Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: |||newspam||| on 25 Oct 2006 04:48 John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 24 Oct 06 17:02:26 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) > wrote: > > >In article <t1msj214ga0dem1ntfhb5p3kq8cf52v0dn(a)4ax.com>, > > John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 24 Oct 06 10:27:14 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) > >>wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>Whether or not models are correct is not important to us. > >>>>>What is important that they provide accurately predictive > >>>>>tools for us to use. > >>>> > >>>>Does the science of evolution provide any accurately predictive tools? Selective breeding in domestic animals for thousands of years. Although because we provided the selection pressure rather than nature you can get stupid dogs with heavy jaws that can't breathe properly but will bite and hold onto a bulls leg (or some other more or less useful trait). Evolution of multi-drug resistant strains of bacteria due to overuse of anti-biotics. Selection pressure kills the least fit and leads to an altered population better suited to the new environment. Things with unstable genomes that reproduce rapidly show the most change (influenza for instance). We even use genetic design techniues now for certain types of algorithmic programming. And simulating A-life has become fairly routine. It is actually quite interesting to watch how things evolve over a few hundred generations to match environmental pressure. > >>>>Simple cases, like bacterial drug or temperature resistance, are > >>>>somewhat predictable and can be verified by experiment. But how about > >>>>macro things, like the creation of new genera and orders? Are past > >>>>creations at this level "predictable" after the fact? A few are but you are looking for a needle in a haystack. A new species is formed (or possibly two new species) when for either reasons of genetic drift, preference or physical size the extreme ranges of an original species can no longer interbreed or have weak or sterile offspring. See for example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4708459.stm A few new cacti, butterfly and moth species have been identified in this category. > >>>Predict the movement of a body in a 3-body system. > >> > >>Given the masses, locations, and velocities, this can be done with > >>extreme accuracy for some amount of time. The time depends on the > >>precision of the inputs and the available computational resources. In > >>most cases, the time over which accurate predictions can be made is > >>extreme, billions of orbital periods. Pathological/chaotic cases can > >>still be predicted for usefully long times. Even the chaotic behaviors > >>have predictable statistics. > > > >But there is no exact solution. Therefore, we do not understand the movement > >of 3 bodies and we cannot model it. Weren't those your complainst about > >evolution? > > Just because there is no universal closed-form solution for the 3-body > problem doesn't stop anybody from modeling a given case. And only a > tiny minority of delicately-balanced cases don't model fairly, or > very, well, and even then we know *why* they don't model well. > Earth-moon-sun is a 3-body system, and people were predicting eclipses > pretty well a thousand years ago. Much longer ago than that. Although the Chinese astronomers got lazy and forgot how to do it in the Middle ages. The Jesuit Ferdinand Verbiest managed to convert a Chinese Emperor to Christianity after defeating them in a challenge to predict an eclipse. The locals all were beheaded. http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/jmac/sj/scientists/verbiest.htm > > Evolution, because it's mostly a qualitative theory, is not very > testable, which is I suppose why people stake such dogmatic positions It is eminently testable by computer simulation now and becoming ever more so as computational power increases. Evolution is even useful for designing certain type of engineering structure and some computer programs. Try for example http://www.santafe.edu/projects/evca/Papers/papers.html > on so little hard evidence. That seems contrary to me: the less hard > evidence for a phenom, the more range there should be for speculation. > The very soft sciences, psychology and nutrition and such, are known > for having wild faddish swings of dogma; remember when stress caused > ulcers? remember when hydrogenated margarine was the healthier > substitute for butter? You mean like esoteric magical copper cables in HiFi electronic engineering? Regards, Martin Brown
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Oct 2006 06:00 In article <k7gnj2l9ohj1bl31bgnb8f9p6oevsrifch(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: <snip> >I get railed at for snipping, and railed at for not snipping. What's a >boy to do? Cut and paste. ;-) /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Oct 2006 06:04 In article <vb4qj29r3tpr4ctnhbffuumsdgpj704mf8(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:42:53 -0500, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >wrote: > >>John Larkin wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 23 Oct 06 10:55:36 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <8t5nj29md56ugu8pm4epmitj8tgp66v2of(a)4ax.com>, >>>> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:21:12 +0100, "T Wake" >>>>><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>Saying "I believe in evolution" is a valid sentence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No, it is not valid within this context. You do know that >>>>>>>the Creed starts out with "I believe...". >>>>>> >>>>>>It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the best >>>>>>description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. This is not >>>>>>something which can be "known" as tomorrow some one may come up with a >>>>>>better description. >>>>>> >>>>>>Does this open the floodgates for the Religious Right to send me to hell? >>>>> >>>>>Can you cite any modern case of the Religious Right denying the >>>>>accuracy of Newton's law of gravitation? >>>> >>>> >>>>Well, there was an Onion story... >>>> >>>> >>>>>Strawman indeed. Since the >>>>>time of Galileo's house arrest, the western churches have >>>>>progressively conceded to science the domain of physical reality. I've >>>>>read, and believe, the argument that Christianity is in fact >>>>>pro-science, and Islam is not, which is why the West is so far ahead >>>>>in technology. The Irish monks kept the wisdom of the Greeks safe >>>>>through the dark ages, and the Jesuits were and are great contributors >>>>>to math and science. >>>>> >>>> >>>>So your rejection of evolution makes you more Islam than Christian? >>> >>> >>> I don't reject it. I have a long history in s.e.d. of arguing that >>> evolution and the operations of DNA will turn out to be far more >>> complex than Darwin or the neo-Darwinists ever imagined. The dispute >>> is that I believe in evolution more than most other people do. As >>> such, evolution is still very poorly understood, hence not very well >>> developed science. >> >>The same statement can be made with great validity about any >>of the sciences. > >Most of the other sciences produce theories that work quantitatively >to some goodly number of decimal points, and can be tested >experimentally, and that have difficulty quantitatively explaining >only extreme situations. Evolution is essentially qualitative, and >only connects the dimly-understood functionality of DNA to evolution >in a fuzzy, descriptive sort of way. > >There's all sorts of interesting stuff. Some people are born with six >fully functional fingers on each hand. So "finger" must be some sort >of parameterized macro, and "mirror image" must be an operation, and >there must be some sort of installation crew that hooks everything up >so that it all works. > >Aircraft parts were classicly identified by drawing number and dash >number. If a part were, say, 123456-1A (the basic part defined by >drawing 123456 rev A), it was automatically assumed that 123456-2A was >its mirror image. Yep. JMF worked with a guy whose hobby was studying that kind of genetic stuff. He gave JMF a video tape that was considering a hypothesis that the mechanism of making the fingers, etc. was mechanical. I had never considered that before. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Oct 2006 06:13 In article <ehikrg$rv0$5(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <ehfm39$8qk_006(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <X5KdncZfhOmVpafYnZ2dnUVZ8tmdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:ehd506$8qk_005(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> In article <LKydnafehvClGavYRVnyrQ(a)pipex.net>, >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:eh54ge$8qk_011(a)s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>> In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA(a)pipex.net>, >>>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:4535424A.C08609A3(a)hotmail.com... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> T Wake wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been >>>>>>>>> > subject >>>>>>>>> > to >>>>>>>>> > question and modification over the years. What has not changed is >>>>>>>>> > the >>>>>>>>> > basic idea of evolution. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> radio >>>>>>>>> show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a >>>>>>>>> bit >>>>>>>>> behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> specifics Darwin described. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who reckon >>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>> better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant they >>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>> no >>>>>>>> vailidity ! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when some >>>>>>>creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory." >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory. :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best >>>>>> guess at how nature and its laws work. >>>>>> >>>>>> Fundamentalists understand the difference between just a theory >>>>>> and their belief. They get threatened when teachers of their >>>>>> kids present evolution as a belief; >>>>> >>>>>These teachers should be fired. >>>> >>>> They are if they don't preach the Bible, too. >>> >>>If science teachers are teaching the Bible, they need to be fired. If >>>Religious Education teachers were teaching science, they should be fired. >>> >>>>> >>>>>> the implication of this >>>>>> is that the goal of teaching evolution is to substitute >>>>>> the religion known as evolution for the religion of God. >>>>> >>>>>Only in the mind of fundamentalists. >>>> >>>> You need to listen more. >>> >>>Stop being so patronising and read what I wrote. >>> >>>> CSPAN aired some convention that >>>> was to talk about this issue. Science teacher after science >>>> teacher, who did not want to give Bible lessons in their classes, >>>> kept using the language of "...I believe in evolution." >>>> >>>> Any fundamentalist will interpret this as the teacher substituting >>>> evolution for Christain religious belief. Plus it is a useful >>>> way to get public schools funds to hold their Sunday School clasess. >>> >>>Like I said, only in the mind of fundamentalists. If you spent less time >>>trying to be patronising and imagining half the conversation you would be >>>able to appreciate what I actually wrote. >>> >>>Saying "I believe in evolution" is a valid sentence. >> >>No, it is not valid within this context. You do know that >>the Creed starts out with "I believe...". >> > >So? "I believe this sample contains NaCl" is perfectly valid, as it would be >based on knowledge, tests, analysis, etc. "Believe" isn't exclusively a word >for theology. It is if the context of the meeting is all about religious belief vs. science. Using words that imply a new belief system at a convention that is discussing not teaching an old belief system in science classes is similar to shouting fire in a dark theatre. I don't understand why you can't comprehend this. Fuckit. I give up. <snip> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Oct 2006 06:23
In article <5bmdnTiQpMD62KPYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ehl0hs$8qk_001(a)s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <xeidnaGqVPjT7abYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:ehfm39$8qk_006(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> >>>> No, it is not valid within this context. You do know that >>>> the Creed starts out with "I believe...". >>> >>>It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the best >>>description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. >> >> I don't believe it. I demonstrated it when I did my labs. > >You still believe it is the _best_ description of gravity. Tomorrow some one >may overhaul Newtonian gravity and explain that it is actually incorrect >because of [insert reason here]. This is not prohibited by anything in the >scientific method. No. No matter how the concept is refined, the lab method worked. I can then use that method to predict similar setups. That's how science works. > >You believe that the experiments you have carried out are valid tests of the >theory. > >Belief is a prevalent concept and the religious extremists should not be >allowed to hijack it for their own use. Belief, as you use the word here, stops at the hypothesis step in the Scientific Method. When I demonstrate a reproducible aspect of physical science, I can then use that aspect as a building block for new stuff. This work process is not unlike the operating system history of the computing biz. It started out using machine language. Eventually, assemblers were written to create more complex code tricks. Then compilers were written so that one didn't have to worry about how the underlying hardware worked. > >>>This is not >>>something which can be "known" as tomorrow some one may come up with a >>>better description. >>> >>>Does this open the floodgates for the Religious Right to send me to hell? >> >> When you try to make a religious creed out of science, yes. And >> they will do everything they can to prevent their kids from getting >> exposed to the Devil's words. > >Who is trying to make a religious creed out of science? The Religious Right >seem to be trying it as much as anyone else (eg. Dawkins). I tried to explain. Apparently I was using Martian when I wrote that one up. <snip> /BAH |