Blogcritics: Comments on (R)evolution

Comment by island

Thu, 5 May 2005 18:25:57 EDT

Nah, I'm just cursed with some relevant information about this particular can-o-worms. From what I've read on this site there are a lot of smart people here. Eric Schneider is the biologist, so I'd look on his site for that kind of stuff. http://www.intothecool.com/index.php He and James Kay also wrote a bunch of other papers about it that might be worth looking into. Thanks

Comment by Bennett Dawson

Thu, 5 May 2005 18:06:49 EDT

Island, You have lots between your ears! This reflects well on gonzo and I, as we both agree with you on the main point of discussion.

Comment by island

Thu, 5 May 2005 17:41:42 EDT

"i still don't see anything that places ID in the same league as evoloution for the purposes of working hypothesis and teaching kids" And I will emphatically repeat that there is nothing anywhere that puts "ID" theory anywhere, but dead in the water. The physics defines the Entropic Anthropic Principle, which completes the previously flawed anthropic principle, while defining a biocentric principle. The physics removes the tautologous nature of the anthropic principle, which is quite often abused in the creation/evolution debate as "evidence for the godidit that's behind ID: This causes otherwise sane people to try to downplay and "explain-away" the significance of something that they would otherwise be curious about for the sore thumb that it stands out as. That's a HUGE mistake if the mechanism constrains the forces of the universe is anthropic, rather, "biocentric" in nature.

Comment by gonzo marx

Thu, 5 May 2005 17:28:15 EDT

ok..two down..and some digestion later i can see a trend here.. some has to do with the differences between Einstein and Dirac...both are mathematicians way out of my league...both are speaking of things that have nothing to do with the Arguments postulated in the Evoloution debate.. i'll leave the physics to those capable of working out the quantum mechanics..you know, that smart guy in the chair that talks..(insert evil grin here) the crux of the matter still stems around what is taught in a science class, in physics/astrophysics there is plenty of room for debate on many issues that is good for college level classes, but irrelevent for public high school curriculum on the biology front...i still don't see anything that places ID in the same league as evoloution for the purposes of working hypothesis and teaching kids just my one six billionths of the worlds opinion your mileage may vary Excelsior!

Comment by island

Thu, 5 May 2005 17:22:23 EDT

No worries, I was just having fun too... but there are many politically motivated people running around that will hang-on to the bitter end... ;) I'm very glad to seee that this is not the case. I have the physics but the biology ties-in via this common mechanism that links the constraints on the physical constants to evolutionary theory, via self organization theory: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASYMTRANS.html They've even made the connection to vacuum energy at the bottom of the page, although they don't have the first real clue just how important that is: Here's an illustration for how it works in nature: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASYMILL.html This is a very strong statement from anthropic-principle.ORG but it is open to a lot of debate if you don't know the whole story: - The unmatched human-potential for directly affecting the symmetry of our expanding universe defines good physical reason for why intelligent life would necessarily be required to arise as a practical means for satisfying the increasing entropic impetus of a universe where negative pressure increases as the vacuum grows -

Comment by gonzo marx

Thu, 5 May 2005 17:07:12 EDT

heh.. nice Links.. and good food for scientific debate..some of the physics math is beyond my pitiful acumen...but i like to expand my horizons.. yes, i am a "hard case" and thanx for giving me some stuff to read as near as i can tell, most of this delves into physics but not biology..however i have not read over all the sub links, so i may have missed something here and if i did miss a point you were making earlier, my most abject apologies my entire point has been that there are some things that belong in a science class..and some things that do not now..i am off to spend some brain numbing time reading thru all this stuff... {8^P~~~~~~ Excelsior!

Comment by island

Thu, 5 May 2005 16:56:52 EDT

OHHHHHHH... you want HARD proof... like, Einstein's theory hard... proof. ukay... www.anthropic-principle.ORG I'll be happy to explain anything that you just don't get... ;)

Comment by island

Thu, 5 May 2005 16:51:02 EDT

"that still does NOT show ANY evidence for any kind of "intelligent design" so, island...please Enlighten me as to what i have missed here..fill me in.." You "missed" that I never claimed that there was any evidence for "intelligent" design, and you missed my whole point as well, apparently, so... you tell me?... *L* This is their newest book: http://www.intothecool.com/

Comment by island

Thu, 5 May 2005 16:46:40 EDT

oh my..so now yer trying to repeal the second law of thermodynamics?? No. In fact, one of the scientists mentioned in the article, Eric Schneider, is referenced on the EvoWiki website as a source for rebuttal of creationists abuses of the second law of thermodynamics. He also co-authored this peer-reviewed paper. Schneider, Eric D. and James J. Kay, 1994. "Life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics." Mathematical and Computer Modelling 19(6-8): 25-48. http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/Life_as/lifeas.pdf You're a real case, huh?... I couln' ask for a better set-up... lol

Comment by gonzo marx

Thu, 5 May 2005 16:41:18 EDT

oh my..so now yer trying to repeal the second law of thermodynamics?? sorry..their baseline Theory rests upon the Postulate that matter and energy are seperate phenomenae...remember good olde e=mc squared? utilizing analogies is NOT empirical data gathered with scientific rigor, sorry to be picky here but that IS the nut of the matter..i would gladly take in the rest of their work, once it is done..but idle speculation from metaphors doen't pass the smell test when it comes to science now..the article you are pointing to , if taken as it was meant..does putr forward the Idea that Life may have some "purpose" other than making more Life that still does NOT show ANY evidence for any kind of "intelligent design" so, island...please Enlighten me as to what i have missed here..fill me in.. you run along and learn a bit about establishing Scientific Theory...why we can't just go and repeal the second law of thermodynamics just because someone plays a nice trick with a bottle of water... and we can talk anytime..be nice to me and i will always be nice to you.. fair enough? Excelsior!

Comment by island

Thu, 5 May 2005 16:34:04 EDT

"the odds are against life as a stictly random occurrence" does NOT make it a scientific Fact..." Hmmmm... it means that the scientific method requires that you have to conclude that it is a fact, unless you can affect the probabilities, because all available indications are that it is a fact, if you can give none that say it isn't a fact. I don't make the rules... although I should... ;)

Comment by island

Thu, 5 May 2005 16:25:39 EDT

No, you're still Gonzo... Start here and then come back when you've learned something and I'll fill you in on the rest: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004/09/30/2003204990/wiki

Comment by gonzo marx

Thu, 5 May 2005 16:23:03 EDT

island sez.. *this doesn't change the fact that the odds are against life as a stictly random occurrence if you go strictly based on the observed universe.* ummm..observed where?..can ya show the empirical data on how many biosphere's you have examined to make this deduction? as for above..i don't think i missed any point...i was making one.. where is the actual science in Intelligent Design? just because some believe "the odds are against life as a stictly random occurrence" does NOT make it a scientific Fact... remember, to make a scientific Theory you must be able to prove your Postulates and repeat the findings...so, please show me the Proofs of ID...science and the folks that back Evolution do NOT have to prove ID wrong..ID must prove itself correct... as for giving evidence as to why ID might be an incorrect Theory..let me just toss one out there...if the Design of Life was done by some "creator" then why are so many species extinct due to other species taking their place in the food chain?...what purpose did the whole dinosaur thing have? yer telling me the duckbill platypus was doen on purpose? i'm being silly there..i know..but it does illustrate my point that ID has yet to have enough empirical evidnce to establish itself as a viable Theory in a SCIENCE class.. hope that clears things up Excelsior!

Comment by island

Thu, 5 May 2005 16:14:51 EDT

The thing is that the one remaining place where there's a major unanswered question in evolution is at the very beginning. As I understand it, there's no scientific certainty about exactly what the impetus for the first generation of life was, so that opens the possibility for those who cling to god to say that he was the first cause. This is an excellent point as it pertains to the debate, because the Dover School Board had to reword their original statement to include Darwin's "alleged" feelings on the subject of origins in order to make it comparable it to Evolutionary theory, because they should really be comparing it to abiogenesis or panospermia... or whatever origins theory, and not evolutionary theory. such is science-life in the political arena... ;)

Comment by island

Thu, 5 May 2005 16:07:04 EDT

this doesn't change the fact that the odds are against... "the speck on the grease ball flicked off a giant's hand, type scenario."

Comment by island

Thu, 5 May 2005 16:04:33 EDT

"I was responding specfically to this:" the only valid point that they have is that life as we know it is highly improbable in our universe without some good reason for it. I know that.

Comment by island

Thu, 5 May 2005 16:01:28 EDT

"That's the portion of this story that I think many will have the most problem with. Not that the idea exists, but that it's being lauded as a comperable ciriculum next to Evolution. If you want to teach Creationism or Intelligent Design in a Biology class, I feel that's over the line. I don't understand why it's so hard to teach science in public schools and religion in church?" I don't actually disagree with anything that you're saying... ... but who then carries the mentioned scientific torch?... is my only concern... ;)

Comment by Temple Stark

Thu, 5 May 2005 16:01:11 EDT

I was just throwing it out there Island - wasn't necessarly agreeing or disagreeing with your statement (though I have said before, don't get the layman's use of "theory" confused with the scentists') I was responding specfically to this: the only valid point that they have is that life as we know it is highly improbable in our universe without some good reason for it.

Comment by island

Thu, 5 May 2005 15:58:44 EDT

"or island, our understanding of "life" is just way overrated. The speck on the grease ball flicked off a giant's hand, type scenario." Okay, well, I have good reason for what I say, but aside from that, and as I also said, this doesn't change the fact that the odds are against life as a stictly random occurrence if you go strictly based on the observed universe.

Comment by Ben Rollman

Thu, 5 May 2005 15:53:58 EDT

That's the portion of this story that I think many will have the most problem with. Not that the idea exists, but that it's being lauded as a comperable ciriculum next to Evolution. If you want to teach Creationism or Intelligent Design in a Biology class, I feel that's over the line. I don't understand why it's so hard to teach science in public schools and religion in church? I guess, then, where does ID fall?

Comment by Temple Stark

Thu, 5 May 2005 15:52:59 EDT

or island, our understanding of "life" is just way overrated. The speck on the grease ball flicked off a giant's hand, type scenario.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Thu, 5 May 2005 15:51:30 EDT

The thing is that the one remaining place where there's a major unanswered question in evolution is at the very beginning. As I understand it, there's no scientific certainty about exactly what the impetus for the first generation of life was, so that opens the possibility for those who cling to god to say that he was the first cause. It's either grasp at that straw or go the fundamentalist route and just reject the science alltogether and essentially live in an alternate reality as far as the origins and development of life go. Dave

Comment by island

Thu, 5 May 2005 15:51:28 EDT

The last poster completely missed the point, and you can say that it can stay wherever you want to... ... isn't keeping it out of the science classrooms

Comment by gonzo marx

Thu, 5 May 2005 15:45:56 EDT

oh my stars and garters... we are talking about what is taught in SCIENCE class, yes? when the ID crowd can show some repeatable, empirical evidence to help prove their Theory, then i am all ears until then, it can stay in the comparative Mythology , or Religion class where it belongs... nuff said? Excelsior!

Comment by island

Thu, 5 May 2005 15:24:53 EDT

"There's a lot in there that goes toward my whole point. It's a commonly known fact that supernatural intervention can't be proven by science, yet ID proponents are trying to do just that, use scientific methods to prove that supernatural intervention is what created life." mmmm that's not entirely correct, although it most certainly is the underlying motive. By leaving the designer open, they are able to say that design might have come in the form of alien manipulation, which, as I said is very distantly plausible science, IF you have some proof. That's one angle that the Discovery Institute is pushing anyway, but the only valid point that they have is that life as we know it is highly improbable in our universe without some good reason for it. This is a true statement, unless you introduce unproven theoretical speculation that includes infinities and other similar such chaotically driven mechanisms that are designed to make things purely random in nature. There's actually a LOT of faith in science... ;) ... which is what I was eluding to with my latter statements, because the same group that defends the science of evolutionary theory, also "typically" rejects the idea of higher-function in nature, because that goes strictly against their firm ideological "belief" system. The "movement" is being forced into high school curriculums around the country, where politics is the only real determining factor. Science has very little to do with the actions of either side, other than as an instrument for abuse. I think that it's an insult to science, Charles Darwin, and Evolutionary theory, that it has come down to agenda motivated activists using politics to push the so-called, "Intelligent Design Theory" into the public education curriculum, in order to expose the equally ludicrous idea that events which are governed by purely random chance occurrence and chaotic uncertainty could actually produce intelligent human life in our universe. This is where the hard-right typically meets the extreme-left, so to speak, and somehow or another the system works in spite of it's more radical facets to the benefit of all... in the long run. That's where the real importance to science comes into play in all of this, because burried within the fanaticim and unscientific motivations lies the reality of " higher-function " in nature, which ID proponents identify with "purpose". This is important to science, so it is also important that somebody carry the torch until the physics for the actual mechanism that constrains the forces of the universe is understood, even if they're wrong about everything else.