Explaining Darwinism to an Accountant

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lost_Found
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
Only if we have complete and correct information to put into the equation - GIGO.

That depends on what species you are talking about. The mutation rate in eukaryotes is in generally 10[sup]-4[/sup] to 10[sup]-6[/sup] mutations per base pair per generation, and for bacteria the rate is around 10[sup]-8[/sup] per base pair per generation. (Source: Wikipedia)

The rate of natural selection is driven by the degree of matching between the organism and its environment. In order to supply the data you want I require a detailed description of every environment in which any of our ancestors ever lived. You are asking for the name of Cain’s wife here.

A single mutation can affect a very large number of cells, for example polydactyly: midwestrocklobster.com/011007/avatar_lg.jpg

As I have pointed out, the cells of the human brain are not in “complete harmony”, they are reasonably good harmony. Migraines and epilepsy would not occur is the brain cells all operated in “complete harmony”. If you are not going to bother to read my posts, then there is not much point in my posting.

I am not speculating on the process. We can observe random mutations here and now. We can observe natural selection here and now. These two processes are not “speculation” but can be observed here and now, just like fossils. From current observations we can make resonable inferrences. I have never observed a live non-avian dinosaur, but it is a reasonable inference from the observed fossils that there were once live non-avian dinosaurs. Avian dinosaurs are readily observable which is another strand of evidence tending to confirm the inference.

We observe that brain development is controlled by genes. We observe that genes mutate. We observe that animal populations tend to increase to utilise all available resources. We observe that more offspring are made than are required for simply the replacement of their parent/s. We observe that there is competition for resources, and that hence there must be natural selection involving the size and complexity of an animal’s brain.

What observable, and mathematically proven, alternative do you have?

rossum
Click to expand...
Rossum - Okay - I’m sorry I didn’t address your ‘complete harmony’ issue. Yes I did read all of your posts completely. I will not use those words ‘complete harmony’ next time. May I call it a “system”. So, “from one cell to a [how many cells in the human body, I’m guessing a hundred billion?] system”. I didn’t answer because I thought to myself, “what kind of convoluted argument would have to resort to the task of taking the human body, an unspeakably coordinated and awesome system, and have to discount it, saying it’s not that great because it gets migraines.” I didn’t realize you wanted me to address it but there, those are my feelings on this.
I guess if the rates I asked for where available, you or someone would have presented them. I’m not going to chase after the alleged mutation rate of a eukaryote and try to tie it and the natural selection rate and then to my question. Too much work for me, since even no full-time scientist has accomplished this. I guess if it could have been done with current means it would have.

In terms of what alternative I have: none. Same as you, I have nothing. I even suspect that what a random mutation actually is, is not even fully defined until those genetic analyses that Reggie is talking about are more developed. Yes I know you probably disagree with that last statement but I stand by it.
The difference with me, is that I don’t assert claims, that a single-celled system evolved to a 10 billion human cell system, and can’t back it up mathematically in a hundred and fifty years, despite modern math and computers. I’ll check back in another few years and if more progress is made I’ll change my mind. You are free to believe what you like, and so can I.👍
 
reggieM said:
😃 Yes, I can imagine their tax returns – a bit of fuzzy math to say the least.

Here’s another example of what evolutionists forgot to tell us while explaining the “certainty” of Darwinian theory.
Here’s developmental biologist Stuart Kauffman in an interview in March of this year:

Those numbers would certainly be difficult to reconcile in my bookkeeping. It’s like evolutionists are a little internet start-up firm with a $2 million a year annual budget and the CEO decides they need some acquisitions – they’ll start by buying Yahoo, Google and Microsoft. When their accounting firm explains that they don’t have the working capital to finance billions in investments – the internet start-up promply fires the accountants and looks for another firm that can “work the numbers” for them and “make it happen”. 🙂

Ok, so you need 10 to the 7,000th capability but you only have 10 to the 80th in the entire universe?

Don’t worry – evolution happens all the time. It’s not a big deal. We don’t need to look at the mathematics anyway. The fossils we found are enough to explain it all. 😉 :rolleyes:

Yes, I think you’ve been given the best answer that they’ve got. In other words, they’re far, far, far (put 10 billion more “far’s” there) from explaining it.

But they’re really good at bluffing and acting like there are no real problems here.

Maybe a team of software engineers can design, build and test some software that replicates how random natural processes create new information out of nothing. 🙂 👍
Click to expand...
Thanks again for all the hints you’ve given me ReggieM.👍 I was thinking of your earlier post. The one where they discovered that the “junk DNA” was not “junk” DNA at all. What it meant to me is, the people researching this are doing spin doctoring on what they don’t understand. Why on earth would you call what you don’t understand, “Junk?” It means that because they don’t understand it, it’s just “junk”??? This speaks volumes to me in terms of bias against the unexplained.
In regards to your point of cooking the books. Typically a scientist needs to crank stuff out for a promotion. If the study results say a certain thing, he gets the promotion. Yes I’m aware of that general bias.
Again, thanks, I never really had a look at what the evolution threads have been saying here so all your info was news to me.
 
Thanks again to all who participated, you have volunteered enough info for me to conclude my little “audit”🙂 . I don’t see any new info being brought forward or any new players so if you have anything new to say you can keep going without me, or pm me if I overlooked anything you thought was vital.
According to my parents, who “passed down” (<L tradition) the faith to me, about 67 generations ago Jesus “roamed the earth” and he was exactly whom he said he was. We should thank the Lord everyday for our faith. TTFN:thumbsup:
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
Mathamatical model of Darwinism : 1+2=4
Click to expand...
That isn’t so far off. Reducing biology to mathematics just basically can’t be done because there are far too many unknown variables.

Mathematics is hard science. Biology is a much softer science.

If that idea prevents you from accepting evolution theory then there is no use discussing it further. Fortunately biologists don’t use such a hard science approach to a subject that cannot be expressed by mathematical equations.

Biology is much more difficult than mere mathematics.
 
Lost_Found said:
Rossum - Okay - I’m sorry I didn’t address your ‘complete harmony’ issue. Yes I did read all of your posts completely. I will not use those words ‘complete harmony’ next time.
Click to expand...
Accepted.
May I call it a “system”.
Click to expand...
Yes, if you wish.
So, “from one cell to a [how many cells in the human body, I’m guessing a hundred billion?] system”. I didn’t answer because I thought to myself, “what kind of convoluted argument would have to resort to the task of taking the human body, an unspeakably coordinated and awesome system, and have to discount it, saying it’s not that great because it gets migraines.” I didn’t realize you wanted me to address it but there, those are my feelings on this.
Click to expand...
When writing a program most programmers will split the program up into separate modules, and work on each module separately. Rather than trying to deal with all of human evolution in one chunk, try splitting it up into smaller pieces. Consider our common ancestor with the chimpanzees - it was probably a lot more like a chimpanzee than we are. Nevertheless there is nothing we have that a chimpanzee does not also have to some degree or other. Can you see that it is reasonable that we could evolve from something like a chimpanzee into ourselves? A chimp’s brain is smaller than ours, but has all the structures that our brain has. Some of ours are enlarged relative to a chimp, but all the same structures are there. Do you have any problem with that?
I guess if the rates I asked for where available, you or someone would have presented them.
Click to expand...
I presented current mutation rates for eukaryotes (ourselves) and prokaryotes. Selection rates are dependant on the environemnt, so since you have not provided any information on the environment I cannot give you the selection rates.
I’m not going to chase after the alleged mutation rate of a eukaryote
Click to expand...
Less of the “alleged” please. You do not have to chase it either, I gave it to you:That depends on what species you are talking about. The mutation rate in eukaryotes is in generally 10[sup]-4[/sup] to 10[sup]-6[/sup] mutations per base pair per generation, and for bacteria the rate is around 10[sup]-8[/sup] per base pair per generation. (Source: Wikipedia)
Please do read my posts more carefully.
In terms of what alternative I have: none. Same as you, I have nothing.
Click to expand...
No I have a partial picture, it is you who have nothing. Until you can provide a better explanation I will continue to use the best explanation currently available. Your current car is not perfect because it does not do 5,000 miles per gallon; does that mean that you refuse to use it? Evolution is the best explanation we currently have for the diversity of species we currently see. Whan a better explanation comes along I will use that better explamnation; I will not dump a reasonable explanation for “nothing”.
I even suspect that what a random mutation actually is, is not even fully defined until those genetic analyses that Reggie is talking about are more developed.
Click to expand...
A random mutation is a mutation (i.e. a change in DNA) that is random with respect to its effect on the phenotype. It is not random wrt its cause - we know many things that will cause mutations. The randomness is with respect to their effects.
The difference with me, is that I don’t assert claims, that a single-celled system evolved to a 10 billion human cell system
Click to expand...
I assert that a single cell evolved into a simple multi-celled system, see Biofilm. From that developed very simple animals, first with one opening (Jellyfish) and then with two (Deuterostomes - worms). Some of the worms developed a stiff rod (Chordates - amphioxus) with a nerve cord slightly swollen at the end. Some of these developed a protective enclosure around the brain (Craniata). Some of these developed a spinal column (Vertebrata). Some of these developed jaws (Gnathostomes - fish). Some fish developed fins-on-stumps (Sarcopterygii - lungfish and coelacanths). Some of these started crawling out of the water on four stumps (Tetrapods - Ichthyostega). Some of these took to the land permanently and laid eggs on land (Amniotes). Some of these developed a particular form of skull with a single hole near the eye (Synaspids). Some of these developed warm blood, fur and a single jawbone (Mammals). Some of these took to a life in the trees (Primates). Some of these started to hang below branches, rather than run along the top of them, and so lost their tails (Hominidae). Some of then took to upright walking on land and developed a large brain (Homo). See Tree of Life for details.

How do we know this? We are Deuterostomes; we have a mouth and an anus. We are Chordates; our embryos still have the original stiff rod. We are Craniates; just look at our skull. We are Vertebrates; we have a spinal column. We are Gnathostomes; we have jaws. We are Sarcopterygians; we have limbs. We are Tetrapods; we have four limbs. We are Amniotes; our embryos develop inside the amniotic sac. We are Synaspids; we have a hole behind each cheekbone below each eye. We are mammals; we have fur and a single jawbone. We are Hominidae; we can raise our arms above our heads and do not have a tail. We are Homo; we are a large brained upright walking Hominid.
can’t back it up mathematically in a hundred and fifty years, despite modern math and computers.
Click to expand...
We have more backing than creationism, and creationism has been around a lot more than 150 years.

rossum
 
Namesake said:
That isn’t so far off. Reducing biology to mathematics just basically can’t be done because there are far too many unknown variables.

Mathematics is hard science. Biology is a much softer science.

If that idea prevents you from accepting evolution theory then there is no use discussing it further. Fortunately biologists don’t use such a hard science approach to a subject that cannot be expressed by mathematical equations.

Biology is much more difficult than mere mathematics.
Click to expand...
My point was you can do it if you take a little liberty and omit something here or there.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
My point was you can do it if you take a little liberty and omit something here or there.
Click to expand...
That is my point also. The variables involved in natural selection are so uncontrollable that mathematical representation is impossible unless the math is manipulated. Same like cooking the books.

Random mutation can be pretty well expressed mathematically but that isn’t the whole story because natural selection isn’t random.

Do you really believe that thousands of eminent biologists, paleontologists, geologists, are taking liberty with the facts? Do you really believe in a vast conspiracy that penetrates academia globally? Wouldn’t you think that just one maverick grad student would make a name for him/her self by publishing evidence of such a conspiracy?
 
Lost_Found said:
But it should be vetted to other disciplines, they have something to offer too. For example. The accounting 101 college textbook is titled “Accounting, the basis for business decisions”. Then the accountant spends his/her entire carreer studying data, and how people use information to process and make decisions. To do this the accountant must also become an expert on objectivity. These are skills which can be used when looking at the fossil record. The scientist need not fear other disciplines.:eek:
Click to expand...
Interesting. And you, as an accountant, based on accounting 101, are better qualified to determine the effecacy of a new cancer drug than a research oncologist is? Really? Because you took accounting 101 you are a more objective judge of data than someone who actually understands what the data is? Really?

Peace

Tim
 
Thank you all, for the compliments on my abilities.

…So many distractions from you all, monkeys and all, to forget about the single topic - remember? The 0 to 10 billion in 3 billion year math-reconciliation thingy to support your claim.

We await your calculations. And please - I’m quite busy - don’t bother me until you’re done:cool: .
 
Lost_Found said:
I’m sorry but I don’t accept the analogy of the baby. All of the human baby’s necessary code is perfectly in place right there at conception or thereabouts. That code was not in place 550 million years ago. Not a valid analogy. They are not equal, period.
Click to expand...
It’s not a valid analogy. Additionally, a baby doesn’t grow through the process of mutations and natural selection either. 🙂
When I first posted, I somewhat naively thought maybe some mathematicians had done some significant work here. You know what shocked me, even disgusted me? It was the Weasel program. That changed my tone completely. It’s nothing more than a random letter generator, a 28 character string, and at each roll of the dice, it compares each character to the target character. If it matches, it focuses on the remaining unmatched characters. It’s like the coder couldn’t get the results he wanted naturally so he juiced the app. I had heard the Dawkins name before and said, “if this is one of the leading proponents, and this is all he’s got, to explain my one to ten billion reconciliation, I’m OUT”.:o
Click to expand...
There’s a lot of deception going on. Dawkins’ bluff with the Weasel program is one of the worst I’ve seen. Amazingly, a large number of evolutionists think that he actually proved something with that idea. He is clearly aiming his program at a target and manipulating the results to reach the “goal”.
 
But it should be vetted to other disciplines, they have something to offer too. For example. The accounting 101 college textbook is titled “Accounting, the basis for business decisions”. Then the accountant spends his/her entire carreer studying data, and how people use information to process and make decisions. To do this the accountant must also become an expert on objectivity. These are skills which can be used when looking at the fossil record. The scientist need not fear other disciplines.
Click to expand...
When I took my Master’s in systems, we shared a few decision courses with MBAs and Financial people. While we liked their effect on the curve, we were amused by their notions that manipulating the numbers correctly would change reality. The current world economic mess is the result of such thinking.

The difference is that scientists start out with the idea that there is an objective reality that can be determined by mathematical means and evidence.

It’s why science has progressed, and accounting hasn’t had a major advance in knowledge since Luca Pacioli (a Franciscan monk, BTW)
 
reggieM said:
It’s not a valid analogy. Additionally, a baby doesn’t grow through the process of mutations and natural selection either. 🙂

There’s a lot of deception going on. Dawkins’ bluff with the Weasel program is one of the worst I’ve seen. Amazingly, a large number of evolutionists think that he actually proved something with that idea. He is clearly aiming his program at a target and manipulating the results to reach the “goal”.
Click to expand...
Would this be considered as the Texas Sharphooter Fallacy
 
yellowbicycle said:
I am also an accountant. I also need to see things tie to 0.
I also don’t ‘get’ evolution.
My husband is a researcher at a major University. He has a PhD in microbiology and genetics.
He doesn’t ‘get’ why it’s so important to tie to 0.
But he can blow your mind away on evolution.
What I’m saying is, what YOU try to reconcile in your head, he and I try to reconcile over the dinner table.
I ask him ALL the time ‘So, EVERY dog I see, is from the gray wolf?’
‘Yes’
‘The pit bull?’
‘Yes’
‘The poodle?’
‘Yes’
‘The Chihuahua? Certainly not the chihuahua?’
‘Yes, even the chihuahua’
‘All from the gray wolf?’
‘Yes’
‘But, how?!?!?’
And he explains it again.
And it still boggles my mind.
I mean, domesticated dogs were FORCED evolution - we KNOW what happened because WE MADE it happen. And I still don’t get it 🤷 😊
Click to expand...
Demosticated dogs are not forced evolution. If they did not have the capacity to interbreed already built in, nothing would have happened. I suggest you read up on grafting for fruit trees. You can take a branch from one and graft it to a different type of fruit tree. Again, the capacity is built in, otherwise nothing would happen.

No gross changes in morphology occurs through evolution, the capability is already built into the organism.

Peace,
Ed
 
The diagram is interesting but it doesn’t explain polystrate fossilized trees, some going into coal seams.

The Okapi was once thought to be an extinct relative of the horse since only bones of it had been found, then the Okapi is found, alive.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
The diagram is interesting but it doesn’t explain polystrate fossilized trees, some going into coal seams.
Click to expand...
The diagram is just an example of morphological change through evolution. Or do you think all those forms were specially created at different times and allowed to go extinct?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top