Posted on 01/27/2009 6:59:07 AM PST by betty boop
Edited on 01/27/2009 7:16:52 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Super computing power is nowhere near intelligence anyway. All it can do is what it's programmed to do. It's essentially just a glorified calculator.
Which is a completely different matter entirely when it comes to origins, or how drugs work let alone if they work better than others.But I can see how you're so desperate to simplify such complex problems in science.
You're still describing how science is SUPPOSED to work.
You're also stuck in the rut of stagnation. The data supported a round earth over time. It was accepted and therefore objective science at one time, and for a LONG time that it was flat. And your position today would remarkably resemble arguing the earth is flat: "the debate is closed, you're nothing but a junk scientist, that's not science", blah blah blah, all while demanding others believe your dogma of a flat earth.
The classification of Pluto is a matter of opinion, but not about Pluto itself.
Bingo...meanwhile science textbooks are no longer referring to Pluto as a planet. Opinions DO mean something after all, when it comes to what is accepted "objective" science as it is taught.
The exact same is applicable to manmade global warming. IN FACT what passes as objective science in science classrooms all across the country isn't objective science at all, just as the cult of evolution is presented more as fact than theory.Nothing is allowed to compete, because the debate is closed.
Astronomers merely selected a few criteria that they apply uniformly to define what a planet is. That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
You should qualify your statement because not ALL astronomers agree, which of course means it has EVERYTHING to do with our discussion at hand.
Pseudo-scientists following grant money and pursuing junk science, much as ID types follow their religious principles while abandoning reason, are also not related to science.
The evolution cult followers need to understand no one gave them the keys to define what is or isn't objective science, no one appointed them but themselves. And it is they who are forcing their ideology and religious beliefs on the public. If anything, the junk scientists are the ones who pretend they and they alone are the only people capable of "doing science" (algore and evolutionists who exclaim "the debate is over, my defininition is as good as God's", blah blah blah...) while their fellow NEA godless liberal cultists sue dissenters into silence, enforcing their cultish science through courts and not the labs, let alone so-called peer review, etc.
Sorry, but not at all. Science is the pursuit of provable fact. Consensus has nothing to do with it. I can see, however, why you think that ID is anything but garbage. Your concept and understanding of science is deeply flawed.
In practice it's precisely how it works, and I live in the real world as a hospice nurse and see how all kinds of things other than the actual objective science influences the science of medicine on a daily basis; and it's simply preposterous to believe godless liberals don't infect science as they have journalsim, art, history, politics, law, and virtually any and everything else they touch. And the only people incapable of seeing this fact are the kool-aid drinking liberals themselves.
There simply is no serious peer review of evolution because normal people without myriad insecurities and God-hang-ups understand each and every threat is met with "that's a religious attack on science" rather it is or not! (As well as "Inquisition, theocracy, burning at the stake", as well as your ineffective drivel.)
Again you are conflating disparate things. There certainly is an end when something is proven - like Evolution.
So why isn't it called Evolution FACT already? It appears the debate isn't over after all, no matter how desperate you and the algoreacle are ready to claim victory, it just isn't the case, not yesterday, not today and not tomorrow.
You just made my point for me, game, set, match.
You need to brush up on the caltech definitions as used in science. Nothing in science is proved, only disproved.
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/LiU/resource/misused_glossary.html
Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.
The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!
So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source.
"Proof", like "truth" is a word best avoided in science.
No. The processes responsible for the instantiation of phenotypic diversity are not restricted to such qualification. What appears as phenotype in any progeny will be elements of the set of what's possible, nothing else.
"I mean, isn't evolution all about "progress" — while at the same time denying any purpose in nature?" And yet: How can there be "progress," if there is no purpose, criterion, or standard to assess "progress" by in the first place?
The only appropriate use of the word Progress in nature would be to describe something like trait appearence vs. time, or diversity of species vs time. The appearence of anything in particular would only be progress in a contrived subjective scheme used as a reference. Purpose is generally only found with reference to those same subjective schemes. Else, it simply refers to some physical functional attribute.
WOW! Going off topic at the speed of light.
How old are you?
I don't see any wall. I also see no real distinction between what's given as levels 1 & 2. All bonding phenominon is contained within the laws of physics, so there should be no distinction between levels 1 & 2. That includes chemical bonding in the temp ranges of conventional life forms.
Level 3 says, "It should be obvious that such phenominon(life) can not be explained on the basis of the information available at levels 1 & 2..." I don't see that at all. All the physical laws that account for matter, it's bonding and other energy exchanges are sufficient to know and understand the assemblies and configurations that are identified as life.
"Where did these plenipotential "evolutionary algorithms" of which you speak come from, spunketts?"
The algorithms are models of the physical systems based on the physics that provide for the biological possibilities and the particulars of the physical environment those biological organisms exist in. The reality itself that appears that's described by the model arises out of the physics.
"What still needs to be accounted for, however, is the means by which such simplicity yields the complexity we see all around us in Nature. The people who develop "evolutionary algortihms" are probably painfully aware of this problem..."
The means would be the physics. Identifying any particulars, such as the most probable step(s) is simply a matter of discovery.
Verifiable facts do not impugn universal truth. Only the unverifiable ones do.
Au contraire, mon ami. They cannot be identified as "life," only as the necessary preconditions of life. Yet life is "more" than its physical preconditions. See Chaitin, Yockey, Grandpierre et al. Not to mention Williams.
Not you. You were just courtesy pinged.
What or who defines "what is possible?"
Well hoop-dee-doo js1138! Show me how the algorithmic complexity of chemical information [Level (ii)] can account for a Beethoven, and maybe I'll join your side.
I leave for a day, and this is what I find! Who knew you were so busy since the debate thread on this topic!! And to that, I say bravo!!! A very impressive first stab at trying to integrate autopioesis and information theory into the scientific study of living organisms. All the best—GGG
PS I sent the link to this thread to CMI in the hopes that they will forward it to Alex Williams. I would love to add him to this thread!
Sorry. Wasn/t tracking.
If what you have written purports to be science, why is it posted in the Religion Forum?
That would be wonderful! I wonder what Williams would think of the "extrapolations" we have made of his extraordinarily "competent" theory in the direction of Shannon information theory. It seems to me the IC/AP model is perfectly consistent with what the latter holds. Which to my mind lends credence to Williams' findings.
"Good stuff" just naturally resonates... even beyond the bounds in which it was originally imagined and articulated.
==To deny that proteins convey messages is once again, to betray your ignorance of the subject. Even worse you are apparently unwilling or unable to learn and thus rectify your ignorance of the subject.
Look who’s talking...LOL. Except in your case, when you are finally caught dead-to-right, you simply update your ignorance by plagiarizing your opponents argument and then pretend that that is what you meant all along. You should apply for a position in Bob Gallo’s lab. I hear they are always looking for people like you.
Because FR does not have a Science Forum. And because every time in the past when I've posted a self-written piece and posted it to either or both of the Philosophy or Culture forums, seemingly inevitably it was removed to Chat.
At least when I post to RF, it sticks there. Plus I know you evos cruise the place. So I have everything I need by posting to RF. :^)
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.