The more I read about molecular biology, the more interesting it 
becomes. Ironically, the thing that got me interested in this was 
Darwin's Black Box, by Michael Behe, no less. (!)



As everybody knows, DNA is the blueprint that describes everything about 
an organism. What colour are your eyes? How long is your left femur? How 
fast do your fingernails grow? Each organism has a different genome - a 
different set of DNA blueprints. If it were somehow possible to take a 
mouse and replace the DNA in every single cell of its body with the DNA 
of a dragonfly, the mouse would immediately transform into a perfect 
little dragonfly.

...except that almost all of this is completely wrong.

The DNA does /not/ say "grow this femur until it is 47.2cm long". How 
long your femur /actually/ ends up being depends on things like 
nutrition and so forth as well. But more to the point, the DNA doesn't 
contain a diagram that says "this is what the result should look like", 
and contains something more like assembly instructions.

(As for turning a mouse into a dragonfly... yeah, good luck with that. 
Their biochemistry is wildly different, and there's no easy way to 
smoothly transition from one to the other. About the best you could hope 
for is to turn a mouse *embryo* into a dragonfly embryo - and even that 
would be a rather difficult feat.)



So how does this stuff *actually* work then?

Well, there is DNA - the famous double-helix molecule - and RNA, which 
is like one half of the double-helix (but it's not quite that simple). 
Either way, a strand of this stuff contains various nucleotides - the 
famous A, C, G and T. They stand for adenine, cytosine, guanine and 
thymine. (But that's only in DNA; in RNA, thymine is replaced by uracil.)

Each DNA strand is a mirror image of the other, and that's why they zip 
together. It also means that if one strand is damaged, it can be 
repaired by reading the other strand. So it's a kind of error-correcting 
code.

So a strand of DNA (or RNA) encodes a long stream of codes, with 4 
possible characters. So what does all this information "do", then?

Well, read a little further, and you'll discover that the code is 
grouped into 3-letter chunks called "codons". Each codon uniquely 
selects one of the 21 possible amino acids. Read off the codons, glue 
the indicated amino acids together in that order, and you've got 
yourself a protein.

Proteins catalyse chemical reactions. Translation: proteins make 
chemical reactions happen that would never ever happen by themselves. 
(Or rather, they would, but excruciatingly slowly. So slowly as to be 
basically non-existent.) Just about every single chemical that living 
cells make involves one or more proteins synthesizing it.

Proteins that catalyse stuff are called enzymes. There are proteins that 
do other stuff too. To quote Behe (!), "proteins are the ropes and 
pulleys, motors and scaffolding of the cellular world".

[OK, I lied. I don't have his lie-riddled book in front of me right now. 
But you get the gist of what he said - a mental image that you won't get 
from any more technical publication, I might add.]

Some parts of cells are made of protein. Other parts are made of 
chemicals synthesized by enzymes ( = proteins), usually in long and very 
complicated chains of chemical reactions called metabolic pathways. 
Proteins are also used to send signals from one part of a cell to 
another, or indeed between neighbouring cells.

So, the DNA contains the codons which specify the amino acids which make 
the proteins. Each "gene" is the sequence for one particular protein. 
Make the proteins, and they either synthesize stuff, or magnetically 
lock together to make cellular structures. And that's how cells work. Right?



Well, actually it's not quite so simple.

First of all, 4^3 = 64 possibilities, but there are in fact only 21 
amino acids. So actually lots of codons select the exact same amino 
acid. As it just so happens, the *last* letter in the codon tends to be 
the lest important. (E.g., *every* codon that begins with GG selects 
Glycine, regardless of what the final character is.) There's also a 
couple of codons that don't select an amino acid, they mark the end of 
the sequence - a kind of "stop marker". (There is also a "start marker" 
- AUG - but it also codes for methionine.)

The fact that every single living organism on the face of the Earth uses 
almost /exactly/ the same codes for the same amino acids is a pretty 
good demonstration that all life is related. On the other hand,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrolysine

So the code does change slightly in certain obscure organisms. And then 
there's things like

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selenocysteine

So it's not *just* about codons. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Next, proteins work not so much because of the chemical units (amino 
acids) they contain, but because those units cause the chain to tangle 
itself in a very specific way - the so-called "protein folding". Look up 
any protein on the Internet and you will find "ribbon diagrams" looking 
like tangled string, indicating the structure into which the proteins fold.

Some amino acids have weak electrical charges, some repel water, some 
attract water, and so on and so forth, so that by sequencing the amino 
acids together, they more or less automatically fold up into the right 
shape - and the *shape* is what does the business.

Then we learn that actually, some proteins require special "chaperone" 
proteins to help them fold up correctly. Next, some proteins are 
actually multiple separate molecules fused together. For example, 
haemoglobin is actually 4 "separate" globin proteins connected to a haem 
molecule in the centre. (Haem isn't a protein at all, it's some other 
random organic molecule, with an iron atom in the middle. It's that iron 
atom that does the business.)

Quite apart from many proteins being separate amino acid chains that 
need to be joined together, it's very common for proteins to undergo 
"post-transcription modification". In other words, after the amino acids 
have been strung together, other enzymes come along and modify the 
result, possibly by inserting new non-protein bits to it. Alternatively, 
some proteins are manufactured in an inactivated form, and an enzyme is 
required to activate it. (Usually when you need a lot of active protein 
very quickly. You can stockpile the inactive form at your leisure, and 
then release the activation enzyme when required.)

On top of all that, there are mechanisms for recycling certain proteins, 
and even for detecting proteins which have mis-folded, and either 
refolding them or recycling them before they do damage.



So the DNA tells you how to build proteins, one way or another. But what 
tells a cell when to synthesize these things? If you look at a 
single-celled organism, you find that most of them are capable of 
digesting several different types of food. And these require different 
sets of enzymes. And the cell only synthesizes the enzymes it needs for 
the actual type of food it is currently feeding on. So... how?

Basically, different genes can be "turned on and off". (So-called "gene 
regulation".) There are several ways that you can do this. One is to 
glue proteins to the actual DNA strands, preventing the transcription 
enzymes from locking on to that particular gene and thus synthesizing 
the corresponding protein.

A typical sequence might look something like this:
+ There is an inhibitor protein glued to a particular gene.
+ There's an inactivated protein floating around the cell.
+ When something in the cell changes - say, the oxygen concentration 
goes sufficiently low - the inactivated protein changes shape and hence 
activates.
+ The activated protein strips the inhibitor off of the DNA strand.
+ The protein the gene codes for can now be synthesized - presumably 
taking some appropriate action either to conserve remaining oxygen, or 
else switch on the anaerobic metabolic pathways.
+ The inhibitor protein continues to be synthesized, but the activated 
oxygen-sensor protein keeps chopping it up.
+ When oxygen concentrations rise again, the oxygen-sensor protein again 
inactivates.
+ Since the inhibitor protein is no longer getting chopped up, it 
reattaches to the DNA strand, disabling the gene.

Of course, in a *real* cell, it wouldn't be nearly that simple. Spend 
more than 20 minutes reading about molecular biology and you rapidly 
discover that almost every imaginable cellular process happens via the 
most complex, indirect route imaginable.



Let's look at that for a moment. Intelligent Design asserts that living 
organisms are "too perfect" to have arisen by chance. (Of course, 
Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't claim that it _was_ chance!) But 
evolution says that life isn't about "perfection", it's about survival. 
If it works, keep it. If it doesn't work, throw it. In particular, 
things don't have to be "perfect". They just have to be "better than 
anybody else".

For example, apparently in New Guinea there are kangaroos that live /in 
trees/. This despite the self-evident fact that kangaroos are obviously 
"designed" to live on the ground. "A kangaroo in a tree sounds pretty 
weird", you might say, "but I bet /these/ kangaroos are supremely well 
adapted to it".

Um, not really, no. I watched some video of one, and after it spent 5 
minutes hesitantly staggering from one branch to the one next to it, you 
can't help feeling like you want to scream at it "what the hell are you 
doing?! You obviously can't climb to save your life, so stop prating 
around in that tree and get down here where you belong!" But, 
apparently, they never do. They live all their lives in trees. Even 
though they can barely climb and it takes them hours to get anywhere. 
Intelligent Design? I think not. But apparently, on New Guinea, there's 
nothing that can climb trees any better, so they survive.

Come to think of it, whales live in the sea... but... they breathe air? 
WTF? In fact, I heard the other day that some species need to eat in 
order to take in water. If they don't feed, they die of dehydration. 
Even though THEY LIVE *IN* WATER! Again, WTF?

No sane Designer would have designed it this way. But random chance 
opportunistically finding new uses for old organs? Sure. You see it all 
over the place. For example, reptiles have multiple jaw bones, while 
mammals have only one bone in each jaw. The extra bones have become the 
tiny bones of the middle ear. One organ has turned into something 
totally unrelated.

But when you look at molecular biology, you find utter craziness. This 
kind of re-purposing has been happening for billions of years, and 
unlike at the macroscopic level, you can actually *see* all of the 
complexity at the molecular level.

Almost every single molecule has a dozen different purposes, all 
/utterly/ unrelated. RNA is for storing data. Except that sometimes it's 
also a catalyst. And sometimes it's structural. Glycine is an amino 
acid, for building proteins. But it's *also* a neurotransmitter. 
Adenosine is a component of DNA and RNA - but *also* a neurotransmitter. 
Adrenaline is a hormone, but *also* a neurotransmitter. Haemoglobin 
transports oxygen, but it also performs reduction reactions as part of 
metabolic pathways. Get the idea?

On top of that, almost every chemical process you can name goes through 
four-dozen different stages. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle

Look at that huge diagram on the right. Note the part where it says 
"overview". A similarly intricate thing happens with vision:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_phototransduction

In short, when a photon hits a protein, it changes shape, which switches 
on another protein, which releases a chemical that switches something 
else on, and so on and so forth, until eventually one of the ion 
channels in the cell wall closes, stopping electrically charged ions 
being pumped into the cell, and changing its electrical potential, 
triggering a nerve impulse. (Nerve impulses are similarly complex 
cascades, by the way.) And then there's a whole *other* cascade to 
recharge the proteins ready to detect the next photon.



At the macroscopic level, you can watch organisms evolve. You can 
imagine a leg gradually becoming longer, or fur gradually changing 
colour. But at the molecular level, you can see actual genes change.

The processes that copy DNA are imperfect. Most of the time, copies are 
almost identical. But occasionally, tiny differences arise. There are 
several kinds. The most common one is for a single letter to get copied 
wrong - a so-called "point mutation". Such a mutation might not actually 
do anything; recall that several different codons produce the same amino 
acid. And even if the amino acid is different, it might not affect the 
functioning of the resulting protein.

Or it might change the protein's properties. And when that happens, 
natural selection comes into play.

Some changes make no difference at all. Some changes make only a small 
difference. And some changes totally disable some finely tuned mechanism.

For example, if you happen to be born with a defective gene for the lung 
surfactant protein... then you die within minutes of the umbilical cord 
being cut. Offspring? No, not really.

If you happen to be born with a defective FOXP2 gene... actually, if 
FOXP2 is defective, you don't get born. Sperm meets egg, the cell 
divides a few dozen times, and then all the cells keel over and die.

In short, if you have a defect in some gene that codes for an utterly 
vital protein, you probably aren't going to be alive very long. On the 
other hand, suppose you happen to be born with a defective gene for, 
say, L-gulonolactone oxidase, then you can't synthesize vitamin C.

...actually, you know what? The entire human race has this defect. As do 
some but not all monkey species. It turns out that the food we eat 
already contains so much vitamin C that being unable to synthesize it 
yourselves isn't fatal, nor even particularly detrimental. So humans 
(and relatives) go through the entire synthesis pathway for vitamin C, 
but the enzyme at the end is broken. It does nothing. It just sits there.

Fortunately, existing regulatory pathways ensure that not very much of 
the precursor chemicals is synthesized. (Given that it isn't being used 
up by being converted to vitamin C, it tends to accumulate quickly, 
which down-regulates its synthesis like in any well-regulated metabolic 
pathway.) Actually, a number of independent species have also got broken 
genes for this enzyme, but broken in different ways. That's how we know 
the breakage happened independently.



And that leads me to the really interesting part, the part I got from 
The Ancestor's Tale, by Richard Dawkins. Mutations happen at a roughly 
constant rate. Some mutations are utterly fatal, others are completely 
harmless, and there are some in between. A tiny few are even beneficial.

Mutations that are fatal are vigorously eliminated by natural selection. 
And indeed, you can find genes that have barely changed for billions of 
years. These are the so-called "highly conserved sequences".

On the other hand, mutations that have no effect on fitness (e.g., point 
mutations that don't change which amino acid a codon codes for) just 
silently collect in the background. And by comparing, say, the actin 
gene of a human to the actin gene of a fruit fly, you can see which bits 
are the same, and which bits are different. Compare a few dozen species 
together and you can figure out who's related to who, and when each 
mutation took place.

Of course, it's not impossible for an A to mutate into a T, spread to a 
dozen species, and then one of these species to mutate from a T back to 
an A, making it look like it's less closely related to everything else. 
One single point mutation isn't much evidence. But look at large blocks 
of mutations and you can usually tell, in a statistical sense, what the 
likely relationships are. (Unsurprisingly, this is way harder than it 
sounds, and indeed many scientists devote their entire careers to it.)

In case you want to try it:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=ACTG2

That's the human actin gene. If you go to the stream of letters in the 
middle and repeatedly jab the "more" button, it'll actually show you the 
entire frigging DNA sequence for this gene, taken from the Human Genome 
Project. (But this particular gene is quite large - 26,690 letters.) It 
also shows you where this gene is, what else is nearby, what variants of 
the gene exist in the human population, and so forth.

Scroll down to the very bottom and there's a graph showing you the 
equivalent gene in other organisms, and how similar they are to the 
human gene.

P. troglodytes = chimpanzee
M. musculus = mouse
R. norvegicus = rat
B. taurus = cow
C. familiaris = dog
G. gallus = red junglefowl (i.e., a bird)
D. rerio = zebrafish
D. melanogaster = fruit fly
C. elegans = a nematode worm
O. sativa = rice plant
A. thaliana = mouse-ear cress

So here we have mammals, birds, invertebrates and even plants, and 
apparently the gene is nearly identical in all of them. You would think 
that cress would have 0% of the same DNA as humans, but apparently not 
so. Let's try another gene:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=POMC

This is the gene for the adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH). As you can 
see, it shows up only in birds and mammals (but that might just be due 
to incomplete genome sequencing of other animals, or because we haven't 
spotted it in other genomes yet - or because Wolfram's data is 
incomplete :-P ). And where it does appear, the similarity values are 
way, way lower. Clearly this gene evolved more recently.



It's not just point mutations though. Sometimes entire chunks of DNA 
accidentally get skipped, or somehow get duplicated. The duplicates 
don't necessarily end up anywhere near the original. For that matter, 
sometimes chunks of DNA move from place to place without actually being 
deleted or duplicated.

These events are much, much rarer than simple point mutations. And when 
a duplication happens, you can usually tell which mutations happened 
before the duplication (because they appear in both copies) and which 
ones happened afterwards (because they appear in only one copy). This 
provides lots of information for figuring out inheritance trees. For 
example, humans have 4 slightly different haemoglobin genes, plus half a 
dozen broken versions of the gene. By looking at lots of genomes, you 
can figure out when these duplications happened, and who's related to who.

Here's an interesting case: Humans have 3-colour vision. How did that 
happen? Well, it turns out that mutations in the light-receptive 
pigments of the eye can change its absorption spectrum. Usually there's 
no advantage or disadvantage to this. But then, what if a gene 
duplication happens? Then you might end up with two identical genes, 
making the same pigment. Now any point mutations on either gene would 
tend to make the two pigments respond to light differently - yielding 
2-colour vision.

Apparently almost all mammals have 2-colour vision. But humans and a 
very few primates have 3-colour vision. The extra pigment is clearly a 
slightly modified version of one of the existing pigments. Somehow it 
got duplicated, and then the two copies mutated away from each other. 
Natural selection enhanced this process, since superior colour 
perception is presumably useful for sometime.

It's the "red" and "green" pigments that are duplicates; the "blue" 
pigment is a lot more different. I should probably also point out that 
the colours we call "red", "green" and "blue" are not very equally 
spaced out; red and green are very similar wavelengths, while blue is 
quite some way away by comparison. Also, none of the three pigments 
respond to just one colour; actually each has an absorption spectrum 
that's quite complicated. The human brain discerns colour by *comparing* 
the inputs from each pigment.

Which brings us to another question. A mutation gave humans 3-colour 
vision, but how did the brain learn to interpret this new data? For that 
matter, how does the brain "know" which nerve signals come from "red" 
cells, and which ones come from "green" cells?

Scientists did an experiment where they took mice (which, like most 
mammals, have 2-colour vision) and inserted a third pigment gene into 
their genome. When the little baby mice grew up, the scientists did 
tests on them, and discovered that they actually /have/ superior colour 
perception. Presumably the brain "notices" that different groups of 
cells fire together, independent of their neighbours, and it can thus 
sort out which ones are "red" cells, which are "green", and so on. (It's 
worth pointing out that other animals have 4 or even 6 light pigments! 
Just not mammals.)



The more you read about molecular biology, the more you realise how 
complicated it is. A human being would have designed the system to be as 
simple as possible, with everything happening in the most direct way, 
with the fewest number of steps. But evolution doesn't work like that. 
Everything happens by long and convoluted pathways that were happened 
upon by fluke and then preserved by natural selection.

For example, people used to think that each gene creates a protein. But 
then it turned out that some active proteins actually contain several 
amino acid chains, or that other proteins have to modify it to make it 
functional. But OK, whatever.

Actually, the situation is even more complicated. You see, genes have 
"introns", bits of genetic data which don't make proteins. So rather 
than copying DNA to RNA and then using the RNA to string the amino acids 
together, there's also a middle step where all the introns get chopped 
out, leaving only the exons (the bits that code for amino acids).

But it's more complicated than that, because some genes can be spliced 
more than one way, yielding more than one protein. Sometimes by gluing 
different markers to different parts of the RNA, you can select which 
splicing you want (and hence, which protein).

On top of all that, RNA isn't just a data storage molecule. It can 
catalyse things too (they call it a ribozyme). In fact, there is a 
hypothesis ("RNA world") that the first life on Earth used RNA both for 
data storage and chemical synthesis, and that protein synthesis and DNA 
storage evolved later.

Damnit, the more you look, the more complicated the picture becomes! But 
it's fascinating too...

Apparently over 80% of human DNA doesn't describe protein structures. So 
what the hell does it do? Well, it turns out some of it is old, broken 
copies of genes. (I mentioned there's a dozen or so broken copies of the 
globin that makes up haemoglobin, for example.) Some of it is the 
markers that gene regulation proteins stick to. In other words, the 
non-coding DNA regions can contribute to gene regulation. Indeed, if DNA 
is the computer program, the various stuff currently stuck to it could 
be considered the "memory" of the computer. I rather suspect that if you 
took the entire human genome and just synthesized some DNA with that 
sequence, it probably wouldn't work. It needs to be initialised with the 
correct inhibitors and promoters to start the process off.



Speaking of which, here's a thing: Every single living cell in the human 
body (with a few exceptions) has the exact same genome. Yet these cells 
all behave very differently, having totally different sizes, shapes and 
chemistries. How does that happen?

Well, I already sketched how a cell can respond to its environment to 
change its chemistry. The main question is how cells in a developing 
embryo "know" where they are. How does one cell "know" that it's at the 
head end, and another "know" that its at the tail end?

The answer is a set of chemical concentration gradients, present in the 
cells surrounding the unfertilised egg. These chemical gradients "tell" 
the dividing ball of cells which way is up or down (or rather, anterior 
and posterior). And here's the astonishing fact: virtually every 
multicellular lifeform on Earth seems to use the *exact* same chemicals 
for this purpose. Take a look:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=HOXA2

There's a whole lot of similarity there. Apparently you can take the 
chemical signals from a mouse eye, inject them into a fruit fly, and it 
grows an eye at the point where you injected it. A fly eye, mind you, 
not a mouse eye. (The chemical doesn't say /how/ to make an eye; it just 
labels the place where the eye should go.)

Another rather surprising fact is that apoptosis is quite important to 
the structure of an organism. Apoptosis is when living cells 
deliberately kill themselves. Doesn't sound very useful, does it? Until 
you realise that your hands start out as flat sheets of tissue, and the 
only reason that you have separate fingers (not to mention separate 
bones) is because the cells between them deliberately committed suicide.

Mind you, apoptosis is an intricate and carefully controlled process. 
The cell doesn't just kill itself. It carefully shrinks down to minimal 
size, sends signals for workers to come and clear it away, and then 
switches itself off. In contrast, if a cell is killed by hostile 
influences, it usually ends up spilling its contents all over the place. 
In apoptosis, the dead cell is neatly tidied away in an orderly fashion.



I could go on about this all day. Suffice it to say that it's very 
interesting stuff, but not very easy to find comprehensible material 
about. But take a look at this paper I found yesterday:

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030387

That is some hard-core statistical analysis, right there. You can start 
to see how people can spend an entire career just trying to figure out 
one question about how a molecule evolved...

Also interesting is this chart of the evolutionary history of myosin:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/MyosinUnrootedTree.jpg

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> The DNA does /not/ say "grow this femur until it is 47.2cm long". How 
> long your femur /actually/ ends up being depends on things like 
> nutrition and so forth as well. But more to the point, the DNA doesn't 
> contain a diagram that says "this is what the result should look like", 
> and contains something more like assembly instructions.

  I think that the best concept that describes it emergent behavior.
The DNA molecules are arranged so that when they react chemically with
different compunds, the process ends up building a living being as
emergent behavior.

  Emergent behavior is a rather interesting topic all in itself, and goes
deep down to the very basic foundations of what makes the universe like
it is.

> For example, apparently in New Guinea there are kangaroos that live /in 
> trees/. This despite the self-evident fact that kangaroos are obviously 
> "designed" to live on the ground. "A kangaroo in a tree sounds pretty 
> weird", you might say, "but I bet /these/ kangaroos are supremely well 
> adapted to it".

> Um, not really, no. I watched some video of one, and after it spent 5 
> minutes hesitantly staggering from one branch to the one next to it, you 
> can't help feeling like you want to scream at it "what the hell are you 
> doing?! You obviously can't climb to save your life, so stop prating 
> around in that tree and get down here where you belong!" But, 
> apparently, they never do. They live all their lives in trees. Even 
> though they can barely climb and it takes them hours to get anywhere. 
> Intelligent Design? I think not. But apparently, on New Guinea, there's 
> nothing that can climb trees any better, so they survive.

  That kind of argument is not going to convince any young earth
creationist, so it's futile to even try.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> But more to the point, the DNA doesn't
>> contain a diagram that says "this is what the result should look like",
>> and contains something more like assembly instructions.
>
>    I think that the best concept that describes it emergent behavior.

Yes, quite. DNA states what proteins to build (and, indirectly, when to 
build them). This results in a huge range of phenomena, ultimately that 
which we call "life".

As I wrote elsewhere, I also rather suspect that a strip of DNA by 
itself won't do very much. Quite apart from needing lots of supporting 
chemistry for transcription, etc., it tends to have all sorts of 
regulatory molecules binding to and unbinding from it. I suspect that a 
"blank" DNA molecule with none of these would just lead the the 
uncontrolled synthesis of /everything/, which wouldn't work very well.

>    Emergent behavior is a rather interesting topic all in itself, and goes
> deep down to the very basic foundations of what makes the universe like
> it is.

Indeed, by its very definition, emergent behaviour appears at many, many 
levels. Particle physicists study subatomic particles. If you assemble 
those in certain specific ways, you get atoms, which chemists study. 
Certain chemicals have the surprising ability to self-assemble into very 
specific 3D structures, or to make ticking chemical clocks, or to do a 
huge variety of other things. And many of those things are involved with 
that mystery that we call life. And then you look at a hill of ants, 
each of which has a brain so minute that it makes you wander how it can 
even walk in a straight line. And yet, the colony as a whole can 
function in fantastically complex ways, which no obvious central point 
of control.

Obligatory XKCD reference: http://xkcd.com/435/

>> Intelligent Design? I think not. But apparently, on New Guinea, there's
>> nothing that can climb trees any better, so they survive.
>
>    That kind of argument is not going to convince any young earth
> creationist, so it's futile to even try.

Oh, sure, I don't really give a hoot what those nuts believe. I was just 
pointing out to all the *thinking* people how absurd such beliefs are. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

I've said it before and I'll say it again - You write very well about 
complex topics.

That is a good layman's introduction (I count myself as one).  There are 
of course substantial bodies of research, competing theories and 
unresolved details several layers deep below each and every thing that 
you mentioned.  However the overall picture is really shaping up and 
some aspects are very well understood by specialists in the field.

Not only *what* happens and *how* but the *way* in which such mechanisms 
came about.

And yet, the uninformed masses have no problem saying that "it is 
obviously too complex to come about by chance and therefore must have 
been created".  Yeh, as if those who don't understand and perhaps can't 
understand the complexity have a right to dismiss out of hand the 
enormity of what is now understood at a very deep level.  Then having 
dismissed it they assert their pet belief as the indisputable truth and 
go on to tell everybody else what they should and should not do.

Unfortunately Behe has armed them with yet another false plank to rest 
their beliefs on - "See, even scientists don't believe that evolution is 
true".  Uh, yes... One scientist who is refuted at every turn by actual 
experts in the field yet who continues to make such statements.  Let's 
see some actual research published in peer reviewed journals that 
support your alternative hypothesis.  Then there can be proper discussion.

In defence of the tree kangaroos of New Guinea and Northern Australia, 
they quite likely are very well adapted to the same sort of niche as the 
sloths.  Live in trees, eat low nutrition leaves which need to be 
fermented in order to extract energy, move slowly, conserve energy.  If 
it works then evolution doesn't care how stupid *you* think they look. 
But you know that.

Post a reply to this message

Am 07.01.2011 15:28, schrieb Invisible:

> Let's look at that for a moment. Intelligent Design asserts that living
> organisms are "too perfect" to have arisen by chance. (Of course,
> Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't claim that it _was_ chance!) But
> evolution says that life isn't about "perfection", it's about survival.
> If it works, keep it. If it doesn't work, throw it. In particular,
> things don't have to be "perfect". They just have to be "better than
> anybody else".

One problem with that Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution discussion is 
that it perfectly fails to realize that evolution can be used as a 
design method. Virtually everything man-made is a product of 
evolutionary design.

Take a contemporary car, for instance: Its design is the product of a 
125-year long evolution from Mr. Carl Benz's patented motor car. Which 
in turn was the product of a millennia-long evolution from the first 
wheeled container to then-modern horse carts.

Actually the design principles of today's age (which are considered 
quite intelligent) /heavily/ rely on evolution: Systems are designed as 
components, so that the system as a whole can be changed without having 
to re-design each and every part of it from scratch. a particular 
component's design is based on an existing design deemed most fit for 
the particular task, various modifications are applied and tried out 
(some just in thought, some in reality), some of them are discarded as 
unfit. The design is improved by trying out more modifications, and 
verifying that they make the component more fit for the environment it 
is to "live" in. The best-fit designs make it into other systems. And so 
forth.

No, an intelligent designer does not rule out evolution - I guess an 
intelligent designer /will/ employ evolution. Nor does evolution /per 
se/ rule out an intelligent designer - it just doesn't necessarily 
require one.

Post a reply to this message

On 07/01/2011 04:02 PM, Paul Fuller wrote:
> I've said it before and I'll say it again - You write very well about
> complex topics.

Well, I like to think so. But then, everybody likes to think that 
they're intelligent, and they can't all be right...

> That is a good layman's introduction (I count myself as one). There are
> of course substantial bodies of research, competing theories and
> unresolved details several layers deep below each and every thing that
> you mentioned. However the overall picture is really shaping up and some
> aspects are very well understood by specialists in the field.

I was simplifying vastly, and there is a whole crapload of other 
interesting stuff I could have added also. But it's already an utterly 
huge post... (And huge posts usually result in everybody fixating on one 
passing side-remark.)

> Not only *what* happens and *how* but the *way* in which such mechanisms
> came about.

The more you look, the more interesting stuff you find.

> And yet, the uninformed masses have no problem saying that "it is
> obviously too complex to come about by chance and therefore must have
> been created".

Um, it *is* too complex to have been created by chance! :-P The point 
is, nobody is claiming that it was chance; they're claiming that it was 
a very specific method which, while it does /involve/ chance, also 
involves some very, very NON-random elements as well.

But you knew that already...

> Yeh, as if those who don't understand and perhaps can't
> understand the complexity have a right to dismiss out of hand the
> enormity of what is now understood at a very deep level. Then having
> dismissed it they assert their pet belief as the indisputable truth and
> go on to tell everybody else what they should and should not do.

A well-known writer once wrote "quod enim mavult homo verum esse, id 
potius credit". I think he was right.

I've actually met people like this, by the way. I know a guy, very 
friendly bloke, but he *always* has to be right. If he doesn't agree 
with what you're saying, that's it. There's nothing you can ever do to 
convince him otherwise.

For example, I said that War of the Worlds was written by H. G. Wells, 
and he insisted that Wells wrote The Time Machine, and War of the Worlds 
was by Gorge Orwell. I told him that he was wrong, but I wouldn't hear 
of it. I mean, hell, it's not as if I've been obsessed with that story 
for over two decades. It's not like I've actually got the book out of 
the library and read it. But no, he wouldn't hear of it. He's always right.

He's a nice bloke really, but he's a bit frustrating to be around. 
Eventually you learn to just smile and accept whatever he says, no 
matter how obviously incorrect it is.

> Unfortunately Behe has armed them with yet another false plank to rest
> their beliefs on - "See, even scientists don't believe that evolution is
> true". Uh, yes... One scientist who is refuted at every turn by actual
> experts in the field yet who continues to make such statements. Let's
> see some actual research published in peer reviewed journals that
> support your alternative hypothesis. Then there can be proper discussion.

Trouble is, Behe will just claim that nobody will publish his research 
because it's "controversial". As if which scientific theories get 
accepted or rejected depends on which scientists are part of the "in 
club" or something.

Unfortunately, there *have* actually been instances of scientists making 
genuine scientific discoveries and being laughed at by mainstream 
science for decades afterwards. Sometimes an idea is just so radical 
that nobody takes it seriously. Who an idea comes from should have no 
baring on its scientific validity, but sometimes that affects how 
willing people are to look at it. How similar a theory is to an existing 
one doesn't necessarily indicate how correct it is, but sometimes people 
act like it does.

I have no idea to what extent this problem has been solved in the modern 
era. I imagine there are probably still ideas that you would be 
hard-pressed to get people to accept, even with valid data to back it 
up. But then, I am not a scientist, so I couldn't say...

Behe, of course, is just using all this as an excuse to get bibles into 
schools, as is transparently self-evident.

> In defence of the tree kangaroos of New Guinea and Northern Australia,
> they quite likely are very well adapted to the same sort of niche as the
> sloths. Live in trees, eat low nutrition leaves which need to be
> fermented in order to extract energy, move slowly, conserve energy. If
> it works then evolution doesn't care how stupid *you* think they look.
> But you know that.

Indeed.

Actually, in general you find that low-energy habitats are populated by 
animals that move very slowly. (Take a look at the bottom of the sea, 
for example...)

Post a reply to this message

On 07/01/2011 04:09 PM, clipka wrote:

> One problem with that Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution discussion is
> that it perfectly fails to realize that evolution can be used as a
> design method. Virtually everything man-made is a product of
> evolutionary design.

Well, yeah, for sufficiently lose definition of "evolutionary".

I think the central sticking point is that most people believe that only 
a concious /mind/ can assess how good a design is and how to improve it.

> No, an intelligent designer does not rule out evolution - I guess an
> intelligent designer /will/ employ evolution. Nor does evolution /per
> se/ rule out an intelligent designer - it just doesn't necessarily
> require one.

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.

Hell, it's not even a complete theory. ID says "life was designed by an 
intelligent entity or entities". OK, that's nice, but you've failed to 
specify who or what this entity was, where it came from, when it did all 
this design, /how/ it was able to design what we cannot, /why/ it went 
to all the trouble in the first place, or... actually, anything. You 
haven't specified a damned thing. You've presented a vague skeleton of a 
theory, rather than an actual fleshed-out theory.

For example, when did the designing happen? Are you asserting that all 
life was designed in one hit, back in the pre-Cambrian? If so, how do 
you account for the subsequent 4 billion years? Or do you assert that an 
invisible intelligence continues to shape the course of life even to 
this day? If so, what /the hell/ is your proposed mechanism for this 
invisible influence?

Likewise, /why/ did somebody do all this? If we knew what the design 
goal was, we might be able to test whether life as it actually exists 
satisfies that design goal, and you'd be in danger of having a testable 
prediction. But noooo. No indication as to what the design goal was. So 
no testability there either.

If the designer was trying to see how clever they would be, you might 
expect life to be as over-complicated as possible. But, although life 
*is* complex, there are endless ways that it could be even *more* 
complex, in same cases with a great increase in efficiency.

If the designer wanted to produce the most "perfect" design possible, 
then why the **** did he design creatures that live in water and yet can 
drown in it? (Not to mention being able to die of thirst while submerged 
in drinkable water.) Why the hell do whales /grow teeth/ and then 
reabsorb them?! Why do humans have 6 broken copies of the globin gene?

Saying that whales and humans were designed on purpose fails to explain 
these anomalies. Saying that humans evolved their current structure by a 
series of fortuitous accidents /perfectly/ explains - even /predicts/ - 
these exact traits.

In short, the argument of ID is "I can't think of a theory that explains 
this, so let's just pretend that the fairies did it". If you want to 
believe that, go ahead. But don't you dare try to pretend that it's science!

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

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!)

The difference is, string theory could *become* science some day. If 
they ever sort out all the theoretical difficulties, we might end up 
with testable predictions. Maybe in 20 years time, we'll all laugh at 
the absurdity of string theory. Or maybe it'll be an unequivocally 
accepted part of proven modern science. Only time will tell.

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.

Post a reply to this message

For someone with no chemistry or biology education past basic 
school-level, that was really interesting, thanks.  It answered some of 
the questions I had, and made me hungry to find out more...

Post a reply to this message

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.

> Mutations that are fatal are vigorously eliminated by natural selection. 
> And indeed, you can find genes that have barely changed for billions of 
> years. These are the so-called "highly conserved sequences".

I remember reading somewhere that there's a gene that controls how many 
fingers you have *and* something about the reproductive system, so any 
mutation in that gene tends to keep you from reproducing for entirely 
unrelated reasons. Hence the reason why everything from fish to bats to 
birds to people have five finger bones.

> Speaking of which, here's a thing: Every single living cell in the human 
> body (with a few exceptions) has the exact same genome.

Every single *human* cell. About half (or more) of the cells in your body 
aren't human, tho.

> I could go on about this all day. Suffice it to say that it's very 
> interesting stuff, but not very easy to find comprehensible material 
> about. But take a look at this paper I found yesterday:

I'm not sure why you have a job in IT instead of a job in teaching.

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

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> 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. 

This is no longer true.

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

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
> > 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. 

> This is no longer true.

  Can you mention some predictions and tests of string theory?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> One problem with that Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution discussion is 
> that it perfectly fails to realize that evolution can be used as a 
> design method. Virtually everything man-made is a product of 
> evolutionary design.

  I'm not so sure you should be intermixing those two concepts. Just
because the same word "evolution" can be (somewhat loosely) applied
to both doesn't mean that they are related or that the same phenomena
or methodologies happen in them.

  Biological evolution has no driving force, no goal, no direction.
Evolution doesn't "try" to achieve anything, because evolution is not
a conscience with goals and plans. Evolution is a *by-product* of
uncontrolled random natural phenomena. Evolution is emergent behavior.
For this reason concepts like "the evolutionary ladder" and "de-evolution"
(and some sci-fi ideas that DNA has a "memory" of past forms in the
evolutionary history of the species) are nonsense because it would indicate
that evolution has a direction and a goal towards which it aims.

  Biological evolution is, basically, the change in the genes of large
populations of living entities. The changes consist of things like meiosis
and mutations, and some of these changes get naturally selected (by the
simple reason that all the other changes disappear due to extinction),
meaning that beneficial changes build up over time. The beneficial changes
are inherited by subsequent generations.

  The vast majority of the changes are very minute, and become significant
change only by building up over large periods of time (although there are
considerable exceptions to this, as sometimes significant evolutionary
change can happen surprisingly fast, in only a few tens of generations).

  There is no intelligence involved in this. It's simply emergent behavior
that happens naturally.

  Technological progress, on the other hand, is quite different. It has
a goal it aims for, a plan (in other words, the *purpose* of the new
technology or the changes to existing technology is determined *before* it
happens). Change in technology is seldom random, but driven by a specific
goal. Minute changes are not "inherited" because there is no genetic
information being passed from one generation to another. Very large changes
happen from one "generation" to the next, not because of random mutations
or "mixing of genes", but because of external design. There is no natural
selection. One "species" does not change gradually to another over a
large period of time and with numerous in-between generations, driven by
survival pressure and natural selection.

  The slow gradual change in biological evolution can often be somewhat
detrimental to living species. "Parts" cannot just suddenly jump from one
place to another, or suddenly change their shape or function. There are
many, many things in living species which are "poorly designed" and could
be much better, but them being better would require such a sudden drastic
change that it just can't happen. The required mutation would be so
astronomically improbable that it just won't happen (except in very, very
rare cases). A slow, gradual change would cause all the intermediates to
be less fit for survival, and thus it won't happen gradually either
(because these intermediates simply die long before they reach the
turning point and start again becoming fitter than previous generations).
For this reason most species of living beings have parts of their body that
are suboptimal.

  Technology is not hindered by this limitation.

  You could draw a broad similarity between evolution and technology in
that in technology good ideas are preserved while bad ideas are discarded
(similar to natural selection preserving good mutations while getting rid
of bad ones), but that's about it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I'm not sure why you have a job in IT instead of a job in teaching.

  Teaching needs social skills.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> 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. 
> 
>> This is no longer true.
> 
>   Can you mention some predictions and tests of string theory?

GIYF.  I can't follow the math, but
http://www.universetoday.com/72531/scientists-say-they-can-now-test-string-theory/

http://www.physorg.com/news88786651.html

http://www.physorg.com/news202553083.html

Googling "string theory test" brings up a bunch, but I haven't looked at 
many of them. Indeed, I myself thought it was a fundamental attribute of 
string theory that it could describe every possible set of physical laws, or 
some such.

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

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://www.universetoday.com/72531/scientists-say-they-can-now-test-string-theory/

  While I know virtually nothing about string theory (well, string theories,
as there are many; the unified theory would be the so-called M-theory),
I find it a bit "unlikeable" for one reason.

  Newtonian mechanics are based modeling and testing direct observations
of physical phenomena. One could say that it starts from the observation
that gravity and interaction between objects behaves in a very consistent
manner, rather than being random or arbitrary. This very precise consistency
allows creating formulas to describe these behaviors. The formulas can be
immediately tested in practice. (For example, if a formula predicts that
dropping a weight from a certain altitude will take a certain amount of
time for the weight to hit the ground, you just can go and test it and
see if the prediction is correct. Moreover, you can perform the test
numerous times from different altitudes and see if the formula always
gives the correct result.)

  In other words, Newtonian mechanics are directly based on observation.
It's expressing with math what one can directly observe and measure. The
predictive power of these formulas is extremely significant and practical.

  Of course it was later observed that, while still behaving in a completely
consistent manner, not all natural phenomena behaved as described by the
Newtonian formulas. For example, the speed of light in vacuum does not
behave in a Newtonian way. (Of course Newton had no way of knowing this
because he lacked the technology to test it.)

  Special Relativity starts from the simple assumption that (besides space
being cartesian) the speed of light in vacuum is the same for all
(inertial) observers. That's about it. This is a rather fair assumption
to make because it's the result of a measurement (rather than being a
wild guess). From this simple assumption you can deduce the Lorenz
transformations (and from them the entirety of SR).

  Again, SR has strong predictive power which, although not as easy as
with Newtonian mechanics, can be relatively easily and directly measured.
You can set up tests and see if the results are as predicted by SR.

  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. (Again, the mass equivalence is a fair assumption
to make because it's based on observation. The equivalence has been
known since the days of Newton, but it was unknown if it's just a
coincidence or whether there is a strong connection between the two.
Einstein started with the assumption that not only are they equal,
but they are actually the same thing.)

  While deducing the Lorentz transformations from the assumption of
c being the same for all inertial observers (and space being cartesian)
is relatively simple, deducing the GR equations from the further assumptions
is quite a lot more complicated and laborious, but in principle it's just
pure math, without further assumptions, "leaps of faith" or guesswork,
and hence not significantly more complex at a conceptual level.

  Again, GR as strong predictive power, which can be directly measured
with well-defined tests.

  GR has been *so* successful with its predictive power and successful
tests, that has long ago become the de-facto baseline for any new
theories in the same way as Newtonian mechanics were before it: Any
new theory has to have the same expressive power and give the same
predictions as GR, or it just won't cut.

  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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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 Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     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 Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     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 Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     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

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> 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

  I think your view is biased. I don't see how "the story of Genesis is
only an allegory, it did not happen literally" would discredit the entirety
of christianity. For example the "sanctity of marriage" (assuming there is
such a thing) doesn't become any less so if the story of creation is
allegorical.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 7-1-2011 17:02, Paul Fuller wrote:

> And yet, the uninformed masses have no problem saying that "it is
> obviously too complex to come about by chance and therefore must have
> been created".

It is clearly too complicated to have been created.

Post a reply to this message

On 7-1-2011 17:51, Invisible wrote:

> And it's /still/ not science. You know why? No testable predictions. Not
> a single damned one.

So mathematics is not science?

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 7-1-2011 17:51, Invisible wrote:

> > And it's /still/ not science. You know why? No testable predictions. Not
> > a single damned one.

> So mathematics is not science?

  Physics is applied math, so in a way math does make predictions (or, at
the very least, it's a useful tool to make such predictions).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 8-1-2011 13:42, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> On 7-1-2011 17:51, Invisible wrote:
>
>>> And it's /still/ not science. You know why? No testable predictions. Not
>>> a single damned one.
>
>> So mathematics is not science?
>
>    Physics is applied math, so in a way math does make predictions (or, at
> the very least, it's a useful tool to make such predictions).

The latter. BTW I don't care if Andrew thinks Maths is science or not. I 
just wanted to know.
BTW 2: I don't think I have ever made a prediction in my working life. 
That probably implies that I am not a scientist.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> That probably implies that I am not a scientist.

  Not all scientists make predictions.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 8/01/2011 3:34 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
> A well-known writer once wrote "quod enim mavult homo verum esse, id
> potius credit". I think he was right.
>

That sounds like something I could believe is true - If only I knew what 
it meant.

>
> Trouble is, Behe will just claim that nobody will publish his research
> because it's "controversial". As if which scientific theories get
> accepted or rejected depends on which scientists are part of the "in
> club" or something.

Which is of course one of the signs of crackpot conspiracy theories. 
The reason you can't prove it is because the conspiracy is hiding the 
evidence!

>
> Unfortunately, there *have* actually been instances of scientists making
> genuine scientific discoveries and being laughed at by mainstream
> science for decades afterwards. Sometimes an idea is just so radical
> that nobody takes it seriously. Who an idea comes from should have no
> baring on its scientific validity, but sometimes that affects how
> willing people are to look at it. How similar a theory is to an existing
> one doesn't necessarily indicate how correct it is, but sometimes people
> act like it does.

The scientific process isn't as pure as perhaps it should be.  It is 
after all a construct of humans and subject to its share of prejudice, 
self interest and outright fraud.  Still the truth will come out and in 
much less time than through any other system going around.

The examples of initially rejected theories that are eventually accepted 
are out there.  Actually they are good illustrations that the system 
works.  Radical theories need strong evidence and should be subjected to 
assault by those who defend the accepted theories.  Don't expect to 
overturn the whole world of physics (or biology, or cosmology etc) in an 
afternoon.

Jumping to use those examples to support a new theory or ideology is a 
sign that it is weak in itself.

>
> I have no idea to what extent this problem has been solved in the modern
> era. I imagine there are probably still ideas that you would be
> hard-pressed to get people to accept, even with valid data to back it
> up. But then, I am not a scientist, so I couldn't say...
>
> Behe, of course, is just using all this as an excuse to get bibles into
> schools, as is transparently self-evident.
>

It is so transparent as to be ludicrous.  As compared to real science it 
is laughable.  Of course those who jump on board want to have it seen as 
an equal 'theory'.

>> In defence of the tree kangaroos of New Guinea and Northern Australia,
>> they quite likely are very well adapted to the same sort of niche as the
>> sloths. Live in trees, eat low nutrition leaves which need to be
>> fermented in order to extract energy, move slowly, conserve energy. If
>> it works then evolution doesn't care how stupid *you* think they look.
>> But you know that.
>
> Indeed.
>
> Actually, in general you find that low-energy habitats are populated by
> animals that move very slowly. (Take a look at the bottom of the sea,
> for example...)

Makes you wonder what life on a Kuiper Belt Object might be like.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/01/2011 11:34 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 7-1-2011 17:02, Paul Fuller wrote:
>
>> And yet, the uninformed masses have no problem saying that "it is
>> obviously too complex to come about by chance and therefore must have
>> been created".
>
> It is clearly too complicated to have been created.

That is an insight that makes sense to us.

Unfortunately once you believe in an omnipresent, all knowing, all 
powerful, arbitrary and apparently uncaring but malicious deity then 
anything is possible.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/01/2011 2:54 PM, Paul Fuller wrote:
> On 8/01/2011 3:34 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>
>> A well-known writer once wrote "quod enim mavult homo verum esse, id
>> potius credit". I think he was right.
>>
>
> That sounds like something I could believe is true - If only I knew what
> it meant.

Quod enim mavult homo verum esse, id potius credit. For what a man would 
like to be true, that he more readily believes.

-Bacon, Francis,Viscount St Albans

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 9/01/2011 2:20 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 08/01/2011 2:54 PM, Paul Fuller wrote:
>> On 8/01/2011 3:34 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>>
>>> A well-known writer once wrote "quod enim mavult homo verum esse, id
>>> potius credit". I think he was right.
>>>
>>
>> That sounds like something I could believe is true - If only I knew what
>> it meant.
>
> Quod enim mavult homo verum esse, id potius credit. For what a man would
> like to be true, that he more readily believes.
>
> -Bacon, Francis,Viscount St Albans
>

Thanks for that.

I never was good with irony.

Post a reply to this message

Paul Fuller <pgf### [at] optusnetcomau> wrote:
> Makes you wonder what life on a Kuiper Belt Object might be like.

  I don't think it would be physically possible for any kind of life to
form that far from the Sun.

  Chemicals need to react with each other, which means that there must be
some kind of solution where they can freely float or otherwise move.
This usually means some kind of liquid. Obviously some kind of energy is
also needed or else nothing will move.

  Water would be the liquid of choice because it has two very special
properties that basically no other liquid has: It's extremely common,
and its solid form has lessed density than its liquid form. Without these
two properties there would be no life on Earth (or anywhere else). (There
are probably also many other necessary properties, related to solubility
and how water reacts chemically with other compounds, but I do not know
enough about chemistry to say anything about that.)

  It's hard to imagine how life could form without water.

  Of course for the water to be any good, it has to be in liquid form.
If you are too far away from the Sun, all the water will be frozen solid.
This isn't a very fertile ground for life to form. There are little chemical
reactions going on, chemicals are not very free to move, and there are
probably a huge bunch of other properties necessary for *any* kind of
life to form which just aren't possible with deep-frozen ice.

  Now, perhaps if there was a liquid which remains an liquid form at those
temperatures, it could ostensibly happen. However, such liquids are both
extremely rare (iow. there wouldn't be enough of it in any given planet),
and their chemical properties are probably inadequate for any kind of
lifeforms. (Also, most liquids other than water get denser when they
solidify, which is a big problem.)

  (Conversely, a planet which is too *close* to the Sun cannot form life
either, this time because there's no water because it's all vaporized away.
It also makes forming a viable atmosphere quite hard, making it a very
hostile environment, where strong radiation hits directly the surface
of the planet, destroying any complex chemicals that might form by chance.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 08/01/2011 3:47 PM, Paul Fuller wrote:
> Thanks for that.
>
> I never was good with irony.


Oops! Sorry for that.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 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.
> 

I wasn't really disagreeing. Just pointing out where the hypothesis came 
from that the evidence turned into a theory.

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

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 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),

FWIW, that's not at all what reversible computing is about. Reversible 
computing is a necessary prelude to quantum computing.

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

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   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.

I sometimes argue that perhaps the universe is not logically consistent, in 
exactly this sense, and I usually get shouted down. Maybe there isn't any 
mathematical way to describe everything in the universe, and depending on 
what you measure, you will *always* have errors due to the fundamental 
nature of the universe.

Granted, I often raise this in the context of "scientists have faith that 
this isn't the case", in the sense that it would be very unlikely a smart 
scientist would give up looking, ever, for that elusive theory that applies 
everywhere.

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

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I think your view is biased. I don't see how "the story of Genesis is
> only an allegory, it did not happen literally" would discredit the entirety
> of christianity.

What did Jesus die for, if there is no original sin? Indeed, why should 
anyone worship YHVH if he *isn't* the creator?

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

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 7-1-2011 17:51, Invisible wrote:
> 
>> And it's /still/ not science. You know why? No testable predictions. Not
>> a single damned one.
> 
> So mathematics is not science?

No, math is not science. Science is finding what versions of math (i.e., 
axioms and productions and such) are isomorphic to reality.  There are 
tremendous swaths of math that have nothing to do with science.

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

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   I think your view is biased. I don't see how "the story of Genesis is
> > only an allegory, it did not happen literally" would discredit the entirety
> > of christianity.

> What did Jesus die for, if there is no original sin? Indeed, why should 
> anyone worship YHVH if he *isn't* the creator?

  The question is literal interpretation vs. allegorical interpretation.
Just because something is written figuratively doesn't mean that it's not
describing a real event. The details may be fictitious, but it may still
be describing what happened.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> No, math is not science.

  Define "science" (in a way that excludes math).

  (And don't confuse "science" with "natural sciences", which is a subset.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> No, math is not science.
> 
>   Define "science" (in a way that excludes math).

Investigation into the workings of the real world. Including the real world 
of human behavior.  Math only applies to the real world to the extent it's 
isomorphic to reality. It's trivial to make up mathematical systems 
completely unlike anything in reality.

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

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   I think your view is biased. I don't see how "the story of Genesis is
>>> only an allegory, it did not happen literally" would discredit the entirety
>>> of christianity.
> 
>> What did Jesus die for, if there is no original sin? Indeed, why should 
>> anyone worship YHVH if he *isn't* the creator?
> 
>   The question is literal interpretation vs. allegorical interpretation.

But we're not talking about the allegorical "sun rising" kind of thing (vs 
Earth orbiting the Sun). We're talking about whether some supernatural being 
intentionally created humans as they are, told them lies, then punished them 
and all their descendants for believing some other third party that pointed 
out the lies were lies. Then killed all but a handful because they disobeyed 
him some more.

I don't see how you can turn that into an allegory that makes "sin" still be 
a reasonable concept. What might have *really* happened that would make it 
possible for the death of a rabbi a couple thousand years ago capable of 
affecting what happens to you after you're dead? I just can't imagine what 
would give YHVH any moral authority to dictate what humans do and to punish 
them for failing to do so, if YHVH didn't actually create humans.

I'm honestly open to being educated here. It's fun to consider this sort of 
thing. I don't think you'll convince me, but I'm honestly and sincerely 
listening.

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

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Warp wrote:
> >>>   I think your view is biased. I don't see how "the story of Genesis is
> >>> only an allegory, it did not happen literally" would discredit the entirety
> >>> of christianity.
> > 
> >> What did Jesus die for, if there is no original sin? Indeed, why should 
> >> anyone worship YHVH if he *isn't* the creator?
> > 
> >   The question is literal interpretation vs. allegorical interpretation.

> But we're not talking about the allegorical "sun rising" kind of thing (vs 
> Earth orbiting the Sun). We're talking about whether some supernatural being 
> intentionally created humans as they are, told them lies, then punished them 
> and all their descendants for believing some other third party that pointed 
> out the lies were lies. Then killed all but a handful because they disobeyed 
> him some more.

> I don't see how you can turn that into an allegory that makes "sin" still be 
> a reasonable concept. What might have *really* happened that would make it 
> possible for the death of a rabbi a couple thousand years ago capable of 
> affecting what happens to you after you're dead? I just can't imagine what 
> would give YHVH any moral authority to dictate what humans do and to punish 
> them for failing to do so, if YHVH didn't actually create humans.

  You are making many category mistakes here. The most prominent one is
"either the story of genesis is literal and God created the universe and
the principles we must obey, or the story is only an allegory and God did
not create the universe nor the principles we must obey". It think this
is called a false dichotomy.

  Just because the story might be told with allegories doesn't necessarily
mean that the gist of the story is not true. Just because something is
expressed as a metaphor doesn't make what the metaphor is referring to
false.

  Another mistake you are doing is straw man argumentation: You are taking
the (well, *a*) literal interpretation of the scripture and then mocking it,
arguing that since it makes no sense, nothing of it can be true (not even
the idea that is being expressed in allegorical form).

  Note that I'm not saying anything about the story is true. I'm just
saying that your argumentation is fallacious.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 8-1-2011 18:35, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> I wasn't really disagreeing. Just pointing out where the hypothesis came
> from that the evidence turned into a theory.

A modern way would be to assume that there are 3 space dimensions and 
one time, with a distance between 2 points defined by x^2+Y^2+z^2-ct^2 
(though I am not sure if that was a necessary assumption, it has been a 
long time).
Investigate what happens if in this universe laws have to be invariant 
for translation and rotation.
That will give you Lorentz contraction and Maxwell's equations, and 
light that propagates with lightspeed. But that is just maths and not 
science. ;)
OTOH if this is not observed in our universe, we either have more than 4 
space/time dimensions or laws are not invariant, both do not seem 
compatible with reality.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/8/2011 2:07 AM, Warp wrote:
> 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.
>
Possible, but, even if that is the case, you can still come up with 
formula that say *how* they do interact, which, given that its those 
interactions we will use to produce results, ends up being the same 
thing, for all intent and purposes.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     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 1/8/2011 11:26 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I sometimes argue that perhaps the universe is not logically consistent,
> in exactly this sense, and I usually get shouted down. Maybe there isn't
> any mathematical way to describe everything in the universe, and
> depending on what you measure, you will *always* have errors due to the
> fundamental nature of the universe.
>
> Granted, I often raise this in the context of "scientists have faith
> that this isn't the case", in the sense that it would be very unlikely a
> smart scientist would give up looking, ever, for that elusive theory
> that applies everywhere.
>
The only problem with that is, it would have to only be non-logically 
consistent on a very small scale, since, otherwise, there is no evidence 
this would be the case. It also runs into the whole mess that *no* one, 
neither scientists, nor the religious (who love this argument as an "in" 
for their "faith"), would have any damn clue what is going on.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     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