Talk about splitting hairs...yes. Insofar as a certain neutron hitting a certain atom at a certain time can only cause a certain isotopic change, you're right, it's not random. It's pure cause and effect, and, in some sense could be predicted if one had enough information.
Good. That's completely right.
(I could make a Heisenbergian argument that not only don't we have enough information, we can't have enough information, and, in fact, that information doesn't exist in the first place, but since you deny the very existence of randomness, I expect you deny Heisenberg's research, as well, so I won't bother)
Actually, I accept Heisenberg's research, but limit it to affecting human beings. It's quite possible to know enough information- it's just not possible for US to do so.
HOWEVER: from the point of view of evolution, these changes are random, insofar as they are completely independent of the process being studied. They are neither caused by nor affected by the results of that process.
Also true enough- but you see, that raises the same problem of predictibility as ID raises. Since we don't actually know the mind of God without being God, we can't predict natural selection under ID with any accuracy. Likewise, since we don't know the random mutations ahead of time, we can't predict natural selection under evolution with any accuracy. Thus both fail equally on testibility and falsifiability- and if you're into demarcation of science as being separate from theology, that's a problem for you.
But if it will help, I'm willing to stipulate that "random mutations" can be referred to as "mutations with causes orthogonal to the process of evolution."
When your cause is orthogonal to the process, you've effectively destroyed your ability to be called a hard science under demarcation. But if you get rid of demarcation and it's arbitrary and subjective rules, ID and evolution become indistinguishable- thus the whole debate becomes useless because the conclusions to the research are exactly the same.
What exactly is your definition of the word random?
An event that is too complex to be described as fact by finite human beings; that must be described in terms of probability because we don't want to or can't do the work neccessary to make it predictible. Thus, anything steming from a random event is by definition not predictable; thus evolution and ID are scientifically equivalent depending on the set of arbitrary rules you use to define science.
Huh? What's so athestic about the word "random"? From dictionary.com:
It's not ATHEISTIC- it's THEISTIC!
Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
Exactly right- probility distristributions are a theological construct describing human ignorance.
That definition says nothing about whether God is involved or not. Certainly God can create events that can be described by a probability distribution; I would say that He creates these kinds of events all the time. They're all around you. Using the word "random" to describe such events does not imply that they happened in the absence of a deity.
I completely agree- instead it implies the existance of a diety.
Sure. Feel free to teach ID, or any religious dogma of your choice, in whatever church or private school you belong to. I absolutely believe in freedom of religion, and that includes the freedom to study and teach your religion of choice. But this dogma doesn't belong in public schools, which have a duty not to impose a particular religion on students.
Thus you'd agree with me that evolution has no place in public schools under that rule.
I, personally, did experiments in college that yielded data relevant to evolution. While my personal observations only lent support to one portion of evolution (natural selection), that's still testing portions of the theory.
Ok, describe your experiment so that we may repeat it- and show how it proves that randomization exists, since that's the core data that fails to be testible.
Moreover, I am aware of experimental research that has yielded results supporting speciation, another portion of evolution theory.
Well, strictly speaking, while some ID proponents don't believe in speciation, I don't see it as a problem to the central premise of ID: that the world is not random.
Don't confuse a lack of direct observation with a lack of science.
Funny, that's one of the things everybody complains about with ID- that nobody has ever directly observed God.
Indirect observation and logical extrapolation, combined with measuring those extrapolations against observed data, is science as well, and it's there that ID falls down.
Why? Have you ever bothered to actually look at ID?
ID does not explain observed data as well as evolution (or, when someone twiddles it until it does, its conclusions become indistinguishable from evolution),
It's conclusions ARE indistinguishable from evolution, that's a given. But as to it not explaining observed data as well as evolution- I'm sorry, I fail to see how believing in an indeterministic universe is less complex than believing in God.
therefore, even were it science, it would be bad science. The best theory is always the one that comes closes to exactly predicting empirical results.
But evolution doesn't predict empirical results- because it starts from a random premise.
Not only is random mutation testable and potentially falsifiable
Ok, falsify a random number for me. Or better yet, predict what it will be.
it has in fact been tested and proved to be the case
Appearances are not proof. Observations are not proof.
time and time and time again. That's why flu shots must be reissued every flu season. That's why virii become immune to vaccination. That's why birds beaks change shape.
If you believe so, sure. But that's all it is, a religious belief.
As for it being contrary to human logic; I'm sure it would be to someone who belived in magical divine incarnations of new evolved life. Or that women are unclean during menstruation. The rest of us will be over here in the Enlightenment if you'd care to join us.
Funny how the enlightenment failed to do anything but create another religion.
Are you trying to say that inheritable random mutations of DNA do not occur? I would beg to differ with that statement.
I'm trying to say that diseases, radiation, and any other influence of a mutation you can think of is NOT RANDOM- and shouldn't be taught as such. Randomness is just a theological concept for something we're too finite to understand. It doesn't exist as fact.
Yacking pseudo-scientific bafflegab doesn't prove your point at all. Here's the rough of it all. You are not a clone of your parents. Most of the variation comes from a *random* mixing of genetic traits from the two.
And thus you quote pseudo-scientific theology at me- randomness does not exist in a deterministic universe.
Perhaps you should actually sit down and read a little on evolutionary theory, on genetics and reproduction, rather than trying to make clever sounding sentences that include the word inertia in them.
And perhaps you should actually sit down and read a little bit about how cults operate before accepting as fact such idiocy as an indeterministic universe. Repeating dogma is neither interesting nor instructive.
Actually, it doesn't. The Theory of Evolution makes no presumption about what deity or lack of deity started the whole thing. Like any scientific theory, it is merely an attempt to explain the cause-and-effect of observable phenomena (in this case, the diversity of species).
Then you'd better ban the words "random mutation" from the science classroom as well, if you want to stay away from deities.
It is perfectly reasonable to subscribe to the religious belief of your choice, while also accepting this theory. In this context, the Theory of Evolution is simply an attempt to explain the exact mechanism by which God created the diversity of species on the Earth.
The "randomness" could very well be introduced by normal physical means (such as radiation from Sun altering molecules within cell, which we know does happen).
And who set up the universal constants that allow the Sun to radiate? Sorry, all you've done here is move it back up a notch.
The use of the word "random" merely means that the causative effect is so minute and detailed that without tracking every single particle in the Universe, we can think of it as "random" from our macro point of view.
And thus, requires an intelligent designer who CAN track and influence every particle in the universe- and all we're discovering is his laws for doing so.
Now there is the issue of randomness within quantum mechanics, but I assume you are also arguing that our understanding of QM is wildly incorrect also.
Actually, I'm just arguing that human beings are too finite to get anything correct. Ever.
Most mutations are the result of damage caused by disease, radiation, and transcription errors. Combining genes (as in sexual reproduction) can also produce unexpected effects. None of these rely on a designer, and "randomness" is an essential feature of our universe (per quantum mechanics).
Replacing one religion with another doesn't help a bit. Quantum Mechanics is not predictible, and thus fails at the test of being a science by your own rules.
Except randomness is not an agent, it's a concept. It implies someone with intent is responsible for our evolution. Natural processes have no intent.
A lack of intent is as much a theological concept as having intent; logically the two are completely equivalent. They do carry an emotional difference however, which is my theory on why the disparate concepts arose.
And why would God need to do trial-and-error testing to begin with? I should think He'd already know what to do.
Why would he know how to be a parent any more than the rest of us? That's a pretty big assumption you're making as to the definition of the word God.
Evolution never stops because the environment is not stable. Natural selection occurs in response to an ever-changing environment. If a group of people were isolated in an environment devoid of any change--in terms of population, knowledge, climate, anything--they would only evolve to optimally survive in that environment, then stop. We do not live in such a world.
Well, that's the other half that drives natural selection certainly. But that doesn't mean you can get rid of the first half.
But randomness is observed, as we see the lack of a pattern.
No, we THINK we see a lack of a pattern. Not being infinite, we cannot tell if what we see is actually a lack of a pattern, or a small part of a larger pattern.
You can't observe God, which makes the idea useless to science.
Neither can you actually observe randomness, since a random spot is indistinguishable from a larger pattern.
See my statements above about constantly-changing environments.
Useless because it fails to identify the cause of the change- it's just another theological argument.
I don't understand how the lack of mention of God makes something anti-theistic. At best, it makes it agnostic--it does not know if a God exists, nor does it attempt to prove one.
But that's the problem isn't it: it does attempt to prove the lack of existance of one.
The burden of proof is on Intelligent Design to show us why evolution could only have happened with the aid of a Designer. ID proponents have yet to provide such evidence, while evolution has demonstrated amply that random mutation results in natural selection, without the need for a higher entity guiding the process.
Too bad random mutation is in and of itself a higher entity, or else by occam's razor that would be true.
As I said before, ID assumes a being with intent. Natural selection does not.
And as I said before, an intent is indistinguishable from a lack of intent- and the argument isn't with Natural selection anyway at all, because both ID and evolution assume natural selection as a fact.
And don't confuse random input with random output.
I don't. I personally don't believe in either.
The results of evolution are anything but random, which is the whole point of natural selection.
Yep- which is why you need an intelligent designer setting up the rules:-)
Science is the experiment. Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment, Result, Conclusion. ID omits entirely Experiment and result, thus is NOT science. ID doesn't even admit the possibility of experiment. Not science.
Well, for that matter, so does Evolution, which is based entirely on observations, hypothesis and conclusions. So by this set of completely arbitrary and capricious rules, which are DIFFERENT from the 5 given for the previous poster, Evolution is not science and should not be taught as science, and neither should biology, quantum mechanics, economics, psychiatry....you get the picture.
The argument to me is about turning the clock back 300 years, and placing society back under the boot of the first and second estates, or their nearest cultural equivilants.
You mean kind of like you do when you allow sciences such as biology to be taught as fact? All you've done is replace the church council with peer-reviewed journals.
Yes, that's one example. 1+1=2 because we say it does and because it works for our model; other models may differ.
You are correct that the definition of "science" that requires such attributes as predictive, logical, testable, falsifable and provable is both "Arbitrary and subjective". The problem is that multiple definitions of the word "science" are being used. When proponents of ID use the word "science", they are referring to a different process than the one described by the previous attributes.
To some extent yes- but then again, so do proponents of evolution as far as I can tell. The premise that random mutation happens is neither testable or falsifiable, and it's completely counter to human logic, for instance.
The purpose of language is dilluted when multiple concepets are described by the same word because of the danger of confusing the two concepts.
Maybe your purpose of language is- mine isn't.
Personally, I don't care what definition you use for the word "science", just don't try to tell me that the concept your definition of the word "science" describes is the same concept that I am talking about when I talk about a process definied by the five aforementioned attributes.
Well, evolution doesn't fit those five aforementioned attributes either- so I guess you'll just have to bow out of the conversation entirely.
Except that evolutionary theory does not say "random chance did it". You are basing your premise on a strawman of evolution. Evolution is merely "the genetic makeup of a population changes over time".
But without random chance, it doesn't change over time, it doesn't change AT ALL. Inertia exists in the universe- you need an *external* influence to create a change. That influence is either random or intelligent; but the influence IS neccessary, or else the rest all falls apart.
While randomness comes into it, evolution describes the non-random survival of randomly varying life. Evolution is exactly not random, you have been mislead. You do not understand evolution. I would suggest you take the time to read the most rudimentary book on the subject. I would recommend River out of Eden by Richard Dawkins.
Without random mutation- without randomly varied life- you can't have natural selection, and thus, you can't have evolution. Likewise with ID, without God you can't have guided mutation- and thus no natural selection- and thus no evolutionary test bed for new life forms. A method of variation is a precondition of both theories- without that method of variation (God or an indeterministic random universe, whatever you want to call it because of your own bigotry) natural selection, and therefore evolution, never happens.
It has a mechanism for being false- like the theory of evolution, ID denies entropy in a local area. Without a God, or without Random Chance, there'd be no reason for mutation to happen to begin with, and life would reach a steady state of no change that fits the local climate.
But ID and evolution are not equivalent. One *assumes* an Intelligent Designer. The other does not.
The other assumes an Unintelligent Designer instead- Random Chance.
That evolution doesn't *require* such a Designer doesn't mean one doesn't exist, only that the theory does not rely on one.
And yet, the way it's been taught in the last 50 years- it does rely on one. It relies on random mutation as a driving creator. So does ID by the way- except in that case it's God doing trial and error testing. Without a creator, intelligent or unintelligent, pushing change- both ID and evolution would find a stable state and the changes would simply stop.
Your argument actually collapses on itself, because you have essentially said ID does nothing but add a layer of complexity to evolution
Nope- because God is no more complex than the concept of a random and indeterministic universe. The two concepts are equally complex.
a layer that is unnecessary, does not aid our understanding of the evolutionary process, and does not alter observational results.
Incorrect- without that motivating layer, whether intelligent as in ID or random as in evolution, there's no way for natural selection to happen. Life in the universe as we know it would reach a steady state- and never again evolve.
That is exactly why I oppose ID being taught as an "alternative" or "replacement" for evolution. It is not, it is simply an ill-conceived modification designed to inject monotheistic dogma into a realm where it has no place.
Then the idea of a random, indeterministic universe, which is ALSO a monotheistic, or maybe a better word would be ANTI-theistic, dogma, should not be injected into that realm either- in which case you can't teach evolution. The basic theory *does* require a motivator- the only argument is over what that motivator is.
Like with most things, some slashdotters like me are being *extra* nerdy and insisting that mere theological theories don't get touted as fact. Evolution, having replaced "God did it" with "Random Chance did it" is particularily bad at this; as is the claim that ID is not science because of some incredibly arbitrary and subjective rules about who is a scientist and what a science is. Thus the argument every time it shows up.
BTW, it has nothing at all to do with creationism- the type of ID we're talking about takes a given the scientific age of the earth at about 4 billion years and the latest age of the universe at 19.3 billion years. Creationists peg the entire shebang at much less than that- around 6000 years or so. What the argument is really about to me is arrogance, certainty, and the nature of the word "fact".
It must be Friday- time for another flame war on ID vs Evolution.
You can't pick Evolution over ID as a scientific theory based on the evidence or on the testible hypothesis or on falsifiable hypothesis- the two are completely equivalent on those criteria, because the evidence used is exactly the same evidence. "God did it" and "Random Chance did it" are both theological statements that are logically indistinguishable from one another.
You claim that ID is not predictible- but since it predicts the exact same outcomes that evolution does, that would mean that evolution wasn't predictable either. You claim that ID cannot be supported by observation; yet religious visions have occured throughout human history, and actually, since ID insists that God used evolution as a method, the natural world observations for ID and evolution are also exactly the same. You claim that ID is not supported by strong scientific evidence- but where's the strong scientific evidence for randomization, the one key difference between atheistic religious evolution and Christian religious Intelligent Design?
If ID is not science, then evolution certainly isn't either. If evolution is science, so are the scientific portions of ID. But of course, the worshipers of Popplar and demarcation methods such as falsifiability will never actually see that...
But, for a human-constructed test, it may be that large classes of solutions will be discarded by the test maker. It's not obvious how to model what a human would do in "randomly" laying out answers. Could be great fun to explore if one had access to thousands of scantron answer keys. (Anyone with a key to the exam repository room want to collaborate on actually doing that?) My guess is that since the vast majority of uniformly distributed random keys look qualitatively similar to human generated keys, the difference can't be large.
You'd be wrong. With human generated keys, for no apparent reason, 65% of the answers are C, 22% of the answers are B, 8% of the answers are A, 3% of the answers are D, and 2% of the answers are E. Thus, if you know that a human layed out the key- that's the order you should evaluate the options for maximum time efficiency. But I don't recommend my ruler option (which statistically will only gurantee you just above a failing grade on the test) unless you've already answered enough questions to get the points you need for your grade in the class.
The key here was that I knew the instructor well- well enough to know that he didn't use a randomized answer key. Because of that, human order association rules take over- most likely answer to any question is C, followed by B, A, D, and E in that order. Therefore, unless I know that the test has been randomized- I evaluate the answers to see if they fit the question in that order.
Had it been available 30 years ago, it probably would have helped with me. I could read by age 3 also, but the real big plus will be in teaching her to type; many of these disorders come with associated nervous system disorders, which makes learning to write difficult at best. Be sure to turn on the spell checker in whatever e-mail program you choose for her; us early readers are word-recognition types and therefore sometimes learn to spell incorrectly from misprints in books.
My point was- for me in person, in real life, is just as much guesswork as e-mail. Verbal clues, posture, body language- these all go right over my head, they are meaningless to me. That's one of the determining factors between REAL Asperger's syndrome and the self-diagnosed variety. It can be a real headache (in more ways than one, another symptom for me is migraines) trying to figure out emotions- thus I'm much more comfortable with the emotionless nature of asynchronous text based communication.
As you say, even IM destroys the asynchronicity aspect- and thus I stay away from it.
You miss body gestures, nuances and postures and become completely dependent on technology to get to know a person.
In other words, the rest of the world becomes just like I've been all along. I've got Asperger's Syndrome (NOT self-diagnosed) and I always felt weird growing up. No wonder I'm far more verbal in text based communications than in real life.
We now have the technology to make a government by the people, FOR the people feasible. As Marx and Engels put it, if it were not for the excesses of the few, everyone could prosper, but the greed of the power mongers is nearly insatiable... they can never have enough.
The key, as I see it, is an evolutionary system- one where law is used of, by, and for the people as a weapon against the parasites. That, and I favor decentralzed, mob rule government...each town, even each neighborhood, is supreme within their own boundaries, then county law, then state law, and finally federal law. The ultimate anti-federalism.
As I recall even in the manifesto... an economy is there to better the people. It is not there to crush the people under the heel of the rich (aka the burgeoise) The economy is a "tool" to make sure everyone has "enough" to live well... but not to excess.
Yes, that was the main point. I don't think he ever forsaw the possibility of a regionalized government web page to collect a database of needs, thus providing better numbers for production of various goods and services, which might actually help give a community extra production capacity and thus the ability to have luxuries, but yes, it's the *purpose* of the economy that Marx called into question.
Unfortunately in the USA, and soon to be "in america" as Canada is heading that way too, the rich are crushing everyone under their heel and taking payoffs to provide tax relief to huge megacorps to offshore jobs and put mom and pop shops out. A few mom and pop outlets survive on the poor customer service that their clients receive at the megacorps, but just you watch. It takes awhile to kill all the "ones that slipped through".
Yep. And thus capitalism, in the end, *must* become corporatism, and any government that doesn't separate itself adequately from business *must* become fascist. The economy turns into a pair of equally opposed feedback loops- a positive one for those born rich, and a negative one for those born poor, and individual talent or hard work no longer matters.
I live in VA (and NC at times), and we had record unemployment here (VA), but suddenly it dropped off, despite Capital One laying off 10000 peeps over the last 2 years. How so you wonder? Easy! Their unemployment ran out... so they can no longer claim it. The figures are done as such... if they can't claim it, they must no longer be unemployed. (Been there, done that... unemployment DOES run out, you only get whats been put into it on your behalf.)
Yep, that's the way unemployed workers become discouraged workers, taken out of the rolls of the employable; we went from 120 million strong in the workforce in 1999 to a mere 65 million today- in the same time period the population of the United States went from 260 million to 290 million. These two trends are not sustainable.
Slashdot Mirror
Talk about splitting hairs...yes. Insofar as a certain neutron hitting a certain atom at a certain time can only cause a certain isotopic change, you're right, it's not random. It's pure cause and effect, and, in some sense could be predicted if one had enough information.
Good. That's completely right.
(I could make a Heisenbergian argument that not only don't we have enough information, we can't have enough information, and, in fact, that information doesn't exist in the first place, but since you deny the very existence of randomness, I expect you deny Heisenberg's research, as well, so I won't bother)
Actually, I accept Heisenberg's research, but limit it to affecting human beings. It's quite possible to know enough information- it's just not possible for US to do so.
HOWEVER: from the point of view of evolution, these changes are random, insofar as they are completely independent of the process being studied. They are neither caused by nor affected by the results of that process.
Also true enough- but you see, that raises the same problem of predictibility as ID raises. Since we don't actually know the mind of God without being God, we can't predict natural selection under ID with any accuracy. Likewise, since we don't know the random mutations ahead of time, we can't predict natural selection under evolution with any accuracy. Thus both fail equally on testibility and falsifiability- and if you're into demarcation of science as being separate from theology, that's a problem for you.
But if it will help, I'm willing to stipulate that "random mutations" can be referred to as "mutations with causes orthogonal to the process of evolution."
When your cause is orthogonal to the process, you've effectively destroyed your ability to be called a hard science under demarcation. But if you get rid of demarcation and it's arbitrary and subjective rules, ID and evolution become indistinguishable- thus the whole debate becomes useless because the conclusions to the research are exactly the same.
What exactly is your definition of the word random?
An event that is too complex to be described as fact by finite human beings; that must be described in terms of probability because we don't want to or can't do the work neccessary to make it predictible. Thus, anything steming from a random event is by definition not predictable; thus evolution and ID are scientifically equivalent depending on the set of arbitrary rules you use to define science.
Huh? What's so athestic about the word "random"? From dictionary.com:
It's not ATHEISTIC- it's THEISTIC!
Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
Exactly right- probility distristributions are a theological construct describing human ignorance.
That definition says nothing about whether God is involved or not. Certainly God can create events that can be described by a probability distribution; I would say that He creates these kinds of events all the time. They're all around you. Using the word "random" to describe such events does not imply that they happened in the absence of a deity.
I completely agree- instead it implies the existance of a diety.
Sure. Feel free to teach ID, or any religious dogma of your choice, in whatever church or private school you belong to. I absolutely believe in freedom of religion, and that includes the freedom to study and teach your religion of choice. But this dogma doesn't belong in public schools, which have a duty not to impose a particular religion on students.
Thus you'd agree with me that evolution has no place in public schools under that rule.
I, personally, did experiments in college that yielded data relevant to evolution. While my personal observations only lent support to one portion of evolution (natural selection), that's still testing portions of the theory.
Ok, describe your experiment so that we may repeat it- and show how it proves that randomization exists, since that's the core data that fails to be testible.
Moreover, I am aware of experimental research that has yielded results supporting speciation, another portion of evolution theory.
Well, strictly speaking, while some ID proponents don't believe in speciation, I don't see it as a problem to the central premise of ID: that the world is not random.
Don't confuse a lack of direct observation with a lack of science.
Funny, that's one of the things everybody complains about with ID- that nobody has ever directly observed God.
Indirect observation and logical extrapolation, combined with measuring those extrapolations against observed data, is science as well, and it's there that ID falls down.
Why? Have you ever bothered to actually look at ID?
ID does not explain observed data as well as evolution (or, when someone twiddles it until it does, its conclusions become indistinguishable from evolution),
It's conclusions ARE indistinguishable from evolution, that's a given. But as to it not explaining observed data as well as evolution- I'm sorry, I fail to see how believing in an indeterministic universe is less complex than believing in God.
therefore, even were it science, it would be bad science. The best theory is always the one that comes closes to exactly predicting empirical results.
But evolution doesn't predict empirical results- because it starts from a random premise.
Not only is random mutation testable and potentially falsifiable
Ok, falsify a random number for me. Or better yet, predict what it will be.
it has in fact been tested and proved to be the case
Appearances are not proof. Observations are not proof.
time and time and time again. That's why flu shots must be reissued every flu season. That's why virii become immune to vaccination. That's why birds beaks change shape.
If you believe so, sure. But that's all it is, a religious belief.
As for it being contrary to human logic; I'm sure it would be to someone who belived in magical divine incarnations of new evolved life. Or that women are unclean during menstruation. The rest of us will be over here in the Enlightenment if you'd care to join us.
Funny how the enlightenment failed to do anything but create another religion.
Are you trying to say that inheritable random mutations of DNA do not occur? I would beg to differ with that statement.
I'm trying to say that diseases, radiation, and any other influence of a mutation you can think of is NOT RANDOM- and shouldn't be taught as such. Randomness is just a theological concept for something we're too finite to understand. It doesn't exist as fact.
Yacking pseudo-scientific bafflegab doesn't prove your point at all. Here's the rough of it all. You are not a clone of your parents. Most of the variation comes from a *random* mixing of genetic traits from the two.
And thus you quote pseudo-scientific theology at me- randomness does not exist in a deterministic universe.
Perhaps you should actually sit down and read a little on evolutionary theory, on genetics and reproduction, rather than trying to make clever sounding sentences that include the word inertia in them.
And perhaps you should actually sit down and read a little bit about how cults operate before accepting as fact such idiocy as an indeterministic universe. Repeating dogma is neither interesting nor instructive.
Actually, it doesn't. The Theory of Evolution makes no presumption about what deity or lack of deity started the whole thing. Like any scientific theory, it is merely an attempt to explain the cause-and-effect of observable phenomena (in this case, the diversity of species).
Then you'd better ban the words "random mutation" from the science classroom as well, if you want to stay away from deities.
It is perfectly reasonable to subscribe to the religious belief of your choice, while also accepting this theory. In this context, the Theory of Evolution is simply an attempt to explain the exact mechanism by which God created the diversity of species on the Earth.
Ok, so you believe in teaching ID.
The "randomness" could very well be introduced by normal physical means (such as radiation from Sun altering molecules within cell, which we know does happen).
And who set up the universal constants that allow the Sun to radiate? Sorry, all you've done here is move it back up a notch.
The use of the word "random" merely means that the causative effect is so minute and detailed that without tracking every single particle in the Universe, we can think of it as "random" from our macro point of view.
And thus, requires an intelligent designer who CAN track and influence every particle in the universe- and all we're discovering is his laws for doing so.
Now there is the issue of randomness within quantum mechanics, but I assume you are also arguing that our understanding of QM is wildly incorrect also.
Actually, I'm just arguing that human beings are too finite to get anything correct. Ever.
Most mutations are the result of damage caused by disease, radiation, and transcription errors. Combining genes (as in sexual reproduction) can also produce unexpected effects. None of these rely on a designer, and "randomness" is an essential feature of our universe (per quantum mechanics).
:-)
Replacing one religion with another doesn't help a bit. Quantum Mechanics is not predictible, and thus fails at the test of being a science by your own rules.
Except randomness is not an agent, it's a concept. It implies someone with intent is responsible for our evolution. Natural processes have no intent.
A lack of intent is as much a theological concept as having intent; logically the two are completely equivalent. They do carry an emotional difference however, which is my theory on why the disparate concepts arose.
And why would God need to do trial-and-error testing to begin with? I should think He'd already know what to do.
Why would he know how to be a parent any more than the rest of us? That's a pretty big assumption you're making as to the definition of the word God.
Evolution never stops because the environment is not stable. Natural selection occurs in response to an ever-changing environment. If a group of people were isolated in an environment devoid of any change--in terms of population, knowledge, climate, anything--they would only evolve to optimally survive in that environment, then stop. We do not live in such a world.
Well, that's the other half that drives natural selection certainly. But that doesn't mean you can get rid of the first half.
But randomness is observed, as we see the lack of a pattern.
No, we THINK we see a lack of a pattern. Not being infinite, we cannot tell if what we see is actually a lack of a pattern, or a small part of a larger pattern.
You can't observe God, which makes the idea useless to science.
Neither can you actually observe randomness, since a random spot is indistinguishable from a larger pattern.
See my statements above about constantly-changing environments.
Useless because it fails to identify the cause of the change- it's just another theological argument.
I don't understand how the lack of mention of God makes something anti-theistic. At best, it makes it agnostic--it does not know if a God exists, nor does it attempt to prove one.
But that's the problem isn't it: it does attempt to prove the lack of existance of one.
The burden of proof is on Intelligent Design to show us why evolution could only have happened with the aid of a Designer. ID proponents have yet to provide such evidence, while evolution has demonstrated amply that random mutation results in natural selection, without the need for a higher entity guiding the process.
Too bad random mutation is in and of itself a higher entity, or else by occam's razor that would be true.
As I said before, ID assumes a being with intent. Natural selection does not.
And as I said before, an intent is indistinguishable from a lack of intent- and the argument isn't with Natural selection anyway at all, because both ID and evolution assume natural selection as a fact.
And don't confuse random input with random output.
I don't. I personally don't believe in either.
The results of evolution are anything but random, which is the whole point of natural selection.
Yep- which is why you need an intelligent designer setting up the rules
Science is the experiment. Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment, Result, Conclusion. ID omits entirely Experiment and result, thus is NOT science. ID doesn't even admit the possibility of experiment. Not science.
Well, for that matter, so does Evolution, which is based entirely on observations, hypothesis and conclusions. So by this set of completely arbitrary and capricious rules, which are DIFFERENT from the 5 given for the previous poster, Evolution is not science and should not be taught as science, and neither should biology, quantum mechanics, economics, psychiatry....you get the picture.
The argument to me is about turning the clock back 300 years, and placing society back under the boot of the first and second estates, or their nearest cultural equivilants.
You mean kind of like you do when you allow sciences such as biology to be taught as fact? All you've done is replace the church council with peer-reviewed journals.
Arbitrary and subjective rules... like math?
Yes, that's one example. 1+1=2 because we say it does and because it works for our model; other models may differ.
You are correct that the definition of "science" that requires such attributes as predictive, logical, testable, falsifable and provable is both "Arbitrary and subjective". The problem is that multiple definitions of the word "science" are being used. When proponents of ID use the word "science", they are referring to a different process than the one described by the previous attributes.
To some extent yes- but then again, so do proponents of evolution as far as I can tell. The premise that random mutation happens is neither testable or falsifiable, and it's completely counter to human logic, for instance.
The purpose of language is dilluted when multiple concepets are described by the same word because of the danger of confusing the two concepts.
Maybe your purpose of language is- mine isn't.
Personally, I don't care what definition you use for the word "science", just don't try to tell me that the concept your definition of the word "science" describes is the same concept that I am talking about when I talk about a process definied by the five aforementioned attributes.
Well, evolution doesn't fit those five aforementioned attributes either- so I guess you'll just have to bow out of the conversation entirely.
Except that evolutionary theory does not say "random chance did it". You are basing your premise on a strawman of evolution. Evolution is merely "the genetic makeup of a population changes over time".
But without random chance, it doesn't change over time, it doesn't change AT ALL. Inertia exists in the universe- you need an *external* influence to create a change. That influence is either random or intelligent; but the influence IS neccessary, or else the rest all falls apart.
While randomness comes into it, evolution describes the non-random survival of randomly varying life. Evolution is exactly not random, you have been mislead. You do not understand evolution. I would suggest you take the time to read the most rudimentary book on the subject. I would recommend River out of Eden by Richard Dawkins.
Without random mutation- without randomly varied life- you can't have natural selection, and thus, you can't have evolution. Likewise with ID, without God you can't have guided mutation- and thus no natural selection- and thus no evolutionary test bed for new life forms. A method of variation is a precondition of both theories- without that method of variation (God or an indeterministic random universe, whatever you want to call it because of your own bigotry) natural selection, and therefore evolution, never happens.
if it has no mechanism for being false
It has a mechanism for being false- like the theory of evolution, ID denies entropy in a local area. Without a God, or without Random Chance, there'd be no reason for mutation to happen to begin with, and life would reach a steady state of no change that fits the local climate.
But ID and evolution are not equivalent. One *assumes* an Intelligent Designer. The other does not.
The other assumes an Unintelligent Designer instead- Random Chance.
That evolution doesn't *require* such a Designer doesn't mean one doesn't exist, only that the theory does not rely on one.
And yet, the way it's been taught in the last 50 years- it does rely on one. It relies on random mutation as a driving creator. So does ID by the way- except in that case it's God doing trial and error testing. Without a creator, intelligent or unintelligent, pushing change- both ID and evolution would find a stable state and the changes would simply stop.
Your argument actually collapses on itself, because you have essentially said ID does nothing but add a layer of complexity to evolution
Nope- because God is no more complex than the concept of a random and indeterministic universe. The two concepts are equally complex.
a layer that is unnecessary, does not aid our understanding of the evolutionary process, and does not alter observational results.
Incorrect- without that motivating layer, whether intelligent as in ID or random as in evolution, there's no way for natural selection to happen. Life in the universe as we know it would reach a steady state- and never again evolve.
That is exactly why I oppose ID being taught as an "alternative" or "replacement" for evolution. It is not, it is simply an ill-conceived modification designed to inject monotheistic dogma into a realm where it has no place.
Then the idea of a random, indeterministic universe, which is ALSO a monotheistic, or maybe a better word would be ANTI-theistic, dogma, should not be injected into that realm either- in which case you can't teach evolution. The basic theory *does* require a motivator- the only argument is over what that motivator is.
Like with most things, some slashdotters like me are being *extra* nerdy and insisting that mere theological theories don't get touted as fact. Evolution, having replaced "God did it" with "Random Chance did it" is particularily bad at this; as is the claim that ID is not science because of some incredibly arbitrary and subjective rules about who is a scientist and what a science is. Thus the argument every time it shows up.
BTW, it has nothing at all to do with creationism- the type of ID we're talking about takes a given the scientific age of the earth at about 4 billion years and the latest age of the universe at 19.3 billion years. Creationists peg the entire shebang at much less than that- around 6000 years or so. What the argument is really about to me is arrogance, certainty, and the nature of the word "fact".
It must be Friday- time for another flame war on ID vs Evolution.
You can't pick Evolution over ID as a scientific theory based on the evidence or on the testible hypothesis or on falsifiable hypothesis- the two are completely equivalent on those criteria, because the evidence used is exactly the same evidence. "God did it" and "Random Chance did it" are both theological statements that are logically indistinguishable from one another.
You claim that ID is not predictible- but since it predicts the exact same outcomes that evolution does, that would mean that evolution wasn't predictable either. You claim that ID cannot be supported by observation; yet religious visions have occured throughout human history, and actually, since ID insists that God used evolution as a method, the natural world observations for ID and evolution are also exactly the same. You claim that ID is not supported by strong scientific evidence- but where's the strong scientific evidence for randomization, the one key difference between atheistic religious evolution and Christian religious Intelligent Design?
If ID is not science, then evolution certainly isn't either. If evolution is science, so are the scientific portions of ID. But of course, the worshipers of Popplar and demarcation methods such as falsifiability will never actually see that...
But, for a human-constructed test, it may be that large classes of solutions will be discarded by the test maker. It's not obvious how to model what a human would do in "randomly" laying out answers. Could be great fun to explore if one had access to thousands of scantron answer keys. (Anyone with a key to the exam repository room want to collaborate on actually doing that?) My guess is that since the vast majority of uniformly distributed random keys look qualitatively similar to human generated keys, the difference can't be large.
You'd be wrong. With human generated keys, for no apparent reason, 65% of the answers are C, 22% of the answers are B, 8% of the answers are A, 3% of the answers are D, and 2% of the answers are E. Thus, if you know that a human layed out the key- that's the order you should evaluate the options for maximum time efficiency. But I don't recommend my ruler option (which statistically will only gurantee you just above a failing grade on the test) unless you've already answered enough questions to get the points you need for your grade in the class.
The key here was that I knew the instructor well- well enough to know that he didn't use a randomized answer key. Because of that, human order association rules take over- most likely answer to any question is C, followed by B, A, D, and E in that order. Therefore, unless I know that the test has been randomized- I evaluate the answers to see if they fit the question in that order.
Had it been available 30 years ago, it probably would have helped with me. I could read by age 3 also, but the real big plus will be in teaching her to type; many of these disorders come with associated nervous system disorders, which makes learning to write difficult at best. Be sure to turn on the spell checker in whatever e-mail program you choose for her; us early readers are word-recognition types and therefore sometimes learn to spell incorrectly from misprints in books.
My point was- for me in person, in real life, is just as much guesswork as e-mail. Verbal clues, posture, body language- these all go right over my head, they are meaningless to me. That's one of the determining factors between REAL Asperger's syndrome and the self-diagnosed variety. It can be a real headache (in more ways than one, another symptom for me is migraines) trying to figure out emotions- thus I'm much more comfortable with the emotionless nature of asynchronous text based communication.
As you say, even IM destroys the asynchronicity aspect- and thus I stay away from it.
You miss body gestures, nuances and postures and become completely dependent on technology to get to know a person.
In other words, the rest of the world becomes just like I've been all along. I've got Asperger's Syndrome (NOT self-diagnosed) and I always felt weird growing up. No wonder I'm far more verbal in text based communications than in real life.
We now have the technology to make a government by the people, FOR the people feasible. As Marx and Engels put it, if it were not for the excesses of the few, everyone could prosper, but the greed of the power mongers is nearly insatiable... they can never have enough.
The key, as I see it, is an evolutionary system- one where law is used of, by, and for the people as a weapon against the parasites. That, and I favor decentralzed, mob rule government...each town, even each neighborhood, is supreme within their own boundaries, then county law, then state law, and finally federal law. The ultimate anti-federalism.
As I recall even in the manifesto... an economy is there to better the people. It is not there to crush the people under the heel of the rich (aka the burgeoise) The economy is a "tool" to make sure everyone has "enough" to live well... but not to excess.
Yes, that was the main point. I don't think he ever forsaw the possibility of a regionalized government web page to collect a database of needs, thus providing better numbers for production of various goods and services, which might actually help give a community extra production capacity and thus the ability to have luxuries, but yes, it's the *purpose* of the economy that Marx called into question.
Unfortunately in the USA, and soon to be "in america" as Canada is heading that way too, the rich are crushing everyone under their heel and taking payoffs to provide tax relief to huge megacorps to offshore jobs and put mom and pop shops out. A few mom and pop outlets survive on the poor customer service that their clients receive at the megacorps, but just you watch. It takes awhile to kill all the "ones that slipped through".
Yep. And thus capitalism, in the end, *must* become corporatism, and any government that doesn't separate itself adequately from business *must* become fascist. The economy turns into a pair of equally opposed feedback loops- a positive one for those born rich, and a negative one for those born poor, and individual talent or hard work no longer matters.
I live in VA (and NC at times), and we had record unemployment here (VA), but suddenly it dropped off, despite Capital One laying off 10000 peeps over the last 2 years. How so you wonder? Easy! Their unemployment ran out... so they can no longer claim it. The figures are done as such... if they can't claim it, they must no longer be unemployed. (Been there, done that... unemployment DOES run out, you only get whats been put into it on your behalf.)
Yep, that's the way unemployed workers become discouraged workers, taken out of the rolls of the employable; we went from 120 million strong in the workforce in 1999 to a mere 65 million today- in the same time period the population of the United States went from 260 million to 290 million. These two trends are not sustainable.