cofty my 50 digits was a simplify example I thought it was obvious. So what if genome is 3 billion digits. A computer can prosses that comperison in less than 1 second. What I don't agree with the statement is the "impossible to identify the first human." The reason I don't agree with that is because I don't believe we have tried every single model and test it. Yes in reality is impossible. But I never said is possible in reality only in theory.
atrapado
JoinedPosts by atrapado
-
266
There Was No First Human
by cofty inthis excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....
-
-
-
266
There Was No First Human
by cofty inthis excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....
-
-
atrapado
Lets assume humans are define by a sequence of 50 ones and 50 zeros. The first ancester we look at is all zeros. As they progress at some point someone goes from 49 ones to 50 ones. So he is now human because he got 50 ones and 50 zeros he can reproduce with any ancestor that has 49 ones and 51 zeros, or 50x50.
-
266
There Was No First Human
by cofty inthis excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....
-
-
atrapado
No you haven't. The only thing you guys have explained is that such a definition MIGHT BE impossible to formulate. Those are 2 completely different problems.
-
266
There Was No First Human
by cofty inthis excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....
-
-
atrapado
cofty you sound like religous people that say you cannot ask were God came from because by their definition God was always there. You failed to grasp my point that if you create a definition for what a human is you would be able to test all ancestors and find the first human or the set of first humans.
-
266
There Was No First Human
by cofty inthis excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....
-
-
atrapado
talesin maybe jws doesn't want to reply anymore but your " My point? Know your facts, before you make statements in a debate."
I find it interesting because you say the argument is wrong because green is not a primary color. Do you know there are different basis? Do you know there is RGB and is used extensively? You can represent any color using that basis is limited by how many bits you assign to RGB(red, green, blue)? jws is correct that if you set a threashold maybe your eyes cannot tell where the change occurs but a computer using RGB values would be able to tell where it occurs and draw a line for you. Yellow is a mix of red and green in RGB.
Viviane I think I don't explain my self well. The point about infinity was that for example you can count the infinity of all integers but you cannot count the infinity of real numbers. Different infinities are not equal. And since our sample is finite there is no reason why we couldn't create a filter. You say unknows and uncertainties. That is the reason you add variables with ranges. Noise on signals is an unknow but it doesn't stop us from modeling them. If you had all the data you would be able to created it I have no doubt, if you don't have all the data I agree that you will never be able with 100.0% certainty say I found the first human or the set of first humans(since multiple could be born at the same time). And since our data is so limited such a filter would only work in theory if you say it wont you obviously don't understand what I am saying and there is no point on to continue to debate.
-
266
There Was No First Human
by cofty inthis excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....
-
-
atrapado
snare&racket I agree that we don't have a golden standard and that we might never do. If you take my filter I don't see why it wouldn't work. You add enough rules and exceptions and you will cover everything specially since is a finite example. The only thing I have seen that you cannot count is some types of infinity but we are talking of a discrete sets here.
Will it be practical probably not. Theory is not always possible (timespace, physical limitations etc.) for example I see problems at work that if we try to do them a certain way it will take us 100 years of computational power to do. So obivously I am not going to suggest to my boss that we should give it a try because it can be done but we'll gave it done after we die.
For example taking your blood red example. Since you know humans of different eras or enviroments have different shapes you could do it 2 ways I can think of.
Brute force: You look for every single variation and train every image. So if the blood cell is part of that set it passes the test.
Some other way: Since the shapes are irregular why not use volume or weight. You say if the bood cells are x +/- e cm^3 then it passes the test.
Sure this test alone would include blood cells of many other type of species but keep adding rules to the filter. You can OR and AND, and XOR the rules I don't see why it wouldn't work.
If you had access to the data of all species I don't see why it wouldn't work.
Is it practical: NO, probably to complex that is close to impossible.
Is it possible: Only in theory.
-
266
There Was No First Human
by cofty inthis excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....
-
-
atrapado
cofty I haven't read that book and I notice that quote and thought about it but didn't know the details for the argument. For example he talks about a bell-shaped distribution. What is the criteria for this distribution curved that changed with generations? Did he used a sample of genes why not expand the variables to cover more so that the shift is included. Just like my DNA sample if you find a population that you consider humans but fails the filter then you modify the filter so that it will include that population as well(you don't say well a filter doesn't exits because I tried one). So the reason I didn't coment on that quote was because I am not familiar with it.
From this quote what I gather was that Dawkins is saying you cannot define the essence of rabbit based on this. I see no proof that you cannot define a rabbit just that his method didn't work. All I was trying to say was "sure we don't have a definition or a definition that we agree" but that doesn't proove that a definition doesn't exits or that someday we'll find or agree on one.
-
266
There Was No First Human
by cofty inthis excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....
-
-
atrapado
cofty I agree with breeding but why not other genes? Thanks for the definition of Evolution I honestly had never looked at it with this detail.
On a side note I thought your original post was to share and educate. I didn't know I had to look carefully at what I type/response or I risk being accused of not thinking. If your purpose is to alienate people from posting I say good job.
-
266
There Was No First Human
by cofty inthis excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....
-
-
atrapado
Viviane well to find out if the paremeters are tune properly you need to test it agains the entire population. You might find out that with just some sample it covers all the bases but if you had the power and resources test all. I imagine the test would be done by computer automated and adding dynamically newborns. Again is a suggestion and I haven't though of everything that would be required plus is completely impossible to do it not just the logistics but we will never have all the data.
-
266
There Was No First Human
by cofty inthis excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....
-
-
atrapado
cofty let me know if I am still hijacking I'll just stop and will post no moren.
So lets say A fathers B. And the gene difference between A and B is pretty notiable could it ever be consider evolution? All ancestors of A have the same gene as A and all decendants of B have the same genes as B. Wouldn't A and the ancestors be a pool and B and its decendants be a pool as well. Could that be consider evolution? Even if the change happen in a single generation?