132
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 12:23 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Statistics don't change based on what you are calculating. The methods are the same which would mean calculating the odds of winning the lottery with random numbers are the same as calculating odds of evolution with random mutations.


The lottery does not employ random numbers para. It is limited to 1--50 I think. Maybe 1--49.

Evolution is not random either but there is a much larger spread involved and there is also survival to reproductive age which often entails great losses. Even coming through those successfully is by no means the end of things. There is also being accepted as a mate and after that whether progeny survive.

It is nothing like the lottery I'm afraid and you would be well advised to drop the matter.

The chance of your physical conformation appearing in the world, considering you share just your fingerprints with nobody else, is very, very (times n where n is a large number) remote and there are lottery winners all over the place and increasing if the birth rate of lottery winners is greater than the death rate for lottery winners.

Your hobby horse is spavined.
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 12:26 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
It is nothing like the lottery I'm afraid and you would be well advised to drop the matter.


Exactly my point! Thanks!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 01:19 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Of course it's about more than the lottery. However, when people calculate odds of something happening it is exactly like the lottery.
parados
 
  2  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 01:21 pm
@spendius,
The formula remains the same. The only thing that changes is the value of n.

Of course evolution isn't random but those that use statistics to try to prove evolution can't happen assume it is random hence the only thing that is changing is the value of n.
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 01:21 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Of course it's about more than the lottery. However, when people calculate odds of something happening it is exactly like the lottery.


duh? Please read your own sentence again!
It states it is more than th lottery, but it is exactly as the lottery!!!!
Whoa!
How about a short course in languages, logica and statistics?



Are these people for real? Unbelievable!
spendius
 
  0  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 01:23 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
not at all. I find him a complete ignoramus, but you apparently do.


What makes you say that? I had a woman who switched the blame for shagging her to me in order to hide the bloke who was shagging her from her husband sufficiently skillfully to have the cuckold believe it was me until the day he died. And I never laid a finger on her. She wasn't my type. Too brainy. Ex-mill-girl who snared a doctor. The share out after the divorce was large and went in the usual proportions.

We are putty in their hands I'm sorry to say and it amuses me no end watching you and your claque putting the finishing touches to the statue in the name of science and on behalf of all the young lads who will follow in your footsteps.

That you stand on your dignity so much is a sign of a sense it is disappearing. Which it is of course what with Media having much to gain from it. I have met a couple of blokes who expressed pleasure at the wife giving them a Black and Decker Workmate for their birfdays.

A classic scene in Coronation Street depicted Battersby, a right pillock, giving his wife. Janice, a deep-fat frier for Cwissmash and taught millions of concentrating ladies that they had been duped by our side. Especially when lingerie is involved.

Thus, if you can follow where I know you have no wish to, like some others on here who don't want to be abled 2 know as well, you will see a principle developing. (This is real science space age style) It is that presents to wives must on no account be of the slightest use to the husband and presents to the husbands be of not only not of the slightest use to the husband but will entail and entangle him in rigmaroles for which evolution has made no preparations. And the sperm count is declining and there are more and more ads for a range of products said to help with erectile functionality.

You might, as a skilled peer-reviewer, dispute that such a principle is in train to become established on a legal footing, and if you do you are required to provide evidence that it isn't bearing in mind that in such matters the point of balance is only stationary for an infinitesimal period of time a very great deal shorter that your time on earth gawping at it.

If you think that isn't science go stand at the back entrance to the divorce courts where all the cigarette ends are strewn about.

You would take notice if you spotted signs of ergot in the corner of your rye crop wouldn't you?

Q amuses me because he has you on something you can't refute and all you can do is try to batter him down. Like you do with me. I tried to explain one way he has you but I don't think it's the way he has in mind.

And you refrained from comment.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 01:23 pm
@parados,
Quote:
The formula remains the same. The only thing that changes is the value of n.

Of course evolution isn't random but those that use statistics to try to prove evolution can't happen assume it is random hence the only thing that is changing is the value of n.


the formula remains the same????????????????????????????????????
Statistics aren't about ONE FORMULA!





where did they find these people?
parados
 
  2  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 01:32 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
The chance of your physical conformation appearing in the world, considering you share just your fingerprints with nobody else, is very, very (times n where n is a large number) remote and there are lottery winners all over the place and increasing if the birth rate of lottery winners is greater than the death rate for lottery winners.

And there you have it again. A misuse use of the numbers on your part when it comes to evolution. Humans are not the only organisms that can mutate. In fact humans make up a very small number of total organisms since the average human has over 10^23 organisms on or in them. By restricting it to humans you are doing the same thing statistically as if we restricted lottery winners to the occupants of 21 Downing Street and used the lack of winners there to prove no one has ever won the lottery.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 01:42 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Statistics are about more than just odds however when you are calculating odds assuming random occurrences then it is always the same. If you disagree with that Humpty then tell us the meaning you are using.
parados
 
  2  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 01:46 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Quehoniaomath wrote:

Quote:
The formula remains the same. The only thing that changes is the value of n.

Of course evolution isn't random but those that use statistics to try to prove evolution can't happen assume it is random hence the only thing that is changing is the value of n.


the formula remains the same????????????????????????????????????
Statistics aren't about ONE FORMULA!


Gosh, you realized that did you? Now quick tell us the formula for calculating the odds of an occurrence happening if you assume there is a random chance of it occurring.

You see Humpty, when you can't even discuss the methods used by your sources, we are left to make our own conclusions. Your "harrumphs" don't do anything other than show you to be sitting on a narrow wall with an assurance from the King that if you fall he will send all his horses and men to mend your problem. Clearly you can't defend the formulas used by the sources you used since you deny they are using the formula they did.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 01:51 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Statistics are about more than just odds however when you are calculating odds assuming random occurrences then it is always the same. If you disagree with that Humpty then tell us the meaning you are using.


My God! Last time I will tell! Study statistics before you make comments like this!

Thanks!





These people seemingly really do exist!
parados
 
  2  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 01:58 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Perhaps you can tell us how the person you quoted calculated his odds then Q since you now want to argue he didn't calculate it the way he appeared to.

http://able2know.org/topic/229102-103#post-5687350

Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 02:06 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Perhaps you can tell us how the person you quoted calculated his odds then Q since you now want to argue he didn't calculate it the way he appeared to.


Pfff please do a statistic course first! I mean it! I don't want to be blunt but I am more or less forced to do so now. You have NO CLUE about math or statistics and just start with a little book for beginners or something , because it is sooo bloody obvious you really have no understanding of any statistics.
Sorry to say it so bluntly, but just stop this and get a statistics book or course or whatever. You really are getting ridiculous now.
giujohn
 
  0  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 02:30 pm
@parados,
Quote:
20 feet in perspective? With a 6 foot rise in sea level over half of southern Florida will be under water. Who needs Miami, New Orleans, NYC when we look at it from your perspective.

Can you please cite where yo got this ridiculous assumption?

From Powerline:
Worried About Floods Due to Rising Sea Level? Forget It: Not Happening

The global warming hysterics’ favorite fantasy these days is that Antarctic ice will melt due to hypothetical warming, leading to catastrophic flooding as the level of the oceans rises. It is commonly asserted that sea level will rise at least three feet by the end of the century. Put aside whether the Earth actually will warm and whether a three-foot rise would really be catastrophic. Put aside, too, any doubts about how much melting will occur even if the Earth warms by a few degrees, given that the average annual high temperature in Antarctica is -49 F. Does the reality of melting ice bear any mathematical relation to the oft-predicted flood scenario?

A reader who is familiar with geometry and arithmetic–which means he is not a reporter–decided to test the hysterical claim. I will reproduce his email in full:

The most recent climate alarmism is the report claiming increased ice melt in the West Antarctic glaciers, supposedly a leading indicator of a catastrophic, exponential, unstoppable rise in sea levels with devastating consequences for low lying areas and coastal cities. Irrespective of the validity and accuracy of the reported measurements of ice melt, the projection of future catastrophe is laughably implausible — and a simple analysis of the spherical geometry of the planet shows why the alarmism is entirely unwarranted.

Let’s start with the often repeated claim that we can project a sea level rise of at least 3 feet by the end of the century — 86 years from now. It is easy to calculate the volume of ice that would have to melt to produce that increased level and then compare it to the allegedly observed melt to determine how plausible the alarmism is.

To say that sea level will rise by 3 feet is to say that the nominal radius of the Earth would increase. But because of the “piling up” of water against the 30% of the Earth’s surface that is land, the average increase in radius (if there were no land against which the sea water would “pile up”) would be less than 3 feet, to a first approximation 3 * .7 = 2.1 feet. How much volume would the sphere of the Earth increase if its radius increased by 2.1 feet from ice melt? The volume of a sphere is 4/3*pi*radius(3). If we take the pre-melt radius as 4000 miles and the post melt radius as 4000 miles plus 2.1 feet, the volume increase is approximately 80,000 cubic miles. All of this, by assumption, is in the 70% of the Earth’s surface which is water to effect a three foot rise in the sea level.

So over a period of 86 years remaining until the end of the century, 80,000 cubic miles of water from ice melt would be required for a three foot rise in sea level, or about 930 cubic miles per year. Is this a lot? Or a little? Well, compared to the amounts of ice melt actually being observed from Antarctica and Greenland — and now being hyped by alarmists — it is huge.

Today’s report in the New York Times, “The Big Melt Accelerates,” [Ed.: This is the story that Steve commented on earlier today.] is revealing — if you do the math, which, of course, they don’t. The Times report claims that 310 billion tons of water melted into the oceans from Antarctic and Greenland glaciers and another 260 billion tons, amazingly, from the 1% of the Earth’s land-based ice that is in mountain glaciers. Is the total of 570 billion tons of water from ice melt a little or a lot?

Since they are measuring metric tons, that amounts to 1.25 x 10(15) pounds of water, which at 8.35 pounds per gallon is 1.5 x 10(14) gallons which, in turn, at 7.5 gallons per cubic foot is 2 x 10(13) cubic feet. At 5,280(3) cubic feet to a cubic mile we have 136 cubic miles of water or about 148 cubic miles of ice when adjusted for the expansion of water as it freezes. That’s about 12 miles square of glacier assuming on average the glaciation is 1 mile thick.

This compares to the required 930 cubic miles of water per year for 86 years to get to a sea level rise of 3 feet at the end of the century — a factor of almost 7 times what is said to be observed. Stated differently, at the new alarmingly increased level of ice melt it would take about 600 years for the purported 3 foot rise in sea level to obtain; the implied rise is 6 one-hundreds of an inch per year, or about 5.25 inches by the year 2100.

There is nothing complicated in this analysis — it’s just simple geometry and arithmetic. And it takes as given the reported observations of allegedly increased ice melt. It is patently obvious that for the catastrophic flooding massively hyped by the MSM and climate change alarmists to happen there must be a HUGE increase in glacier melt in West Antarctica and Greenland starting now and continuing. Every year that the observed ice melt does NOT increase by a factor of 7 from today’s rate of melt just requires an even greater increase in subsequent years for the alarmists’ predictions to happen. Exponential, indeed.

It seems exceedingly implausible that the rate of ice melt can accelerate over the next 86 years to produce a 3 foot rise in ocean surface levels and consequent land inundation. It would require an enormous and sustained discontinuity in the observed rate of ice melt starting immediately for this result to obtain — or else a huge future explosive and exponential rate of ice melt. If the IPCC is in fact predicting such a pattern it is extremely convenient since no dramatic presently observed ice melt is required for this prediction to be treated as “true!”

As to why the MSM and their fellow alarmists would fail to check the plausibility of these projections by offering the simple math, that is left as an exercise for the reader.

Meanwhile, at Watts Up With That?, a “sanity check” on the significance of the hysterics’ claim that “Three years of observations show that the Antarctic ice sheet is now losing 159 billion tonnes of ice each year – twice as much as when it was last surveyed.” Using a different approach, the author reaches a similar conclusion:


If one cubic kilometer of water (i.e., one gigatonne of water) is spread evenly over the entire 361 million square kilomters, the thickness of the new layer of water will be given by:

1 km³ / 361 x 106 km² = 2.78 x 10-6 meters = 2.78 microns.

Or, in terms of gigatonnes:

1 Gt x (1 km³/Gt) / 361 x 106 km² = 2.78 x 10-6 meters = 2.78 microns / Gt

That is, one cubic kilometer of water (i.e., one gigatonne of water) will add less than 3 millionths of a meter to the oceans!

From the press release, we are seeing about 159 billion tons/year of ice converted to meltwater (unless it sublimates), so the effect on sea level would be 159 x 3 millionths of a meter, or 477 millionths of meter of sea level rise per year from this. (or in other words 0.47 mm which works out to 47mm/century or ~1.85 inches/century)

For another perspective, a gigatonne of water is approximately one cubic kilometer. Frozen as ice, it would be expanded slightly, but for the purposes of perspective lets just say that is negligible. So, the ice loss per year would be 0.159 cubic kilometers.

According to the British Antarctic Survey BEDMAP2 project:

The derived statistics for Bedmap2 show that the volume of ice contained in the Antarctic ice sheet [is] 27 million km(3).

And so, the loss of 159 cubic kilometers of ice per year is apparently headline worthy, because at that rate of loss, it would take 169,811 years to lose all the 27 million cubic kilometers of Antarctic ice.

I’m pretty sure we’ll have gone through a few ice ages by then.

Apparently many people (including “science” writers for major newspapers) don’t understand that ice has been melting and sea level has been rising for thousands of years, since the end of the last Ice Age:

Since the end of the Little Ice Age, sea level has been rising at a rate of about 7 inches per century:

No doubt the rise in sea level will continue for the foreseeable future; that is, until the onset of the next Ice Age. Which, if we are lucky, won’t be for quite a few years yet, although geologic history suggests that we may be most of the way through the current inter-glacial period, perhaps nearing its end.


parados
 
  2  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 03:05 pm
@giujohn,
Quote:
So over a period of 86 years remaining until the end of the century, 80,000 cubic miles of water from ice melt would be required for a three foot rise in sea level,


80,000 cubic miles will raise the oceans three feet and Antarctica contains 7,200,000 cubic miles of ice. Surely you can do the math.
parados
 
  2  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 03:08 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Yawn.. thanks Humpty. Can't answer the question so you just pretend I don't know what I am talking about.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  0  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 03:10 pm
@parados,
Surely you didnt read the article.
The arguement is moot in that even if all the ice in the world melted (and that would take about 5000 years) we would lose Florida, New Orleans and some coastal cities (if we are even still around). Do you honestly belive that all the ice from Greenland or Antartica is going to melt??
parados
 
  2  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 03:16 pm
@giujohn,
It doesn't all have to melt to raise the sea level by 2 meters. If 10% of it melted much of Florida would be under water. Your author makes some rather idiotic assumptions. He assumes that a ice will melt at the same rate as the earth continues to warm. He assumes that the rate of ice loss won't change if the ice shelves are lost. He also fails to take into account water expanding as it warms will also increase sea level.
giujohn
 
  0  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 03:23 pm
@parados,
Again...the point is moot in that the earth has been warming since the last Ice Age and nothing you can do will stop it. Now, what you are really arguing is that man is causing this warming and to that I say B.S. And no...we are not even acceleratiing it...because it's NOT accelerating.
I dont buy into the eviromentalist whackos hysteria especially since they have been caught lying.
I invite you to read Climatism! and then try to challenge the science in that book.
Setanta
 
  1  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 03:25 pm
It's stupid because it isn't a matter of the ice melting for sea level rise. If the West Antarctic ice sheet breaks free, it will sink into the water, with 90% of its mass underwater, and that will raise sea levels three meters. This idiot seems to think that there would be no harm from the world's financial centers being inundated. He apparently thinks a billion people being displaced is no big deal. He apparently thinks the loss of 10% to 20% of worlds arable land is no big deal. What a maroon.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 11/17/2024 at 09:49:48