Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 25 Oct 2006 09:54 On Wed, 25 Oct 06 10:59:33 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <k4uqj2tih5dpatici8qeesbi8otu4gp5p1(a)4ax.com>, > John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > ><snip> > >> >>I wonder if any really new life forms are evolving now, right under >>our eyes. > >Ah-choo! [emoticon picks nose] Yep. > >/BAH Well, I was sort of hoping for something more radical than butterflies with differently colored wings. I arguw with my biologist daughter over the definition of "species." It no longer what I learned in biology class, with ability to breed as the boundary; in fact, she can't give me a definition that's clear to me. John
From: John Larkin on 25 Oct 2006 09:58 On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:54:34 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:4iitj2p030albnbvi4ssev39j7ge23lq82(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:47:01 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >>>For every hundred thousand crackpot ideas there is one brilliant one. How >>>should people react to new ideas? >> >> By *thinking* about them! > >For how long? Also this assumes that people don't think about them *at all* >before they dismiss them. Often the new idea is thought about, maybe for a >second or two, before it is dismissed as crackpot. > >This is not a bad thing. > No, if one is skilled in the area, and reasonably open-minded, ideas can be sifted pretty fast. But cases like the Townes maser story still give caution. And in sciences that still have gaping holes in explaining widespread phenomena, it makes sense to be more open-minded. The declaration "that's impossible" should not be applied lightly. John
From: Daniel Mandic on 25 Oct 2006 09:55 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > If Bush hadn't organized, the bombs in the Underground would have > blasted that infrastucture to inoperability. There would have > been more airplanes used as bombs. Spain would have had more > crippling of its infrastructure. Afghanistan would still be > training new recruits. The Islamic moderates would still be > in hidden in their closets. Nobody would be trying to keep > Iran from deploying atomic bombs. Women would not be gaining > access to mobility and education in Saudi Arabia. Pakistan would > still be exporting its atomic bomb knowledge without restraint. > > Should I go on? > > /BAH It's amazing how much hypothetical stuff you believe. Best Regards, Daniel Mandic --
From: Lloyd Parker on 25 Oct 2006 05:29 In article <o09tj2hlhnvv0jtfrnutmnblmjfkvej4dj(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> 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? >>>>>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? >>>> >>>>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. Yes, but they were often off by a bit. Besides, predicting when the moon will be "over the sun" only requires a rough approximation. Predicting where the moon will be precisely at any given time cannot be solved for except by iteration. > >Evolution, because it's mostly a qualitative theory, is not very >testable, Isn't the Big Bang? Black holes? Plate tectonics? >which is I suppose why people stake such dogmatic positions >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? > >John > >
From: Lloyd Parker on 25 Oct 2006 05:31
In article <1161766136.353925.20200(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: > >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. > And EVOP (evolutionary operation) has been used in industry since George Box's work what, 50 years ago? |