How We Are Evolving

[CrusaderFrank]

so what does that have to do with your back-to-black expectation after populations migrate back to equatorial regions?

It means the time line explaining human evolution is way off and almost certainly did not occur as current proposed by Evolution theory. An advanced civilization in Cuba 15,000 years ago and possibly one in Mexico over 250,000 years ago (see below) throws a monkey wrench in the theory

"Geologist Virginia Steen McIntyre and other members of a team from the U.S. Geological Survey examined the site and, using four independented dating techniques, found that the implement-bearing layers were about 250,000 years old. This result radically contradicts the established notion that humans capable of manufacturing such tools first existed about 100,000 years ago in Africa. This is how the "scientific" establishment reacted to this bombshell, in the narrative of Cremo and Thompson."

A Brief Look at Anomalies and Suppression in Archeology and Paleoanthropology

There's no monkey wrench in evolution, because there's no proof what you're saying is true. It amazes me that you're taken in by some grainy photos and videos, but reject hard data when it comes to AGW theory. That's just intellectual dishonesty, Frank.

You and Old Rocks have your Consensus and AGW, why can't you be happy about that?

 

[konradv]

It means the time line explaining human evolution is way off and almost certainly did not occur as current proposed by Evolution theory. An advanced civilization in Cuba 15,000 years ago and possibly one in Mexico over 250,000 years ago (see below) throws a monkey wrench in the theory

"Geologist Virginia Steen McIntyre and other members of a team from the U.S. Geological Survey examined the site and, using four independented dating techniques, found that the implement-bearing layers were about 250,000 years old. This result radically contradicts the established notion that humans capable of manufacturing such tools first existed about 100,000 years ago in Africa. This is how the "scientific" establishment reacted to this bombshell, in the narrative of Cremo and Thompson."

A Brief Look at Anomalies and Suppression in Archeology and Paleoanthropology

There's no monkey wrench in evolution, because there's no proof what you're saying is true. It amazes me that you're taken in by some grainy photos and videos, but reject hard data when it comes to AGW theory. That's just intellectual dishonesty, Frank.

You and Old Rocks have your Consensus and AGW, why can't you be happy about that?

Why should we be happy about your dishonesty?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's no monkey wrench in evolution, because there's no proof what you're saying is true. It amazes me that you're taken in by some grainy photos and videos, but reject hard data when it comes to AGW theory. That's just intellectual dishonesty, Frank.

You and Old Rocks have your Consensus and AGW, why can't you be happy about that?

Why should we be happy about your dishonesty?

Why is it that we can replicate conditions a few nanosecond after the Big Bang in a lab, but you can't show me a single lab experiment how adding 200PPM of CO2 does anything you claim?

You're dishonesty claim is just flailing on your part.

 

[konradv]

You're lying, Frank. You know very well that the propeties of GHGs ARE demonstratable is the lab. That's why I say you're being dishonest. If I start out with 300 ppm CO2 in a spectrophotometer, it will show absorption of infra-red radiation. If I add 200 ppm more, there will be more absorption. If you don't believe me, check it out at a local college or lab.

 

[antagon]

I have no idea who they were, if they were white or black or something else. All I know is that sometime before the last Ice Age ended there was a robust civilization that perished in the Great Flood that exists as "Legend" in every civilization that's ever populated Earth

so what does that have to do with your back-to-black expectation after populations migrate back to equatorial regions?

It means the time line explaining human evolution is way off and almost certainly did not occur as current proposed by Evolution theory. An advanced civilization in Cuba 15,000 years ago and possibly one in Mexico over 250,000 years ago (see below) throws a monkey wrench in the theory

"Geologist Virginia Steen McIntyre and other members of a team from the U.S. Geological Survey examined the site and, using four independented dating techniques, found that the implement-bearing layers were about 250,000 years old. This result radically contradicts the established notion that humans capable of manufacturing such tools first existed about 100,000 years ago in Africa. This is how the "scientific" establishment reacted to this bombshell, in the narrative of Cremo and Thompson."

A Brief Look at Anomalies and Suppression in Archeology and Paleoanthropology

this still doesn't support your expectation that recent migrations of white folks to warm regions should cause reversion to black skin color in as much time. this is another non-sequitur like your hair-brained special relativity 'observation'?

 

[antagon]

You're lying, Frank. You know very well that the propeties of GHGs ARE demonstratable is the lab. That's why I say you're being dishonest. If I start out with 300 ppm CO2 in a spectrophotometer, it will show absorption of infra-red radiation. If I add 200 ppm more, there will be more absorption. If you don't believe me, check it out at a local college or lab.

i guess some questions about the implications of your facts go unanswered.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

"Geologist Virginia Steen McIntyre and other members of a team from the U.S. Geological Survey examined the site and, using four independented dating techniques, found that the implement-bearing layers were about 250,000 years old. This result radically contradicts the established notion that humans capable of manufacturing such tools first existed about 100,000 years ago in Africa. This is how the "scientific" establishment reacted to this bombshell, in the narrative of Cremo and Thompson."

A Brief Look at Anomalies and Suppression in Archeology and Paleoanthropology

Are you kidding me? What a hack! Do you realize the source you're using is a bad attempt at a PR campaign to sell a book? Do you realize the AUTHOR of that site has NO scientific background, education, experience or EVIDENCE to back anything he types. Hell check out his autobiographical notes:

The soul that I am entered its present body at the moment I was conceived in the fall of 1947. I appeared from my mother's womb on July 15, 1948, in Schenectady, New York. That birth was probably one of millions I have experienced since I left my real home in the spiritual world.

He goes on to say that his largest inspiration for this work came from some people teaching him yoga at a Grateful Dead concert. I wish I were joking, but I can't even make up that kind of hilarious garbage. The man is a quack! YOU are a quack for believing him. And yet you continue to disbelieve reputable and experienced research groups at prestigious academic institutions with evidence based studies published in peer reviewed and highly scrutinized scientific journals.

You essentially ignore the actual evidence and legitimate information on the topic for the quackery of a single person who made things up after getting high at a concert. Need I actually point out that you still have no clue what you're talking about?

this still doesn't support your expectation that recent migrations of white folks to warm regions should cause reversion to black skin color in as much time. this is another non-sequitur like your hair-brained special relativity 'observation'?

bingo!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Geologist Virginia Steen McIntyre and other members of a team from the U.S. Geological Survey examined the site and, using four independented dating techniques, found that the implement-bearing layers were about 250,000 years old. This result radically contradicts the established notion that humans capable of manufacturing such tools first existed about 100,000 years ago in Africa. This is how the "scientific" establishment reacted to this bombshell, in the narrative of Cremo and Thompson."

A Brief Look at Anomalies and Suppression in Archeology and Paleoanthropology

Are you kidding me? What a hack! Do you realize the source you're using is a bad attempt at a PR campaign to sell a book? Do you realize the AUTHOR of that site has NO scientific background, education, experience or EVIDENCE to back anything he types. Hell check out his autobiographical notes:

The soul that I am entered its present body at the moment I was conceived in the fall of 1947. I appeared from my mother's womb on July 15, 1948, in Schenectady, New York. That birth was probably one of millions I have experienced since I left my real home in the spiritual world.

He goes on to say that his largest inspiration for this work came from some people teaching him yoga at a Grateful Dead concert. I wish I were joking, but I can't even make up that kind of hilarious garbage. The man is a quack! YOU are a quack for believing him. And yet you continue to disbelieve reputable and experienced research groups at prestigious academic institutions with evidence based studies published in peer reviewed and highly scrutinized scientific journals.

You essentially ignore the actual evidence and legitimate information on the topic for the quackery of a single person who made things up after getting high at a concert. Need I actually point out that you still have no clue what you're talking about?

this still doesn't support your expectation that recent migrations of white folks to warm regions should cause reversion to black skin color in as much time. this is another non-sequitur like your hair-brained special relativity 'observation'?

bingo!

In another era you'd be shrieking that Heinrich Schliemann wasn't even a scientist!

Virginia Steen tried doing it the "Right Way" and none of the Usual Suspects would give her the time of day becauseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

a 250,000 year old civilization in Mexico would mean people have made a big big big big big investment in a line of "History" that is off by at least an order of magnitude.

What's next, the underwater video off Cuba wasn't approved by Jacques Cousteau so there can't be any ruins there?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

so what does that have to do with your back-to-black expectation after populations migrate back to equatorial regions?

It means the time line explaining human evolution is way off and almost certainly did not occur as current proposed by Evolution theory. An advanced civilization in Cuba 15,000 years ago and possibly one in Mexico over 250,000 years ago (see below) throws a monkey wrench in the theory

"Geologist Virginia Steen McIntyre and other members of a team from the U.S. Geological Survey examined the site and, using four independented dating techniques, found that the implement-bearing layers were about 250,000 years old. This result radically contradicts the established notion that humans capable of manufacturing such tools first existed about 100,000 years ago in Africa. This is how the "scientific" establishment reacted to this bombshell, in the narrative of Cremo and Thompson."

A Brief Look at Anomalies and Suppression in Archeology and Paleoanthropology

this still doesn't support your expectation that recent migrations of white folks to warm regions should cause reversion to black skin color in as much time. this is another non-sequitur like your hair-brained special relativity 'observation'?

That's because civilization probably didn't start in Africa.

 

[Samson]

It means the time line explaining human evolution is way off and almost certainly did not occur as current proposed by Evolution theory. An advanced civilization in Cuba 15,000 years ago and possibly one in Mexico over 250,000 years ago (see below) throws a monkey wrench in the theory

"Geologist Virginia Steen McIntyre and other members of a team from the U.S. Geological Survey examined the site and, using four independented dating techniques, found that the implement-bearing layers were about 250,000 years old. This result radically contradicts the established notion that humans capable of manufacturing such tools first existed about 100,000 years ago in Africa. This is how the "scientific" establishment reacted to this bombshell, in the narrative of Cremo and Thompson."

A Brief Look at Anomalies and Suppression in Archeology and Paleoanthropology

this still doesn't support your expectation that recent migrations of white folks to warm regions should cause reversion to black skin color in as much time. this is another non-sequitur like your hair-brained special relativity 'observation'?

That's because civilization probably didn't start in Africa.

Of course not.

Extraterrestrial Genes in Human DNA make this "Theory" quite unlikely.

The knowledge of astrological facts within diverse tribal communities is associated with claims of extraterrestrial contact long before modern astronomy, further corroborates exo-scientific claims of evidence of extraterrestrial contact in Human DNA.

Aboriginal tribes in the Americas, Africa, and elsewhere embraced the "animistic" spirituality of the original reported spiritually and technologically advanced human and other extraterrestrials who "seeded" Earth. These tribes were apparently inspired by original constituents of human and other extraterrestrials to be custodians of "Mother Earth", and to live in harmony and balance with nature

 

[SmarterThanHick]

In another era you'd be shrieking that Heinrich Schliemann wasn't even a scientist!

Virginia Steen tried doing it the "Right Way" and none of the Usual Suspects would give her the time of day becauseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

a 250,000 year old civilization in Mexico would mean people have made a big big big big big investment in a line of "History" that is off by at least an order of magnitude.

What's next, the underwater video off Cuba wasn't approved by Jacques Cousteau so there can't be any ruins there?

First off, your quackery about the timeline of human civilization IN NO WAY affects anything regarding evolution. Secondly, you STILL have ZERO EVIDENCE about this new timeline. You have one man, writing a book, with a bag of weed and a wild trip as his evidence.

But again, an old Mexican civilization in no way changes anything we know about evolution. You're grasping at straws given to you by a pothead with no actual knowledge on the topic. Are you really that easily fooled? Do you TRULY believe that this one random guy with no experience somehow actually knows ANYTHING on the topic?

 

[Samson]

In another era you'd be shrieking that Heinrich Schliemann wasn't even a scientist!

Virginia Steen tried doing it the "Right Way" and none of the Usual Suspects would give her the time of day becauseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

a 250,000 year old civilization in Mexico would mean people have made a big big big big big investment in a line of "History" that is off by at least an order of magnitude.

What's next, the underwater video off Cuba wasn't approved by Jacques Cousteau so there can't be any ruins there?

First off, your quackery about the timeline of human civilization IN NO WAY affects anything regarding evolution. Secondly, you STILL have ZERO EVIDENCE about this new timeline. You have one man, writing a book, with a bag of weed and a wild trip as his evidence.

But again, an old Mexican civilization in no way changes anything we know about evolution. You're grasping at straws given to you by a pothead with no actual knowledge on the topic. Are you really that easily fooled? Do you TRULY believe that this one random guy with no experience somehow actually knows ANYTHING on the topic?

It is clear to me that neither of you know what the fuck you're talking about.

Humans are obviously evolved from aquatic apes:

Most of the "enigmatic" features of human physiology, though rare or even unique among land mammals, are common in aquatic ones. Our earliest ancestors had found themselves living for a prolonged period in a flooded, semi-aquatic habitat, most of the unsolved problems become much easier to unravel.

 

[antagon]

It means the time line explaining human evolution is way off and almost certainly did not occur as current proposed by Evolution theory. An advanced civilization in Cuba 15,000 years ago and possibly one in Mexico over 250,000 years ago (see below) throws a monkey wrench in the theory

"Geologist Virginia Steen McIntyre and other members of a team from the U.S. Geological Survey examined the site and, using four independented dating techniques, found that the implement-bearing layers were about 250,000 years old. This result radically contradicts the established notion that humans capable of manufacturing such tools first existed about 100,000 years ago in Africa. This is how the "scientific" establishment reacted to this bombshell, in the narrative of Cremo and Thompson."

A Brief Look at Anomalies and Suppression in Archeology and Paleoanthropology

this still doesn't support your expectation that recent migrations of white folks to warm regions should cause reversion to black skin color in as much time. this is another non-sequitur like your hair-brained special relativity 'observation'?

That's because civilization probably didn't start in Africa.

more useless observations. do you deny common descendancy among all humans of all races and ethnicities walking the earth today? what about studies of mitochondrial DNA and genetic variety which indicate humanity did arise in africa, nevermind civilization?

what would these observations have anything to do with your idea of white people evolving the blackness in a few hundred years?

to the extent which this is happening, it isn't along the lines you have in mind.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

If I conclude that flipping a switch causes a light fairy to make the bulb glow is that a valid conclusion?

How is my conclusion not supported by the facts?

Well, the facts of the example you gave include flipping a switch, and a correlated light bulb glowing. The conclusion that a "light fairy" is the underlying cause is IN ABSOLUTELY NO WAY supported by the two starting pieces of information. The correct conclusion is simply that a correlation exists between the state of the switch and the state of the light. In no way do I need to know HOW they are correlated or if there is causation. Making up theories about such things is not a valid, which is why yours is a poor example.

I've pointed this out several times now, and you continue to make up these non-sequitur examples, completely unable to refute my examples of drawing conclusions without any knowledge of causation:
Flipping a light switch and a light bulb going on
Using a remote to turn on a TV
Driving a car
Reading the time on a watch
You don't need to know how the physics of time work, nor how the watch works. Clearly your watch is not the causative agent of time either. And yet you're still able to draw perfectly valid conclusions about the time WITHOUT knowing those things. Clearly you are still able to drive a car WITHOUT knowing how it works. Clearly you don't need to open the tank of every toilet to figure out that pushing the handle will cause it to flush.

The idea that we can't draw any conclusions without understanding the underlying mechanisms of systems is just foolish.

Yet you are willing to argue that correlation equals causation when it comes to evolution. Why? Is it because you know that we do not understand the whys involved, so it makes it easier to simply point to correlations as some sort of proof?

No! I have never once said that about evolution or anything else! Where are you getting this from? The point has and still is: the results are still just as valid regardless of the path it took to get those results. If bacteria are exposed to antibiotics and don't die, it can be validly concluded that they are resistant, regardless of the mutations or mechanisms used to survive that antibiotic, because natural selection just doesn't care.

Tell me, is this a valid conclusion based on the observation you made that men are more likely to be struck by lightning?

Answers.com - Why are men struck by lightning four times more than women

Or is it this one?

Are Men Or Women More Likely To Be Hit By Lightning? | Popular Science

NO! You're still not understanding the difference. You're trying to draw a conclusion about the causation based on the correlation, which IS NOT VALID. That DOES NOT MEAN that no valid conclusions can be drawn about the data. It ONLY means that conclusions regarding the causation cannot be necessarily drawn. Conclusions regarding the correlation can readily drawn.

For example: Let's say an inheritable disease runs in your family, and you know you have a 50% chance of having it. To be sure, you go see a doctor, who does a blood test, and it comes back positive. It is known that the test doesn't pick up all the people who have the disease, but when it does come back positive, it is accurate 100% of the time. Now you know nothing about the disease process. In fact, the protein that was tested may have absolutely nothing to do with the symptoms of the disease, but is just a random finding that's always associated with it. Should you then say "I can't draw a valid conclusion whether or not I have the disease because I don't know the causative agents or the process"? NO! And this has nothing to do with your non sequitur conclusions about the disease's onset, or how hard each symptom will hit you, or ANYTHING ELSE.

Applying a non random pattern (filter) to a random pattern does make the result more predictable, something I have never actually disputed. That dos not make the initial pattern less random, nor does it make the resulting pattern less random, it just means we can predict what effect the pencil will have.

We know what effect the pencil will have, yes. Why? Because it has a specific, non-random effect. The effect certainly changes based on the orientation of the pencil, but for any given orientation, there is one resultant effect on the greater shape, the "big picture". Thus, the big picture is affected in non-random ways based on the filter, despite the non-deterministic location of the remaining pixels.

So too is evolution: The pixels of your fractal are the genotypes, constantly worming around in a random manner. The pencil is natural selection, completely knocking out genotypes which lack survivability for that filter, and leaving specific non-random genotypes to remain. So for any given environmental pressure, a non-random big picture emerges despite variability within it.

We're not discussing "beginners luck" here. We're not even discussing the psychology of poker. We're talking about a computer program with two players, where one is either casting out random cards, or keeping specific cards that lead to a winning outcome. The former is using a completely random process, and the latter is using a selective filter on a random process.

This point still remains as well: The small picture is that the non-random computer player can lose individual hands, because they are not deterministic. The big picture is that same non-random computer player will win the game over the random computer player, which is not a random outcome.

Again, I would bet on the non random player, but the random player can still win.

Wait a minute now. Did you or did you not say that things "will average out in the long run" despite local trends? Well? Will things average out based on the given probabilities or won't they?

Do casinos sometimes lose money at all their games combined some years? Is it really a random outcome that casinos generally come out ahead?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, the facts of the example you gave include flipping a switch, and a correlated light bulb glowing. The conclusion that a "light fairy" is the underlying cause is IN ABSOLUTELY NO WAY supported by the two starting pieces of information. The correct conclusion is simply that a correlation exists between the state of the switch and the state of the light. In no way do I need to know HOW they are correlated or if there is causation. Making up theories about such things is not a valid, which is why yours is a poor example.

I've pointed this out several times now, and you continue to make up these non-sequitur examples, completely unable to refute my examples of drawing conclusions without any knowledge of causation:
Flipping a light switch and a light bulb going on
Using a remote to turn on a TV
Driving a car
Reading the time on a watch
You don't need to know how the physics of time work, nor how the watch works. Clearly your watch is not the causative agent of time either. And yet you're still able to draw perfectly valid conclusions about the time WITHOUT knowing those things. Clearly you are still able to drive a car WITHOUT knowing how it works. Clearly you don't need to open the tank of every toilet to figure out that pushing the handle will cause it to flush.

The idea that we can't draw any conclusions without understanding the underlying mechanisms of systems is just foolish.

I never said we cannot draw conclusions, I just insist they are not necessarily valid unless we know more about the underlying causes than simple observation tells us. I think we essentially agree on this, we are just saying the same thing in different ways.

No! I have never once said that about evolution or anything else! Where are you getting this from? The point has and still is: the results are still just as valid regardless of the path it took to get those results. If bacteria are exposed to antibiotics and don't die, it can be validly concluded that they are resistant, regardless of the mutations or mechanisms used to survive that antibiotic, because natural selection just doesn't care.

My mistake. We are getting bogged down in your insistence that conclusions are possible, which they are, and my insistence that only valid conclusions matter. If we do not understand what is happening it is entirely possible to draw the wrong conclusions, and even miss the correlations entirely.

It is enitrely possible to look at data, not completely understand it, and draw the wrong correlation and conclusion.

False Correlations

NO! You're still not understanding the difference. You're trying to draw a conclusion about the causation based on the correlation, which IS NOT VALID. That DOES NOT MEAN that no valid conclusions can be drawn about the data. It ONLY means that conclusions regarding the causation cannot be necessarily drawn. Conclusions regarding the correlation can readily drawn.

For example: Let's say an inheritable disease runs in your family, and you know you have a 50% chance of having it. To be sure, you go see a doctor, who does a blood test, and it comes back positive. It is known that the test doesn't pick up all the people who have the disease, but when it does come back positive, it is accurate 100% of the time. Now you know nothing about the disease process. In fact, the protein that was tested may have absolutely nothing to do with the symptoms of the disease, but is just a random finding that's always associated with it. Should you then say "I can't draw a valid conclusion whether or not I have the disease because I don't know the causative agents or the process"? NO! And this has nothing to do with your non sequitur conclusions about the disease's onset, or how hard each symptom will hit you, or ANYTHING ELSE.

Here is where we have a problem.

I have been wracking my brain the last couple fo days to remember where I read bout the phenomena called voodoo correlation. (To be honest, I was trying to remember the term.)

Brain imaging studies under fire : Nature News

While this is not proof of anything whatsoever, it does indicate the danger of making correlations based on insufficient data. Let us go back to your example of the light and the switch.

Every time you walk into a room you flip the switch to turn on the light, and the light comes on. You therefore conclude that flipping the switch turns on the light. What you do not know is that I have installed a pressure mat directly under the switch that actually turns on the light and all that the only reason the switch is there is I have not yet had time to remove it, or to wire anything else into it. Your action of standing next to the switch actually turns the light on, but your habit is to flip the switch, and that is reinforced because the light always comes on as you are flipping the switch.

Observed data leads you to an entirely false, yet seemingly valid, conclusion.

We know what effect the pencil will have, yes. Why? Because it has a specific, non-random effect. The effect certainly changes based on the orientation of the pencil, but for any given orientation, there is one resultant effect on the greater shape, the "big picture". Thus, the big picture is affected in non-random ways based on the filter, despite the non-deterministic location of the remaining pixels.

So too is evolution: The pixels of your fractal are the genotypes, constantly worming around in a random manner. The pencil is natural selection, completely knocking out genotypes which lack survivability for that filter, and leaving specific non-random genotypes to remain. So for any given environmental pressure, a non-random big picture emerges despite variability within it.

Why do the random genotypes suddenly become non random? A predictable effect does not make the result non random.

If I plant the seeds of a Macintosh apple most people would expect me to get a tree that produces Macintosh apples, but I will not do so. The only way to actually get Macintosh apples is to graft a branch of a Macintosh tree onto another apple tree. The non random result will me give me Macintosh apples, but the actually randomness of the process prohibits me from knowing exactly how that branch will grow.

You insist on looking at the big picture, which is survival, and insisting that the process of survival is irrelevant. If evolution is not random, why do some flatfish have both eyes on the right side, and some on the left? They both obviously survive, your non random result, but the process is totally random.

Wait a minute now. Did you or did you not say that things "will average out in the long run" despite local trends? Well? Will things average out based on the given probabilities or won't they?

Do casinos sometimes lose money at all their games combined some years? Is it really a random outcome that casinos generally come out ahead?

Yes I did, but a poker game does not last forever. Both players have a limited starting stake, thus making it possible for random luck to make one the winner. Otherwise two equally qualified players would always end up in a draw, like playing Tic Tac Toe.

The reason casinos come out ahead is they stack the odds as much as possible in their favor. The best example is roulette, where a win pays 35 to 1 even though there are actually 37 spaces the ball can land in. Another tactic they have recently developed is not paying the big jackpots on their progressive slot machines because they claim there was a computer error, another reason not to play slots. In other games they just take a share of the pot, thus ensuring that they always make money.

Which is why most casinos frown on card counters, and make the job of counting cards as difficult as possible for those who do so, despite the fact that it is entirely legal to do so. Blackjack is the only game in a casino where a smart player can actually turn the odds in his favor.

Is the overall result of the house winning random? In the truest sense of the word, yes. I would also point out that how much they clear on a given day is entirely dependent on how lucky their guests are.

 

[Old Rocks]

Scientific American: Scientific American Magazine

Very good article on continueing human evolution in this months issue of the Scientific American.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Scientific American: Scientific American Magazine

Very good article on continueing human evolution in this months issue of the Scientific American.

Thanks for proving you don't read before you post.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Every time you walk into a room you flip the switch to turn on the light, and the light comes on. You therefore conclude that flipping the switch turns on the light. What you do not know is that I have installed a pressure mat directly under the switch that actually turns on the light and all that the only reason the switch is there is I have not yet had time to remove it, or to wire anything else into it. Your action of standing next to the switch actually turns the light on, but your habit is to flip the switch, and that is reinforced because the light always comes on as you are flipping the switch.

Observed data leads you to an entirely false, yet seemingly valid, conclusion.

Actually, you just lead yourself to an entirely false conclusion by once again inferring causation from correlation when I've clearly pointed out the ONLY valid conclusions that can be made about such a scenario is regarding the correlation itself.

This is exactly the same mistake you made with flipping a switch and concluding a light fairy did it. But the fact still remains that we base all of our medical testing on likelihoods and correlations, NOT causation, and these are still legitimate and valid conclusions to make. False positives are always possible, but that doesn't bring all of modern medicine to a standstill.

Why do the random genotypes suddenly become non random? A predictable effect does not make the result non random.

You insist on looking at the big picture, which is survival, and insisting that the process of survival is irrelevant. If evolution is not random, why do some flatfish have both eyes on the right side, and some on the left? They both obviously survive, your non random result, but the process is totally random.

First off, the genotypes are not random, despite the capacity to move in a seemingly random manners at times, pre-filter. This is the difference between the individual poker hand which randomly changes and the greater outcome between our two theoretical computer programs.

This last quote brings up a good question. In an odd turn of events, you've pulled back on the picture too far now. Remember, it's not just what CAN survive, it's about what DOES survive a specific environmental pressure. Again, just because there are differences does not mean randomness. The example of the fish with both eyes on one side of it's body is a survival mechanism with respect to being able to lay flat on the bottom of the ocean floor. If it were random, the eyes could pop up anywhere. But we find them at a very specific location based on the environmental pressure and survival advantage.

Yes I did, but a poker game does not last forever.

Ah, I see. So you would expect a non-random outcome if the poker game were not as limited. I see I see. So, how long would you estimate evolution has been going on for? We're not even talking about a few hundred thousand coin flips. How many millions of years need to go by before it's close enough to "lasting forever"? Until things "even out in the long run" in your eyes?

The reason casinos come out ahead is they stack the odds as much as possible in their favor. The best example is roulette, where a win pays 35 to 1 even though there are actually 37 spaces the ball can land in.

Is the overall result of the house winning random? In the truest sense of the word, yes. I would also point out that how much they clear on a given day is entirely dependent on how lucky their guests are.

Truest sense of the word? Do they ever not come out ahead in a given year based on the gambling? Your idea of "truest sense of the word" flies in the face of the actual definition of statistical randomness that I've provided time and time again. You seem to continue to overlook this. The reasons casinos come into and stay in business, is because the big picture odds are stacked in their favor and they win in a regular interval, which constitutes the very exclusion factor of statistical randomness.

You then make some reference to the variability in the amount won in any given night, but again, variability does not necessitate randomness, and you tend to only look at these details when you're trying to ignore the obvious big picture. You can accurately predict whether the casino will win or lose each year for the next 10. You still think this is random? Do you honestly believe the pattern made by the pencil in front of the fractal created a RANDOM larger pattern?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, you just lead yourself to an entirely false conclusion by once again inferring causation from correlation when I've clearly pointed out the ONLY valid conclusions that can be made about such a scenario is regarding the correlation itself.

This is exactly the same mistake you made with flipping a switch and concluding a light fairy did it. But the fact still remains that we base all of our medical testing on likelihoods and correlations, NOT causation, and these are still legitimate and valid conclusions to make. False positives are always possible, but that doesn't bring all of modern medicine to a standstill.

Then we essentially agree. I hope I never said that conclusions had to be valid to be workable. I was trying to hammer home the difference between a conclusion and a valid one, something I see you actually understand already.

Why were we arguing about this for so long?

First off, the genotypes are not random, despite the capacity to move in a seemingly random manners at times, pre-filter. This is the difference between the individual poker hand which randomly changes and the greater outcome between our two theoretical computer programs.

I do agree that genotypes are not random, anymore than a deck of cards is. What is random is the mutations that occur in genotypes.

This last quote brings up a good question. In an odd turn of events, you've pulled back on the picture too far now. Remember, it's not just what CAN survive, it's about what DOES survive a specific environmental pressure. Again, just because there are differences does not mean randomness. The example of the fish with both eyes on one side of it's body is a survival mechanism with respect to being able to lay flat on the bottom of the ocean floor. If it were random, the eyes could pop up anywhere. But we find them at a very specific location based on the environmental pressure and survival advantage.

Are they restricted to the head because of survival advantage, or because the genetic makeup of all life on Earth puts eyes in the head? (I could easily imagine some survival advantage to being able to see with my hands.) In other words, are the eyes restricted by environmental pressure, or because the deck we are playing with restricts them?

If only we had a way to answer the questions I keep coming up with. Should I let slip that I have been a scifi fan since I was a tyke, and that I even dabble in writing?

Ah, I see. So you would expect a non-random outcome if the poker game were not as limited. I see I see. So, how long would you estimate evolution has been going on for? We're not even talking about a few hundred thousand coin flips. How many millions of years need to go by before it's close enough to "lasting forever"? Until things "even out in the long run" in your eyes?

I do not want to seem like I am trying to avoid your question here, because I would love to actually give you a number. My problem is that I need you to answer a question first. When does evolution stop? One of the things that has been drummed into me, not being an evolutionary biologist, is that evolution is an ongoing process. I cannot tell how long the game has to lat unless I know more about the game.

I hope you understand what I am saying here, especially since this thread started with an example of human evolution that occurred in the last 50,000 years or so. (I do not remember the exact time frame, so do not jump me if it is wrong.)

Truest sense of the word? Do they ever not come out ahead in a given year based on the gambling? Your idea of "truest sense of the word" flies in the face of the actual definition of statistical randomness that I've provided time and time again. You seem to continue to overlook this. The reasons casinos come into and stay in business, is because the big picture odds are stacked in their favor and they win in a regular interval, which constitutes the very exclusion factor of statistical randomness.

You then make some reference to the variability in the amount won in any given night, but again, variability does not necessitate randomness, and you tend to only look at these details when you're trying to ignore the obvious big picture. You can accurately predict whether the casino will win or lose each year for the next 10. You still think this is random? Do you honestly believe the pattern made by the pencil in front of the fractal created a RANDOM larger pattern?

Some casinos do go broke, and quite a few are losing money in this recession. I do not have access to their books to tell you why, but I would guess that they occasionally pay out more than they take in for one reason or another.

What I believe is that the pencil imposed interference on a random pattern. Because fractals are built from repeating the same pattern over and over in a random combination, that pattern became part of the overall pattern. I do not believe that the pencil that interfered with the larger pattern was replicated both down and up the scale.

I do not see how it would be, but I do not know enough about fractals to definitively say it wasn't. But that pattern of interference did become part of the overall pattern, which made the effect much more prevalent. That pencil essentially became part of the pattern, and, because of its size relative to the rest of the elements of the pattern, dominated it. My understanding of fractals is that if the pattern repeated until it was large enough we could see that the pencil's effect is actually random.

Why don't we both just accept that we are quibbling over semantics here? We are both right, and probably both so far off base that we will never actually get close to the truth. I believe that everything can be described mathematically, and that the essentially random nature of evolution is not overcome by the non random factors that contribute. You believe that the result of evolution is more deterministic than random, and that the random factors are essentially canceled out because the finality of evolution is survival. I am not annoyed enough with you to continue arguing indefinitely in an attempt to make you admit you are wrong, and I hope the same goes on your side.

If we were playing chess I would offer a draw.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Are they restricted to the head because of survival advantage, or because the genetic makeup of all life on Earth puts eyes in the head? (I could easily imagine some survival advantage to being able to see with my hands.) In other words, are the eyes restricted by environmental pressure, or because the deck we are playing with restricts them?

Everything is restricted by environmental pressure. The fact that over time an eye migrated to the other side of a fish's body should show movement to be possible. But just because we can think up advantages to having extra abilities, doesn't mean the environmental pressure promotes it. Otherwise all animals would be able to shoot lasers from their eyes.

If only we had a way to answer the questions I keep coming up with. Should I let slip that I have been a scifi fan since I was a tyke, and that I even dabble in writing?

nice

I do not want to seem like I am trying to avoid your question here, because I would love to actually give you a number. My problem is that I need you to answer a question first. When does evolution stop? One of the things that has been drummed into me, not being an evolutionary biologist, is that evolution is an ongoing process. I cannot tell how long the game has to lat unless I know more about the game.

It never stops as long as there is life. But nonetheless you see the point I take it? With the poker player example, that's just two people playing. Imagine there were billions of such games setup in parallel. Even if one of the random players wins a hand, chances are all the others didn't. In that manner, it's not one coin averaging out over time so much as all the coins averaging out each time they are all flipped.

Some casinos do go broke, and quite a few are losing money in this recession. I do not have access to their books to tell you why, but I would guess that they occasionally pay out more than they take in for one reason or another.

Actually it's more of what they're spending to keep the business going. It's expensive to maintain fountain shows, entertainment complexes, and build a replica of the statue of liberty to attract customers. I've been trying to focus just on the gambling aspect though, to remove the business part of things.

What I believe is that the pencil imposed interference on a random pattern. Because fractals are built from repeating the same pattern over and over in a random combination, that pattern became part of the overall pattern. I do not believe that the pencil that interfered with the larger pattern was replicated both down and up the scale.

As the fractal "rebuilt" itself after the pencil was removed, it's clear the presence of the pencil did not affect the very core of the scale. HOWEVER, while the pencil was in place, it did produce a very specific outcome. Evolution does not have the luxury of "removing the pencil", which is why very specific non-random larger patterns are created.

I do not see how it would be, but I do not know enough about fractals to definitively say it wasn't. But that pattern of interference did become part of the overall pattern, which made the effect much more prevalent. That pencil essentially became part of the pattern, and, because of its size relative to the rest of the elements of the pattern, dominated it. My understanding of fractals is that if the pattern repeated until it was large enough we could see that the pencil's effect is actually random.

I disagree. It's a fractal. It doesn't matter if things were large or small enough. The pencil should theoretically have the same effect on the greater image. Besides, it looked like the pattern repeated and grew to a capacity of sorts anyway.

Why don't we both just accept that we are quibbling over semantics here? We are both right, and probably both so far off base that we will never actually get close to the truth. I believe that everything can be described mathematically, and that the essentially random nature of evolution is not overcome by the non random factors that contribute. You believe that the result of evolution is more deterministic than random, and that the random factors are essentially canceled out because the finality of evolution is survival. I am not annoyed enough with you to continue arguing indefinitely in an attempt to make you admit you are wrong, and I hope the same goes on your side.

If we were playing chess I would offer a draw.

Well, the random factors are not "canceled out" so much as dampened and of less significance with respect to the larger picture. But, I'll take the draw.