Intelligent Design by rue

Quote:
Originally posted by Atomkey:
Perfessergee:

ID is not a science? There are many archeologist that would seriously disagree with you. But if you insist that a non-science should not be taught in school, then we should also rule out the following: ...

I thought Perf was clear, or at least strongly implied, that it should not be taught in science class. Not that it shouldn't be discussed at school at all.

Just sayin'

Edit: looks like I cross-posted HK on this issue.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2005 3:28 PM

SergeantX:

Yeah, I checked it out. It's a massive book. Did you actually read it ALL? A lot of it is those pyramid structures. I believe they are based on cellular automata. I once wrote a program in C that solved mazes using the same principle.

But doesn't Wolfram end up saying that there is noting random, and that it is all under an intelligent control of some kind? I may be wrong here, but that's what I 'thought' I heard about it from most of my friends... ???

Check out the last sentence of the second paragraph.

http://www.wolframscience.com/summary/

Atomkey.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2005 3:37 PM

LOL... that's a big no on the 'all' question. I skipped around. He's pedantic as hell, well he's a teacher, but pretty impressed with himself to boot. I didn't catch the 'no randomness' message. Seemed to me he was pushing the idea of 'computational equivalance' which I distilled to the idea that, even if we assume deterministic rules of physics (at the non-quantum level) that the vast majority of processes in reality have no 'shorter description', even though they follow a small set of rules.

The metaphor that stuck in my head was that if you take the usual image evoked by determinism - that if you were somehow omniscienct of the state of the universe at any given time, then you could predict the future - the only way to actually make this prediction would be to work a computation that would be at least as complicated and take at least as much time as it would to just let the future happen. His POV was basically to look at the entirety of existence as one giant computation. Maybe that's what you intepreted as 'intelligent control'?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2005 3:41 PM

SergeantX:

You are right. My bad... Quote perf:

"that ID should be taught as science in science classes."

I have heard this argument many times. But I never heard it on media where it should be taught as a science. However. Again I say religion is NOT ID. And ID does have some scientific balance with other sciences = such as archeology. Much of what is written (Religion) has been supported by this science. Even the story of the Red Sea has been scientifically shown true. In fact, at certain times of the year, the eastward winds take on a similar effect known as the Bernoulli Force (I think it is Bernoulli). This is not seen from the surface of the sea due to particular underwater structures. Anyway, there is a path across the sea that at times is as shallow as 6 feet deep! If the wind were to gail, it would open up a hard-rock passage.

So giving up on ID being a science. Would perf allow ID to be taught as a theory? Afterall, evolution is a theory. And it is NOT scientifically proven. So is it really a science at all? And if ID cannot be taught as a theory, then how about HISTORY?

Atomkey.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2005 3:43 PM

BTW, I remember reading that 'computational equivalence' stuff and immediately thinking of the white mice in Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker trilogy...

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2005 3:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Atomkey:
So giving up on ID being a science. Would perf allow ID to be taught as a theory? Afterall, evolution is a theory. And it is NOT scientifically proven. So is it really a science at all? And if ID cannot be taught as a theory, then how about HISTORY?

I'm woefully lacking in knowledge about biology, but my son is heavily involved and tells me evolution, at least the mechanisms that predict the behaviour of evolution, are about as 'proven' as it gets. Referring to it as a theory, doesn't mean it isn't proven, although that's the popular conception. We still refer to the 'theory of gravity' but I don't think many of us would compare ID to gravity in terms of obvious truth.

Anyway, I say teach it. If it's as silly as it's detractors say, nothing will show this more than the harsh light of scientific examination. That said, I'm sympathetic to science teachers balking at this, as they don't want to waste class time on every unproven notion that some political faction hopes to foist on impressionable students. But the religious right is pushing this hard. To deny them is ducking a challenge. I say bring it into the classroom, compare it to evolution science and let kids decide. Of course I don't let my kids near public schools.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2005 3:57 PM

SergeantX:

Humph... I don't really know enough about Wolfram to say either way. His take on prediction led me to believe he was leaning towards a sort of pre-destination concept. I could have jumped to conclusions there I suppose.

And about the mice. I think Adams has a better view on ID -vs- Evolution than any of us will ever get around to composing. But I must say, I didn't like the way Zaphod B. was portrayed in the new movie. AND they never got around to Milly Ways!!! (sp?)

Who is the God person anyway?

Atomkey.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2005 7:07 PM

I got it.

Intelligent Design is Universal. Proof = Firefly was cancelled, and Universal has made a feature film. Fox = theory.

Case closed.

Atomkey.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2005 8:21 AM

Okay, missed alot...
My fault for being in a different timezone I guess

.

AtomKey:

Quote:
originally posted by AtomKey:
I half agree with you. And the quote from Einstien has always been with me. "God does not play dice with the universe."

I'm not sure if you understood the purpose of my quoting Einstien there, (if you did then I appologise). Basically Einstien rejected QM because of its 'random' nature, and spent much of the remainder of his career trying to disprove it.

Quote:
Albert Einstein disliked quantum mechanics, as developed by Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Dirac, and others, because it had many strange features that ran head-on into Einstein's finely honed intuition and understanding of how a proper universe ought to operate. Over the years he developed a list of objections to the various peculiarities of quantum mechanics.

Personally I think Einstien was wrong.

Quote:
originally posted by AtomKey:
When I imagine an atom, I see it like a micro-solar system. I believe the sub-atomic paricles are on a particular course, and that they are NOT in some random position. I believe this because things I observe on a maco level (over time) seem to perform the same way. If I could take a snapshot of the solar system, each planet (particle) would be in a specific position.

Unfortunatly macro physics, described by Special and General Relativity, and micro physics, described by QM are completly different and unmarryable. The difficulty with understanding QM is specifically that it is so totally different to anything we experience in day-to-day life. The point is macro physics works well for the very large based on experiment and observable data. Conversly micro physics works well for the physics of the very small, again supported by experiments and obsevable data, but because they are so different they don't work together. Physists are currently in search of a 'universal theory of everything' that will marry Quantum and Classical physics.

Quote:
originally posted by AtomKey:
But since I can observe the whole thing by model, I can project the past and future positions with good accuracy

You can't determine the state and position of a particle, therfore you can't work backwards to reliably guess its previous position/state, or future position/state, refrence the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Quote:
originally posted by AtomKey:
So if one atom, next to another, suddenly has a sub-atomic change in position, do they not de-stabilize? Is this not how nuclear reactions are instigated? I honestly may be completly wrong here. I don't know much about Nuclear Physics.

Your assuming too much. There is one massive difference between sup-atomics and planetary systems. In macro physics bodies tend to attract, in micro physics they tend to repel. It takes a great amount of energy to force atoms together (see nuclear Fusion).
Re. nuclear decay, in nature an atom is either stable or unstable. An atom is stable if the forces among the particles that makeup the nucleus are balanced. An atom is unstable or radioactive if these forces are (or become) unbalanced. This can be from an excess of Neutrons or Protons.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Concerning the issue of randomness, have any of you read Stephen Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science"?

Nope, thanks I'll take a look.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
His notion was that a process is random if it is completely without pattern...
...Another way to put it is that randomness exists when there is no 'shorter description' of an event than the event itself.

I'd agree with that, in data compression a signal can be said to be random if it has no data entropy. However, I don't think thats the only valid definition of 'random'.

Quote:
Originally posted by AtomKey:
And about the mice. I think Adams has a better view on ID -vs- Evolution than any of us will ever get around to composing. But I must say, I didn't like the way Zaphod B. was portrayed in the new movie. AND they never got around to Milly Ways!!! (sp?)

Zaphod was all wrong, even down to the way they did the two heads...
But Milly Ways appears in the book The Resturant at the End of the Universe, not The Hitch Hikers Guide to the galaxy

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
BTW, I remember reading that 'computational equivalence' stuff and immediately thinking of the white mice in Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker trilogy...

Hitch Hikers is five books, although it is refered (jokingly) as a trilogy

.

Two hydrogen atoms walk into a bar.
One says, "I've lost my electron."
"Are you sure?" Says the other.
The first replies, "Yes, I'm positive..."

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2005 12:41 PM

NEUTRINOLAD

Science is the study of the natural world.
God or gods or godlings or spirits or ghosts or other such entities are in the realm of the supernatural. Any proposal that is founded on the supernatural is scientifically useless, by definition.
Science exists because the statement, "It's God's will," explains not a gorram thing in the 'Verse.
So we're all done with this foolishness now, right?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2005 12:55 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

The question of whether or not the universe is a haphazard event or something that developed from a nonrandom process is a fundamental issue at the core of the definition of nature. You’ve obviously made up your mind on the issue, as have many people. How you can do this escapes me, when the very nature of Intelligent Design, like many areas of theoretical science, doesn’t lend itself well to testing. Nonetheless, the question of whether the universe was created or is simply a random occurrence is a valid scientific question. Probably not one science will answer, but valid nonetheless.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2005 1:05 PM

SPINLAND

My theory is we're the science experiment of some "vastly superior" intelligent race of beings. I'll drink to the experiment lasting a good long while.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2005 1:19 PM

Citizen:

"In macro physics bodies tend to attract, in micro physics they tend to repel."

Can you cite a source on this?

And yeah, I know where Milly Ways came from, I just wanted to see the new flic end with it. I have the BBC version that includes most of them and was hoping the new one would be the same.

Atomkey.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2005 1:41 PM

Finn:

Who were you addressing when you said:

"You’ve obviously made up your mind on the issue, as have many people."

?

The only way to test ID (if based on religion) is to die. If not based on religion, then yeah = it is not likely to be tested.

Why not just say evolution is a emergent property of some intelligent method that appears to take care of itself.

If everything is truly random, then we have no true choice in anything. Most people say that if everything is set (predestination) the same is true. But if everything is random, so are our decisions = even if we are not aware of it.

Maybe random = destiny.

Atomkey

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2005 1:46 PM

Well firstly its obvious with Macro bodies...
Just think of Gravity

.

For a real world experiment, atoms are mostly empty space, ergo matter is mostly empty space. Does your hand pass through your table?
No, because the atoms of your hand and the atoms of your table repel each other.

From the following link:

Quote:
Though the positively charged protons exert a repulsive electromagnetic force on each other, the distances between nuclear particles are small enough that the strong interaction (which is stronger than the electromagnetic force but decreases more rapidly with distance) predominates. (The gravitational attraction is negligible, being a factor 1036[10^36] weaker than this electromagnetic repulsion.)

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Atomic-nucleus

Quote:
The nuclei in a molecule repel one another, since they are of like charge. This force of repulsion, if unbalanced, would push the nuclei apart and the molecule would separate into atoms. In a stable molecule, however, the nuclear force of repulsion is balanced by an attractive force exerted by the negatively-charged electron density distribution.

http://www.chemistry.mcmaster.ca/esam/Chapter_6/section_1.html

I haven't seen the movie, debating whether I will, because from what I've heard of it I think I might be dissapointed...
Maybe they're going to make all the books in too films, or were at least planning on doing that?

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2005 1:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
Science is the study of the natural world.
God or gods or godlings or spirits or ghosts or other such entities are in the realm of the supernatural. Any proposal that is founded on the supernatural is scientifically useless, by definition.
Science exists because the statement, "It's God's will," explains not a gorram thing in the 'Verse.
So we're all done with this foolishness now, right?

Have you read any of the posts here?
Or are you mearly assuming that science as it stands is the absolute truth and that we won't findout one day that the supernatural can be explained through some scientific medium?
The first scientists were religous men, they didn't start science to refute god, but to try and get closer to him or them.

Supernatural, by definition, is something that science can't explain.

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2005 3:36 PM

Citizen:

Amen... as I reach for my Ouija Board...

Atomkey.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2005 3:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Atomkey:
If everything is truly random, then we have no true choice in anything. Most people say that if everything is set (predestination) the same is true. But if everything is random, so are our decisions = even if we are not aware of it.

This certainly opens up a can of worms!

I've always been intrigued by this issue. People usually reject a deterministic understanding of reality out of hand because of its related concept, predestination. They feel it eliminates free will. But what of the alternative? As you point out, if events happen without cause, then our will is merely random. Hardly satisfying to those who reject predestiny, I'd wager.

I think the problem is the term 'free will'. I'm not sure anyone's ever been able to pin down a definition that didn't rely on vague supernatural assumptions (that usually lead to contradictions galore).

One of the things that occurred to me reading about Wolfram's Computational Equivalence principle, was how it really pulls the rug out from under predestiny. If most processes are already in the simplest state (ie no 'shorter descriptions' apply), then no amount of intelligence could ever predict their outcome, even an awareness of the state of every atom in the system wouldn't do it. This sort of makes the notion of predestiny meaningless.

I doubt that will satisfy those who reject determinism, as they are usually assuming a supernatural soul (somehow) free of causality. But I thought it was kind of an elegant reclaiming of free will without resorting to mysticism.

BTW, while we're (or is it just me?

) on the topic, has anyone here read Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter? I'd think anyone tweaked enough to enjoy this discussion would really enjoy it.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2005 6:58 PM

SergeantX:

Predestiny. I don't know Serg... Our history has taught many variations of predestination. Is the verse truly a deterministic paradigm? I personally lend that way. But I have no way to show it to be true.

I quote you:
"If most processes are already in the simplest state (ie no 'shorter descriptions' apply), then no amount of intelligence could ever predict their outcome..."

If we COULD predict everything, then our own 'system' would be a mute thing. What would be the point in doing anything since all things we would ever do would already be known? Perhaps we are in a determined state of random events that coordinate in order for use to NOT realize them? Maybe that's the point afterall. So we live our lives, thinking we are making 'free will' choices when in fact we are making choices that evolution has already determined for us.

After all is said and done = both the ID and Evolution foundations require something of us that we may have not yet considered; That one thing being = we have no choice but to participate! Think about it for a moment. If evolution is true = then we are doing (going about, waking, eating, sleeping, etc) at this moment what that 'engine' is meant to ultimately become. And if ID is true, so is the same. How can we say we now have any choice but to go about our own business?

A flower does not one day say to itself, I will not produce pollen. Unless of course ID or Evolution says it should be so - right? And when that happens (if that happens) - does the flower have a choice in the matter?

Atomkey

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2005 7:10 PM

Rue:

Hey man. Way off base there with the new thread. Come back to reality where we talk about things we can never really solve. That's where the fun is. You started the ID/Evo thang, and I haven't seen you posting for about two days. So drop that other stuff about state/gov and come back here with the rest of us.

Really...

Atomkey.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2005 7:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Atomkey:
If we COULD predict everything, then our own 'system' would be a mute thing. What would be the point in doing anything since all things we would ever do would already be known? Perhaps we are in a determined state of random events that coordinate in order for use to NOT realize them? Maybe that's the point afterall. So we live our lives, thinking we are making 'free will' choices when in fact we are making choices that evolution has already determined for us.

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Or maybe I've not been clear.

What I was saying is that the Computational Equivalence principle says you CAN'T predict everything, or even very many things. Even if you have all the info. The range of processes we can predict is really a very narrow one where the initial conditions are tightly controlled and even then our predictions grow wildly innaccurate over time.

The idea is that to predict most complex processes completely would require as much 'computing' power as recreating the entire universe and playing out the results in real time. The idea of prediction becomes meaningless. So in a sense, things are deterministic, but not 'predetermined'.

Quote:
After all is said and done = both the ID and Evolution foundations require something of us that we may have not yet considered; That one thing being = we have no choice but to participate! Think about it for a moment. If evolution is true = then we are doing (going about, waking, eating, sleeping, etc) at this moment what that 'engine' is meant to ultimately become. And if ID is true, so is the same. How can we say we now have any choice but to go about our own business?

I like that. It reminds me of the Angel quote: "If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do."

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2005 7:30 PM

SergeantX:

"So in a sense, things are deterministic, but not 'predetermined'."

You got me lost her man... Websters =

pre·des·ti·na·tion = The act of predestining or the condition of being predestined.

de·ter·min·ism = The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

How are you differentiating the two in this case? And I suppose I did miss-read what you were referring to regarding prediction. I get lost in the concept between you, Citizen, and Chrisisall. Please forgive.

I quote:
"...would require as much 'computing' power as recreating the entire universe and playing out the results in real time."

As far as calculating all things = I think maybe the universe is a massive calculator in 'that' ideal. And since it is seemingly infinte, perhaps we should not waste our time on attempting to calculate it ourselves. Perhaps we should just learn to use the calculator the universe has already provided us? Maybe the computer we are looking for is the universe...

Also = I am not familiar with the angle quote. Please enlighten me.

Atomkey

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2005 7:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Atomkey:
Quote:
"So in a sense, things are deterministic, but not 'predetermined'."

How are you differentiating the two in this case?

"Deterministic", - Depending solely on cause and effect.

"Predetermined" - The result is a forgone conclusion.

But my point was that saying something is 'predetermined', in a sense, carries no meaning because the only way to find out what the predetermined outcome is, is to play it out and see what happens. Most conceptions of something being predetermined assumed that an omniscient being could know the results in advance. The theories I'd mentioned say that's impossible, even with true omniscience.

An interesting implication of this relating to ID, is that it gives plausible a reason for why an intelligent creator, even an omniscient one, might want to create a system like evolution in the first place.

The Angel quote is from an episode. I suppose it speaks for itself. Just Joss sneaking in a little of his existential perviness.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 13, 2005 2:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AtomKey:
Amen... as I reach for my Ouija Board...

Just winds me up is all...
I mean once apon a time the rising and setting of the sun was considered to be a 'supernatural' event...

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I think the problem is the term 'free will'. I'm not sure anyone's ever been able to pin down a definition that didn't rely on vague supernatural assumptions (that usually lead to contradictions galore).

I don't believe in Free Will per-se, i.e. I don't use the word in the way most people do. Most people seem it to mean that when you make a choice it wasn't made in any form or way until you made it. Personally I think our choices are made by our enviroment, personallity and history working together, so that even a 'snap decision' could have been made months beforehand.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
One of the things that occurred to me reading about Wolfram's Computational Equivalence principle, was how it really pulls the rug out from under predestiny. If most processes are already in the simplest state (ie no 'shorter descriptions' apply), then no amount of intelligence could ever predict their outcome, even an awareness of the state of every atom in the system wouldn't do it. This sort of makes the notion of predestiny meaningless.
I doubt that will satisfy those who reject determinism, as they are usually assuming a supernatural soul (somehow) free of causality. But I thought it was kind of an elegant reclaiming of free will without resorting to mysticism.

Being free of causality, i.e. time, is not as weird as you may imagine. Its only our time based frame of refrence that makes it so. Also, you don't necessarilly have to work something out to know where it'll end up. You can reliably guess.

Quote:
Originally posted by SeargentX:
BTW, while we're (or is it just me? ) on the topic, has anyone here read Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter? I'd think anyone tweaked enough to enjoy this discussion would really enjoy it.

Keep posting books, and I'll keep trying to scrape enough money together to afford them

.

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 13, 2005 4:16 AM

Well, I'd recommend GEB over the Wolfram book. GEB is a thoroughly artful and entertaining read, even when it is dense and challenging. The Wolfram book, while interesting at times, was very repetitive and fairly dripping with the author's spare ego. Plus, the entire time of trying to read it I felt like he was selling me something. Just something about his presentation didn't set well with me. But I did find some of the ideas, paticularly the ones I brought up here, interesting.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 13, 2005 1:54 PM

SergeantX:

Why does the ID link no longer appear from the home page?

Thanks.

Atomkey

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 13, 2005 2:53 PM

The links on the home page are based on the last time a post was made...

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 13, 2005 3:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Atomkey:
SergeantX:

Why does the ID link no longer appear from the home page?

Thanks.

Atomkey

What Citizen said. Haken has it set up so that only the topics with the most recent posts show on the home page. You can always access older threads by clicking particular category from those listed along the right margin.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 13, 2005 4:03 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I don't belive in Free Will, but definitely in Free Willy.

Just couldn't resist.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 13, 2005 4:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I don't belive in Free Will, but definitely in Free Willy.

Just couldn't resist.

Yes. You could have. You should have.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 13, 2005 5:16 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Oh. ....... You see, I get to watch a lot of kids' films. It wasn't a "grown-up" joke. But I get how it, ahem, could be.

Sorry.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 15, 2005 1:27 PM

DIEGO

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
randomness is a pervasive, persistent, and ultimately dominant trend (otherwise known as entropy).

I don't know what you mean by your statement about randomness. Certainly there are random elements in evolution, such as in mutation, but I would NOT say that evolution is dominated by randomness. The effects of natural selection are highly nonrandom.

Entropy is not the same thing as randomness. Entropy is a thermodynamic property which is usually described as a tendency towards a decrease in order of a closed system.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 15, 2005 2:41 PM