|
|
|
Whining This forum is for general whining. Please post all suicide threats, complaints about significant others, and statements about how unfair school is to this board. |
02-14-2007, 06:40 PM
|
#126
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Icy Forest of New England
Posts: 2,535
|
I love Obama. He's the best, I want to read his book as well.
__________________
"Tigers love pepper, they hate cinnamon."
-Zach Galifianakis
|
|
|
02-14-2007, 07:03 PM
|
#127
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 31
|
Drake: The odds of the formation of the universe do not follow that rule. There is only a single die. Similarly, each star and planet formation is unlikely since it required that first die to land with the proper face up. It's a matter of combinations and permutations; getting a 1-5 on a dice isn't that unlikely, in fact, it's 5/6. Getting it after a six is much less likely. Even if the laws of the universe define it with normality, one has to consider the laws of those laws forming that way; we really don't have much of an idea about how the four forces came out of nothing. Then you have to figure in every very high chance (normality) for those laws to lead to planetary creation where they did. It's getting abysmal to even have planets. When you add in the least likely outcome, even on a single planet, after that long string of dice rolls, it's pretty brutal.
|
|
|
02-14-2007, 07:24 PM
|
#128
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,021
|
technotheism...gosh that sounds cool. Guess I'll start calling myself that, lol...
|
|
|
02-14-2007, 07:39 PM
|
#129
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 1,178
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyusher
Drake: The odds of the formation of the universe do not follow that rule. There is only a single die.
|
That's what I was getting at... we don't know that there is only one die, and in fact some are suggesting that there are more.
We don't really know what is going on at that level, but we do know what is going on at the level of stars and planets. And what is going on at that level is that there is a whole lot of nothing in addition to the one known something. That's a very wasteful and pointless way to do things if you're a designer.
Drake
|
|
|
02-14-2007, 07:54 PM
|
#130
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 31
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake Dun
That's what I was getting at... we don't know that there is only one die, and in fact some are suggesting that there are more.
|
There is only one die we know of. We're at the pre-zoom stage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake Dun
We don't really know what is going on at that level, but we do know what is going on at the level of stars and planets.
|
And we know that is normality, a nigh-100 percent chance of occurance under the right conditions, from the laws. Still, the chance cannot be said to be 100%, as we have not viewed the totality of space, and I would imagine some exception has occured even in our minour scope. So you compute the single-die universal formation. Then the single-die rolls of the four forces being created and working the way they do. Then the multi-die, range-based rolls for planets which all have to end up with the 99.et ceteras probability. This has little effect, but it does need to be taken into account. Then all the odds of even one planet developing life. Then the odds of that same planet being able to develop sentience from that life.
In a line of probability, your odds are growing exponentially, but murderously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake Dun
And what is going on at that level is that there is a whole lot of nothing in addition to the one known something. That's a very wasteful and pointless way to do things if you're a designer.
|
Untrue. There are plenty of reasons somebody could find. Plans for expansion, for instance.
Also, one cannot really waste limitless power, so calling it wasteful doens't really apply in a deific sense.
|
|
|
02-14-2007, 08:00 PM
|
#131
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: To the south of one thing, to the east of that one, and slightly to the right.
Posts: 135
|
Out of curiosity, the multiple universe theory, could that be rolled into string theory?
|
|
|
02-16-2007, 04:42 PM
|
#132
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Northwestern Washington
Posts: 921
|
Apparently, the multiple universe theory is used to account for the fact that gravity is much less powerful than it seemingly should be.
We are not too far off from proving the existence of multiple universes, according to an article I read recently. It claimed that scientists will soon be able to create tiny black holes in the lab.
__________________
It is time, it is high time... Yes, but to do what?
--Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|
02-16-2007, 05:41 PM
|
#133
|
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: El Paso, Texas/ Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua
Posts: 9,203
|
That just creeps the hell out of me. That's how the earth was destroyed in the first book of the Hyperion saga.
__________________
"No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world.
I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker."
-Mikhail Bakunin
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Carlin
People who say they don’t care what people think are usually desperate to have people think they don’t care what people think.
|
|
|
|
02-16-2007, 05:42 PM
|
#134
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Northwestern Washington
Posts: 921
|
The black holes should be small enough, well-contained enough, and exist for such a brief moment that they shouldn't be harmful at all.
__________________
It is time, it is high time... Yes, but to do what?
--Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|
02-16-2007, 07:58 PM
|
#135
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 1,178
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyusher
And we know that is normality, a nigh-100 percent chance of occurance under the right conditions, from the laws. Still, the chance cannot be said to be 100%, as we have not viewed the totality of space, and I would imagine some exception has occured even in our minour scope.
|
I'm not clear on what you're talking about here. Life, and a planet capable of supporting it but not having it? Do we really know how likely life is? We certainly do not have a statistical sample, so I can't see how we could do more than speculate.
Quote:
So you compute the single-die universal formation. Then the single-die rolls of the four forces being created and working the way they do.
|
We can't compute them, though. For all we know, they had to be that way, for reasons we will later discover.
Quote:
Then the multi-die, range-based rolls for planets which all have to end up with the 99.et ceteras probability.
|
Again... I am not sure what you are talking about. 99 point something percent probability of what?
Quote:
Untrue. There are plenty of reasons somebody could find. Plans for expansion, for instance.
|
Well, thanks to the unbelievably huge distances he put between between everything we haven't even managed to get people to the nearest other planet yet (Mars, minimum distance from Earth about 55 million kilometers), and it will be a very long time indeed before we make it to the nearest star (Alpha Centauri - about 744,555 times as distant as Mars). Why all that useless space between here and there? Why all the Hubble expansion, which (if I understand it correctly) should make it impossible even in principle for us to get to all those places?
It's possible to come up with a reason, of course. More to the point, it is possible to come up with any number of reasons. There are always plenty of reasons once we have assumed a being which is (1) infinitely powerful and (2) utterly beyond our comprehension.
1) He wanted us to have room to expand without running into any of the other species he made on other planets. Our destiny is not tied to theirs, which is why they don't show up in the Bible.
2) He just liked the aesthetics of the universe that way. The way we think the daibutsu in Nara is cool because it is big, God likes big stuff too. Only for God, big means BIG.
3) For reasons having to do with physics that we haven't stumbled upon yet, all of that stuff out there is actually necessary to keep things in balance here so that we can continue to exist.
4) To impress us with our uniqueness and therefore our importance.
5) He was so high. Seriously, man, that was some good shit.
6) Every solar system has exactly one planet which is destined to grow its own type of life. The other planets are there to give them a nice round solar system with interesting stuff to do.
It's entertaining to come up with these, but the fact that it is really easy to do so and none of them are testable should make us value them less, not more, as scientific insights.
Drake
|
|
|
05-12-2007, 05:57 PM
|
#136
|
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: El Paso, Texas/ Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua
Posts: 9,203
|
This video does not prove Atheism (no pun intended) but I find it well worth watching:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU
__________________
"No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world.
I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker."
-Mikhail Bakunin
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Carlin
People who say they don’t care what people think are usually desperate to have people think they don’t care what people think.
|
|
|
|
07-14-2007, 12:03 AM
|
#137
|
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: El Paso, Texas/ Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua
Posts: 9,203
|
This is the only weak spot I see in evolution: http://youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi360...elated&search=
Now, of course, I'm not saying that mutations that add information rather than removing it do not exist; that would basically disprove evolution.
But I always get stumped (and it seems Dawkins too) when we have to cite an example.
I would any day place my bets on evolution so much more than creation, but I don't like that I can't find an answer to this question.
Can someone give me an example of a genetic mutation that increases information?
__________________
"No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world.
I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker."
-Mikhail Bakunin
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Carlin
People who say they don’t care what people think are usually desperate to have people think they don’t care what people think.
|
|
|
|
07-14-2007, 12:10 AM
|
#138
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 951
|
Well I know of mutations or errors that create whole new chromosomes.., which may leave a sort of template for further mutations. If that helps at all. It might also be that a mutation in a certain gene that is responsible for cell mitosis...
Oh and viruses can add information to other cells..such as the HIV viruses.
|
|
|
07-14-2007, 12:19 AM
|
#139
|
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: El Paso, Texas/ Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua
Posts: 9,203
|
HIV virus. That's a good example. I'm going to research on that.
__________________
"No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world.
I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker."
-Mikhail Bakunin
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Carlin
People who say they don’t care what people think are usually desperate to have people think they don’t care what people think.
|
|
|
|
07-14-2007, 02:49 AM
|
#140
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 1,178
|
Let me illustrate the underlying problem with that challenge this way:
Name a mutation that doesn't increase information.
That said, here is a proper response (from the usual source):
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
Drake
|
|
|
07-14-2007, 02:53 AM
|
#141
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 951
|
Well most mutations are just a change in base codes
So it doesnt increase information..more like replace information.
|
|
|
07-14-2007, 03:35 AM
|
#142
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 1,178
|
Remember, what is actually behind this attack is the idea that mutation cannot increase information. This is patently absurd, and the vanguard of the creationism movement (people like Dembski and Behe, who at least have something resembling a clue) has already dropped it. I could write a Java program to prove it wrong right now.
It's not really clear to me what these people think qualifies as information and what doesn't, but apparently some permutations of a code do, and some do not. Let's just take a genome of sixteen bits and a boolean value for whether the string encodes information - if the string encodes a unicode code point for a punctuation mark, we'll say it contains information, and otherwise we'll say it doesn't.
I start with this:
01000000000010 (the code point for MYANMAR LETTER GA)
I mutate one bit to get this:
11000000000010 (the code point for IDEOGRAPHIC FULL STOP)
The first bit string does not encode information according to our rules. The second does. And it really is THAT SIMPLE.
Drake
|
|
|
07-14-2007, 03:39 AM
|
#143
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 1,178
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dark_dragon_of_ice
Well most mutations are just a change in base codes
So it doesnt increase information..more like replace information.
|
It ought to be that simple, yes, but these people are relying upon some bizarre mystical understanding of the word "information" that they never quite define.
By the way, mutations can also increase the amount of genetic material.
Drake
|
|
|
07-14-2007, 12:55 PM
|
#144
|
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: El Paso, Texas/ Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua
Posts: 9,203
|
I knew you had to have an answer. =]
Now I have the examples of HIV and RNASE1.
__________________
"No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world.
I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker."
-Mikhail Bakunin
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Carlin
People who say they don’t care what people think are usually desperate to have people think they don’t care what people think.
|
|
|
|
07-14-2007, 01:08 PM
|
#145
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Camden, london, uk...
Posts: 552
|
Sieg heil mein god!
|
|
|
07-14-2007, 01:34 PM
|
#146
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,021
|
I wonder what evangelists are going to think when their computers start to talk to them...(you know? more than just a turing test kinda thing). I'd give vital parts to see that!
|
|
|
07-14-2007, 08:35 PM
|
#148
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 951
|
Ahhh makes more sense..I was talking about the addition of information to a individuel...When in a population any mutation will likely mean more information. Especially when its dealing to reproduction of a new member of a population.
|
|
|
07-14-2007, 08:43 PM
|
#149
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 1,178
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialOne
I wonder what evangelists are going to think when their computers start to talk to them...(you know? more than just a turing test kinda thing). I'd give vital parts to see that!
|
I wouldn't be surprised if it happened within our lifetimes.
Drake
|
|
|
07-14-2007, 10:06 PM
|
#150
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: the concrete and steel beehive of Southern California
Posts: 7,449
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian
...
Can someone give me an example of a genetic mutation that increases information?
|
There is evidence of genetic mutations that have increased information:
The "lower" (primitive) life forms have fewer chromosomes than humans, and humans are more complex than lower life forms, ergo an increase in "information" took place sometime in our human past.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:54 PM.
|
|