Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Current status/developments in Intelligent Design Theory
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 26 of 112 (186836)
02-19-2005 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mick
02-19-2005 5:18 PM


Re: first id article published in a peer-reviewed journal
As I am starting to envelope a phenotypic perspective of baramin differences in a decomposition of THE set of natural numbers as Mendel’s original thought an genetic reality of pea forms it might be possible to relate specific complexity to the modulo operation. I have no idea if this will relate to the hierarchy of organism order from which I was led to the idea
EvC Forum: My Understanding (hypothetically)
or if it continues to remain in the a posteriori relation of the difference of dominance and recessiveness in plants. It wont matter if life if discovered off Earth.
http://www.counterbalance.net/id-hvt/isthe-body.html
quote:
Is the flagellum complex? General considerations
Recall that, according to Dembski, to say that any biotic system X (such as the bacterial flagellum) is complex is to say that the probability of its actualization (its coming to be assembled or constructed as a distinct biotic structure) must be less than the universal probability bound, a = 10 - 150; or, to say it more concisely, X is complex if P(X) < a. Note that this makes the complexity of X a property, not of X itself, but of the means by which it came to be actualized. This unorthodox employment of the word complexity is an essential element in Dembski’s case for intelligent design.
It seems that the argument against ID is that the complexity is defined interms of some a priori or ar bitrary value (universal probability bound) and thus IS NOT SCIENCE but I am beginning to see how it might be possible to actualize a definition by Kroncker’s philosophy of math that is dependent on the MEANS to which ID plausibility is actualized rather than by subtraction or comparision to an unknown value. I have too many pedantic things to work on than to dedicate all my thought to this but if anyone finds something that EVCers don’t already know I’ll be happy to look into it.
This complexity would have to work orderwise for any kingdom and would supply what was lacking according to Muller and Neumann and in the link you provided to Meyer's paper as Meyer said,
Yet Muller and Newman insist that population genetics, and thus evolutionary biology, has not identified a specifically causal explanation for the origin of true morphological novelty during the history of life. Central to their concern is what they see as the inadequacy of the variation of genetic traits as a source of new form and structure.
So I suggest that modulo operations rather than 4-D ordertype the kinds of forms that change. I dont know if that really works or not.
Meyer had "Form, like life itself, is easy to recognize but often hard to define precisely. Yet, a reasonable working definition of form will suffice for our present purposes. Form can be defined as the four-dimensional topological relations of anatomical parts. This means that one can understand form as a unified arrangement of body parts or material components in a distinct shape or pattern (topology)--one that exists in three spatial dimensions and which arises in time during ontogeny."
Meyer's paper
As JonF had recently informed us
http://EvC Forum: Thermodynamics -->EvC Forum: Thermodynamics
of the difference of Shannon and K measures the space USED by Meyer is not the one I have thought.
quote:
Thus, we can pose a question, not only about the origin of genetic information, but also about the origin of the information necessary to generate form and structure at levels higher than that present in individual proteins. We must also ask about the origin of the specified complexity, as opposed to mere complexity, that characterizes the new genes, proteins, cell types and body plans that arose in the Cambrian explosion. Dembski (2002) has used the term complex specified information (CSI) as a synonym for specified complexity to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity. This review will use this term as well.
op.cit.
This is a rather important possiblity of mine as it not only justifies HMMorris'
quote:
These well-meaning folks did not really invent the idea of intelligent design, of course. Dembski often refers, for example, to the bacterial flagellum as a strong evidence for design (and indeed it is); but one of our ICR scientists (the late Dr. Dick Bliss) was using this example in his talks on creation a generation ago. And what about our monographs on the monarch butterfly, the bombardier beetle, and many other testimonies to divine design? Creationists have been documenting design for many years, going back to Paley's watchmaker and beyond.
Dembski uses the term "specified complexity" as the main criterion for recognizing design. This has essentially the same meaning as "organized complexity," which is more meaningful and which I have often used myself. He refers to the Borel number (1 in 1050) as what he calls a "universal probability bound," below which chance is precluded. He himself calculates the total conceivable number of specified events throughout cosmic history to be 10150 with one chance out of that number as being the limit of chance. In a book4 written a quarter of a century ago, I had estimated this number to be 10110, and had also referred to the Borel number for comparison. His treatment did add the term "universal probability bound" to the rhetoric.
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
but it explains that SEQUENCES byHalberstamandRoth page 116
"we need a subtle modification of our defintion of 'probability space' (in view of the possiblility of X being non-enumerable). We can no longer insist that every probability measure should be defined for all subsets E of X.Instead...(The stipulation that mu should be 'countably additive' is now interpreted to mean that (3.1') is satisfied for every sequence {Ej} of disjoint events for which each...We must also abandon..."
would not need to be called for using Morris' number rather than Demsbski's AFTER the difference of creation science and scientific creationism IS NOT denied in this booleon representation of physical reality by ID people.
"Intelligent design needs to be distinguished from creation science, or scientific creationism."
Morris op. cit.
There would still be a questionable issue about larger man-made orders but I think these could hopefully be dealt with economically.
I have no idea if Dembski's insistance on this universal bound is due to his committment to this cited modification of probability spaces "in view of the possiblity of X being non-enumerable"(p116 SEQUENCES op.cit.). It seems reasonable that this was the case. Let the jury decide. I fear Dembski might have conflated the actual knoweldge of modulo operations on real numbers and those I might suppose to have already worked transfinitely. But that is just BS- or so I joke. BM. In any case Mendel thought the ratios were expressed in terms of true numbers, whether integers or behaving like transfinites and not mere approximations as any such modified probabilty space will give if the nature were really non-enumerable. Of course one can have the modification and finitness. I dont!
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-19-2005 19:53 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mick, posted 02-19-2005 5:18 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by mick, posted 02-19-2005 10:23 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 32 of 112 (186862)
02-19-2005 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by pink sasquatch
02-19-2005 7:41 PM


Re: Not really the first id article published in a peer-reviewed journal
So neither of you bug eyes above are going to peer review my comments? They are quite creationist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-19-2005 7:41 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 35 of 112 (186910)
02-20-2005 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by mick
02-19-2005 10:23 PM


Re: first id article published in a peer-reviewed journal
Fair enough. I am one man, not a college or a community. No one is paying me. THIS IS SCIENCE. One of the things I need to do is to work out grid analysis
Tracking The History of Life

in terms of a planimeter

so that one can translate Mendel's "garden vs country" into "parent vs hybrid".
ON A NEW FORM OF THE PLANIMETERby James Clerk Maxwell
I just wanted you to know that I thought something I have never done before. That is, to see an error in evo think and creo do AT THE SAME TIME. If you dont want to help that is ok. If I dont do this then I can not show how a dendogram and a thamnogram are logically NOT restricted to current clade methods vs the view of any bird. Then I would not be able to show that disjoint sets ARE NOT required. Then I could not approve of Morris over Dembski and THEN I could not show how hierarchy is not a thing in itself. Then I could not show that cline science does not cover grade kinds...
This thread was about the "current status" of ID and this is about as current as it gets unless there is other ID work out there that works it all in, that I don't know. That is possible. It is possible that Dembski has a more sophisticated view of probability spaces than I represent, in which case my work would not solve the ID problem and would only contribute to evolutionary advances. I was trying to understand NOT if I am correct but if I am correct about the current state of ID. -- like- ID arose because evos altered the notion of probability spaces from that which was extant before the modern synthesis.
Panbiogeography:Tracking the History of Life as available in the east
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-20-2005 09:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by mick, posted 02-19-2005 10:23 PM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2005 11:30 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 38 of 112 (186964)
02-20-2005 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Silent H
02-20-2005 11:30 AM


Re: first id article published in a peer-reviewed journal
I am not sure how to respond. I thought Mick's request for an example was enough? I had FIRST started out on this track in attempt to discuss with Berberry how to make my presentation of material I present easier to understand.
EvC Forum: To and in re to Brad McFall
If the visuals dont help then what should I have posted to mick, a simple "OK?" but given that neither RAZD nor PINK wanted to reply when the three letter solute would have been more appropriate, I thought Mick deserved more for having "the right".Come on I am not scary.
I, personally, dont put an absolute restriction on where chance applies or does not apply, even though ID did and creation science or scientific creationism does, but if the reason creationism is led to make this a practice IS? because other scientists changed the notion of probability spaces so that they only had to have infinity in view, rather than say think infinity, as say some set theorists do all the time; then developments in ID:: might progress by denying this change, change the number of the bound, OR DO AWAY WITH THE BOUND ALTOGETHER, besides it makes it clear to me how my ways of thinking were not accepted in college, if that was constantly in the background.
If the modulo operations work then your complaint about teleology (in another thread) seems to me to be rewritable. Creationism is not what I am concentrating on and am not dedicating a lot of time to. I am trying to get a java program on macrothermodynamics working instead. If I was paid to do scientific creationism I might work on it more. Please understand.
On the other hand, I am only TRYING to discuss randomness as it pertains to a MENDEL RATIO not every and all inventions in ecosystem engineering(man made and otherwise less purposive) where I would simply have traced a relation between transfinite and finite moduluo operatives instantiated in some way. I am quite interested to see what math exist to do it transfinitely. If there arent any I will invent a way to do it. You all know I am not a God. I give you what I have. If I had more you would have it too. The reason you might not appreciate the need to find the motion of a planimeter constituitive with main massings is that you might not have thought as hard about Mendel's use of plant "species" as I have(in the history of hybridzations). I think it was error on the NZers part to relate main massings and density but these pics now introduced a third use of density (I had thought one in using baramin logic, another in sequence density) and now this. Nelson went to print in Systematic Zoology emphatically denying there was any progressive use of Croizat's use of "main massings". The New Zelanders associated a "density" with it just to prove AMNHpeople wrong. Pick that up on some other thread if you like.
In fact as I get to work more on the actual maths (but spending my time explaining myself does not do this) it is more likely I will find more places to use chance functions than are presently detailed.
I had thought up the idea in terms of density but only needed the modulo math IF the evolutionists were mistaken about the placement of space.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-20-2005 13:44 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2005 11:30 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2005 1:45 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 40 of 112 (187001)
02-20-2005 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Silent H
02-20-2005 1:45 PM


Re: first id article published in a peer-reviewed journal
That's understandable. I have never gotten my ideas on Wright fully aired on EVC yet.
The analysis was more at the level of me denying Gould's Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes where he said, "Secondly, creationists claim that " the dogma of seperate creations," as Darwin characterized it a century ago, is a scientific theory meriting equal time with evolution...But a popular viewpoint among philosophers of science belies this ...Karl Popper has argued...The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting supposed contradictions among its supporters."
What I was wondering was that it was that ID in particular did not arise by "the supposed contradictions among its[evolutionists] supporters" but specifically is/was due to the remark made by Halberstam and Roth on page 117, where they said, "As the above remarks indicate, we require a new approach: one which is adequate for the considerations of non-enumerable X, and yet contains (as a special case) what has already been said concerning finite X. To provide such an approach is the objective of the following secitons. For a more comprehensive (and more concise) study of the foundations of probability theory, we refer the reader to Kolmogorov's classic monograph."
I was suggeting this is a mistake and results in the difference of opinion of Morris and Dembski in short. In particular I thought I was able to abstract an extra logic associated by ditching assignments of general weights for a disjoint structure. It is possible I dont quite understand the grammetical extent of this teaching. Please do correct me if I misread this.
quote:
"But in addition to this fairly natural generalization, we need a sublte modification of our definition of 'probability space' (in view of the possiblity of X being non-enumerable). We can no longer insist that every probability measure should be defined for all subsets E of X. For this stipulation, in conjucntion with (3.1)', would ( in the case of non-enumerable X) constitute a most stringent condition, which would admit only measures of a very special type and exclude measures of great significance in probability theory. Instead, we must also consider those measures u which can be defined only on a suitable subclass S of the calss of all subsets of X. (The stipulation that u should be 'countably additive' is now interpreted to mean that (3.1') is satisfied for every sequence {Ej} of disjoint events for which each Ej, and the union of all the Ej, lies in S.) We must also abandon the process of assigning a 'weight' to each elementary event as a method of probability measures. Indeed,..."
I guess my reading, if got it all right, was actually producing this dogma and in the meantime changing his claim that a creationist program is a rethorical attempt. It is true the kind has not been unalterably defined as far as I knEw. I simply suggested how that might exist, but I guess I would not then have said it was a "dogma" but only a proposal that neither lay down the law nor lies with the tongue.
I will clarify this during the time that it takes me to have no more thoughts on reading the book SEQUENCES(Oxford Univ Press 1966 London by Halberstam and Roth) but it seems like elitism had substituted for "suitableness". I did not find it helpful to think of form-making in terms of 4-D as Meyer suggested. That will only become operative if creationism BECAME standard science. It is not.
Your summary of my point of view IS correct. The strange thing about panbiogeography is that if one attempts to FOLLOW Croizat's THOUGHT it is necessary to imagine the Earth "disloDged" from the firmament"", that might be why but not how Gould dismissed it, and only by relating his method to planimeter mechanics was I able to resolve the motion naturally. This is what I have had to contribute to biogeography for some time now but because Grehan was too blinded by creationist stuff I guess he decided not to talk with me so I lost my first chance on entering that literature directly. Some day I will try to build the electronic version of that short cut.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-20-2005 14:36 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2005 1:45 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2005 6:30 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 42 of 112 (187057)
02-20-2005 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Silent H
02-20-2005 6:30 PM


Re: first id article published in a peer-reviewed journal
It was Meyer and not me who used 4-D. I understood what he meant but this was part of the reason I did not respond as favourably to the paper at first, because I am somewhat already convinced there is a causal means to "compute" form-making in biology but I had not thought to such specifics as I suggested in this thread until I started to read SEQUENCES and recognized how it was that Freeman Dyson could say things about a NUMBER of subatomic particles but not advance theoretical biology much, despite his willingness to take issue with fundamentalists and even receive an award for advancing the relation of science and religion(sic!).
What happened was that I realized there could be a different statistical approach to Meyer's attachment to Dembski's complexity in the Cambrian Explosion but that this need not be ON THE LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY or LIFE of the Cambrian Horizon, geologically. It also need not give a model or simulation!! There IS a c/e issue there as to Aggaiz's dream"" about fossil fish and that is likely what is controling the elder evolutionists and creationists on the thought otherwise. Why didnt Electron post anymore?
I have maintained here that I dont think of morphology across the geological horizons in a sense of CHANGE(changing rates) despite agreeing that there must be some "novel" formations during form-making no matter what the translation in space is. There may be we just are so far aware from the simulations that I refuse to allow my mind to wander into Gould's soft parts' byways.
So it depends very much on what level one attempts to simulate the change. The level of gross morphological reconstructions is the easiest to imagine and there people often put any idea of time they like. When I was doing cloning research I was going to use empricially found cell differentiation divsions to work as a clock. What I want to work on this spring is a visualization of macrothermodyanmics in VRML in which the user will be able to move through a series of modelled levels and alter some "events" (binding of proteins, mating of cells, moving of whole organisms"", and to have it in an interactive environment so I could be a rattlesnake and you could be a road runner etc.
The issue of how to relate the time to larger environmental change and speciation IS the issue in making the program, indeed. I have decided that it was not the best idea to inform people about evolution by writing books as Gould did so I have decided to try to develop interactive programs so that people can get better grasp of some of the ideas I try hard to describe here. Gladyshev's notion macrothermodyanmics permits the higher level process from changing the lower level ones and so I will restrict the program's most external change to ones that are homogenous with hierarchical thermodyanmics. It is true that the simulation might not be very representative of biological reality but the point of writing it is to give other people a hands on view of the idea and thus to make it more accessible.
But IF panbiogeographic statistics (as measured by minmal spanning trees) can be found, during the running of the program, to match with known microscopic kinematics (say of analogue of chromatographic columns applied to binding of heat shock proteins with other proteins OR on DNA) then at least a formal possibilty for matching environmental change on ALL LEVELS might be possible. You see this is not pursued, I guess, because Gould for one who might have imagined this, does not think the relation across levels is one of potential. Instead he has a Darwinian prejudice for individuality but Gladshev's law might be a potential object oriented method.The model would only be the reality I communicated this weekend if what Croizat saw WAS Gladyshev's law. I dont know.
I intend on using texture to model entropy and so there will be compuational issues as to how much user interactivty can occur while the program is doing computations to move the graphics around but the point is to show how even in a changable variation on various levels one will be able to understand the relation of reproductive algebra, environmental change, and classic thermodyanmics in macrothermodyanmcis on the same visual basis and from there to more refined actual mathamatical representations, such as the modulo proposal, claims about the effect of niche construction on natural selection, ability to model THE SHIFTING balance theory. There will be some shifiting going on and it is hard to get ones mind continually on,................... so I hope writing a program will help in that regard. That has less to do with ID however except as it itself is used as a model. Yes, time wil go slower than reality in the simulation but I hope it will not be too slow that the benefits of constucting it are outweighed. The ISSUE is to get people to think about temporal relations(correlations) and this is hard to do in our world that only knows one time. That is probably one of the best uses computers can be put to.
The arguments about NOT needing a universal bound however would be strengthed by the EXISTENCE of such a program. So far it is just the desgin of a spur Tony once supplied when no one else was in the listenning class.
The motion is just a routine thing of taking two collection localities on the earth(or two clades data), construct a minimal spanning tree to the nearest ocean basin, connect this a circle in the Southern Hemisphere, meanwhile recording relative longitude and latitude changes AND THEN develop the net/web of Croizat tracks NORTHWARD by putting the Earth BACK down on it base""but this will not be how time is first encoded by me even though it was the first circuit i imagined. I will use data from supramolecular chemistry instead.
The big brad prediction is that the data collected by using actual geographic collection localities of organims will format in accordance with Gladyshev's law. Thus the environment, reproduction, and basemutationdifferences would find the same congruence class, if I was correct.
That is science and that is how it might be done. I went to cornell to become deductive biogeographer first and evolutionist second and I would love to see the day that it is an established discipline in univeristies around the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2005 6:30 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 46 of 112 (200776)
04-20-2005 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by CK
04-20-2005 8:33 PM


Re: Some recent ID Research!
A second generation fertility test as in the first paper does not go as far as I was thinking about the different probability space in ID. It may still exist where one attempts to reveal the art by forms only as in this citation but I suspect ID if it has an author will be most successful by using the 01 probablities of migration vs mutation vs selection rather than just providing a new statistical basis for seperating clusters in morphospace. If ID starts to ask what the topography is biogeographically for it will enter a realm that strict blind chance can only vainly suspect.
Thanks for the links- on to link two...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by CK, posted 04-20-2005 8:33 PM CK has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 72 of 112 (222939)
07-10-2005 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Silent H
07-10-2005 11:09 AM


Re: Intelligent Design winning over Catholic Church
I never noticed any real "backing" of evolution as is widely ported about the past Popes 96 writing but instead I saw in whatever most orginial sources I could read found an explanation distancing from divisions in the sciences themselves. This I recently wrote as a difference between biochemical instruction and biophysical manifested instantiation here on EVC.
The only real intellectual point seems to be if Wolfram is wrong or not. That bears on IC somewhat lest our human notion of phase transitions is just not solid enough. If free will is associated with molecular freepath lengths of expressed genes via entropy increases if operating different levels of selection in the same category of causality by a shifting balance of the particular level of organization in object per deme
Indeed, in the case of small particles the energy of thermal motion kBT>>En. (En is the energy of natural magnetic, electric, and gravity fields acting on the particle.) Still, for sufficiently large structures the inverse is valid: En >>kBT. Hence, the relative contribution of the corresponding terms is large. While passing from lower evolution to higher ones, one can also observe variations of the relative contributions of the terms characterizing surface, photochemical, magnetic-hydrodynamic, deformational, and other kinds of work.
quote:
http://www.endeav.org/evolut/age/dem/dem.htm
exist, then Wolfram's morphogenic growth is not generalizable and his good will fails (no matter the transition etc) where he analyzed transifinte math. The rest is just different positioning of the philosophy of math for the future benefit of life on Earth.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 07-10-2005 12:32 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Silent H, posted 07-10-2005 11:09 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 93 of 112 (224262)
07-17-2005 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by GDR
07-11-2005 1:52 PM


Re: Intelligent Design winning over Catholic Church
quote:
The question of how those mutations occurred is not part of Darwinism, once again, as I understand it. The question of whether the mutations occurred by a "an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection", or whether there is an "Intelligent Designer" manipulating these mutations would, as I see it be another question entirely, and frankly, I can't see why science would have any position
"
on
that".
I would guess that Anglo-Saxon biologos does or did because it would have attempted to preempt any further willy-nilly Lysenskoist graft.
If one INSISTS on Kant's notion of a TREE and its divisions and growth via grafting (which there is no reason to discount from Lysenkos former discipline) then the biological trinomial can not simply NAME AWAY any claims in nature that way that might be the charm of the collector simply attempting to describe what was observed in as many subjective ways as could be thought allowing "mutations" the place of *any* change such or such not.
It IS another "question" entirely indeed,,, but that is why Gould insisted on a hierarchy of causation because as the notion of variation biometrically stood, anything,, other than a probablistic materialism makes; a divide:: in-biology: where, there may indeed be one a priori and hence justifiable, in a future logic of cladist works but without premeditated $knowledge$ that,,,, 'god did it'(as Aggasiz insisted the physicist is to supply should such speak in the reaction) without a aposteriori classification of the rank of mutations with distributions (noT knowing the proper form of the set of discrete differences) the defense (scientifically(sic!))is to "disallow" the question UNTIL remanded by the data.
To me this offensive behavior of biologists is only a problem when it obscures exploratory data analysis and this (lack) can only be remdied by better technical tools no matter how much criticism or memes are "thrown" at the problem. As soon as an IDist does a synthesis that no EVCer can quabble with the quid pro quotient can be divided even if infinte divisiblity remained all the while.
The possiblity that an adapative oversight caused a mistaken bound to be constrained where an invariant was is a real possiblity as nanotech might be able to have shown such by finding a limit to artifical selection that remands an equivelent statistical limit naturally. The defence in that game of theory would THEN have been that not any kind of graft is projectable but only those that show to what extent economic gains from the structure of evolutionary theory can be gain said and made a bottom line. The words species and genus would not reply sensu stricto as logos has the last word. But I would agree it is not science but instutional science and currently wrongful divisionary pedagogy that has had this position.
The minute reason in the literature seems to be over the relavance of nonadaptive traits to fitness functions but I think this is a slip of Western arrogance of the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by GDR, posted 07-11-2005 1:52 PM GDR has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 96 of 112 (226277)
07-25-2005 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by jasonlang
07-19-2005 12:45 AM


Re: Neural Networks, Genetic Algorithms and Intelligent Design
Wolfram thinks it is all about only the "size" of the inputs but he also thinks that renormalization is the way to handle infinities relative to photons. I doubt that that is merely cardinal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by jasonlang, posted 07-19-2005 12:45 AM jasonlang has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024