Freethought & Rationalism Archive

no1nose · 06-23-2008, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWho

no1nose

Being new here, we welcome you.

There is something you need to know:
We get LOTS of drive-by postings similar to yours. This is normal, people have ideas and want to share them. But if you want to be taken seriously, you need to engage in a CONVERSATION, provide proof or examples for your opinion, be flexible and lastly polite.

Hi and thanks for the welcome. I am happy to have a conversation that is on topic.

Clivedurdle · 06-23-2008, 02:35 PM

Since when is evolution math free?

Are not statistics of population distribution, increase and decline maths?

What was Mendel doing but counting genetic change over time?

What are clades?

It is several years since I studied ecology, the sister of evolution, but it was all about population and energy flow.

Have you read Origin of the Species?

Why might Darwin's work on Barnacles still be used?

Clivedurdle · 06-23-2008, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Mathematical modelling plays a central and increasingly important role in evolution and ecology. The object of the meeting is to show the latest development of mathematical models in evolution and ecology and to demonstrate the important role of such modelling through this research to a new generation of researchers. The programme will include keynote talks and sessions in the following, and other, areas: population genetic models; the modelling of epidemics; the use of game theory to model the behaviour of biological populations. The last of these will be a central theme, as befits a conference at the university where John Maynard Smith carried out his pioneering work.
You can download a conference poster here.

http://www.maths.sussex.ac.uk/MMEE2007/

no1nose · 06-23-2008, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malintent

It seems the entirety of the OP is based on pure incredulity:

Quote:

As I try to picture the cup within my mind I notice that I can only hold the image of the cup for a short time and that the image that I imagine is different than what I see when I look at the cup.

Your failure to accurately represent the image of the cup is your own failing.

Quote:

I now take a pen and paper and attempt to describe the cup.

However your failure to accurately describe the cup is your own failing in communication.

The point here is that the image in our mind will never be the real thing. Its like a bank statement with some entries missing and no total. We have some information but enough to know the complete picture.
The human mind is only capable of linear thought on the conscious level. The unconscious mind can and does make quantum leaps and nonlinear thought. The Theory of Evolution is a systematic conscious thought and therefore linear. And therefore will never be anything more than simply tangent to reality at one or more points. The physical world we live in has 3 dimensions plus time. The world of the mind is different place. The problem here that our physical being occupies a different space than our minds. Thus we have problem in understanding the deep nature of reality.

In short the world is n-dimensional and The Theory of Evolution is (n-x)dimensional and will never fully explain its subject.

Steviepinhead · 06-23-2008, 02:55 PM

Science works by closer and closer approximations to reality, not by providing instant complete and full explanations.

Relativity is not complete. Its maths were invented decades before the theory was first thunk, for other purposes entirely. Those two facts alone topedo your inaccurate analogies.

no1nose · 06-23-2008, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Since when is evolution math free?

Quote:

The Theory of Evolution does not flow nor is it defined by mathematical equations but relies until observations. (There are many mathematical equations that have been associated with the Theory of Evolution but they do not flow directly from Evolution and are independent of it. Like ships the sail in the ocean they can sail under any flag.)

The maths associated with the The of Evolution do not depend upon it or even imply "The Theory of Evolution". They are independent observations that show changes that can could occur for any number of reasons.

no1nose · 06-23-2008, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Relativity is not complete. Its maths were invented decades before the theory was first thunk, for other purposes entirely. Those two facts alone topedo your inaccurate analogies.

This is irrelevant to the points in my first post The point is that The Theory of Evolution is a product of our minds and cannot be tied directly to the natural world by math as Relativity can.

AdamWho · 06-23-2008, 03:11 PM

Quote:

The point here is that the image in our mind will never be the real thing. Its like a bank statement with some entries missing and no total. We have some information but enough to know the complete picture.
The human mind is only capable of linear thought on the conscious level. The unconscious mind can and does make quantum leaps and nonlinear thought. The Theory of Evolution is a systematic conscious thought and therefore linear. And therefore will never be anything more than simply tangent to reality at one or more points. The physical world we live in has 3 dimensions plus time. The world of the mind is different place. The problem here that our physical being occupies a different space than our minds. Thus we have problem in understanding the deep nature of reality.

In short the world is n-dimensional and The Theory of Evolution is (n-x)dimensional and will never fully explain its subject.

I understand where you are coming from. You have an idea but you don't have all the technical language to describe it accurately.

Here is what I think you are asking:

Different sciences have different methods and tools for investigating nature. Physics relies heavily on math, math relies on logic. Evolution seems to be a combination of semi-subjective classification into types held together by the Theory of Evolution. That is, it seems to have a subjective underpinning rather than a mathematical one. Does this make evolution less sound than physics?

GolfVixen · 06-23-2008, 03:13 PM

Moved to ~E~ from E/C.

Vixy

AdamWho · 06-23-2008, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GolfVixen

Moved to ~E~ from E/C.

Vixy

This maybe a little harsh, I think we were making progress.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-23-2008, 02:35 PM	#42
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Since when is evolution math free? Are not statistics of population distribution, increase and decline maths? What was Mendel doing but counting genetic change over time? What are clades? It is several years since I studied ecology, the sister of evolution, but it was all about population and energy flow. Have you read Origin of the Species? Why might Darwin's work on Barnacles still be used?

06-23-2008, 02:55 PM	#45
Steviepinhead Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 1,642	Science works by closer and closer approximations to reality, not by providing instant complete and full explanations. Relativity is not complete. Its maths were invented decades before the theory was first thunk, for other purposes entirely. Those two facts alone topedo your inaccurate analogies.

06-23-2008, 03:13 PM	#49
GolfVixen Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 1,374	Moved to ~E~ from E/C. Vixy

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.