Are we apes? A mathematical approach.

[magellan004]

Oh and while you try to muster the guts to do what you need to do, a slight reminder: It wasn't me, and it wasn't Jesse who said

"The first Dino has 'No traits' so the calculation is a little tricky".

Now who could that have been...

What on Earth are you blabbering about?

Magellan

[Faid]

Admit that there is no "no traits" trait, and that "no traits" is only a possibility in examining traits- one of the states the examined traits allow.

When you do that, I'll take you by the hand, and we can examine traits by simply saying a or b, and check how many 'combinations' are allowed, according to number of traits. And we'll see if you have "given the solution" to us.


Ready to show us how much is 2+2, mags? Or will you chicken out again and try to weasel your way out?

I admit that you will agree that it doesn't matter what trait 'a' is. I also admit you will pretend I didn't say what I said.

Magellan

I guess "try to weasel your way out" it is, then...


Come on, mags, how hard can it be? Is "no traits" a trait?

[Faid]

"The first Dino has 'No traits' so the calculation is a little tricky"

What on Earth are you blabbering about?

Magellan

Heeeey! You recognize your own words as 'blabbering'! That's a start...

[magellan004]

Heeeey! You recognize your own words as 'blabbering'! That's a start...

We have a communication problem.
Can we start there?

Magellan

[Faid]

We can start by you admitting that "no traits" is not a trait, and stop trying to avoid it. Looks like a pretty simple start to me.


Come on mags- how insecure can you be to refuse to admit even that?

[magellan004]

We can start by you admitting that "no traits" is not a trait, and stop trying to avoid it. Looks like a pretty simple start to me.


Come on mags- how insecure can you be to refuse to admit even that?

Do we have a communication problem?
let's start there.

Magellan

[Faid]

Do we have a communication problem?
let's start there.

Magellan

Well, if you consider you trying to avoid admitting even the most basic of premises, to save wiggle room for later, as a "communication problem", then I guess so.

But the solution to the problem is simple and swift, mags. Answer this question:

Is "no traits" a trait?

Yes or no please. Seriously, are you that insecure of your own position?

[magellan004]

Well, if you consider you trying to avoid admitting even the most basic of premises, to save wiggle room for later, as a "communication problem", then I guess so.

But the solution to the problem is simple and swift, mags. Answer this question:

Is "no traits" a trait?

Yes or no please. Seriously, are you that insecure of your own position?

It's not a trait.
Oops - you will copy this for a few weeks so let me state it more clearly -
Is "no traits" a trait? Answer - No.

Problem solved.

Magellan

[Alleged_Alec]

Though the thread has been derailed quite successfully, I'm somewhat interested in where you wanted to go with this, magellan. I think you're going to end up with the conclusion that we're not apes, but I wonder for which reason. Because the correct reason would be: we defined apes to be the non-human hominids.

[lao tzu]

Mags doesn't end up with the conclusion we're not apes, Alec. He's a creationist. They start with their conclusion, and then look for evidence to support it.

[Faid]

It's not a trait.
Oops - you will copy this for a few weeks so let me state it more clearly -
Is "no traits" a trait? Answer - No.

Problem solved.

Magellan

Indeed, it is solved! And now that we have established that (which also means that posts like this one are absolute nonsense), let's proceed in calculating the different possible combinations of a given number of traits. Deal?

Let's start with one trait, say "a". For that trait, there may be one of two possible states:

The animal has the trait (a+), or

The animal doesn't have the trait (a-).

And it's the same for any other trait we examine. So, for one trait examined, there are two possible combinations: the "a+" combination and the "a-" combination. Now, when examining two traits (a and b):

The animal has neither trait a, nor trait b (a-,b-), or
The animal has trait a, but not trait b (a+,b-), or
The animal doesn't have trait a, but has trait b (a-,b+), or
The animal has both trait a and trait b (a+,b+).

So that's four possible combinations of two examined traits.

With me so far? If so, would you like to try it for three (3) traits, a, b and c?

[magellan004]

Though the thread has been derailed quite successfully, I'm somewhat interested in where you wanted to go with this, magellan. I think you're going to end up with the conclusion that we're not apes, but I wonder for which reason. Because the correct reason would be: we defined apes to be the non-human hominids.

Thank you for joining in.

Phank tried that 'definition' thing earlier.
If mathematics shows that according to evolution theory, say, there is a possibility that we are monkeys then defining us as 'non-monkeys' doesn't really add any credence to monkey-deniers. And oddly, monkey deniers are often evolutionists.

For example - from the opening post:

from http://www.springerlink.com/content/...7/fulltext.pdf Everything You Always Wanted to Know (but were afraid
to ask) About Evolution
Am I a Monkey? Six Questions about Evolution, by Francisco Ayala. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010. Pp. xii + 83. H/b $12.95
Haley Moss Dillon

The conclusion I believe we will end up with is, to me at least, very obvious. Mathematics will show that, using evolution, there are so many permutations of family lines that the picture that evolution gives of the world is at odds with reality. For example the depiction of the 'Horse family' showing a little horse evolving into the modern horse portrays the family line as quite limited in branches and very linear and orderly. In fact that's why some evolutionists claim that 'the evolution of the horse is quite well known.' etc. People like to think that evolution = order.

Magellan

[magellan004]

Indeed, it is solved! And now that we have established that (which also means that posts like this one are absolute nonsense), let's proceed in calculating the different possible combinations of a given number of traits. Deal?

Let's start with one trait, say "a". For that trait, there may be one of two possible states:

The animal has the trait (a+), or

The animal doesn't have the trait (a-).

And it's the same for any other trait we examine. So, for one trait examined, there are two possible combinations: the "a+" combination and the "a-" combination. Now, when examining two traits (a and b):

The animal has neither trait a, nor trait b (a-,b-), or
The animal has trait a, but not trait b (a+,b-), or
The animal doesn't have trait a, but has trait b (a-,b+), or
The animal has both trait a and trait b (a+,b+).

So that's four possible combinations of two examined traits.

With me so far? If so, would you like to try it for three (3) traits, a, b and c?

Ahhh! Progress at last. I like your mathematics. I'm excited.
But you know how emotions tend to get in the way. So let me confirm what you are saying - see if I really understand.

This diagram is from the Indiana University diagram. It's just the 'early part'. I have used simple labels - 1 and 2 to describe the types of Dinos.
TreeOriginalShort.jpg
Now let me check what you are saying.
In that diagram above, how many types of parents are possible for every Dino type '2' that ever lived?

I'm guessing your answer is 4. 'Every one of Dino type 2s could have had any one of four types of parents.'

But you tell me please.

Magellan

[Alleged_Alec]

Thank you for joining in.

Phank tried that 'definition' thing earlier.
If mathematics shows that according to evolution theory, say, there is a possibility that we are monkeys then defining us as 'non-monkeys' doesn't really add any credence to monkey-deniers. And oddly, monkey deniers are often evolutionists.

Please note the difference between apes and monkeys. It is quite relevant, especially in this case.

For example - from the opening post:




The conclusion I believe we will end up with is, to me at least, very obvious. Mathematics will show that, using evolution, there are so many permutations of family lines that the picture that evolution gives of the world is at odds with reality. For example the depiction of the 'Horse family' showing a little horse evolving into the modern horse portrays the family line as quite limited in branches and very linear and orderly. In fact that's why some evolutionists claim that 'the evolution of the horse is quite well known.' etc. People like to think that evolution = order.

Magellan

Then I'd love to see you continue the argument even more. I don't think I'll agree with it, but it'll make clear what I'll be arguing against.

[Faid]

Ahhh! Progress at last. I like your mathematics. I'm excited.
But you know how emotions tend to get in the way. So let me confirm what you are saying - see if I really understand.

This diagram is from the Indiana University diagram. It's just the 'early part'. I have used simple labels - 1 and 2 to describe the types of Dinos.
TreeOriginalShort.jpg
Now let me check what you are saying.
In that diagram above, how many types of parents are possible for every Dino type '2' that ever lived?

I'm guessing your answer is 4. 'Every one of Dino type 2s could have had any one of four types of parents.'

But you tell me please.

Magellan

Now now, Mags. Baby steps, remember? We are still trying to find out how many combinations a given number of traits can have. Your example, as you presented it, does not refer to the traits, but just to those two types of dinos. Let me ask you: how many traits are being examined on this 'early part'? I'm sure Indiana University offers the answer.

Alternatively, you can forget about your dinos and do the general calculation for three traits. After all, you did say it does not matter what each trait is exactly (besides "no traits", of course). :)
And you are excited, so it should be fun for you. Right?