium is never achieved, which proves that evolution is happening generation by generation. You do not need fossil records to prove evolution is happening. Just pick few flowers or some bugs and calculate the allele frequency shift in the next generation and you will see that the evolution is taking place.

Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium relies on "... mathematical modeling based on probability,...."
Modern Theories of Evolution: Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Model


Probability: the chance that something will happen.


Simply a faith-based theological view.

 

[Vikrant]

Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium states that allele and genotype frequency in a population will remain constant from generation to generation if there is no evolution occurring in the given population. The factors that induce evolution are mating preference, mutation, selection bias, genetic drift, gene flow and meiotic drive. There is no population where at least one of these factors that induce evolution is not present. So what is the use of Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium? It is used to demonstrate that evolution is taking place in a given population.

Let us take an example of single locus with two alleles. We are going to take advantage of simple calculus technique called function to derive and demonstrate Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium.

Alleles A and a with following two frequencies:
f(A) = p
f(a) = q

Homozygotes:
f(AA) = p^2
f(aa) = q^2

Heterozygotes:
f(Aa) = 2pq

The functions described above take allele(s) as input (argument) and the output (value) is called genotype proportion. So, p, q, p^2, q^2 and 2pq are genotype proportions.

So that gives following equilibriums (I have mentioned these in my previous post):
p^2 + q^2 = p^2 + q^2 + 2pq = 1

We can only say that there was no evolutionary change in the next generation if the population satisfies following:

F(A) = f(A)
F(a) = f(a)

(Function F() denotes the frequency for the next generation.)

In the experiments, it has been demonstrated that the above mentioned equilibrium is never achieved, which proves that evolution is happening generation by generation. You do not need fossil records to prove evolution is happening. Just pick few flowers or some bugs and calculate the allele frequency shift in the next generation and you will see that the evolution is taking place.

Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium relies on "... mathematical modeling based on probability,...."
Modern Theories of Evolution: Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Model


Probability: the chance that something will happen.


Simply a faith-based theological view.

First: Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium as the name implies establishes an equilibrium to demonstrate that no evolution is taking place in a given population. It is not predicting anything.

Second: Theory of probability is not a faith based theology. It is a well established discipline of mathematics. It is taught in all major universities around the globe.

There is only one way to refute what Hardy - Weinberg Equilibrium states which is, demonstrate in an experiment that the equilibrium does hold true under all circumstances for the population subjected to the experiment. As of today, all experiments conducted show that there is a shift in allele and genotype frequency between generations, which means that the equilibrium does not hold true, which is a proof of reality of evolution.

 

[Wry Catcher]

1. So many authors of 'dime novels' rely on the concept "Cherchez la femme."
"Cherchez la femme is a French phrase which literally means "look for the woman." The implication is that a man behaves out of character or in an otherwise inexplicable manner because he is trying to cover up an affair with a woman, or trying to impress or gain favor with a woman."
Cherchez la femme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

" ...out of character..." or behavior "...otherwise inexplicable..." based on that mysterious emotion.....

2. Mathematicians.....often the same. You might recall Swift's satire, Gulliver's Travels,"
"... in the common actions and behavior of life, I have not seen a more clumsy, awkward, and unhandy people, nor so slow and perplexed in their conceptions upon all other subjects, except those of mathematics and music. They are very bad reasoners, and vehemently given to opposition, unless when they happen to be of the right opinion, which is seldom their case. Imagination, fancy, and invention, they are wholly strangers to, nor have any words in their language by which those ideas can be expressed; the whole compass of their thoughts and mind being shut up within the two forementioned sciences."






3. Swift makes a point that, even today, is largely true: It seems that for those thoroughly immersed in the science of mathematics, including the real world in their calculations, takes a distant second place.





4. What happens, then, when sciences such as physics, cosmology, chemistry, or biology, use the calculations and other mathematical constructions in their experiments/conclusions? Well, if the precursor is wrong in its assumptions....so will be said conclusions.
True?

5. Cut to the chase: in pure mathematics we can create any reality by starting with seemingly arbitrary assumptions. The mathematician gets to define terms, and proceed to theorems, lemmas, or corollaries....and that will remain mathematical reality.

a. That's different from physics, for example, where a result believed to be true can always be replaced later if experimentation that better reflects reality. Einstein's general theory of relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics in understanding gravitation (but...when speeds are less than 'c' or masses less than that of the sun, Newton still works pretty well...except, maybe for the shift in Mercury's perihelion.....).




6. OK....here is a major difference: physics tries to insert reality into its theories via experimentation, while math is content with reliance on reasoning.
A theory can be built around mathematical equations in physics, but it is then used to make testable predictions. And that becomes 'proven' until such time as another physicist comes up with a better model...

7. In "The Road to Reality," Roger Penrose speaks of three distinct worlds that interact: the physical universe, the human mind, and mathematics. Think in terms of a Venn Diagram....
....but the overlap is well below complete.





a. So....if physics irons out the wrinkles by experimentation....one would be inclined to accept the conmputations.

Cosmology, theories of evolution, have no such compensation.

Therefore, mathematics can't be used to prove evolution.

The Ancient Greeks were of two minds, one group believed the Gods were arithmeticians and the other that they were geometers. Numbers rule the universe, according to Pythagoras in 500 BC; two hundred years later Plato asked himself, "what does God do", and he had to reply, "God eternally geometrizes".

Paraphrased from A Long Way From Euclid, by Constance Reid

 

[Abishai100]

Swoop

How specifically does mathematics need to be applied to evolutionary models of speciation and tree-lineage factorialization or branching?

If we take a look at two sky-soaring creatures from the Jurassic Era, the Pterosaur and the Archaeopteryx, we find evidence that fossils of both species were found in Germany and that the two species have been mistaken for each other by paleontologists.

I mean, Woolly Mammoths resemble modern age elephants, and sabretooth tigers from the Ice Age resemble modern age jungle tigers in India.

Mathematics always welcomes exploratory functionalism linkages, and both the Pterosaur and Archaeopteryx were soaring bird-like creatures which have been linked conversationally and more formally to the lineage development of various bird species on Earth, even though the Pterosaur and the Archaeopteryx were reptilian.

Past speculative connections between birds and the Pterosaur/Archaeopteryx dinosaurs suggests an enduring scientific fascination with using functional adaptation (i.e., flying ability) to connect creature categories systematically (and hence mathematically).





Archaeopteryx Facts about the Transitional Fossil

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The math disproves evolution. The odds that molecules or proteins can randomly combine to form a cell are literally beyond astronomical

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Another copy and paste job by our own little miss Saigon

^ Why people run sock accounts. Trying to protect their main account