They're also working on the whole continent- a kind of SuperNAFTA where we'd adopt Mexico's labor laws and language and cut off the North American Union from the rest of the world.
You obviously don't know history as well as you think you do. Pancho Villa was a General in charge of revolutionary troops in the northern part of Mexico. George Washington was a General in charge of revolutionary troops in the U.S. If Pancho Villa was a "gangster thug" then George Washington was one too...
I'll agree with that outright. Both were agents of the concept of totalitarian agriculture. Of course, George Washington's tactics were a bit different- he was smart enough to stay on his own soil instead of invading other countries.
Where do you get this idea? I was always given to believe that religion had nothing to do with testing and questioning, and more about faith in certain un-testable teachings. And even if this assertion is true, it still does not necessarily follow that the process of discovery and learning is a religious or spiritual endeavor.
Mainly from the people who rediscovered it for Europe- the Augustinian Scholastics. It takes a good deal of faith to test and question- more than it takes to simply accept. The later is refered to as blind faith- untested faith, and it's fairly weak in comparison.
Who is defining intelligence here? Perhaps it made perfect rational sense for the ID to do so at the time, like maybe to hide his tracks and not let knowledge of himself interfere with the development in progress.
I'm using the Scholistic definition of intelligence, which insists on total rationality. Why invent a universe last week when you can set up the same conditions with a lot less work 19 billion years in the past?
Perhaps the depth of his intelligence is so vast that we cannot hope to fathom it with our finite minds.
Perhaps, but we're bound to learn something from trying, and that is worthwhile in and of itself.
See, when you have a poorly-defined backing for your ideas, you can rationalize pretty much anything. Even without such grand concepts as omnipotence and omniscience, you can rationalize quite a bit by simply saying we don't know - but the intelligent designer must have had a reason for doing things that way. Sounds rather familiar to an old religious phrase about working in "mysterious ways". Not to pigeon-hole your percieved designer into the same category as any number of other deities, but when you start talking about someone or something that has the capacity to create all life as we know it, then how are we to know that he wouldn't do these things for other reasons?
Because we can examine the rules and see that he didn't. What is mysterious to us is not neccessarily mysterious to somebody else.
Religions go through a life cycle- and it's a rather young religion that talks in mysteries.
"Subjective proof"? So basically you're shooting yourself in the foot right there, as such "proof" is not based on facts or evidence, but rather on opinion.
Well, strictly speaking, facts and evidence are unknowable to human beings, all we have is opinion. Some opinions are repeatable and can be shown to others, others aren't and cannot. But the second is no less "true" than the first to the person experiencing them. Expand your mind- and your definition of evidence- and you'll see quite a bit more.
Simply because you say or believe it is so does not make it so, and the truth is not a democracy.
That's funny- because that's exactly what the peer review system is, a democracy.
Go read up on the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Your subjective proof is as good as the science backing it up.
There is no science backing up a subjective proof. But science is not the only route to truth, just the best route. There is more to truth, and more to the universe, than is discoverable by science alone or for that matter, by faith alone.
I am not responsible for what other people say on the subject. Dogma is unchanging. Science is prepared to reject any currently accepted theories or models if one comes along that better explains the observed world while taking into account all other variables. For example, we have largely progressed beyond Darwin's theories in favor of Stephen J. Gould's refinement of it called Punctuated Equilibrium, which is in favor of long periods of little change, coupled with short periods of rapid change. This, coupled with evidence from the fossil record and our current understanding of various geological processes, better explains the processes by which we see evolution occurring. However, I'm not an evolutionary biologist, and so I do n
yes, speaking off illegal immigrants, how many people are NOT descended from the Native Indians on one way or another ? I guess that all of them class as illegal immigrants.
One could- but one would be incorrect, for three reasons:
1. The legitimate government at the time of the immigration created specific procedures to admit new immigrants, and the grand majority actually used those procedures to become citizens. 2. Willingness to accept native cultural items where they made sense: Even by 1776, American bathing and fighting standards were *very* different from our European counterparts because the early settlers learned from the Native Americans how to do it right. 3. Finally, accepting (legal) immigration itself is a Native American tradition- perhaps a flawed one seeing how many Native Americans are left, but peaceful migration was going on here in the western hemisphere for many moons before the Eurpoeans showed up, and very little of it was without prior approval of the controling government for an area (when it was without prior approval, it was considered an invasion, and such varied tribes as the Souix, the Chinook trading nation, the Nes Pierce, and the Apache would not hesitate to kill those who trespassed without leave of the tribal councils).
So yes, there is a *big* difference between what is going on today and what went on in the past, and it has everything to do with respect for the people who are already in the country you're emigrating to.
The British burned down the White House, not Canadians.
At that point in history, they were one and the same- it was a battle for what the borders of the United States would be, particularily the Northern Border.
Ok, while you gaze at your navel, perhaps you can explain why this must be suffered by people like me, who periodically travel to the US for training courses, trade shows, business meetings and other activities, derived from purchasing US merchandises from US manufacturers.
Why are you buying the US manufacturing? No American is anymore- it's all the latest stuff from China, Taiwan, and Singapore. In fact, I have great doubts that any US merchandise is actually made by US manufacturers here- just a bunch of economic traitors who take money from the price differential of importing it from China, slapping a "made in the USA" label on the repackaging, and sending it out to other countries. Americans are too expensive to work in factories if profit is your only motive.
On my first business trip to the US, five years ago, a customs officer in Miami airport made me boot my laptop, describe RAM and disk capacity, enumerate the installed applications, and then kept me just standing there for 45 minutes, without any explanation or apology. It was an humilliating and degrading experience.
So why do you bother with such an humiliating and degrading experience? It's not like there aren't other countries to buy from.
Should we accept it meekly, in a grateful silence, in exchange for being granted the supreme honor of being admitted to the US? Why don't you reopen Ellis Island while you are at it?
I personally wish we would- we've got a real problem with a lack of management in the Immegration Control and Enforcement, and because of it, we've got nearly a 10% illegal resident problem.
Of course, if any country enforces the same procedures on US citizens, it will be accused of arrogance, human rights violatons and the like. Nice going, US!
I see no reason why US Citizens should want to travel to other nations either.
It's highly relevant- beliving in a random universe or an irrational God- either side- requires beliving in uncaused events.
Because we are yet to see such a thing happen, yes if we started seeing balls sponaneously arranging themselves into chess board patterns we would have some observations on which to build a theory and tweak our knowledge of physical laws. But so far they haven't, everytime such an arrangement has been seen it was constructed.
And does that construction violate the laws of physics? Of course not. So therefore it's already in the laws of physics for that construction to take place- even if you didn't see the construction doesn't mean it didn't take place. And that's all I've been saying. Miracles and Magic don't exist.
That's certainly the case now but I'm not sure about the "never have" part. Back when the US Constitution was written, the USA didn't really have the kind of guarded border that exists now. I suppose there might have been some form of customs inspections, though.
And they paid like hell for it in 1812- when a bunch of Canadians came down and burned the White House. Ever since we've had a guarded border to the north. A similar thing happened when a gangster thug by the name of Pancho Villa came across the southern border a half century later. Unguarded borders are a damned bad idea- and we've lost that bit of wisdom recently.
I'll agree with that- after first researching this story I found a similar suggestion with cheese and spam. Last night I tried it with crappy American Process Slices, braunschwagger, butter and marmite on toast- the taste was divine!
I mean seriously; why would anyone want to travel to America any more? There have to be better places to do business and if you *have* to do business with Americans you get *them* to come to *you*.
Exactly right- Americans don't really have any money anymore that isn't financed to the hilt by loans from other countries anyway. If it wasn't for all the rumors that we are rich (which are totaly false) we wouldnt' be able to buy squat.
"Potentially, this is going to have a real effect on how international business is conducted."
Well, gee, then maybe you should be concentrating on ways to keep manufacturing and agriculture at home where they belong instead of conducting INTERNATIONAL business and enriching our enemies in Mexico, China, India, and Saudi Arabia?
Everyone else understands that the reason referred to is in addition to the physical laws. The reason someone fell down the stairs is because of a gravitional force between them and earth, the reason someone fell down the stairs is because someone else pushed them, the reason someone fell down the stairs is because someone else hated them. Everyone else manages to understand the different usages of "reason" there.
Those are all the same usage of the word reason- cause and effect. A "random" cause would indicate a lack of reason.
If you go out of your way to distort what was written, yes. There were some words in there that were important to the intended meaning, I don't know if you just skipped them because talking past people is fun, or if you have some other definition for them yet again.
I'm trying to point out something very important- no uncaused effects. Yes, sometimes the cause and effect are backwards from our frame of reference, but there are no uncaused effects.
When the balls are clustered at the bottom of a hill that pattern is usually considered just part of physics. When the balls are aligned in a chess board pattern of alternating colours that pattern is usually considered beyond that forced by physics.
Where I see no real difference between the two- mankind is a part of nature, not in addition to it, and nature is a part of God, not in addition to Him. Why should there be such a thing as an event beyond the laws of physics, instead of realizing that there might be a law we haven't discovered yet?
That Websters dictionary I was looking at uses the following as an example usage of random: "a random selection of books". Which of course is impossible given your bizarre variant of english.
I know of nobody who can assemble a truly random collection of books, the subconscious is always involved.
The pdf you references says "the memory population M of individuals represented as bit strings is randomly initialized, followed by the fitness evaluation" maybe you could point to something that doesn't call itself random to support your "it's not random" claim.
Since we know that in software all randomizations are only pseudorandom based upon some algorithim and quirk of the hardware (well the better ones are) we know that randomization in computer science is *never* truly random (sometimes less random than others).
Of course the "fitness" component isn't random, it's what makes evolution not a random process - it builds on those mutations (you know random mutations, some make things better, some make things worse, some are neutral). Directing the results of a random process doesn't make the process not random.
It's the aim, correct, not the reason. However, I have great doubts that a truly random universe would allow such direction- after all, couldn't the "random mutation" just mutate again?
Oh OK, I'm lieing because I'm not using you're bizaroo restrictions on english words. When we say "random mutation" we mean the mutation is caused by a cosmic ray, or some other mechanism that distrupts the copying process resulting in an imperfect copy.
And since we know that cosmic rays (and other mechanisms that disrupt DNA) aren't random, then calling the mutation random is what exactly?
As opposed to bein directed with some goal in mind - a scientist splicing in some genes is a mutation but it's not random.
How do YOU know there isn't a goal in mind with the cosmic ray?
The rest of us need a term to distinguish the two things - we used "random" since it's an english word that (to everyone else) conveys that meaning. It doesn't matter if radiation is a deterministic process and with enough data you could know that the cosmic ray will interrupt that particular copy and produce that particular mutation. If what your actually arguing is that "Jesus caused the mutation because he wanted two tailed monkeys" then I guess yes n
The Big Bang is a closed system (being that in it was the release of all matter and energy [dark or otherwise] that we know of), but our observations of the universe around us do not encompass the whole of existance, so we cannot assume that we have accounted for all energy in and out of every sub-system of the larger macro-system that is the universe. As such, this "reversal of entropy" as you describe it, only encompasses a certain area of the universe that we can observe, which we cannot claim to be a closed system. Our understanding is not complete, but that is no excuse to start saying an ID was in charge. That's not just bad science, that's NON-science.
Do you have any other situation where information is created without intelligence? And, let's be truthful here- there's a signature in the radiation that is indeed a picture of the entire universe at a point something greater than 19 billion years in our past.
Actually, since the beginning of recorded history, religion has more been about controlling the masses through fear-mongering and hope of some kind of immortality (either of the physical or metaphysical self) "if you follow these rules". Basically, a spiritual carrot-and-stick approach. But disregarding that, science is in no way religious. Science is an attempt to explain observable phenomena through repeatable and falsifyable testing.
Isn't it funny, though, that repeatable and falsifyable testing is in and of itself a religious tradition?
As soon as you introduce the concept of an ID, however, you invalidate science, as you cannot test for an ID, and any evidence that you find can be invalidated "because the ID decided to plant that evidence there".
That depends upon what the I in your ID stands for. If it stands for INTELIGENT- no, the ID can't just "decide to plant that evidence there", because that would be an unreasonable, non-intelligent act. Certain types of Gods, certain models for God, are not compatible with ID for that reason. Which is why I think the creationists are fooling themselves- their theological construct is an Insane Diety, not an Intelligent Design.
And please, don't mistake a desire for the truth for a religious zeal - I'm merely trying to maintain the integrity of science from assertions and claims that, if we were to accept them as fact, would so dilute science so as to make it meaningless.
As am I- except for I'm protecting Philosophy in general as well. I completely agree that an Insane Diety would dilute the science, and the philosophy, so far as to make it entirely meaningless; in fact, I think that's where atheism comes from (the reaction to making science and religion meaningless).
And yes, while many scientists in the past (and present, even) were attempting to figure out the physical world through a desire based in religion, the desire to learn and discover does not need a religious influence to exist. Faith is not a prerequisite of desire to obtain the truth - in fact, having proof denies faith, quid pro quo, the two are rather at odds.
For a fundamentalist, yes, that's true. For a rational theist, no, having proof is a requirement of faith; without it faith cannot exist. The difference between science and religion is objective vs subjective proof, not the abscence of proof.
Faith sits unchaging, rather immovable, while science continues to expand, change, adapt, evolve, and generally perform in allignment with any number similar verbs.
Check out the other thread in this same header for a dogmatic scientist who claims that science doesn't expand, change, adapt or evolve....and that Darwin's theory existed before the first fossils were found.
The rest of your arguements are based around the flawed idea that an intelligent designer necessarily has to exist,
Well, I know of no other way of achieving INFORMATION rather than mere FACTS, do you?
and since I have already shown that we cannot rely
Look, you're not getting it. We have a universe. It looks a certain way. But given that we only have the one universe to look at, there's no way to generalize about whether our particular universe is likely, especially ordered, whatever. We have no idea, and no way to have any idea. The constants are meaningless in this endeavor: all we can do is measure them. We can't talk about exactly the "likihood" of them being that way, because have no idea what the process or constraints were.
But what we do know is that there's a strange leap in the size of the universe at a certain point in time- and that the constants were *different* before that.
In short, you basically doing the equivalent of insisting that we know the probability of a dice roll given that you know the value that came up after a single roll.... but without knowing anything else at all about the die. You dont' know how many other sides it has. You don't know how it is weighted. You don't even know what is on the other sides. So talking about "expecting" any sort of universe, or talking about the universe being surprisingly this or that... is all pure nonsense.
Rather, what I'm talking about is knowing the probability of the dice roll based on knowing *all* the environmental conditions surrounding that dice roll. Randomization doesn't even enter into it.
That may or may not be, but again, it's irrelevant. Religion is not the sole source of wonder, nor is it necessary to do good science. It isn't part of the scientific process.
It was a part of the scientific process at one time- a significant part. I say abandoning it is in and of itself an application of religion to science.
Characterizing me in an attempt to cover up is simply lame.
Look above at your own words- you're trying to get me to believe in a single reality knowable by mankind, ignoring all the models that don't fit your own. That's evangelical behavior in the extreme.
If "religious" means anything at all, then I'm not religious. If I'm religious, then "religion" merely means "having opinions on stuff" which basically takes all the air out of your argument.
Religious means more than having opinions on stuff- it means being dogmatic about those opinions, considering them to be true in the face of evidence to the contrary. I've presented you with evidence that the world is a lot wierder- and a lot more rule based- than what your current model of the universe allows for, and you've chosen to try to convert me to your model of the universe instead of changing your model of the universe.
Nope. Still only the one universe. People's guesses and imaginations and even models of the universe aren't "other universes." Even if they could be called that, this would still be a dodge of the topic: we are talking about whether or not it makes sense to draw any conclusions from any general state of the the discovered physical laws of the ACTUAL univese, not some universe you invent in your mind.
All we actually have is the universe in our own mind- our own model. We as finite beings will never know the discovered physical laws with any degree of certainty, because we can't trust our own senses. The best we can do is compare models to that which our senses tell us, and to each other's models, to try to discover some purpose.
Again, that's irrelevant. In the case of what we are talking about, only the characteristics of the true factual universe is relevant.
In that case- you might as well give up now, because you can't handle the true factual universe. Your dogmatic belief in your model proves that.
Regular science, you mean? Nope. But then, regular science doesn't claim to make vast conclusions about things external to the universe based on the universe, as you are doing.
No, that's not regular science- that isn't the science that was practiced before 1920.
Lol. You haven't shot anything down. Darwin's predicti
So you're insane then. If the universe is deterministic, that doesn't mean there's an aim and a reason - it just means future states are purely dependant on the present state.
Ah, but without a reason, the future states would NOT be dependant on the present state. There would be no rules at all.
There is no aim or reason as to which particular atom of oxygen bonds with which particular atoms of hydrogen when a match is applied to a baloon filled with hydrogen and oxygen
The energy of the match is the reason- striking the match is the aim- this is accomplished through intelligent action. So you lie when you claim there is no aim or reason.
they bumped into each other due to what the rest of the world calls random chance.
Some random chance- a intelligent person struck a match and caused it to happen. If that is what the world calls random chance- well, I can only assume this is because more than half the world is functionally retarded (has an IQ below 110).
Even though we do actually know it's completely deterministic and given the data we could do the math and determine which atoms would bond based upon their current states (assuming quantum physics is bunk).
If you know that, then you know it's not "random chance"- then it rises from mere ignorance to lie.
A governing set of laws does not make aim or reason. They make a pattern but that's not the pattern being referenced - which would be something beyond that forced by physics.
Why would it be "something beyond that forced by physics"? Wouldn't that assume a God who can't follow his own rules?
According to evolution mutation happens randomly
Incorrect. According to quantum physics mutation happens randomly. According to evolution, mutation merely happens without referencing a reason for that mutation (it's outside the scope of the theory).
not you're definition of random, the one the rest of us use.
I refuse to accept another definition of random than what exists in the dictionary.
There is no reason or pattern.
There is plenty of both- and if you can discover them, you can use evolution as an engineering method. It doesn't even take a God to do it- human beings are CURRENTLY directing evolution.
Something causes a copy of the DNA to not be exactly the same as the original.
Yes, and every one of those somethings is governed by physical law, it's not "random" by ANY meaning of the word.
Survival of the fittest isn't the aim, the mutation doesn't give a stuff about survival of the species it's just a copy error.
Survival of the fitest isn't the aim- it yeilds the aim. It's the law that creates the aim.
I don't in fact. Are you saying that radiation can not cause mutation?
I'm saying radiation is not random.
Or that it doesn't do so via interaction with an atom/bond/whatever?
I'm saying that interaction isn't random.
Or that the result isn't DNA encoding something different?
I'm saying what the DNA now encodes is something specific that may be different, but that it isn't random.
Or that such a difference couldn't affect the organisms survivability in the presence of some chemical?
It might or might not- but the survivability isn't random.
Or that we can't know all the data required to know what's going to happen?
Just because we don't consciously know all the data doesn't mean that somebody else doesn't- or that the data doesn't exist.
So tell me what the lie was?
That the event was random.
I was guessing with respect to mechanisms of mutation, but I didn't claim to be an expert and used the magical word "whataver" which I hoped covered any mistakes...
You don't sufficiently understand the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. It doesn't have anything to do with hubris among physicists. Many observations depend on the probabilistic nature of quantum theory, such as Einstein's "Spooky action at a distance".
The problem with that idea is this: You can't get information from a lack of information. Spooky action at a distance just means a link you don't understand yet. Probabilities in quantum theory means you haven't found all the forces involved yet. That's ALL it means. To impart more meaning into it is indeed hubris.
Anyhow, either read up on it, or continue misunderstanding. But please don't misrepresent to others.
I have read up on it, I do understand it. And hubris is exactly what it is. Just because YOU experience time flowing only one direction at a certain speed doesn't mean that it does so under all conditions and from all points of view. Just because you think effect always follows it's cause doesn't mean that it always does. And just because something appears to be probabilistic and random to you does NOT mean that your model is correct.
Not quite- you don't understand. You're replacing nonfunctioning tissue with functioning, but blank, tissue. What you'd get is a total amnesiac that has the *potential* of relearning how to be an adult over the next 20 years or so.
If there is a "god" that must follow "his rules" to the letter and it cannot show his will in no way whatsoever then why do you need a god?
To have somebody to create the rules in the first place. Entropy insists that information will, in the long run, be destroyed. Our observations of Big Bang radiation give us a solid example of one point in universal history when information was *created*. Not only that, but our current models of physics say this is a chaos math situation- the Big Bang is back far enough in history that a.000001% difference in the constants we know about could well have resulted in a lifeless universe. If that's not an argument *for* a "god" and *for* an intelligent, rational, and reasonable god at that, I don't know what is.
A god that has no influence is as good as no god at all.
Not no influence- rather quite a singular bit of influence. A bit knowable by science.
That is why many scientist are not comfortable with the notion of a black matter, that is predicted by some accepted equations, that has no influence in normal matter apart from the gravitational one, witch is very weak. It seem that it could be simpler to review the equations that shows that there is such need and not to depend on this ghost like matter that has almost no influence in the world we see.
True, and I say the same thing about Quantum Physics, which in an almost pathological attempt to remove any idea of God from the equations, creates a new God called "random probability".
I'm pretty sure this new God is just instrument error in the long run.
Correct? According to what rules?
Which set of rules doesn't really matter, though it should be a set that fits you. The only rule that I see as important with morality is that the standard comes from *outside yourself*, that is, that you have an objective standard. Otherwise you're just fooling yourself into not feeling guilty about your favorite sins. It's interesting that you bring up Brazil- I find South American cultures to often be very schizophrenic. They've got a deep history of Roman Catholicism going back before the Spanish rule and Simon Boliviar; but they've also got a deep history of REJECTING what the rest of the world would consider anything related to sexual or functional morality. I suspect this is much like the American Evangelical Christian Preacher- who tries very hard to avoid ever preaching on his own favorite sins.
This is virtually a non-issue with adult stem cells with the exception of some bone marrow transplants where the patients own stem cells are unavailable -- adult stem cells usually come from the patients themselves. And with cord blood transplants, rejection is less of a risk.
I think I phrased that wrong. The real safety issue that makes adult stem cell therapies more successful than embryonic stem cells is compatibility: the adult stem cells are *invariably* more compatible, causing less of a risk of rejection.
Slashdot Mirror
They're also working on the whole continent- a kind of SuperNAFTA where we'd adopt Mexico's labor laws and language and cut off the North American Union from the rest of the world.
You obviously don't know history as well as you think you do. Pancho Villa was a General in charge of revolutionary troops in the northern part of Mexico. George Washington was a General in charge of revolutionary troops in the U.S. If Pancho Villa was a "gangster thug" then George Washington was one too...
I'll agree with that outright. Both were agents of the concept of totalitarian agriculture. Of course, George Washington's tactics were a bit different- he was smart enough to stay on his own soil instead of invading other countries.
Where do you get this idea? I was always given to believe that religion had nothing to do with testing and questioning, and more about faith in certain un-testable teachings. And even if this assertion is true, it still does not necessarily follow that the process of discovery and learning is a religious or spiritual endeavor.
Mainly from the people who rediscovered it for Europe- the Augustinian Scholastics. It takes a good deal of faith to test and question- more than it takes to simply accept. The later is refered to as blind faith- untested faith, and it's fairly weak in comparison.
Who is defining intelligence here? Perhaps it made perfect rational sense for the ID to do so at the time, like maybe to hide his tracks and not let knowledge of himself interfere with the development in progress.
I'm using the Scholistic definition of intelligence, which insists on total rationality. Why invent a universe last week when you can set up the same conditions with a lot less work 19 billion years in the past?
Perhaps the depth of his intelligence is so vast that we cannot hope to fathom it with our finite minds.
Perhaps, but we're bound to learn something from trying, and that is worthwhile in and of itself.
See, when you have a poorly-defined backing for your ideas, you can rationalize pretty much anything. Even without such grand concepts as omnipotence and omniscience, you can rationalize quite a bit by simply saying we don't know - but the intelligent designer must have had a reason for doing things that way. Sounds rather familiar to an old religious phrase about working in "mysterious ways". Not to pigeon-hole your percieved designer into the same category as any number of other deities, but when you start talking about someone or something that has the capacity to create all life as we know it, then how are we to know that he wouldn't do these things for other reasons?
Because we can examine the rules and see that he didn't. What is mysterious to us is not neccessarily mysterious to somebody else.
Religions go through a life cycle- and it's a rather young religion that talks in mysteries.
"Subjective proof"? So basically you're shooting yourself in the foot right there, as such "proof" is not based on facts or evidence, but rather on opinion.
Well, strictly speaking, facts and evidence are unknowable to human beings, all we have is opinion. Some opinions are repeatable and can be shown to others, others aren't and cannot. But the second is no less "true" than the first to the person experiencing them. Expand your mind- and your definition of evidence- and you'll see quite a bit more.
Simply because you say or believe it is so does not make it so, and the truth is not a democracy.
That's funny- because that's exactly what the peer review system is, a democracy.
Go read up on the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Your subjective proof is as good as the science backing it up.
There is no science backing up a subjective proof. But science is not the only route to truth, just the best route. There is more to truth, and more to the universe, than is discoverable by science alone or for that matter, by faith alone.
I am not responsible for what other people say on the subject. Dogma is unchanging. Science is prepared to reject any currently accepted theories or models if one comes along that better explains the observed world while taking into account all other variables. For example, we have largely progressed beyond Darwin's theories in favor of Stephen J. Gould's refinement of it called Punctuated Equilibrium, which is in favor of long periods of little change, coupled with short periods of rapid change. This, coupled with evidence from the fossil record and our current understanding of various geological processes, better explains the processes by which we see evolution occurring. However, I'm not an evolutionary biologist, and so I do n
Good fences make for good neighbors- Or at least, that's been my experience.
yes, speaking off illegal immigrants, how many people are NOT descended from the Native Indians on one way or another ? I guess that all of them class as illegal immigrants.
One could- but one would be incorrect, for three reasons:
1. The legitimate government at the time of the immigration created specific procedures to admit new immigrants, and the grand majority actually used those procedures to become citizens.
2. Willingness to accept native cultural items where they made sense: Even by 1776, American bathing and fighting standards were *very* different from our European counterparts because the early settlers learned from the Native Americans how to do it right.
3. Finally, accepting (legal) immigration itself is a Native American tradition- perhaps a flawed one seeing how many Native Americans are left, but peaceful migration was going on here in the western hemisphere for many moons before the Eurpoeans showed up, and very little of it was without prior approval of the controling government for an area (when it was without prior approval, it was considered an invasion, and such varied tribes as the Souix, the Chinook trading nation, the Nes Pierce, and the Apache would not hesitate to kill those who trespassed without leave of the tribal councils).
So yes, there is a *big* difference between what is going on today and what went on in the past, and it has everything to do with respect for the people who are already in the country you're emigrating to.
The British burned down the White House, not Canadians.
At that point in history, they were one and the same- it was a battle for what the borders of the United States would be, particularily the Northern Border.
I didn't realize Poland was becoming a big manufacturing powerhouse capable of taking American jobs- but you're right.
Ok, while you gaze at your navel, perhaps you can explain why this must be suffered by people like me, who periodically travel to the US for training courses, trade shows, business meetings and other activities, derived from purchasing US merchandises from US manufacturers.
Why are you buying the US manufacturing? No American is anymore- it's all the latest stuff from China, Taiwan, and Singapore. In fact, I have great doubts that any US merchandise is actually made by US manufacturers here- just a bunch of economic traitors who take money from the price differential of importing it from China, slapping a "made in the USA" label on the repackaging, and sending it out to other countries. Americans are too expensive to work in factories if profit is your only motive.
On my first business trip to the US, five years ago, a customs officer in Miami airport made me boot my laptop, describe RAM and disk capacity, enumerate the installed applications, and then kept me just standing there for 45 minutes, without any explanation or apology. It was an humilliating and degrading experience.
So why do you bother with such an humiliating and degrading experience? It's not like there aren't other countries to buy from.
Should we accept it meekly, in a grateful silence, in exchange for being granted the supreme honor of being admitted to the US? Why don't you reopen Ellis Island while you are at it?
I personally wish we would- we've got a real problem with a lack of management in the Immegration Control and Enforcement, and because of it, we've got nearly a 10% illegal resident problem.
Of course, if any country enforces the same procedures on US citizens, it will be accused of arrogance, human rights violatons and the like. Nice going, US!
I see no reason why US Citizens should want to travel to other nations either.
When did Mexico and India get put on a trade embargo?
I said they were our economic enemies and *should* be on a trade embargo, not that they currently were.
Not only is it not important, it's irrelevant.
It's highly relevant- beliving in a random universe or an irrational God- either side- requires beliving in uncaused events.
Because we are yet to see such a thing happen, yes if we started seeing balls sponaneously arranging themselves into chess board patterns we would have some observations on which to build a theory and tweak our knowledge of physical laws. But so far they haven't, everytime such an arrangement has been seen it was constructed.
And does that construction violate the laws of physics? Of course not. So therefore it's already in the laws of physics for that construction to take place- even if you didn't see the construction doesn't mean it didn't take place. And that's all I've been saying. Miracles and Magic don't exist.
That's certainly the case now but I'm not sure about the "never have" part. Back when the US Constitution was written, the USA didn't really have the kind of guarded border that exists now. I suppose there might have been some form of customs inspections, though.
And they paid like hell for it in 1812- when a bunch of Canadians came down and burned the White House. Ever since we've had a guarded border to the north. A similar thing happened when a gangster thug by the name of Pancho Villa came across the southern border a half century later. Unguarded borders are a damned bad idea- and we've lost that bit of wisdom recently.
I'll agree with that- after first researching this story I found a similar suggestion with cheese and spam. Last night I tried it with crappy American Process Slices, braunschwagger, butter and marmite on toast- the taste was divine!
I mean seriously; why would anyone want to travel to America any more? There have to be better places to do business and if you *have* to do business with Americans you get *them* to come to *you*.
Exactly right- Americans don't really have any money anymore that isn't financed to the hilt by loans from other countries anyway. If it wasn't for all the rumors that we are rich (which are totaly false) we wouldnt' be able to buy squat.
I wish they'd do their part to stop trafficing. And international trade. And gee- how about stopping illegal immigrants as well?
"Potentially, this is going to have a real effect on how international business is conducted."
Well, gee, then maybe you should be concentrating on ways to keep manufacturing and agriculture at home where they belong instead of conducting INTERNATIONAL business and enriching our enemies in Mexico, China, India, and Saudi Arabia?
Everyone else understands that the reason referred to is in addition to the physical laws. The reason someone fell down the stairs is because of a gravitional force between them and earth, the reason someone fell down the stairs is because someone else pushed them, the reason someone fell down the stairs is because someone else hated them. Everyone else manages to understand the different usages of "reason" there.
Those are all the same usage of the word reason- cause and effect. A "random" cause would indicate a lack of reason.
If you go out of your way to distort what was written, yes. There were some words in there that were important to the intended meaning, I don't know if you just skipped them because talking past people is fun, or if you have some other definition for them yet again.
I'm trying to point out something very important- no uncaused effects. Yes, sometimes the cause and effect are backwards from our frame of reference, but there are no uncaused effects.
When the balls are clustered at the bottom of a hill that pattern is usually considered just part of physics. When the balls are aligned in a chess board pattern of alternating colours that pattern is usually considered beyond that forced by physics.
Where I see no real difference between the two- mankind is a part of nature, not in addition to it, and nature is a part of God, not in addition to Him. Why should there be such a thing as an event beyond the laws of physics, instead of realizing that there might be a law we haven't discovered yet?
That Websters dictionary I was looking at uses the following as an example usage of random: "a random selection of books". Which of course is impossible given your bizarre variant of english.
I know of nobody who can assemble a truly random collection of books, the subconscious is always involved.
The pdf you references says "the memory population M of individuals represented as bit strings is randomly initialized, followed by the fitness evaluation" maybe you could point to something that doesn't call itself random to support your "it's not random" claim.
Since we know that in software all randomizations are only pseudorandom based upon some algorithim and quirk of the hardware (well the better ones are) we know that randomization in computer science is *never* truly random (sometimes less random than others).
Of course the "fitness" component isn't random, it's what makes evolution not a random process - it builds on those mutations (you know random mutations, some make things better, some make things worse, some are neutral). Directing the results of a random process doesn't make the process not random.
It's the aim, correct, not the reason. However, I have great doubts that a truly random universe would allow such direction- after all, couldn't the "random mutation" just mutate again?
Oh OK, I'm lieing because I'm not using you're bizaroo restrictions on english words. When we say "random mutation" we mean the mutation is caused by a cosmic ray, or some other mechanism that distrupts the copying process resulting in an imperfect copy.
And since we know that cosmic rays (and other mechanisms that disrupt DNA) aren't random, then calling the mutation random is what exactly?
As opposed to bein directed with some goal in mind - a scientist splicing in some genes is a mutation but it's not random.
How do YOU know there isn't a goal in mind with the cosmic ray?
The rest of us need a term to distinguish the two things - we used "random" since it's an english word that (to everyone else) conveys that meaning. It doesn't matter if radiation is a deterministic process and with enough data you could know that the cosmic ray will interrupt that particular copy and produce that particular mutation. If what your actually arguing is that "Jesus caused the mutation because he wanted two tailed monkeys" then I guess yes n
The Big Bang is a closed system (being that in it was the release of all matter and energy [dark or otherwise] that we know of), but our observations of the universe around us do not encompass the whole of existance, so we cannot assume that we have accounted for all energy in and out of every sub-system of the larger macro-system that is the universe. As such, this "reversal of entropy" as you describe it, only encompasses a certain area of the universe that we can observe, which we cannot claim to be a closed system. Our understanding is not complete, but that is no excuse to start saying an ID was in charge. That's not just bad science, that's NON-science.
Do you have any other situation where information is created without intelligence? And, let's be truthful here- there's a signature in the radiation that is indeed a picture of the entire universe at a point something greater than 19 billion years in our past.
Actually, since the beginning of recorded history, religion has more been about controlling the masses through fear-mongering and hope of some kind of immortality (either of the physical or metaphysical self) "if you follow these rules". Basically, a spiritual carrot-and-stick approach. But disregarding that, science is in no way religious. Science is an attempt to explain observable phenomena through repeatable and falsifyable testing.
Isn't it funny, though, that repeatable and falsifyable testing is in and of itself a religious tradition?
As soon as you introduce the concept of an ID, however, you invalidate science, as you cannot test for an ID, and any evidence that you find can be invalidated "because the ID decided to plant that evidence there".
That depends upon what the I in your ID stands for. If it stands for INTELIGENT- no, the ID can't just "decide to plant that evidence there", because that would be an unreasonable, non-intelligent act. Certain types of Gods, certain models for God, are not compatible with ID for that reason. Which is why I think the creationists are fooling themselves- their theological construct is an Insane Diety, not an Intelligent Design.
And please, don't mistake a desire for the truth for a religious zeal - I'm merely trying to maintain the integrity of science from assertions and claims that, if we were to accept them as fact, would so dilute science so as to make it meaningless.
As am I- except for I'm protecting Philosophy in general as well. I completely agree that an Insane Diety would dilute the science, and the philosophy, so far as to make it entirely meaningless; in fact, I think that's where atheism comes from (the reaction to making science and religion meaningless).
And yes, while many scientists in the past (and present, even) were attempting to figure out the physical world through a desire based in religion, the desire to learn and discover does not need a religious influence to exist. Faith is not a prerequisite of desire to obtain the truth - in fact, having proof denies faith, quid pro quo, the two are rather at odds.
For a fundamentalist, yes, that's true. For a rational theist, no, having proof is a requirement of faith; without it faith cannot exist. The difference between science and religion is objective vs subjective proof, not the abscence of proof.
Faith sits unchaging, rather immovable, while science continues to expand, change, adapt, evolve, and generally perform in allignment with any number similar verbs.
Check out the other thread in this same header for a dogmatic scientist who claims that science doesn't expand, change, adapt or evolve....and that Darwin's theory existed before the first fossils were found.
The rest of your arguements are based around the flawed idea that an intelligent designer necessarily has to exist,
Well, I know of no other way of achieving INFORMATION rather than mere FACTS, do you?
and since I have already shown that we cannot rely
Look, you're not getting it. We have a universe. It looks a certain way. But given that we only have the one universe to look at, there's no way to generalize about whether our particular universe is likely, especially ordered, whatever. We have no idea, and no way to have any idea. The constants are meaningless in this endeavor: all we can do is measure them. We can't talk about exactly the "likihood" of them being that way, because have no idea what the process or constraints were.
But what we do know is that there's a strange leap in the size of the universe at a certain point in time- and that the constants were *different* before that.
In short, you basically doing the equivalent of insisting that we know the probability of a dice roll given that you know the value that came up after a single roll.... but without knowing anything else at all about the die. You dont' know how many other sides it has. You don't know how it is weighted. You don't even know what is on the other sides. So talking about "expecting" any sort of universe, or talking about the universe being surprisingly this or that... is all pure nonsense.
Rather, what I'm talking about is knowing the probability of the dice roll based on knowing *all* the environmental conditions surrounding that dice roll. Randomization doesn't even enter into it.
That may or may not be, but again, it's irrelevant. Religion is not the sole source of wonder, nor is it necessary to do good science. It isn't part of the scientific process.
It was a part of the scientific process at one time- a significant part. I say abandoning it is in and of itself an application of religion to science.
Characterizing me in an attempt to cover up is simply lame.
Look above at your own words- you're trying to get me to believe in a single reality knowable by mankind, ignoring all the models that don't fit your own. That's evangelical behavior in the extreme.
If "religious" means anything at all, then I'm not religious. If I'm religious, then "religion" merely means "having opinions on stuff" which basically takes all the air out of your argument.
Religious means more than having opinions on stuff- it means being dogmatic about those opinions, considering them to be true in the face of evidence to the contrary. I've presented you with evidence that the world is a lot wierder- and a lot more rule based- than what your current model of the universe allows for, and you've chosen to try to convert me to your model of the universe instead of changing your model of the universe.
Nope. Still only the one universe. People's guesses and imaginations and even models of the universe aren't "other universes." Even if they could be called that, this would still be a dodge of the topic: we are talking about whether or not it makes sense to draw any conclusions from any general state of the the discovered physical laws of the ACTUAL univese, not some universe you invent in your mind.
All we actually have is the universe in our own mind- our own model. We as finite beings will never know the discovered physical laws with any degree of certainty, because we can't trust our own senses. The best we can do is compare models to that which our senses tell us, and to each other's models, to try to discover some purpose.
Again, that's irrelevant. In the case of what we are talking about, only the characteristics of the true factual universe is relevant.
In that case- you might as well give up now, because you can't handle the true factual universe. Your dogmatic belief in your model proves that.
Regular science, you mean? Nope. But then, regular science doesn't claim to make vast conclusions about things external to the universe based on the universe, as you are doing.
No, that's not regular science- that isn't the science that was practiced before 1920.
Lol. You haven't shot anything down. Darwin's predicti
So you're insane then. If the universe is deterministic, that doesn't mean there's an aim and a reason - it just means future states are purely dependant on the present state.
Ah, but without a reason, the future states would NOT be dependant on the present state. There would be no rules at all.
There is no aim or reason as to which particular atom of oxygen bonds with which particular atoms of hydrogen when a match is applied to a baloon filled with hydrogen and oxygen
The energy of the match is the reason- striking the match is the aim- this is accomplished through intelligent action. So you lie when you claim there is no aim or reason.
they bumped into each other due to what the rest of the world calls random chance.
Some random chance- a intelligent person struck a match and caused it to happen. If that is what the world calls random chance- well, I can only assume this is because more than half the world is functionally retarded (has an IQ below 110).
Even though we do actually know it's completely deterministic and given the data we could do the math and determine which atoms would bond based upon their current states (assuming quantum physics is bunk).
If you know that, then you know it's not "random chance"- then it rises from mere ignorance to lie.
A governing set of laws does not make aim or reason. They make a pattern but that's not the pattern being referenced - which would be something beyond that forced by physics.
Why would it be "something beyond that forced by physics"? Wouldn't that assume a God who can't follow his own rules?
According to evolution mutation happens randomly
Incorrect. According to quantum physics mutation happens randomly. According to evolution, mutation merely happens without referencing a reason for that mutation (it's outside the scope of the theory).
not you're definition of random, the one the rest of us use.
I refuse to accept another definition of random than what exists in the dictionary.
There is no reason or pattern.
There is plenty of both- and if you can discover them, you can use evolution as an engineering method. It doesn't even take a God to do it- human beings are CURRENTLY directing evolution.
Something causes a copy of the DNA to not be exactly the same as the original.
Yes, and every one of those somethings is governed by physical law, it's not "random" by ANY meaning of the word.
Survival of the fittest isn't the aim, the mutation doesn't give a stuff about survival of the species it's just a copy error.
Survival of the fitest isn't the aim- it yeilds the aim. It's the law that creates the aim.
I don't in fact. Are you saying that radiation can not cause mutation?
I'm saying radiation is not random.
Or that it doesn't do so via interaction with an atom/bond/whatever?
I'm saying that interaction isn't random.
Or that the result isn't DNA encoding something different?
I'm saying what the DNA now encodes is something specific that may be different, but that it isn't random.
Or that such a difference couldn't affect the organisms survivability in the presence of some chemical?
It might or might not- but the survivability isn't random.
Or that we can't know all the data required to know what's going to happen?
Just because we don't consciously know all the data doesn't mean that somebody else doesn't- or that the data doesn't exist.
So tell me what the lie was?
That the event was random.
I was guessing with respect to mechanisms of mutation, but I didn't claim to be an expert and used the magical word "whataver" which I hoped covered any mistakes...
Using magi
Epochs and evolution. It mirrors software engineering quite nicely.
You don't sufficiently understand the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. It doesn't have anything to do with hubris among physicists. Many observations depend on the probabilistic nature of quantum theory, such as Einstein's "Spooky action at a distance".
The problem with that idea is this: You can't get information from a lack of information. Spooky action at a distance just means a link you don't understand yet. Probabilities in quantum theory means you haven't found all the forces involved yet. That's ALL it means. To impart more meaning into it is indeed hubris.
Anyhow, either read up on it, or continue misunderstanding. But please don't misrepresent to others.
I have read up on it, I do understand it. And hubris is exactly what it is. Just because YOU experience time flowing only one direction at a certain speed doesn't mean that it does so under all conditions and from all points of view. Just because you think effect always follows it's cause doesn't mean that it always does. And just because something appears to be probabilistic and random to you does NOT mean that your model is correct.
Not quite- you don't understand. You're replacing nonfunctioning tissue with functioning, but blank, tissue. What you'd get is a total amnesiac that has the *potential* of relearning how to be an adult over the next 20 years or so.
If there is a "god" that must follow "his rules" to the letter and it cannot show his will in no way whatsoever then why do you need a god?
.000001% difference in the constants we know about could well have resulted in a lifeless universe. If that's not an argument *for* a "god" and *for* an intelligent, rational, and reasonable god at that, I don't know what is.
To have somebody to create the rules in the first place. Entropy insists that information will, in the long run, be destroyed. Our observations of Big Bang radiation give us a solid example of one point in universal history when information was *created*. Not only that, but our current models of physics say this is a chaos math situation- the Big Bang is back far enough in history that a
A god that has no influence is as good as no god at all.
Not no influence- rather quite a singular bit of influence. A bit knowable by science.
That is why many scientist are not comfortable with the notion of a black matter, that is predicted by some accepted equations, that has no influence in normal matter apart from the gravitational one, witch is very weak. It seem that it could be simpler to review the equations that shows that there is such need and not to depend on this ghost like matter that has almost no influence in the world we see.
True, and I say the same thing about Quantum Physics, which in an almost pathological attempt to remove any idea of God from the equations, creates a new God called "random probability".
I'm pretty sure this new God is just instrument error in the long run.
Correct? According to what rules?
Which set of rules doesn't really matter, though it should be a set that fits you. The only rule that I see as important with morality is that the standard comes from *outside yourself*, that is, that you have an objective standard. Otherwise you're just fooling yourself into not feeling guilty about your favorite sins. It's interesting that you bring up Brazil- I find South American cultures to often be very schizophrenic. They've got a deep history of Roman Catholicism going back before the Spanish rule and Simon Boliviar; but they've also got a deep history of REJECTING what the rest of the world would consider anything related to sexual or functional morality. I suspect this is much like the American Evangelical Christian Preacher- who tries very hard to avoid ever preaching on his own favorite sins.
Unfortuneately, it's as likly to be the Six Million Dollar Amnesia Case.
This is virtually a non-issue with adult stem cells with the exception of some bone marrow transplants where the patients own stem cells are unavailable -- adult stem cells usually come from the patients themselves. And with cord blood transplants, rejection is less of a risk.
I think I phrased that wrong. The real safety issue that makes adult stem cell therapies more successful than embryonic stem cells is compatibility: the adult stem cells are *invariably* more compatible, causing less of a risk of rejection.