Actually, that isn't my point. In mathematical terms, you would not only have to reproduce the initial conditions using species from three billion years ago, but you would also have to reproduce the boundary conditions of climate, other species, etc.
If you have some additional explanation, then give it. Otherwise your doubts are meaningless.
Can we do repeatable experiments on plate tectonics? Planetary motion? Also, we can do experiments on natural selection over shorter time periods, such as the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Indeed, if you insist on explaining three billion years of life by any hypothesis, how could that hypothesis be subject to experiment?
My best answer is; I do not know, maybe it could, maybe it could not. See, I have no repeatable experiments or theory to show that it would be possible.
And why do you cling to repeatable experiments? You have already admitted that natural selection occurs. Do you have anything to add?
If you don't believe that natural selection was the only/main cause of the change in life forms over the last three billion years, then feel free to posit an alternative. You will have to show not only that the alternative explains these changes, but that it occurs in the first place.
We're not "assuming" that natural selection occurs. We see it acting today. As for what occurred over the past three billion years, we have a fossil record.
I have issues with how Excel deals with percentiles, so I'm not entirely in Microsoft's camp here. Nevertheless, I'm not taking someone who responds to his/her oppponents as "fucktard" as an authority.
In your earlier post, you said that you had no idea what natural selection would cause over three billion years. Is Dawkins saying that he could make such a prediction? If you mean the previous three billion years, we can just see what happened.
I also know how natural selection affects fitness over time in naive simulations, sometimes I get continuous improvement in fitness with no end in sight and sometimes it stops with no chance of improvement in fitness.
Would evolutionists claim that improvement is continuous? Also, what constitutes an improvement depends on the background environment as well as other organisms. Nature may select for local improvements, but changes in background conditions may render such changes to be nonimprovements.
I'm honest enough to say that I have no idea what natural selection would cause over 3 billion years on this earth. Maybe you should admit that you do not know either.
I don't recall claiming to know. Indeed, do people such as Dawkins claim to know?
Natural selection is not so much a theory but a recognition of mortality and its correlation (however weak) with genetics.
You can only assume it causes exactly what we can observe and then claim that as evidence. Unfortunately, that does not make any sense.
It is not the particular outcomes that count as evidence of natural selection, but mortality and the correlation between mortality and genetic makeup..
So something like this is the natural result of NCLB where the 15th to 50th percentiles get 80% of the focus, and the top 50% get no attention, unless they drop, and the bottom 15% are exempted from the rules (special needs).
But how extensible are the methods shown? Would they work with larger numbers? Would they work for adding seven numbers?
Also, I have issues with the claim that addition shouldn't be algorithmic.
"number sentences" versus "equation"
Are all number sentences equations? What about "7 is a prime number."?
Is making tens easier than carrying?
There may be large blind spots in parents' understanding of the commutative and associative properties of addition, but these examples aren't helping. For the commutative property, use an example. We are to pay $15 for an item using a $5 bill and a $10 bill. Does it matter whether we first hand over the $5 bill and then the $10 bill or first hand over the $10 bill and then the $5 bill? For the associative property, use three bills paperclipped together in the different ways..
Slashdot Mirror
Also, nature doesn't have to solve the Napier-Stokes equation. Unless you take the resulting arrangement of stuff as a solution.
Or P=0.
So --i still decrements i? Can I get an Amen!!
Anything below a leading "--" is a sig.
Four. There are four shades of gray!
Can Raskolnikov haz rubles?
The case has to be prosecuted by the first officer, no one else? Or else the defendant is automatically convicted?
The judge said that if Riker didn't prosecute the case, then she would render summary judgement against Data.
Actually, that isn't my point. In mathematical terms, you would not only have to reproduce the initial conditions using species from three billion years ago, but you would also have to reproduce the boundary conditions of climate, other species, etc.
If you have some additional explanation, then give it. Otherwise your doubts are meaningless.
Can we do repeatable experiments on plate tectonics? Planetary motion? Also, we can do experiments on natural selection over shorter time periods, such as the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Indeed, if you insist on explaining three billion years of life by any hypothesis, how could that hypothesis be subject to experiment?
My best answer is; I do not know, maybe it could, maybe it could not. See, I have no repeatable experiments or theory to show that it would be possible.
And why do you cling to repeatable experiments? You have already admitted that natural selection occurs. Do you have anything to add?
If you don't believe that natural selection was the only/main cause of the change in life forms over the last three billion years, then feel free to posit an alternative. You will have to show not only that the alternative explains these changes, but that it occurs in the first place.
We're not "assuming" that natural selection occurs. We see it acting today. As for what occurred over the past three billion years, we have a fossil record.
I have issues with how Excel deals with percentiles, so I'm not entirely in Microsoft's camp here. Nevertheless, I'm not taking someone who responds to his/her oppponents as "fucktard" as an authority.
Also, what does "average" mean?
In your earlier post, you said that you had no idea what natural selection would cause over three billion years. Is Dawkins saying that he could make such a prediction? If you mean the previous three billion years, we can just see what happened.
what we who do contracting would call a "money black hole"
FTFY
I also know how natural selection affects fitness over time in naive simulations, sometimes I get continuous improvement in fitness with no end in sight and sometimes it stops with no chance of improvement in fitness.
Would evolutionists claim that improvement is continuous? Also, what constitutes an improvement depends on the background environment as well as other organisms. Nature may select for local improvements, but changes in background conditions may render such changes to be nonimprovements.
I'm honest enough to say that I have no idea what natural selection would cause over 3 billion years on this earth. Maybe you should admit that you do not know either.
I don't recall claiming to know. Indeed, do people such as Dawkins claim to know?
Natural selection is not so much a theory but a recognition of mortality and its correlation (however weak) with genetics.
Are you admitting that natural selection occurs?
You can only assume it causes exactly what we can observe and then claim that as evidence. Unfortunately, that does not make any sense.
It is not the particular outcomes that count as evidence of natural selection, but mortality and the correlation between mortality and genetic makeup..
So something like this is the natural result of NCLB where the 15th to 50th percentiles get 80% of the focus, and the top 50% get no attention, unless they drop, and the bottom 15% are exempted from the rules (special needs).
Where did the other 20% of the focus go?
But how extensible are the methods shown? Would they work with larger numbers? Would they work for adding seven numbers?
Also, I have issues with the claim that addition shouldn't be algorithmic.
"number sentences" versus "equation"
Are all number sentences equations? What about "7 is a prime number."?
Is making tens easier than carrying?
There may be large blind spots in parents' understanding of the commutative and associative properties of addition, but these examples aren't helping. For the commutative property, use an example. We are to pay $15 for an item using a $5 bill and a $10 bill. Does it matter whether we first hand over the $5 bill and then the $10 bill or first hand over the $10 bill and then the $5 bill? For the associative property, use three bills paperclipped together in the different ways..
Average isn't a synonym for mean
Microsoft Excel begs to differ.
Prehistoric history is kind of a contradiction in terms, isn't it? It also isn't scientific, not being amenable to experiment.
If history means the study of written records, then yes. But it is amenable to observation.
At any rate, Darwin's work is pretty much deductive
I took Origin of Species to be inductive.
How would you study such beliefs? The beliefs are real, if not their objects.
Feel free to provide limits as to how far natural selection can go.
Anything can be at the center of the universe, but our solar system isn't close to being at the center of our galaxy.
It doesn't happen around us because the conditions aren't right. For one thing, it may have happened under very different atmospheric conditions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...