Slashdot sucks. I doesn't let you post to an old thread. Oh well, I see you posted here. And I have finally gotten around to responding to your (Alsee's) post of a week or so ago. I didn't have time to respond to all of it, but maybe I'll get to that in the next couple of weeks.:) I've done a little analysis on your '100 rolls' scenario and I don't think it comes out the way you think.
Now
assume he predicts the first 100 rolls perfectly, and then on the last
900
he falls back to random chance getting getting one in six right (150 of
the last 900 correct at random). So in total he got 250 right and 750
wrong. That
test is a positive confirmation, and it has a statistical signifigance
of about 1 in 10^78.
This is where your analysis
fails. Even though the probability of getting 100 out of 100
rolls is 1 in 10^78, that does not hold true if you look at 1000 rolls.
The probability of getting 100 rolls right out of 1000 is 1
in 10^9.
Yes his answers on the later
rolls were completely worthless noise, but
the test itself is indisinguishable from perfect confirmation.
The reason this is wrong is
because as you change the number of total rolls, the probability
distribution changes. If there is just one roll, there are
two possibilities:
you call it right
you call it wrong
But there is only one way you can call it right, but there are five
ways you can call it wrong. Therefore the odds of calling it
right are 1 in 6 (about 17%), and the odds of calling it
wrong are 5 in 6 (about 73%).
Now let's look at two rolls. We can identify
three possibilities:
you called both right
you called both wrong
you called one right and one
wrong
With two rolls, there are 36 possible outcomes. But there is
only one way to get both right: the odds are therefore 1 in 36 (about
3%). However, there are lots of ways to call both wrong.
In fact, for each roll, there are 5 ways to call it wrong,
resulting in 25 total ways to get both rolls wrong if there are two
rolls. So the odds of getting both rolls wrong are 25 in 36
(about 69%). So far we have accounted for 26 (1+25) of the 36
possible combinations of rolls. That leaves 10 out of 36 (or
about 17%) for the final possibility for getting only one
of the two rolls right.
In the first case (1 roll), the odds of getting 1 roll right is about
17%. In the second case (2 rolls), the odds of getting 1 roll
right is about 28%. There is no such thing as an absolute
probability of getting X rolls right outside of the context of how many
total rolls there are.
Let's jump ahead to 10 rolls. There are eleven possible
outcomes. I will list the odds for each
called 10 correctly: 1 in
10^8
called 9 correctly: 1 in 10^6
called 8 correctly: 1 in 10^4
called 7 correctly: 1 in 10^3
called 6 correctly: 1 in 460
(about.2%)
called 5 correctly: 1 in 77
(about 1%)
called 4 correctly: 1 in 18
(about 5%)
called 3 correctly: 1 in 6.4
(about 16%)
called 2 correctly: 1 in 3.4
(about 29%)
called 1 correctly: 1 in 3.1
(about 32%)
called 0 correctly: 1
in 6.2 (about 16%)
In this case, the odds of getting 1 roll right is about 32%.
So are the odds of getting 1 roll right 17%, 28% or 32%?
The same holds true for getting 100 rolls right:
getting 100 rolls right out
of 100 rolls: 1 in 10^78
getting 100 rolls right out
of 200 rolls: 1 in 10^27
getting 100 rolls right out
of 400 rolls: 1 in 10^5
getting 100 rolls right out
of 800 rolls: 1 in 10^4
getting 100 rolls right out
of 1000 rolls: 1 in 10^9
Notice that, to some extent, it gets easier to guess 100 rolls the more
rolls you do. My point is that when you say the odds of
guessing 100 rolls of the die, it depends on how big the field of total
rolls is.
Sure it is. It's just that simple. Download this file, unzip it, burn it, install it. Just that simple. You won't be running windows any more. It's a five-click install. Just that simple.
And if you are the bookish type, here's something to keep you company as you take your first simple steps outside of your playpen.
Well
lets assume we draw the tree correctly by kingdom and phylum, and then
we completely RANDOMIZE everything below that.
So you are saying that the five kingdoms are still at the top
and the 35 phyla are properly placed in their kingdoms. But
within each phylum, we take every "node" and completely randomize them.
Well, there are two kinds of nodes: leaf nodes,
which represent actual species, and "internal" nodes, which represent
the various levels of classification. So I'm assuming that
leaf nodes have to stay leaf nodes, but we are rearranging all of the
internal nodes so that the node that now represents, say, genus homo
might now be found directly under phylum chordata.
All
we got correct on the tree is that they all have back bones (chordata),
but we have humans branching off of fish and we have birds branching
off of pandas.
So maybe you don't care about leaf nodes. I'm not sure how
you end up with a meaningful tree, but go ahead.
Statistically,
how close is that to the correct tree? It is statisticaly
identical to better than 40 decimal places! The tree as a whole would
be correct within a margin of error of
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent.
Ok, now you've lost me. However you derived that number, and
however impressive it may be mathematically, how can it be meaningful
when we have humans branching off of fish? I would say that
having the gravitational constant to within 1% is better science than
having humans branching off of fish.
There
are more than 10^40 ways you can draw a tree with just the 38 phyla as
branches.
Are there 3 new phyla that I'm not aware of? So, you're
saying that if I have 5 kingdoms, then there is 10^40 ways that the 35
phyla can be placed in those 5 kingdoms? Ok, for the sake of
argument, let's say that's correct. But there are way way way
more than 10^40 different ways that the 2 million known species could
be placed in their kingdoms. So you have to compare that
10^40 with the totality of permutations in the whole tree for it to be at all meaningful.
If
the new genetic analysis merely matched the prior classifications
merely to the level of phyla... if the new genetic analysis had indeed
placed primates branching off of amphibians and birds branching off of
pandas... there is less than a 1-in-10^40 chance that the trees would
have matched up even just to the level of phyla.
Hmm, I'm not sure I'm following this. Let's talk just about
kingdoms and species. There is some huge astronomical
number (way way way
more than 10^40) that describes the number of ways that all species
could be put into their kingdoms. That does not mean that if
the new genetic analysis put all species in there correct kingdoms that
you would have now accomplished something astronomically impossible
that is more awesome than getting the gravitational constant right.
It just means that the kingdom is imprinted in an
easy-to-detect way.
The
tree of common decent is rock solid and confirmed by multiple methods
to an astronomical statistical certainty.
You'll have to show me the other methods. I'm not yet
convinced.
[Darwin]
specifically states "I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate
varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they
connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the
course of further modification and improvement." (My emphasis.)
I have two problems with this. FIrst, the implication is that
connecting forms will last for a shorter duration than non-connecting
forms. Why must this be so? Why couldn't
intermediate forms last for as long a time as the forms they connect?
In other words, there is no necessary relation between how
long a form lasted and whether or not it served in a 'connecting' role.
Besides, in the very next sentence, Darwin states: "Why then is not
every geological formation and every stratum full of such
intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not
reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this,
perhaps, is the most obvious
and gravest objection which can be urged against my
theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the
extreme imperfection of the geological record."
Well, that's one possibility. You need to explain the "grave"
discontinuity between hypothesis and reality in one way or another.
The other possibility is that evolution just does not work in
the way that Darwin thought. And that seems to be the
consensus of those evolutionists who subscribe to the hypothesis of
Punctuated Equilibrium. They have basically concluded that
evolution proceeds in sudden spurts of great activity followed by
longer periods of stasis -- during which fossils had an
opportunity to form. Well, I imagine that in some
instances it did happen that way. But if you want to convince
me that every instance of speciation happened in this way, well, where
is the incontravertable evidence? Punctuated Equilibrium
appears hard to falsify, by which I mean demonstrating that it is the
only mechanism at work which explains the fossil record. But for the
time being it is the only hypothesis
that has not threatened the paradigm, and therefore it has been
accepted.
The Intelligent Design folks certainly have not come up with
a compelling alternative. But someone will.
I
am not talking of people that "learn it in school". I'm talking about
people that learn the science. There is a very significant difference.
Not really. Many experiments have show that when people are
presented with evidence which is outside of their paradigm, they
basically treat it like "noise". So any evidence that might
contradict the paradigm is typically ignored. Not ignoring it
may cost you your job. If you don't believe this, you are
naive in the extreme. "To illustrate, do a Web search on
“Richard Sternberg,” the previous managing editor
of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a peer-reviewed
journal from the Smithsonian Institute. Sternberg, an
evolutionist who holds two Ph.D.’s, approved for publication
[having been already accepted by peer reviewers] an article by
Stephen Meyer in favor of intelligent design. This paper
created a huge sensation and the response include articles written by
scientists around the world blasting Sternberg. With his career all but
shattered, what would other managing editors of peer-reviewed journals
do with papers in favor of creation or intelligent design?"
Haeckel's
conclusion (that the embryonic development accurately recapture the
evolutionary history) is, to the best of my knowledge, not taught - the
drawings are used for illustrative purposes.
Well, how about these texts: Biology:
The Dynamics of
Life (Biggs); Evolutionary
Biology
(Futuyma); Biology
(Burton); Biology:
Visualizing Life (Johnson).
They still use Haeckel's drawings to assert that similarities
in vertebrate embryos (gills, anyone?) supports Darwinism.
Please
elaborate - what "natural" explanations are you thinking of?
I think the answer will be provided by biochemistry. For
example, the previously considered "random" activity
That's nice revisionist history. In case you didn't know, wikipedia doesn't allow any posts that are critical of the Darwinist hypothesis. They quickly get removed or changed. Darwinism always has the last word. Of course, that's the way it is when a paradign is under fire.
And by the way, Puctuated Equilibrium was hypothesized precisely because of neo-Darwinism's inability to explain macro-evolution. It was originally known as the "hopeful monster" hypothesis.
Here is how it actually happened according to the people who were there:
PHILADELPHIA, April
1966, Wistar
Institute
It was
not until the 1960s that the neo-Darwinists
really began fighting among themselves in earnest.
"...[I]n 1967, when a
handful of
mathematicians and biologists were chattering over a picnic lunch
organized by the physicist, Victor Weisskopf, who is a professor at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and one of the original Los
Alamos atomic bomb group, at his house in Geneva. `A rather weird
discussion' took place. The subject was evolution by natural selection.
The mathematicians were stunned by the optimism of the evolutionists
about what could be achieved by chance. So wide was the rift that they
decided to organize a conference, which was called Mathematical
Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution. The conference was
chaired by Sir Peter Medawar, whose work on graft rejection won him a
Noble prize and who, at the time, was director of the Medical Research
Council's laboratories in North London. Not, you will understand, the
kind of man to speak wildly or without careful thought. In opening the
meeting, he said: `The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty
widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought
of as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world,
the so-called neo-Darwinian theory. This dissatisfaction has been
expressed from several quarters."
--G.R.
Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery
(1983, p. 4)
The 1966 Wistar convention was the result of a meeting of
mathematicians and biologists the year before in Switzerland.
Mathematical doubts about Darwinian theory had been raised; and, at the
end of several hours of heated discussion, it was agreed that a meeting
be held the next year to more fully air the problems. Dr.
Martin Kaplan
then set to work to lay plans for the 1966 Wistar Institute.
The milestone meeting was the Wistar
Institute Symposium held in Philadelphia in April 1966. The
chairman, Sir Peter Medawar, made the following opening
remark:
"The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of
dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought as the accepted
evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called
neo-Darwinian theory . . These objections to current neo-Darwinian
theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on
no account, I think, make light of them."
—Peter Medawar,
remarks by the chairman, *Paul Moorhead and *Martin Kaplan (ed.),
Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of
Evolution, Wistar Institute Monograph No. 5.
A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems,
spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute. They clearly refuted
neo-Darwinianism in several areas, and showed that its "fitness" and
"adaptation" theories were tautologous—little more than
circular reasoning. In contrast, some of the biologists who spoke at
the convention could not see the light. They understood bugs and
turtles, but could grasp neither the mathematical impossibilities of
evolutionary theory nor the broad picture of how thoroughly defunct
evolution really is.
For example, one of the mathematicians, Murray Eden of MIT,
explained that life could not begin by the "random selection," which is
the basic pillar of evolutionary teaching. Yet he said that if
randomness is set aside, then only "design" would remain—and
t
Many applications use the Apache Portable Runtime (APR) to make them less dependent on the underlying OS (as long as its windows or a unix-like operating system).
.Uhm, have you actually looked
at what happens with the DNA during cell division? On this point,
"copy" errors happen, so that's where some of the "randomization"
happens.
First of all, there are copying
errors and then there is recombination. Copying errors are
actually extremely and impressively rare. Recombination is
very common.
On the other hand,
recombination is not as random as it appears. In fact, it
appears to be very precise and is controlled by special enzymes that
break the chromosomes, exchange the pieces, and rejoin the free ends.
It also needs certain special structures in the cell to make
it work. These are not just haphazard events.
Special pieces of DNA that jump around in the chromosome
cause these changes.
This is not random.
Its is more like mind-blowing that pieces of a chromosome can
be duplicated, or inverted, or transposed, or deleted and possibly
inserted somewhere else. And everything still works.
Try that with a few times with some source code and see how
far it gets you.
Recombination has been found to
be a very complex process. And we still don't know the half
of it. But I would not call this "random". It is not the kind of randomness that the neo-Darwinists had
in mind.
And the tree that that genetic
analysis reveals matches up perfectly with the relationships and lines
of decent revealed by the fossil record.
Have you heard the tail of two
pandas? In China there are two panda bears: the
Giant Panda and the Red Panda.
they look similar
they also live near
each other
the muzzle or snout of each
has a similar shape and is shorter than that of bears
their upper jaws are similar
the jaw bones of both widen
sharply toward the back of the head
both have massive pre-molar
teeth and enlarged chewing muscles
both have an enlarged radial
sesamoid bone in their wrists, although this is greater in the Giant
panda
neither one hibernates
there are even some unique
similarities in their stomachs and livers
So they share a common ancestor, right? Wrong.
Biochemical studies have revealed that the Giant Panda is part of the
bear family and the Red Panda is part of the raccoon family.
And no, there aren't any other raccoons in China.
They are otherwise exclusively from North America.
As Desi would say: "You've got a lot of 'splaining
to do!"
So I agree that biochemistry is where it's at.
On the other hand, if these were fossils, there would be no question of
common descent.
This is a cautionary tale which should enjoin us to be quite
conservative about the conclusions we can draw from fossils alone.
And also that the two trees don't always line up quite so perfectly.
1.
You are arguing against
intelligent design as well as evolution
I think evolution is a fact.
Darwin had some insights that were significant enough to establish a
new paradigm. But in the rush to join the paradigm, some details of the
hypothesis were poorly developed. Did you know that Darwin did not
suggest that randomness was the source of variation in evolution? This
was a novelty added by the neo-Dawinists in their "synthesis" of the
1940s. They would have done better to remain silent on the issue as
Darwin did. This is one of the very key
issues of evolution: from whence does this variety arise? Randomness,
for a number
of reasons, just doesn't cut it. And the current paradigm is preventing
exploration into alternate theories. Therefore, I think the important
thing to do right now is to expose the numerous weaknesses of the
current theory.
You
claim that if macroevolution occured there would be a continuum of
macroevolving fossils.
What I mean to say is that the
neo-Darwinist model predicts that the fossil record will be continuous.
The fact that it is not so is one of the model's major weaknesses. Of
course, the neo-Darwinists were so embarrassed by this, that by the
1980s, they came up with Punctuated Equilibrium -- one of the most
heroic efforts to account for a lack of evidence. But even this is
still a hypothetical. I think one would be hard pressed to assert
that every
evolutionary change occurred via Punctuated Equilibrium.
And this could certainly never be proven.
Show
me your math.
Well, the point is academic.
The fossil record is not continuous. The Darwinists
have acknowledged that fact. And they have "made up" for it
by introducing the notion of Punctuated Equilibrium. It
states that in small, isolated populations, random variations will have
a greater lasting impact. But this still ignores the crux of
the issue:
Where does variation, even in small populations, come from?
If it is randomness, then it is very guarded randomness. If
there is too little randomness, then the variations just
will disappear from the population. If there is too much,
then you end up like the frogs
in Minnesota --
with population that may not be able to reproduce. Small
populations are unstable for
this very reason. And this is a double edged sword.
You could just as easily argue that Punctuated Equilibrium reduces variation
because of the potential instability of small populations.
For Punctuated Equilibrium to work, the randomness must occur
within a narrow range which is not too much and not too
little.
Recombinant
DNA can explain some of this. But even this does not
explain one thing: over the long course of macro-evolution,
the genome has to be gradually built up. If you start with three
cards, there is a certain number of hands that you can have at which
point you have exhausted all possible variety for those cards.
If you add a couple of new cards, then you can have greater
variety.
Recombinant DNA can help you exhaust the intrinsic variety of
your current set of cards, but it does not increase the number of
cards. It shuffles the deck, but does not add new
cards. An important question then is: Where did all the cards
come
from? Darwinists are quick to point out the (micro) variation
that
recombination produces. But are at a loss to explain the
gradual build up of the genome over the long course of macro-evolution.
And without this, we would all still be amoebas with only three cards
in our pods. Of course,
there is the occasional random flipping
of a single bit from cosmic rays. And certainly these "point
mutations" could eventually add up. But even though point mutations
have been observed in the laboratory, a point mutation
which increases survival value by adding new information (as opposed to
having a "shuffling" or suppressing effect) has never been
scientifically observed. Maybe tomorrow.
congratulations
on being the first secular creationist
I'm sorry. You have turned off autorun. You are in violation of the DMCA. Do not attempt to leave the building. A security force will shortly arrive at your location to escort you to your new domicile.
And just how is such a device going to reach the Internet?
I would certainly like more information on how this is supposed to work.
For some reason, I had the idea that if/when the keys on a specific player were cracked, all discs manufactured after that point would be able to reject those keys. No internet access needed.
That would pretty much defeat any attempt at a linux player.
Which is why I personally will not be upgrading to this new technology.
(If you are not a religious/moral person, then just skip over the mushy parts.) The books he mentions in the text are good ones to follow up with.
As for specific sources about the fossil record, well, I should keep better track and I'm starting to. I think you will find this general argument in any book which looks at Darwinism with a critical eye.
2. As for your supposedly impressive link: File Not Found
3. Micro-evolution has been observed by breeders before the time of Darwin. In fact, the (limited) changes that breeders could produce was one of Darwin's inspirations. There is no need for fossils in order to accept micro-evolution.
4. Even if only one organism in one billion fossilized, there would still be plenty of intermediate forms.
5. As Darwin himself noted in The Origin of Species, "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on earth, [must] be truly enormous." Too bad he seems to have been wrong.
6. You know nothing about me. You have no idea whether I have a religious background or none at all.
7. Ad hominem attacks are the last resort of the weak minded.:)
8. Your behavior is perfectly in accord with that described by Thomas Kuhn. You really need to open your mind.
On the other hand, if humans evolved from earlier quadrupeds, the design makes perfect sense.
Ah, the old (and repeatedly used by evolutionists) "it makes perfect sense" argument. Too bad that's not the same thing as evidence.
But guess what? I believe evolution is a fact. So I completely agree with you.
It's just that I don't think that the neo-Darwinian hypothesis is the best, or even a good description of how evolution occurs. In fact, I think its a piss-poor description which has holes in it so big that a herd of bracheasaurii could gallop through it.
Well, since you brought up the gaps, did you know that Darwin said (in The Origin of Species), "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on earth, [must] be truly enormous."
Too bad he was wrong.
In the 1940s, when the neo-Darwinists produced there "synthesis", they didn't realize how wrong Darwin was. Otherwise, they would have made a correction then.
But by the 1980s, the embarrassment was so strong, that they introduced the first scientific hypothesis to deal with a LACK of evidence. They called it Punctuated Equilibrium. Odd. Hypotheses usually attempt to describe the evidence which exists, not that which doesn't.
I didn't say anything about preachers. I have no idea what 'this' you are talking about.
Having a hypothesis for an effect without a mechanism is common.
(observing effect, provide hypothesis for how it happens, test prediction, find mechanism that explains hypothesis.)
You'll have to explain the part about having a 'hypothesis for how it happens', but not suggesting a 'mechanism' for how it happens. A paradigm without a mechanism I can accept. A hypothesis without a mechanism seems exceedingly weak to me.
If we start with single-strain mice, it takes three generations of breeding to produce mice with noticeable size differences - inheritable such. This can be survival-enhancing (depending on circumstances, of course.) So yes, we have observed such mutations.
This is the type of thing that breeders were able to do long before Darwin. This is micro-evolution. And it certainly does not represent the type of mutation that is required by long-term macro-evolution. To build up the genome "from scratch", as it were, long-term macro-evolution requires novelty, that is, truly new, meaningful information, being added to the genome. Micro-evolution does not introduce this kind of novelty. It may shuffle existing genes around to produce variations in phenotype, but this does not, over the long haul, gradually build up new information in the genome. It just shuffles the existing information. Real novelty in the genome can occur through random mutation. When a random "bit" of the genome is "flipped" in a random way such that survival benefit is gained by the organism, this could be considered the introduction of a tiny bit of useful novelty (new information that was previously not present) into the genome. In other words, shuffling the deck is not the same thing as adding a new card to the deck. And when the deck is very slim, you will necessarily have to add new cards to represent new varieties of information. "Point mutations" add new cards to the deck. They are the only known way that genome can gradually be built up over the long course of macro-evolution so that it can represent greater and greater degrees of variety. Unfortunately, point mutations which increase survival value have never been scientifically observed. Which throws something of a monkey wrench into evolutionary "theory".
Next, we various hypotheses for how DNA originated. The one I see as most likely is the "clay hypothesis" - clay can form crystals which self-replicate, various organic chemicals including RNA can enhance this replication, and RNA could then have "taken off on its own".
The problem with this scenario is that it only describes the possible evolution of the medium. But does not at all describe where the information encoded on the medium may have come from. DNA, as you know, is a medium, just like RAM in a computer is a medium. The entire Encyclopedia Britannica, or any other stream of information, could be encoded in RAM, and it could be encoded in the DNA. So its nice that hypothetical scenarios of how DNA, the medium, may have come into being are being contemplated. But DNA doesn't contain the Encyclopedia Britannica, it contains serialized information of three-dimensional protein shapes. So the answer to the question of how DNA came into being is not even half the question. The real difficult question is explaining how, of all the possible information streams that could have been encoded on the DNA, it happened to encode serialized streams of three-dimension protein shapes.
Punctuated equilibirum seems to more or less have been accepted all along;
Well, Darwin didn't know anything about it. In fact, he was sure that missing links in the fossil record would eventually be found ("The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on earth, [must] be truly enormous" -- The Origin of Species). Punctuated Equilibrium did not show up
Darwin's hypothesis, and especially the neo-Darwinian synthesis, had as an implicit goal of removing a Creator from the evolutionary hypothesis
No, it doesn't. Darwinism is agnostic about a god or creator, as it is totally "outside of the system". So, only religious people claim that Darwinism is "anti-god" because it is not as "pro-god" as they would like to have it.
Did you know that Darwin himself did not mention the idea that random mutations were the cause of variation in the course of evolution? This was a novelty introduced by the neo-Darwinists in their "synthesis" of the 1940s.
If they (the neo-Darwinists) had remained silent on the issue, like Darwin had, then I would agree with you. But since they insisted that variation in evolution was soley due to random mutations (with a considerable lack of evidence to back them up) and there was no other possible cause, then, yes, it is clear that they were explicitly trying to remove the possibility of any other mechanism acting to produce variety.
This is called "materialist philosophy" at work, not science.
Oh, and you're mixing up "theory" and "hypothesis".
No I'm not. I reserve the word "theory" for the mathematical sciences in which specific equations have been repeated shown to represent the behavior of nature.
The neo-Darwinian hypothesis is neither a mathematical science, nor does it have substantial evidence that exclusively supports it's hypothesis.
(that's what experiments are all about, or findings that fit into that prediction, like in the case of biology/evolution)
Oh, you mean like the prediction that the fossil record would be full of intermediate forms. Guess what, that prediction didn't work out. As Darwin himself noted in The Origin of Species, "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on earth, [must] be truly enormous." NOT!
Every design involves trade-offs. Until you know what the priorities and requirements were of the designer, you can't really effectively evaluate a design.
Ask ten people to design the same thing, and you will get ten different designs, because of the different priorities that the individuals bring to the design (such as: will this look good on my resume).
All you are saying is: That sucks! That's not the way I would have done it! Which I hear so many times that it bores me.
Slashdot Mirror
Now assume he predicts the first 100 rolls perfectly, and then on the last 900 he falls back to random chance getting getting one in six right (150 of the last 900 correct at random). So in total he got 250 right and 750 wrong. That test is a positive confirmation, and it has a statistical signifigance of about 1 in 10^78.
This is where your analysis fails. Even though the probability of getting 100 out of 100 rolls is 1 in 10^78, that does not hold true if you look at 1000 rolls. The probability of getting 100 rolls right out of 1000 is 1 in 10^9.
Yes his answers on the later rolls were completely worthless noise, but the test itself is indisinguishable from perfect confirmation.
The reason this is wrong is because as you change the number of total rolls, the probability distribution changes. If there is just one roll, there are two possibilities:
But there is only one way you can call it right, but there are five ways you can call it wrong. Therefore the odds of calling it right are 1 in 6 (about 17%), and the odds of calling it wrong are 5 in 6 (about 73%).
Now let's look at two rolls. We can identify three possibilities:
With two rolls, there are 36 possible outcomes. But there is only one way to get both right: the odds are therefore 1 in 36 (about 3%). However, there are lots of ways to call both wrong. In fact, for each roll, there are 5 ways to call it wrong, resulting in 25 total ways to get both rolls wrong if there are two rolls. So the odds of getting both rolls wrong are 25 in 36 (about 69%). So far we have accounted for 26 (1+25) of the 36 possible combinations of rolls. That leaves 10 out of 36 (or about 17%) for the final possibility for getting only one of the two rolls right.
In the first case (1 roll), the odds of getting 1 roll right is about 17%. In the second case (2 rolls), the odds of getting 1 roll right is about 28%. There is no such thing as an absolute probability of getting X rolls right outside of the context of how many total rolls there are.
Let's jump ahead to 10 rolls. There are eleven possible outcomes. I will list the odds for each
In this case, the odds of getting 1 roll right is about 32%. So are the odds of getting 1 roll right 17%, 28% or 32%?
The same holds true for getting 100 rolls right:
Notice that, to some extent, it gets easier to guess 100 rolls the more rolls you do. My point is that when you say the odds of guessing 100 rolls of the die, it depends on how big the field of total rolls is.
S
Well, given Sony's recent behavior, and Microsoft's continuous behavior, it's a no brainer that I'm getting a Nintendo.
And if you are the bookish type, here's something to keep you company as you take your first simple steps outside of your playpen.
Instead of punishing the programmers, who were just doing what they were told, why don't you punish the managers who told them to do it?
If you must write in C, use the Apache Portable Runtime.
Well lets assume we draw the tree correctly by kingdom and phylum, and then we completely RANDOMIZE everything below that.
So you are saying that the five kingdoms are still at the top and the 35 phyla are properly placed in their kingdoms. But within each phylum, we take every "node" and completely randomize them. Well, there are two kinds of nodes: leaf nodes, which represent actual species, and "internal" nodes, which represent the various levels of classification. So I'm assuming that leaf nodes have to stay leaf nodes, but we are rearranging all of the internal nodes so that the node that now represents, say, genus homo might now be found directly under phylum chordata.
All we got correct on the tree is that they all have back bones (chordata), but we have humans branching off of fish and we have birds branching off of pandas.
So maybe you don't care about leaf nodes. I'm not sure how you end up with a meaningful tree, but go ahead.
Statistically, how close is that to the correct tree? It is statisticaly identical to better than 40 decimal places! The tree as a whole would be correct within a margin of error of 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent.
Ok, now you've lost me. However you derived that number, and however impressive it may be mathematically, how can it be meaningful when we have humans branching off of fish? I would say that having the gravitational constant to within 1% is better science than having humans branching off of fish.
There are more than 10^40 ways you can draw a tree with just the 38 phyla as branches.
Are there 3 new phyla that I'm not aware of? So, you're saying that if I have 5 kingdoms, then there is 10^40 ways that the 35 phyla can be placed in those 5 kingdoms? Ok, for the sake of argument, let's say that's correct. But there are way way way more than 10^40 different ways that the 2 million known species could be placed in their kingdoms. So you have to compare that 10^40 with the totality of permutations in the whole tree for it to be at all meaningful.
If the new genetic analysis merely matched the prior classifications merely to the level of phyla... if the new genetic analysis had indeed placed primates branching off of amphibians and birds branching off of pandas... there is less than a 1-in-10^40 chance that the trees would have matched up even just to the level of phyla.
Hmm, I'm not sure I'm following this. Let's talk just about kingdoms and species. There is some huge astronomical number (way way way more than 10^40) that describes the number of ways that all species could be put into their kingdoms. That does not mean that if the new genetic analysis put all species in there correct kingdoms that you would have now accomplished something astronomically impossible that is more awesome than getting the gravitational constant right. It just means that the kingdom is imprinted in an easy-to-detect way.
The tree of common decent is rock solid and confirmed by multiple methods to an astronomical statistical certainty.
You'll have to show me the other methods. I'm not yet convinced.
[Darwin] specifically states "I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement." (My emphasis.)
I have two problems with this. FIrst, the implication is that connecting forms will last for a shorter duration than non-connecting forms. Why must this be so? Why couldn't intermediate forms last for as long a time as the forms they connect? In other words, there is no necessary relation between how long a form lasted and whether or not it served in a 'connecting' role.
Besides, in the very next sentence, Darwin states: "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
Well, that's one possibility. You need to explain the "grave" discontinuity between hypothesis and reality in one way or another. The other possibility is that evolution just does not work in the way that Darwin thought. And that seems to be the consensus of those evolutionists who subscribe to the hypothesis of Punctuated Equilibrium. They have basically concluded that evolution proceeds in sudden spurts of great activity followed by longer periods of stasis -- during which fossils had an opportunity to form. Well, I imagine that in some instances it did happen that way. But if you want to convince me that every instance of speciation happened in this way, well, where is the incontravertable evidence? Punctuated Equilibrium appears hard to falsify, by which I mean demonstrating that it is the only mechanism at work which explains the fossil record. But for the time being it is the only hypothesis that has not threatened the paradigm, and therefore it has been accepted. The Intelligent Design folks certainly have not come up with a compelling alternative. But someone will.
I am not talking of people that "learn it in school". I'm talking about people that learn the science. There is a very significant difference.
Not really. Many experiments have show that when people are presented with evidence which is outside of their paradigm, they basically treat it like "noise". So any evidence that might contradict the paradigm is typically ignored. Not ignoring it may cost you your job. If you don't believe this, you are naive in the extreme. "To illustrate, do a Web search on “Richard Sternberg,” the previous managing editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a peer-reviewed journal from the Smithsonian Institute. Sternberg, an evolutionist who holds two Ph.D.’s, approved for publication [having been already accepted by peer reviewers] an article by Stephen Meyer in favor of intelligent design. This paper created a huge sensation and the response include articles written by scientists around the world blasting Sternberg. With his career all but shattered, what would other managing editors of peer-reviewed journals do with papers in favor of creation or intelligent design?"
Haeckel's conclusion (that the embryonic development accurately recapture the evolutionary history) is, to the best of my knowledge, not taught - the drawings are used for illustrative purposes.
Well, how about these texts: Biology: The Dynamics of Life (Biggs); Evolutionary Biology (Futuyma); Biology (Burton); Biology: Visualizing Life (Johnson). They still use Haeckel's drawings to assert that similarities in vertebrate embryos (gills, anyone?) supports Darwinism.
Please elaborate - what "natural" explanations are you thinking of?
I think the answer will be provided by biochemistry. For example, the previously considered "random" activity
And by the way, Puctuated Equilibrium was hypothesized precisely because of neo-Darwinism's inability to explain macro-evolution. It was originally known as the "hopeful monster" hypothesis.
Here is how it actually happened according to the people who were there:
PHILADELPHIA, April 1966, Wistar Institute
It was not until the 1960s that the neo-Darwinists really began fighting among themselves in earnest.
The 1966 Wistar convention was the result of a meeting of mathematicians and biologists the year before in Switzerland. Mathematical doubts about Darwinian theory had been raised; and, at the end of several hours of heated discussion, it was agreed that a meeting be held the next year to more fully air the problems. Dr. Martin Kaplan then set to work to lay plans for the 1966 Wistar Institute.
The milestone meeting was the Wistar Institute Symposium held in Philadelphia in April 1966. The chairman, Sir Peter Medawar, made the following opening remark:
A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute. They clearly refuted neo-Darwinianism in several areas, and showed that its "fitness" and "adaptation" theories were tautologous—little more than circular reasoning. In contrast, some of the biologists who spoke at the convention could not see the light. They understood bugs and turtles, but could grasp neither the mathematical impossibilities of evolutionary theory nor the broad picture of how thoroughly defunct evolution really is.
For example, one of the mathematicians, Murray Eden of MIT, explained that life could not begin by the "random selection," which is the basic pillar of evolutionary teaching. Yet he said that if randomness is set aside, then only "design" would remain—and t
Science and Technology at the Christian Science Monitor
Many applications use the Apache Portable Runtime (APR) to make them less dependent on the underlying OS (as long as its windows or a unix-like operating system).
That's why we should support http://www.open-hardware.org/ and http://openbios.org/.
I see. So Punctuated Equilibrium doesn't even explain the gaps in the fossil record. For that they had to invent another non-falsifiable fantasy.
First of all, there are copying errors and then there is recombination. Copying errors are actually extremely and impressively rare. Recombination is very common.
On the other hand, recombination is not as random as it appears. In fact, it appears to be very precise and is controlled by special enzymes that break the chromosomes, exchange the pieces, and rejoin the free ends. It also needs certain special structures in the cell to make it work. These are not just haphazard events. Special pieces of DNA that jump around in the chromosome cause these changes.
This is not random. Its is more like mind-blowing that pieces of a chromosome can be duplicated, or inverted, or transposed, or deleted and possibly inserted somewhere else. And everything still works. Try that with a few times with some source code and see how far it gets you.
Recombination has been found to be a very complex process. And we still don't know the half of it. But I would not call this "random". It is not the kind of randomness that the neo-Darwinists had in mind.
Have you heard the tail of two pandas? In China there are two panda bears: the Giant Panda and the Red Panda.
So they share a common ancestor, right? Wrong.
Biochemical studies have revealed that the Giant Panda is part of the bear family and the Red Panda is part of the raccoon family. And no, there aren't any other raccoons in China. They are otherwise exclusively from North America. As Desi would say: "You've got a lot of 'splaining to do!"
So I agree that biochemistry is where it's at.
On the other hand, if these were fossils, there would be no question of common descent.
This is a cautionary tale which should enjoin us to be quite conservative about the conclusions we can draw from fossils alone.
And also that the two trees don't always line up quite so perfectly.
I think evolution is a fact. Darwin had some insights that were significant enough to establish a new paradigm. But in the rush to join the paradigm, some details of the hypothesis were poorly developed. Did you know that Darwin did not suggest that randomness was the source of variation in evolution? This was a novelty added by the neo-Dawinists in their "synthesis" of the 1940s. They would have done better to remain silent on the issue as Darwin did. This is one of the very key issues of evolution: from whence does this variety arise? Randomness, for a number of reasons, just doesn't cut it. And the current paradigm is preventing exploration into alternate theories. Therefore, I think the important thing to do right now is to expose the numerous weaknesses of the current theory.
You claim that if macroevolution occured there would be a continuum of macroevolving fossils.
What I mean to say is that the neo-Darwinist model predicts that the fossil record will be continuous. The fact that it is not so is one of the model's major weaknesses. Of course, the neo-Darwinists were so embarrassed by this, that by the 1980s, they came up with Punctuated Equilibrium -- one of the most heroic efforts to account for a lack of evidence. But even this is still a hypothetical. I think one would be hard pressed to assert that every evolutionary change occurred via Punctuated Equilibrium. And this could certainly never be proven.
Show me your math.
Well, the point is academic. The fossil record is not continuous. The Darwinists have acknowledged that fact. And they have "made up" for it by introducing the notion of Punctuated Equilibrium. It states that in small, isolated populations, random variations will have a greater lasting impact. But this still ignores the crux of the issue: Where does variation, even in small populations, come from? If it is randomness, then it is very guarded randomness. If there is too little randomness, then the variations just will disappear from the population. If there is too much, then you end up like the frogs in Minnesota -- with population that may not be able to reproduce. Small populations are unstable for this very reason. And this is a double edged sword. You could just as easily argue that Punctuated Equilibrium reduces variation because of the potential instability of small populations. For Punctuated Equilibrium to work, the randomness must occur within a narrow range which is not too much and not too little.
Recombinant DNA can explain some of this. But even this does not explain one thing: over the long course of macro-evolution, the genome has to be gradually built up. If you start with three cards, there is a certain number of hands that you can have at which point you have exhausted all possible variety for those cards. If you add a couple of new cards, then you can have greater variety. Recombinant DNA can help you exhaust the intrinsic variety of your current set of cards, but it does not increase the number of cards. It shuffles the deck, but does not add new cards. An important question then is: Where did all the cards come from? Darwinists are quick to point out the (micro) variation that recombination produces. But are at a loss to explain the gradual build up of the genome over the long course of macro-evolution. And without this, we would all still be amoebas with only three cards in our pods. Of course, there is the occasional random flipping of a single bit from cosmic rays. And certainly these "point mutations" could eventually add up. But even though point mutations have been observed in the laboratory, a point mutation which increases survival value by adding new information (as opposed to having a "shuffling" or suppressing effect) has never been scientifically observed. Maybe tomorrow.
congratulations on being the first secular creationist
I'm sorry. You have turned off autorun. You are in violation of the DMCA. Do not attempt to leave the building. A security force will shortly arrive at your location to escort you to your new domicile.
I would certainly like more information on how this is supposed to work.
For some reason, I had the idea that if/when the keys on a specific player were cracked, all discs manufactured after that point would be able to reject those keys. No internet access needed.
That would pretty much defeat any attempt at a linux player.
Which is why I personally will not be upgrading to this new technology.
http://cseg.blogspot.com/
Just start at the top and start working your way down.
A very short and simple (and cheap) book to get you started would be:
The Case Against Darwin: Why the Evidence Should Be Examined
(If you are not a religious/moral person, then just skip over the mushy parts.) The books he mentions in the text are good ones to follow up with.
As for specific sources about the fossil record, well, I should keep better track and I'm starting to. I think you will find this general argument in any book which looks at Darwinism with a critical eye.
2. As for your supposedly impressive link: File Not Found
3. Micro-evolution has been observed by breeders before the time of Darwin. In fact, the (limited) changes that breeders could produce was one of Darwin's inspirations. There is no need for fossils in order to accept micro-evolution.
4. Even if only one organism in one billion fossilized, there would still be plenty of intermediate forms.
5. As Darwin himself noted in The Origin of Species, "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on earth, [must] be truly enormous." Too bad he seems to have been wrong.
6. You know nothing about me. You have no idea whether I have a religious background or none at all.
7. Ad hominem attacks are the last resort of the weak minded. :)
8. Your behavior is perfectly in accord with that described by Thomas Kuhn. You really need to open your mind.
Ah, the old (and repeatedly used by evolutionists) "it makes perfect sense" argument. Too bad that's not the same thing as evidence.
But guess what? I believe evolution is a fact. So I completely agree with you.
It's just that I don't think that the neo-Darwinian hypothesis is the best, or even a good description of how evolution occurs. In fact, I think its a piss-poor description which has holes in it so big that a herd of bracheasaurii could gallop through it.
Well, since you brought up the gaps, did you know that Darwin said (in The Origin of Species), "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on earth, [must] be truly enormous."
Too bad he was wrong.
In the 1940s, when the neo-Darwinists produced there "synthesis", they didn't realize how wrong Darwin was. Otherwise, they would have made a correction then.
But by the 1980s, the embarrassment was so strong, that they introduced the first scientific hypothesis to deal with a LACK of evidence. They called it Punctuated Equilibrium. Odd. Hypotheses usually attempt to describe the evidence which exists, not that which doesn't.
Another first for the neo-Darwinists!
Now I know what its like to be a lion in a hyena pack.
I didn't say anything about preachers. I have no idea what 'this' you are talking about.
Having a hypothesis for an effect without a mechanism is common.
(observing effect, provide hypothesis for how it happens, test prediction, find mechanism that explains hypothesis.)
You'll have to explain the part about having a 'hypothesis for how it happens', but not suggesting a 'mechanism' for how it happens. A paradigm without a mechanism I can accept. A hypothesis without a mechanism seems exceedingly weak to me.
If we start with single-strain mice, it takes three generations of breeding to produce mice with noticeable size differences - inheritable such. This can be survival-enhancing (depending on circumstances, of course.) So yes, we have observed such mutations.
This is the type of thing that breeders were able to do long before Darwin. This is micro-evolution. And it certainly does not represent the type of mutation that is required by long-term macro-evolution. To build up the genome "from scratch", as it were, long-term macro-evolution requires novelty, that is, truly new, meaningful information, being added to the genome. Micro-evolution does not introduce this kind of novelty. It may shuffle existing genes around to produce variations in phenotype, but this does not, over the long haul, gradually build up new information in the genome. It just shuffles the existing information. Real novelty in the genome can occur through random mutation. When a random "bit" of the genome is "flipped" in a random way such that survival benefit is gained by the organism, this could be considered the introduction of a tiny bit of useful novelty (new information that was previously not present) into the genome. In other words, shuffling the deck is not the same thing as adding a new card to the deck. And when the deck is very slim, you will necessarily have to add new cards to represent new varieties of information. "Point mutations" add new cards to the deck. They are the only known way that genome can gradually be built up over the long course of macro-evolution so that it can represent greater and greater degrees of variety. Unfortunately, point mutations which increase survival value have never been scientifically observed. Which throws something of a monkey wrench into evolutionary "theory".
Next, we various hypotheses for how DNA originated. The one I see as most likely is the "clay hypothesis" - clay can form crystals which self-replicate, various organic chemicals including RNA can enhance this replication, and RNA could then have "taken off on its own".
The problem with this scenario is that it only describes the possible evolution of the medium. But does not at all describe where the information encoded on the medium may have come from. DNA, as you know, is a medium, just like RAM in a computer is a medium. The entire Encyclopedia Britannica, or any other stream of information, could be encoded in RAM, and it could be encoded in the DNA. So its nice that hypothetical scenarios of how DNA, the medium, may have come into being are being contemplated. But DNA doesn't contain the Encyclopedia Britannica, it contains serialized information of three-dimensional protein shapes. So the answer to the question of how DNA came into being is not even half the question. The real difficult question is explaining how, of all the possible information streams that could have been encoded on the DNA, it happened to encode serialized streams of three-dimension protein shapes.
Punctuated equilibirum seems to more or less have been accepted all along;
Well, Darwin didn't know anything about it. In fact, he was sure that missing links in the fossil record would eventually be found ("The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on earth, [must] be truly enormous" -- The Origin of Species). Punctuated Equilibrium did not show up
Did you know that Darwin himself did not mention the idea that random mutations were the cause of variation in the course of evolution? This was a novelty introduced by the neo-Darwinists in their "synthesis" of the 1940s.
If they (the neo-Darwinists) had remained silent on the issue, like Darwin had, then I would agree with you. But since they insisted that variation in evolution was soley due to random mutations (with a considerable lack of evidence to back them up) and there was no other possible cause, then, yes, it is clear that they were explicitly trying to remove the possibility of any other mechanism acting to produce variety.
This is called "materialist philosophy" at work, not science.
Oh, and you're mixing up "theory" and "hypothesis".
No I'm not. I reserve the word "theory" for the mathematical sciences in which specific equations have been repeated shown to represent the behavior of nature.
The neo-Darwinian hypothesis is neither a mathematical science, nor does it have substantial evidence that exclusively supports it's hypothesis.
(that's what experiments are all about, or findings that fit into that prediction, like in the case of biology/evolution)
Oh, you mean like the prediction that the fossil record would be full of intermediate forms. Guess what, that prediction didn't work out. As Darwin himself noted in The Origin of Species, "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on earth, [must] be truly enormous." NOT!
Ask ten people to design the same thing, and you will get ten different designs, because of the different priorities that the individuals bring to the design (such as: will this look good on my resume).
All you are saying is: That sucks! That's not the way I would have done it! Which I hear so many times that it bores me.