|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
27th October 2005, 03:56 AM | #241 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,658
|
|
27th October 2005, 05:09 AM | #242 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,413
|
Good question.
At least in the Anthropic Principal sense, what I see around me appears to strive for added complexity. You see design & tuning and conclude time and chance are the reason, since no other factors are available to materialists.
Originally Posted by delphi_ote
Quote:
Quote:
|
27th October 2005, 05:56 AM | #243 |
Nap, interrupted.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,141
|
Originally Posted by Hammegk
Each creature begins with a completely random chromosome. A portion is treated as a weight matrix (the gene), and the rest has binding sites scattered across it. The program computes the number of bits of information needed to encode the location of the binding sites (Rfrequency). The creatures are then subjected to cycles of mutation, evaluation, and selection. The selection pressure is that the gene should match only the binding sites. On each cycle, the information content is computed (Rsequence). The hypothesis was that Rsequence would start at 0, approach Rfrequency, and then hover around it. That is what happens, across a wide range of model parameters. When you turn off the selection pressure, Rsequence drops back to 0. The premises of the program are simple enough that I think they are pertinent to real evolution. For example, I think Ev models the lac operon fairly well. Here is a paper on the information analysis of a real biological mechanism: http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/pa...o/fisinfo.html ~~ Paul |
__________________
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim |
|
27th October 2005, 06:19 AM | #244 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
|
|
27th October 2005, 06:44 AM | #245 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
|
Well, we've done a pretty good job over the past few centuries proving that nothing will fall UP. We've got a fairly good practical proof that no bats have feathers. Of course, I'm using "proof" loosely here, because what we have isn't a formal mathematical proof, merely demonstration piled upon demonstration until no one with the sense of a St. Christopher medallion would expect the contrary, and in fact, would suspect trickery and fraud if presented with contrary "evidence."
Scientists don't operate in the realm of mathematical proof -- they operate in the realm of evidence. Regarding Behe's proposed experiment -- in a land of infinite time and funding, someone would probalby perform Behe's experiment just to shut him the hell up. In the real world -- well, I'm a practicing scientist myself. I have, at a guess, about 100,000 hours of research time over the course of my life, time in which I must establish my place in the history books, achieve financial security for myself and my loved ones in our retirement,... oh yes, and advance the course of human knowledge and leave the world a better place than I found it (and all the while still teaching my 10am intro sections). How many hours of my life would you like me to spend running Behe's experiment, when we've already established that it won't, in fact, tell us anything we don't already know? How much are you willing to compensate me for my lost time? |
27th October 2005, 08:09 AM | #246 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 130
|
|
__________________
"Where there´s a will, there´s a lawyer" - Kinky Friedman "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture" - Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA “We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further” - Richard Dawkins "Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes." "Scientist" is a profession. Science is a method. "Scientism" is neither a political ideology, nor a religion. |
|
27th October 2005, 09:08 AM | #247 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,639
|
Who is the Anthropic Principal? Some senior figure at your High School?
Oh, and appearances can, of course, be deceptive. The current Theory of Evolution does not require any "striving for comlpexity" or any striving at all, just variability, the occasional mutation and differential survival. All of which we know to exist. Didn't some 14th century friar say, "Plurality should not be assumed without necessity"? |
27th October 2005, 02:40 PM | #248 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,420
|
|
27th October 2005, 04:00 PM | #249 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 887
|
For some odd reason, I woke up last night and suddenly had this thought:
ID claims that there is some intelligent entity (or entities, assuming singular for this paragraph) that was responsible. ID refuses to make any specific claims about this entity beyond that it was intelligent (they're trying to keep it simple to avoid looking like theism I imagine). My question is, why does it even have to be an intelligent entity? Maybe there is a whole dimension of invisible astral enzimes that tend to mutate DNA strands to produce new, advantageous structures. Perhaps this dimension occasionally collides with our own plane of existance, and results in such events. So I hereby proclaim that if evolution is not correct, then I believe it is some unintelligent entity or entities that actually caused the creation of certain forms of life. I refuse to make any further claims about this unintelligent entity beyond simply that I believe it is unintelligent. This new UD (Unintelligent Design) theory is every bit as valid as ID. |
27th October 2005, 04:16 PM | #250 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 887
|
And for a seperate point, a seperate post.
Instead of looking at the probability of a single unlikely advantageous mutation that appears to have actually occurred, why don't we examine the probability of all of the unlikely advantageous mutations that DIDN'T occur? At each point in evolution, there were probably hundreds, thousands, perhaps a near infinate number of directions it could have gone depending on what happened by chance. Looking over the vast history of evolution and looking for unlikely steps to prove an intelligence must have intervened, is a bit like looking back over old Powerball drawings for an unlikely combination (say "53, 43, 33, 23, 13, P:3") and then claiming that's proof of the same kind of intervention. The latter case is actually more believable, since some entities with intelligence are known actually exist and be directly involved in the generation. |
27th October 2005, 04:27 PM | #251 |
Nap, interrupted.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,141
|
Invisible astral enzymes, the explanation for UD.
I'm really liking this. ~~ Paul |
__________________
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim |
|
27th October 2005, 04:32 PM | #252 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 887
|
|
27th October 2005, 05:27 PM | #253 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,660
|
You need to get the word 'Quantum' in there to make it truly believable
The transcripts have been very interesting and suprisingly amusing too. I'm looking forward to the next batch going up. |
__________________
Long time lurker |
|
28th October 2005, 02:46 AM | #254 |
fishy rocket scientist
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: among the machines
Posts: 2,682
|
I had a very similar thought a few days ago. I was thinking more along the lines of Douglas Adams' improbability drive. These irreducibly complex things don't have to happen by chance if they can simply happen by improbability.
What if there were (what indeed, mr. Worf) fluctuations or possibly even reversals of the improbability field . What if these fluctuations aren't as rare as some of us usually think they are? Evidence of improbability is of course all around us. For example, what are the odds that you'd turn up at exactly the point in the universe where you are right now? And let's not forget that flagellum, people! That is the kind of structure I call "undeniaby improbable". I was going to write a highschool textbook about it and of course critically review this book, and get rich. But I felt I had to intervene on this. You're on the right track, but not quite at the right station. Hail Adams, the visionary. P.S: I won't speculate about the properties of the improbability field, because IF theory simply isn't that kind of theory. P.P.S: Maybe we should make a compendium of theories that are both equally valid and equally silly as ID. |
28th October 2005, 03:10 AM | #255 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 39,505
|
Another gem from Behe's cross-examination that I don't think has been posted yet:
Quote:
|
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky |
|
28th October 2005, 03:28 AM | #256 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,371
|
|
28th October 2005, 05:08 AM | #257 |
Self-Propelled Road Hazard
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 418
|
|
28th October 2005, 05:26 AM | #258 |
Nap, interrupted.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,141
|
Would it have been okay if Rothschild had responded:
Q. Nothing of any substance that I could see. ~~ Paul |
__________________
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim |
|
28th October 2005, 05:27 AM | #259 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
|
There's only one Michael Behe
ONE Michael Behe ONE Michael BEH ... E There's only one Michael Behe ONE Michael Behe... |
28th October 2005, 06:47 AM | #260 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 39,505
|
|
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky |
|
28th October 2005, 06:55 AM | #261 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Loire, France
Posts: 3,229
|
I read some of the transcript and it reminded me of the saying:
"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with b******t" |
28th October 2005, 07:00 AM | #262 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,776
|
More fun from Penn. From the AP wire on the trial:
Ex-School Trustee 'Misspoke' on Evolution A former school board member who denied saying creationism should be taught alongside evolution in high school biology classes changed his story Thursday after being confronted in court with TV news footage of him making such comments. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051028/...tkBHNlYwM3MTg- Damn those cameras! Instruments of Satan! |
__________________
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson |
|
28th October 2005, 07:12 AM | #263 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 39,505
|
|
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky |
|
28th October 2005, 07:19 AM | #264 |
Papa Funkosophy
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 34,265
|
Slight tangent:
Intelligent design loser in moot court
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
For what it's worth. |
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe. |
|
28th October 2005, 07:27 AM | #265 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
|
Well, that's always the case in any legal proceeding.
For example, my reading of the transcript suggest that Behe crashed and burned on the witness stand (and the rest of the experts are bailing out precisely for that reason). My opinion might be tempered slightly if I had seen the actual testimony, but most likely, if I had seen Behe hemming and hawing and adjusting his collar and stammering as he got backed further and further into a corner, it would only have been strengthened. But let's give credit where credit is due. Behe has successfully testified before in other cases without going down in flames. Rothschild is demonstrably brilliant at cross-examination. Given the same witness, the same environment, the same depositions, and the same facts, I don't think I could have done the same job. If the ACLU had been dumb enough to retain me, I would have lost the case for them.... |
28th October 2005, 07:31 AM | #266 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,776
|
Which, of course, points up one of the great and interesting facets of this whole thing...the willingness of the other side (i.e. the creationists) to lie and dissemble to make their case. Beginning witht he premise that it is acceptable science (so acceptable that the football game between the sides would be like the University of Michigan playing the University of Alaska, Nome in U.of M. stadium). Then they have to hide the real agenda...which is to re-introduce religion into the science curriculum via the science of "ID" which is just a cleaned up version of creationism. I guess what I am trying to get to is that it is politics and poltical strategy (a'la the civil rights movemtn) not scientific discovery or research that is driving this cart...
|
__________________
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson |
|
28th October 2005, 07:34 AM | #267 |
Nap, interrupted.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,141
|
Jump ship! Jump ship! This is so much fun I'm getting the heebie-jeebies.
Is that cruel of me? ~~ Paul |
__________________
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim |
|
28th October 2005, 08:11 AM | #268 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
|
But it's worse than just "not science." These are supposedly "Christians..."
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Why is it they never seem to read their own book? Why do their fellow Christians never condemn them for this behavior? They seem to be willing to flush all of the teachings of their religion just to make sure nobody contradicts a fairy tale. |
28th October 2005, 08:38 AM | #269 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 39,505
|
I was wondering about this. I know that there was a 1631 edition of the Bible that accidentally had the word "not" omitted from the seventh commandment, so I've just checked the Authorised Version (AKA King James Bible) to make sure it's there in the ninth commandment. It is. Maybe they just don't consider non-creationists to be their "neighbours."
Incidentally, why did these clowns decide that a seventeenth century English translation was inerrant? |
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky |
|
28th October 2005, 08:39 AM | #270 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
|
Quote:
|
28th October 2005, 08:42 AM | #271 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
|
|
28th October 2005, 08:43 AM | #272 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 39,505
|
From another column by Mike Argento:
Quote:
|
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky |
|
28th October 2005, 08:45 AM | #273 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
|
So where are the transcripts?
I guess the people at talkorigins are laughing too hard to type. |
28th October 2005, 09:19 AM | #274 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,413
|
Perhaps. Which suitable studies that test your hypothesis do you find most convincing?
Originally Posted by H'ethetheth
Originally Posted by petri
Originally Posted by Dragon
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastor B.
Or does environment specify and direct mutation? LOL. And for the pedants, yes it should have been "principle" not "principal". |
28th October 2005, 09:24 AM | #275 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
|
Hey, hammy, you've gatecrashed this party.
I can tell you don't belong here because the invite said "huge smug grins to be worn", and you're the only person here not wearing one. |
28th October 2005, 09:26 AM | #276 |
Copper Alloy Canid
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,993
|
|
__________________
Stop Sylvia Browne Warning: Beware of contaminated water supplies! Suspected source of contamination: Sarah-I A non-Rockstar Rambler and dissector of Doggerel |
|
28th October 2005, 09:31 AM | #277 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
|
|
28th October 2005, 09:37 AM | #278 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,413
|
|
28th October 2005, 09:44 AM | #279 |
Copper Alloy Canid
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,993
|
|
__________________
Stop Sylvia Browne Warning: Beware of contaminated water supplies! Suspected source of contamination: Sarah-I A non-Rockstar Rambler and dissector of Doggerel |
|
28th October 2005, 09:49 AM | #280 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 39,505
|
Sorry, Hammy, but another of your strawmen is showing. That's not what the Pastor said. Mutation and natural selection are not the same process. Mutation is random; the process of natural selection which acts on the results of those mutations is driven by environmental pressures.
|
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|