Being A Christian

[pozbaird]

As a scientist I would certainly like to find out the answer to all this stuff when I die.

That however would probably require a God of some kind.

Which means that either I will die and frustratingly not get any final answer (which offends my inner Einstein) OR I will have to accept that REA and the others are correct in which case I'll be embarrassed. That sounds like a lose-lose to me TBH.

It's neither a lose-lose or a win situation. Surely we can all agree on a few things. One, we will all die one day. Two, none of us know what, if anything, happens then. Three, whatever it is, we are unlikely to have access to a fitba' forum to say to anyone 'fcuk me, you were right'.

Better to worry about something else. In my case, that is currently figuring out why two of my radiators have suddenly stopped working.

[oaksoft]

It's neither a lose-lose or a win situation. Surely we can all agree on a few things. One, we will all die one day. Two, none of us know what, if anything, happens then. Three, whatever it is, we are unlikely to have access to a fitba' forum to say to anyone 'fcuk me, you were right'.

Better to worry about something else. In my case, that is currently figuring out why two of my radiators have suddenly stopped working.

That bit in bold is a shame.

BTW if you fathom out why your radiators have stopped working let me know.

I have a single radiator which has simply stopped working as well.

All others are fine and get hot but this one refuses to warm up. Both pipes at the bottom are cold as well.

I can only assume that the temperature gauge at the bottom of the radiator is knackered but I can't understand why the inlet pipe is also cold.

[oaksoft]

dont think so, the existence of a zero point energy at a theoretical 0K is why energy is still in the system and hence entropy is not zero, this kenetic energy cannot be removed by further cooling, as you cannot find a coolant that would cool as that is circular, maybe i have remembered this incorrectly, but i dont think i have, happy to be directed to an article that clarifies the science if you have access to one

Funnily enough I believe that physicists have managed to go to temperatures below 0K by using lasers.

They populate the first excited state more than the ground state and this gives apparently negative Kelvin temperatures.

No idea what it's all about though.

[pozbaird]

That bit in bold is a shame.

BTW if you fathom out why your radiators have stopped working let me know.

I have a single radiator which has simply stopped working as well.

All others are fine and get hot but this one refuses to warm up. Both pipes at the bottom are cold as well.

I can only assume that the temperature gauge at the bottom of the radiator is knackered but I can't understand why the inlet pipe is also cold.

I feel your pain. I've tried all the usual things - bleeding them, adjusting the boiler pressure, switching the whole system off and on again, and hitting the fcuking thing with a spanner.

Thankfully, one thing I have is the British Gas cover, prior experience taught me it was a wise investment!

Time to place the call...

[rea]

Funnily enough I believe that physicists have managed to go to temperatures below 0K by using lasers.

They populate the first excited state more than the ground state and this gives apparently negative Kelvin temperatures.

No idea what it's all about though.

mm....will need to try and find something on this, sounds a bit weird though

[pozbaird]

I once arranged a surprise weekend in Madrid for me and Mrs Poz. I never told her I had also got us tickets for Real Madrid v Celta Vigo. The temperature was way below 0K.

[rea]

Funnily enough I believe that physicists have managed to go to temperatures below 0K by using lasers.

They populate the first excited state more than the ground state and this gives apparently negative Kelvin temperatures.

No idea what it's all about though.

ok a quick read and i got it.

The key thing is to get our heads around that in this case having a negative temp on the Kelvin scale and going below absolute zero are not the same thing.....going to sleep on this one and read some physics papers

[insaintee]

Can I be a Christian if I work in Saudi or will they stone me to death?

Just asking.

Try it and see

[insaintee]

And you told me to not read between the lines.

If you can read properly, I said that Google wasn't much help when I checked it for something I hadn't heard of, not that I got my information from Google.

That actually wouldn't be irony anyway. I think you had better Google "irony".

Got that link yet? I hope you don't have to Google it.

Try Athena, Try Web of Knowledge, Try Debbra Goldberg or John Raven or a good paper by Bakken and Gates somewhere. . I think Thomas Hansen might also be a good source. I think there also good one in a number of studies on Campanula. As I said they are multi- dimensional surfaces using more that one feature, and or selection pressure which are optimised to show the evolutionary niche a species or sub-s species inhabits. You will need to use the key word function as this a methodology not the actual study. But they are quite widely used. Not too dissimilar from Tillman's approach to ecology.

Pollination studies are full of examples. I'm not doing it for you, Write your own thesis.

The hawkmoth example is different because it involves feed back between two species. The so called evolutionary race. In this case the race is one directional (longer probiscus, longer spur) but some times it is cyclical.

On the question of non-beneficial mutations surviving because they are non-detrimental, that's been suggested but non-beneficial mutations that divert energy to build maintain and move extraneous organs or structures are de-facto detrimental. However, many non-beneficial mutations are maintained because the background mutation rate is such that the rate of new mutation of the same kind is higher than the decay rate of the mutation in the population.

It's entirely Ironic that when I point out that Evolutionary Science is a dynamic, challenging and controversial field full of unanswered questions that are far more interesting and exciting that a stale attempt to challenge religion, you immediately challenge, refute, deflect, deny, use semantics, make false assertions or just plain refuse to accept that there any questions still to be answered in the field. I think the term to describe this is atheist dogma. It's sad that you are letting that stop your appreciation and enjoyment of genuine science.

[saintnextlifetime]

I feel your pain. I've tried all the usual things - bleeding them, adjusting the boiler pressure, switching the whole system off and on again, and hitting the fcuking thing with a spanner.

Thankfully, one thing I have is the British Gas cover, prior experience taught me it was a wise investment!

Time to place the call...

Frew/ Gasure are cheaper and better than the Gas board , whom will try and nag you into replacing your boiler , if you call them out say twice in one year. .

Edited April 18, 2016 by saintnextlifetime

[insaintee]

You'll need to be more specific about exactly what you mean by "Athena". Web of Knowledge is now called Web of Science and there are no instances of "evolutionary surface" when you search their site. Debbra Goldberg, i assume you mean Deborah Goldberg - took me a wee while searching through Debbras and Debras before I realised - again, no results from a search on her educational establishment page. No results on John Raven's site. No results under Thomas Hansen. I searched a few things about campanula, far too many to check them all, and, guess what, no results.

I'm beginning to think you are just on the windup here. Can you not just provide me one link, just one (that isn't to this thread) that talks about "evolutionary surfaces"? Or are you just sending me on this search because you can't find anything?

Feedback between two species? Are you being serious? Surely not! Are you really suggesting that a moth deliberately grew a longer proboscis to reach the nectar of this specific orchid? Or, even more strange, that the orchid deliberately grew a longer nectary so that only that moth could drink its nectar? The reason it happened is just an example of what I've already said and resulted in the longer parts of both.

Challenge - yes;

Refute - some of your claims, yes;

Deflect - See below

Deny - deny what? You'll need to be more precise; See above of course there is feed back between the hawkmoth and the orchid. The orchid is a selective pressure on the moth and the moth is selective pressure on the orchid. Also comments about game theory being in applicable to evolution.

Use semantics - where

Make false assertions - apart from the already admitted bad phrasing, where?;

Refuse to admit there are still questions to be answered in the field - where?

You are just being silly now and trying to back up your "points" by attempting to bury me in accusations without anything to back them up. Have you ever thought of being a politician, or even changing your name to Stuart Dickson?

Sorry, I retract the dicko comment, that was just low.

FFS I got the links by getting of my fat arse and looking at an old text book. Most peer reviewed literature is not open sourced. Try reading the papers rather than just the titles

You several times and in the post above had a go at me personally and have suggested that unlike you I know nothing about evolution. Do you care to throw your unique qualifications to be an expert on the subject into the ring. Google don't hand out qualifications.

Using Google

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/2041-210X.12034/full

http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/PAPERS/evoiasp.pdf

http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/PAPERS/evoiasp.pdf

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=i-4LBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=evolutionary+fit+surface&source=bl&ots=0xXTa-4Pb0&sig=xu_jE5NsSqhkHocjQ0pdQ_YOnT8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiN-IDmiZrMAhXH7RQKHTFkDiYQ6AEIOzAF#v=onepage&q=evolutionary%20fit%20surface&f=false

In fact here's the whole page

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=evolutionary+fit+surface&oq=evolutionary+fit++surface&aqs=chrome..69i57.18153j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Here's one about game theory

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=evolutionary+fit+surface&oq=evolutionary+fit++surface&aqs=chrome..69i57.18153j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=evolution+and+game+theory

Do your own f**king research.

[shull]

Where am I ?

[salmonbuddie]

In church, apparently. They're arguing about which church it is we're in...

[shull]

Oh shit. Collection plate on the way.

I'm oota here.

[salmonbuddie]

I'll be in good company, then...

[rea]

I don't know what the size of your arse has to do with anything but whatever floats your boat.

Where did I say that I know "anything" about evolution? You don't necessarily have to be an expert in a field to be able to debunk claims in that field. I've mentioned my qualifications on here numerous times but, for clarity, none of them are in evolutionary biology. That doesn't mean that I haven't read about it, though. I read a lot of stuff, even stuff that I'm not all that interested in, because I like to be able to hold conversations on numerous subjects, from which I can learn more stuff. I like learning stuff.

Where do any of those links mention "evolutionary surfaces"? You appear to have searched and come up with exactly what I did - nothing about "evolutionary surfaces". This really all started from your mention of "evolutionary surfaces" but you still haven't shown anything that mentions "evolutionary surfaces".

So what you're talking about is an adapted version of Game Theory (Evolutionary Game Theory), not Game Theory. As your link says "Evolutionary game theory differs from classical game theory by ...". You can't, one minute, jump down my throat for phrasing something incorrectly and then, the next minute, jump down my throat for not getting something that you phrase incorrectly. Sorry, wait a minute, you can and you have. Try and calm down a wee bit.

is what you really mean "evolutionary Landscape" rather than surfaces?

[beyond our ken]

That bit in bold is a shame.

BTW if you fathom out why your radiators have stopped working let me know.

I have a single radiator which has simply stopped working as well.

All others are fine and get hot but this one refuses to warm up. Both pipes at the bottom are cold as well.

I can only assume that the temperature gauge at the bottom of the radiator is knackered but I can't understand why the inlet pipe is also cold.

Sounds like a stuck valve, in your case. take the little top section off and see if a sharp rap with a hammer frees it up. they tend to stick in the "down" position if left on the same setting for long periods of time.

Pozbaird's sounds like it is an air lock, or maybe sludge.

[faraway saint]

Sounds like a stuck valve, in your case. take the little top section off and see if a sharp rap with a hammer frees it up. they tend to stick in the "down" position if left on the same setting for long periods of time.

Pozbaird's sounds like it is an air lock, or maybe sludge.

Does that explain his continuous unfunny posts?

[beyond our ken]

Does that explain his continuous unfunny posts?

It might partly explain why I am constantly stuck in the "down" position

[oaksoft]

Try Athena, Try Web of Knowledge, Try Debbra Goldberg or John Raven or a good paper by Bakken and Gates somewhere. . I think Thomas Hansen might also be a good source. I think there also good one in a number of studies on Campanula. As I said they are multi- dimensional surfaces using more that one feature, and or selection pressure which are optimised to show the evolutionary niche a species or sub-s species inhabits. You will need to use the key word function as this a methodology not the actual study. But they are quite widely used. Not too dissimilar from Tillman's approach to ecology.

Pollination studies are full of examples. I'm not doing it for you, Write your own thesis.

The hawkmoth example is different because it involves feed back between two species. The so called evolutionary race. In this case the race is one directional (longer probiscus, longer spur) but some times it is cyclical.

On the question of non-beneficial mutations surviving because they are non-detrimental, that's been suggested but non-beneficial mutations that divert energy to build maintain and move extraneous organs or structures are de-facto detrimental. However, many non-beneficial mutations are maintained because the background mutation rate is such that the rate of new mutation of the same kind is higher than the decay rate of the mutation in the population.

It's entirely Ironic that when I point out that Evolutionary Science is a dynamic, challenging and controversial field full of unanswered questions that are far more interesting and exciting that a stale attempt to challenge religion, you immediately challenge, refute, deflect, deny, use semantics, make false assertions or just plain refuse to accept that there any questions still to be answered in the field. I think the term to describe this is atheist dogma. It's sad that you are letting that stop your appreciation and enjoyment of genuine science.

You've just asked him to use Web of Knowledge?

Even if that is free to access, most of the subsequent papers will be behind paywalls.

One of many ways in which science can be corrupt - we'll make you pay for us to do research and then we'll make you pay again to read what we found.

[insaintee]

is what you really mean "evolutionary Landscape" rather than surfaces?

No surface you optimise a surface based on various parameters and fit on to it. The link below explains fine,

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=i-4LBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=evolutionary+fit+surface&source=bl&ots=0xXTa-4Pb0&sig=xu_jE5NsSqhkHocjQ0pdQ_YOnT8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiN-IDmiZrMAhXH7RQKHTFkDiYQ6AEIOzAF#v=onepage&q=evolutionary%20fit%20surface&f=false

This one is about curve fitting (a one dimentional approach) rather than surface fitting

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20503861

This one is surface fitting

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10937188

This one used the methodology

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/03/01/041533.full.pdf

This one uses the methodology

http://eprints.port.ac.uk/1168/1/j.1469-8137.2009.02930.x.pd

Edited April 19, 2016 by insaintee

[insaintee]

You've just asked him to use Web of Knowledge?

Even if that is free to access, most of the subsequent papers will be behind paywalls.

One of many ways in which science can be corrupt - we'll make you pay for us to do research and then we'll make you pay again to read what we found.

Can't disagree with any of that. Except he's looking for evidence that evolutionary surfaces is a term used in Evolutionary biology, therefore the free to view abstracts should be sufficient.

Edited April 19, 2016 by insaintee

[insaintee]

I don't know what the size of your arse has to do with anything but whatever floats your boat.

Where did I say that I know "anything" about evolution? You don't necessarily have to be an expert in a field to be able to debunk claims in that field. I've mentioned my qualifications on here numerous times but, for clarity, none of them are in evolutionary biology. That doesn't mean that I haven't read about it, though. I read a lot of stuff, even stuff that I'm not all that interested in, because I like to be able to hold conversations on numerous subjects, from which I can learn more stuff. I like learning stuff.

Where do any of those links mention "evolutionary surfaces"? You appear to have searched and come up with exactly what I did - nothing about "evolutionary surfaces". This really all started from your mention of "evolutionary surfaces" but you still haven't shown anything that mentions "evolutionary surfaces".

So what you're talking about is an adapted version of Game Theory (Evolutionary Game Theory), not Game Theory. As your link says "Evolutionary game theory differs from classical game theory by ...". You can't, one minute, jump down my throat for phrasing something incorrectly and then, the next minute, jump down my throat for not getting something that you phrase incorrectly. Sorry, wait a minute, you can and you have. Try and calm down a wee bit.

Evolutionary Game theory is still game theory. See above post about semantics. Truly ridiculous. You didn't think to put evolution and game theory in your google search terms.? I hardly think this is the same as claiming that Abiotic genesis is fact when it's clearly not.

I'm not the one who posted

"You are just being silly now and trying to back up your "points" by attempting to bury me in accusations without anything to back them up. Have you ever thought of being a politician, or even changing your name to Stuart Dickson?"

Or suggested I know nothing about evolution because you're unable to type Game theory and Evolution in a search engine. Or who cant be bothered to read a link handed to you on a plate.

Or suggesting that there was evolutionary feed back between a flower and it's pollinator

what do you think evolutionary pollination studies are looking at?)

Just because you've never heard of something or don't understand it does not mean that something is wrong or that it does not exist.

]But you're right I should calm down.

[insaintee]

It explains "evolutionary surfaces" without using the term "evolutionary surfaces"? How are you supposed to know what it's explaining?

Read the other links

[pozbaird]

Can I ask a question of those posters talking about stuff like 'evolutionary surfaces', 'evolutionary pollination studies', 'game theory' , 'evolutionary game theory'.....

My question is, what difference does any of this make to my life. Please bear in mind, my life initially consisted of crying, being fed, clarting my nappy and projectile vomiting. It went through various stages, until here we are in 2016, and it consists of stuff like watching telly, going to the fitba, playing golf games on the PS4, drinking nice red wine and beer, going on holiday, drinking coffee, crying, being fed, clarting my nappy and projectile vomiting.

What difference does it make, why should I care, and why should I, or indeed anyone, give much of a fcuk.