sorry man--everything in red is wrong.

Pfffft!

Those are just people with rickets!

Dogs are a great example of the seemingly variable speed at which evolution can occur. However also consider that, relative to other domesticated animals, they reproduce quickly and in relatively large litters. This gives the opportunity for far more genetic manipulation per unit of time. In the time it takes for one horse generation, you could have had a multitude of puppies.

The evolutionary flexibility of rapid-reproducing smaller mammals is part of the reason mammals fared better than the dinosaurs. Slow-reproducers have less 'chances' to adapt. I liken this to a hairpin turn on a speedway. The slow-reproducing larger dinosaurs are the evolutionary equivalent of a bus, when they were faced with the hairpin turn of an abrupt environmental catastrophe, they couldn't adapt quickly enough and smashed into the wall of extinction. Our rat ancestors were the equivalent of a sports car, far more evolutionarily nimble via fast maturation/gestation and large brood size. Our 'sportscar-like' rat-ish ancestors handled the hairpin turn well enough to speciate into many of the niches now vacant from our former dinosaur overlords, if you will.

Hey old buddy
Sure I do we just explain it all differently.

Unfortunately your version of differently is not in line with the generally accepted definition of people in the field.

 

Or to explain it differently, your facts about science are wrong.

So Einstein didn't use math to figure out his theory of relativity?

Isn't artman Catholic?  Doesn't he know that the Pope is totally cool with evolution these days?  Or is he a member of one of those Latin Mass Only throwback types?

Might be a "bring out the snakes" kind of place.

math is a language, not a science.

That's going to go over his head so fast it will have infinite mass.

 

No. Sorry. That's just now how it works. Sorry for your misunderstanding.





In science, facts are not "truth". Facts are merely observations. Many observations that are independently confirmed are considered "likely true" within apparent reality. But they are not "the truth". All have some level of uncertainty.





Furthermore, we have no way to know if the theory of relativity accurately describes the real universe, or if it is just a good approximation of the parts of the universe which we can observe.





That's the thing you don't get. If you think about what science is on a philosophical level, it is nothing more than constructing models of APPARENT REALITY. We have no way to confirm if apparent reality is anything close to actual reality.  That is why nothing, not even the theory of relativity, will ever be known with certainty to be "the truth". Just a good approximation for what we observe.



ETA::Also, math is not a science. Science uses math to create models.





Math is a good contrast to science actually.  



In science, there are no absolutes.  



In math, you have absolutes.





 

Actually, math is exactly the same as science.  Both are estimates based on apparent reality.  Although they may be highly accurate, they aren't certain.  Both have processes for how the breaks from reality that inevitably occur during their expansion and development are reigned in and repaired: theories.

This perfectly illustrates my point.  Evolution is not reality.  It is a potential explanation of why reality functions as it does.  But if it is merely a description of the activities within the confines of reality, then what creates the barriers that limit the phenomena that science explains?

What purpose did you have in mind by including this in your statement?

Push back by those who don't have the mind for science and are tired of being mocked by the science elite/atheist elite?

I think it's a result of charismatic charlatans preaching anti-science disguised as religion on TV.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Didn't read thread because I'm sure it's chock full of stupidity by now.

But, I'll just add that humans are just a different line of apes.  That's like asking why chimpanzees aren't evolving into gorillas right now.

No.



Math is a set of rules. These rules can be used to describe apparent reality, or literally anything else. You do not need a single tie to observable reality to create awesome (and 100% valid) math.



Science is a methodology for producing models of apparent reality based on observations. These models typically use math.



They have similarities, and one depends on the other, but they are not the same thing.



 

To point out that its a question that shouldn't have to be asked.



 

yeah...no.  math is not an "estimate based on apparent reality".  it is a language of terms and operators that--like english or latin--can be used to describe the physical world.  that's an important point.  math doesn't explain relationships--it doesn't have the linguistic resources to do so.  explanation requires nouns and verbs.  what math can do is to describe relationships. take bernoulli.  the equation can't explain why 9.8m/s^2 affects hydraulic head.  all it can do is to show (describe, indicate, enumerate, etc.) a numeric relationship between two variables.  "why" is beyond the linguistic purview of math.

but that's not the biggest problem with your post.  you claim that evolution is not reality.  fine--define reality.

I have never watched that shit and never will, but I believe in a higher power and will push back when mocked. Fuck the ignorant atheists, including my lib friends.

My career in science was in jeopardy when I failed calculus. That's fine; I learned I don't have a brain wired for science and math. I can still be amazed by watching all the cool science shows. They're great companions to my God, philosophy, and psychology books and shows.

What do mice and humans have in common? 5% shared DNA.

Every person living or dead has/had the same ancestor according to both the Theory of Evolution and The Bible. hmmmm...

 

I see. Those of us who don't have a brain wired for science, and who also dropped out of high school and joined the Marines should miraculously know the answers to the questions we never had to learn the answers to?

Is that what you're saying?

Well played to both of you.

It's a shame you're a figment but I'll think of something else...

What does it matter?

In Oklahoma, not Arizona!

I'm sure his statement covers people who dropped out and joined the Army and Navy too.

 

As a busy university student studying Biochemistry while maintaining a full-time job in the medical field (arguably, not lacking a comprehension of science and its processes [certainly not lacking a high-school education, as some have suggested]), I will save myself some time by using some dictionary-sourced definitions instead of trying to create my own adequate explanation of these agreeably abstract concepts.  Each of these definitions come courtesy of Google.

Language:  the method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way.
Mathematics:  the abstract science of number, quantity, and space.
Number:  an arithmetical value, expressed by a word, symbol, or figure, representing a particular quantity and used in counting and making calculations and for showing order in a series or for identification.
Quantity:  the amount or number of a material or immaterial thing not usually estimated by spatial measurement
Space:  the dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move
Reality:  the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
Science:  the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

Math is misleadingly reduced by the formal meaning of the word language; there is “a structured and conventional way,” but that is not an accurate and complete definition of mathematics.  By definition, math IS science (“the abstract science of number, quantity, and space”).  Counter to the intangibility of math and science, reality is tangible and finite (“as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea”).  However, math and science share the same relationship wherein they are limited by reality.

Math is the study of number, quantity, or space.  Space is a representation of dimensional constraint (“within which all things exist and move”): reality.  Numbers are defined as representations of quantities.  Quantity is defined by number of material things (reality) or “immaterial things not usually estimated by spatial measurement.”  That means they are finite and precise...once again indicating their correspondence to reality.

How, then, is science limited by reality?  Science is the study of “the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”  Therefore, if reality is the physical and natural world (a point we must agree on if we don't want to acknowledge the existence of a non-physical, supernatural world [and perhaps its accompanying resident deity]), then science is the study of reality using observation and experiment.

Scientists cannot exit “the world as it actually exists” to take observations or perform experiments.  They remain confined, seeking to explain existence and its functions from within it.  That which confines them is an unidentified, limiting force.  Because of this, their observations remain imprecise, as their singular perspective is inadequate for the absolute definition of the boundaries of reality; they cannot observe anything from outside their own perspective.  Science doesn't define reality: reality feeds the observation and experimentation that allows science to predict outcomes.  These outcomes are not produced by science, but rather by reality itself, as science is merely the observation and assessment of understanding by the systematic prediction of results which remain in the physical form.

Once again, I pose the question (with no ill-intent, just as before):  If science is a potential explanation of why reality functions as it does, then what creates the barriers that limit the phenomena that science explains?

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!1!

 

Arg dogs have very unique genetics which allow for this rats and other faster breeding large litter mammals aren't capable of producing the same diversity so rapidly. I guess it is micro evolution but basically dogs have evolved to be able to evolve with out truly evolving (macro evolution/ speciation).

Lets say theres a short nose gene we'll call it n. You keep breeding dogs with n and you get nnnnnn and progressively smaller noses. Now in a rat you keep breeding rats with n and you basically still just get n and maybe if you are lucky n plus sime other small nose gene that make a slightly smaller nose but not a progressive stacking.

It's not the same sort of macro evolution as observed in darwins finches and because of the unique capability of dags to create vast variation with little genetic change it's likely they may not ever speciate or do so much slower than other animals which require much greater changes in genetics to produce that sort of variation.

The natural world.

Ironically, scientific studies are constrained by the very thing scientists experience every minute of their lives. They are products of the natural world. They live it every day. Many study it for most of their lives, but being dumped here and having to live with the tools given them means they begin their studies seriously handicapped.

The human average lifespan. How much more would we know if the great thinkers could have lived 800 years?

Evolution of the species. Where would we be now if the rate of evolution had been 100x what it was up to this point? What would our brains be capable of?

ETA What if they could leave this plane of existence and study our world as if it is under glass?

well, while you're googling, google 'hume's fork', followed by 'a priori/a posteriori' and 'analytic/synthetic'.

to be very, very brief, science (in the way that we commonly understand it) is the exercise of empiricist epistemology.  IOW, it is based on experiential observation of events and phenomena.  an empirically true statement takes a form something like "event E was observed at time T by subject S".  notice that these are all subjective.

mathematics OTOH is not empiricist at all.  no observation is going to change pythagoras' equation for a right triangle.  you will never, ever, ever find evidence to support the hypothesis that a triangle comprises 182 degrees of angle.  ever.  why not?  because "a triangle comprises 3 angles of a total of 180 degrees" is not an empirically true statement.  or rather, it is not empirical at all.  instead, it is analytically true, because in the language of mathematics, to refer to a figure as a triangle is the same thing as referring to it as "a closed figure of three angles comprising 180 degrees".

do you understand the difference?  1 + 2 = 3 is not an empirically true statement--it's an analytically true statement.  that is, it is true because of the internal structure of the language, completely independent of any state of affairs in the observable world.  when we make that equation, we're not discovering anything empirical.  we're just saying that the definition of the symbol "3" is the same as the definition of the symbol collection "1 + 2".


think back to your logic class.  remember when you covered the difference between form and content?  between validity, soundness, cogency, and strength?  mathematics is formal.  it's like assessing an AAA-1 syllogism:

all A are B
all C are A

therefore, all C are B

this form of argument is unconditionally true.  it isn't true for any empirical reason ("we observed many letter Cs, and they were the same as letter Bs").  that would be ridiculous, right?  rather, it is true by virtue of the language of which they were a part.  think of the law of identity (A = A, or "a thing must be identical to itself").  that tells us nothing about things--it just clarifies what we mean when we say 'a thing'.  same with the laws of noncontradiction and the occluded middle.  they don't tell us about the world--they're just true because we say that they're true (just like "a triangle is a closed figure comprising 3 angles and 180 degrees").



have you had your required philosophy of science/metascience course yet?

 

Chicago?

Page 7 is not where I thought this thread was going to go.

I descend from gods, not apes.

Sorry.



Didn't realize you actually didn't finish high school. I assumed the question was coming from someone who was willingly ignorant despite being taught it.  



My bad.  It wasn't meant to address your personal situation, something that I was unaware of.



That said, if you truly never learned about evolution, may I suggest googling the question? In addition to my answer, this particular question has been answered tens of thousands of times.
 

Maybe the reason they haven't evolved yet is because they haven't had enough time. Evolution takes millions of years.  The earth is only 6,000 years old after all.

I would suggest he read the book "Undeniable" by Bill Nye.  It would open his world to evolution and how it works.  

The Obelisk is gone.

Oh, stop it.

Amen !

I am Catholic and proud of it. The Pope can be cool with whatever he feels. Is evolution possible, sure, but to me you have to prove it and it hasn't been done so I'll stick with beliefs until then. Even if we did evolve that way God would be the reason we did.
Now maybe you can answer a couple of questions for me. Why are scientist finding out we are probably more closely related to pigs then chimps? And why aren't they listed in that family tree ?  Did you know atheist represent roughly 3% of our population yet 60% of people in our prison system are atheist.

Wrong and why are atheist such angry people.

Reality is truth. Proven truth. And math does explain relationships. You can start with odd numbers and even numbers and go from there.

Um...cite?

I think you're getting bad info.

FIFY.



Source:  https://www.koshland-science-museum.org/sites/all/exhibits/exhibitdna/intro03.jsp





 

Even anecdotally, anyone who's been to a prison knows that all prisoners have "found Jesus."  But here is a fun actual data source for you regarding the above assertion:

Pretty sure you're an ape.

Humans are the only known species to be able to type coherent sentences. All humans are apes. You're an ape,but a great one.

We are not. Chimps share 98 percent of our DNA with us. They are the closest branch of our family with the nearest common ancestor since we killed off the non Sapiens membersof the Homo family.

I really doubt that.

In fact, the greatest.