PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 24, 2017 22:18:07 GMT
Genetic drift being caused by "stochastic forces" does not mean evolution itself is a force. Secondly when you gravity and evolution are natural forces why are you using two different definitions of force? I might as well say both feathers and the rays from the sun are light. Unless of course you arent, in which case what definition of force are you using? You asked for an example of how force is used in other sciences than physics. I gave you an example within seconds. You has a choice between doing the honest thing and conceding or continuing to obfuscate. It's obvious which option you chose. We're done here. Obviously I was wrong about that but that us not the point at hand. The point is that the claim that evolution is a force is ludicrous and removes the veil that you have put around yourself that you are well educated about evolution or science.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Mar 24, 2017 22:19:50 GMT
You asked for an example of how force is used in other sciences than physics. I gave you an example within seconds. You has a choice between doing the honest thing and conceding or continuing to obfuscate. It's obvious which option you chose. We're done here. Obviously I was wrong about that but that us not the point at hand. The point is that the claim that evolution is a force is ludicrous and removes the veil that you have put around yourself that you are well educated about evolution or science. Good luck with that. Also, I didn't even write the part you are talking about, it was a quote from a website. Edit: "Natural selection is one force that can drive and influence evolutionary change, but other mechanisms can be equally important." www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/evolution-is-change-in-the-inherited-traits-15164254
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 24, 2017 22:27:05 GMT
Obviously I was wrong about that but that us not the point at hand. The point is that the claim that evolution is a force is ludicrous and removes the veil that you have put around yourself that you are well educated about evolution or science. Good luck with that. Also, I didn't even write the part you are talking about, it was a quote from a website. Well as you would say "I know you fuckit, anybod with an IQ higher then six can see I never claimed you said that you dunce. You agreed with it retard, saying it was "entirely correct". Evasion noted btw which to be expected from the resident board fuckwit".
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Mar 24, 2017 22:32:28 GMT
Good luck with that. Also, I didn't even write the part you are talking about, it was a quote from a website. Well as you would say "I know you fuckit, anybod with an IQ higher then six can see I never claimed you said that you dunce. You agreed with it retard, saying it was "entirely correct". Evasion noted btw which to be expected from the resident board fuckwit". See edit "shit-for-last-brain-cell". Now would be a great time for you to show at least a minimum amount of integrity and concede.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 24, 2017 22:34:55 GMT
Well as you would say "I know you fuckit, anybod with an IQ higher then six can see I never claimed you said that you dunce. You agreed with it retard, saying it was "entirely correct". Evasion noted btw which to be expected from the resident board fuckwit". See edit "shit-for-last-brain-cell". Now would be a great time for you to show at least a minimum amount of integrity and concede. I am not the one who has evaded the vast majority of what I have said.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 24, 2017 22:36:50 GMT
You asked for an example of how force is used in other sciences than physics. I gave you an example within seconds. You has a choice between doing the honest thing and conceding or continuing to obfuscate. It's obvious which option you chose. We're done here. Obviously I was wrong about that but that us not the point at hand. The point is that the claim that evolution is a force is ludicrous and removes the veil that you have put around yourself that you are well educated about evolution or science. If theoncomingstorm had said "evolution is a physical force" you might have a point, but otherwise I think you're getting awfully pedantic about the use of a word. Outside of physics a force can be synonymous with a power (the force of love, the force of destiny, the force of the law). I think his original point to distinguish the difference between theories and "forces" (gravitational and evolutionary) was made quite clearly. It's a very nice point actually.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Mar 24, 2017 22:38:53 GMT
See edit "shit-for-last-brain-cell". Now would be a great time for you to show at least a minimum amount of integrity and concede. I am not the one who has evaded the vast majority of what I have said. No, you're the one clinging desperately to the usage of a word in a layman's explanation of a scientific principle which i have already noted several times was a layman's explanation. Even at that, describing evolution as a force is a perfectly acceptable use of the word as it applies to biology, as i have also shown several times. Your ridiculous lie that i have evaded anything is obvious to just about anybody who cares to read the thread. You were wrong. I've proven you were wrong. Show some damn integrity for once.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 24, 2017 22:56:43 GMT
Obviously I was wrong about that but that us not the point at hand. The point is that the claim that evolution is a force is ludicrous and removes the veil that you have put around yourself that you are well educated about evolution or science. If theoncomingstorm had said "evolution is a physical force" you might have a point, but otherwise I think you're getting awfully pedantic about the use of a word. Outside of physics a force can be synonymous with a power (the force of love, the force of destiny, the force of the law). I think his original point to distinguish the difference between theories and "forces" (gravitational and evolutionary) was made quite clearly. It's a very nice point actually. No definition of force whether physical or not fits evolution.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Mar 24, 2017 22:57:51 GMT
If theoncomingstorm had said "evolution is a physical force" you might have a point, but otherwise I think you're getting awfully pedantic about the use of a word. Outside of physics a force can be synonymous with a power (the force of love, the force of destiny, the force of the law). I think his original point to distinguish the difference between theories and "forces" (gravitational and evolutionary) was made quite clearly. It's a very nice point actually. No definition of force whether physical or not fits evolution. Good luck with that.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 24, 2017 23:00:18 GMT
I am not the one who has evaded the vast majority of what I have said. No, you're the one clinging desperately to the usage of a word in a layman's explanation of a scientific principle which i have already noted several times was a layman's explanation. Even at that, describing evolution as a force is a perfectly acceptable use of the word as it applies to biology, as i have also shown several times. Your ridiculous lie that i have evaded anything is obvious to just about anybody who cares to read the thread. You were wrong. I've proven you were wrong. Show some damn integrity for once. Describing something in laymens terms is no excuse for innacuracies. Define force. You have yet to do that. You saying that genetic drift may be due to certain forces is proof evolution is a force? Jesus you are on the same level of stupid as blade. I already countered this and you made a red herring and evaded. Please dont delude yourself, even you arent that thick.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 25, 2017 0:14:54 GMT
If theoncomingstorm had said "evolution is a physical force" you might have a point, but otherwise I think you're getting awfully pedantic about the use of a word. Outside of physics a force can be synonymous with a power (the force of love, the force of destiny, the force of the law). I think his original point to distinguish the difference between theories and "forces" (gravitational and evolutionary) was made quite clearly. It's a very nice point actually. No definition of force whether physical or not fits evolution. How about explosion, as in the Cambrian explosion? The ability of species to differentiate and occupy ecological niches has occurred repeatedly (for example the marsupials of Australia filling niches remarkable similar to the non-marsupials of the bigger continents). You don't think force is an apt description of this tendency?
|
|
|
Post by 馃尩 on Mar 25, 2017 2:45:24 GMT
No, that's how force is used in physics. The article you quoted even makes that clear IN THE FIRST TWO WORDS. You really need to give up now. Give an example of force as it is used in other sciences. I agree with your view that evolution itself is not a force. But I think it's reasonable to treat evolution as being driven by forces, in a precise sense of "force" that is analogous to physical forces. Let's take the popular definition of "evolution" as changes in allele frequencies of a population over time (I think that this definition is inadequate, but it helps to simplify the discussion and it should be easy to see how the argument made here could be generalized to a broader definition of "evolution"). Intuitively, a physical force applies a push or pull to an object. Force is a vector quantity that has both magnitude and direction, and forces can act together to produce a precise net force, where sometimes opposing forces might cancel each other. Similarly, we can treat evolutionary forces as those processes that "push" allele frequencies. The analogy to magnitude is in terms of how quickly allele frequencies change, and the analogy to direction is the particular pattern of changes. For example, allele A1 increasing and allele A2 decreasing is a different "direction" to A1 decreasing and A2 increasing, and the net force has a greater magnitude the quicker the change occurs. Evolutionary forces can "cancel" each other: consider a situation where migration into a population tends to increase A1, while selection within that population tends to favour A2, leading to the ratio of A1 to A2 remaining stable. In physics, the law of inertia describes the case of an object on which no net force acts: it states that an object in motion with a particular velocity will remain at that velocity unless acted upon by a net force. Biology arguably has an analogous law with the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, which tells us that allele and genotype frequencies remain constant unless acted upon by a net evolutionary force. More precisely, the HW equilibrium provides a model of an idealized population on which no evolutionary force acts: in such a case, if there are two alleles, A1 and A2, with frequencies p and q respectively, then after a single generation the genotype frequencies A1A1, A1A2, and A2A2 will be p2, 2 pq, and q2 respectively. If a population deviates from the HW distribution p2, 2 pq, q2, this tells us that a net evolutionary force is acting on the population. Admittedly, biological forces and physical forces are not exactly the same. Is it therefore a straightforward equivocation to talk of biological forces and physical forces? No, I don't think so. To use your example, there is a difference between: (1a) This feather is very light. (1b) Rays from the sun are light. and (2a) Frank is infected with the flu virus. (2b) Vincent's computer is infected with a virus. The use of the terms "infected" and "virus" in (2a) and (2b) are not univocal, but neither are they purely equivocal. It may well be quite useful, in certain circumstances, to view biological viruses and computer viruses as being the same sorts of things. The same is true for biological and physical forces.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Mar 25, 2017 2:50:19 GMT
If theoncomingstorm had said "evolution is a physical force" you might have a point, but otherwise I think you're getting awfully pedantic about the use of a word. Outside of physics a force can be synonymous with a power (the force of love, the force of destiny, the force of the law). I think his original point to distinguish the difference between theories and "forces" (gravitational and evolutionary) was made quite clearly. It's a very nice point actually. No definition of force whether physical or not fits evolution. Oxford: A person or thing regarded as exerting power or influence. The quote features a very common usage. Not even sure why there's an issue here.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Mar 25, 2017 2:51:27 GMT
No definition of force whether physical or not fits evolution. Oxford: A person or thing regarded as exerting power or influence. The quote features a very common usage. Not even sure why there's an issue here. Because the kiddie-fiddler is a useless time-waster.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 25, 2017 8:27:39 GMT
No definition of force whether physical or not fits evolution. Oxford: A person or thing regarded as exerting power or influence. The quote features a very common usage. Not even sure why there's an issue here. Firstly lets be honest when he called evolution a natural force he wasnt saying that at all. Force is not used like that in scientific terminology. Secondly congragulations you found a watered down definition that if you really stretch it fits evolution.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 25, 2017 8:34:16 GMT
No definition of force whether physical or not fits evolution. How about explosion, as in the Cambrian explosion? The ability of species to differentiate and occupy ecological niches has occurred repeatedly (for example the marsupials of Australia filling niches remarkable similar to the non-marsupials of the bigger continents). You don't think force is an apt description of this tendency? Why would it be.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Mar 25, 2017 20:23:51 GMT
Oxford: A person or thing regarded as exerting power or influence. The quote features a very common usage. Not even sure why there's an issue here. Firstly lets be honest when he called evolution a natural force he wasnt saying that at all. He was obviously saying just that. This is hardly the first time you've adopted a bizarre objection to a word usage with which everyone else is perfectly familiar.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 25, 2017 21:50:06 GMT
Firstly lets be honest when he called evolution a natural force he wasnt saying that at all. He was obviously saying just that. This is hardly the first time you've adopted a bizarre objection to a word usage with which everyone else is perfectly familiar. No he wasnt. That is such a bizarre thing to do (i.e label evolution a force because it has had influence biologically) nd he would have just said that straight away instead he failed time and time again to do so. Even if you were right that doesnt make him not an idiot as I have already pointed out that is not the only mistake he made. "This is hardly the first time you've adopted a bizarre objection to a word usage with which everyone else is perfectly familiar" huh?
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Mar 25, 2017 22:58:03 GMT
I'll leave you to debate it with the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms:
evolutionary force [鈥歟v路蓹娄l眉路sh蓹鈥歯er路膿 鈥瞗券rs]
(evolution)
Any factor that brings about changes in gene frequencies or chromosome frequencies in a population and is thus capable of causing evolutionary change.
Let us know who comes out ahead. You, or the language resource.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Mar 25, 2017 23:09:56 GMT
I'll leave you to debate it with the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms: evolutionary force [鈥歟v路蓹娄l眉路sh蓹鈥歯er路膿 鈥瞗券rs] (evolution) Any factor that brings about changes in gene frequencies or chromosome frequencies in a population and is thus capable of causing evolutionary change. Let us know who comes out ahead. You, or the language resource. If he gets Arlon to help him then that dictionary stands no chance.
|
|