Creationists to Mark 'Darwin Day' with Anti-Evolution Conference

Online4Him »

Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:39 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 2

Fleming,

How do you allegorize the seven day week cycle, the God of Genesis and the multiple biblical testimonies of other authors of scripture who mention the creation?

Father Fleming »

Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:45 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 6

Wow, what a brain trust must be assembled for this one. Anti-evolution? That's like being anti-gravity.

The Vatican is holding a conference on Darwin and evolution and they've managed to reconcile God as Creator with the reality of science. They know that God works in mysterious ways and evolution can very easily be part of God's plan. Of course, the Catholic Church knows Genesis is allegory, a fable or myth to explain what was unknown by ancient man. It isn't to be taken literally. Thank God I can believe in God and Darwin.

agentorangex »

Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"I started with a teletype to Univac and Bell & Howell."

That must of been interesting. In your position you can more appreciate how much the technology has changed in some 40 years. Especially with regards to disc capacity growth.

"286 with a green screen."

My first experience with a computer was aa Apple II (I think), my friends dad was a programmer for Apple in the bay area & we mostly plaid games on it. I eventually got my hands on my own 386.

Anyone heard of MS 'Surface'? Imagine that, but with Quantum computing power, & bingo you got similar apps seen on futuristic movies like 'minority report'.

agentorangex »

Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

DP,

"Mac...evolution
PC...deevolution"

Personally, I'm a PC guy, & since Mac's now use an Intel chipset for their HW, the only major difference is the OS, which in some regards I have to tip my hat to for Mac's work as it's fairly robust but it's limited in what apps a person can find to use for it.

Generally though, the complaints, or anti PC rhetoric I hear, is often similar to 'well you can't get a virus on a Mac!'

Obviously this is wrong, at least to those who know better, as the proliferation of viruses is contigent on the dominant OS in the market, that being Windows. When Mac only constitutes maybe 5% of the market, there is less interest in development of viral code as many times the intent behind it is to control (bots) massive numbers to exicute further attacks on generally larger businesses/organizations.

I've mentioned it before but for a recap, I do IT systems engineering work related to windows servers infrastructure managment. Much of it direct consulting, for mid to large sized companies. I work closely with Microsoft & Accenture & so I get immediate access to new technologies via MSDN, paid training & certs & all that jazz.

abb3w »

Sat Feb 07, 2009 8:20 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Daniel Paul: "What type of department do you work in?"

I do the IT support for an little group of Liberal Arts and Sciences types from a mix of fields (English, Education, History, Philosophy, Religious Studies, Psychology, Anthropology, Physics) hanging out in an Engineering School, who study the process of Engineering, and who try to teach the Engineers (among other things) that the time to think of the impact on society from making doomsday devices is BEFORE they start building, rather than after they've been on the market for a decade or two.

I'm not that hard to track down.

Note, I'm not one of the professors. I'm simply the fly-on-the-wall who's listened enough to acquire A Little Knowledge. This in turn means my opinions are my own, and not that of the department or school; my employer does not pay me to have opinions.

Daniel Paul »

Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"Mac's are overrated chap, honestly, at least in the price"

They are VERY proud of their computers no doubt. However, if you are doing graphics of any type the Mac is the route to go if you are using Adobe products. I've used both platforms with most Adobe programs. Macs just work better.

Still, I would never want to do CAD on a Mac.

Daniel Paul »

Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"the rest of the department is now looking forward to migrating, one OS or another. =) "

Mac...evolution
PC...deevolution

any questions? :D

Really though it does depend on what you want to do. PCs are great for number crunching. Macs are good at anything more abstract which is why PostScript was designed for use on the Mac platform. Adobe created this great new software called "Illustrator" and had no way to print out what they were creating. The printer just wasn't "smart" enough.

I started with a teletype to Univac and Bell & Howell. Moved up to a 286 with a green screen. My first Mac was a Mac IIsi. I'm now playing with a G4 750 and a Dell GX60. I've got a couple of servers I want to hook up at the house.

What type of department do you work in?

abb3w »

Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:10 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

viking: "Maybe they had the mathematics or perhaps they had a different access to understanding"

Education + Brothers strongly suggests "Jesuits". Iggy's boys generally don't have a lot of moss growing on them. (Of course, they also seldom have a problem with the idea of Genesis 1 being a parable, or with accepting evolution... aside from the imparting of the Soul requiring action by God.)

viking: "Obviously I did not advance on to the postdoc math studies and therefore can't really judge the validity of your assertion regarding the "baroque" math."

Oh, THAT isn't post-doc level; that's merely advanced undergrad. If you get through GEB you can probably make sense of it; Turing-computable equals type-zero unrestricted Chomsky grammar equals Recursively Enumerable complexity.

The Vitanyi-Li paper is what I think is graduate level stuff.

viking »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

abbw3,
thanks for the explicit identification of earlier thoughts.
assumptions 1 yes and 2 ok although rusty and not qualified to really evaluate them critically. 3. I can grasp conceptually but the implications are somewhat opaque to me in the technical details so maybe thats why I am not screaming.
I guess I need to advance my mathematics before I can be upset about this.
Re the posited charecteristics of the supernatural you mention the paradox arising from naive omnipotence. We did this one when I was around 10 with the brothers. Everyone who accepted the "its a mystery" went on in the regular classes those who rejected it and other stuff like that got slated for extra studies.
Obviously I did not advance on to the postdoc math studies and therefore can't really judge the validity of your assertion regarding the "baroque" math.
However It is interesting to me that your description using the term "fixed structure" in the next post in discussing determinism.

"and whether "determine" is from within a space-time framework, versus regarding the whole of eternity unto infinity (lower case omega of the mathematical-ordinal-not-theologial-variety) as a "fixed" structure"

Is so closely alligned with the mental model of reality that the brothers tried to get us to see in discussing the true nature of reality.

Maybe they had the mathematics or perhaps they had a different access to understanding

abb3w »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Daniel Paul: "Intelligence and wisdom are two different things."

Something like that; check www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/68545 for a perspective I can get behind.

Daniel Paul: "Have you seen the G5 big screen theater edition with surround sound."

Eh; I use a G4 dualie with 17" screen at work, and my laptop is a MacBook. My home desktops are white-box Win2k/WinXP/Linux multiboot. The department secretary is currently using an iMac 24" running Windows; the rest of the department is now looking forward to migrating, one OS or another. =)

abb3w »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

viking: "Hi, I searched around and found the actual paper rather than just the abstract"

The link to the abstract includes (on the right) a link the PDF of another version from last year; you seem to have found one just published, covering much the same material, plus a bit more. (Thank you.) I'll need to review it to see if there's anything new and mindbending. Based on an email conversation, I expect not, but I try to keep an open mind without an empty head.

viking: 'Now maybe I'm stretching in this next observation. If as asserted in this paper that elementary particles have free will identical in kind to the free will of humans would it not be a logical extension to conclude that it is not our evolved brains that are the source/origin/whatever of this "free will" since elementary particles don't appear to have these same evolved brains.'

At least you ARE stretching, rather than retreating to the comfort zone of the familiar (or catatonia)!

It would (in some sense) appear that "free will" in this sense is an inherent property of all matter, yes. As such, "free will" at the macroscopic level may be considered as an emergent property resulting from the "free will" at the microscopic level. Our brains make use of it, but are not the ultimate source.

Also note, this "free will" is not completely unconstrained. You're still stuck with "the laws of physics", whatever those are.

Furthermore, getting back to the earlier question, the "free will" might well be describable by a hypercomplex system, such as a Recursively Enumerable Church-Turing Automaton aided by invocation of a (simple) Halting Oracle. But... such a concept precludes inferences from finite description; which in turn means, it might as well be "random" from where we sit. That appears to be the final Gap for a "God of the Gaps" to hide in. However, such a God is inherently incomprehensible by finite beings.

viking: "Do you think they were serious in agreeing with Einstien's theistic statement or just fooling around."

Based on my email to Conway and the earlier version, pending my review of the latest version, and from a mathematical framework: presuming there is a God, and that He is playing games, Dice appear inadeqately complex to encompass the complexity of game He is playing.

agentorangex: "The paper states that determinism isn't possible"

...perhaps with some really weird mathematical qualifiers on what is meant by "determinism", involving the nature of "recognizable general patterns" and whether "determine" is from within a space-time framework, versus regarding the whole of eternity unto infinity (lower case omega of the mathematical-ordinal-not-theologial-variety) as a "fixed" structure.

Make no mistake: the pure mathematicians have wandered firmly off into deeper la-la land than any philosopher, on a bridge more solid than any mundane philosopher has ever aspired to. And the shipments are stranger than fish-bicycle hybrids.

abb3w »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

continuing...
These assumptions enable a constructive solution to the Problems of Deduction and of Induction via a mathematically formal version of Occam's Razor. Using this formal version to solve the Problem of Deduction gives a solution to the riddle of the "P" key(s); epically oversimplifying the math, "it's the simplest complete description, thus now probably right". Feel free to provide an alternative philosophical basis for solving the problem in general; I'm happy to consider whether what I presently term "RElatability" is a required implicit.

As for "posited properties", the simple example is a naive conception of "omnipotence": can God create a catalog listing all catalogs that do not list themselves? This leads to a paradox, in that allows inference of (P OR (NOT P)). A more subtle example involves "omniscience", and deals with Hypercomputation and Oracles.

The most useful example to the last requires some fairly baroque math to even describe. In this sense, an example of a "supernatural" phenomenon (if obviously not yet observed) would be a rock that appears red or green, depending on whether the time in seconds (in its own inertial frame) since the Midnight of January 1, 1970 AD was or wasn't the integer expression of a program on the (8,4) Universal Church-Turing Automaton. If such "supernatural" phenomena exists (requiring "hypercomputation" to describe), it contradicts the assumption for the particular Razor-like constructive solution, and you are back to square one for telling a hawk from a handsaw... regardless of wind direction.

Hoffstaeder's book "Goedel, Escher, Bach" is good for getting a layperson up to speed on the halting problem.

The paper with the constructive solution is (doi:10.1109/18.825807), available for free download in PostScript form at www.cwi.nl/~paulv/papers/ideal.ps if you want. (Ghostscript is a free PostScript viewer for Windows and Linux; Mac OS 10.4+ has one built in to Preview.) Be prepared to buy a math PostDoc copious beer in exchange for help wading through.

abb3w »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

viking: "If you could state 1. the posited properties 2. the assumption necessary."

The assumptions are:
#1. The validity for philosophical inference of formal logic- that is Boolean-equivalent plus Existential/Universal relation. (I use a modified Robbins construction for my Boolean-Equivalent basis; although the Wolfram Axiom is self-sufficient, it's weird enough I can't accept it on Faith.)
#2. The self-consistency of joint affirmation of the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms. (I do not at this time take a position on the Axiom of Choice; the results are independent of it.) With #1, this yields all of modern mathematics.
#3. That Reality is Relatable to Evidence with formal (mathematical) Complexity at most congruent to being Recursively Enumerable. (This is the kicker that triggers the screaming. There ARE objections to this, involving the set of "Real Numbers". I've not seen them expressed coherently. Feel free to try, if you are willing to remain polite; anyone not willing, FOADIAF.)

To be continued...

agentorangex »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

The paper states that determinism isn't possible, so this is compatible with free will as otherwise if everything were determinable then free will couldn't exist. This is still consistent with QM as at that level nothing is predetermined either, it's intrinsically part of nature then.

viking »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

whoops, sorry here it is.

"Some believe that the alternative to determinism is randomness and go on to say that "allowing randimness into the world does not really help in understanding free will." However, this objection does not apply to the free responses of the particles that we have described. It may well be true that classically stochastic processes such as tossing a (true) coin do not help in explaining free will, but , as we show in the appendix and in ... addding randomness also does not explain the quantum mechanical effects described in our theorem. It is precisely the "semifree" nature of twinned particles, and more generally of entangelment, that shows that something very different from classical stochasticism is at play here. Although the FWT suggests to us that determinism is not a viable option, it nevertheless enables us to agree with Einstein that "god does not play dice with the Universe" (Wait did I read that right he exclaims with false irony)

So I think we are back to the choices
fundamental feature of the nature of reality
arises in nature from somewhere/somewhen else.

viking »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Agentorangex,
Hi again. I think if you reread the article you will find that the authors explicitly exclude your understanding

Well, I mean at least the probability is predictive, not the actual outcome though. Although on face it seems counter intuitive, it makes logical sense as the aggregated averages become realized & expressed beyond just mere probability.

They very explicitly state that not only have they shown determinism to be incorrect but rule out probabilistic explanations as well stating.

"Some believe that the alternative to determinismis
randomness, and go on to say that “allowing
randomness into the world does not really help
in understanding free will.” However, this objection
does not apply to the free responses of the
particles that we have described. It may well be
true that classically stochastic processes such as
tossing a (true) coin do not help in explaining free
will, but, as we show in the Appendix and in §10.1
of [1], adding randomness also does not explain
the quantum mechanical effects described in our
theorem. It is precisely the “semi-free” nature of
twinned particles, and more generally of entanglement,
that shows that something very different
from classical stochasticism is at play here.
Although the FWT suggests to us that determinism
is not a viable option, it nevertheless enables
us to agree with Einstein that “God does not play
dice with the Universe.” In the present state of
knowledge, it is certainly beyond our capabilities
to understand the connection between the free
decisions of particles and humans, but the free
will of neither"

agentorangex »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Viking,

Thanks for the link.

This I thought too, but I am not sure it's quite the same at the micro to macro level. QM tells us that the individual particles in themselves are beyond calculation for their future occurrences of velocity, but the averages sum of many is not only calculable, but quite predictive. Well, I mean at least the probability is predictive, not the actual outcome though. Although on face it seems counter intuitive, it makes logical sense as the aggregated averages become realized & expressed beyond just mere probability.

I think QM tells us a lot about the expression of free will we have & how ultimately nothing is set, or predetermined, especially at the lowest levels of matter. The end sum total is a mix of this chance, contingency & some necessity, especially given the size of it all.

For this reason, I think what you said for the intrinsic nature of the universe is where I would agree. This is not to say it (reality/ or state of the universe) had to be exactly this way as it is right now, especially for us, but that this is among the possible outcomes given the variables.

viking »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

abbw3,
Hi, I searched around and found the actual paper rather than just the abstract on the Strong Free Will Theorem. Its at http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf . I reviewed the article and gleaned a conceptual understanding of the theorem (my math is not good enough to evaluate it critically without a few months of brushing up.)
But if the math and physics are good which I presume they are at present then it seems this is a pretty good refutation of determinism. It also seems pretty clear demonstration that the universe is not even probabilistic.
Now maybe I'm stretching in this next observation. If as asserted in this paper that elementary particles have free will identical in kind to the free will of humans would it not be a logical extension to conclude that it is not our evolved brains that are the source/origin/whatever of this "free will" since elementary particles don't appear to have these same evolved brains.
An implication of this would seem to be that either this phenomena of "free will" is a fundamental charecteristic of nature or it comes from somewhere else.
I know I have not expressed this mathematically or formally but you get my drift I am sure. So where is the fallacy if any in these implications of there theorem.
Do you think they were serious in agreeing with Einstien's theistic statement or just fooling around.

agentorangex »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 6:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

DP,

"G5 big screen theater"

Mac's are overrated chap, honestly, at least in the price. You know my line of work (I think) so that should count for something.

Personally, it's just as easy to get a nice big screen (37") HD LCD tv & then plug your PC into it. Like I did. The TV's come equipped w/ both the analog & digital signal female adapters, & it's cheaper. Just my 2 cents.

viking »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 6:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

abbw3,
"Not sufficient to allow generalized communication, such as might allow discussing philosophy, however. =( "

I don't know. Whenever I discuss philosophy with my dog Plato he understands me perfectly. :)



It may be that I am just dense. But in regards your post.

More exactly, either positing the supernatural is "worse" at description relative to the purely natural, OR the posited properties of the supernatural are in contradiction to an assumption which appears necessary to distinguish anything whatsoever about reality. EG: the problem of the "P" key I mentioned back at (Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:58 pm).

Which it is depends on the properties ascribed to the supernatural.

It seems to me you have asserted this claim in different forms previously and referenced certain unstated premises and "obscure results" to support your claim but (by your own admission in some posts) have not stated what these mysterious premises or arguments are.
Now I will admit that some of the mathematics you have referenced seems to this mere mortal a little exotic and unfamiliar but of course if unfamiliar I can usually look it up. That being said perhaps you could share which
"posited properties of the supernatural" are inconsistent with which "assumption necessary to distinguish anything..."

If you could state 1. the posited properties 2. the assumption necessary.
and then make the argument how they are in contradiction and finally explain the connection to your P riddle it might allow meaningful discussion. If it involves a long post to do this just give me a web based reference to review.
thanks.

Daniel Paul »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 6:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"But I know you will, the line is hard to distinguish as they blend. "

Right now, I caught my son's strep and am on anti-biotics...EVERYTHING BLENDS! Give me a while to catch up. :)

Daniel Paul »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 6:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"result of using a Mac "

...drool.... Have you seen the G5 big screen theater edition with surround sound.... again I say ...drool....

Daniel Paul »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 6:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"Note this presumes someone has the intelligence needed to become an Engineer,"

Intelligence and wisdom are two different things.

abb3w »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 3:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

agentorangex: "As abbw3 mentioned, the acts of a god, or the supernatural aren't allowed to be used as they cannot, by good reasoning & logic, shown to be distinguishable from actual natural cause & effect phenomena."

More exactly, either positing the supernatural is "worse" at description relative to the purely natural, OR the posited properties of the supernatural are in contradiction to an assumption which appears necessary to distinguish anything whatsoever about reality. EG: the problem of the "P" key I mentioned back at (Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:58 pm).

Which it is depends on the properties ascribed to the supernatural.

agentorangex: "But as genetic drift ensues & the populations become geographically isolated they later only breed with difficulty"

Again, look up "ring species". Gene diffusion is still possible by crossbreeding, but you have to go from group "A" to group "H" via groups B, C, D, E, F, G, and H along the way, because fertile interbreeding is only possible between immediate "neighbor" groups.

abb3w »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 3:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Daniel Paul: "The path of least resistance is not random."

The non-uniform random walk, however, is; "path of least resistance" is a macroscopic approximation, such as that of Entropy in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If you use Statistical Mechanics to examine the microscopic details (EG: grand canonical ensemble derivation), you find there is indeed a slight chance that despite the Second Law, one minute while walking down the street you will spontaneously and instantly freeze solid and fly up in the air at several miles per second. It's merely LOTS-of-zeroes unlikely.

Similarly, the random processes underlying evolution lead to a macroscopic phenomenon on the lines of "path of least resistance". In a closer examination, the general lack of significant differences in resistance between two nearby paths leads to genetic drift; however, where there's a significant "hill" (such as a mutation increasing mortality rate by a factor of fifty) or "valley" (such as being able to prosper with only 2% of the resources otherwise needed), you have mutations that quickly disappear or rise to dominate.

Of course, that's still thinking of the "path" in two dimensions of mutation (and one of "fitness"), when the genome really needs many, many more dimensions of mutation to "walk" in.

Daniel Paul: "If youre nuts and you want to learn how to blow things up you you become an engineer."

Note this presumes someone has the intelligence needed to become an Engineer, AND can retain the key "nuts" viewpoint (Scriptural Inerrancy; for Jihad, of the Qur'an) through the education process required.

The "Engineers of Jihad" appear to be only one instance of a more general phenomenon, which describes both that AND the "Salem Hypothesis" via the same mechanism: that Engineering requires accepting (and allows the use of) the results of Science, but does not require incorporating the philosophical principles which generated the results; and that the modern world presents significant conflict to a world view derived from Scriptural Inerrancy.

abb3w »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 3:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Daniel Paul: "Don't you HATE it when that happens!"

Meh; result of using a Mac (with the exotic non-roman characters so easy to get) on a website with a poorly designed comment board. I'm more annoyed that the common slang form of "richard-and-jane" gets censored.



Daniel Paul: "True science is about finding facts."

Slightly incorrect; it is about INFERRING the nature of reality. This, in turn, appears to require the assumption of a relationship between Reality and Evidence is of no more than Recursively Enumerable complexity. Otherwise, there can be no Inference. (See Chomsky's work on formal inference grammars.)

As a result, supposition involving the hypercomputationally complex is precluded by the implicit philosophical assumption.

Daniel Paul: "Assuming your premise, not only is it a well constructed wall but it is flawless in it's design ability for it's purpose."

You stretch the metaphor beyond the limits by presuming it's a "designed" artifact with "purpose", rather than a natural barrier, akin to a rock slide fallen across a narrow path.

Daniel Paul: "It also came on the scene suddenly as there are no remains of anything in the gradual evolution between ape and man. There are ape remains and there are human remains."

Incorrect. The fossil remains from the time period have an attribute set intermediate between modern human (or modern ape) and the posited common ancestor. They are not exactly "human" nor "ape". Furthermore, there is also another "remnant" of the process in addition to the fossils: the telomere block in the center of human chromosome #2 pair, found in every cell of every human now living.

Daniel Paul: "If I understand you correctly, you are saying it is completely scientifically accurate to say that (if) CA fell into the ocean that based on current movement evidence even though the fault shifted and it fell all at once?"

"Continuously ongoing universally in the present" does not require "uniformly"... which it isn't. Earthquakes cause jumps of inches or feet, due to releases at sticking points. Such short time-scale irregularities in the evidence also get described, providing a more exact theory. In the literal case of "CA falling into the ocean", that would appear be evidence "substantively different" than allowed by the theory (unless there's a LOT more energy stored there than allowed as I understand the possible energy density). At that point the "theory" gets modified first with the quick and dirty addition of "...aaaaaaaaand CaliforniaFellIntoTheSeaOnFriday." This would still be "better" than other current alternatives... but is "kludgy" enough that further refinement would historically be expected, where someone forms a hypothesis giving an explanation of how currently understood mechanisms - plus, perhaps, some new posited phenomenon - might do a "better" job explaining than the kludge.

Note that "better" has a VERY formal mathematical sense in this context.

agentorangex »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 3:20 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

DP,

"Built? Assuming your premise, not only is it a well constructed wall but it is flawless in it's design ability for it's purpose."

DP, The 'wall' is a great metaphor for animals, but this 'wall doesn't really exist in micro biology, as they can use HGT to directly transfer new genetic material freely.

Also, this 'wall' is only evidence AFTER divergence is so complete where the ancestral & new population can't produce fertile offspring. Like us & chimps.

You will find, if you read up on it, that there is some 'gray area' in the early parts of the wall being erected. That is, as first the 2 populations can breed normally, as they're genetically similar enough to produce a zygote. But as genetic drift ensues & the populations become geographically isolated they later only breed with difficulty & then some offspring they do have is largely infertile & cannot continue this line of descent.

Once the memebers of the population are too different genetically to have fertile offspring they are by definition different species. At this point mutations & sexual recombination can occur in each population line & head in its own needed trajectory dictated by external forces like selection & mating.

This vid will help to illustrate how dynamics in populations emerge resulting in this genetic wall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm277H3ot6Y

"It also came on the scene suddenly as there are no remains of anything in the gradual evolution between ape and man."

Not true DP, not even close. We have both genetic & fossil & other evidence for this. I've mentioned some of the genetic evidence in the past (ERV's Human chromosome 2 fusion, a& others.)

Hominid fossils, pt 1 & 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM

"There are ape remains and there are human remains"

Again, Sapiens are part of the group Primates, which in themselves belong in Great Apes group. We are apes. Anyway, by your logic you will have no problem identifying where the ape part ended & human part started on my vids featuring the fossils But I know you will, the line is hard to distinguish as they blend.

agentorangex »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 3:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Daniel Paul,

"I would disagree. True science is about finding facts. If a fact turns out to be that someone moved the stack from my press to a finishing station, it would be unscientific to not state so"

Here's the problem though, the 'who' you speak of in all instances isn't material based entity or person, it's a supernatural God. One that as mentioned, can't be used as it's unfalsifiable. As abbw3 mentioned, the acts of a god, or the supernatural aren't allowed to be used as they cannot, by good reasoning & logic, shown to be distinguishable from actual natural cause & effect phenomena. This is why it's not used EVER in any scientific explantion. Look in vain, but you'll never find 'and god does this, that & that over there' in any science model theory ever. This is why science works, as it cuts out the useless unfalsifiable supernatural nonsense & gets down to the natural details on how things work.

"2. systematic knowledge of the ***PHYSICAL*** or ***MATERIAL*** world gained through observation and experimentation."

My emphasis added here. The point is, science does study facts, no doubt. But, it's explanations of said facts MUST remain in terms of material forces in their explanation. One cannot say 'well, god holds things down to the earth, well um, just b/c he wants to!' This is utterly useless to science as it doesn't really explain the natural phenomena of HOW god does it or what processes he supposedly uses, which is really what science cares to learn. Thus saying 'god did it' is an intellectual cop out, it explains nothing of the processes used, so it's vacuous.

Daniel Paul »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"Were you aware that Engineers are STRONGLY over-represented among Jihadists"

Having lived in a Muslim dominated country...Jihadists are just nuts. It would make sense that engineering types would be such as they love to blow stuff up from a young age. If you want to be a doctor when you are growing up you go to medical school. If youre nuts and you want to learn how to blow things up you you become an engineer.

Still, not all religious people who are engineers are Jihadists. I know many good Christian engineers who use their training to help people. Again, it goes back to if you really know God and do what He says. Love your neighbor as yourself goes a long way to separate those who are Godly from those who are not. Jihadists do not love their neighbor as themselves. They are driven by hate.

Daniel Paul »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"non-uniform "random walk"

The path of least resistance is not random. The problem I have with the random walk hypothesis is it really isn't random. Prices on Wall Street are based on the behavior of people. That behavior may be random in a small group of people who play the market like a slot machine but the majority have a method to their madness. This method may or may not work based on the impact of other peoples methods. Still, it is not truely random. It is more like contolled chaos.

Daniel Paul »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:49 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"No; we only need specific data documenting that such change is continuously ongoing universally in the present. "

If I understand you correctly, you are saying it is completely scientifically accurate to say that (if) CA fell into the ocean that based on current movement evidence even though the fault shifted and it fell all at once?

Daniel Paul »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:46 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"Or in other words, it's not that the wall was crossable, it's that there was no wall until one was built."

Built? Assuming your premise, not only is it a well constructed wall but it is flawless in it's design ability for it's purpose. It also came on the scene suddenly as there are no remains of anything in the gradual evolution between ape and man. There are ape remains and there are human remains.

Daniel Paul »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"Whoops... clipped."

Don't you HATE it when that happens!

Daniel Paul »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:40 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"it's not that they ignore it, it's that its by virtue of the scientific method not allowed."

I would disagree. True science is about finding facts. If a fact turns out to be that someone moved the stack from my press to a finishing station, it would be unscientific to not state so and keep looking for a non-person answer.

Science is 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

The problem with being unwilling to accept the possibility of outside action is it may leave you with unexplainable gaps.

Let's go back to the Pantone example. Although hues and tones shift gradually on the chart, yellow will never become blue. To get blue you use, well, blue. Primary colors are just that. Even though the colors in the book change in appearance gradually by hue and tone, the formulation changes drastically from color set to color set. People without knowledge of how colors are made could use this and simply say the colors evolve from front to back of the book. In appearance...yes. In formulation...no.

Daniel Paul »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:29 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Sorry I had to duck out yesterday. My sick child woke up and that was all she wrote....

abb3w »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:51 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

abb3w: 'I "conclusion" refer'

...sigh... 'by "conclusion" I refer'. I can needz more caffine....

abb3w »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:49 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

abb3w (10:44 am): "What I'm disputing that the conclusion actually correctly follows explicitly from that premise ALONE."

To clarify, I "conclusion" refer to the conclusion about responsible choice. Sorry for any ambiguity.

abb3w »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:46 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

viking: "Do you agree with the naturalist position that is outlined above and stated clearly by them in their literature (They claim and I concur that it is an inevitable logical implication of the naturalist belief system)" [that no one is actually responsible for their beliefs or actions since according to naturalism they had no choice in the matter]

I believe it is an incorrect inference. From the vantage of within space-time and using the scientific method, it appears "choice" and "free will" both appear to exist, such that the nature of the choice is not "predetermined".

Mathematically "choice" may be viewed as the result of a "black box" Church-Turing automaton in the Recursive complexity class. This means that given some set of inputs, the CTA will eventually give a simple "yes" or "no" output. If the inputs are fully determined, the decision resulting is not "free".

However, the Conway-Kochen theorem (available online at arxiv.org/abs/0807.3286) mathematically proves that the state of the present is NOT FULLY SPECIFIED BY INFORMATION IN THE PAST, but requires information which only can be considered "determined" at a vantage point in the future. Using the phenomenon described in the paper, it is possible that part of the input may only be considered "determined" at an ARBITRARY point in the future.

This, then, is close enough to "free will" to meet the definition most people would use... once they finish finding the aspirin, ibuprofen, and/or ethanol needed to cope with encountering the Conway-Kochen result.

The more difficult question is what then is meant by "responsible", given this observation.

abb3w »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:44 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

viking: "I am not sure I am understanding your post here since there are plenty of examples of high levels of cross species communication of relatively complex and abstract concepts and mental models."

Not sufficient to allow generalized communication, such as might allow discussing philosophy, however. =(

viking: "If you repudiate" [the position] "as your post seems to attempt then of course you are not truly a naturalist as naturalists understand the term."

Well, first, I don't accept "methodological naturalism" (as I understand it) as a primary philosophical premise in itself. I do accept something most people would be unable to distinguish from the premise, but only as an inference resulting from my other working primary premises. While Wikipedia is a lousy authority, it's handy for a first pass: "Many modern philosophers of science use the terms methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism to refer to the methodological assumption that explanations of observable effects are practical and useful only when they hypothesize natural causes." I would agree with this proposition, but only as inference, not as assumption.

What I'm disputing that the conclusion actually correctly follows explicitly from that premise ALONE. The error results from the implicit presumption that a "cause" (specifying conditions) must necessarily be in the PAST from the "effect" (resultant state of the universe). Such conception of "cause-and-effect" is usually taken implicitly (as "obvious" inference from the methodological naturalism premise, or as unspecified additional premise). However, it may be shown as mathematical inference from results obtained via the methodology of science that "sequential causation" is either (depending on how held) an incorrect inference, or is a primary premise allowing inference of (P AND (NOT P)).

So, while I may be viewed as a methodolgical naturalist in effect, to the extent the view you present coming from that camp is held by a significant faction, I believe the faction has made an error of inference from their premises. The premise you attribute at their end is not "a necessary corollary", and in fact it is WRONG under their starting premise.

viking »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Abbw3,
you state in an earlier post,

"Our skill to communicate such is not yet able to cross the species barrier; however, I'm not sure dolphins are INHERENTLY out of reach of our capability."

I am not sure I am understanding your post here since there are plenty of examples of high levels of cross species communication of relatively complex and abstract concepts and mental models.

viking »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

agentorangex,
Hi again you respond to my earlier queery as follows.

Viking,

"naturalism claims that all beliefs including religious beliefs are a product of natural deterministic causes and chance and therfore the holders of such beliefs could not have done anything other than hold them (as valid or invalid as they might be)."

I think you're overlooking the issue of contingency, chance, necessity here. You make it end up sounding like naturalism is a method of predestination, whereby it is what it is & couldn't be any other way but.

Nope I admit completely that the influence of chance and the dynamics of quantum events means that an infinite set of possible specific realities could have arisen (including an enormous array of possible belief systems). But regardless of which one did or which belief systems came about under naturalism they would not have been the product of a choice of belief by the belief holders but rather would necesarily arisen from the factors you named.
Therfore whatever reality arose from among the infinite possibilities and whatever beliefs came to be held under naturalism the holders of those beliefs would have had no choice or option in themselves to hold or not hold those beliefs and thus to rail at them for holding the beliefs is illogical and irrational under naturalism.
This of course is now irrelevant to our discussion since you have stated earlier that you repudiate the naturalist philosophy. By this I mean since you hold that human beings do have the capacity of making choices and thus responsibility you refute from your own empirical experience one of the necessary corollaries of naturalism. When one refutes a necessary corollary one refutes the foundation upon which that corollary is based.

viking »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

abbw3
Hi nice to here from you.
I stated in part in a post to Agentorangex,
naturalists hold as a necessary corollary that no one is actually responsible for their beliefs or actions since according to naturalism they had no choice in the matter."
you responded
Depends what you mean by "responsible".

Actually no it doesn't matter what I mean by responsible since I was relating not what I believed or asserted but rather only reporting what naturalists believe and assert quite publicly on various websites and in publications. It only matters what they mean by responsible. Therefore your post is fundamentally non responsive to the issue I raise.
So I guess I would ask you simply without getting into the technical reasons for why or why not. Do you agree with the naturalist position that is outlined above and stated clearly by them in their literature (They claim and I concur that it is an inevitable logical implication of the naturalist belief system) or do you repudiate this position which naturalists themselves claim. If you repudiate it as your post seems to attempt then of course you are not truly a naturalist as naturalists understand the term.

viking »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

agentorangex,
Hi Just got back from work and catching up on this thread. You state in an earlier post.

"But I don't believe that, nor do you. We do have choice, albeit a limited one in some respects, but we do have a choice & intent so we can be found responsible for our actions."
Here I find that you and I are in complete agreement. However if you check you will find that philisophical naturalists take the opposite view. This means that in reality (I hate to break it to you) you are not a consistent naturalist. In fact I have to offer you my respect for being willing to acknowledge the empirical evidence of your own experience of making choices and having intentionality. I believe that in fact you are a methodological naturalist. Meaning that you use the methodology of naturalism to explore and understand the natural universe (scientific method) but do not allow the method to supervene your experience as a rational, intentional, being responsible for your choices.
Nice to know I have not been talking to a zombie (you understand that was a philisophical analogy not an insult right).

abb3w »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:19 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Daniel Paul: "Unless you have specific data documentation from the time you cannot."

No; we only need specific data documenting that such change is continuously ongoing universally in the present. At that point (informally) burden of proof shifts to showing why we should expect this to have been substantively different in the past.

Daniel Paul: "It is logical to assume that, because there are no connected processes between steps"

That would be where your problem is. There's one process connecting the steps: "giving birth". The differences at each step are the mutations I mentioned above.

Daniel Paul: "Selection or path of least resistance?"

Mathematically the same, when you express the genetics via non-uniform "random walk". Also note that the "landscape" is pretty flat, so there isn't always a lot of resistance resulting from minor detrimental changes, which allows for considerable "drift".

Daniel Paul: "Quite frankly, proving we were created or we evolved won't help feed one hungry child, cure any illnesses or solve our economic problems."

Not of a certainty. However, "proving" evolution to the satisfaction of those who don't yet credit that it has already BEEN proven might help further reduce prevalence of the Scriptural Inerrancy mindset, in turn allowing reduction of problems resulting from the inflexibility of the Scriptural (not merely Biblical) Inerrancy mindset, such the effort wasted by legislators trying to prohibit the tide from rolling in.

Perhaps you might know Islam considers the Arabic Q'ran the absolutely perfect Word Of God ? Perhaps you might credit that those most intelligent are most likely to have the strongest objections to viewpoints that conflict with one they consider Divinely Inerrant, should they retain such premise through their education? Were you aware that Engineers are STRONGLY over-represented among Jihadists? Do you perceive a connection?

abb3w »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:17 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

agentorangex: "This is how its witnessed in the lab, so yes."

For some value of "smooth" and "lab". EG, ring species observed in the wild, where group A can interbreed with group B which in turn can with group C which in turn... but the final group "G" cannot interbreed with the first "A" population. A minor geologic disaster wiping out one of the middle groups (or just preventing continued interbreeding between two links of the ring for a few generations) would yield full speciation.

agentorangex: "If it's not measurable, what on earth are all those other hominid fossils & pre hominid fossils doing even being around? "

And why did an infinitely creative being make chimpanzees and humans using such similar genomes?

agentorangex: "We don't have to say it, we know it's a fact, they move. Period."

See kids.earth.nasa.gov/archive/pangaea/nasa.html for some entry level on this, or (doi:10.1029/2000JB000033) for a more technical analysis.

agentorangex: "Science isn't allowed to infer 'the supernatural intelligent designer did this, that, & that over there' as they are - unfalsifiable."

Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. Mathematically, "supernatural" is indistinguishable from what I call the "absolute null hypothesis", which says "we have this data".

Leaving aside the supernatural elements, the problem with "Intelligent Design" is that technological design is itself an evolutionary process of competitive selection of variations; see historian George Basalla's book "The Evolution of Technology" (ISBN 0521296811) for elucidation. The fundamental difference between blind evolution and deliberate design is the latter has a specific element of purpose (or "agency" in philosophy jargon). ID does not have any explicit evidence to support a claim of purpose, or even at present explicit purpose to claim. No evidence, no purpose, no point, no theory, no science, NO COOKIE!

abb3w »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:15 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Whoops... clipped.

Daniel Paul: "Evolution is not based a process of change but rather steps of change. There is no observable process of change between ape and man. It's not a gradual progression from ape to man."

Um, no. The process of change is not in the individual organisms, but in the line of descent. That is to say: you don't have the exact same genes as either parent. In fact, on average you probably have about 175 base-pairs that are different from the corresponding gene in either parent. (See Genetics 156:297-304, "Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans"). That's simple point-replacement; there's other mutation modes. EG:

1) Point insertion/deletion, where one base "letter" is inserted/deleted in the sequence
2) "amplification", where extra copies of a subsequence get inserted
3) Translocations, where a sequence moves from region to another
4) Inversion, where a subsequence gets reversed within the longer string
5) Full duplication of a chromosome to provide an additional copy
6) Fusion of two chromosomes into a single chromosome

In any case, this (as agentorangex has already noted) demonstrates "the progression of change over years", analogous to measurement of plate drift now confirms plate tectonics.

Humans and Chimps have different genomes; this is what makes them different. The differences between the genomes (both available at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Genomes if you care) are consistent with mutation from a common ancestor in the timescale expected, and provides the best explanation for the massive overlap. (Mutations within the human genome are also confirmed via genetic migration studies.)

abb3w »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Daniel Paul: "Evolution is not based a process of change but rather steps of change. There is no observable process of change between ape and man. It's not a gradual progression from ape to man."

Um, no. The process of change is not in the individual organisms, but in the line of descent. That is to say: you don't have the exact same genes as either parent. In fact, on average you probably have about 175 base-pairs that are different from the corresponding gene in either parent. (See Genetics 156:297–304, "Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans"). That's simple point-replacement; there's other mutation modes. EG:

1) Point insertion/deletion, where one base "letter" is inserted/deleted in the sequence
2) "amplification", where extra copies of a subsequence get inserted
3) Translocations, where a sequence moves from region to another
4) Inversion, where a subsequence gets reversed within the longer string
5) Full duplication of a chromosome to provide an additional copy
6) Fusion of two chromosomes into a single chromosome

In any case, this (as agentorangex has already noted) demonstrates "the progression of change over years", analogous to measurement of plate drift now confirms plate tectonics.

Humans and Chimps have different genomes; this is what makes them different. The differences between the genomes (both available at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Genomes if you care) are consistent with mutation from a common ancestor in the timescale expected, and provides the best explanation for the massive overlap. (Mutations within the human genome are also confirmed via genetic migration studies.)

abb3w »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:12 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Daniel Paul: "Actually, one of the main problems with Boolean application occurs due to lack of data. Boolean is fine if you have the data."

Actually, Boolean also works if you're willing to express unknowns as variables. This allows you to use it Boolean Logic as a set of rules for when inference is permissible between propositions. It's used as an underlying way to get from "P IMPLIES Q" with "NOT P IMPLIES Q" to get to "Q"; this, along with self-consistency for the joint affirmation of ZF, allows the construction of Mathematics. Science actually uses a more complicated logic for working with "data"; the requirement Boolean logic is because the validity of the more complicated rests on the validity of Boolean Logic.

Daniel Paul: "Chimps produce chimps. Humans produce humans. There seems to be a firm wall there. Evolution would have us believe that either: (1) the wall dropped at specific places, or, (2) gradual changes occurred and the evidence disappeared between ape and man."

Indeed, once walls become firm, they tend to stay that way. However, we also know that walls do not always exist, as that is what defines a group being the "same species"; and that walls can arise, and tend to become increasingly solid over time. Thus, evolution would have us believe that there originally was only one common form; that due to gradual changes, a wall developed between the two groups; and that thereafter, further gradual changes took the two new subgroups farther and farther apart, rendering the wall uncrossable.

Or in other words, it's not that the wall was crossable, it's that there was no wall until one was built.

Daniel Paul: "In a production environment, a process would require outside action unless it is one smooth process with each step blending into the next."

Please bear in mind Earth's biosphere is not a closed thermodynamic system. Yet again: "Evolution is a by-product of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178)."

That we do not have corresponding fossils for every step says more about how fossilization is a relatively rare process than evolution. (The most common fate for something that dies is to become lunch for something else.) Formally, Science doesn't have to explain a lack of finding something; it merely has to describe all the evidence found everywhere anyone looks for anything.

agentorangex »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

""I'VE GOT PMS"."

Man, that's some funny stuff. Wow, I wish could've seen that.

agentorangex »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

DP,

"Still, we had to stack it at one end and take the stack off at the other and take it to the next step."

Ok, never minding for a second that we can't in science use the supernatural to explain natural things (sorry, no god did it allowed) then demonstrate the steps in evolution where God steps in. Is it at the cell replication level? Speciation? Where, & more importantly how can we know?

"Evolutionists ignore that possiblity"

DP, it's not that they ignore it, it's that its by virtue of the scientific method not allowed. Science isn't allowed to infer 'the supernatural intelligent designer did this, that, & that over there' as they are - unfalsifiable.

"as it would mean there was a God involved."

DP, take comfort here, in science no theories even outside of evolution include '& then a miracle happens' or 'then god does this' as an explanation. You wont find it in gravity, atomic theory, any theory or form of science ever. This is in principle why science works, as it's not allowed the intellectual cop out of 'god did it'.