> It's the random part that makes evolution slow, since statistically almost all mutations are harmful, e.g. they break things instead of adding new features.
My biologist friends tell me that the vast majority of mutations are neutral, neither beneficial nor harmful.
> I can't wait for them to discover that humans started their migration 5,000 years ago when they were chased out of eden by the dinosaurs.
You're on to them! They were going to use the DNA to backtrace the migration and find the flaming sword, which they will sell on ebay for a pretty penny.
Except that one has piles of supporting evidence and the other has nothing.
> your just changing what your god is.
Evolution isn't a divinity, doesn't appeal to one, and indeed doesn't tell you anything about divinity except that if any divinities exist(ed), they didn't prevent evolution from happening.
> I am amazed at all the scientists who think they know "facts" when their theories are not really anything more then a "best guess"
There's a difference between a guess and a model based on evidence.
Also, there's a difference between facts and the theories that explain them. It is a fact that life exists on earth; we would like to have a theory that explains how it came about.
> I believe we should teach creationism in schools, it will serve more people better.
So you applaud religion as the opiate of the masses, and volunteer to serve as one of the Guardians?
> We are living in a time with relative ethics. We are living in an increasing secular society, where life means little.
Other than the "increasing" part, that has always been true.
> We all watched in horror as the Teri Shiavo in Florida was starved to death.
I didn't watch in horror; I applauded the courts for finally letting her die with dignity.
> *BUT* what I would not understand, is that if the atmosphere then, being 40% hydrogen - the lightest gas we know of - How would beasts that heavy be able to fly through such a thin atmosphere without a massive load of difficulty???
They could wait and evolve after we had an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere.
> Besides Asimov and Bradbury, I would have thought for sure that he'd be there. The Dune series (and not just the first book!) is a serious contender for greatest work of SF/Fantasy ever written.
I enjoyed Dune, but the other books I read in the series were in the yawner genre.
> Here's the point I am making: You cannot derive God logically, mathematically, physically, or otherwise. He lives outside our system of existence. It is possible for Him to get to us through it, but not for us to get to Him, unless He comes to "take us." And I am not talking about aliens.
Is that a retraction of your claim that "the law of entropy" tells us that "a Person" must be involved?
> Seems nobody wants to give God credit for anything. I give Him credit and thank Him for making me and giving me life.
Why not Cthulhu?
> And, to make you happy, (or not) I do have: 1. A Bachelor of Computer Engineering (B.Comp.E.), 2. A B.S. Comp Sci, and 3. A M.S. in Applied and Computational Mathematics, and I have been in the industry for almost 15 years.
That's not a substitute for an answer.
> So I know a little about the subject of which were speaking. I'm just not interested in purely theoretical mathematics.
I too have Amazing Credentials (tm), and am eager to see your mathematical treatment of Shannon information and the law of entropy. I might even be able to spot the flaws in your treatment -- in the unlikely event that any exist.
> > Would you mind sharing the idea with us, explain how to measure it in biological systems, tell us how "getting more organized" relates to that measure, state and justify "the law of entropy", and show how "getting more organized" by the information-theoretic measure "flies in the face" of it?
> How about a paraphrase of Goedel's Theorem: Truth is a superset of proof.
Also, E=mc^2, SCOXe has been trading below 4.00, and OBL is in hiding. But you were going to support your claim that the law of entropy can be applied to information theoretic entropy to show that things can't get more organized without a certain Person's help.
We can talk about all that other stuff in more appropriate contexts.
> > Do you have the faintest idea what information-theoretic entropy is?
> My buddy Claude gave me a few pointers.
Would you mind sharing the idea with us, explain how to measure it in biological systems, tell us how "getting more organized" relates to that measure, state and justify "the law of entropy", and show how "getting more organized" by the information-theoretic measure "flies in the face" of it?
> Doesn't it take crazier faith if you claim the universe spontaneoulsy came into existence and assembled itself in such a way as to have intelligent life, without containing the intelligence in the first place?
You hardly simplify the problem by invoking a Cosmic Middle Man.
> I am not speaking of thermodynamics only. I am speaking of entropy in the sense of its use in information theory, but applying it to the entire system of the universe, especially as it pertains to biological systems.
Do you have the faintest idea what information-theoretic entropy is?
> It's easy: god set all the photons in motion such that it would appear that they came from stars farther than 6000 light-years away. Yes, this is actually what they believe; I'm not making this up.
> Of course, this is pretty silly. If god did that, then how do we know he didn't create the earth 10 minutes ago, and just implanted all our memories to make us think we're really 30 years old. Because some ancient texts made from oral histories and stories say so?
Also, it raises the theological question of why you should believe his book when he faked everything else.
> If you've read any of William Dembski's work on intelligent design, you will know that he argues very cogently, coherently, and soundly logically in all that he writes.
Ah, no. Dembski is either a con artist or an idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
> It's the random part that makes evolution slow, since statistically almost all mutations are harmful, e.g. they break things instead of adding new features.
My biologist friends tell me that the vast majority of mutations are neutral, neither beneficial nor harmful.
> I can't wait for them to discover that humans started their migration 5,000 years ago when they were chased out of eden by the dinosaurs.
You're on to them! They were going to use the DNA to backtrace the migration and find the flaming sword, which they will sell on ebay for a pretty penny.
> Creation is no more far fetched then evolution
Except that one has piles of supporting evidence and the other has nothing.
> your just changing what your god is.
Evolution isn't a divinity, doesn't appeal to one, and indeed doesn't tell you anything about divinity except that if any divinities exist(ed), they didn't prevent evolution from happening.
> Descarte conclused that since we are imperfect beings, how can we concieve of a perfect God unless that knowledge was seeded in us at birth.
And same with conceptions of the perfect car, the perfect computer, the perfect Slashdot post?
> Take sex for example. Pope John Paul II wrote there is something better in having mystery, rather than viewing all people as a sexual object.
For some reason I have trouble taking JPII seriously as an expert on sexual relationships.
> As society gets more secular and starts making judgements without God, we will become more miserable.
Yeah, things were so much better under the Taliban...
> I am amazed at all the scientists who think they know "facts" when their theories are not really anything more then a "best guess"
There's a difference between a guess and a model based on evidence.
Also, there's a difference between facts and the theories that explain them. It is a fact that life exists on earth; we would like to have a theory that explains how it came about.
> I believe we should teach creationism in schools, it will serve more people better.
So you applaud religion as the opiate of the masses, and volunteer to serve as one of the Guardians?
> We are living in a time with relative ethics. We are living in an increasing secular society, where life means little.
Other than the "increasing" part, that has always been true.
> We all watched in horror as the Teri Shiavo in Florida was starved to death.
I didn't watch in horror; I applauded the courts for finally letting her die with dignity.
> *BUT* what I would not understand, is that if the atmosphere then, being 40% hydrogen - the lightest gas we know of - How would beasts that heavy be able to fly through such a thin atmosphere without a massive load of difficulty???
They could wait and evolve after we had an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere.
> But then again, if it was infavorable, we wouldn't be having this very discussion, would we?
Or maybe we'd just be having it somewhere else...
> Evolution. Yeah, right.
Curiously, your scenario has nothing to do with biological evolution, which depends on descent with modification.
Did your home schooling censor coverage of where Ferraris come from?
> and I rarely, if ever, use a credit card online.
Don't you know whether you do or not?
> Besides Asimov and Bradbury, I would have thought for sure that he'd be there. The Dune series (and not just the first book!) is a serious contender for greatest work of SF/Fantasy ever written.
I enjoyed Dune, but the other books I read in the series were in the yawner genre.
IMO. YMMV.
> Here's the point I am making: You cannot derive God logically, mathematically, physically, or otherwise. He lives outside our system of existence. It is possible for Him to get to us through it, but not for us to get to Him, unless He comes to "take us." And I am not talking about aliens.
Is that a retraction of your claim that "the law of entropy" tells us that "a Person" must be involved?
> Seems nobody wants to give God credit for anything. I give Him credit and thank Him for making me and giving me life.
Why not Cthulhu?
> And, to make you happy, (or not) I do have:
1. A Bachelor of Computer Engineering (B.Comp.E.),
2. A B.S. Comp Sci, and
3. A M.S. in Applied and Computational Mathematics, and I have been in the industry for almost 15 years.
That's not a substitute for an answer.
> So I know a little about the subject of which were speaking. I'm just not interested in purely theoretical mathematics.
I too have Amazing Credentials (tm), and am eager to see your mathematical treatment of Shannon information and the law of entropy. I might even be able to spot the flaws in your treatment -- in the unlikely event that any exist.
> > Would you mind sharing the idea with us, explain how to measure it in biological systems, tell us how "getting more organized" relates to that measure, state and justify "the law of entropy", and show how "getting more organized" by the information-theoretic measure "flies in the face" of it?
> How about a paraphrase of Goedel's Theorem: Truth is a superset of proof.
Also, E=mc^2, SCOXe has been trading below 4.00, and OBL is in hiding. But you were going to support your claim that the law of entropy can be applied to information theoretic entropy to show that things can't get more organized without a certain Person's help.
We can talk about all that other stuff in more appropriate contexts.
> >
> You mean those who's PHBs said the "minimum" requirements were good enough.
Hey, if they're good enough for his wife, they're good enough for your workstation.
> > Do you have the faintest idea what information-theoretic entropy is?
> My buddy Claude gave me a few pointers.
Would you mind sharing the idea with us, explain how to measure it in biological systems, tell us how "getting more organized" relates to that measure, state and justify "the law of entropy", and show how "getting more organized" by the information-theoretic measure "flies in the face" of it?
Thanks in advance.
> I thought the headline First Swede prosecuted for sharing files on net was fairly ominous
I was shocked just to hear that the first Swede is still alive.
No, you just missed the first two stories on it.
For Gent00zers, it has ~86 in portage for about a week.
Haven't tried it.
> Just because other people have made "religious" issues out of their own ignorance, doesn't make every idea about God false.
And we should accept your idea and reject everyone else's, because...?
> And just because you don't like the idea of God, He won't go away.
And vice versa?
> Doesn't it take crazier faith if you claim the universe spontaneoulsy came into existence and assembled itself in such a way as to have intelligent life, without containing the intelligence in the first place?
You hardly simplify the problem by invoking a Cosmic Middle Man.
> I am not speaking of thermodynamics only. I am speaking of entropy in the sense of its use in information theory, but applying it to the entire system of the universe, especially as it pertains to biological systems.
Do you have the faintest idea what information-theoretic entropy is?
> Knowing how to swim didn't help Methuselah.
IIRC, the dates do add up to show that he died in the same year as the flood.
> The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only applies to *closed* systems.
Actually the general form applies to open systems as well; it just has a term for what crosses the system's boundary.
> This creationist "argument" was torn apart as soon as it was uttered.
Yeah, if the creationist interpretation were right, the mustard seed couldn't grow into a great tree.
> It's easy: god set all the photons in motion such that it would appear that they came from stars farther than 6000 light-years away. Yes, this is actually what they believe; I'm not making this up.
> Of course, this is pretty silly. If god did that, then how do we know he didn't create the earth 10 minutes ago, and just implanted all our memories to make us think we're really 30 years old. Because some ancient texts made from oral histories and stories say so?
Also, it raises the theological question of why you should believe his book when he faked everything else.
> If you've read any of William Dembski's work on intelligent design, you will know that he argues very cogently, coherently, and soundly logically in all that he writes.
Ah, no. Dembski is either a con artist or an idiot.
Pick your claim.
> No, no, no. God created the Dinosaurs extinct. Apparently he really liked the idea of dinosaurs, but thought they were too homosexual.
Is 'homosexual' a euphemism for 'gay' now?