Fun with exponents

On Sunday, May 31, 2020 at 2:45:45 AM UTC-5, Tosspot wrote:
On 30/05/2020 21.47, AnotherJim wrote:
I'm hesitant to step into this mud war, but here's a straightforward
graph, compiled from government data by Yale Medical school:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...ss-deaths-may/

It compares COVID 19 deaths and total recent deaths to expected
deaths from historical data. It shows that COVID 19 deaths in excess
of expected flu, etc., deaths and that the COVID 19 tabulations are
most likely underestimated.

On related note, it's been speculated in the UK that COVID-19 is
actually increasing the lifespan of under 30 males. They don't tend to
die of COVID-19, and they are less likely to die in RTAs these days :-)

What is RTA?

Andy

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2020 02:52:39 UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 22:46:44 -0700 (PDT), AnotherJim
wrote:

What are you all on about now? Evolution somehow doesn't have the time
to produce what we have? Therefore, what: Magic?

The observation of evolution caused speculation about its cause,
progress, and rate. Environmental pressure of some sort favors a
mutation of some sort, and new species result due to successful
competition; the species-to-species progression can be observed; the
rate of change is according to the time scale of what has been observed to have changed.

Don't like the idea, the observations, the theory? So what?

-Jim

"Evolution" goes on every day. All modern Thoroughbred horses can
trace their pedigrees to three stallions originally imported into
England in the 17th and 18th centuries, however they have evolved and
modern race horses are noticeably different, larger and faster today
then the horses of 500 years ago.
Cattle are much the same and modern cattle produce more milk or more
meat then their forebears . Sheep produce more and finer fleece, and
so on..

The difference is that with animals evolution is managed rather than a
matter of chance.
--
cheers,

John B.

That was due to mankind selectively breeding the animals NOT natural
evolution. Ditto for many crops such as corn.

Cheers


Same thing, just faster. There are random changes in offspring, and an
external selection agent (either nature or man) ensures that the samples
with the best characteristics get to pass on there genes at a higher rate.

On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 2:51:36 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Friday, June 5, 2020 at 10:46:46 PM UTC-7, AnotherJim wrote:
What are you all on about now? Evolution somehow doesn't have the time to produce what we have? Therefore, what: Magic?

The observation of evolution caused speculation about its cause, progress, and rate. Environmental pressure of some sort favors a mutation of some sort, and new species result due to successful competition; the species-to-species progression can be observed; the rate of change is according to the time scale of what has been observed to have changed.

Don't like the idea, the observations, the theory? So what?

-Jim

In your terms it would be magic. Tell us why we have never found any intermediate stages in your idea of evolution? Why never a "bird"/reptile that had scales starting to change into feathers? A large reptile growing fur? The shape and construction of reptile teeth is uniquely theirs, why no intermediate stage of reptile teeth to mammal?

If speciation occurs at all it has to be an ongoing process. So in the more than 200 years since Darwin's theory why haven't we been able to identify a single case? And for that matter in the 2,000 years since civilization was born surely man would notice speciation and hasn't.

Mutations appear to come around repeated sections of DNA. Some 97% of all necessary proteins for life occur next to repeated or "noise" sections and some 60% of non-lethal areas. So the speed at which mutations occur is a known speed. Nothing can change this because of the immense odds against a mutation surviving. As I said elsewhere - it is 77,000:1 that it isn't fatal..

Pretend to use grade school logic and talk of magic, but that doesn't change odds and time.

Hang on, Tom. Jim just hasn't kept up.

Jim, this is about the Cambrian Explosion about 525m years ago, in which suddenly, without any developmental predecessors a whole world of new animals suddenly appeared. That is already anti-Darwinian. Furthermore, there are no intermediate stages for many of today's animals, when one works backwards from today. Let's assume that you understand that one, not all developmental stages are evolutionary (by definition in a trial and error process most are dead ends), two, that most evolutionary "trials" are lethal, and, three, that the rare evolutionary development must appear at the precise instant it is required, otherwise it would undermine the efficiency of an animal living at the margin and kill it before it become evolutionary. In consideration of these facts, and our new knowledge of the mathematics of the gene and its constituent parts, we can apply the laws of probability, which (I hate to tell you in a forum with so many engineers with railroad minds on it) is both purest physics and strictest Darwinism. And then a huge problem arises: There wasn't enough time since the start of the Universe for evolution to happen. Darwin, without the math, was aware of these problems and actually mentioned them in his book which found the now questionable "science" of evolution; he just hoped that the missing links would somehow be found. I assume you also know that Darwin, having held off publication of his book in the hope of new discoveries willing in the holes as a well as a disinclination to upset a Christian society, was forced to publish because someone else had independently come to invent the theory of evolution. If you want to know more, the best explanation is in Stephen C Meyer's Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design

Andre Jute
Just helpin' out

On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 9:57:52 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 2:51:36 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Friday, June 5, 2020 at 10:46:46 PM UTC-7, AnotherJim wrote:
What are you all on about now? Evolution somehow doesn't have the time to produce what we have? Therefore, what: Magic?

The observation of evolution caused speculation about its cause, progress, and rate. Environmental pressure of some sort favors a mutation of some sort, and new species result due to successful competition; the species-to-species progression can be observed; the rate of change is according to the time scale of what has been observed to have changed.

Don't like the idea, the observations, the theory? So what?

-Jim

In your terms it would be magic. Tell us why we have never found any intermediate stages in your idea of evolution? Why never a "bird"/reptile that had scales starting to change into feathers? A large reptile growing fur? The shape and construction of reptile teeth is uniquely theirs, why no intermediate stage of reptile teeth to mammal?

If speciation occurs at all it has to be an ongoing process. So in the more than 200 years since Darwin's theory why haven't we been able to identify a single case? And for that matter in the 2,000 years since civilization was born surely man would notice speciation and hasn't.

Mutations appear to come around repeated sections of DNA. Some 97% of all necessary proteins for life occur next to repeated or "noise" sections and some 60% of non-lethal areas. So the speed at which mutations occur is a known speed. Nothing can change this because of the immense odds against a mutation surviving. As I said elsewhere - it is 77,000:1 that it isn't fatal.

Pretend to use grade school logic and talk of magic, but that doesn't change odds and time.

Hang on, Tom. Jim just hasn't kept up.

Jim, this is about the Cambrian Explosion about 525m years ago, in which suddenly, without any developmental predecessors a whole world of new animals suddenly appeared. That is already anti-Darwinian. Furthermore, there are no intermediate stages for many of today's animals, when one works backwards from today. Let's assume that you understand that one, not all developmental stages are evolutionary (by definition in a trial and error process most are dead ends), two, that most evolutionary "trials" are lethal, and, three, that the rare evolutionary development must appear at the precise instant it is required, otherwise it would undermine the efficiency of an animal living at the margin and kill it before it become evolutionary. In consideration of these facts, and our new knowledge of the mathematics of the gene and its constituent parts, we can apply the laws of probability, which (I hate to tell you in a forum with so many engineers with railroad minds on it) is both purest physics and strictest Darwinism. And then a huge problem arises: There wasn't enough time since the start of the Universe for evolution to happen. Darwin, without the math, was aware of these problems and actually mentioned them in his book which found the now questionable "science" of evolution; he just hoped that the missing links would somehow be found. I assume you also know that Darwin, having held off publication of his book in the hope of new discoveries willing in the holes as a well as a disinclination to upset a Christian society, was forced to publish because someone else had independently come to invent the theory of evolution. If you want to know more, the best explanation is in Stephen C Meyer's Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design

My back and knees absolutely and conclusively refute intelligent design. And why do I have nipples? That doesn't seem too intelligent to me. And what's with all the joke animals in Australia? That designer should be fired. "Hey, who designed this platypus -- you? You're fired!" If humans were intelligently designed, we would look like iPhones, early iPhones without the swipe thing, and a better power cord. I see no evidence of intelligent design.

-- Jay Beattie.

Am 06.06.2020 um 16:56 schrieb :
On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 7:39:03 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:

It's still evolution. Domestic animals have improved reproductory
fitness, due to the preferences of their keepers. Not that different
really from other instances of commensalism, where two or more species
evolve to suit each other, like ants and aphids.

No one argues that improvement of a species through evolution is not present. The argument is about speciation.

Please define "Speciation". Are the Herring Gulls around the Arctic
Ocean one species, two or many? Some of them have populations at the
same place that don't interbreed with each other but both populations
interbreed with a thir population further away.

On 06/06/2020 17.38, Andy wrote:
On Sunday, May 31, 2020 at 2:45:45 AM UTC-5, Tosspot wrote:
On 30/05/2020 21.47, AnotherJim wrote:
I'm hesitant to step into this mud war, but here's a straightforward
graph, compiled from government data by Yale Medical school:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...ss-deaths-may/

It compares COVID 19 deaths and total recent deaths to expected
deaths from historical data. It shows that COVID 19 deaths in excess
of expected flu, etc., deaths and that the COVID 19 tabulations are
most likely underestimated.

On related note, it's been speculated in the UK that COVID-19 is
actually increasing the lifespan of under 30 males. They don't tend to
die of COVID-19, and they are less likely to die in RTAs these days :-)

What is RTA?

Road Traffic Accident. Sorry, Rightpondia speak.

On 06/06/2020 19.58, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 9:57:52 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 2:51:36 PM UTC+1,
wrote:
On Friday, June 5, 2020 at 10:46:46 PM UTC-7, AnotherJim wrote:
What are you all on about now? Evolution somehow doesn't have
the time to produce what we have? Therefore, what: Magic?

The observation of evolution caused speculation about its
cause, progress, and rate. Environmental pressure of some sort
favors a mutation of some sort, and new species result due to
successful competition; the species-to-species progression can
be observed; the rate of change is according to the time scale
of what has been observed to have changed.

Don't like the idea, the observations, the theory? So what?

-Jim

In your terms it would be magic. Tell us why we have never found
any intermediate stages in your idea of evolution? Why never a
"bird"/reptile that had scales starting to change into feathers?
A large reptile growing fur? The shape and construction of
reptile teeth is uniquely theirs, why no intermediate stage of
reptile teeth to mammal?

If speciation occurs at all it has to be an ongoing process. So
in the more than 200 years since Darwin's theory why haven't we
been able to identify a single case? And for that matter in the
2,000 years since civilization was born surely man would notice
speciation and hasn't.

Mutations appear to come around repeated sections of DNA. Some
97% of all necessary proteins for life occur next to repeated or
"noise" sections and some 60% of non-lethal areas. So the speed
at which mutations occur is a known speed. Nothing can change
this because of the immense odds against a mutation surviving. As
I said elsewhere - it is 77,000:1 that it isn't fatal.

Pretend to use grade school logic and talk of magic, but that
doesn't change odds and time.

Hang on, Tom. Jim just hasn't kept up.

Jim, this is about the Cambrian Explosion about 525m years ago, in
which suddenly, without any developmental predecessors a whole
world of new animals suddenly appeared. That is already
anti-Darwinian. Furthermore, there are no intermediate stages for
many of today's animals, when one works backwards from today. Let's
assume that you understand that one, not all developmental stages
are evolutionary (by definition in a trial and error process most
are dead ends), two, that most evolutionary "trials" are lethal,
and, three, that the rare evolutionary development must appear at
the precise instant it is required, otherwise it would undermine
the efficiency of an animal living at the margin and kill it before
it become evolutionary. In consideration of these facts, and our
new knowledge of the mathematics of the gene and its constituent
parts, we can apply the laws of probability, which (I hate to tell
you in a forum with so many engineers with railroad minds on it) is
both purest physics and strictest Darwinism. And then a huge
problem arises: There wasn't enough time since the start of the
Universe for evolution to happen. Darwin, without the math, was
aware of these problems and actually mentioned them in his book
which found the now questionable "science" of evolution; he just
hoped that the missing links would somehow be found. I assume you
also know that Darwin, having held off publication of his book in
the hope of new discoveries willing in the holes as a well as a
disinclination to upset a Christian society, was forced to publish
because someone else had independently come to invent the theory of
evolution. If you want to know more, the best explanation is in
Stephen C Meyer's Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal
Life and the Case for Intelligent Design

My back and knees absolutely and conclusively refute intelligent
design. And why do I have nipples? That doesn't seem too intelligent
to me. And what's with all the joke animals in Australia? That
designer should be fired. "Hey, who designed this platypus -- you?
You're fired!" If humans were intelligently designed, we would look
like iPhones, early iPhones without the swipe thing, and a better
power cord. I see no evidence of intelligent design.

Now take your average duck. The ability to be able to stand on one leg,
put your head in your armpit and have a good snooze is the most
underrated adaptation I have ever come across. I mean, it even beats
licking your own balls!

On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 9:51:36 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Friday, June 5, 2020 at 10:46:46 PM UTC-7, AnotherJim wrote:
What are you all on about now? Evolution somehow doesn't have the time to produce what we have? Therefore, what: Magic?

The observation of evolution caused speculation about its cause, progress, and rate. Environmental pressure of some sort favors a mutation of some sort, and new species result due to successful competition; the species-to-species progression can be observed; the rate of change is according to the time scale of what has been observed to have changed.

Don't like the idea, the observations, the theory? So what?

-Jim

In your terms it would be magic. Tell us why we have never found any intermediate stages in your idea of evolution? Why never a "bird"/reptile that had scales starting to change into feathers? A large reptile growing fur? The shape and construction of reptile teeth is uniquely theirs, why no intermediate stage of reptile teeth to mammal?

If speciation occurs at all it has to be an ongoing process. So in the more than 200 years since Darwin's theory why haven't we been able to identify a single case? And for that matter in the 2,000 years since civilization was born surely man would notice speciation and hasn't.

Mutations appear to come around repeated sections of DNA. Some 97% of all necessary proteins for life occur next to repeated or "noise" sections and some 60% of non-lethal areas. So the speed at which mutations occur is a known speed. Nothing can change this because of the immense odds against a mutation surviving. As I said elsewhere - it is 77,000:1 that it isn't fatal..

Pretend to use grade school logic and talk of magic, but that doesn't change odds and time.

I'm not an evolutionary biologist, and I don't think that answering the questions will do much good anyway. But, keeping with the layman's understanding of this topic: If the speed of mutations is a known speed, what is it, and what are the units?

On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 12:57:52 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 2:51:36 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Friday, June 5, 2020 at 10:46:46 PM UTC-7, AnotherJim wrote:
What are you all on about now? Evolution somehow doesn't have the time to produce what we have? Therefore, what: Magic?

The observation of evolution caused speculation about its cause, progress, and rate. Environmental pressure of some sort favors a mutation of some sort, and new species result due to successful competition; the species-to-species progression can be observed; the rate of change is according to the time scale of what has been observed to have changed.

Don't like the idea, the observations, the theory? So what?

-Jim

In your terms it would be magic. Tell us why we have never found any intermediate stages in your idea of evolution? Why never a "bird"/reptile that had scales starting to change into feathers? A large reptile growing fur? The shape and construction of reptile teeth is uniquely theirs, why no intermediate stage of reptile teeth to mammal?

If speciation occurs at all it has to be an ongoing process. So in the more than 200 years since Darwin's theory why haven't we been able to identify a single case? And for that matter in the 2,000 years since civilization was born surely man would notice speciation and hasn't.

Mutations appear to come around repeated sections of DNA. Some 97% of all necessary proteins for life occur next to repeated or "noise" sections and some 60% of non-lethal areas. So the speed at which mutations occur is a known speed. Nothing can change this because of the immense odds against a mutation surviving. As I said elsewhere - it is 77,000:1 that it isn't fatal.

Pretend to use grade school logic and talk of magic, but that doesn't change odds and time.

Hang on, Tom. Jim just hasn't kept up.

Jim, this is about the Cambrian Explosion about 525m years ago, in which suddenly, without any developmental predecessors a whole world of new animals suddenly appeared. That is already anti-Darwinian. Furthermore, there are no intermediate stages for many of today's animals, when one works backwards from today. Let's assume that you understand that one, not all developmental stages are evolutionary (by definition in a trial and error process most are dead ends), two, that most evolutionary "trials" are lethal, and, three, that the rare evolutionary development must appear at the precise instant it is required, otherwise it would undermine the efficiency of an animal living at the margin and kill it before it become evolutionary. In consideration of these facts, and our new knowledge of the mathematics of the gene and its constituent parts, we can apply the laws of probability, which (I hate to tell you in a forum with so many engineers with railroad minds on it) is both purest physics and strictest Darwinism. And then a huge problem arises: There wasn't enough time since the start of the Universe for evolution to happen. Darwin, without the math, was aware of these problems and actually mentioned them in his book which found the now questionable "science" of evolution; he just hoped that the missing links would somehow be found. I assume you also know that Darwin, having held off publication of his book in the hope of new discoveries willing in the holes as a well as a disinclination to upset a Christian society, was forced to publish because someone else had independently come to invent the theory of evolution. If you want to know more, the best explanation is in Stephen C Meyer's Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design

Andre Jute
Just helpin' out

is Tom?]

The 'Cambrian Explosion': If one looks at a chart of life over time, e.g.,

https://proopnarine.wordpress.com/20...things-change/

The variation in species increases rapidly in the Cambrian, but it increases more rapidly in later time, especially after mass extinctions. There isn't any mathematical uncertainty or impossibility there.

The transitional forms dilemma was recognized by Darwin:

"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

I got that out of an entertaining, long-winded website that argues against creationism:

https://askepticalhuman.com/religion...ils-dont-exist

On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 3:05:00 PM UTC-4, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 06.06.2020 um 16:56 schrieb :
On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 7:39:03 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:

It's still evolution. Domestic animals have improved reproductory
fitness, due to the preferences of their keepers. Not that different
really from other instances of commensalism, where two or more species
evolve to suit each other, like ants and aphids.

No one argues that improvement of a species through evolution is not present. The argument is about speciation.

Please define "Speciation". Are the Herring Gulls around the Arctic
Ocean one species, two or many? Some of them have populations at the
same place that don't interbreed with each other but both populations
interbreed with a thir population further away.

Two animals that cannot mate and produce fertile offspring belong to separate species. A horse and an ass are separate species as illustrated by their production of mules.