Am 07.01.2011 17:51, schrieb Invisible:

> I've seen a lot of arguments for and against whether ID should be taught
> in schools alongside evolution. For me, these all miss the main point:
> ID is not a scientific theory. It may or may not be correct, but it's
> not testable. Because it doesn't /predict/ anything.

Well, in its essential form, the most popular version /does/ predict 
something. Like, all creatures should have been there from the beginning.

So yes, it can be regarded a theory. A falsified one, but a theory 
nonetheless :-P

In its more elaborate form though, it's indeed "enhanced" to a dogma, 
which fends off any contradicting evidence by means of other dogmata 
(like, "anything that seems to contradict the dogma of the existence of 
God, or another dogma supporting his existence (including this one), is 
either (a) of the devil, or (b) a device of God to test your faith").


BTW, my favorite about ID is the banana: Gee, it's /the/ ideal fruit! 
Ideal size and all... how could this not be by design?

Well, sure, it /is/ by design, or - to use a slightly better fitting 
term - by intention: The intention of those people who cultivated the 
banana in the last 8000 years or so :-P


> By the way, you know what else isn't science? String theory.

What you're overlooking here is that...

(1) In order to be science, something doesn't have to be a proper 
testable theory. Science is also the process of /developing/ such a 
theory based on a hypothesis.

(2) There is no such thing as "the" string theory. There are in fact 
multiple of string theories, and they can be rightfully labelled as 
such, as they /do/ make predictions; some of them are even deemed 
testable within the next decades. Admittedly none of them could falsify 
quantum theory or the theory of general relativity - but that's not a 
prerequisite to make them valid theories. Rather, they need to make 
predictions by which they /themselves/ might be falsified. And they do. 
For instance, some of them make certain yet-untested predictions that 
are also predicted by quantum theory. Other string theories don't make 
the same predictions, or even predict the opposite (I'm not sure about 
the latter though).

> So check it out. Thousands of scientists and mathematicians around the
> world have devoted their entire professional careers to studying string
> theory. It all looks very "sciency"; there are equations in string
> theory that make general relativity look like 2nd grade math class. This
> is serious, highly respected research.
>
> And it's /still/ not science. You know why? No testable predictions. Not
> a single damned one. There is no possible experiment, even
> hypothetically, which would prove or disprove string theory. (But that's
> the least of their problems; they're still trying just to make the math
> stop contradicting itself!)

No, they're trying to find ways to derive (more) predictions from the 
respective theories.

> Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is a thinly veiled attempt to get
> the Christian Holy Bible into schools. Let me make this clear: even if
> God exists, it's /still/ not science. /Science/ is the study of what you
> can /prove/. It's that the study of /truth/, only /provable truth/.
> We're not saying that God doesn't exist, we're just saying that such
> questions have no place in /science/. Now go sit in the corner.

I'm not saying Intelligent Design is the right thing. All I'm saying is 
that neither(!) side even seems to notice that evolution may be a means 
of design, too, and actually a pretty efficient one.

Or maybe they just don't want to notice. The ID adherents might not want 
their God to use evolutionary design because they don't want him to be 
efficient (why should a God use an efficient method if he has infinite 
knowledge and power at his disposal?), or because they're stuck too deep 
in defensive mode against evolution already, and the other side might 
prefer to outright falsify ID, rather than make a point that ID taken as 
a serious science doesn't contradict evolution anyway so why the heck 
should it be taught as an /alternatve/ to evolution.

Post a reply to this message

Am 07.01.2011 19:05, schrieb Darren New:
> Invisible wrote:
>> The more I read about molecular biology, the more interesting it becomes.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOoHKCMAUMc
>
> Really incredible stuff goes on. I'm never sure whether I'm more amazed
> that it works like this, or that we can figure out that it works like this.

Amazing to see how molecular biology uncovers how the operating 
mechanisms of living cells are not so much chemical as they are 
nano-mechanical.

The "nanobots" are out there already.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Well, in its essential form, the most popular version /does/ predict 
> something. Like, all creatures should have been there from the beginning.

> So yes, it can be regarded a theory. A falsified one, but a theory 
> nonetheless :-P

  I think that the proper term is "hypothesis", not "theory" (except if
we are talking in vernacular terms).

> BTW, my favorite about ID is the banana: Gee, it's /the/ ideal fruit! 
> Ideal size and all... how could this not be by design?

> Well, sure, it /is/ by design, or - to use a slightly better fitting 
> term - by intention: The intention of those people who cultivated the 
> banana in the last 8000 years or so :-P

  I think you are confused. The modern banana (that yellow one) is
only something like 200 years old. It's the product of a mutation of
a single wild banana plant which suddenly started growing that yellow
sweet version. The wild banana is much smaller, green, full of seeds
and almost inedible in raw form.

  The mutation in question is actually so severe that the modern banana
plant is sterile: It cannot reproduce by itself, requiring human
intervention for cultivation (this happens mainly by transplanting
underground stems or tissue cultures).

  (Ironically, the modern banana is so mutated that it can be considered
by all practical means "unnatural", as without human intervention it would
have died right from that very first mutated plant 200 years ago, which
makes it a perfect example of gene manipulation by humans, yet people who
strongly oppose gene manipulation have usually no problems in eating
bananas.)

> I'm not saying Intelligent Design is the right thing. All I'm saying is 
> that neither(!) side even seems to notice that evolution may be a means 
> of design, too, and actually a pretty efficient one.

  Biological evolution could be considered "design" only insofar as
emergent behavior in general could (because that's basically what
biological evolution is). Evolution just happens, without the need of
an external intelligent actor.

  You could only claim evolution to be "design" if you assert that the
universe was created with the precise laws of nature that exist in this
universe.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> This is a rather fair assumption
> to make because it's the result of a measurement 

Actually, I believe einstein hypothesized that because Maxwell's equations 
(amongst others) had it down as a constant.

>   Of course SR was lacking. It assumed inertial frames of reference and
> didn't take any stance on accelerating ones.
> 
>   If I have understood correctly, General Relativity starts from the
> assumption that the speed of light in vacuum is the same for all
> observers regardless of their state (ie. inertial or accelerating),
> and that inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same thing,
> and that's about it. 

And that space is continuous and differentiable. Which is where it 
mathematically conflicts with QED.

>   However, which observation or measurement is string theory based on?

Yeah, I don't know either. :-)  I think it's basically an attempt to 
mathematically unify quantum mechanics (including QED, QCD, and etc) with 
GR. In other words, I think it's based on the same measurements as both GR 
and QED.  It's trying to come up with the same math for both.

The large number of extra dimensions apparently make sense if you understand 
why you need each additional one, but it's certainly over my head.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On 1/7/2011 3:00 PM, Warp wrote:
>    However, which observation or measurement is string theory based on?
> As I said, I know next to nothing about it, but it just sounds to me
> like string theory is based on *nothing* at all. It just throws a big
> bunch of extra dimensions from nowhere, based on no measurement,
> observation or other rational justification, and builds up a huge
> bunch of random hypotheses based on these unfounded assumptions.
> It almost sounds like the foundations of string theory is not on actual
> measurements but on philosophical assertions. For example, the assertion
> of 10 dimensions might have a *logical* foundation, but it's more of a
> philosophical foundation than one based on actual measurements and
> observations. It sounds more like metaphysics (in the philosophical
> sense) than real physics.
>
>    And why is it even called "string theory"? Shouldn't the proper term
> be "string hypothesis"? String "theory" is *not* backed up by a wide
> variety of observations, measurements, repeateable tests, correct
> predictions and general acceptance in the scientific community.
>
I would argue that, in principle, "computer science" was much the same 
at one point. While much of it is based on very basic concepts, and 
math, there are adjuncts to it, like reversable instructions (the idea 
being that its less costly to "undo" some things, in terms of heat and 
power use, than to completely replicate an entire set of processes, when 
only one step in the whole process differs), and others, which are 
logically consistent, but.. even the stuff working "in" the computer you 
have in front of you, would have, at some point, been "untestable", in 
the sense that you couldn't grab the nearest tree, and look for running 
computer code in it.

Fractal math is similar. The "real world" is a lot like your description 
of how DNA works. While you can mathematically replicate any structure, 
how/if that structure forms in the real world is dependent on everything 
from resource availability to collisions with *other* formula, if you 
will. The math may be the same, but the constraints are radically 
different, and the devil in the details is that, even if you know how 
something *should have* formed, based on the rules, you can't be sure 
the end result will be a perfect replication of those same rules. In 
fact, it never is.

So.. String theory may not be able to produce predictions for "this" 
universe, but it might have a ability to, without knowing the precise 
constraints needed, or the materials available, etc., give you a, "very 
close to this universe", version, which, much like a climate model, may 
be wrong a lot, right enough for limited purposes, and adjustable over 
time, so you get a result that comes closer and closer to your goal.

The only real question then becomes, "Is it actually producing a 
prediction model, or one that merely appears to do so?" I would argue 
that you can't even be sure that *that* is the case for some things we 
do trust, including climate models, should someone show a clear reason 
to assume we left something critical out of the model.

I think, unfortunately, for something this fundamental to the structure 
of everything, and poorly understood enough that we don't even 100% know 
what we *should* be looking for, its a pure toss up as to if it produces 
something that isn't coincidental. But, I don't know anything close to 
enough about it to know if there is a reason to assume otherwise, or not.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 1/7/2011 3:03 PM, clipka wrote:
> Or maybe they just don't want to notice. The ID adherents might not want
> their God to use evolutionary design because they don't want him to be
> efficient (why should a God use an efficient method if he has infinite
> knowledge and power at his disposal?), or because they're stuck too deep
> in defensive mode against evolution already, and the other side might
> prefer to outright falsify ID, rather than make a point that ID taken as
> a serious science doesn't contradict evolution anyway so why the heck
> should it be taught as an /alternatve/ to evolution.

This isn't the real problem. The real problem is that those who support 
it **do not want a result that contradicts the idea that the first part 
of the Bible is literally true**. The Vatican recently mumbled something 
about how they believe, "god created the big bang." The answer of one of 
the *major* proponents of the, "youngish earth, AiG, ID is real", dear 
old Ken Ham, had to this was, roughly, "If the big bang happened, then 
genesis would need to be wrong, or allegory, but if it was wrong, then 
the first 'marriage' would be false, sin wouldn't be real, etc., and it 
would fundamentally destroy everything from Christianity itself, to the 
sanctity of heterosexual marriage. Therefor, the Pope is wrong!"

Its the first case of actual logic I have seen from the man. Yes Ken, if 
Genesis, which is the basis of virtually every bit of bullshit 
moralizing, persecution, and evil your religion has, or continues, to 
institute, was wrong, so would your entire religion. Congratulations on 
proving you can follow logic, even if you completely fail at accepting 
its conclusions. lol

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 1/7/2011 3:25 PM, Warp wrote:
> clipka<ano### [at] anonymousorg>  wrote:
>> Well, in its essential form, the most popular version /does/ predict
>> something. Like, all creatures should have been there from the beginning.
>
>> So yes, it can be regarded a theory. A falsified one, but a theory
>> nonetheless :-P
>
>    I think that the proper term is "hypothesis", not "theory" (except if
> we are talking in vernacular terms).
>
>> BTW, my favorite about ID is the banana: Gee, it's /the/ ideal fruit!
>> Ideal size and all... how could this not be by design?
>
>> Well, sure, it /is/ by design, or - to use a slightly better fitting
>> term - by intention: The intention of those people who cultivated the
>> banana in the last 8000 years or so :-P
>
>    I think you are confused. The modern banana (that yellow one) is
> only something like 200 years old. It's the product of a mutation of
> a single wild banana plant which suddenly started growing that yellow
> sweet version. The wild banana is much smaller, green, full of seeds
> and almost inedible in raw form.
>
>    The mutation in question is actually so severe that the modern banana
> plant is sterile: It cannot reproduce by itself, requiring human
> intervention for cultivation (this happens mainly by transplanting
> underground stems or tissue cultures).
>
>    (Ironically, the modern banana is so mutated that it can be considered
> by all practical means "unnatural", as without human intervention it would
> have died right from that very first mutated plant 200 years ago, which
> makes it a perfect example of gene manipulation by humans, yet people who
> strongly oppose gene manipulation have usually no problems in eating
> bananas.)
>
But some of them want to make sure they are not "genetically engineered, 
non-organic, bananas!"

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > This is a rather fair assumption
> > to make because it's the result of a measurement 

> Actually, I believe einstein hypothesized that because Maxwell's equations 
> (amongst others) had it down as a constant.

  What I meant is that if you were to deduce the Lorentz transformations
now (eg. for an article on relativity), you can refer to experiments such
as the famous Michelson-Morley experiment (which predates special relativity
by almost 20 years). Even if Einstein had never even heard of such an
experiment (which I really find hard to believe, but whatever), it doesn't
really matter. It's still a fair assumption to make because of that and
many other experiments.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> I think, unfortunately, for something this fundamental to the structure 
> of everything, and poorly understood enough that we don't even 100% know 
> what we *should* be looking for, its a pure toss up as to if it produces 
> something that isn't coincidental. But, I don't know anything close to 
> enough about it to know if there is a reason to assume otherwise, or not.

  I have been thinking that perhaps trying to find a unifying model is
futile because gravity and quantum mechanics are *not* related to each
other. They are two completely independent and distinct features which
just happen to co-exist in the same universe. They can *affect* each
other, but the laws that govern each one are distinct and independent.

  If there are multiple universes, perhaps there are universes where
there is no gravity at all, and others where there is no QM at all.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> >    (Ironically, the modern banana is so mutated that it can be considered
> > by all practical means "unnatural", as without human intervention it would
> > have died right from that very first mutated plant 200 years ago, which
> > makes it a perfect example of gene manipulation by humans, yet people who
> > strongly oppose gene manipulation have usually no problems in eating
> > bananas.)
> >
> But some of them want to make sure they are not "genetically engineered, 
> non-organic, bananas!"

  Yeah, which is ironic because the modern banana is effectively an
unnatural product of genetic engineering.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message