Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo formula, but Darwin himself generated a pretty neat algorithm that remains valid today:
Gravitational force = (G * m1 * m2) / (d2)
As far as I am aware, the above formula represents one of the common forces, the law of gravity. Demonstrable by anyone gifted with say, a coin.
What formula are you suggesting most accurately describes natural selection?
. not every individual is the same
. some indviduals have advantages over others
. advantages can be passed on via inheritance
. those offspring that have the advantage are more successful than those that don't
. over time offspring with the advantage dominate a population
. many advantages leads to species change
Originally posted by FreakyKBHEvolution is not a force. Clean your ears out man. Anyway, all you did with your equation is describe the action of gravitation - not explain it in any way. Go back to grade school, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
Gravitational force = (G * m1 * m2) / (d2)
As far as I am aware, the above formula represents one of the common forces, the law of gravity. Demonstrable by anyone gifted with say, a coin.
What formula are you suggesting most accurately describes natural selection?
Originally posted by XanthosNZThank you, Captain Obvious. 'Any other truisms you wish to share with the class?
That's Newton's Law of Gravitation. However, the Theory of General Relativity gives Gravity a full treatment despite not having a underlying single equation.
You do know what makes the distinction between a Theory and a Law don't you? The latter can be expressed as a formula, the former cannot. That's the only difference.
Originally posted by scottishinnzEvolution is not a force.
Evolution is not a force. Clean your ears out man. Anyway, all you did with your equation is describe the action of gravitation - not explain it in any way. Go back to grade school, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
My, my. When you say it, it sounds so much more reasonable. However, when a rabid theist says it, well, he's just being dense. Must be all that thar ear wax.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHJust to clear the air here a bit, what is your problem with this force/process thing that you go on about? Can you clarify the issue(s) you've got?
[b]Evolution is not a force.
My, my. When you say it, it sounds so much more reasonable. However, when a rabid theist says it, well, he's just being dense. Must be all that thar ear wax.[/b]
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm just hacked off with disproving you time and time again on the same points. You really need to develop your memory somewhat.
[b]Evolution is not a force.
My, my. When you say it, it sounds so much more reasonable. However, when a rabid theist says it, well, he's just being dense. Must be all that thar ear wax.[/b]
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe process can be tested for, again not denying that, but how much
Yes, evolution is testable. It can be used to form hypotheses. For example, two species closely related will share a higher proportion of the same DNA (both nuclear and mitochondrial) than species less closely related. Two; species that evolved under similar conditions will have similar features (convergent evolution), even if they are not closely re ...[text shortened]... s; human divergence, esp. mitochondrial DNA).
All tested, all positive results for evolution.
credit you give it is another thing all together.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhitehead"...results in a recognizable picture then you can be sufficiently certain that there is a relationship between the dots ..."
The dot-to-dot analogy came about because Freaky claimed that joining the dots can only be done on faith. In other words his claim is that if you see a relationship between two facts then you can never be certain that the relationship actually exists or is just your imagination and therefore is just faith. I dispute that and claim that if the dots are cle ...[text shortened]... me entered the realm of fact and left the realm of faith and the implied guesswork far behind.
You can be sufficiently certain, sounds like faith to me.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly, everything is faith if you dig deep enough, except the fact that there is something which knows of itself as KellyJay (or Penguin or whoever happens to be reading this) and is able to think. However, there is a significant difference between faith supported by evidence and blind faith in spite of evidence. This is what the rest of the post that you extracted that snippet from went on to explain.
"...results in a recognizable picture then you can be sufficiently certain that there is a relationship between the dots ..."
You can be sufficiently certain, sounds like faith to me.
Kelly
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinI don't have blind faith, I do have to accept I cannot prove what I
Kelly, everything is faith if you dig deep enough, except the fact that there is something which knows of itself as KellyJay (or Penguin or whoever happens to be reading this) and is able to think. However, there is a significant difference between faith supported by evidence and blind faith in spite of evidence. This is what the rest of the post that you extracted that snippet from went on to explain.
--- Penguin.
do believe, but it isn't blind. You have evidence, but the evidence
you do have you have to paint to make it mean what you think it
does once we leave the here and now and start applying meaning
to those things in the distant past that you 'believe' you know about.
Kelly
Originally posted by amannionIt's mostly the contention of allowing natural selection to stand on its own. Those who claim that NS is what brought us to this point are stymied in providing what brought NS to this point. NS dangles in mid-air, a process that acts as a force, but yet is not a force. A force can be described in formulaic terms; a process is not thusly constrained, open to all manner of manipulations by whomever for whatever purpose. It is the scientific equivalent to "Godunnit."
Just to clear the air here a bit, what is your problem with this force/process thing that you go on about? Can you clarify the issue(s) you've got?