|
Author
|
Topic: can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified?
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 29. June 2006 22:17
Reproductive rates never had anything to do with evolution either. The African Elephant is one of the slowest reproducing animals of all time and one of the most successful. Let's get real shall we?
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 01. July 2006 01:07
quote:
We should realize ourselves that it is the Darwinians that need time, the billions of years, not the IDers.
This is I have no doubt a likely truth. However, it is also true that ID theory is also compatible with millions if not billions of years, and unless we have good evidence that the radioactive dating techniques of the rocks are invalid I think we should take this paleontological data pretty seriously. Chris
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 01. July 2006 08:41
"Good evidence ..."
Bravo!
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 03. September 2006 17:06
Chris
If the radioactive dating techniques are in gross error [only we don’t know it yet], how would one go about showing this?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 03. September 2006 18:52
While evolution went on for millions of years, every significant event took place instantaneously, whether it was speciation or the formation of any of the higher categories. None of these taxa appeared gradually, not one. Today apparently nothing is going on beyond the formation of varieties and subspecies neither of which are incipient species. All that remains is ontogeny and that will cease also as extinction continues to increase due largely to the effects of humans in upsetting the normal balance of nature. Just as death terminates the idividual so extinction will terminate all species and with it all life on the planet. The best we can do is to delay the inevitable, something that we have yet to even begin.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable,"
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 04. September 2006 13:10
As much as I enjoy this thread, I think Shi's topic should have been "Can any aspect of Darwinism be verified?" The answer is of course yes, the production of varieties and subspecies, neither of which had and have anything whatsoever to do with creative evolution, a phenomenon of the past.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 10. September 2006 21:37
Hi Mel; sorry I did not see your post.
quote:
If the radioactive dating techniques are in gross error [only we don’t know it yet], how would one go about showing this?
My own perspective is that the age of the earth must be close to textbook orthodoxy - the reason being that the 235U to 238U ratio seems what you would expect, together with the fact that the Neptunium series has totally decayed away. Also there is the fact that we know the Sun has been burning for at least 5 million years and one would have expected the earth and Sun to form around the same time. However I am deeply suspicious of intermediate dating. Although I think that much of the work done in ICR's RATE project is perhaps incorrect, I do believe they have some very real and accurate data that cannot be explained by the current orthodoxy. The answers may have a quite natural explanation, but it is worrying that the contemporary geological community does not wish to look at these problems. For example why is it that natural diamonds have some very small trace of 14C in them? This known by contemporary geologists but it is not talked about. Why is it that the geological column remains exactly the same after the 1960s at which time a major change in understanding occured when plate techtonics was confirmed - the deposition of sediments would have been very different before and after land formation. It is this sort of question that make me question the reliability of intermediated dates (to some extent). As in biology there seems to be an orthodoxy that you better not challenge - or else. Hope you find this helpful and if there is a geologist out there please do reply. Chris
[ 12. September 2006, 21:38: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Klaus Lange
Member
Member # 3101
|
posted 23. November 2006 05:46
quote:
If the radioactive dating techniques are in gross error [only we don’t know it yet], how would one go about showing this?
-Mel
We have two main ways to go for testing radioactive dating:
1. Showing that radioactive rates are in earth history not constant.
2. Search for independend dating technics.
2a) On earth
2b) On other planets, on moon,...
At 1.
One example: On earth we have a natural playground for this in Oklo, Gabun natural atomic reactor. Last research result may shows hints for changing radiation rates.
At 2.
An interesting method for dating is to use several length of time it takes for the earth (or other planets) to complete astronomical cycles, that affect the earth climate and so the nature of sedimentary deposition. A wonderful explanation for that I found on earthhistory.org. Look for subheadline "Milankovitch cycles".
It is clear that ID not need small time scales, but it is very important for good science to have independend methods dating the history of nature.
[ 23. November 2006, 06:20: Message edited by: Klaus Lange ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 26. February 2007 14:31
Just for fun I thought I would resurrect this topic. Instead of attempting to answer the question it poses, I suggest the question be rephrased as follows -
Can some aspect of Darwinism be verified?
The answer is a resounding yes!
Here is what has been repeatedly verified. Selection, either natural or artificial is perfectly competent at generating intraspecific varieties and in some few instances subspecies none of which are incipient species. That is ALL that the Darwinian mechanism has ever been able to accomplish. Accordingly that is all that it now is or ever was good for. It is the biggest and most enduring hoax in the history of science.
In short, it never had ANYTHING to do with progressive creative evolution, a phenomenon no longer in progress.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 26. February 2007, 14:34: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 22. March 2007 14:58
I have just submitted an elementary proof for the
famous Goldbach conjecture. It is extremely simple and can
be understood by any layperson with a high school
education. It is only half page long and is posted
below. To understand the designer who is clearly a mathematician, we must be able to solve the most basic math problems. In my view, a rational proof of God lies in solving the most fundamental problems of math, ie, those concerning the prime numbers, such as the Goldbach conjecture and the Riemann Hypothesis. We may then also understand why 5 fingers.
The Prussian mathematician Christian Goldbach wrote a letter to Leonhard Euler in 1742 in which he proposed the following conjecture: Every integer greater than 2 can be written as the sum of three primes. He considered 1 to be a prime number, a convention that is not commonly adopted today. Euler, becoming interested in the problem, answered by noting that this conjecture would follow from a stronger version: Every even integer greater than 2 can be written as the sum of two primes. The former conjecture is today known as the "ternary" Goldbach conjecture, the latter as the "strong" or "binary" Goldbach conjecture. The Goldbach’s conjecture is one of the oldest unsolved problems in all of mathematics.
I have deduced a simple proof for the strong Goldbach conjecture that can be easily understood by any layperson with a high school education.
Every odd non-prime number can be written as a multiplication of primes or as an even number of sums of one prime (45 is 3 x 3 x 5 or 14 sums of 3; one sum here means one plus sign or operation). In turn, it can be written as the single sum of one prime and one even number that is the odd number of sums of the same prime (45 = 3 + 42, and 42 is 13 sums of 3). So equation (1) is true for every odd integer: Odd number = one prime + one even number. An odd prime number is simply a special case when the single even number is zero. Every even integer can be written as the single sum of two odd numbers as expressed by equation (2): Even number = one odd number + one odd number. Combining equations (1) and (2) gives rise to equation (3): Even number = (one prime + one even number) + (one prime + one even number). Since even number plus even number only produces even number, equation (3) is equivalent to equation (4): Even number X = one prime + one prime + even number Y. Next, the even number Y is subtracted from both sides of equation (4) to produce equation (5): Even number X – Even number Y = one prime + one prime. Since every even number can be written as a subtraction of two even numbers (Every even number = Even number X – Even number Y), equation (5) is equivalent to the final equation (6): Every even number = one prime + one prime, which is the strong Goldbach conjecture. If we consider 1 a prime and 2 a non-prime, then the strongest possible Goldbach conjecture is also true: Every even integer can be written as the single sum of two primes.
Best regards,
Shi Huang
IP: Logged
|
|
William Brookfield
Member
Member # 565
|
posted 22. March 2007 16:30
Hi Shi,
With regard to numbers 1 and 2 it seem to me that resolution limit and its possible effect should be considered here. I.E. The number "2" as the only even prime, appears to be a victim of the resolution limit of the number system itself, with "primehood" being unnaturally forced upon it by the lack of resolution. The number "1" seems to suffer from a similar resolution problem due to its default indivisibiliy.
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 22. March 2007 16:51
Hi, William,
I am not sure I understand what you mean by 'resolution limit". But in any event, I am convinced that, to the divine, 1 is a prime and 2 is not.
The primality of the number 1 and 2 are decided by human agreements rather than objective logic or reason. The number 1 is not considered a prime today but was in the past (see Mathworld for references). While 2 is considered a prime today, at one time it was not. The odd primes have many properties not shared by 2. To the divine mathematician, there must be an objective logical reason to decide the primality of 1 and 2. That reason may have something to do with the essence of primes which humans have so far yet to grasp. The current human definition of primes may merely represent a superficial description of one of the manifestations or epiphenomenon of the essence of primes.
It is also easy to have a definition of primes based on calculation that would include all primes (including 1) except 2. Thus, a prime can be defined as a number that cannot be expressed by the even number of sums of any single number except 1 and itself. For example, 1 is 0 (an even number) sum of 1 and itself; 3 is 2 sums of 1 and 0 sum of itself; but 2 is not a prime since it is 1 (an odd number) sum of 1.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 22. March 2007 19:06
Shi: quote:
equation (4): Even number X = one prime + one prime + even number Y
This statement is true if we interpret it as follows:
For every even number X there exist prime numbers P1 and P2 and an even number Y such that X = P1 + P2 + Y
quote:
equation (5): Even number X – Even number Y = one prime + one prime
For this to follow from equation 4, it has to be interpreted as follows:
For every even number X there exist prime numbers P1 and P2 and an even number Y such that X - Y = P1 + P2
quote:
(Every even number = Even number X – Even number Y)
Interpretation:
For every even number E, there exist even numbers X and Y such that E = X - Y
quote:
equation (6): Every even number = one prime + one prime
Interpretation:
For every even number E, there exist prime numbers P1 and P2 such that E = P1 + P2
But there is no logic by which the last sentence can be derived from the previous two sentences.
Edit: Shi, Melvin is correct in his post below. The problem stems from the two sentences which I interpreted as follows:
A) For every even number X there exist prime numbers P1 and P2 and an even number Y such that X - Y = P1 + P2
B) For every even number E, there exist even numbers X and Y such that E = X - Y
The problem is that X and Y are bound variables in both of those sentences. As such, they're just placeholders, and have no meaning outside of the sentences in which they're bound. That is, "X - Y" in sentence A does not mean the same as "X - Y" in sentence B.
If you want to combine the two sentences, it would have to be something like this:
For every even number X there exist prime numbers P1 and P2 and even numbers Y and E such that X - Y = P1 + P2 and E = X - Y
But in that case, as Melvin mentioned, you haven't proven E = P1 + P2 for all E, only for some E.
[ 23. March 2007, 13:34: Message edited by: 2ndclass ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 23. March 2007 12:58
Shi,
I have some problems with your proof.
The most important of which is in your leap from equation (5) to equation (6). Your “Every even number” in equation (6) has not been shown to be “any even number”. That this number be arbitrary is of the utmost importance. We need that number to represent any possible choice of an even number. It has not been shown to represent this necessary condition.
Let me give you an example: Suppose we take the even number 14 (arbitrary choice). It follows then from your logic that:
14 = 3 + 2 + 5 + 4
14 = 2 + 4 + 3 + 5
14 = 6 + 3 + 5
14 – 6 = 3 + 5
8 = 3 + 5
Now, suppose we take the even number 22 (arbitrary choice). It follows then from your logic that:
22 = 3 + 6 + 5 + 8
22 = 6 + 8 + 3 + 5
22 = 14 + 3 + 5
22 – 14 = 3 + 5
8 = 3 + 5
In other words, the set of even numbers could, by your logic, be mapping to a subset of the even numbers; i.e. you have not shown this mapping to be one – to – one. Therefore, it has not been shown that the “Every even number” in your equation (6) could be “any even number”.
What say you?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 23. March 2007 14:41
2ndclass and Mel,
Thanks for pointing out the errors. I have always found it helpful to share ideas and get feedbacks, which can help to correct mistakes.
Shi
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
