Math logic disproves evolution

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
41

in my experience, when someone doesnt address the valid points that have been brought up, they defend themselves by attacking their weakest attacker in this specifically exact same way.

(no offense DS. by weakest i mean fewest specific words, not stupidest argument. well maybe some offense :wink:)

you know what would really blow my mind away? and also the minds of everyone else who reads this website? i mean, like totally explode our brains out of our eyeballs, figuratively.

explain what the crap this visualization means. im just an ignorant peasant who has never seen anything outside of mtv. please enlighten me. please make a post that doesnt mention evolution and instead describes the problem with humanity’s “linear” thought and the difference between this and “reality”

was i right when i said that you are basing this “non-linearity of reality” on the apparent lack of causes of the behavior of quantum particles?

you are a human, you can only think in “linear” terms, right? so how did you come across the idea that “reality” is not linear? your dreams? religion? quantum mechanics? chaos “theory”? what?

we linear types like to call this “evidence”, because our stupid brains can only understand effects if we can see their causes.

again, what does non-linear and discontinuous mean? upon reading this quote, i cant help but think that perhaps you have a serious misunderstanding of evolution.

species pop in and out of existence. yes. of course they do. evolution doesnt make any sense if they dont.

once there was a tree 5 feet tall. and a horse type thing that was also 5 feet tall. that horse ate that tree so much. then one day, the tree had a baby who was 10 feet tall. and no 5 foot horse could eat him. so that tree’s kid was very succesfull and all of HIS children were successful.

then one day, a horse type thing was born was also 10 feet tall. that horse ate the leftover 5 foot trees and also the 10 foot trees. and he was successfull and his children were succesfull. and it was back to square one until the tree had a new baby who was 15 feet tall.

skip a million years or so and you have a giraffe and a tree that has no leaves that are any lower than almost exactly the height of the giraffe’s goofy long neck.

how the crap hell damn does that not make perfect sense? the dna that goes into either of these organisms has the ability to morph into any random thing. a tree baby can be born who is shorter than his parents and he will be immediately eaten. a giraffe can be born with a neck that is double long and he will die of back pain.

these mutations are chaotically created, and virtually all random mutations will result in failure. and then one day, there is the one in a million chance that they will result in success. and when they do, that success is replicated unendingly by the fact that it occupies the niche that was previously occuped by an inferior ancestor.

do you think that evolutionary theory says that mutations occur one at a time, and that they are ALL succeses? this is the only way that i can imagine you mean “linear”. the only way i can make sense of what you are saying is if you failed to take into account the random genetic evolutionary changes that resulted in failure. virtually all of them result in failure.

thats “chaotic” and not “linear”, right? how is it linear? what the crap does “linear” even mean? you havent defined the most important word in your whole thread.

1+1=2
tall trees = tall giraffe will succeed more than a short one and the tall one will eat all of the resources that would have gone to the short ones. therefore the tall ones will survive and the short ones will die. therefore giraffes are as tall as the trees’ leaves that they eat.

SOOOO different. imagine trying to describe the surface of a tennis ball by bouncing tennis balls off of its surface. you cant.

its really not so complicated. i think scientists try to make it sound more complicated than it is so that they are more proud of their career choice. and also, their complicated theories accurately describe some other crap that neither of us understands.

im gonna have to say that evolution is definetely not more complicated than quantum mechanics. clearly, there arent any mathematical models to describe the probability of certain evolutionary changes. but that doesnt mean its “more mysterious”

thats only the case because there are so many possible mutations that can happen, and its so rare that any will play a part in evolution. and its impossible to determine which of the hundreds or thousands of mutations which are beneficial to any given species will take place.

i mean, try predicting which section of a thousand mile long ladder will get hit by you throwing a bowling ball at it from 93 million miles away. you cant even picture that.

BUT!!! try predicting why the giraffes neck got so long and why his favorite tree got so tall and stopped producing leaves immediately below the giraffes reach and your options are really EXTREMELY LIMITED. we know that random genetic mutation exists. we know that this mutation CAN cause long necks and high leaves. we know of no other cause.

something modified the genetic code of that giraffe and that tree. something CAUSED those particular genetic codes to be successfull in the offspring generated.

there is really truly only one explanation that follows the laws of cause and effect. and thats natural selection as we all are familiar. if you want to say its something besides natural selection, im not exagerating when i say that the only place that idea belongs is in the religion board.

so lets leave the question open. why exactly is the giraffe’s neck so long? why exactly is its favorite tree the exact same height as its neck? what could possibly explain this amazing coincidence other than evolution as we all know it?

whats your idea? is your idea that there are no solid theories about anything because Imp’s favorite inductive fallacy destroys the entire universe in a giant black hole of uncertainty? what does that have to do with evolution? why did you mention evolution at all?

im sorry if i missed your point. im drunk. please explain your point, and “linearity” and “non-linearity” and “macro-linearity” more clearly. really im sorry im so rude. but i already typed it.

42

I haven’t read this thread… but does anyone else see the ridiculousness of using logic to disprove evolution?

43

yeah its ridiculous because there is only one single possible logical explanation for the unimaginably complex state of organisms on earth: natural selection.

i cant think of a single example that cant be explained by natural selection. ive been trying to think of an example for a while but i really cant. insect behavior is pretty crazy, but our failure to explain their behavior most likely stems from our failure to explain brains in general, which stems from our failure to understand quantum mechanics.

44

Look, don’t take it out on me if you haven’t done your homework. Gee, you might have read something new to understand what this is about. I can’t do that for you. If you want instant answers don’t read this thread.

I couldn’t disagree more.

We are surrounded with the illusion of individual things. But can any thing really be truly individual? A small stone may look individual but it was once part of a larger rock that was part of an even larger formation. So it is with everything if you take the time to think it through. Things look individual, but in reality one cannot find where to draw the line. One cannot even draw a circle around an atom and say, “here is an individual”. Quantum uncertainty is nature’s law against elemental things being individual. The universe is really just one thing with many parts of which none are truly individual.
Now, are not living things different? Living things are truly individual. The qualities that make life individual cannot be melted back into the primordial fireball. Nor can they be squeezed by gravity into a dimensionless speck. Because life is individual every living thing is on a par with the universe itself. In the architecture of creation life counts.

45

no1nose,

The word “race” does not need to be used if it is implied by the logic of the bible. Things don’t have to be spelled out.

So, you seriously don’t know where black people come from as explained in the bible?

46

no1nose,

You’ve thrown out a great deal of opinion abot the nature of the world, and when asked for a foundation to support those opinions, give us more unsubstantiated opinion. This isn’t to say that you’re wrong, but you need to explain where your ideas are supported by some sort of evidence outside your considered opinions. Telling people to do their homework isn’t an appropriate answer if you wish to establish credibility for your statements.

JT

47

I apologise for that. But at the same time until people understand and knowledge what I am saying there can be no real discussion… And that may require some changes or work on their part.

Not that I could explain to you. The Bible does not make race an issue but I am sure that you right if you are saying that some people have used the Bible to make it an issue.

48

“Not that I could explain to you. The Bible does not make race an issue but I am sure that you right if you are saying that some people have used the Bible to make it an issue.”

The bible makes quite an issue out of it. Find out who Nimrod was.

49

I think that you have lost it –but prove me wrong. Ok who was Nimrod and why is it such an issue? And what has that to do with evolution?

50

I have spent the time reading these things now why don’t you.

51

no1nose,

Okay the basis of your argument is that by the nature of quantum mechanics everything is totally indistinguishable(?). No, that’s not true, the scientific understanding behind the assumption is… weak. On a macro system quantum effects are spectacularly small (let’s say 10 to the -30) They really can have no effect.

Secondly your thoughts on maths seem irreconsilable, what you say on evolution and “linear” thought etc… is maths, but so have said maths is crap.

Thirdly, minds and bodies certainly occupy the same physical universe, do thoughts occupy a different dimension before popping back to be used. If so why?

To gain a precise response to your posts you must use precise facts or logic in your posts, especially if what you say is… unusual.

52

Really I haven’t said these things. I don’t think math is crap. I think that there are some very deep math mysteries that lead people to wonder what numbers are.

After reading the thread over it seems that people have the most problem with what I mean by “linear”. Maybe a couple of examples of linear thinking will help.

First is bureaucracy. The mental processes that shape bureaucracy are an example of “linear” thinking. They are logical and rational but always dysfunctional. Linear in this case means policies that progress in an orderly sequential straight line fashion. But the reality that the bureaucracy and policy are aimed at never fits the mold.

A second example is the academic world. The great discoveries almost always begin outside the university. Einstein is the most famous example but I can’t think of any great inspirational work that has its roots in a university – art, music, science. Again “linear” thinking causes learning institutions to be out of touch with the cutting edge of human development.

The idea of “linear thought” is an analogy. Conscious rational thought follows a straight line. Whereas reality is more like curved lines and is sometimes discontinuous. On the unconscious level we sometimes make breakthroughs that bring us back into touch with the real world.

53

Apologies, I had assumed that your refernece to maths was more general and undermined the whole concept of how we work with/use maths. Made talk about logic with linear lines and curves of reality etc seem odd.

I still don’t see how the thought can’t handle reality idea works, are you saying all physical systems have no consistent laws or patterns that can be understood? Or that thought has a crippling limit?

P.S. The establishment thing with science comes from the fact that the establishment tends to cling to ideas and theories all to keenly, they refuse to sponsor what might undermine their own work. Those who create the breakthrough tend to follow logic more rigourously and thus throw out the incorrect thesis and create a new one. Though there is a distinction Einstein made between observation-based (I’ll make a mathematical model of this) and idea based (Let’s take speed of light to be constant and therefore…). I think this is relevant to want you mean, but the reality of a physical system (the way I see it, might be different to what you mean) is still revealed by conscious, logical thought.

54

No one that I know of that understands the subject has ever said that evolution travels in a striaght line.

It’s more like a stone rolling down a very bumpy hill. The stone reacts to all of the bumps and gets sent in every direction. Survival is the same for a biological creature as gravity is to the stone. It’s a force that takes the object where it will.

55

No, I am saying that consciousness occurs in its own “space”. This space limits our perception of reality. For example our minds have invented the shapes of square, triangles and circles whereas none of these shapes occur as such in nature (you will not find anything in nature that is an exact square or triangle or circle). The problem is that our bodies occupy a different space than our consciousness. Using the math analogy: consciously we can think a + b = c (whereas c = some conclusion to our thinking) But we can not think conscious thoughts like a2 + b2 = c2. (2 = squared) which reflects the real world. Our conscious minds create thoughts that run in a straight line and our conclusions will tend to diverge from the real world.

Many scientific discoveries come from moments of inspiration when the mind makes leaps to connect back to the real world. I don’t not believe that evolution is in the same category as relativity. As we saw earlier in this tread evolution borrows too heavily from Christian themes to be considered original thinking it is simply, a + b = c kind of thinking.

56

These are observations and not theory. These observations could fit other theories.

57

Sure, but what do you think that a theory is based on?

You really need to ask more and state less.

58

I don’t see why evolution has got a problem (refering to other posts here) evolution is not limited by Christianity, the original idea was given friendly ‘we love jesus’ wrapping so Darwin didn’t get lynched and people swallowed the idea instead of rejecting it on principle (packaging is imporant, I couldn’t to read The elegant Universe 'cos I found the presentation repulsive). The idea takes nothing from Christianity in principle, if it does, it is because Christianity overlapped the truth as evolution knew it.
Being ‘unoriginal’ cannot be a flaw in a theory, either it is correct or not.

59

uh if the purpose of this thread isnt to explain to me what you are talking about, what is the purpose of this thread? to find out who already agrees with you?

what you must have meant to say is “we have not yet been able to, and cant really imagine any way, in the future, to be able to draw a circle around an atom”

like i said, try describing whether the surface of a tennis ball is fuzzy or smooth by bouncing other tennis balls off of it and seeing where they land. try proving that the ball you just bounced your balls off of five minutes ago is the same one that you are now bouncing balls off of.

these are mechanical problems, not fundamental thought problems. you saying that our understanding of quantum mechanics proves any of this stuff about linearity is just way far off. the whole of quantum mechanics doesnt prove practically anything besides esoteric math models that merely reinforce pre-existing ideas about larger concepts like electromagnetism.

no they are not different. at all. the slightest bit. first of all, what makes you think they cant be smashed into an infinite speck in a black hole? i mean besides the fact that there is no evidence suggesting anything like this, your concept of the mind being extra-spatially-dimensional doesnt even conflict with the possibility of the part of you stuck in the material world being sucked into a black hole. what would happen if you did? the electricity in your brain would resist the gravity? because it’s special ‘life-atricity’?

face it, when you learn that daddy will beat the crap out of you if you cry as a baby, memory location 214835A in your brain switches to ON and from then on, you will be prone to violence and the church will make you think it was your magically free will. it wasnt, it was your totally deterministic brain, made up of the same kind of components inside your computer.

when you make two hydrogens really hot, they will turn into a helium. when you punch a baby in the face while he is crying, you cause fear-indicating molecules to be produced who then cause emotional-scarring molecules to to be produced in the brain who will then, later cause emotionally-scarred-asshole molecules to be created and go and affect and destroy the nice-guy section of the brain. its obviously not that simple, but i dont see how its fundamentally different.

its the same quarks, leptons and electrons. what makes you think they are different? and what makes the development of creatures containing these special particles different from the behavior of rocks or similar, lifeless amino acid structures?

60 
 The idea that the mental world is removed from the physical world is based in the concept of dualism, which can by dismissed as invalid through a few arguments.  The first is that if one's mental self exists apart from their physical self, the two have to interact on some level.  Because only matter can transfer force to matter, if the mind were not material it would be impossible for it to interact with one's body.  The second is that this concept requires a point of interaction, the position and nature of which seem notoriously hard to pin-point.

 What?

 Actually, a curved line is still a linear system.  A discontinuous line is only sometimes chaotic.

 I think this post needs some discussion on chaos theory.  You seem to confuse popular simplified illustrations of evolution (such as one population changing in some way over time) that [i]are [/i]indeed linear with the actually nature of ecological systems, which has been recognized as markedly nonlinear.  To say that the mind thinks linearly is only to say that linear thought is a convenient way of illustrating some of the implications of a nonlinear system.

 The thing that makes chaotic system unpredictable is not that they are not directly causal in the same way that linear systems are, but that the causes and effects are either to numerous or too complex for us to compute.  A nonlinear system isn't acausal - it's just too complex to be understood more than generally.

I would say, after all of this, that you prepare yourself a little better the next time you try to "debunk" a popularly accepted theory using distantly connected psuedo-philosophic concepts and semi-broken logic on a board full of people who self-proclaimedly "love philosophy".