Evolution is convergent & predictable.

Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12808
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Evolution is convergent & predictable.

Professor Simon Conway Morris, makes the case for a ubiquitous "map of life" that governs the way in which all living things develop.

It builds on the established principle of convergent evolution, a widely-supported theory -- although one still disputed by some biologists -- that different species will independently evolve similar features.

Conway Morris argues that convergence is not just common, but everywhere, and that it has governed every aspect of life's development on Earth. Proteins, eyes, limbs, intelligence, tool-making -- even our capacity to experience orgasms -- are, he argues, inevitable once life emerges.

The book claims that evolution is therefore far from random, but a predictable process that operates according to a fairly rigid set of rules.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150702163902.htm

The article goes on a tangent regarding extra-terrestrial life that, as usual in the media, fails to account for the incredible improbability of witnessing evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligence. The fact is that even if there was intelligent life in all directions, we'd never know it unless a fluke coincidence occurred.

But all the evolution stuff is very interesting.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4617
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Totally agree but also that

Totally agree but also that not only is evolution predictable, but every thing in life is too.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12808
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The only predictable thing

The only predictable thing about life in general or specifics is that it will increase entropy.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4617
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:The only

Vastet wrote:
The only predictable thing about life in general or specifics is that it will increase entropy.

I believe given all the variables it could be predicted as to what a person would decide to eat for dinner or what the dice roll will end up being.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12808
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
And I say you couldn't be

And I say you couldn't be more wrong. Since your belief is untestable it is equivalent to any other religious or spiritual or conspiratorial bullshit. Omniscience is scientifically impossible due to the uncertainty principle, which guarantees that you would fail in your predictions no matter how much you knew.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4617
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:And I say you

Vastet wrote:
And I say you couldn't be more wrong. Since your belief is untestable it is equivalent to any other religious or spiritual or conspiratorial bullshit. Omniscience is scientifically impossible due to the uncertainty principle, which guarantees that you would fail in your predictions no matter how much you knew.

Actually it is completely logical and scientific and the use of the uncertainty principle does not apply to the dice being thrown.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12808
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
No, it is the complete

No, it is the complete opposite of logical and scientific. And the uncertainty principle guarantees that you can never accurately predict the throwing of dice. If you can't measure the position, velocity, and direction of a particle simultaneously; then you also can't measure the position, velocity, and direction of a mass of particles simultaneously; which literally makes predicting the dice absolutely impossible.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4617
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:No, it is the

Vastet wrote:
No, it is the complete opposite of logical and scientific. And the uncertainty principle guarantees that you can never accurately predict the throwing of dice. If you can't measure the position, velocity, and direction of a particle simultaneously; then you also can't measure the position, velocity, and direction of a mass of particles simultaneously; which literally makes predicting the dice absolutely impossible.

As I said previous, if a human could know all the variables then it is possible to predict the throw.

If you could throw the dice the same exact way each time then you could predict end result but doing it exactly the same way each time is so not possible. There are too many variables to repeat.

Maybe god could do it? eh?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12808
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:As I

digitalbeachbum wrote:
As I said previous, if a human could know all the variables then it is possible to predict the throw.

It's impossible for anything to know all the variables, so your hypothesis is ridiculously pointless and unprovable.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
If you could throw the dice the same exact way each time then you could predict end result

No you couldn't, because you don't control all the factors other than the dice (and you can't know all the factors of the dice either). Like humidity, pressure, gravity, and more.

Edit:

Even if you took the most controlled environment and conditions possible, and accurately predicted every die roll, it still wouldn't prove your hypothesis because you are stacking the deck. Obviously you can predict I'm holding a 2 of spades when the only cards in the deck are 2's of spades.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 It seems to me, that if

 It seems to me, that if all you are trying to do is predict the end result of a dice roll, the uncertainty principle wouldn't come into play. A die only has six sides, so it seems to me that there would be a fairly large margin of error for both location and velocity that would still lead to the correct prediction. If you were trying to predict the precise location the dice might settle, you might run into problems with uncertainty. However, since the betting would be closed before location and velocity could be measured, I don't know why you would bother.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12808
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The final resting place of

The final resting place of the die would figure into the result of which side would end up on top. They don't tend to slide in my experience. Of course I usually roll them on a surface that has friction. Maybe they do slide on hard flat surfaces.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4617
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:  It

Beyond Saving wrote:

 It seems to me, that if all you are trying to do is predict the end result of a dice roll, the uncertainty principle wouldn't come into play. A die only has six sides, so it seems to me that there would be a fairly large margin of error for both location and velocity that would still lead to the correct prediction. If you were trying to predict the precise location the dice might settle, you might run into problems with uncertainty. However, since the betting would be closed before location and velocity could be measured, I don't know why you would bother.

This sums up my reply.

I think humans could do it but if you had a controlled robot arm holding and then throwing the dice in the same manner and were able to control everything from A to Z as much as possible you could come up with the prediction of the dice.

I think also the speed and distance makes a difference. I remember playing D&D and some people would do tiny rolls in order to increase their favor, which is why I went to using dice boxes like the ones used in Yahtzee.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12808
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
^Which would be stacking the

^Which would be stacking the deck with 2's of spades and wouldn't really be predicting the dice. What you'd really be doing has nothing to do with prediction. You'd basically be calling out a six and then putting a die down with the six up. You'd never be able to predict an actual roll of the dice.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:The final

Vastet wrote:
The final resting place of the die would figure into the result of which side would end up on top. They don't tend to slide in my experience. Of course I usually roll them on a surface that has friction. Maybe they do slide on hard flat surfaces.

I was thinking more of the die being a millimeter to the left or right of what was estimated, which probably wouldn't change the end result assuming a relatively uniform surface. Although, on reflection I suppose there might be a roll that is so close to the edge that absolute precision would be required to distinguish between two possibilities to the point that you do run into the uncertainty principle. It is probably more accurate to say you could accurately predict 99.999% of rolls.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1451
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
And

the outcome would also depend upon variances in temperature, and how long one would hold them in the hand before the throw, or ambient temperature of the location. If the temp changes it would create a plus or minus. That also may bring into accounts for evolution also. Evolution outcome may have quite a bit of dependance upon temperature. It  seems it would be reasonable to assume that it would, as the difference between a nest of crocodiles being all male or  female is temperature dependant.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12808
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
It is well documented that

It is well documented that environment plays a major role in evolution. Perhaps the biggest role.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1451
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:It is well

Vastet wrote:
It is well documented that environment plays a major role in evolution. Perhaps the biggest role.

I got to wondering how many footbal fields the paper would cover to print out all the variables.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth