|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Sex Life of 747 Aircraft | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Everytime I hear people say something like this...
quote: I always want to ask for the mathematics behind the calculations of the "chance" or "probability". Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Ringo writes:
If you're trying to change this analogy to something more analogous to evolution, you're still missing natural selection. All you have now are random mutations. Suppose we line up a million people outside the junkyard and let each one in for an hour at a time, to do whatever he wants. Even if none of them knows how to put a 747 together, certain parts will fit naturally with certain other parts. Under those circumstances, what are the odds that the result will be a 747?
Suppose we have a million people lined up ready to do whatever he wants in the junkyard. But then, there also is a team of highly skilled engineers, each one knowing a 747 inside and out. Whenever someone does something that would bring the piece of junk further from a 747, the team of engineer would stab the person from behind and change the piece of junk to its previous state. But then if you look carefully, you will see that even this analogy is faulty in that the whole thing is aiming toward getting a 747, implying a direction. Evolution is not directional. Ok, let me take another stab at this. Suppose we have a junkyard with a kazillion people lined up outside ready to go in and do whatever they want, each at a time. Suppose we are on an island where the island will have a giant earthquake and sink to the bottom of the ocean in a few decades, so everyone has to find a way to get off the island. Therefore, naturally, the pieces of "stuff" that result from the juryriggings will be selected for their ability to take people off the island. There will undoubtedly be pieces that will float, acting like a raft or canoe. Then, there will be bigger and more stable pieces that resemble small boats. Someone will undoubtedly stumble into making an engine for the boats. In a few years, or a few decades, we there would be some people coming up with ideas to create something that will glide in the wind. Then after many trials and deaths, someone will realize that the vehicles needed some kind of propulsion system that creates thrust. After some more trials and deaths, there will be someone or some people being able to build a proper engine to propel the aircraft. So now, we all kinds of different types of aircrafts and all kinds of different types of boats and other floating things, all with the purpose of taking people off the island before it sinks to oblivion. What about the natural selection, you ask? Well, all those land vehicles that people will undoubtedly make will be thrown away because they do no good to bring people off the island. In fact, I'd imagine that the bicycles never had a chance, therefore no motorcycles will ever be built. If you think about it some more, there will undoubtedly be very creative ideas to get off the island like having a personal floatation device and using your own legs as propelers. These people will represent the worms and rodents in our ecosystems. The boats represent larger creatures, like dinosaurs and later on mammals. The airplanes represent the creatures that could fly, like some dinosaurs and birds. The will to get off the island represents survival. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Percy writes:
I somewhat get a little nervous everytime I see this analogy comes up and the preceding changes in the analogy. The proper analogy to evolution would be tornados that tear through thousands of junkyards, and then those resulting scrap heaps which most resemble a 747, no matter how incipiently, are kept and placed in new junkyards for tornados to tear through. This process is repeated thousands of times. You still wouldn't end up with an actual 747, seems wildly unlikely especially since a tornado is totally unlike natural selection, but it's a better analogy. What I mean is the presupposition of the analogy is faulty simply because it implies that that evolution has some kind of direction. The analogy is based on the presuposition that there is some cosmic aim for the tornado to produce a 747. And to a layman who isn't familiar with evolution, this leads to the misinterpretation that evolution somehow has some kind of cosmic aim to produce higher lifeforms, or that a sentient being like human is the ultimate goal. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Grizz writes:
In later years after the initial urey miller experiment, scientists have been able to produce in laboratory condition "pre-cells" that have primitive metabolic processes. The only thing these self contained bags of organic molecules were the ability to reproduce themselves. The 747 argument originally put forth by Fred Hoyle was based on the the calculations he used to deduce the probability of the various chemical pathways and molecular machinery neccesary to create a cell arrising spontaneously through natural process. Currently we lack any substantial knowledge of the prebiotic conditions that existed to really arrive at any such calculation of probability. Hoyles figures were based on assumptions about those conditions. Our speculations about such things as the RNA world or mineral synthesis ect realy offer nothing about specifics. We can just guess at what compounds or configuarions existed at the time. We may never know. Your guess is as good as mine.
These experiments were done in a course of only a few weeks. It doesn't take that much imagination to think that a billion years time could potentially give some carbon base molecules to assemble themselves in such a way that would produce self contained bags of stuff with lipid bilayers with the ability to reproduce themselves via mitosis. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
Haha, this reminds me of an example I once heard from a teacher. He was trying to tell me something, but I totally took it the wrong way. You're playing poker and you are dealt a hand of five cards. What was the probability that you would have been dealt that one particular hand? We can calculate that probability and it is very small, hence very improbable. But what is the probability that you would have been dealt a hand? Barring some event that would have interrupted the game or removed you from the game (eg, somebody poisoned your martini), that probability would be 100%, a dead certainty.
Anyway, the example is this. Just imagine the probability that the current you ended up being you. Out of the millions of sperm cells trying to get the egg cell in your mother, what was the probility that the one sperm cell containing just the exact genetic combination for the current you would make it to the egg and be the first to fertilize it? And yet, you are here now. Since the probability was so small, I'd have to conclude that you don't really exist Added by edit. Oops, I just realized I have posted more messages in this thread than the rest of you combined... almost anyway. I'll shut up now. Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
anastasia writes:
Depends on what the goal is I guess. In evolution, the "goal" for every species is to survive. But as far as direction, there is no direction, because there are many ways for a species to survive. Giving an analogy where a 747 is the final result of many efforts to 'get off an island' seems to me to have the same problem. Getting off an island is a goal, isn't it?
The "goal" for the inhabitants of the island is to get off the island before it blows up. Doesn't matter whether someone comes up with a 747 or just a raft. As long as whatever contraption or thing can take people off the island, it's used to do so. The biggest misconception about evolution is that it has some kind of direction toward higher lifeforms, and that humans are the ultimate "goal". I suspect that this very misconception is the origin for the tornado and 747 analogy. The people who use this analogy to describe evolution think that human is the ultimate goal of evolution, which isn't even close. But yes, you are right, evolution does appear to have a "goal". But there are an infinite paths toward this goal, which is why the analogy is faulty. Added by edit. Scratch all of that. The best analogy I think for evolution is the monte carlo method to solving mathematical and physical systems. Having spent some parts of my life coming up with computational algorithms to solve dynamical and physical systems for a living, I've found that the monte carlo method works wonders. It's pretty much random mutations and natural selection with a lifetime warranty all in one package for $19.99 (limited time offer). Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
First of all, I'm not a biologist.
anastasia writes:
There is an old saying. Don't put all your eggs in one basket.
The one thing which I have trouble with in the survival 'goal' is seed bearing plants.
Seed bearing plants have an advantage over other plants because they can spread their offsprings to great distances. This gives them a clear advantage in survival as well as not having the offsprings compete with the mother plant for the resources.
Plants with seeds survive as species. Is it too much to ask how a plant could randomly 'decide' to produce a seed, or a mammal produce offspring?
Ana, when you stop trying to misrepresent the theory of evolution with more (I wanna call it lies because you know better), we can talk more. Either that or read a book on it. Or you can ask someone else. I'm sorry, after the millionth time we've told you that evolution is not a random process, you keep using the word to describe it. Would the pope approve of this? Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
(1) Ned is right that we are wandering off topic.
(2) Even the Vatican has admitted that evolution is "truth". If you want, I can find the specific speech by Pope John Paul II on this. Since evolution is science and the vatican deals with theology, they have been wise enough to leave science in the hands of scientists... for once in history. (3) Regarding your last point, I want to refer back to the monte carlo method to solving physical and mathematical systems. If you don't know what that is, familiarize yourself with it, then perhaps you could finally get some new insight into the matter. (4) I'm a programmer who got degrees in math and physics, and I know I'm not a dumbass. I'm pretty sure biologists and geneticists aren't dumbasses either. Yes, this can be seen as argument from authority, but I don't think it is. I just want you to consider the fact that there are people out there who spend entire lifetimes studying these things before you imply that we are all dumbasses. (5) Think in very small baby steps when you think about evolution. To say that plants suddenly decided to start having seeds is the same as saying the whole world suddenly decided to enter the iron age from the bronze age over night. I'm sure you know a thing or two about history. (6) Sorry for the rant above. I'm in a bad mood today. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
ana writes:
I think I know where you are confused now. Imagine 2 organisms A and B. Organism A can't reproduce and organism B can. Time goes by and organism A dies off without having an offspring. Organism B dies off after leaving an offspring or two. The offsprings carry the genes that let them reproduce and so on and so forth. I am explaining why I think it may apply. Natural selection, which is not a great term in itself, explains why a thing which reproduces continues on. I don't know why a thing would reproduce at all without either A. Knowledge that it should do so, or B. A chance event which caused it to reproduce. I don't think you understand what natural selection is.
For every characteristic of life, we use the term 'random mutation', and if that mutation is advantageous to survival, it gets selected for. Don't you think that science is still a bit hazy about how or why a plant would come up with a whole system for reproduction when it has no idea it needs to reproduce?
Well, again, consider plant A and plant B. Plant A can't reproduce and plant B can. Very quickly, plant A will become extinct and plant B will continue on. As to the how and why, I'd use Dr. Strangelove's answer. It is essential that the plant can reproduce, otherwise there wouldn't be a plant for us to discuss about.
If you can tell me how, outside of pure luck, or sentient design, then I will withdraw my further comment and all mention of randomness.
Monte carlo method. Monte carlo method. Monte carlo method. Monte carlo method. 1 billion years. 1 billion years. 1 billion years. 1 billion years. Monte carlo method. 1 billion years. I'm not saying understanding the monte carlo method will solve the problem completely. I'm saying that it's a good start. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Ned writes:
And let's not forget that the vast majority of lotery tickets don't have the winning numbers. In much the same way, the vast majority of species as well as traits that have ever existed since the beginning are extinct, and the few that have the winning tickets are alive today. Humans for example try something up to as many as 30 billion some new "tickets" each generation.
Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
ana writes:
I'm about to embark on a journey to another state for the 4th of July. I'll be back sometime tomorrow night. Enough time for you to give us the mathematical calculations to this "slim chance" you are talking about? I think it is a slim chance... Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
anastasia writes:
Light sensitive cells on plants serve a great deal of purpose. Then, I have a mental picture of a half-formed eye serving no purpose. The nautilus eye
which mind you has no lense seems to serve the nautilus just fine.
It's still mind-boggling to wonder 'why' a thing would randomly produce a collection of cells, no matter how simple, which served so much purpose.
I think you should just stick with the bible. No offense. Again, since the sun is the primary source of energy for our biomass, having a few light sensitive cells would give you a great deal of advantage over your competitors who have no idea where to seek out the light. Having even the most primitive eye could potentially give you advantage over your competitors by telling you if something big is coming your way or if lunch is just right there in front of you.
The un-scientific amoung us are just blown away that something could produce any function without planning it.
Have you looked up the monte carlo method yet? If you take the time to learn how to write the simplest program and write out your own program using the monte carlo method to solve a physical system, I think you will get a better grasp at this. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
ana writes:
In your particular case, you should just take evolution on faith. Remember that the pope is infallible.
It does me no good at this stage to 'believe' in evolution. Here is a copy of John Paul's speech to the Pontifical Acad of Science in Europe.
quote: quote: He even reminded people that church scholars such as yourself should keep up-to-date on the latest scientific findings.
quote: Here is a direct comment that can be seen as a direct endorsement of the theory of evolution.
quote: I find the following very interesting, because again the pope makes it clear that there is no conflict between the evolution of man where the human form descended from some other form of life while still having the special status given by god. In other words, what's important is the human spiritual soul.
quote: So, clearly, the vatican isn't as concern with our physical attributes as much as our spiritual side (which I commend them for). Here is a very interesting paragraph that might potentially be taken the wrong way.
quote: This is simply a reminder that the theory of evolution cannot explain the spirit of man, which it doesn't anyway. Here is a conclusion that says more than it appears.
quote:Think about it. The pope didn't tell them to go to hell for believing in the theory of evolution. The fact that he did not advocating we put all biologists and evolution supporters in house arrest should be telling enough that catholics should either support evolution or not comment at all We'll leave the theology to theologians if you leave the science to scientists. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
ana writes:
See, this is why I am not convinced you know anything about the theory. At the same time, if countless things get on without them, what is the sense in getting one? Yes, there are a lot of things that get on fine without eyes. But these same things can't live in a lot of environments and niches. The things that did develop eyes were able to inhabit a myriad of new territories that the totally blind ones could never survive in. Ever heard of a concept called adaptive radiation?
I am sorry, but even if it irks you, there are still elements of the whole thing which seem to be a matter of faith. Faith that a thing COULD happen.
Why have you been avoiding my point about the monte carlo method in computer programming? I don't just have faith that it could work. I actually know that it could work. Here is a short explanation to why it irks me when you say it. I'm a musician. I play a lot of music. Sometimes, I get together with old buddies and we jam and perform jazz. For jazz, I play the sax. We do mostly improv. Every once in a while, I'd hear a comment made by a music illiterate that on stage we just played "random notes". Sometimes, I even hear some of them say that they could probably play just as well after spending an hour or two to get to know the instrument. It bothers the pianists, too, because they hear people comment that the piano, especially in jazz, is so easy to play because because all a pianist has to do is press down random "buttons" that happens to sound nice overall. Now, would you reccommend one of these people teaching a music theory class? Improv jazz IS NOT playing random notes. In much the same way, you don't understand evolution, so you conclude that noone else in the world knows anything about it. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
ana writes:
I'm pretty sure that part of the catholic doctrine in this matter is the pope is always right when he talks about matters that concern catholic doctrines and catholic teachings.
Maybe you all feel the same way about me as I feel when people constantly misrepresent the theory of infallibility, without learning the first thing about it. When you get into this topic, it's not so much about whether evolution explains the spirit of man, but whether faith teaches a super-imposed spirit untouchable or unknown to observation.
But evolution is very observable. And let's not forget the monte carlo method. Just write a simple program using an algo to produce totally random numbers and have a subroutine that only selects the results within certain limits. Random mutations and natural selection.
Taz, ANY argument from authority is faulty.
Actually, no. This is why it's called informal logic. The logical fallacy that is argument from authority is only a fallacy when it is. For example, when I was showing college students how to do kinematic problems, sometimes I just gave them the equations and showed them how to use those equations properly. For a lot of these students, the math necessary to derive these equations was several levels higher than what they were at, so I always told them to take my word for it that the equations worked. Not everyone's opinions are equal, and we should all recognize that fact. The argument from authority can be valid when we are dealing with certain situations that we see regularly on this board. You know, when the teenager with his cosmic wisdom shows up and proclaims that quantum mechanics is a pile of bullshit. In such a situation, I'm not going to waste my time trying to teach him a college course on quantum mechanics. I'm just going to say that obviously a lot of very smart people disagree with him and that nowadays we are beginning to have quantum computers proving that QM holds water while he's only got an empty glass.
It does nothing to quiet the COI, and an answer, even if it be correct, is as good as invisible without it being understood.
But there are many things we use today that we don't know exactly how they work. I don't know shit about geology. But obviously, I drive a car that has a gasoline engine without demanding to know every detail about how the oil was found and how it got from there to my gas tank. I don't know much about genetics, but obviously I believe in genetic disorders and such. I'm not going to demand to know everything about genetics to believe that my losing my hair (goddamn male pattern baldness) is an inhereted trait. So you see, there are a lot of complicated things in the world that are over our heads. Just because I don't know geology or genetics doesn't mean I can proclaim that they're a bunch of dumbasses by asking them really stupid questions thinking I've stumped their entire fields of science.
As you have mentioned, JPII finds it important for theologians to be current with science. I will not say that science is necessary for faith, but hello...do you want Biblical exegesis to continue in its ignorance?
You misunderstand me. Theologians and other people of faith can either keep up-to-date with science or not. I don't really care. What i do care is people sharing their opinions about things they don't understand as if they have the authority to speak on it. This is why I use the argument from authority. I'm a musician who happens to have perfect pitch, or something very close to it anyway, when I hear certain notes or certain chords and you want to know what they are, I'll tell you what they are and to take my word for it. I'll even play it back for you. Now, if a note is played and you have to say what it is, would you trust the person with a really good relative to perfect pitch or would you trust a person who's tone deaf? This is what I see in this debate. All the people who spend their entire careers researching and thinking about so-and-so field say one thing about so-and-so and then all the peole who are preachers, pastors, housewives, etc. who spend all their lives talking to god rather than learning about so-and-so want their opinion about so-and-so to count more than the first group of people. It just boggles my mind that people actually trust their local preachers on science more than university professors and scientists. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024