Posted on 01/25/2006 9:27:55 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez
But that's the point. It doesn't describe it; it is simply wrong. In fact, "large ball," even if the Hebrew for "ball" denoted a toy, would be more accurate, at least by analogy, than "circle." "Circle" is, in every sense, wrong.
This, of course, also doesn't explain the errors regarding the earth being immovable, and describing the earth's supposed "corners" and "foundations." Not to mention trees and mountains so high they could be see or see, the furthest reaches of the earth.
That these are all perfectly consistent with a flat-earth cosmology of the kind common in the ancient Mideast (and wholly inconsistent with twenty-first century knowledge) should not be at all remarkable. They, and their writings, were products of their age.
Nonsense.
"for the children!" is an appeal to emotions when reason doesn't work. Big difference.
"Is a theory not "science" unless people who accept the theory as valid can show "partial differential equations" "
Not only that, you STILL haven't stated the quantum field strength of relative fitness levels!! Pathetic!!
:)
How is that going to happen when IDers resolutely refuse, even speculatively, to address the issue of explanation? All IDers do is (putatively) "infer" that this of that thing is "intelligently designed". But just slapping on the label "ID" here and there doesn't explain a darn thing.
You can't pretend to explain anything by means of ID unless and until you're willing to entertain propositions about how ID happens. When? Where? By what mechanism or in what context?
The active and intentional avoidance of such questions is arguably the most distinctive feature of ID (and specifically what distinguishes it from "creationism"). If that's so then not only is ID merely incapable of providing explanatory schema at the present time, it's anti-explanatory in its very nature.
Mind if I ask who, and when? Specifics are usually helpful when making claims about other posters.
Yes, it means that "conservative barking moonbat" has a grossly distorted impression of what is required for a valid field of science, probably due to ignorance, and he is obnoxiously belligerent enough to insult you for not being as mistaken on the topic as he is.
Is a theory not "science" unless people who accept the theory as valid can show "partial differential equations" (with no qualifiers as to what they should apply specifically) on demand?
Of course not. That's just "conservative barking moonbat"'s childish misunderstanding.
Here you go, jerk:
Inferring qualitative relations in genetic networks and metabolic pathwaysHow many more would you like?Abstract: Inferring genetic network architecture from time series data of gene expression patterns is an important topic in bioinformatics. Although inference algorithms based on the Boolean network were proposed, the Boolean network was not sufficient as a model of a genetic network. RESULTS: First, a Boolean network model with noise is proposed, together with an inference algorithm for it. Next, a qualitative network model is proposed, in which regulation rules are represented as qualitative rules and embedded in the network structure. Algorithms are also presented for inferring qualitative relations from time series data. Then, an algorithm for inferring S-systems (synergistic and saturable systems) from time series data is presented, where S-systems are based on a particular kind of nonlinear differential equation and have been applied to the analysis of various biological systems. Theoretical results are shown for Boolean networks with noises and simple qualitative networks. Computational results are shown for Boolean networks with noises and S-systems, where real data are not used because the proposed models are still conceptual and the quantity and quality of currently available data are not enough for the application of the proposed methods.Concepts and tools for predictive modeling of microbial dynamicsAbstract: Description of microbial cell (population) behavior as influenced by dynamically changing environmental conditions intrinsically needs dynamic mathematical models. In the past, major effort has been put into the modeling of microbial growth and inactivation within a constant environment (static models). In the early 1990s, differential equation models (dynamic models) were introduced in the field of predictive microbiology. Here, we present a general dynamic model-building concept describing microbial evolution under dynamic conditions. Starting from an elementary model building block, the model structure can be gradually complexified to incorporate increasing numbers of influencing factors. Based on two case studies, the fundamentals of both macroscopic (population) and microscopic (individual) modeling approaches are revisited. These illustrations deal with the modeling of (i) microbial lag under variable temperature conditions and (ii) interspecies microbial interactions mediated by lactic acid production (product inhibition). Current and future research trends should address the need for (i) more specific measurements at the cell and/or population level, (ii) measurements under dynamic conditions, and (iii) more comprehensive (mechanistically inspired) model structures. In the context of quantitative microbial risk assessment, complexity of the mathematical model must be kept under control. An important challenge for the future is determination of a satisfactory trade-off between predictive power and manageability of predictive microbiology models.Evolutionary trade-offs at two time-scales: competition versus persistenceAbstract: The evolution of many natural systems is complicated due to dynamics at a mixture of time-scales. This is especially true when there is a trade-off between large reproductive rates and long-term persistence; such behaviour is frequently observed in disease models. In this paper, a simple partial differential equation model is formulated which describes the evolutionary dynamics of two disease strains in a metapopulation: one strain is a better short-term competitor; the other has greater persistence. By considering the behaviour of means and higher-order moments, analytical expressions for the evolutionary behaviour are produced in the case when the two strains are phenotypically close.Fixation probability in spatially changing environmentsAbstract: The fixation probability of a mutant in a subdivided population with spatially varying environments is investigated using a finite island model. This probability is different from that in a panmictic population if selection is intermediate to strong and migration is weak. An approximation is used to compute the fixation probability when migration among subpopulations is very weak. By numerically solving the two-dimensional partial differential equation for the fixation probability in the two subpopulation case, the approximation was shown to give fairly accurate values. With this approximation, we show in the case of two subpopulations that the fixation probability in subdivided populations is greater than that in panmictic populations mostly. The increase is most pronounced when the mutant is selected for in one subpopulation and is selected against in the other subpopulation. Also it is shown that when there are two types of environments, further subdivision of subpopulations does not cause much change of the fixation probability in the no dominance case unless the product of the selection coefficient and the local population size is less than one. With dominance, the effect of subdivision becomes more complex.Examples of the effect of genetic variation on competing speciesAbstract: An ordinary differential equation model for two competing populations with genetic variation in one population is presented. The degree of frequency dependence needed to produce various configurations of stable equilibria is discussed. For example, if the fitnesses are frequency independent then there may exist stable polymorphism although the genetically varying population becomes extinct in each fixation plane. Stable polymorphism where the genetically invariant population becomes extinct in each fixation plane requires frequency dependence in the fitness of the genetically invariant population.The effect of epidemics on genetic evolutionAbstract: Mathematical models of a vector-borne infectious disease acting on a host population consisting of three genotypes which differ in susceptibility to, recovery from, and death due to the disease are presented and analyzed. Singular perturbation techniques are used to obtain a single differential equation describing the slow time evolution of gene frequencies.Effect of variable surrounding on species creationAbstract: We constructed a model of speciation from evolution in an ecosystem consisting of a limited amount of energy recources. The species possesses genetic information, which is inherited according to the rules of the Penna model of genetic evolution. The increase in the number of the individuals of each species depends on the quality of their genotypes and the available energy resources. The decrease in number of the individuals results from genetic death or maximum-age reaching by the individual. The amount of energy resources is represented by a solution of the differential logistic equation, where the growth rate of the amount of the energy resources has been modified to include the number of individuals from all species in the ecosystem under consideration. The fluctuating surrounding is modelled with the help of the function V(x, t) = 1/4 x4 + 1/2 b(t)x2, where x represents phenotype and the coefficient b(t) shows the cos(omega t) time dependence. The closer the value x of an individual to the minimum of V(x, t), the better adapted its genotype to the surrounding. We observed that the life span of the organisms strongly depends on the value of the frequency omega. It becomes shorter the more frequent the changes of the surrounding. However, there is a tendency for the species that have a higher value of the reproduction age aR to win the competition with the other species. Another observation is that small evolutionary changes of the inherited genetic information lead to spontaneous bursts of the evolutionary activity when many new species may appear in a short period.Approximating selective sweepsAbstract: The fixation of advantageous mutations in a population has the effect of reducing variation in the DNA sequence near that mutation. Kaplan et al. (1989) used a three-phase simulation model to study the effect of selective sweeps on genealogies. However, most subsequent work has simplified their approach by assuming that the number of individuals with the advantageous allele follows the logistic differential equation. We show that the impact of a selective sweep can be accurately approximated by a random partition created by a stick-breaking process. Our simulation results show that ignoring the randomness when the number of individuals with the advantageous allele is small can lead to substantial errors.Symbolic dynamics and computation in model gene networks.Abstract: We analyze a class of ordinary differential equations representing a simplified model of a genetic network. In this network, the model genes control the production rates of other genes by a logical function. The dynamics in these equations are represented by a directed graph on an n-dimensional hypercube (n-cube) in which each edge is directed in a unique orientation. The vertices of the n-cube correspond to orthants of state space, and the edges correspond to boundaries between adjacent orthants. The dynamics in these equations can be represented symbolically. Starting from a point on the boundary between neighboring orthants, the equation is integrated until the boundary is crossed for a second time. Each different cycle, corresponding to a different sequence of orthants that are traversed during the integration of the equation always starting on a boundary and ending the first time that same boundary is reached, generates a different letter of the alphabet. A word consists of a sequence of letters corresponding to a possible sequence of orthants that arise from integration of the equation starting and ending on the same boundary. The union of the words defines the language. Letters and words correspond to analytically computable Poincare maps of the equation. This formalism allows us to define bifurcations of chaotic dynamics of the differential equation that correspond to changes in the associated language. Qualitative knowledge about the dynamics found by integrating the equation can be used to help solve the inverse problem of determining the underlying network generating the dynamics. This work places the study of dynamics in genetic networks in a context comprising both nonlinear dynamics and the theory of computation. (c) 2001 American Institute of Physics.[Analysis of mechanisms underlying adaptation processes]Abstract: A system of elementary adaptation mechanisms is presented. The adaptations are considered as transients to a new homeostatic condition induced by an environmental change. We propose to distinguish adaptation mechanisms not directly related to gene expression (changes in the rate of synthesis and degradation of proteins, protein-ligand interactions, changes in viscosity of the membrane lipids) and the mechanisms relying on gene expression (changes in expression of already functioning genes, expression of new genes, mutations). Most of these mechanisms have phenotypic nature and just one (mutations) is genotypic. By the nature and time pattern of the environmental influence the adaptation processes can be divided into four types: phenotypic adaptations under rapidly (A) or gradually (B) alternating environmental factors, genotypic adaptations induced by an instant change (mutation) (C), and step adaptational changes (several or many mutations) (D). We propose a model based on a (second-order) linear differential equation qualitatively describing all four types of the adaptation processes.
Well, whoever said that was incorrect (IMHO).
The content of science is determined by what scientists DO, not what they "say". IOW those ideas that are fruitfully employed, or implicated, by working scientists in the production of original research, are part of science.
What scientists "say," or what they aver to "believe," is irrelevant, except insofar it happens to accurately describe what they do. And it doesn't always. For instance Einstein famous disbelieved in much of quantum theory, but he used it nevertheless.
Let's say that every scientist on the face of the earth woke up tomorrow and asserted that they were now creationists and disbelieved in evolution, but they continued to use and implicate evolutionary theory in their actual work just as before. Evolution would be just as much a part of science, and creationism as unscientific, as before, the verbal and universal testimony of scientists notwithstanding.
Then you've never listened to Limbaugh, Hannity, and others. I agree with them most of the time, but on scientific issues they're ignorant. Rush in particular admits as much.
That the 15 years of science bashing on the environmental front have now spread to bashing all of science, and evolution in particular is obvious, right here on these threads.
Much of the blame is not on Limbaugh and conservatives. They're just ignorant of the facts. The real blame is on the few prostitute "scientists" owned by the environmentalists that have been in the media since 1970. They've given science a black eye, and the scientifically illiterate creationists have merely taken advantage of it.
Barely relevant, since in order for astrology to be true, much of what we believe we know about physics in general would have to be revised anyway. But OK, let's assume that the concerns of astrology and astrophysics are orthogonal: that would count as a point in astrology's favor, as it would not have to overcome the mass of evidence supporting astrophysics as a prerequisite for building the case for its own validity.
Accordingly, when I compare creationism/ID to astrology, I am actually being generous.
ID or creation science do seek to address the same questions evolutionary biology tries to address.
There's dispute within the ID community about that, too. Every time you see somebody on one of these threads saying, "yes, but you can't tell me where life came from in the first place!", or "but where did the first cell come from?", or "evolution can't explain abiogenesis", or "you get your own dirt", they are making the case that the territories covered by evolution and creationism/ID are not congruent.
They are the biggest champions of their version of absolute moral truth.
If you believe that evolution is "blind chance", then you don't know what evolution is.
ROFL! Man, where do I begin?
First, your faith in the ultimate outcome of an as yet totally non-existent "mathematical proof" is touching, but laughably foolhardy.
Second, your unsupported belief that "ID" will be "proven" to be the "only" explanation for complexity in living things has *already* been disproven by example. The evolutionary origins of certain cases of increasing complexity in living things have *already* been directly observed to have arisen by evolution, not by "ID". So even if "ID" is someday shown to have *some* involvement in adding complexity to life, it can't possibly be found to be the "only" method by which that occurs. Try reading some science journals for a change instead of your creationist pamphlets.
Finally, as others have pointed out, "ID" is hardly an "explanation", it's a hand-waving cop-out. Claiming that something was "designed" at some unspecified time by some unspecified "designer(s)" in some unspecified way by some unspecified processes using some unspecified methods on some unspecified aspects of life is hardly any "explanation" at all. It's hand-waving. It's as empty an "explanation" as "unicorns did it."
Wait for the momentum to provide the necessary funding to prove this out before you declare it DOA. We are already beginning to see that a large segment of society's desire to see the work that will present a rational scientific investigation. The new money will give it a real shot at being checked into.
LOL! Son, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but "ID" has been looked into for THOUSANDS of years, and come up empty. You guys are really hilarious when you say, "but wait, you'll see results any day now, we promise!"
Here's something I wrote in response to an editorial that begged for "ID" to have a little more "time" to establish itself, since it was a "new" idea...:
Because the scientific community is a monolith, impenetrable and often hostile to new theories, intelligent design proponents have to turn to the public schools to recruit support, a witness said Monday. [...] Fuller talked of intelligent design as being a possible scientific-revolution in waiting in which it challenges the "dominant paradigm" of evolutionary theory. [...] But during cross-examination, he said intelligent design — the idea that the complexity of life requires a designer — is "too young" to have developed rigorous testable formulas and sits on the fringe of science. He suggested that perhaps scientists should have an "affirmative action" plan to help emerging ideas compete against the "dominant paradigms" of mainstream science. [...] As a philosopher, Fuller testified he remains open to all new views, even though he maintains that at the moment, evolutionary theory is a better explanation of the biological world.And in reply to an attempted rebuttal:What the heck is this "new views" propaganda? "ID" isn't a "new" view, it's a very, very *old* view. It existed for thousands of years before science as we know it today began around 1650, or evolutionary biology in 1859.
"The idea that the complexity of life requires a designer" is hardly "too young" to have "developed rigorous testable formulas", it has BEEN AROUND FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, and *still* hasn't managed to come up with anything that holds water in a testable, falsifiable manner.
"ID" has been the world's oldest dead-end hypothesis.
Science in general, and evolutionary biology in particular, arose after thousands of years of ID's *failure* to advance human knowledge or produce workable theories or techniques. *Science* is the "newcomer" here, and has managed to gain enormous widespread acceptance and produce *incredible* results (which a couple of centuries ago would have been considered utter sorcery), precisely because it proved vastly more insightful than the age-old presumption of "ID".
And during centuries of stunning scientific progress in every field imaginable, ID has still produced... nothing but further excuses of how they "just need a few more years, then you'll *really* see results!"
Perhaps Fuller should get a clue.
"I want to see where intelligent design is going to go," Fuller said.
Fuller should brush up on history. I've seen where ID has gone. Absolutely nowhere in over 10,000 years. What are the odds it'll finally produce some results *now*?
"ID" is one of the world's oldest failed hypotheses. Thousands of years of investigation, and the results to date have been a big fat zero.What is in fact young and absurdly underdeveloped [...] is the notion that a generalized test for the products of an intelligent actor might be feasible.
*Everything* about ID is "absurdly undeveloped", and my point is that they have no excuse, since the ID postulate is hardly a "new" one, it has been around for millennia.
And yet, throughout all of human history, and throughout the entire rise of science, and despite millions of "true believers" across all that time who desperately desired to produce some evidence of ID to shut up those uppity "naturalists" (think of all the brilliant minds who were devout "IDers" and adept at science, like Newton), they've still come up empty after all this time.
Old religious views (the only such views around for 'thousands of years') don't propose such a test (or care about one, since they take a supernatural 'designer' literally on faith.)
See above. There have always been countless of the devout who also sought in vain for "evidence of ID" within philosophy, within science, etc.
Is it really so clear that one can't come up with an information theoretic test [...] ?
What *is* clear is that the IDers have so little evidence or established body of work that even after all this time, they admit that their "science" is in its "infancy" with regards to results. And yet, for some reason, they're absurdly confident that they'll have a breakthrough "any day now", if only those cranky scientists will lower their standards enough to let the IDers catch up...
Where is the evidence that natural processes cannot produce information?
What is the definition of information they are using and how is it applied?
We receive much information from distant stars, are they evidence of intelligence intervention?
The sun sends us information. Is the effect that information produces on our atmosphere designed? Is the effect that information has on bacteria designed?
Heck, where is the research?
Isa 40:22I've underlined the word word for "circle" [chuwg] (Strong's 02329). Here are the only other verses that use the same word, none of which implies a "sphere":
[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in
Job 22:14Word Search Results for "sphere" -- NONE
Thick clouds [are] a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven.Pro 8:27
When he prepared the heavens, I [was] there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth
Word Search Results for "ball " [duwr] (Strong's 01754). Here are all verses that use the word for "ball" [NOTE: Two are in the same book as the "circle of the earth" passage, so the author of Isaiah had both words at his disposal]:
Isa 22:18
He will surely violently turn and toss thee [like] a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory [shall be] the shame of thy lord's house.Isa 29:3
And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.Eze 24:5
Take the choice of the flock, and burn also the bones under it, [and] make it boil well, and let them seethe the bones of it therein.
[The Hebrew lexicon gives this meaning as "a burning pile, a round heap of wood"]
What matter? Is there a witness to its creation? How long has it been around; long enough to accumulate carbon14? Was it found with items that can be dated? Can we be assured that any connection with datable items is secure?
Some things are not datable, some are. We base our knowledge of creation dates on what can be dated and on location. If we find something undatable that exists with something that can be dated and the relationship is solid we conclude those undatables to be the same age as the datable.
It's his equivalent of "Where's the beef". Totally meaningless, but humorous to him in a twisted sort of way.
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.