Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 25 Oct 2006 11:04 On Wed, 25 Oct 06 10:04:47 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >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 Which brings up the interesting idea of studying heritable birth defects, which could be assumed to be true mutations. Are heritable physical defects ever asymmetric? John
From: Lloyd Parker on 25 Oct 2006 06:39 In article <ehngfd$8qk_013(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <ehilc2$rv0$11(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <ehi3q8$8qk_004(a)s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <ehafo7$ot9$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>In article <ehab1j$8qk_001(a)s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>In article <1161169073.347610.229970(a)b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, >>>> >>>>> >>>>>The people I've been talking to appear to believe that only >>>>>the US government knows how to make these things. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>They >>>>>seem to believe that only the US government can OK >>>>>all chemical invoices. >>>> >>>> >>>>>Weapons? Yes. Certain chemicals? Yes again. >>>> >>>>>Our business and politics do not >>>>>work that way. I think a lot Europeans are confused by >>>>>this because their businesses are generally government >>>>>controlled. >>>> >>>>A total lie. Europe is very capitalistic. >>> >>>Not the labor. Labor is union. >>>> >> >>So? Takes both capital and labor to make anything. Besides, you said >>"government controlled." >> >>>>>and/or union controlled >>>> >>>>Aw, corporations give their workers a voice in how they're run. Gee, what >a >>>>radical idea. Straight out of biblical-era communes and Pilgrim New >>England. >>>> >>>>>espeically in the >>>>>manufacturing and mining areas. >>>>> >>>>>In the US, the federal government isn't allowed to do anything. >>>> >>>>Except start wars. >>> >>>When the nation is threatened, yes. It's in our Constitution. >> >>And is it unconstitutional to do so when we're not threatened? > >Yes. The purpose of the Constitution was to give very limited >powers to the Federation, keeping all the rest within each >state. > >> >>>That was written that way so that the states didn't war >>>among themselves. Disputes are settles in courts of law >>>rather than killing fields. The people who met at >>>the Constitutional Convention did not want to go through >>>the hundreds of years' war that Europe meandered in. > ><snip> > >>And what is Bush doing but taking away our basic liberties? > >Name one so we have something concrete to talk about. Habeas corpus; the military commissions bill takes it away. 4th amendment rights, requiring a warrant -- Bush's warrantless spying takes them away. Right to confront accusers -- military commissions bill takes it away. >Note >that Bush needs Congressional approval for what he does do. >So I want you to name one liberty that Bush, the person, has >removed. > >/BAH
From: John Larkin on 25 Oct 2006 11:07 On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:55:01 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>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 Einstein >may overhaul Newtonian gravity and explain that it is actually incorrect >because of [insert reason here]. General relativity, as demonstrated in the orbit of Mercury. >This is not prohibited by anything in the >scientific method. > Nope! John
From: lucasea on 25 Oct 2006 11:26 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:h5ntj2tj5na16ukm8mafsl3k29tocm4k4j(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 03:07:31 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:3g2tj2lhua1fap95hmds1gr987qu2vo90f(a)4ax.com... >>> >>> My only real suggestion here has been that evolution should be able to >>> optimize evolution itself: evolution evolves. And the implications of >>> that are manifold, and lead to some ideas that produce some >>> interestingly hostile reactions. >> >>Interesting thought. My first response is to ask what you propose as the >>mechanism for that. > > Mutation and natural selection, of course. That begs the question. What exactly is the mechanism that allows mutation and natural selection to control themselves, if both occur passively? > If that was enough to give > us kidneys and eyeballs and brains, it's surely enough to fine-tune > the hardware of evolution itself. You're not going to win any converts with that condescending attitude. >>Evolution is so passive, that it's hard to imagine any >>form of active control. > > Circular argument. Try imagining. Again, I can see why you have not had anyone take it seriously--when someone does, you condescend. I'm trying to get *you* to put some flesh around your ideas. It's not my idea to flesh out, don't make me do your work. >>There are two possible points of control that I >>see--the mutation rate, and the survivability advantage due to any >>particular mutation. As I understand it, mutations are based on 3 general >>chemistries: 1) photochemistry of nucleobases, 2) O2 (and other >>free-radical) chemistry of nucleobases, and 3) simple mis-transcription. >>I >>do not know in what proportions these mix. It's not clear how the first >>two >>can be manipulated without a sweeping change, for example to other >>nucleobases besides ACGT. All three are subject to repair mechanisms in >>the >>body of the lifeform, and this might be one point of active control over >>the >>rate of evolution. > > Yes, that's basic. The natural mutation rate is too high, and most > mutations are too destructive, so repair mechanisms evolve to optimize > the mutation rate. Evolution begins to manage itself. The optimum > "crude" mutation rate, the rate of gross random damage to DNA by means > of radiation and such, may well be zero. That is known for a fact not to be true. > There are better ways to > shuffle cards than by blasting the deck with a shotgun. To my knowledge, nobody has yet discovered a mechanism by which an organism self-mutates. That, at most, leaves the repair mechanism as the means of self-control of mutation rates. >>Finally, it's not clear how evolution would exert any >>control over the survivability advantage of a particular mutation, since >>the >>mutations are supposed to be, by definition, random. > > That definition is dogma. No, it's a summary of what we know so far. > DNA may have better ideas. Maybe, but science usually starts with data and speculates a cause. > Species that > evolve better will, err, evolve better, won't they? You can't argue > with that sort of reasoning. Except it still begs the question "How?". >>However, it is possible that evolution has already selected for some sort >>of >>optimum rate of evolution. Considering there are probably billions of >>mutations for every one mutation that is "productive", and considering >>that >>a mutation probably has a far, far greater chance of causing damage than >>good, there will be a limit to how fast productive mutations can crop up, >>without having so many catastrophic mutations that the species simply >>cannot >>survive. If an organism mutates at too rapid a rate, it simply won't even >>survive one generation because it will likely encounter so many >>destructive >>mutations. This may be how we have evolved a DNA repair mechanism, and >>the >>evolved need to have some rate of uncorrected mutations may have set >>limits >>on the effectiveness of that repair mechanism. This then sets an upper >>limit on the rate of "productive evolution". > > It may also be that evolution should lowpass filter the selection > environment. Again, how? > I think there is some evidence, at least in bacteria, that the > mutation rate increases in times of stress. Again, how does this happen? It could just be that the stressors that we have correlated with mutation rates are just those that have an effect on the relative rates of mutation and repair. There may be no active component--although I certainly admit that there may. > If you believe in evolution, it seems to me that you must believe that > evolution works to optimize the mechanisms of evolution itself, rather > than sticking to the passive random mutation/selection model. It > further seems to me that that course is imperative as long as it's not > physically impossible, and so long as it has adaptive advantages. One other possible issue is the timescale. The timescale for productive mutations that lead to new biological features seems likely to be on the order of millions of years, at least. The timescale for modifications of the mechanisms of evolution itself would have to wait many, many evolutionary cycles to get to a point where they have a noticeable effect on survivability due to increased rate of evolution. That puts the timescale somewhere near the known age of life on earth. I'm not saying it won't happen or hasn't happened. However, if you're going to propose something like this, you're going to need to do some thinking about the mechanism and the timescale, and drop the condescencion, if you want anyone to listen and take it seriously. That is, unless you like wearing the role of "misunderstood genius" on your sleeve. Eric Lucas Eric Lucas
From: John Larkin on 25 Oct 2006 11:35
On 25 Oct 2006 07:13:56 GMT, dhaude(a)alpha42.physnet.uni-hamburg.de (Haude Daniel) wrote: > >BTW, I'm neither a mechanical nor an electrical engineer. I'm a >physicist with an engineering streak which, by now, exceeds my >interest in scientific work. But since I only work among >scientists and not engineers, my stuff may seem to be a bit more >ingenious than it actually is. It's definetely better than >what's on the (very small and limited) market, which is of >course also mostly designed by physicists and not engineers. But >who cares. I certainly don't. Among the blind, the one-eyed is >king. > I'm an EE with a physics streak, just coming at things from a different direction. Crossing domains opens huge opportunities for new ideas. Lots of cool toys, too: superconducting magnets, microchannel plates, big lasers, explosions, accelerators. I've been able to make nontrivial contributions to Jlabs, Cern p-p collider, SLAC, NIF, DHART, NMR, atom probing, ICCD photography, eximer lasers, jet engine testing, radar, all sorts of weird stuff, because I get curious about the science and learn to talk to people in their jargon. It's fun, too, designing things that aren't just electronics boxes. >--Daniel > >*) We'll see when the thing is down the cryostat in UHV. Hard to get a scope probe in there, though. John |