Posted on 10/16/2005 11:50:09 AM PDT by Crackingham
Edited on 10/16/2005 12:04:43 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
"Only?"
Isn't that the current accepted number? Please correct me if I am wrong!
"Look this good, when 20 billion years old you reach, you will not. Hmm?"
I'm 5 billion years old and I still get carded when I go to Vegas! :D
"On a thread a day or so ago this was discussed. The article quoted total numbers of publications in biology for the past 7 years or so, ever since Behe's book on ID. Total number of citations for Intelligent Design: 1. Total number of citations for "horse feces" : 97. The quote was perfect: "When the number of scientific citations for ID rises to the sum for horse feces (97), then maybe ID will achieve the level of intellectual respect it deserves."
Priceless. "
Yeah but citations mean nothing, particularly in a politically charged subject like this. I could totally imagine people not accepting totally publishable papers just because they were on ID. (And malciously accepting horse feces instead.)
For a real example, I remember my advisor told me about the special issue the National Academy of Sciences put out on energy a few years ago. (or some similar prestigious organization, I am terrible with names). This special issue discussed every single energy source *except* nuclear. It was a glaring omission, but done because politics was against it at the time.
Or, rather, as per the discussion, can't apply it.
but the principle itself is simple.
As is the principle of evolution through variation and selection.
"The problem with ID is not that it is wrong, it is that it is not science. "
---
There is an interpretation of ID which says God did everything, which I agree with you is not a scientific theory -- if there are no hard facts by which to gauge it, then the question is moot.
It appears that you definately do agree with yourself. That MUST make your position true!
We have heard that argument before. I would dearly love to see that mathematical treatment. If you have seen it, please post. I have asked every ID proponent who has ever mentioned that point to please post the math. I'm still waiting, however, with an open mind.
---
Actually I'm not an ID proponent per say, just what I've read over the past few weeks on the web seems possible.
But here's a sketch of the model that I would use. Since I have a computer science background, I'll use that as my metaphor.
Let's think of animals as computer programs. For simplicity we can assume that there is a universal machine that can run all the programs (dog, cat, human, virus). In fact using this analogy we could identify different species (And their subcomponents, like eyes and livers) with their DNA sequences (heck the way it works with ribosomes, it practically is the same.) At the very least the length of the DNA sequence is some upper bound on complexity. We've also got to mesure the inherent complexity of the DNA sequence itself. The sequence AAA..AAA for example isn't so complex. I think there are measures one can use from Information Theory, but I don't know enough about them.
Plus I bet a molecular biologist could add additional insights, based on the fact that codons come in triples of base pairs, etc.
So now the problem boils down to, assuming some starting basic DNA material, what sorts of rules, and how often must they be applied to get DNA sequences of the length and complexity of today. Also to get the diversity of the pool we have today. That's really important because we have to measure both the "height" of the gene pool (that is, the difference between the most and least complex organisms), but the "width" -- that is, the distribution of the pool.
Some rules I'd use is some rule to length DNA sequences, as well as a rule obviously to mutate them. You could probably use the frequency of occurences of cosmic rays for how often mutations occur.
You'd probably also need to throw in a "reset" factor to count for catastrophes like the meteor showers, etc.
Now, the computational framework I'd use is a Markov model. Each state would represent a certain level of DNA complexity, and you could compute the transitions between them based on the above factors I've outlined. (If you had a state m for a DNA length of size m it might be pretty easy to work with.) Anyway, then I'd run it N timesteps to see how long you needed to get the both the maximum complexity you'd require and also see what the distribution
is. Then I'd see if N divided by the mutation rate was close to 5 billion years.
Something like that. Of course the devil's in the details and you might be able to make it spit out whatever you like based on the estimates you begin with. But it might produce something interesting, who knows.
Are yall telling me the ID people haven't made even a simple model like this?
Heh, that's a nice way of looking at it.
Hi Don,
"Could you identify by name a few members of the "group of people who are using evolution as a weapon"? Are they a cabal, or a conspiracy? "
Sure as I told someone else, the ACLU.
""I don't understand the attacks on Intelligent Design."
As far as I can see, it is ID that is attacking the teaching of evolutionary science in science class, I have not observed any great move to attack ID in church, philosophy class, history, or social studies classes, or science fiction books, where they belong.
"
My perception is the opposite. People are just questioning some aspects of evolution -- from what I've read, the mutation rate -- and others are jumping down their throats saying they are trying to attack evolution. Now since you and I are both on FreeRepublic we both know how the MSM and their friends contort the truth. That's why I'm trying to get the real facts from yall! :D
Oh I just read the rest of your post, part of the premise of ID is that there is some creator who designed the rules in the first place? I guess that's harder to prove as you say. I mean "Life" has some simple rules and can bring out some crazy complex behaviors, but the rules are simple enough to have come up at "random". (Although I read that it took the creator, Dr. Conway, a while to come up with them.)
"To do statistical math you need to accurately model a sequence of dependent state-spaces and selection criterion."
Yeah absolutely. I made up a similar model in my 147, but it is exactly as you say, I could imagine the results you get are very dependent on the initial inputs and assumptions you make. You might be able to glean something from the "envelope" of the computation, maybe...
It appears that you definately do agree with yourself. That MUST make your position true!
---
No, I want facts and argument. Can you give me some?
Shrines. They're building shrines to evolution, with taxpayer money, no less.
I see, the ACLU is using evolution as a weapon against organized religion. In some manner other than by supporting the separation of church and state in accordance with the 1st Amendment?
And there are innumerable forums where one may do that, outside the science classroom, which ought to reflect what scientists think, just as english class ought to reflect what academic grammarians think, and music class ought to reflect what trained musicians think.
-- from what I've read, the mutation rate -- and others are jumping down their throats saying they are trying to attack evolution. Now since you and I are both on FreeRepublic we both know how the MSM and their friends contort the truth. That's why I'm trying to get the real facts from yall! :D
So...do you think scientists carefully isolate themselves from "real facts", in assessing biological questions? On the basis of what? A world-wide conspiracy to keep their cushy jobs?
yea, or maybe not. It's pretty amusing how creationists can beat the drums for a few fossil gaps in a massively pursuasive and massively field-verified story of graduated continuity and similarity in morphology, locality, and function, in all creatures--and then turn around and insist that their imaginations can conjure up a perfectly, compellingly accurate state-space and selection criteria that occured a billion years ago, out of whole cloth. A pretty self-servingly arbitrary attitude toward rigor in discerning believable fields of discourse.
Small change compared to the government school system :-).
Sam Clemens? Even better.
Having seen his seminal papers, I might place him in the same league as Galileo and Copernicus. Who knows where that level of insight comes from. We're all capable of it, but it is the rare man that lets his mind expand to its full power and potential. And, even that level might not be the maximum: Alexander, Luther, Einstein, Napoleon unrolling their maps all show how to do it.
I see, the ACLU is using evolution as a weapon against organized religion. In some manner other than by supporting the separation of church and state in accordance with the 1st Amendment?
---
Yes they are taking it to an extreme. The Constitution never says anything about "separation of church and state," the 1st amendment states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Based on how the ACLU has interpreted the law, you couldn't even teach a class about Hinduism cause that is a religion.
Wow you have a pretty negative view of anyone religious.
May I ask what has made you come to this conclusion? If I am being too nosy please forgive my rudeness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.