Can we distinguish human v. natural excavations?

_{David L. Hagen

January 16, 2012

Culture, Design inference, Extraterrestrial life, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Large geometric shapes are being discovered beneath the Amazon forest. Have the discoverers evaluated their origins correctly? If so, why? Is there any way to distinguish between artifacts caused by human and extraterrestrial agents?
Once Hidden by Forest, Carvings in Land Attest to Amazon’s Lost World By SIMON ROMERO January 14, 2012

RIO BRANCO, Brazil — Edmar Araújo still remembers the awe.
As he cleared trees on his family’s land decades ago near Rio Branco, an outpost in the far western reaches of the Brazilian Amazon, a series of deep earthen avenues carved into the soil came into focus.
“These lines were too perfect not to have been made by man,” said Mr. Araújo, a 62-year-old cattleman. . . .
The deforestation that has stripped the Amazon since the 1970s has also exposed a long-hidden secret lurking underneath thick rain forest: flawlessly designed geometric shapes spanning hundreds of yards in diameter.

Alceu Ranzi, a Brazilian scholar who helped discover the squares, octagons, circles, rectangles and ovals that make up the land carvings, said these geoglyphs found on deforested land were as significant as the famous Nazca lines, the enigmatic animal symbols visible from the air in southern Peru.

“What impressed me the most about these geoglyphs was their geometric precision, and how they emerged from forest we had all been taught was untouched except by a few nomadic tribes,” said Mr. Ranzi, a paleontologist who first saw the geoglyphs in the 1970s and, years later, surveyed them by plane.

Hundreds of Geoglifos Discovered in the Amazon 2010.01.20

Geoglifos is the term applied in Brazil to geometric earthworks discovered after recent deforestation. Geoglyphs are not new in South American archaeology, but these are different—massive earthworks of tropical forest soil rather than desert surface alterations. The Amazon Geoglifos present geometric forms; circles, squares, ellipses, octagons, and more, with individual forms up to several hundred meters across. Some are connected by parallel walls. Their distribution spans hundreds of kilometers, and much of the area remains forested jungle.

POSTCARDS FROM THE AMAZON: Massive clues of Amazon area’s past 2010

The geoglyphs in Acre were made by digging ditches into the earth to create shapes like circles, squares, and diamonds. They are outlined by ditches up to 20 feet deep and range from 300 to 1,000 feet in diameter.

Squares

Circles

Ranzi geoglyphs Google search

—————————————-

For a serious discussion see Kairosfocus’ comment

Comments

Scott, please read my links and don't shoot from the hip, those papers actually do discuss several molecular steps and specify some key players in the evolution of lungs.Starbuck_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

Starbuck, These papers contain nothing of the sort. You can't show the causative power of genetic variation and selection without showing individual genetic variations. You cannot show the selection of variations without specifying the variations. The frequent shell game is to swap out phenotypic changes for genetic changes. After all, they results from genetic changes, don't they? So rather than a genetic variation getting selected its a phenotypic variation that gets selected. But that depends upon the foundation of change through genetic variation and selection. Replacing one with the other replaces the foundation with something derived from it. If you understood what I was saying then why did you post those second two links?ScottAndrews2_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

Peter, I'm going to assume you mean well, but if only I had a dollar for each time someone tried to work around the bare lack of evidence by comparing the question to a simpler one with a better answer, I could at least upgrade to a better Netflix plan and watch more movies. I understand why you ask for an example. Nothing that comes to mind is a fair comparison, so I won't waste more time thinking about it. Evolution claims to reduce all biology to the operation of a few specific mechanisms. What other historical "explanation" can compare?
Given that there remains come controversy over the basic details even now do currently accepted explanations and evidence satisfy you?
I haven't put a great deal of time into reading about plate tectonics. The evidence that the continents were once joined or adjacent seems reasonable enough. It follows that a thing that was in once place and is now in another got there by moving. There is uncertainty over how or why they move. What moves them a short distance may reasonable be extrapolated to have moved them greater distances. What's refreshing is that there is controversy at all. One can doubt or question a certain cause without being cast as an ignorant Pangaea-denier. Hopefully you aren't imagining that the two have much in common. Extrapolating all of the complexity of life on earth from the differences between neighboring populations of gulls is not even in the ballpark of extrapolating movement from movement (at the risk of oversimplifying.) Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as if you're asking (in a polite, roundabout way) whether I generally accept scientific evidence of things I can't see, as if denying full-scale darwinian evolution amounts to a rejection of all science. The answer is yes, I do. But I also distinguish and discern. In the case of darwinism, first it's off at face value. Everything it claims to explain defies explanation by darwinian mechanisms. But not all things are intuitive, so I look and ask for explanations by darwinian mechanisms and find none. But it's worse than finding none. Dozens of people forward links to papers and say 'here it is,' despite the fact that the papers almost universally omit references to specific instances of those mechanisms, frequently gloss over even the mention of them, and occasionally explicitly challenge them. Now I know that no one wins a toaster or a trip to Mexico if they convince me, but I can tell when someone's trying to sell me something. It happens in politics, economics, and ideology. It doesn't mean that anyone is insincere. But if there was an offer of money attached I'd keep my hand in my pocket wrapped around my wallet. Not only have I been shown nothing, but now I've observed a determination to make me see what isn't there. I'll let someone else figure out the motivations. But added to the lack evidence, the more someone doubles down and cranks up the sales pitch the more skeptical I become. I look harder at the fine print and check for double-stitching. And if the evidence didn't do well with the first pass it's crumbling under even greater scrutiny. Holy cow, I wish I could see how long this was when I was halfway done.ScottAndrews2_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

I didn't site the fossil paper to show the causitive power of variation and selection, I cited it to show evidence that the avian lung evolved. But if you want papers on molecular mechanisms of lung evolution, you can look at these: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20607136 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2895359/?tool=pubmedStarbuck_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

Scott, Can you give me an example of what you are looking for in a separate field. E.G. A legitimate request (according to the norms in that field) and a legitimate response that satisfies your request. What I'm trying to get to is what I mentioned earlier, which you did address, what would you accept as legitimate. But a specific example. For example, at what point would the evidence for how the continents move and their arrangement in the earth have been of sufficient level of detail and equaled the level of detail you are asking for here? At what point would you have said "ok, that's how it is!"? Given that there remains come controversy over the basic details even now do currently accepted explanations and evidence satisfy you?Peter Griffin_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

I for one can agree if you go on one step further and recognise the simple fact that selection leading to innovation is choice contingent.
What does this mean exactly?
Nature (i.e. necessity and chance contingency) cannot select for potential function simply because it has no intent or purpose.
"It" can't select for potential function (well, except in very specific ways, involving population level selection, but let's not go down that path right here) and of course it's not really an "it" anyway. Rather, current function is selected in the next generation by the simple truism that well-functioning parents will leave genes in more offspring than poorer functioning parents. Be careful not to anthropomorphise the process, then complain that the process is not an anthropos!
Nature can only select eliminatively.
Not true, even if we allow for the anthropomorphisation of Nature. A new variant (or an old variant in a new environment) that does exceptionally well may leave an unprecedently large number of offspring, whose genes rapidly come to dominate the population. That is not "eliminative selection". Unless you mean that its peers are eliminated - which may not even be the case, although it might be if there is competition for resources. But then that would make your point moot.
Bona fide innovation comes from choice contingency, in other words, intelligence.
Well, you haven't demonstrated this :) Explain what "choice" has over "selection". In many languages (your own?) they are the same word. How are you distinguishing them, and why does it matter, given the above? You are certainly right that at within-population level, potential function is not selected. But that is not the Darwinian argument.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

I for one can agree if you go on one step further and recognise the simple fact that selection leading to innovation is choice contingent. Nature (i.e. necessity and chance contingency) cannot select for potential function simply because it has no intent or purpose. Nature can only select eliminatively. Bona fide innovation comes from choice contingency, in other words, intelligence.Eugene S_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

A "Yes!" was ommitted after the first quotation for some reason. Must have mistyped a tag.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

Starbuck, No, videos are the evidence of last resort. We hang cameras so we won't have to do science. Nonetheless, nothing you've cited contain so much as a single genetic variation or its selection. It starts from the conclusion that such transitions result from genetic variations and selections and builds from there. And that's fine, as long as that conclusion is supported elsewhere. But whatever that "elsewhere" is, you didn't cite that. You cited the avian lung evolution paper. Which means you thought that paper supported the causative power of variation and selection. It doesn't. It's not even about that. I'm supposed to enjoy this, but it's hollow and depressing.ScottAndrews2_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

Natural selection is an after-the-fact statistic.

Not only that you can’t tell if natural selection was involved!
True! At least, except under very careful experimental conditions.
It is all after-the-fact guess-work.
Absolutely! Like the guess that cigarettes cause lung cancer! No wonder those tobacco companies held out against it for so long! You are absolutely right, Joe. Science is a matter of informed guesswork, followed by trial of our guesses, which, if they seem to be getting us warmer, we elaborate and try further. It's the way science has always worked, and always will work. It got us into space, it allows us to have confident that most of our children will live to adulthood, and it even lets us communicate across half way across the world! Don't knock informed guessing and testing. It works.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

Oh, it wasn't poorly phrased, it's how a lot of people phrase it, and it conveys an important point: the generation of variance has no absolute bias in favour of what works (although for a well-adapted population there may be a bias against what works, simply because of ceiling effects). In contrast, selection could be described as a bias in favour of what works. Put the two together and you have the recipe for innovative adaptation, which is your point :) I don't know what Joe is arguing. He seems confused. He just knows we are wrong.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

Gregory, thanks for your gracious response :) No problem. Sorry I got shirty.
“Obviously you have come to some conclusion about the way I think.” Actually, I’ve come to a conclusion about the way you don’t think. ; ) Regarding philosophy, mainly.
OK, try me :)
“I am certainly interested in stochastic models of the world…” Not me, I’m mainly interested in other ‘models.’ Are you a scientific gambler, rather than a scientific planner then?
I don't think either would describe me. I'm not even sure what either of those would mean. I'm a conventional scientist who tests hypotheses. But most of the phenomena a deal with are stochastic, and so we do not hypothesise precise values but predict the frequency distribution of observations using stochastic models. This is at the core of statistical data analysis.
“…because they tend to work rather well.” Sure, yes, they explain or describe some things. While other things are left completely untouched by stochastic models. I’m sure you’ll agree.
Can you give an example?
“my field of study is intention, purpose, and decision-making.” Fancy that, so is mine! : )) It is a bit ironic, and also quite understandable why you would reject ‘design’ then as a meaningful term in your vocabulary.
But I don't! Sheesh. I even trained as a designer. And I write music. I really think there is a communication glitch here! You are reading stuff into what I write that simply is not there. Out of interest: what is your field exactly? (Mine is cognitive psychology/cognitive neuroscience)
Plan, purpose, design, decision-making – is it not a communicative family?
Not sure what you mean.
But I hear a dehumanising tone in your voice, Elizaveth. Like the spirit of humanity is somehow lost. As if you would claim to believe that we don’t have souls. As if Ayn Rand might have had an impact, suggesting that ‘spirit’ is just (reducible to) ‘consciousness.’ Well, we would disagree about that.
The "dehumanising tone" is not there. And while you might call me a "reductionist" it is not what I would call myself. I'm not a dualist, but that doesn't mean I don't think we have souls. It's just that we may describe them differently. FWIW, the theologian I have most respect for, and who influenced me more than any other, was a monist. Also a Thomist. Actually one of the English translators of the Summa.
Back to brains, then Lizzie. Warm wishes. Unglitch.
And to you :)Elizabeth Liddle_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

Scott, you don't need a video of each mutation occurring to be able to look at the evidence and infer what likely occurred. Also, many creationists have abandoned the "selection is a tautology" canard, what he's saying is that the low oxygen levels caused those organisms with a more efficient respiratory system to win out, and that in turn, gave rise to birds. It is not just assumed, he looks at evidence from anatomy to chemistry and makes what I would say is a compelling case.Starbuck_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

Joe
And what is the evidence that all mutations are random in any sense of the word? How was it determined?
Experiments are being performed all the time!
The lacI system of Escherichia coli provides a method for monitoring mutational events at a large number of sites. Using this system, we have previously determined the mutational spectra for ?-ray and ?-particle emissions resulting from the decay of tritium. Analysis of these mutational spectra reveals that base substitution mutations induced by ionizing radiation are distributed nearly randomly throughout the lacI gene and include all detectable substitution events. The distribution of ionizing radiation-induced mutagenesis is similar to the low frequency of occurrence mutational events induced by other SOS-dependent mutagens. The lack of an apparent nonrandom or high frequency of occurrence component seen with other SOS-dependent mutagens can be best explained as the result of the random interaction of ionizing radiation with the DNA bases leading to production of a variety of base substitutions.
http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/abs/10.2307/3576404
In this proof-of-concept study, we attempt to determine whether the cause-mutation relationship defined by randomness is protein dependent by predicting mutations in H5N1 neuraminidases from influenza A virus, because we have recently conducted several concept-initiated studies on the prediction of mutations in hemagglutinins from influenza A virus. In our concept-initiated studies, we defined the randomness as a cause for mutation, upon which we built a cause-mutation relationship, which is then switched into the classification problem because the occurrence and non-occurrence of mutations can be classified as unity and zero. Thereafter, we used the logistic regression and neural network to solve this classification problem to predict the mutation positions in hemagglutinins, and then used the amino acid mutating probability to predict the would-be-mutated amino acids. As the previous results were promising, we extend this approach to other proteins, such as H5N1 neuraminidase in this study, and further address various issues raised during the development of this approach. The result of this study confirms that we can use this cause-mutation relationship to predict the mutations in H5N1 neuraminidases.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/509512413jl70r06/
Recently, we defined the randomness within a protein as an important force engineering mutations. Thereafter we build a cause–mutation relationship, where one side is the quantified randomness and the other side is the occurrence or non-occurrence of mutation.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v5700346747348m1/ So, Joe, it seems to me that the reason you are unware of much of the evidence that in fact exists is simply that you have not gone and looked for it You don't look, you don't find. Ignorance may be bliss but if you wave it about on the internet then expect somebody to put you right!Peter Griffin_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Joe,
The alleged tests for universal common descent do not test for universal common descent. Strange isn’t it?
Citation please.
That isn’t what I claim. You have serious issues.
So what *can* evolution do Joe?
And another lie. Geez Peter you have turned out to be quite the little liar.
We observe changes. According to you evolution is impotent. Therefore those changes must be interventions - what alternative is there?
what conclusion do I disagree with? The papers cited do not conclude accumulations of random mutations didit.
Neither do they conclude an intelligent designer did it, yet you insist that the paper supports that conclusion. Tell me Joe, given that it was a paper that had "Evolution of ATP" or *in the title of the paper* and evolution is accepted by all to be *random* what mental hoops do you have to jump through in order to make the claim that in fact the papers do not support the idea that random mutations did it? The only person saying X did it is you. ATP was designed. That's the extent of what you can say about it. Yet if you throw off those mental blinders you can do work like this:
Heterotrophic organisms generally face a trade-off between rate and yield of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) production. This trade-off may result in an evolutionary dilemma, because cells with a higher rate but lower yield of ATP production may gain a selective advantage when competing for shared energy resources. Using an analysis of model simulations and biochemical observations, we show that ATP production with a low rate and high yield can be viewed as a form of cooperative resource use and may evolve in spatially structured environments. Furthermore, we argue that the high ATP yield of respiration may have facilitated the evolutionary transition from unicellular to undifferentiated multicellular organisms.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/292/5516/504.short
You are a liar peter.
Whatever Joe. Whatever! The trail that led us to this point is all here for anybody to read. Perhaps ATP might turn out to be even more interesting then first thought!
Based on these observations it is suggested that ATP may have played a directing role in early evolution, i.e. in a primitive metabolism without genetics. To say it differently, due to its self-activating properties ATP might have been able to stick out of the chemical ‘noise’ present on the early earth. In this way ATP might have participated in paving the way for a genetically based ‘RNA World’.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020169300923429Peter Griffin_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

Joe, I'm surprised it took you that long to pull that quote out. You must be feeling very pleased with yourself! So, Joe, if "natural selection" can be removed from the equation with no effect then what is left? You've already said that mutations are not random. Everything must be preordained in that case. Your designer must be very busy, going around the Galápagos Islands. Trapping finches, making their beaks big when required to crack nuts and then shrinking them down again. You'd think such an entity would have better things to do. Or that it could design a system to do it for it. But no. Joe says evolution don't do squat, so down in the woods it is. So, Joe, for the evolution that you must admit happens (micro evolution) what actual mechanisms are in play there? Or is that Intelligent Design all the way down too? Did Lenski miss the "designer" sneaking into his lab?
Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection.
Sure you want to go down that rabbit hole Joe? I can only lead you to the entrance, others will have to take you all the way down. As I just said, I'm no expert. But I know enough to skin this rabbit...Peter Griffin_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

Describe evolution to me, as best you can. What it is, what it can do. How long it takes. Or point me towards the best description of our current understanding that you think is accurate.Peter Griffin_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth,
I beg to differ :)
Thanks for expanding on my poorly phrased point. I think what I was trying to reinforce there was just the idea that the environment is not *random* or, more precisely, does not usually greatly differ from one moment to the next and so can act as a source of information. Some of the sources of variation I mentioned included the environment. Looking back at the thread I can't really see why I was even trying to do that as Joe seems to be arguing that it's not random anyway, or rather that I can't prove that it is so it's not, according to Joe. Either way, I'm wrong! I'm only an interested amateur, so please feel free to correct me again in the future, especially when the correction also expands my understanding rather then just tells me I'm wrong as Joe has done today. I just had to sign on today as I saw some of the quite unbelievable things that Joe has been saying and could not let them stand unchallenged - for some reason nobody on the ID supporting side ever challenges Joe. So today I did :PPeter Griffin_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

Peter, There are still various ways in which mutations accumulate. And yes I have ALWAYS said that you liar.Joe_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

Peter, The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), reissued in 2001 by William Provine:
Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets. (pp. 199-200)
Thanks for the honesty Will. Natural selection is an after-the-fact statistic. Not only that you can't tell if natural selection was involved! It is all after-the-fact guess-work.Joe_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

The mechanism is a combination of genetic variation and selection. Ward cannot specify any individual genetic variations. This should be obvious as he's working with fossils. If he cannot specify any genetic variations, how can he explain why any were selected? This is more of the same. The changes depicted are phenotypic. That they are the result of incremental genetic variations and selection is assumed, not demonstrated. The observation is that various forms possessed the lungs they needed to survive in their respective environments (i.e. more or less oxygen.) To make the leap that selection was the cause would be circular. Whatever survives got that way by selection because selection is the way everything gets what it needs to survives. Dinosaurs having the lungs needed to survive in their atmosphere just adds to the mountain of evidence. The mechanisms is genetic variation and selection of variations. You cannot have evidence for them that omits them. Allow me to illustrate. I show you a series of before-and-after pictures - really fat people who are now really skinny. I have mountains of evidence that the primary agent of change was the addition of grapefruit to their diet. Except as you page through my mountains of evidence, it contains no mention of anyone eating grapefruit. There are pages on the potential effects of grapefruit based with hundreds of chemical reactions documented in laboratories. There are also hundreds of pages documenting the subjects' gradual loss in weight. I've demonstrated numerous chemical properties of grapefruit. (I melted a fat cell in petri dish full of grapefruit juice.) I've demonstrated that people can gradually lose weight. I may have even stated outright that the weight loss was caused by the chemical effects of grapefruit. But I neglect to mention how much each subject ate or when, or even whether they ate any at all. I just allude in every few paragraphs to the weight-loss effects of grapefruit, mentioning that grapefruit is the known cause of weight loss. That's more than enough for some people. They'll run to the store and stock up. But you can't have evidence of weight loss caused by grapefruit without people eating grapefruit. And you can't have evidence of change by genetic variation and selection that omits them.ScottAndrews2_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

BTW I never said mutations are all there is YOU are a LIAR and a coward.
No, what else is there then?
As I aid there are various ways in which they accumulate. And what is the evidence that all mutations are random in any sense of the word? How was it determined? Show your workings...Joe_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

Peter, The alleged tests for universal common descent do not test for universal common descent. Strange isn't it?
How can ID not be anti-evolution when you claim that evolution is impotent?
That isn't what I claim. You have serious issues.
And *your version* of ID is not anti-evolution?
It isn't.
According to you the designer is everywhere all the time making slight changes – none too big however or outside of what evolution could accomplish (if it was not so impotent).
And another lie. Geez Peter you have turned out to be quite the little liar.
When you take papers that actual working scientists have created and say “I agree with everything here except their conclusion”...
what conclusion do I disagree with? The papers cited do not conclude accumulations of random mutations didit. You are a liar peter.Joe_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

In terms of mechanism, you may want to look into the work of Peter Ward: http://www.amazon.com/Out-Thin-Air-Dinosaurs-Atmosphere/dp/0309100615Starbuck_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

Starbuck, Yes, that is perfect example of what I mentioned at 27.1.1.1.1. Thank you.ScottAndrews2_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

Hi Elizabeth, "it seems that there has been a glitch in communication somewhere along the line." Yeah, might be. I'm big on communication, but constantly fall short (gaps in transmission) as every human does (even scientists!). Sorry about the dodgy 'dodged' language. Like you, I am a Dr. So I can't respond to everything. Time & place press. "Obviously you have come to some conclusion about the way I think." Actually, I've come to a conclusion about the way you don't think. ; ) Regarding philosophy, mainly. "I am certainly interested in stochastic models of the world..." Not me, I'm mainly interested in other 'models.' Are you a scientific gambler, rather than a scientific planner then? "...because they tend to work rather well." Sure, yes, they explain or describe some things. While other things are left completely untouched by stochastic models. I'm sure you'll agree. "my field of study is intention, purpose, and decision-making." Fancy that, so is mine! : )) It is a bit ironic, and also quite understandable why you would reject 'design' then as a meaningful term in your vocabulary. Plan, purpose, design, decision-making - is it not a communicative family? But I hear a dehumanising tone in your voice, Elizaveth. Like the spirit of humanity is somehow lost. As if you would claim to believe that we don't have souls. As if Ayn Rand might have had an impact, suggesting that 'spirit' is just (reducible to) 'consciousness.' Well, we would disagree about that. Back to brains, then Lizzie. Warm wishes. Unglitch.Gregory_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

Gregory, it is very tiresome to be accused "dodging" - to have people's default inference to be lack of integrity - when one doesn't respond to a post. This is not forum software, it is blog software, and there is no way, unless one is constantly clicking on the front page, to notice whether there has been a response that one needs to address. So I won't apologise for not addressing your post, but if you give me the link now I will address it specifically. In answer to your question, no, I do not read German, Chinese or Russian. I have a little French, and a little Latin, and a smattering of Italian. As for the rest of your post, I don't really have anything to say. Obviously you have come to some conclusion about the way I think. It doesn't seem to reflect the view from this end much. I have no "desire" for "chaos and randomness", but I am certainly interested in stochastic models of the world, because they tend to work rather well. That certainly does not mean that I do not think (or desire) order or purpose. In fact, my field of study is intention, purpose, and decision-making. So it seems that there has been a glitch in communication somewhere along the line. It happens. Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

You might be interested in papers like this: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7048/full/nature03716.htmlStarbuck_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

Btw, Elizabeth, Since you dodged it in the other thread. Do you read either German, Chinese or Russian? It should be a painless admission of fact. I ask because the rudimentary philosophy of science you display (Anglo-centric) keeps dribbling in your speech. Those who 'love wisdom' (i.e. study philosophy) rather than specialised sciences, often seek some kind of synthesis, while you seem to rather desire chaos and randomness than order and purpose. Natural selection and human (cf. Darwin 'artificial') selection are obviously quite different themes.Gregory_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

Selection is not random. Mutations are, selection is not.
I beg to differ :) "Random" is a highly ambiguous term anyway. As I just said to Joe, both selection and mutation are highly stochastic processes, but they do not have flat distributions. Viable variants (neutral variants) are far more probable than beneficial or deleterious variants (in the current environment), and beneficial variants are those that lead to statistically greater probability of successful breeding. However, the key point, to which your claim crudely approximates, is that variant generation is without any foresight - beneficial (in the current environment) variants are no more likely to be produced than deleterious ones (actually, for a well-adapted population, rather less). Whereas "selection", by definition, is related to what works. What tends to result in breeding success tends to become more prevalent. Apart from that, agree with all you say :)Elizabeth Liddle_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply