Then there's SOAP. SOAP allows you to do a lot, but also gives you just enough rope to hang yourself. The W3C guys have generated a very, very primitive transport. You get primitive data types: ints, bools, strings, arrays, arrays of arrays. That's about it. As a result, different implementations of SOAP are not always compatible. For example, there was a problem with datestamps. Some SOAP implementations did them one way, some did them another way.
While Mr. Mehat states this as a criticism, I going to come out saying that this is a strength. SOAP is very light weight considering its alternatives. In-so-far as you can serialize objects to W3C Schema primitive types, you can avoid the difficulties of complex marshaling one incurs with other distribute service mechanisms (the stubs/skeletons of CORBA, etc.). The W3C Schema types are a quick and easy standard that are independent of choice of language, operating system, environment, etc.
Crypto-math often implies discrete math (as opposed to continuous mathematics, like Calculus). So if by "higher level mathematics" you mean math that is traditionally taught after calculus, but is not necessarily calculus dependent, then you're probably talking about set theory, group theory, number theory, complexity theory, information theory, etc. The following are books that you can teach yourself from, that don't demand graduate level backgrounds in mathematics:
1) A nice introduction to Group Theory is: "A First Course in Abstract Algebra" 6th Edition, by Joyhn B. Fraleigh
2) A much more fun but slightly more difficult introduction to Group and Set Theory is: "Adventures in Group Theory" by David Joyner. The 2nd edition is not quite out yet, so you'll have to make sure to check his errata web page, as there are lots of bugs (I sent in most of them).
3) For number theory, I recommend: "Number Theory in Science and Communication" 3rd Edition, by M. R. Schroeder The little calculus that there is in this book can be skipped without missing too much.
4) For Information Theory, try: "Introduction to Coding and Information Theory", by Steven Roman
I don't know, but I'll give it a shot: If your emphasis is on pure crypto (cryptanalysis, algorithm design, etc.) I'd definitely go with the more mathematical route. But if you're a software engineer, and want to find secure ways of using existing cryptography in your systems and protocols, I'd go with the applied statistics. The later is easier, pays better, and doesn't require post-graduate work.
How is this any better than existing ad-hoc network protocols?
Here's a paper that compares (in the context of wireless networks) DSDV-SQ, TORA, DSR, and AODV-LL protocols for how well they make use of shortest paths, number of packets successfully delievered, ability to deal with dropped nodes/connections, and routing overhead (as either packets or bytes).
With most I've included an associated set of prerequisite book reading, math, and computer language skills necessary to understand the book. Hopefully this will help the beginner hit the ground running, and the more experienced should discover a few hard-to-find books to start tracking down for their personal collections.
The Adventures of Baron Munchausen is a great film (get it on DVD). However, it was the second largest money losing film from 1980 to 1991 (according to "The Book of Lists the '90s Edition").
Directed by Terry Gilliam, starring Eric Idle, Uma Thurman, and Robin Williams (except he didn't want to be named in the credits).
They always supported legalism with (often Biblical) appeals to morality. Just like the Pharisees once did, but without all the diligent study. Why lead a church body when you can simply control it?
Iron does sharpen iron, until they start making paper contracts governing how it should be conducted (I kid you not). The software (while good in-and-of itself) could be a natural extension of their legalism. It would start with the staff, then trickle down through the hierarchy with lots of judgmentalism towards anyone who didn't elevate themselves to that standard of accountability.
I understand and respect of the purposes of this software. However, I fear my old church would love to make installing it mandatory. I can hear it now: "If you don't have a problem with pornography, then you should have no problem installing this accountability software if only to challenge others and to take a clear stand". Who needs grace when you have legalism -- especially automated-legalism.
There will come a point when this/. thread no longer allows new replies. When that happens, if you still inclined to further enlighten me, my address is david@youdzone.com . (I assume yours is nurban@crib.corepower.com.)
>> By "evolution as a means of origins" I was trying to avoid the term "macroevolution", since you seem to get hung up on it.
>You didn't answer my question.
Your question was "What do you mean 'evolution as a means of origins'?". And my answer was macroevolution (see above).
Ok, to get past this impasse we apparently need some definitions of macro and micro evolution. Here's some sample definitions take from http://www.cyber.vt.edu/geol3604/macro1.pdf
---------------(start of copy/paste)---------------
Microevolution - evolutionary processes (e.g., neodarwinian evolution) that operate at the level of individual organisms
Examples of microevolutionary processes: * natural selection * genetic drift
Macroevolution - evolutionary processes that operate above species level. Large-scale, long-term evolutionary processes and patterns
Examples of macroevolutionary processes: * origins of new body plans * changes in frequency of particular phenotypic characters across many groups or the entire biosphere * changes in rates of speciations across groups and through time
Is macroevolution decoupled from microevolution?
1. All macroevolutionary patterns can be explained by microevolutionary processes (the reductionistic neodarwinian view) 2. Macroevolutionary patterns cannot be explained as a cumulative sum of microevolutionary processes. Thus, there are unique macroevolutionary rules and processes
---------------(end of copy/paste)---------------
The serious hand waving kicks in when the reductionistic neodarwinian view postulates that macroevolution is nothing more than lots of microevolution.
>> If/when evidence is found that poses problems for any of the criteria you listed, you >> and I both know that the evolutionist community will still stay committed to the >> "fact" of evolution, and will simply insert placeholders for future explanations to >> come along that will hopefully fit the observables. The only self-correction that >> evolution allows is one that perpetuates it.
> If evidence comes out against the mechanisms > and history of evolution, then the scientific community will revise or discard > the existing theory of evolution.
Come on. They may throw out a particular theory, but they would never discard the position that some purely naturalistic history of evolution accounts for the presence of humans, no matter how non-conformant any choice of mechanisms were to observables. It is simply too useful as a explanatory placeholder for keeping the proverbial divine foot from entering the door.
>> Heh heh. In other words, you would only entertain extra-natural ideas if >> illustrated by purely natural means. Is it more of a "if I can't test it, it doesn't >> exist", or "if I can't test it, it doesn't matter"?
> I didn't say anything about "natural means". I said that if I'm going to entertain > a supernatural explanation, I need evidence FOR a supernatural phenomenon.
This means you'd have to create a natural test methodology for supernatural evidence. Framed that way, no evidence would ever match your criteria. So once again, do you think extra-natural doesn't exist, or that it doesn't matter?
> Now, specific claims of how a supernatural agent may have accomplished something > could in principle be falsifiable, but such specific proposals -- such as most forms > of "scientific" creationism -- tend to get shot down pretty quick.
Theology works much differently than science. It deals with the extra-natural, and therefore (I believe) it should not be used to create *specific scientific* explanations (even if that's what it would take to be falsifiable via standard scientific inquiry). Of course, we both seem to agree that nothing can ultimately be proven. A love for one's spouse (don't forget Valentine's day today) or enjoyment of music doesn't have to be proven to have meaning and relevance, or to even be at the core of one's beliefs and decision making.
That being said, I personally find the pre-commitment to naturalism to be a gross oversimplification. It does a lousy job at addressing the irreducible complexities of what we observe around us, and has no chance of explaining where its naturalistic laws come from. If the naturalist laws are its axioms, and such axioms fall outside of naturalism's explanatory power (since naturalism is based upon them), then those laws are by definition extra-natural (in that they didn't result from naturalistic processes). It is just a game of "let's see how far we can go when restricting ourselves to only naturalistic explanations". Conversely, those who believe in the extra-natural embrace extra-natural first causes, as incomprehensible as they might be.
> What do you mean "evolution as a means of origins"? I hope you're not > confusing evolution with abiogenesis, like you were with cosmology.
By "evolution as a means of origins" I was trying to avoid the term "macroevolution", since you seem to get hung up on it. By the way, put "macroevolution" as your term in an Amazon book search, and none of the books returned are religious. It is a term and distinction created by the evolutionist community (at least as old as the 1970's when Stanley first proposed alternatives to "Punk Eek", but let's not get sidetracked by that).
> Anyway, what would cause problems for evolution? Most of the easy ways to > kill evolution have already been examined and found not to do so.. but... hmm.. > finding that genotypic similarities among descendents often don't produce similar > phenotypic similarities... if the nested hierarchies had major discrepancies in > ordering via different criteria (e.g. genetic code vs. morphology)... finding that > organisms appear in the fossil record at times inconsistent with their positions > in the nested hierarchy (e.g. finding that they appear simultaneously or in > reverse order when they're supposed to appear in a certain order), evidence > that the fossil record is much younger than we think... evidence that traits > in transitional organisms would have been fatal to the species (tough one, > since fitness depends on the environment)... evidence for biochemistries > completely unrelated to existing life (well, that would be trouble for just the > common-descent part of evolution)...
If/when evidence is found that poses problems for any of the criteria you listed, you and I both know that the evolutionist community will still stay committed to the "fact" of evolution, and will simply insert placeholders for future explanations to come along that will hopefully fit the observables. The only self-correction that evolution allows is one that perpetuates it.
>> I'd like to hear your opinion on what you think chiefly contributes to one's belief >> in purely naturalistic explanations of origins as opposed to belief in >> extra-naturalistic origins.
> Even if there were no naturalistic explanations of origins at all, I would not entertain > supernaturalistic explanations at all unless there was something that I considered > positive evidence in favor of supernaturalism. Once upon a time, there was no > naturalistic explanation for the phenomenon of thunderstorms, but in my opinion > that does not constitute evidence in favor of the theory that thunderstorms are a > battle of the gods. Actually seeing some guys up there duking it out might, though.
Heh heh. In other words, you would only entertain extra-natural ideas if illustrated by purely natural means. Is it more of a "if I can't test it, it doesn't exist", or "if I can't test it, it doesn't matter"?
I can't think of a type of extra-natural phenomena that people wouldn't merely craft naturalist explanations for. Can you? And the explanations wouldn't have to be plausible, because the hope is always that they'll be replaced by something better in time.
> You're confused. "Macroevolution" refers to a creatoinist strawman which > claims there is some qualitative difference between speciation and lots of > speciation over a long time (fish turning into humans or whatever).
I don't believe the concept of macro-evolution to be a strawman. I'm tempted to bring up analogies such as the computer code I write only operates within the constraints that I set for it and such, but I think that line of reasoning would take too long to develop.
Suffice to say, it is a huge jump from bacteria becoming resistant to penicillin, and bacteria evolving into humans. Model it as whatever information-theoretic measure you like (as Kolmogorov complexities perhaps?), and you'll see why I think that simply dismissing it as a continuum that follows from universally agreed upon micro-evolution observables constitutes optimistic hand waving in the extreme. Where you see my strawman, I see your slippery slope.
> Evolutionary biologists are often accused of creating "just-so" stories, as > you claim above. However, in existing species, we can actually go and > see in the field which traits are selected for. This gives us some basis for > extrapolation to earlier species. However, I think you are missing the > point. The evidence for evolutionary theory does not depend on finding > explanations for why certain adaptations occurred. It depends on establishing > links between organisms over time (e.g. genetic and morphological > similarities and their divergences).
So that we're not doomed to "just-so" stories, what criteria should bring an evolutionist to consider that the basics of evolution (as a means of origins) are in question? (The criteria is always clear for the so called "hard" sciences, which is why we can put confidence in them.)
Also, you seem very qualified to represent the evolutionist's position. This being the case, I'd like to hear your opinion on what you think chiefly contributes to one's belief in purely naturalistic explanations of origins as opposed to belief in extra-naturalistic origins.
>> Most people accept "the fact" of evolution, even if the mechanisms are >> in question because it is a chosen belief position, and they further believe >> that all the difficulties will be worked out sometime in the future.
> Evolution is a fact, in that speciation and natural selection have been directly > observed in nature. There is a theory of evolution describing the details of how > evolution happens, not all of which is fully understood.
I was referring to macro-evolution, not micro-evolution. No one should have a problem with micro-evolution, as it is directly observed. By macro-evolution I referring to the position that purposeless thoughtless processes solely account for our origins.
> "The mechanisms of evolution are in question because it is a chosen belief position?" > What is that supposed to mean? You could equally well say the same thing about > the theory that things fall due to gravity. Evolution is a theory, just like gravity or any > other theory in science. It has evidence in its support; it can't be proven, but neither > can any other theory. There is no reason to single out evolution.
I wasn't trying to indicate that evolution is in question because it is a belief system. On the contrary, everything is an unprovable belief system, and that's ok. The best you can do in any domain is simply reduce it to the smallest set of axioms that yield the maximum set of expressiveness and utility. Sometimes you can disprove it, with respect to a more accepted (believed) set of axioms (which are hopefully based in observables). When discussing origins, most limit themselves to purely naturalistic explanations (which makes assumptions about how you are allowed to explain things, and is ultimately based upon only what we currently know, but that's another thread).
I was saying that the *mechanisms* of macro-evolution are questionable (not because it is a belief system). Hopefully you'll agree that there is far too much hand waving and complexity avoidance to engender the level of trust and acceptance such theories have enjoyed. Theories are free to be wacky, but when taught in school, they are presented as unchallengeable fact by teachers who simply read straight from their curriculum.
> More nonsense. Big Bang cosmology makes very many concrete, falsifiable > predictions (CMBR, Hubble redshift, light-element nucleosynthesis ratios, patterns > of structure formation, etc. etc.) Evolution does too (e.g. twin nested hierarchy).
Good examples.
However, books by popular evolutionists such as Dawkins and Gould are jam packed with philosophy, not testable theories. These beetles can fly because it must have helped them survive. These beetles can't fly, because perhaps flying beetles got blown out into the ocean. If the theories explain everything, then they explain nothing. Darwin at least clearly laid out the criteria for falsification in his works.
Obviously no one else is reading this thread, or else we started getting off-topic mods.:-)
> A Big Crunch is not needed to apply the anthropic principle. There are other > ways to get many universes.
You're right. By "stretching their arrow of time to infinity" I should have said "making sure they could draw from a space where every permutation is expressed".
> a lack of a scientific theory does not make, shall we say, certain non-scientific > alternatives themselves any more plausible. That is the false dichotomy fallacy.
Did I post a "a certain non-scientific alternative"?
What *is* non-scientific is any theory that does not have a built-in means of falsifiability. Without falsifiability, it cannot be tested or repeated, and it is not science. (It might be true, but it is not science.) Most people accept "the fact" of evolution, even if the mechanisms are in question because it is a chosen belief position, and they further believe that all the difficulties will be worked out sometime in the future.
A related belief system, the anthropic principle-based belief system, generally takes the form of "something much like what I believe with respect to cosmology and evolution must be true, because we're here aren't we?". This is philosophy only, and a far cry from science.
> Wrong thread. Evolution is a theory of biological speciation. It has nothing to do > with astrophysics and cosmology.
I understand your point. However, cosmology and evolution are inseparable, at least in the second-source paperback science books that the masses read on airplanes. They also are quite similar in that out of all we hold to be science, they are the only two branches in which their respective musings are rarely falsifiable, and therefore not useful for formulating testable predictions. This is why they're plagued with 20/20 hindsight (and tautological) explanations, generally reducing to the form "this theory or one like it must be true, because you can see what we have today".
So much from the bang-crunch anthropic principle (roughly stated: "if the universe has bang-crunched forever, then of course at some point the conditions were right for us to come into being so that we could sit around and ponder how unlikely we are") that was so popular in the writings of Paul Davies, Hawking, etc. Evolutionists will have to come up with some other way of stretching their arrow of time to infinity.
Or how about this gem: "Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused. Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women?" - Martin Luther
Gutmann writes "cryptographers don't work on things that implementors need because it's not cool, and implementors don't use what cryptographers design because it's not useful or sufficiently aligned with real-world considerations to be practical."
Last decade's crypto research tends not to be used, not because the research is not applicable or practical to the company/government/end user, but because it doesn't fit well into any cryptography business model. Threshold cryptography schemes (key splitting), zero knowledge proofs, identity based encryption, etc. are very useful, but it is difficult to make $$$ developing any of these. And if it made $$$, cryptographers would work on it, even if "it's not cool".
Many scale free distributions in user patterns have already been discovered (i.e. web pages against user visits -- a few popular sites like Amazon and Ebay, but lots of mediocre web sites like mine). You generally get a scale free distribution of transactions anytime people interact with one another in a way that they feel is advantageous (preferential).
Even more interesting is when web usage becomes content becomes web usages becomes... etc. Such as Amazon's "Customers who bought this book also bought", or when Google's page rank become self reinforcing over time.
(As long as we're off topic...) Its uncanny how often slashdot get pulled towards its hacking / Doctor Who / Commodore 64 center-of-gravity. We seem to want to recast everything in terms of high school nostalgia. I suspect this puts the typical poster in his/her 30's.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Burn the haystack
2) Get out a metal detector and find the needle.
This reduces the problem from NP to P complexity.
While Mr. Mehat states this as a criticism, I going to come out saying that this is a strength. SOAP is very light weight considering its alternatives. In-so-far as you can serialize objects to W3C Schema primitive types, you can avoid the difficulties of complex marshaling one incurs with other distribute service mechanisms (the stubs/skeletons of CORBA, etc.). The W3C Schema types are a quick and easy standard that are independent of choice of language, operating system, environment, etc.
Yeah, but do you remember the coordinates in Harkyn's Castle where that happended? :-)
Archon (midi)
Archon II (mp3)
Check out reviews of LOTS of cryptography books here -- most with an associated set of prerequisite book reading, math, and computer language skills.
Crypto-math often implies discrete math (as opposed to continuous mathematics, like Calculus). So if by "higher level mathematics" you mean math that is traditionally taught after calculus, but is not necessarily calculus dependent, then you're probably talking about set theory, group theory, number theory, complexity theory, information theory, etc. The following are books that you can teach yourself from, that don't demand graduate level backgrounds in mathematics:
1) A nice introduction to Group Theory is:
"A First Course in Abstract Algebra" 6th Edition, by Joyhn B. Fraleigh
2) A much more fun but slightly more difficult introduction to Group and Set Theory is:
"Adventures in Group Theory" by David Joyner. The 2nd edition is not quite out yet, so you'll have to make sure to check his errata web page, as there are lots of bugs (I sent in most of them).
3) For number theory, I recommend:
"Number Theory in Science and Communication" 3rd Edition, by M. R. Schroeder
The little calculus that there is in this book can be skipped without missing too much.
4) For Information Theory, try:
"Introduction to Coding and Information Theory", by Steven Roman
Happy reading.
I don't know, but I'll give it a shot: If your emphasis is on pure crypto (cryptanalysis, algorithm design, etc.) I'd definitely go with the more mathematical route. But if you're a software engineer, and want to find secure ways of using existing cryptography in your systems and protocols, I'd go with the applied statistics. The later is easier, pays better, and doesn't require post-graduate work.
Here's a paper that compares (in the context of wireless networks) DSDV-SQ, TORA, DSR, and AODV-LL protocols for how well they make use of shortest paths, number of packets successfully delievered, ability to deal with dropped nodes/connections, and routing overhead (as either packets or bytes).
It may not be enough, but I perfer to believe that cryptography study should begin with books.
Here are 81 cryptography books I've reviewed.
With most I've included an associated set of prerequisite book reading, math, and computer language skills necessary to understand the book. Hopefully this will help the beginner hit the ground running, and the more experienced should discover a few hard-to-find books to start tracking down for their personal collections.
The Adventures of Baron Munchausen is a great film (get it on DVD). However, it was the second largest money losing film from 1980 to 1991 (according to "The Book of Lists the '90s Edition").
Directed by Terry Gilliam, starring Eric Idle, Uma Thurman, and Robin Williams (except he didn't want to be named in the credits).
For great M.U.L.E. theme remixes, check out the MP3 collection at:
http://www.eidolons-inn.de/mule/muledown.htm
They even have an all vocal arrangement: http://eidolon.dnsalias.net/mulefiles/MayBeBop_Mul e.zip
They always supported legalism with (often Biblical) appeals to morality. Just like the Pharisees once did, but without all the diligent study. Why lead a church body when you can simply control it?
Iron does sharpen iron, until they start making paper contracts governing how it should be conducted (I kid you not). The software (while good in-and-of itself) could be a natural extension of their legalism. It would start with the staff, then trickle down through the hierarchy with lots of judgmentalism towards anyone who didn't elevate themselves to that standard of accountability.
I'll let you have the last word on this thread.
I understand and respect of the purposes of this software. However, I fear my old church would love to make installing it mandatory.
I can hear it now: "If you don't have a problem with pornography, then you should have no problem installing this accountability software if only to challenge others and to take a clear stand".
Who needs grace when you have legalism -- especially automated-legalism.
There will come a point when this /. thread no longer allows new replies. When that happens, if you still inclined to further enlighten me, my address is david@youdzone.com . (I assume yours is nurban@crib.corepower.com .)
>> By "evolution as a means of origins" I was trying to avoid the term "macroevolution", since you seem to get hung up on it.
>You didn't answer my question.
Your question was "What do you mean 'evolution as a means of origins'?". And my answer was macroevolution (see above).
Ok, to get past this impasse we apparently need some definitions of macro and micro evolution. Here's some sample definitions take from http://www.cyber.vt.edu/geol3604/macro1.pdf
---------------(start of copy/paste)---------------
Microevolution - evolutionary processes (e.g., neodarwinian evolution) that operate at the level of individual organisms
Examples of microevolutionary processes:
* natural selection
* genetic drift
Macroevolution - evolutionary processes that operate above species level. Large-scale, long-term evolutionary processes and patterns
Examples of macroevolutionary processes:
* origins of new body plans
* changes in frequency of particular phenotypic characters across many groups or the entire biosphere
* changes in rates of speciations across groups and through time
Is macroevolution decoupled from microevolution?
1. All macroevolutionary patterns can be explained by microevolutionary processes (the reductionistic neodarwinian view)
2. Macroevolutionary patterns cannot be explained as a cumulative sum of microevolutionary processes. Thus, there are unique macroevolutionary rules and processes
---------------(end of copy/paste)---------------
The serious hand waving kicks in when the reductionistic neodarwinian view postulates that macroevolution is nothing more than lots of microevolution.
>> If/when evidence is found that poses problems for any of the criteria you listed, you
>> and I both know that the evolutionist community will still stay committed to the
>> "fact" of evolution, and will simply insert placeholders for future explanations to
>> come along that will hopefully fit the observables. The only self-correction that
>> evolution allows is one that perpetuates it.
> If evidence comes out against the mechanisms
> and history of evolution, then the scientific community will revise or discard
> the existing theory of evolution.
Come on. They may throw out a particular theory, but they would never discard the position that some purely naturalistic history of evolution accounts for the presence of humans, no matter how non-conformant any choice of mechanisms were to observables. It is simply too useful as a explanatory placeholder for keeping the proverbial divine foot from entering the door.
>> Heh heh. In other words, you would only entertain extra-natural ideas if
>> illustrated by purely natural means. Is it more of a "if I can't test it, it doesn't
>> exist", or "if I can't test it, it doesn't matter"?
> I didn't say anything about "natural means". I said that if I'm going to entertain
> a supernatural explanation, I need evidence FOR a supernatural phenomenon.
This means you'd have to create a natural test methodology for supernatural evidence. Framed that way, no evidence would ever match your criteria. So once again, do you think extra-natural doesn't exist, or that it doesn't matter?
> Now, specific claims of how a supernatural agent may have accomplished something
> could in principle be falsifiable, but such specific proposals -- such as most forms
> of "scientific" creationism -- tend to get shot down pretty quick.
Theology works much differently than science. It deals with the extra-natural, and therefore (I believe) it should not be used to create *specific scientific* explanations (even if that's what it would take to be falsifiable via standard scientific inquiry). Of course, we both seem to agree that nothing can ultimately be proven. A love for one's spouse (don't forget Valentine's day today) or enjoyment of music doesn't have to be proven to have meaning and relevance, or to even be at the core of one's beliefs and decision making.
That being said, I personally find the pre-commitment to naturalism to be a gross oversimplification. It does a lousy job at addressing the irreducible complexities of what we observe around us, and has no chance of explaining where its naturalistic laws come from. If the naturalist laws are its axioms, and such axioms fall outside of naturalism's explanatory power (since naturalism is based upon them), then those laws are by definition extra-natural (in that they didn't result from naturalistic processes). It is just a game of "let's see how far we can go when restricting ourselves to only naturalistic explanations". Conversely, those who believe in the extra-natural embrace extra-natural first causes, as incomprehensible as they might be.
> What do you mean "evolution as a means of origins"? I hope you're not
> confusing evolution with abiogenesis, like you were with cosmology.
By "evolution as a means of origins" I was trying to avoid the term "macroevolution", since you seem to get hung up on it. By the way, put "macroevolution" as your term in an Amazon book search, and none of the books returned are religious. It is a term and distinction created by the evolutionist community (at least as old as the 1970's when Stanley first proposed alternatives to "Punk Eek", but let's not get sidetracked by that).
> Anyway, what would cause problems for evolution? Most of the easy ways to
> kill evolution have already been examined and found not to do so.. but... hmm..
> finding that genotypic similarities among descendents often don't produce similar
> phenotypic similarities... if the nested hierarchies had major discrepancies in
> ordering via different criteria (e.g. genetic code vs. morphology)... finding that
> organisms appear in the fossil record at times inconsistent with their positions
> in the nested hierarchy (e.g. finding that they appear simultaneously or in
> reverse order when they're supposed to appear in a certain order), evidence
> that the fossil record is much younger than we think... evidence that traits
> in transitional organisms would have been fatal to the species (tough one,
> since fitness depends on the environment)... evidence for biochemistries
> completely unrelated to existing life (well, that would be trouble for just the
> common-descent part of evolution)...
If/when evidence is found that poses problems for any of the criteria you listed, you and I both know that the evolutionist community will still stay committed to the "fact" of evolution, and will simply insert placeholders for future explanations to come along that will hopefully fit the observables. The only self-correction that evolution allows is one that perpetuates it.
>> I'd like to hear your opinion on what you think chiefly contributes to one's belief
>> in purely naturalistic explanations of origins as opposed to belief in
>> extra-naturalistic origins.
> Even if there were no naturalistic explanations of origins at all, I would not entertain
> supernaturalistic explanations at all unless there was something that I considered
> positive evidence in favor of supernaturalism. Once upon a time, there was no
> naturalistic explanation for the phenomenon of thunderstorms, but in my opinion
> that does not constitute evidence in favor of the theory that thunderstorms are a
> battle of the gods. Actually seeing some guys up there duking it out might, though.
Heh heh. In other words, you would only entertain extra-natural ideas if illustrated by purely natural means. Is it more of a "if I can't test it, it doesn't exist", or "if I can't test it, it doesn't matter"?
I can't think of a type of extra-natural phenomena that people wouldn't merely craft naturalist explanations for. Can you? And the explanations wouldn't have to be plausible, because the hope is always that they'll be replaced by something better in time.
> You're confused. "Macroevolution" refers to a creatoinist strawman which
> claims there is some qualitative difference between speciation and lots of
> speciation over a long time (fish turning into humans or whatever).
I don't believe the concept of macro-evolution to be a strawman. I'm tempted to bring up analogies such as the computer code I write only operates within the constraints that I set for it and such, but I think that line of reasoning would take too long to develop.
Suffice to say, it is a huge jump from bacteria becoming resistant to penicillin, and bacteria evolving into humans. Model it as whatever information-theoretic measure you like (as Kolmogorov complexities perhaps?), and you'll see why I think that simply dismissing it as a continuum that follows from universally agreed upon micro-evolution observables constitutes optimistic hand waving in the extreme. Where you see my strawman, I see your slippery slope.
> Evolutionary biologists are often accused of creating "just-so" stories, as
> you claim above. However, in existing species, we can actually go and
> see in the field which traits are selected for. This gives us some basis for
> extrapolation to earlier species. However, I think you are missing the
> point. The evidence for evolutionary theory does not depend on finding
> explanations for why certain adaptations occurred. It depends on establishing
> links between organisms over time (e.g. genetic and morphological
> similarities and their divergences).
So that we're not doomed to "just-so" stories, what criteria should bring an evolutionist to consider that the basics of evolution (as a means of origins) are in question? (The criteria is always clear for the so called "hard" sciences, which is why we can put confidence in them.)
Also, you seem very qualified to represent the evolutionist's position. This being the case, I'd like to hear your opinion on what you think chiefly contributes to one's belief in purely naturalistic explanations of origins as opposed to belief in extra-naturalistic origins.
>> Most people accept "the fact" of evolution, even if the mechanisms are
:-)
>> in question because it is a chosen belief position, and they further believe
>> that all the difficulties will be worked out sometime in the future.
> Evolution is a fact, in that speciation and natural selection have been directly
> observed in nature. There is a theory of evolution describing the details of how
> evolution happens, not all of which is fully understood.
I was referring to macro-evolution, not micro-evolution. No one should have a problem with micro-evolution, as it is directly observed. By macro-evolution I referring to the position that purposeless thoughtless processes solely account for our origins.
> "The mechanisms of evolution are in question because it is a chosen belief position?"
> What is that supposed to mean? You could equally well say the same thing about
> the theory that things fall due to gravity. Evolution is a theory, just like gravity or any
> other theory in science. It has evidence in its support; it can't be proven, but neither
> can any other theory. There is no reason to single out evolution.
I wasn't trying to indicate that evolution is in question because it is a belief system. On the contrary, everything is an unprovable belief system, and that's ok. The best you can do in any domain is simply reduce it to the smallest set of axioms that yield the maximum set of expressiveness and utility. Sometimes you can disprove it, with respect to a more accepted (believed) set of axioms (which are hopefully based in observables). When discussing origins, most limit themselves to purely naturalistic explanations (which makes assumptions about how you are allowed to explain things, and is ultimately based upon only what we currently know, but that's another thread).
I was saying that the *mechanisms* of macro-evolution are questionable (not because it is a belief system). Hopefully you'll agree that there is far too much hand waving and complexity avoidance to engender the level of trust and acceptance such theories have enjoyed. Theories are free to be wacky, but when taught in school, they are presented as unchallengeable fact by teachers who simply read straight from their curriculum.
> More nonsense. Big Bang cosmology makes very many concrete, falsifiable
> predictions (CMBR, Hubble redshift, light-element nucleosynthesis ratios, patterns
> of structure formation, etc. etc.) Evolution does too (e.g. twin nested hierarchy).
Good examples.
However, books by popular evolutionists such as Dawkins and Gould are jam packed with philosophy, not testable theories. These beetles can fly because it must have helped them survive. These beetles can't fly, because perhaps flying beetles got blown out into the ocean. If the theories explain everything, then they explain nothing. Darwin at least clearly laid out the criteria for falsification in his works.
Obviously no one else is reading this thread, or else we started getting off-topic mods.
> A Big Crunch is not needed to apply the anthropic principle. There are other
> ways to get many universes.
You're right. By "stretching their arrow of time to infinity" I should have said "making sure they could draw from a space where every permutation is expressed".
> a lack of a scientific theory does not make, shall we say, certain non-scientific
> alternatives themselves any more plausible. That is the false dichotomy fallacy.
Did I post a "a certain non-scientific alternative"?
What *is* non-scientific is any theory that does not have a built-in means of falsifiability. Without falsifiability, it cannot be tested or repeated, and it is not science. (It might be true, but it is not science.) Most people accept "the fact" of evolution, even if the mechanisms are in question because it is a chosen belief position, and they further believe that all the difficulties will be worked out sometime in the future.
A related belief system, the anthropic principle-based belief system, generally takes the form of "something much like what I believe with respect to cosmology and evolution must be true, because we're here aren't we?". This is philosophy only, and a far cry from science.
> Wrong thread. Evolution is a theory of biological speciation. It has nothing to do
> with astrophysics and cosmology.
I understand your point. However, cosmology and evolution are inseparable, at least in the second-source paperback science books that the masses read on airplanes. They also are quite similar in that out of all we hold to be science, they are the only two branches in which their respective musings are rarely falsifiable, and therefore not useful for formulating testable predictions. This is why they're plagued with 20/20 hindsight (and tautological) explanations, generally reducing to the form "this theory or one like it must be true, because you can see what we have today".
So much from the bang-crunch anthropic principle (roughly stated: "if the universe has bang-crunched forever, then of course at some point the conditions were right for us to come into being so that we could sit around and ponder how unlikely we are") that was so popular in the writings of Paul Davies, Hawking, etc. Evolutionists will have to come up with some other way of stretching their arrow of time to infinity.
>Big difference between Beer and Wine
Sure is. Wine contains *far* more alcohol.
Or how about this gem:
"Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused. Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women?" - Martin Luther
Gutmann writes "cryptographers don't work on things that implementors need because it's not cool, and implementors don't use what cryptographers design because it's not useful or sufficiently aligned with real-world considerations to be practical."
Last decade's crypto research tends not to be used, not because the research is not applicable or practical to the company/government/end user, but because it doesn't fit well into any cryptography business model. Threshold cryptography schemes (key splitting), zero knowledge proofs, identity based encryption, etc. are very useful, but it is difficult to make $$$ developing any of these. And if it made $$$, cryptographers would work on it, even if "it's not cool".
Many scale free distributions in user patterns have already been discovered (i.e. web pages against user visits -- a few popular sites like Amazon and Ebay, but lots of mediocre web sites like mine). You generally get a scale free distribution of transactions anytime people interact with one another in a way that they feel is advantageous (preferential). Even more interesting is when web usage becomes content becomes web usages becomes... etc. Such as Amazon's "Customers who bought this book also bought", or when Google's page rank become self reinforcing over time.
(As long as we're off topic...) Its uncanny how often slashdot get pulled towards its hacking / Doctor Who / Commodore 64 center-of-gravity. We seem to want to recast everything in terms of high school nostalgia. I suspect this puts the typical poster in his/her 30's.