the universe and space....?

I guess I got the idea from you writing it. :wink:

The mass extinctions DID NOT wipe out all "fossil producing" life. The species that survived were just as suitable for ending up as fossils as before, complete with shells, bones and everything else. There were fewer of them and the right conditions for preserving them simply did not happen to exist where and when they died. They certainly did not have to re-evolve a "fossil-producing" form!

Evolution did not have to start over with a lower or less intelligent lifeform, it just continued to work on the surviving species who suddenly (and "suddenly" in evolutionary terms means tens or hundreds of thousands of years) found themselves with new challenges and opportunities for diversification in a radically changed environment.

As I said, your equations are meaningless since they are based on a misunderstanding of both probability and biology.

a note from a 'fly on the wall':

what seems to come out here, is the ineffectiveness of speculation as applied to the morphing of vague assumption into meaningful theory.

perhaps a futher definition of terms prior to more wanton claims might be in order?

Re: hi
I meant non-determinism. Read up on it. In a nondeterministic system, the system begins in a start state, S. On the way to the final state, F, the system can progress through multiple states Qn. The transition from one state to the next is denoted with the Greek letter delta. The system is called NONdeterministic if there are multiple transitions from one state. For the mathematician out there, the transition function δ is onto, but not one-to-one. Usually, we are only concerned with the end state, and whether or not the system will reach it. Now, since it is nondeterministic, we need to trace ALL POSSIBLE paths from S to F. Suppose there are transitions (S, Q1, δ), (S, Q2, δ), (S, Q3, δ) and (S, Q4, δ). That means that there are four possible states that we can reach from S. So determine the outcome of the system, we process transitions as if the system were in all four states simultaneously. Otherwise, the results will be inconclusive. The path we follow may not lead to the final state, but we don't know if another does...

Now....

Are you a scientist or mathematician or engineer? I am. Statistics are based on observed data. You can't pull it out of your rear and use it. Even approximations are derived from specific formulae with known input values. (Look up Euler's Approximation, Guass-LeGender Quadratures)



You are absolutely right, and absolutely wrong. Two different animals. Weather is a closed system. We KNOW what environments and situations create a given weather pattern. We can measure current situations and calculate a probability that a given weather pattern will form.

The problem here is that you have no idea the conditions required to produce life, intelligent or otherwise. Your probability is based on information you don't have. So we have decoded two genomes... big deal. To be at all accurate, you need all possible genomes. Or at the very least, a majority. Hell, I'd settle for 10% of all possible intelligence-producing genomes. But you don't even have that.

You are probably incorrect, and only possibly correct.

Ican, why didn't you address my octopus theory? I'm thinking that shot your extinction-of-all-intelligent-life-because-there-are-no-fossils theory to hell. I'm curious what you have to say about that.

It is possible you are correct? If you think it probable, then please supply some evidence to support your assertions.



It is possible you are correct? If you think it probable, then please supply some evidence to support your assertions.



It is possible you are correct? If you think it probable, then please supply some evidence to support your assertions. :wink:

Exactly! Let's work on it together.

how about a consensus on all evidence prior to it's use in an arguement/theory?

Sorry, I overlooked it.

It's possible your octopus theory is a valid explanation for those more than six, worldwide, thick non-fossilized layers. The reason I doubt it is because the age of those fossilized layers is alleged to be less than a billion years.

So geologists allege they have encountered this phenomenom, let's call it, of geological blank pages intermixed with geological written pages. It is possible that during those geological blank pages only soft living organisms possessing brains, incapable of producing fossils, survived and wrote zero in the geological record. But what explains the relatively sudden re-occurrence of geological written pages filled with more intelligent/brainier creatures than were written on the previous geological written pages? Undirected Chance Pus Natural Selection? I think it improbable to obtain that much change that way in such relatively short times. I think my explanation more probable than yours based on the calculations I've already submitted.

Yes, it is possible that I am a fool and/or a fraud for thinking thus. But it is also possible that I am neither a fool or a fraud for thinking thus.

Both of us have the same problem whether you admit or not. Which is the more probable?

Excellent idea!

Given: a geological written page contains fossils, and a geological blank page does not contain fossils.

Is there a consensus that the geologists are correct: the geological record consists of thick blank pages, followed by thick written pages followed by thick blank pages, ... followed by thick written pages?

If we can agree on this, I have several more questions that I would like to ask one per post.

Here's one theory on life forms and geologic strata.
http://www.wcg.org/lit/booklets/science/burky3.htm

Here's another link on geologic principles.
http://www.emerald.ucsc.edu/~jsr/EART10/Lectures/HTML/lecture.07.html

Re: hi


I infer from your description that a non-deterministic system's process is not a probablistic process, wherein the probability of transition from any state Si to any state Sj may be different than the probability of transition from any state Sm to any state Sn. For if a non-deterministic system's process were such a probablistic process, then the probability of some states are possibly more probable than others. In such cases, the probability of a particular outcome may be more probable than others. If upon observing the repeated behavior of such a system one observes some states reoccuring more often then others, one can create a probablistic model to predict future outcomes of that model without knowing all possible transitions. The weather prediction model is such a model. Medical diagnosticians employ such models. Stock investors do likewise. We of course are very interested in why some transitions are more probable than others. We even develop probabilistic models to help us answer that why.



I'm a retired engineer and currently an aviator operating my own aviation business. In both vocations, I have and do repeatedly and successfully bet on the implications of limited data without prior knowledge of all possible outcomes. It works for me! I observe that it works for a great many others. Some of those others are called successful entepreneurs.

No, the earth's weather system is not a closed system in the technical sense. It is influenced by factors not of this earth, the sun and bolide (i.e., exploding spatial rock impacts) being two of them. While technically of this earth, volcanoe erruptions are nontheless considered external to the present model of the earth's atmospheric system. The same is probably true for the earth's life evolution system.

How about the human brain? Some limited but adequate models have been developed for predicting certain of its behaviors without knowing all possible connections and outcomes. Now you will possibly claim: "yes, but, the brain is a closed system." I think not! Much of its future behavior is a function of its history of inputs from outside the brain's system.

So in conclusion, one can fashion adequate probabilistic models of systems for which all possible outcomes are not known in advance. I've done it! Now I bet that I have done it for the evolution system and I'm glad!

cicerone imposter
Veteran Member

Here's one theory on life forms and geologic strata.
http://www.wcg.org/lit/booklets/science/burky3.htm
Here's another link on geologic principles.
http://www.emerald.ucsc.edu/~jsr/EART10/Lectures/HTML/lecture.07.html

Thanks Cicerone! I recommend that everyone read what will be found at your recommended links.

I recommend these links provided by Terry.

This site has a graph showing the number of families surviving each mass extinction:

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/complex_life/complex_life.html


More information on these as well as other extinctions:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/deeptime/low_bandwidth.html


================================



In Terry's 2nd recommended link, I found this little gem.

"Did you know?

Ice ages occur in cycles that seem to correspond to variations in the shape of Earth's orbit and the orientation of its spin axis. While these factors operate independently from one another, on occasion they combine to trigger great temperature swings. The cold or hot weather determines whether glaciers expand or retreat."

Well, in order to have iterations of cold climate one must necessarily have iterations of warm climate.

So the cause of temperature change is probably far more effected by the coincidence of "the shape of Earth's orbit and the orientation of its spin axis" than it is by the ozone or carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. Well now ain't that a big surprise?

GENERALLY

Atheists1 claim God certainly does not exist.
Atheists2 claim God probably doesn't exist.
Atheists3 claim God possibly doesn't exist.

Theists1 claim God certainly does exist.
Theists2 claim God probably does exist.
Theists3 claim God possibly does exist.

Agnostics1 claim they do not know whether God exists and certainly will never know.
Agnostics2 claim they do not know whether God exists and probably will never know.
Agnostics3 claim they do not know whether God exists and possibly will never know.

Deists claim ...
Well, let's go to the dictionary.

Main Entry: de·ism
Pronunciation: 'dE-"i-z&m, 'dA-
Function: noun
Usage: often capitalized
Date: 1682
: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe
- de·ist /'dE-ist, 'dA-/ noun, often capitalized

So Deists1 claim God certainly doesn't interfere with the laws of the universe.
So Deists2 claim God probably doesn't interfere with the laws of the universe.
So Deists3 claim God possibly doesn't interfere with the laws of the universe.

Here's a new one (at least new to me)

Universists1 claim God is certainly a synonym for the universe.
Universists2 claim God is probably a synonym for the universe.
Universists3 claim God is possibly a synonym for the universe.

So my speculation/fantasy/guess makes me a universist3.

Well how about that? If God were actually a synonym for the universe and the universe were to actually exist, then God would actually exist.

MY UNIVERSE SPECULATIONS/FANTASIES/GUESSES

If present data is certainly valid, then the universe is certainly finite and is certainly expanding at an accelerating rate.

If that is certainly true, then it is possible that the universe is revolving.

If the universe is revolving, then it is possible that as it expands its rate of revolution decreases due to the law of the conservation of momentum and so does the acceleration rate of its speed of expansion decrease.

If the acceleration rate of its speed of expansion is decreasing, then it is possible that at some future time due to the gravity of the stuff (i.e., matter and energy) it contains it will stop expanding.

If at some future time the universe stops expanding, then it is possible that due to the gravity of its stuff it will begin to contract.

If it begins to contract, then it is possible that it will contract until the heat of its stuff creates a pressure that exceeds the gravity of its stuff.

If it will contract until the heat of its stuff creates a pressure that exceeds the gravity of its stuff, then it is possible that it will begin to expand again, etc..

If it begins to expand again, then it is possible that it will begin to revolve again at an initially very high rate.

If it revolves again at an initially very high rate, then it is possible that the universe pulsates.

If the universe pulsates, then it is possible it has been pulsating for infinite time.

If it has pulsated for infinite time, then it is possible that my probability calculations for the evolution of life that are based on a finite time and finite stuff universe are invalid.

If my probability calculations for the evolution of life by undirected chance plus natural selection that are based on a finite time and finite stuff universe are invalid, then it is possible that undirected chance plus natural selection are sufficient cause for the evolution of life.

If undirected chance plus natural selection are sufficient cause for the evolution of life, then it is possible that Frank is RIGHT.

Oh my God! Can that really be possible

Can you believe it? :wink:

Sorry, missed several days. I'd thought that this one was a wrap about the time I quit getting updates, so

Skeptic, "a prion is an altered brain protein"-- So&Ifso I don't think that that "fact" invalidates the arguement. They are simple-Capable of reproducing- damnably hard to kill-indigenous to the universe-hard to find.
Is there a more primitive "living" organism that I am not aware of? What would you prefer to pinpoint as the simplest reproducing organism?

So my conclusion was that life-intelligence is inherent in the universe and I didn't even have to use the infinite chances arguement to show that it "probably" happened in some manner similar to the one that I postulated.

It skews Ican's figures something awful as life does choose alternatives. Naturally.

Ican, good buddy, I suspect that you are looking for a "why" that doesn't exist. But I think that I have shown a reasonable "how"

( Ican, I am still trying to deal with my red shift contention. Terry introducing the "speed of time" into the equation did not mess it up as the speed of time is accounted for in the varying accelerations from a radius of a massive object, but it gave me something else to think about for the last month or so. Like how to incorporate it ) .
My money is still safe wiith infinity. Shes still ahead by a nose, or rather
6.624X 10>-27 converted to distance . Us naive realists do have a sense of humor

To again quote that great American philosopher, Yogi Berra, "It ain't over 'til it's over". So it isn't a wrap until it's a wrap.



Yes, it sure does. It leads inexorably to the conclusion "that life-intelligence is" probably "inherent in" and intrinsic to "the universe".



I think your "how" hypothesis reasonable enough to justify scientific testing. A "why" both possibly exists and possibly doesn't exist, so I'll certainly look for it until I probably have to quit looking for it.




Forgive me! I cannot resist!

The Planck constant, h = 6.6256 x 10^(-27) gram-centimeter^2 per second.
The Gravitational constant, G = 6.670 x 10^(-8) centimeter^3 per gram-second^2.
The speed of light, c = 3 x 10^10 centimeters per second.

Thus:
A Planck length = (hG/c^3)^.5 = 4.0499 x 10^(-33) centimeters;
A Planck time = (hG/c^5)^.5 = 1.3509 x 10^(-43) seconds;
A Planck mass = (hc/G)^.5 = 5.4571 x 10^(-5) grams.

So, no matter how you measure it, it is possible that the probability of infinity is less than a nose hair ahead of the probability of finitude :wink:

Hey, people, We're still trying to answer the quesiton, "what is reality?" Do we exist? Do you exist?

Are we really?

"What do you mean, we?"

Precisely!