0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
For instance, if I said, "there is an inverse relationship with caloric intake and lifespan." I must show that there is an inverse relationship with temperature and lifespan as well. And guess what? There is.
Quote from: thebrain13 on 25/03/2022 20:05:19For instance, if I said, "there is an inverse relationship with caloric intake and lifespan." I must show that there is an inverse relationship with temperature and lifespan as well. And guess what? There is.There is not.Imagine me and my (imaginary, but hypothetical) twin brother.I don't know how many Calories I have got through in my life, but it must be something like 2400 per day or 880 thousand per year or 51 million over the course of my life.My twin will be the same.Imagine that he dies today and that I continue to live to be twice as old as I am.I will burn thorough about 100 million Calories over the course of about 120 years and he will only get through 50 million or so.I live longer and get to take in more calories.That's the opposite of your claim.Your idea is absurd.That's because you don't understand the ideas involved.
If I eat 4000 calories a day I probably wont live as long as if I eat 2000 per day. It is that simple.
There are all kinds of curves for all types of life, plants, nematodes, insects, mammals that proves definitively that life has the same relationship with heat as well. Basically a plant a Nematode or a person will live longer in a cooler environment than a warmer one.
Quote from: thebrain13 on 25/03/2022 20:05:19There are all kinds of curves for all types of life, plants, nematodes, insects, mammals that proves definitively that life has the same relationship with heat as well. Basically a plant a Nematode or a person will live longer in a cooler environment than a warmer one.Not surprising, given that chemical reactions (and hence, the biochemical reactions associated with aging) happen faster at higher temperatures. I'm a little doubtful about the claim that a human lives longer in a cooler environment, though. They'd have to burn more calories in order to maintain a constant body temperature than someone in a warmer environment.
The mistake you made, which I'll forgive you for since I made this mistake so many times before (even as the creator of this new evolution theory) is that you assumed something exists that doesn't just because it matches the rhetoric of evolution.
Additionally all of the lifespan to temperature ratio curves I've ever seen, the lifespan changes much more aggressively than the temperature change does. Why?
Then shouldn't we expect lifespan to decrease linearly with the change in kelvin?
If scientists can massively increase its lifespan with one gene why didn't mother nature simply have that gene on all the time?
Quote from: thebrain13 on 26/03/2022 21:47:25The mistake you made, which I'll forgive you for since I made this mistake so many times before (even as the creator of this new evolution theory) is that you assumed something exists that doesn't just because it matches the rhetoric of evolution.And what is that mistake?Quote from: thebrain13 on 26/03/2022 21:47:25Additionally all of the lifespan to temperature ratio curves I've ever seen, the lifespan changes much more aggressively than the temperature change does. Why?Chemical reaction rates don't scale linearly with temperature. If I recall correctly, an increase of 10 degrees centigrade results in a doubling of metabolic rate.Quote from: thebrain13 on 26/03/2022 21:47:25Then shouldn't we expect lifespan to decrease linearly with the change in kelvin?No.Quote from: thebrain13 on 26/03/2022 21:47:25If scientists can massively increase its lifespan with one gene why didn't mother nature simply have that gene on all the time?A lack of selection pressure. If the majority of living things end up dying from predation, starvation, disease, accidents, etc., then there is only value in holding off aging for so long.
The mistake is you assumed lifespan in mammals and people doesn't change with the temperature of the environment because you didn't know why.
You're last point is exactly why it is 100 percent impossible to argue against evolution.
With "lack of selection pressure" and evolution optimizes you have a convenient answer for anything don't you?
The real answer is it makes zero sense for a worm to live 5x shorter for no reason.
Quote from: thebrain13 on 26/03/2022 22:09:39The mistake is you assumed lifespan in mammals and people doesn't change with the temperature of the environment because you didn't know why.I never said or even implied that.Quote from: thebrain13 on 26/03/2022 22:09:39You're last point is exactly why it is 100 percent impossible to argue against evolution.Not so. There would be quite a few things that would inconsistent with evolution if they were discovered.Quote from: thebrain13 on 26/03/2022 22:09:39With "lack of selection pressure" and evolution optimizes you have a convenient answer for anything don't you?Not if something inconsistent with evolution was discovered.Quote from: thebrain13 on 26/03/2022 22:09:39The real answer is it makes zero sense for a worm to live 5x shorter for no reason.I never disagreed.
You asked me this question and I answered. What specifically do you think would falsify evolution in the minds of scientists?
It's pretty clear that when your opponents have to constantly insult and say things I never said to try to win an argument that they have no point. If they could do it fairly they would.
It's pretty clear that when your opponents have to constantly insult and say things I never said
If I eat 4000 calories a day I probably wont live as long as if I eat 2000 per day.
Read what I actually wrote
Quote from: thebrain13 on 26/03/2022 22:19:48You asked me this question and I answered. What specifically do you think would falsify evolution in the minds of scientists?A trove of pre-Cambrian vertebrate fossils would do it.
How do I win then? You just have to be a 100 times better than the person you are debating.
What specifically do you think would falsify evolution in the minds of scientists?
I disagree, what would happen is obvious. People would just say evolution happened earlier than we thought. That's it, everybody who believes in evolution would still believe in evolution, everyone.
Regular evolution suggests fast pace change with small things and quick change with big things.
Yet the biggest creatures of all time pretty much all exploded through a blink of an eye in the Cambrian explosion.
Let's be clear here. The fossil record does NOT in any way support even remotely stable steady growth over time. Not at all. Even Darwin knew this was a huge problem.
We went from largely unrecognizable physiology to T-Rexes mammals, eyeballs, noses, the cardiovascular system and pterodactyls in possible 13 million years. A very tiny fraction of the 3.5 BILLION year history of evolution on earth.
If you don't think that scientists would abandon evolution because they found some vertebrates at earlier times, I just think you are not considering the culture you are a part of any more than the religious did in the 1400's. I'm not trying to insult you but there is not a chance in hell Harvard, Cambridge, Bill Nye, everybody talking smack to religious people on the internet are going to change their minds and apoligize?
Or are they just going to change their minds about what year vertebrates started?
Just being realistic, if you can't recognize the overwhelming impact culture has on our minds today, a culture you are absolutely a part of.
Do you have a better way to falsify evolution because that obviously would not work. There is no way Bill Nye is going on fox news and apologizing because we found some vertebrates somewhere, that's not how people work.
You are suggesting let me not misquote you. That if we a found trove of vertebrate fossils that would falsify evolution.
pre-Cambrian vertebrate fossils
People would just say evolution happened earlier than we thought.
How do I win then?
Quote from: thebrain13 on 26/03/2022 22:19:48What specifically do you think would falsify evolution in the minds of scientists?No baby looks exactly like both of its parents. I don't think you can deny that observation, and the fact that babies don't look exactly like both parents is called evolution. You can't falsify a definition.