Your thinking the difference from 480i to 1080p is the same as going from 192k mp3 to 256k mp3's. It's actually more like goign from a 96k sample to a 192k sample. It's really noticeable. But it's only worth it if you enjoy spectacles because smaller scale fare like Borat is equally good in 256k You tube video to 1080p Blu-ray.
My cable company now offers 50 channels of HD. I never watch SD any more. DirectTV has a new bird in testing that will supposedly support 100 HDTV channels.
The excuse that there isn't enough HD programming is so last year.
Want to know a secret? about 1/2 of your programming is non - HD on those channels. shhhh... don't tell the early adopters.
Bluray and HD-DVD have virtually identical technologies in almost all ways except data density and software. The scratch proof coating is actually pretty scratch proof on both. The only difference is in HD DVD it's optional. So really cheap HD-DVD's will be as bad as really cheap DVD's while Blu-ray has to be coated if they want to stamp it bluray.
I've noticed at all the rip you off outlets (Visions) HD-DVD movies tend to be more expensive then blurays ones for exactly the same movies. I wonder why? 300 was $29.95 cnd for blue ray but $39.95 for HD-DVD at visions electronics.
Borat I could watch in any format but youtube version of 300 would entirely defeat the point of the movies. I have a 3.0 mbit connection that I often max but I won't wait for the 3-6 gig download of the movies. Maybe if 60 mbit becomes the standard it'd be an idea but having worked at a telco I can say thats not in scope for the foreseeable future. Spectacles demand visual quality. That why my bank is $1799 lighter for a 42" LCD HDTV and $700 dollars lighter from a PS3.
I believe they could of had a lot more movies out. It's not that hard to code up a simple menu and rescan the film. But games, games are always thin in the first year. Look at the guy beating the ps3 to death (i own both so it's a big meh for me.) The a list games are promised for later while the quick thrown together mini game collections are here and now and boring. Even the PS3's non ass kicking competitor was pretty thin the first years with rampant complaints of "this looks just like the xbox/ps2 version."
Yes, it does have to be WotC that rewrites the rules. Trust me. Fan-based rule rewrites have happened, many a time, and they have never caught on. They don't have that "Wizards" seal-of-approval. They're not often play-tested, nor made by developers with years of experience. Go around on the Wizards boards sometime and try and find me a serious fan retooling that is used by more than a small handful of people. You won't. Like it or not, the people that play D&D shell out their money for a book of rules. They could go to the fans, but for some reason they feel that what Wizards provides is worth spending money on, while what the fans provide is to be swept under the rug. Much like how you pay money for the Harry Potter books (to give an example) but throw fanfics into the bit bucket.
Fan rewrite the rules all the time to fit their group. demi-human Level limits in 2nd edition were overly punishing depending on the campaigned so just implement a x1.5 x2.0 x3.0 rule for higher levels to adjust for all the free "perks" they get. etc...
I think the key contention is that you think the philosophy of science steps on other other philosophies toes. Strictly speaking it does not. No part in evolution specifies the existence or non existence of a creator. The only problem is ID as a theory isn't scientific. You can feel free to discuss it in regard to metaphysics religion etc.. but has no place in science.
The philosophy does not claim to have any answer or any interests in a creator although the under lying assumption is that the simplest case without a need for a divine external agent. This in itself does not say there is or is not only that we assume if there is one he set in motion and does not violate natural laws to make thing happen.
Individuals in the science camp attack individuals int he "there is a god" camp because the assumption that a divine entity interferes would make science useless. As anything we don't know would be attributed to the divine which isn't useful (god of the gaps as you are actually describing him. you attribute him to quantum level probability which is that fuzzy area where the lay men know nothing. What happens if we find out the hidden variable theory was right and it's all deterministic right Really want to peg a faith on that?) The only way any to have constructive research is to assume either there is no god or if there is a god he does things hands off.
As far as we can see the universe on almost all scales is deterministic while on scales smaller then atoms they behave counter intuitively in a probabilistic way how ever the word "random" is mis used. It describes a specific sets of distributions an not "anything you can imagine". I strongly recommend you take some science course in physics before you start spouting off about it. You vehement insistence of the equality of ID and Science in generally can only be summed up as ignorant. You can assume there is no god or there is a god but you cannot assume he takes a hand one approach changing the rules as he sees fit without invalidating all science. I am not a positivist. There are assumption int he philosophy and I'm agnostic about god. I am aware science cannot answer that question no matter how hard Dawkins or ID'ists wish it can.
It isn't parts of genetic theory that aren't falsifiable, it's parts of quantum physics that aren't falsifiable. The physics just happens to be the cause of the only difference between Evolution and Intelligent Design.
All theories in science are requires to be falsifiable or they are not scientific theories. For instance string theory is on the bubble since it is impossible to find a situation it does not apply to by changing the variables around. The scientific nature of string theory is a hot topic at the moment. But generally General relativity, sub atomic particle theory, etc.. are all falsifiable.That is if any of their predictions are not true it must be revised. You don't seem to grasp this that ALL SCIENTIFIC THEORIES MUST BE FALSIFIABLE. Quantum physics is no exception. If light could not propagate through a vacuum this would falsify the theories about photons. If Electrons could be found at any orbital that would falsify the current atomic model.
Not when you're talking about the difference between Evolution and Intelligent Design, both of which REQUIRE that those parts be both falsifiable and true.
Evolution is falsifiable, because it makes predictions. what part of ID is?
It isn't the existence of the mutations that is the problem. It's the existence of the randomness that is the problem. You see, random events and events in a plan that is beyond human understanding are completely indistinguishable from one another.
Mutations are not random. The mechanism is deterministic but with such a huge number of variables that it is useful to label it "random" just as a dice roll is deterministic but it's mathematically useful to classify it as a random event due to the number of variables. Apparently yourself and the GP don't understand this.
The mutations happening have nothing to do with the purposefulness of the mutations
Mutations are simple changes int he code. Most of them are either nonsensical or fatal. A few change your phenotype without killing you and depending on the situation may be beneficial. No design or purpose but there is a process of selection. If there was no mutation it would falsify the prediction of mutations in modern evolutionary theory.
Yes, but the conclusions from those theories are not.
Eh? The purpose of the theories is to model and explain behaviors. Conclusions? ie there is no god? Science has no interest in this since God is more of a question to do with other branches of philosophy. If you falsify a scientific theory you bring all of it's predictions and implications into question.
Thus taking it out of the realm of biology, and squarely in the realm of quantum physics.
Quantum physics is not the "what the $$##" type of stuff. It's mostly to do with sub atomic behavior. It become deterministic on the atomic level. You really need some remedial Science courses. Start with gr 9 physics. IT seems thats where you left off.
And this would differ from a divine plan unknowable to the researchers exactly how?
I don't know what your point is, but my original response was to Address the GP's assertion that parts of genetic theory were not falsifiable. Generally disproving any of the implications of Evolution and the related theories would then falsify those parts. One of them is the occurrence of random mutations (point mutations, frame shift, substitution etc..). If you found mutations didn't happen then indeed it would refute parts of evolution. All scientific theories are falsifiable by design and definition. The GP did not think so and hung this assertion on his idea of the word "random".
Those 150km are still less dense as the most areas in the states (we do have 1/6 the people). The closest minor city to me is 150km away the next largest is 300 km. Most states are a 150 from each other let alone major cities. The comparison is very apt.
You really think $1,000 per capita could do that? Heck, the contractor would charge that much just to bury the last 50 feet to your house.
there is a difference between me paying for a 6ft deep 100m trench and the local telecom doing the same. For instance I'd have to pay $50-$150 an hour for the trenching and also pay for the cable at retail and various other things. In the end it'd cost about $2000 CND - $5000 CND depending on the market to get 100m done. Now a telecom doesn't have to pay retail. The labor is not $50-$150 it's closer to $35/h. The wire is not $2 per meter but $10 per hundred meter. And the equipment costs are lessened as well since they own and maintain it. They may also be able to run fiber without having to trench as well so 1000$ per capita might just about do it for major urban areas. For the country, hell no. Even wholesale it's expensive to do these things.
If the money was not being spent on the war it will have been spent on something else, certainly not the internet backbone.
Actually it just wouldn't have been spent. It's money you don't have but now owe to various creditors. If you didn't step into that obvious PR/military/humanitarian/moral quagmire you'd likely just have lower national debt and a high investor confidence. Perhaps you'd have a dollar that didn't drop 40% of it's relative value in 8 years.
Compare Canada to the US then. You find in urban areas Canada is as good or better at the same price or cheaper for all service found in the US. Surely the creators of the internet can do better then their poor cousins in a much lower density and bigger country.
Out west in AB/BC it's slightly better. In MB and SK it's much better because the local telcos are province owned. Over here it's about $45.95 for a 6mbit connection with TELUS or $50.95 for Shaws 10mbit service. Although both services depend on area and are both urban areas only. Both also have some variance at how much and have upper limits. Also the same old ADSL vs Cable limitations apply. From experience it seems shaw tends to be more draconian about their caps then TELUS. TELUS is 60 gb and Shaw is 100gb.
Hi, I really enjoyed the piece and the other articles on intuitor. A lot of things in movies bother me and I guess the more you know the more it annoys you. I think you should do a piece about "nerd" characters spouting off probabilities in cases where such things have no place or the habit of every nuclear power plant being a nuclear bomb as well.
You are wrong in your assertion that we have the understanding necessary to predict mutations. Assuming that the mechanism of heredity is DNA, mutations result from the quantum-mechanical interactions of electrons. Quantum mechanics relies on probability, as it can not be predicted with certainty. Indeed, quantum mechanical theory states that the interactions of electrons are random and probabilistically determined.
My assertion is that the hypothesis that anything occurs at random (i.e. quantum mechanics) can not be proven false. This is because a truly random process could have any result, therefore no test result can disprove the hypothesis that the process occurs at random.
DNA is the hereditary material beyond most reasonable doubt for all organisms on earth that don't use RNA as the primary material. It is deterministic as you can force certain mutation at certain places irregardless of electrons and quantum theory because at the level we're speaking about those quantum influences hold little to no sway. We call it random mutation only because it does not behave in a predictable way in nature, it is also not truly random there. Single point mutations on expressed protein segments that are non fatal are much more likely then sequence insertion into a untranscribed structural twist in the DNA. Any implication that it's truly random is wrong since a large portion of the genome are very resistant to mutation while other parts are not. And theories that include random events are always falsifiable if they are scientific or they aren't scientific by definition.
For instance take the theory of gravity. It in fact also has a quantum component but is falsifiable simple but creating a case where it's predictive power fails. For instance having a object of low mass and density being a immense gravity well. If such an object exists we must re-evaluate gravity as a theory. Similarly evolution would be falsifiable if you had a dog that gave birth naturally to a whale. IF you think that case if ridiculous it simply means evolution is a pretty strong theory that falsifying it leads to very counter intuitive situations. You do know what falsifiable means? it means one of the implications of the theory is proven to be wrong. Thus we must either revise or scrap the theory.
You do realize I'm growing irritated at the level of ignorance you display. Your level of understanding of scientific theory in general is below high school for a Canadian. Perhaps where ever you grew up they teach less and teach it wrong but there are so many dumb ideas in your head that I sincerely hope you do not breed. You seem to be a mix of dumb fundamentalist and dumb new age retard.
There is too much of accusing the other side of "not understanding". That is not polite and not usable information. Please, let's ends such Ad Hominem attacks. (I am not the "parent" poster, by the way.)
I recognize you are not. My post does not imply you are.
"It is theoretically possible for a pattern that appears to be ordered to arise from a "random" process, therefore is not possible to prove any process is not random. If you are going hold falsify-ability in such high regard to the process of formulating a scientific hypothesis, you must accept that neither random mutation nor quantum mechanics can be taught as "science" either."
Does it seem like he has any understanding of scientific fundamentals or random number theory in general? Those 2 sentence are also leaning heavily on
A if c then b thus b
The randomness of random mutation is meaningless in regards to it's falsifiability. He can't put together a coherent argument and he doesn't understand the subjects he is speaking about. I find few other words to label him other then either "fool" or "deviously evil Demagogue."
Only to a point. We call something "random" if *we* cannot identify a pattern in it. That does not necessarily mean there is not a pattern.
Random is an idea. Generally "random" events aren't idiosyncratic just for the sake of it. Often random systems are just systems with so many variables we cannot truly compute it and it follows a certain distribution. Thus we find it convenient to label it random. The parents problem with it is he believes random is the weakness of science he can attack because he neither understand science nor randomness.
No it is a wrong split as the mechanism is exactly the same. We even see huge phenotypic changes within species in human time scales (witness experiments with fruit flies or dog breeding). The split is entirely political/religious in nature and not scientific. If you think evolution was not the cause of the diversity in the world then you are free to offer your own scientific theory with appropriate support. Thus far no credible alternative exists and the split of evolution into micro/macro is entirely a political/religious construct.
I didn't day that is is not possible to prove that anything is random, I said that is impossible to prove that anything is not random. This is because a seemingly ordered pattern pattern could theoretically arise from a random (unpredictable) process.
For example, take a series of results from a binomial random variable. Suppose you have a process that produces ones and zeros, you may hypothesize that it is a binomial random variable. First you test it and you get 1, you test it again and you get 0, the series continues 10101010101010101. . . Well, you can calculate the probability that such a seemingly ordered series would arise from a binomial random variable, but that probability would never be zero, no matter how many trials you conducted. You could never disprove your hypothesis of randomness (though you could gather evidence against it).
In other words, it is impossible to prove that the process you are observing is not random. Any series of numbers, and set of data, any set of observations could theoretically result from a random process.
This is also wrong. It is possible to identify how random something through various mathematic measures. Given enough samples we can be mathematically be certain something is very random or is less random. Off course in the context you are using that argument it is also wrong, as mutations are only "random" as in hard to predict the exact outcome. The mechanism that causes them are deterministic but with such a vast number of variables that it mathematically behaves like a random system for most practical purposes.
It is theoretically possible for a pattern that appears to be ordered to arise from a "random" process, therefore is not possible to prove any process is not random.
A - It is possible to get a seemingly ordered pattern out of random noise
B- Not possible to prove anything is random
A does not imply B.
What is your argument? Big words and confused structure, do not a valid argument make. If you mean we cannot be sure anything is random we have a whole branch of mathematics that can tell us how random something is. However you place much too much emphasis on random within the framework of the theory. A random mutation means only that the exact sequence that was changed is not always the same. Some sequence are more prone to change then others because of the structure of DNA, heavily coiled parts do not mutate or express as much as exposed parts. Mutations aren't' random in that sense. Mutations occur at various spots due to any number of a million things and some causes cause certain mutations much more often then others. Each instance of mutation has 1 or more causes, to 1 or more units of the genome. These have wildly varied effects on the expressed phenotype.
For quantum mechanics you can falsify randomness there. If you can find any way to predetermine the certain "random" events then the events aren't' random. thus it's falsifiable. How can you falsify god? You can't design any experiment to have it fail if god does not exist. Unless you narrow down what god is. For instance if I define god to be a 90ft tall human with a red beard and a stubborn case of hemorrhoids an experiment to falsify this is to survey all human beings for one that matches. If I cannot then there exists no god. But a omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent who can't be measured is definitely not falsifiable and any theries related to such a being is obviously similarly unscientific and unfalsifiable.
Where on earth did you get the idea that any parts of quantum theory or any parts of evolution are no predictive and falsifiable?
Slashdot Mirror
Your thinking the difference from 480i to 1080p is the same as going from 192k mp3 to 256k mp3's. It's actually more like goign from a 96k sample to a 192k sample. It's really noticeable. But it's only worth it if you enjoy spectacles because smaller scale fare like Borat is equally good in 256k You tube video to 1080p Blu-ray.
Set A of EA gamers
Set B of Mac Gamers
intersection of set A and Set B = 3 frat boys who grew up to be graphic artists.
I'm sure all three of them will be very disappointed.
My cable company now offers 50 channels of HD. I never watch SD any more. DirectTV has a new bird in testing that will supposedly support 100 HDTV channels.
The excuse that there isn't enough HD programming is so last year.
Want to know a secret? about 1/2 of your programming is non - HD on those channels. shhhh... don't tell the early adopters.
Bluray and HD-DVD have virtually identical technologies in almost all ways except data density and software. The scratch proof coating is actually pretty scratch proof on both. The only difference is in HD DVD it's optional. So really cheap HD-DVD's will be as bad as really cheap DVD's while Blu-ray has to be coated if they want to stamp it bluray.
I've noticed at all the rip you off outlets (Visions) HD-DVD movies tend to be more expensive then blurays ones for exactly the same movies. I wonder why? 300 was $29.95 cnd for blue ray but $39.95 for HD-DVD at visions electronics.
Borat I could watch in any format but youtube version of 300 would entirely defeat the point of the movies. I have a 3.0 mbit connection that I often max but I won't wait for the 3-6 gig download of the movies. Maybe if 60 mbit becomes the standard it'd be an idea but having worked at a telco I can say thats not in scope for the foreseeable future. Spectacles demand visual quality. That why my bank is $1799 lighter for a 42" LCD HDTV and $700 dollars lighter from a PS3.
I believe they could of had a lot more movies out. It's not that hard to code up a simple menu and rescan the film. But games, games are always thin in the first year. Look at the guy beating the ps3 to death (i own both so it's a big meh for me.) The a list games are promised for later while the quick thrown together mini game collections are here and now and boring. Even the PS3's non ass kicking competitor was pretty thin the first years with rampant complaints of "this looks just like the xbox/ps2 version."
Yes, it does have to be WotC that rewrites the rules. Trust me. Fan-based rule rewrites have happened, many a time, and they have never caught on. They don't have that "Wizards" seal-of-approval. They're not often play-tested, nor made by developers with years of experience. Go around on the Wizards boards sometime and try and find me a serious fan retooling that is used by more than a small handful of people. You won't. Like it or not, the people that play D&D shell out their money for a book of rules. They could go to the fans, but for some reason they feel that what Wizards provides is worth spending money on, while what the fans provide is to be swept under the rug. Much like how you pay money for the Harry Potter books (to give an example) but throw fanfics into the bit bucket.
Fan rewrite the rules all the time to fit their group. demi-human Level limits in 2nd edition were overly punishing depending on the campaigned so just implement a x1.5 x2.0 x3.0 rule for higher levels to adjust for all the free "perks" they get. etc...
Which would make Paranoia impossible to port to a MMORPG. Actually, even a single player version of Paranoia is impossible.
About CoT, I tried the game. It sucked. Really. There is no way to port that successfully.
The point is that anything but fantasia (which AD&D is) is nearly impossible to port.
What.. you mean ultima online wasn't base doff of paranoia?
I think the key contention is that you think the philosophy of science steps on other other philosophies toes. Strictly speaking it does not. No part in evolution specifies the existence or non existence of a creator. The only problem is ID as a theory isn't scientific. You can feel free to discuss it in regard to metaphysics religion etc.. but has no place in science.
The philosophy does not claim to have any answer or any interests in a creator although the under lying assumption is that the simplest case without a need for a divine external agent. This in itself does not say there is or is not only that we assume if there is one he set in motion and does not violate natural laws to make thing happen.
Individuals in the science camp attack individuals int he "there is a god" camp because the assumption that a divine entity interferes would make science useless. As anything we don't know would be attributed to the divine which isn't useful (god of the gaps as you are actually describing him. you attribute him to quantum level probability which is that fuzzy area where the lay men know nothing. What happens if we find out the hidden variable theory was right and it's all deterministic right Really want to peg a faith on that?) The only way any to have constructive research is to assume either there is no god or if there is a god he does things hands off.
As far as we can see the universe on almost all scales is deterministic while on scales smaller then atoms they behave counter intuitively in a probabilistic way how ever the word "random" is mis used. It describes a specific sets of distributions an not "anything you can imagine". I strongly recommend you take some science course in physics before you start spouting off about it. You vehement insistence of the equality of ID and Science in generally can only be summed up as ignorant. You can assume there is no god or there is a god but you cannot assume he takes a hand one approach changing the rules as he sees fit without invalidating all science. I am not a positivist. There are assumption int he philosophy and I'm agnostic about god. I am aware science cannot answer that question no matter how hard Dawkins or ID'ists wish it can.
It isn't parts of genetic theory that aren't falsifiable, it's parts of quantum physics that aren't falsifiable. The physics just happens to be the cause of the only difference between Evolution and Intelligent Design.
.That is if any of their predictions are not true it must be revised. You don't seem to grasp this that ALL SCIENTIFIC THEORIES MUST BE FALSIFIABLE. Quantum physics is no exception. If light could not propagate through a vacuum this would falsify the theories about photons. If Electrons could be found at any orbital that would falsify the current atomic model.
All theories in science are requires to be falsifiable or they are not scientific theories. For instance string theory is on the bubble since it is impossible to find a situation it does not apply to by changing the variables around. The scientific nature of string theory is a hot topic at the moment. But generally General relativity, sub atomic particle theory, etc.. are all falsifiable
Not when you're talking about the difference between Evolution and Intelligent Design, both of which REQUIRE that those parts be both falsifiable and true.
Evolution is falsifiable, because it makes predictions. what part of ID is?
It isn't the existence of the mutations that is the problem. It's the existence of the randomness that is the problem. You see, random events and events in a plan that is beyond human understanding are completely indistinguishable from one another.
Mutations are not random. The mechanism is deterministic but with such a huge number of variables that it is useful to label it "random" just as a dice roll is deterministic but it's mathematically useful to classify it as a random event due to the number of variables. Apparently yourself and the GP don't understand this.
The mutations happening have nothing to do with the purposefulness of the mutations
Mutations are simple changes int he code. Most of them are either nonsensical or fatal. A few change your phenotype without killing you and depending on the situation may be beneficial. No design or purpose but there is a process of selection. If there was no mutation it would falsify the prediction of mutations in modern evolutionary theory.
Yes, but the conclusions from those theories are not.
Eh? The purpose of the theories is to model and explain behaviors. Conclusions? ie there is no god? Science has no interest in this since God is more of a question to do with other branches of philosophy. If you falsify a scientific theory you bring all of it's predictions and implications into question.
Thus taking it out of the realm of biology, and squarely in the realm of quantum physics.
Quantum physics is not the "what the $$##" type of stuff. It's mostly to do with sub atomic behavior. It become deterministic on the atomic level. You really need some remedial Science courses. Start with gr 9 physics. IT seems thats where you left off.
And this would differ from a divine plan unknowable to the researchers exactly how?
I don't know what your point is, but my original response was to Address the GP's assertion that parts of genetic theory were not falsifiable. Generally disproving any of the implications of Evolution and the related theories would then falsify those parts. One of them is the occurrence of random mutations (point mutations, frame shift, substitution etc..). If you found mutations didn't happen then indeed it would refute parts of evolution. All scientific theories are falsifiable by design and definition. The GP did not think so and hung this assertion on his idea of the word "random".
yeah I hear stories from SK ex-pats here in Alberta. I guess socialism works!
Those 150km are still less dense as the most areas in the states (we do have 1/6 the people). The closest minor city to me is 150km away the next largest is 300 km. Most states are a 150 from each other let alone major cities. The comparison is very apt.
You really think $1,000 per capita could do that? Heck, the contractor would charge that much just to bury the last 50 feet to your house.
there is a difference between me paying for a 6ft deep 100m trench and the local telecom doing the same. For instance I'd have to pay $50-$150 an hour for the trenching and also pay for the cable at retail and various other things. In the end it'd cost about $2000 CND - $5000 CND depending on the market to get 100m done. Now a telecom doesn't have to pay retail. The labor is not $50-$150 it's closer to $35/h. The wire is not $2 per meter but $10 per hundred meter. And the equipment costs are lessened as well since they own and maintain it. They may also be able to run fiber without having to trench as well so 1000$ per capita might just about do it for major urban areas. For the country, hell no. Even wholesale it's expensive to do these things.
If the money was not being spent on the war it will have been spent on something else, certainly not the internet backbone.
Actually it just wouldn't have been spent. It's money you don't have but now owe to various creditors. If you didn't step into that obvious PR/military/humanitarian/moral quagmire you'd likely just have lower national debt and a high investor confidence. Perhaps you'd have a dollar that didn't drop 40% of it's relative value in 8 years.
Compare Canada to the US then. You find in urban areas Canada is as good or better at the same price or cheaper for all service found in the US. Surely the creators of the internet can do better then their poor cousins in a much lower density and bigger country.
Out west in AB/BC it's slightly better. In MB and SK it's much better because the local telcos are province owned. Over here it's about $45.95 for a 6mbit connection with TELUS or $50.95 for Shaws 10mbit service. Although both services depend on area and are both urban areas only. Both also have some variance at how much and have upper limits. Also the same old ADSL vs Cable limitations apply. From experience it seems shaw tends to be more draconian about their caps then TELUS. TELUS is 60 gb and Shaw is 100gb.
Hi, I really enjoyed the piece and the other articles on intuitor. A lot of things in movies bother me and I guess the more you know the more it annoys you. I think you should do a piece about "nerd" characters spouting off probabilities in cases where such things have no place or the habit of every nuclear power plant being a nuclear bomb as well.
You are wrong in your assertion that we have the understanding necessary to predict mutations. Assuming that the mechanism of heredity is DNA, mutations result from the quantum-mechanical interactions of electrons. Quantum mechanics relies on probability, as it can not be predicted with certainty. Indeed, quantum mechanical theory states that the interactions of electrons are random and probabilistically determined.
My assertion is that the hypothesis that anything occurs at random (i.e. quantum mechanics) can not be proven false. This is because a truly random process could have any result, therefore no test result can disprove the hypothesis that the process occurs at random.
DNA is the hereditary material beyond most reasonable doubt for all organisms on earth that don't use RNA as the primary material. It is deterministic as you can force certain mutation at certain places irregardless of electrons and quantum theory because at the level we're speaking about those quantum influences hold little to no sway. We call it random mutation only because it does not behave in a predictable way in nature, it is also not truly random there. Single point mutations on expressed protein segments that are non fatal are much more likely then sequence insertion into a untranscribed structural twist in the DNA. Any implication that it's truly random is wrong since a large portion of the genome are very resistant to mutation while other parts are not. And theories that include random events are always falsifiable if they are scientific or they aren't scientific by definition.
For instance take the theory of gravity. It in fact also has a quantum component but is falsifiable simple but creating a case where it's predictive power fails. For instance having a object of low mass and density being a immense gravity well. If such an object exists we must re-evaluate gravity as a theory. Similarly evolution would be falsifiable if you had a dog that gave birth naturally to a whale. IF you think that case if ridiculous it simply means evolution is a pretty strong theory that falsifying it leads to very counter intuitive situations. You do know what falsifiable means? it means one of the implications of the theory is proven to be wrong. Thus we must either revise or scrap the theory.
You do realize I'm growing irritated at the level of ignorance you display. Your level of understanding of scientific theory in general is below high school for a Canadian. Perhaps where ever you grew up they teach less and teach it wrong but there are so many dumb ideas in your head that I sincerely hope you do not breed. You seem to be a mix of dumb fundamentalist and dumb new age retard.
There is too much of accusing the other side of "not understanding". That is not polite and not usable information. Please, let's ends such Ad Hominem attacks. (I am not the "parent" poster, by the way.)
I recognize you are not. My post does not imply you are.
"It is theoretically possible for a pattern that appears to be ordered to arise from a "random" process, therefore is not possible to prove any process is not random. If you are going hold falsify-ability in such high regard to the process of formulating a scientific hypothesis, you must accept that neither random mutation nor quantum mechanics can be taught as "science" either."
Does it seem like he has any understanding of scientific fundamentals or random number theory in general? Those 2 sentence are also leaning heavily on
A
if c then b
thus b
The randomness of random mutation is meaningless in regards to it's falsifiability. He can't put together a coherent argument and he doesn't understand the subjects he is speaking about. I find few other words to label him other then either "fool" or "deviously evil Demagogue."
Only to a point. We call something "random" if *we* cannot identify a pattern in it. That does not necessarily mean there is not a pattern.
Random is an idea. Generally "random" events aren't idiosyncratic just for the sake of it. Often random systems are just systems with so many variables we cannot truly compute it and it follows a certain distribution. Thus we find it convenient to label it random. The parents problem with it is he believes random is the weakness of science he can attack because he neither understand science nor randomness.
No it is a wrong split as the mechanism is exactly the same. We even see huge phenotypic changes within species in human time scales (witness experiments with fruit flies or dog breeding). The split is entirely political/religious in nature and not scientific. If you think evolution was not the cause of the diversity in the world then you are free to offer your own scientific theory with appropriate support. Thus far no credible alternative exists and the split of evolution into micro/macro is entirely a political/religious construct.
I didn't day that is is not possible to prove that anything is random, I said that is impossible to prove that anything is not random. This is because a seemingly ordered pattern pattern could theoretically arise from a random (unpredictable) process.
For example, take a series of results from a binomial random variable. Suppose you have a process that produces ones and zeros, you may hypothesize that it is a binomial random variable. First you test it and you get 1, you test it again and you get 0, the series continues 10101010101010101. . . Well, you can calculate the probability that such a seemingly ordered series would arise from a binomial random variable, but that probability would never be zero, no matter how many trials you conducted. You could never disprove your hypothesis of randomness (though you could gather evidence against it).
In other words, it is impossible to prove that the process you are observing is not random. Any series of numbers, and set of data, any set of observations could theoretically result from a random process.
This is also wrong. It is possible to identify how random something through various mathematic measures. Given enough samples we can be mathematically be certain something is very random or is less random. Off course in the context you are using that argument it is also wrong, as mutations are only "random" as in hard to predict the exact outcome. The mechanism that causes them are deterministic but with such a vast number of variables that it mathematically behaves like a random system for most practical purposes.
It is theoretically possible for a pattern that appears to be ordered to arise from a "random" process, therefore is not possible to prove any process is not random.
A - It is possible to get a seemingly ordered pattern out of random noise
B- Not possible to prove anything is random
A does not imply B.
What is your argument? Big words and confused structure, do not a valid argument make. If you mean we cannot be sure anything is random we have a whole branch of mathematics that can tell us how random something is. However you place much too much emphasis on random within the framework of the theory. A random mutation means only that the exact sequence that was changed is not always the same. Some sequence are more prone to change then others because of the structure of DNA, heavily coiled parts do not mutate or express as much as exposed parts. Mutations aren't' random in that sense. Mutations occur at various spots due to any number of a million things and some causes cause certain mutations much more often then others. Each instance of mutation has 1 or more causes, to 1 or more units of the genome. These have wildly varied effects on the expressed phenotype.
For quantum mechanics you can falsify randomness there. If you can find any way to predetermine the certain "random" events then the events aren't' random. thus it's falsifiable. How can you falsify god? You can't design any experiment to have it fail if god does not exist. Unless you narrow down what god is. For instance if I define god to be a 90ft tall human with a red beard and a stubborn case of hemorrhoids an experiment to falsify this is to survey all human beings for one that matches. If I cannot then there exists no god. But a omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent who can't be measured is definitely not falsifiable and any theries related to such a being is obviously similarly unscientific and unfalsifiable.
Where on earth did you get the idea that any parts of quantum theory or any parts of evolution are no predictive and falsifiable?