punctuated equilibrium

[hgc]

...

So perhaps it is faith, but for me it is based on the large numbers involved.

To the Naturalist, statistical probability is "God."

 

[hammegk]

To the Naturalist, statistical probability is "God."

That, and / or math per se.

If we all got together on our semantics ya'all might be surprized that we are usually arguing about how many digits right of the decimal point are needed to provide "certainty" rather than "faith".

 

[jj]

from hammegk:

Face it, UnrepentantSinner, this guy is simply unable to understand even as clear an argument as you cited.

Although I can not offer proof, I believe the proper response is "unwilling" rather than "unable".

Maybe we can find his spacecraft before Mrs. Brown does?

 

[BillHoyt]

That, and / or math per se.

If we all got together on our semantics ya'all might be surprized that we are usually arguing about how many digits right of the decimal point are needed to provide "certainty" rather than "faith".

hammy,

You don't really want me to remind you of your previous 100% certainty or bust claims, do you?

 

[hammegk]

You don't really want me to remind you of your previous 100% certainty or bust claims, do you?

Bill, you do whatever you feel germane.

Meanwhile:

Is the universe open or closed?

Is space infinitely divisible?

What is energy?

Where is the line that separates life from non-life?

How do you answer the HPC question?

Why is "emergent property" a better answer than goddidit?

Get through these, & I have a couple more.


jj, feel free to answer also. You & Bill might want to collaborate on the project.

 

[BillHoyt]

Bill, you do whatever you feel germane.

Meanwhile:

Is the universe open or closed?

Is space infinitely divisible?

What is energy?

Where is the line that separates life from non-life?

How do you answer the HPC question?

Why is "emergent property" a better answer than goddidit?

Get through these, & I have a couple more.


jj, feel free to answer also. You & Bill might want to collaborate on the project.

You insist on this bizarre notion that any gap in humankind's knowledge means something about the epistemology of science. You also insist on repeating these clearly off-topic questions on a thread about punctuated equilibrium.

Who cares how many "god of the gaps" questions you can generate? Their existence signals just two things. First, that there is still much for us to learn. That keeps the quest interesting. Secondly, that you continue to wallow in the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Tragic.

 

[hgc]

That, and / or math per se.

If we all got together on our semantics ya'all might be surprized that we are usually arguing about how many digits right of the decimal point are needed to provide "certainty" rather than "faith".

Oh Lordy! I've been misunderstood! You think our differences are semantic in nature? Oy gevalt!

OK, enough of the exclamatory hysterics. You have unwittingly supplied the key to our very real, material differences in your short statement above -- "... needed to provide 'certainty' rather than 'faith.'" You have excluded the middle (a wide continuum), that is evidence-based probability analysis (i.e., predictive success) of what constitutes reality. Come on hammy, let's get together on more than semantics, let's get together on shared reality!

 

[hammegk]

You insist on this bizarre notion that any gap in humankind's knowledge means something about the epistemology of science.

Answer the questions to your satisfaction and we will discuss who holds the more bizarre ideas.

You also insist on repeating these clearly off-topic questions on a thread about punctuated equilibrium.

Guilty. Of course once someone agrees with your theory of reality, evolution following random one-of biogenesis is the only logical answer.

...you continue to wallow in the argument from ignorance fallacy.

And I continue to note that logic can only be as good as the axioms it uses.

Tragic.

Tragedy -- at least on a societal level -- seems more clearly linked to men who possess "certainty" (i.e.faith) in the absolute correctness of one or more of their ideas.

let's get together on shared reality!

We already share it at a very very certain level.

 

[hgc]

...

We already share it at a very very certain level.

To be prefaced with, "Riddle me this, Batman: "

 

[hammegk]

To be prefaced with, "Riddle me this, Batman: "

Outstanding! We DO agree at 100% certainty!

 

[BillHoyt]

Of course once someone agrees with your theory of reality, evolution following random one-of biogenesis is the only...

hampoop, hammy. The word is "abiogenesis." "One-of" is not dictated by any of the axioms of science. Please support your claims to the contrary.

And I continue to note that logic can only be as good as the axioms it uses.

First time with a new concept? You mangled it. This is incorrect. Would you like to try this again? Go back and look up those old posts and try to understand them this time. One set of posts deals with logic. The other with deals with systems. Go back over those threads and then try to get out whatever you're going for here.

 

[hammegk]

hampoop, hammy. The word is "abiogenesis." "One-of" is not dictated by any of the axioms of science. Please support your claims to the contrary.

Yeah, but not worth fixing, is it?

First time with a new concept? You mangled it. This is incorrect. Would you like to try this again? Go back and look up those old posts and try to understand them this time. One set of posts deals with logic. The other with deals with systems. Go back over those threads and then try to get out whatever you're going for here.

You could have enlightened all of us with a brilliant response to a Tai Chi statistics question in the time it took you to type that tripe.

Or answered one of the questions I posed for you.

Nah, your comments above may represent the best you can do.


Oh, and before I forget ....


































Have a nice day in spite of yourself.

 

[BillHoyt]

Yeah, but not worth fixing, is it?

To one more interested in carping about the gaps in biological knowledge, no. To the rest of the JREF readership, yes. You see, hammy, many people come to this forum desiring and expecting to gain an understanding of the truth about many matters. One of these matters is evolution.

How life began is a specific and separate issues from the issue of how life's variety arose. The origin of life from non-life is the topic of abiogenesis. However abiogenesis questions are resolved, they don't alter the answers to questions about how life's variety arose after nucleic acids. In the post-nucleic acid era, we discuss evolution. In the pre-nucleic acids era we discuss abiogenesis.

By blurring the lines, and suggesting that some lack of scientific knowledge about abiogenesis indicates fatal flaws in evolutionary theory, you are simply moving the "god of the gaps" argument to another playing field. It is simply another argument from ignorance.

Cheers,

 

[hammegk]

To one more interested in carping about the gaps in biological knowledge, no. To the rest of the JREF readership, yes.

Yes, one of our viewpoints is the voice crying in the wilderness; you think it's you, and I disagree.

You see, hammy, many people come to this forum desiring and expecting to gain an understanding of the truth about many matters. One of these matters is evolution.

Yes, Truth is the matter under discussion.

How life began is a specific and separate issues from the issue of how life's variety arose. The origin of life from non-life is the topic of abiogenesis. However abiogenesis questions are resolved, they don't alter the answers to questions about how life's variety arose after nucleic acids. In the post-nucleic acid era, we discuss evolution. In the pre-nucleic acids era we discuss abiogenesis.

Yes, it's drawing a line, somewhere, for the emergent property (what a rich sounding but meaningless phrase) of "life".

By blurring the lines, and suggesting that some lack of scientific knowledge about abiogenesis indicates fatal flaws in evolutionary theory, you are simply moving the "god of the gaps" argument to another playing field. It is simply another argument from ignorance.

Yes, just my version of "emergent property" rather than yours. There probably is enough ignorance available for both of us to be equally wrong. I just state that I recognize the situation, and you are unwilling to do so.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hoyt said:

. . . you are simply moving the "god of the gaps" argument to another playing field.

Sig alert!

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

Sig alert!

~~ Paul

Well, at least you & Bill could define the god you are imputing to my imagination. He keeps mentioning the concept, not me.

 

[Ziggurat]

Is the universe open or closed?

Open.

Is space infinitely divisible?

Yes.

Where is the line that separates life from non-life?

Wherever you put it when you define the terms.

Why is "emergent property" a better answer than goddidit?

Because the phrase means something. I'll give you a little example: superconductivity is an emergent property of some materials. The various superconductors can have incredibly different structures at their most basic level, yet superconductivity shares many properties across all these materials that are completely independent of the underlying structure. This is what is meant by "emergent property". How applicable that phrase is to life isn't something I care to weigh in on right now, but the phrase does mean something, and it is rather distinct from "god did it".

 

[tracer]

hampoop, hammy. The word is "abiogenesis."

Not according to Wilhelm Reich, it wasn't. (Ol' Orgone Energy Man always called it "biogenesis," or at least the English translations of his writings did.)

 

[hammegk]

Open.

Yes.

Where have you published these results, and which Nobel are you receiving?

Wherever you put it when you define the terms.

Agreed. So where do you define it?

Because the phrase means something. I'll give you a little example: superconductivity is an emergent property of some materials. ...

Sounds good to me. Is that different somehow from PVT dependent phase-change. And which side of your "line to define life" is superconductivity found? And did godditit???


Want to take a whirl at defining energy?


tracer, you must be mistaken, because BillHoyt is NEVER wrong. Er, I suspect god did that too.