Jihad needs scientists

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehkv2b$8qk_007@s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <3MSdnYZwCOXO8abYRVnyuA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Perhaps among extremist minorities.

You keep saying this; this is not a minority.

Evidence, please?

I can produce
a scenario where the opinion would become 100% of all Muslims.

You just become battier every day. I can produce a scenario where little
green Martians would invade Earth. I suppose you think that means we should
nuke Mars.

Now think a bit more about the reality
of Islam and how it is interpreted.

I suggest that you begin listening to what you keep insisting
is a minority movement. It is not.

Evidence, please.

Eric Lucas

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehktmq$8qk_003@s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <wJ6dneNN343tnKPYRVnyug@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehkoev$8ss_003@s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <453DA5CD.1A70BB2@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


unsettled wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

I reckon in any competition, my knowledge of history would knock
yours
into the proverbial cocked hat.

Possibly. I forgot the utliple choice answer-type history.
ARe you not alarmed that Nazis are getting elected to seats of
power in Germany?

The are no Nazi members in the Bundestag

You just finished with a denial that you and Wake have
selective blindness, yet here you are once again
giving us a clear demonstration. The Nazi party, and
similar spinoffs, are outlawed in Germany, so clearly
there are today no Nazi "members" anywhere in Germany.

So why did BAH say .......

" ARe you not alarmed that Nazis are getting elected to seats of power
in
Germany? " ???

I'm just the messenger here !

BAH needs to get her facts straight. That would seem to be quite a
hurdle
for
her starting from where she is right now.

That was a news item the BBC reported. You were the one who
told me to listen to something other than US news reports. So
I did.

Strangely the BBC seem to have neglected putting this on their news
website
and I cant find anything which could be construed as having said that. Can
you let me know when you heard the BBC report it please?

I can't remember which night it was. Guesstimate was Friday or
Saturday night between 2 and 3 AM my time EDT. And it was
on the feed that is sold to FM PBS radio stations.

I don't know if that's enough data for you to pinpoint.

It might be. I will continue to look.

There is an upswell in right wing organisations getting public support
across Europe, but this is not quite the same.

Isn't that how Hitler got started?

Yes. However Germany is not suffering a massive economic depression and
smarting from a recent, unfair, peace treaty. In the 1930s Germany still had
the capability of becoming a world power in military terms. This is no
longer the case.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehl01t$8qk_002@s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <453E0A58.1629B850@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

There is an upswell in right wing organisations getting public support
across Europe, but this is not quite the same.

Isn't that how Hitler got started?

Ppl were starving when Hitler got started. The support for far right wing
organisations across Europe is quite small, fragmentary and disorganised.

The BBC report did not imply this. They covered an organized
demonstration whose goal was to force the German government to
free some Nazi rock star. That tells me that the youth is
getting organized. Isn't that how Hitler got started?

Not quite.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:453E1013.F66C6585@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

There is an upswell in right wing organisations getting public support
across Europe, but this is not quite the same.

So where's le Pen now ?

Well 2002 wasn't long ago. If the Right Wing nutters get more than half a
percent of the vote something is wrong.

It is not just Europe. In the UK we have BNP members getting reasonable
votes in local elections. This is wrong.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehktr9$8qk_004@s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <AaSdncIuNrMUnaPYRVnyrQ@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:453DA5CD.1A70BB2@hotmail.com...

unsettled wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

I reckon in any competition, my knowledge of history would knock
yours
into the proverbial cocked hat.

Possibly. I forgot the utliple choice answer-type history.
ARe you not alarmed that Nazis are getting elected to seats of
power in Germany?

The are no Nazi members in the Bundestag

You just finished with a denial that you and Wake have
selective blindness, yet here you are once again
giving us a clear demonstration.

I am sure "unsettled" is more than aware that Eeyore and I have very
different view points on lots of topics, so I am somewhat confused what
lumping us together adds to the weight of "his" argument - other than
creating the illusion of collusion to fuel his paranoia.
snip

You two, actually three, are getting lumped together because
you keep repeating our Democrat sound bites as supporting
evidence that there isn't a danger from Islamic extremeists.

I haven't heard any Democrat soundbites so I have no idea if I am repeating
them. Because something is a "soundbite" does not intrinsically make it
wrong or incorrect.

Islamic Extremism does not pose a greater threat than other threats people
live with on a daily basis.

Oddly, the threat from Islamic Extremism has markedly _increased_ since
2003. The plan is not working.

The smoke and mirrors is so thick in this discussion, it is
difficult to identify who is who.

Really? Maybe it isn't smoke and mirrors.

 

[Jamie]

Eeyore wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:


Now I understand. You're a Muslim or a MUslim shill.

I don't think so. I think these types of people are
trying to survive and assume that, if they were nice
about this terrosism, the Islamic extremists will
have mercy and not kill them. It's similar to a pack
mentality, I think.


I think you're very mistaken wrt reality.

If the British public feel seriously threatened by Islam it'll be
Islamic blood that'll be spilt, not Anglo-Saxon.

Graham

i see you sing a different tune when the shoe is on the other foot?

--
"I am never wrong, once i thought i was, but i was mistaken"
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5

 

[Jamie]

Eeyore wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

T Wake wrote:

[... democrats ...]

They don't talk about what measures they will take to prevent alien
attacks

If we imagine that they have some ideas, we can also see reasons why
they may not want the other side to hear of them.

Also a great deal has been said about the risk of something nasty
coming in in a cargo container. Democrats have suggested better
inspection as part of the answer to this so it isn't true that they
haven't said anything. Unfortunately, the inspection needs to happen
at the shipping end not the recieving. The ports are places you
wouldn't want a nuke to go off.

What I'm more concerned about is the Democrats' and others' complete
silence about nuclear power plants which is the most important
action that can be taken right now. Only the person known
as President Bush is even uttering those nouns.

It says that Connecticut has submitted a request for a permit
to open a plant. We'll see what the will of these politicians
is.


What on earth are you talking about ?

Graham

something you don't know about obviously! and is that

a surprise ? Nah!!!!!!!!!!!



--
"I am never wrong, once i thought i was, but i was mistaken"
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehl0ih$8qk_003@s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <EpGdnaVnG9bgoafYRVnyjw@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd69c$8qk_011@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

I know you think this. I realize that all anti-Bushers
believe this. You are wrong.

I know you think I am an anti-Busher.

I don't think that. I think you're a follow-the-winner type.

Really? You say that as if it would be a bad thing, yet it is the normal
behaviour for pretty much all societies. If your government start to falter,
a new one is elected. Seems similar to me.

On the other hand, whatever lable you choose to apply, I prefer to follow
what I think is right rather than what is wrong, if that is winning all the
better.

You believe this because you can not
accept that there is more than two sides. You are wrong.

This is another bad assumption on your part.

Really? Yet you do assume I am an "anti-Busher."

I am not an anti-Busher. I was not anti-War in Iraq. I was not
anti-Invasion
of Afghanistan. My main entry to this thread was the farcical nature of
calling anything a "War on Terror" and the problems with making too many
assumptions.

That's politics. I've been trying to avoid talking about politics.

You are talking about Islamic extremists trying to undermine western
society. That is politics.

The closest I got was pointing out that current US politics has
only one party who is dealing with reality.

And as others have pointed out that is untrue.

You make false assumptions constantly.

Sure. That's all part of sorting out how to deal with messes.
However, the things you think I'm assuming are just not so.

I agree, they are not true so I am not sure why you assume them.

For example, you assume there is a credible chance that some unspecified
Islamic extremist group will destroy western civilisation. This is very much
"not so."

You constantly prove the problems with making assumptions about people.

No. The bottom line of this discussion is that I believe the people,
who tell me they want me and mine dead, are telling the truth about
their intentions. You think they are lying and incapable of
carrying out their task.

(Can we use the word belief here?)

I believe some Islamic extremist militants want you and yours dead. I think
they are capable of killing on small scales.

I do not believe this is a massive threat against western democracy.

I believe that the US-led operation in Iraq has resulted in more Americans
dying than if they hadn't gone in.

I believe that as people become so frightened about some one who lives in a
cave half a world away, they become willing to throw away basic rights (eg:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/18/military_commissions_a_go/). This is
the threat to western society.

Islamic extremists are a minority. As they kill more people they become more
of an outcast minority. As the US-led world kills more Islamic bystanders
the extremists grow in power. These are lessons learned the hard way by most
of the rest of the free world. America _could_ have learned them in the
1970s but it appears more than willing to repeat all the mistakes that
dogged the Vietnam campaign in Afghanistan and Iraq.

By the way, it seems from today's news the Occupation forces are doing
their
utmost to develop an urgent exit strategy from Iraq, realising their
current
policies are doomed to failure. (And this was from CNN

CNN is worse than the BBC. CNN doesn't do retractions.


not the BBC)

I do not listen to CNN anymore. CBS seems to be taking lessons
from them.

At some point, when you disagree with all the news stations, you have to
question your own bias.

 

[Jamie]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:47:03 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Why not start listening to and watching the BBC
?

I have and I do. I now listen to the BBC to see which
slant of surrendering to the Islamic extremists they
are taking that day.

Amazing. Can you let me know when you come across any please?

Any report about the Palestinians will give you a start.

You think the BBC has surrendered to the Palestinians ?


Graham


http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/45336.aspx


John

good work John, put that in your hat Graham!

--
"I am never wrong, once i thought i was, but i was mistaken"
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5

 

[Jamie]

Eeyore wrote:

unsettled wrote:


Eeyore wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


I am sure "unsettled" is more than aware that Eeyore and I have very
different view points on lots of topics, so I am somewhat confused what
lumping us together adds to the weight of "his" argument - other than
creating the illusion of collusion to fuel his paranoia.

snip

You two, actually three, are getting lumped together because
you keep repeating our Democrat sound bites as supporting
evidence that there isn't a danger from Islamic extremeists.

Please be precise.

Exactly what danger(s) are you referring to ?

Generalisation is not acceptable.

Yet another of your one way streets, eh?


You can't answer the question. No surprise.



I've got to dive out of here for a road trip of a few
days pretty soon. See if you can educate yourself while
I'm gone.


So you don't actually have the tiniest clue do you ?

Graham


Graham, didn't some one say, its not good to talk to your

self?
I'm glad you're finally coming to terms with your self!



--
"I am never wrong, once i thought i was, but i was mistaken"
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5

 

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:xrKdnYbdgMJz0KPYnZ2dnUVZ8s6dnZ2d@pipex.net...

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehl0ih$8qk_003@s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <EpGdnaVnG9bgoafYRVnyjw@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd69c$8qk_011@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

I know you think this. I realize that all anti-Bushers
believe this. You are wrong.

I know you think I am an anti-Busher.

I don't think that. I think you're a follow-the-winner type.

Really? You say that as if it would be a bad thing, yet it is the normal
behaviour for pretty much all societies. If your government start to
falter, a new one is elected. Seems similar to me.

The US has this weird underdog ethic. When I watch US football with British
and European friends, they're all befuddled at how many people are rooting
for the underdog, for no other reason than they're the underdog. I guess
it's the whole David-and-Goliath thing, and may spring from our status as
"underdog" in our fight for independence. I must say I like a good upset in
sports, but it confuses the heck out of some non-USians.

(Can we use the word belief here?)

I believe some Islamic extremist militants want you and yours dead. I
think they are capable of killing on small scales.

I do not believe this is a massive threat against western democracy.

I believe that the US-led operation in Iraq has resulted in more Americans
dying than if they hadn't gone in.

*Far* more.

I believe that as people become so frightened about some one who lives in
a cave half a world away, they become willing to throw away basic rights
(eg: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/18/military_commissions_a_go/).
This is the threat to western society.

Yes, this is the primary threat to western society. I think it's come of a
mindset that I've seen develop over the last 40 years, where everybody
insists on a 100% risk-free life. Given that life intrinsically cannot be
made 100% risk free, this is a foolish goal, and leads to foolish behavior.
For example, rather than having some sort of skill at proportionately
assessing relative risks and risk/benefit ratios, people do extremist things
to rid themselves of the tiniest bit of risk. People lose all sense of
proportion when they hear that 2700 people died in a terrorist attack in
2001, but yet those same people will continue their pack-a-day cigarette
smoking habit, which most of them know kills about 100X as many people per
year as were killed in that one attack. The visibility and concentrated
risk in the terrorist attack makes it seem like a much greater risk, so
people are unable to properly assess the actual risk, and therefore to come
up with some sort of risk/reward ratio for things like handing over
Constitutional rights in the name of freedom from risk. Ben Franklin
understood this, and said "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves
neither."

Islamic extremists are a minority. As they kill more people they become
more of an outcast minority. As the US-led world kills more Islamic
bystanders the extremists grow in power. These are lessons learned the
hard way by most of the rest of the free world. America _could_ have
learned them in the 1970s but it appears more than willing to repeat all
the mistakes that dogged the Vietnam campaign in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Joe-sixpack sees 2700 Americans killed, and insists on 200X that many
Muslims must die--never realizing that 1) the mainstream Muslims that are
dying are not the ones who killed those 2700, and 2) all that type of
revenge does is to make more Muslims want to kill more Americans. It's
exactly the same vicious cycle of violence that's been happening between the
Arabs and Jews for thousands of years, and now we, in our infinite wisdom,
have decided to stick our noses into it and stir the pot a little more.
Yeah, *that* was a good idea.

I do not listen to CNN anymore. CBS seems to be taking lessons
from them.

At some point, when you disagree with all the news stations, you have to
question your own bias.

I'm sure she still finds Fox News palatable.

Eric Lucas

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 24 Oct 06 10:27:14 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

Whether or not models are correct is not important to us.
What is important that they provide accurately predictive
tools for us to use.

Does the science of evolution provide any accurately predictive tools?
Simple cases, like bacterial drug or temperature resistance, are
somewhat predictable and can be verified by experiment. But how about
macro things, like the creation of new genera and orders? Are past
creations at this level "predictable" after the fact?

Predict the movement of a body in a 3-body system.

Given the masses, locations, and velocities, this can be done with
extreme accuracy for some amount of time. The time depends on the
precision of the inputs and the available computational resources. In
most cases, the time over which accurate predictions can be made is
extreme, billions of orbital periods. Pathological/chaotic cases can
still be predicted for usefully long times. Even the chaotic behaviors
have predictable statistics.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:47:01 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:gldsj29b1c1911oi7v8ii0secbsntuh51o@4ax.com...


Reminds me of some physics conferences I've attended, where you had to
watch your step for slipping on the blood on the floor.

All topics have conferences like that.


I find physicists to be especially aggressive.

Terseness isn't aggressive; it's efficient.

"That can't work" is pretty terse, especially when it turns out later
that it can work.

"Wow, that is great. It looks cool. It sound cool. It has a trendy
presentation and has been posted all over USENET in capital letters. It has
lots of pretty looking documents and some young guy who keeps talking about
how Einstein was ignored early on supporting it. It has the potential to
solve the worlds energy needs. It will allow mankind to colonise Mars. It is
brilliant" - is not very terse and it is even worse when it is discovered
that it will never work (*).

"That can't work" is indeed pretty terse and more often than not, it turns
out it actually can't work.

One seriously good idea per decade is great in some fields. But you
won't get that one if you murder tham all at birth.

For every hundred thousand crackpot ideas there is one brilliant one. How
should people react to new ideas? Habishi would be a good example...

What's Habishi? No obvious google hits.

Have you read "The Trouble With Physics"? His point is that the
orthodoxy and old farts of "the system" freeze out the ideas, even
ideas from people who are proficient in current theory. I see the same
groupthink in engineering, where orthodoxy keeps people from allowing
themselves to think; and not just wild amateurs, but people who have
the skills and discipline to think, but won't.

His other point is that fundamental physics has made no real progress
in 30 years or so, so it's time for some ideas. This fascinates me, as
one of my interests is the interaction of intellect and emotion, and
where new ideas come from, or don't. I make my living designing things
that other people can't; and mostly they could if they let themselves.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On 24 Oct 2006 07:29:23 -0700, "MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

Only the person known
as President Bush is even uttering those nouns.

Perhaps the problem is that you spelled it "nucular" when you did your
google search. When I tried that I got mostly stuff about North Korea
gitting nucular wepins.

That's how W pronounces it. As did Jimmy Carter, who was a peanut
farmer and a "nucular" engineer.

John

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:nkmsj2p3uhnf5d5ai3gfo835c0h0gnns0j@4ax.com...

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:47:01 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message
news:gldsj29b1c1911oi7v8ii0secbsntuh51o@4ax.com...


Reminds me of some physics conferences I've attended, where you had
to
watch your step for slipping on the blood on the floor.

All topics have conferences like that.


I find physicists to be especially aggressive.

Terseness isn't aggressive; it's efficient.

"That can't work" is pretty terse, especially when it turns out later
that it can work.

"Wow, that is great. It looks cool. It sound cool. It has a trendy
presentation and has been posted all over USENET in capital letters. It
has
lots of pretty looking documents and some young guy who keeps talking
about
how Einstein was ignored early on supporting it. It has the potential to
solve the worlds energy needs. It will allow mankind to colonise Mars. It
is
brilliant" - is not very terse and it is even worse when it is discovered
that it will never work (*).

"That can't work" is indeed pretty terse and more often than not, it turns
out it actually can't work.

One seriously good idea per decade is great in some fields. But you
won't get that one if you murder tham all at birth.

True but if you try to nurture every idea to see if it is good you will also
never get that one good one - as it will be drowned in the sea of wasted
time and money.

The key is finding the balance. Sometimes good ideas are quashed. If they
are good, they survive this and prosper.

For every hundred thousand crackpot ideas there is one brilliant one. How
should people react to new ideas? Habishi would be a good example...



What's Habishi? No obvious google hits.

Sorry, I forget how cross posted this thread is. I didn't mean to produce an
"in joke" but Habishi is a regular on news://sci.physics with his constant
supply of "new ideas" to solve things like the worlds energy crisis. I
suspect every newsgroup has them.

Have you read "The Trouble With Physics"? His point is that the
orthodoxy and old farts of "the system" freeze out the ideas, even
ideas from people who are proficient in current theory.

It does happen but no where near as much as some people try to make out.
Sometimes it is a good thing - if research money was spent every time
someone "invented" a perpetual motion machine (for example), soon funds
would dry up.

Even people who are proficient in current theories make mistakes and get
things wrong. There is no rush in theoretical physics, if the idea is
really good eventually the Old Farts die out and the idea can be accepted.
At least by that time it will actually be a sound idea.

I see the same
groupthink in engineering, where orthodoxy keeps people from allowing
themselves to think; and not just wild amateurs, but people who have
the skills and discipline to think, but won't.

There is a difference between thinking of new ideas and coming up with
harebrained ideas. When people are told their ideas are wrong (for want of a
better word), there is often some feeling of anger and betrayal. This then
tends to turn into the person railing at the "system" which is holding them
back. (Again sci.physics has _lots_ of these, I am sure the other groups do
too).

In very, very rare cases this may be true. Normally it is just because the
idea is actually crackpot.

His other point is that fundamental physics has made no real progress
in 30 years or so, so it's time for some ideas.

Well, I don't agree with his conclusions here.

First off, it took humanity almost the age of the universe to realise matter
was made of atoms, why should we continue to make progress at an even faster
rate.

More seriously, there is always the possibility that there is _no_ further
progress to be made in some areas. Quarks may indeed be fundamental. The
standard model, in all its ugliness, may be the _best_ description humanity
can produce of the observed phenomena. Gravity may never unite with the
strong, EM and weak forces.

To demand continual and regular progress strikes me as being odd.

That said, lots of progress _has_ taken place in Physics in the last thirty
years. Just because it is not turned into sensationalised news doesn't mean
it isn't happening.

This fascinates me, as
one of my interests is the interaction of intellect and emotion, and
where new ideas come from, or don't. I make my living designing things
that other people can't; and mostly they could if they let themselves.

Often the case. Lots of great breakthroughs seem obvious when they become
"known." I suppose the key is being the person who can see it first.

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:15:05 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

snip
Evolution is essentially qualitative, and
only connects the dimly-understood functionality of DNA to evolution
in a fuzzy, descriptive sort of way.
snip

Evolutionary theory certainly has many quantitative predictions and
many opportunities to be disproven. Your ignorance of the details
doesn't change anything about that. And if any of your family members
are in the field and don't know this, I'm sorry for them. I'll
provide just one example. Don't dare imagine this is the only one.
There are many, many more.

The way DNA encodes proteins is redundant and two different DNA
sequences can code up exactly the same protein. There are 4 DNA bases
{ATCG} and 64 possible combinations of three DNA bases. Those 64
possible codons describe just 20 amino acids, plus one stop code.
Genetic drift should therefore produce non-functional changes in the
genomes of species, by mutations. These, by chance, do become fixed
in the gene pool. The accumulation _rate_ of such non-functional
differences between the genomes of two species with a common ancestor,
depends on such parameters as the number of generations elapsed and
the intensity of selection at that genetic locus.

That's one specific example member of a large family of evolutionary
models that actually produces quantitative predictions. Just to toss
a few more out, there are disequilibrium allele frequencies under
selection, stable equilibria for game-theoretical strategies, sex
ratios, et cetera.

The finding of stable equilibria can also be based on adding time
derivatives to physical system states governed by a potential V(x;c),
described (in part) by a point x, an element of the field R^n, which
serves to minimize potentials; where changing external conditions
change the values of the control parameters c; changing c, in turn,
changes the shape of the potential V(x;c); as the shape of the
potential changes, the original global minimum in which the system
state sits may become a metastable local minimum (because some faraway
minimum assumes a lower value), or it may even disappear -- under
these conditions the system state may jump from one local minimum to
another. An excellent text on the tools involved here is from the
author, Gilmore.

I bring this particular one up because of some of the rather naive
suggestions I've seen here in s.e.d. regarding coming up with new
ideas out of whole cloth on a subject which would impact such
predicted quantitities and their observed frequencies. And, it's just
not there. So get off it and learn a little something.

There are some free books on the web I found from Steven Frank in
Irvine. You might visit:

http://stevefrank.org/

He has made a couple of his books available on the web, they include
theory and predictive, quantitative equations, and he specializes in
some of the quantitative aspects of evolutionary theory. For example,
on his "research interests" page, he says, "It is now possible to see
below the surface of complex phenotypes to the biochemical and
genetical mechanisms that control those characters. I have continued
to focus on complex phenotypes as I did earlier in my career, but now
with particular emphasis on how the quantitative dynamics of
genetical, biochemical, and cellular mechanisms determine those
phenotypes, and how evolutionary processes in turn shape the
mechanisms and dynamics that give rise to phenotypes."

You can't even get the basics right, John. Learn a little and _then_
apply your imagination to it. It will help.

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On 24 Oct 2006 15:57:39 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at>
wrote:

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

I think of engineering, in general, as the application of science and
math knowledge for practical purposes. Not all science knowledge can
be used, at some particular moment anyway, for such purposes. And it
is definitely true that not all mathematical knowledge can be used for
practical needs.

(Mathematicians sometimes gleefully seek and are actually attracted to
researching some area that they are personally convinced no one will
ever use for practical things -- I particularly remember John Conway's
comments in that regard.)


Hi Jonathan!

Math is, one of 'The Sciences'...

I mentally separate it. That is because I "see" the sciences as being
about understanding shared reality. About nature, in other words.
Mathematics is a universe of its own, a place where you can disappear
into and discover whole new territories unrelated to anything else.
Some mathematicians (many, really) believe that this space is not only
as real as nature, but fundamentally real in its own right. And that
conformance of nature to it is no accident. But that's another
discussion.

Surely my baddest, but.

That's too bad. It's one of my few loves of life.

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:03:14 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

John: Larkin:
One seriously good idea per decade is great in some fields. But you
won't get that one if you murder tham all at birth.

True but if you try to nurture every idea to see if it is good you will also
never get that one good one - as it will be drowned in the sea of wasted
time and money.

The key is finding the balance. Sometimes good ideas are quashed. If they
are good, they survive this and prosper.

Yes, as a practical matter, the approach is to let the proposer of
ideas do their own diligence, first. Don't even bother wasting time
on something someone else comes up with, unless they were bothered
enough to show their own case and provide evidence that they
understand the subject, as well. I mean, who else should care to plow
in time if they don't and can't be bothered, themselves?

Jon

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <t1msj214ga0dem1ntfhb5p3kq8cf52v0dn@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 06 10:27:14 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:



Whether or not models are correct is not important to us.
What is important that they provide accurately predictive
tools for us to use.

Does the science of evolution provide any accurately predictive tools?
Simple cases, like bacterial drug or temperature resistance, are
somewhat predictable and can be verified by experiment. But how about
macro things, like the creation of new genera and orders? Are past
creations at this level "predictable" after the fact?

Predict the movement of a body in a 3-body system.



Given the masses, locations, and velocities, this can be done with
extreme accuracy for some amount of time. The time depends on the
precision of the inputs and the available computational resources. In
most cases, the time over which accurate predictions can be made is
extreme, billions of orbital periods. Pathological/chaotic cases can
still be predicted for usefully long times. Even the chaotic behaviors
have predictable statistics.

But there is no exact solution. Therefore, we do not understand the movement
of 3 bodies and we cannot model it. Weren't those your complainst about
evolution?

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:24:12 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
<jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:15:05 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

snip
Evolution is essentially qualitative, and
only connects the dimly-understood functionality of DNA to evolution
in a fuzzy, descriptive sort of way.
snip

Evolutionary theory certainly has many quantitative predictions and
many opportunities to be disproven. Your ignorance of the details
doesn't change anything about that. And if any of your family members
are in the field and don't know this, I'm sorry for them.

My daughter is a biologist. She studies co-evolution of plants and
bees, and does a lot of sequencing and such, and I have this
discussion with her now and then. She's beginning to think that, just
maybe, I'm not entirely a lunatic.

And I have read a reasonable amount on this stuff.

I'll
provide just one example. Don't dare imagine this is the only one.
There are many, many more.

The way DNA encodes proteins is redundant and two different DNA
sequences can code up exactly the same protein. There are 4 DNA bases
{ATCG} and 64 possible combinations of three DNA bases. Those 64
possible codons describe just 20 amino acids, plus one stop code.
Genetic drift should therefore produce non-functional changes in the
genomes of species, by mutations. These, by chance, do become fixed
in the gene pool. The accumulation _rate_ of such non-functional
differences between the genomes of two species with a common ancestor,
depends on such parameters as the number of generations elapsed and
the intensity of selection at that genetic locus.

That's one specific example member of a large family of evolutionary
models that actually produces quantitative predictions. Just to toss
a few more out, there are disequilibrium allele frequencies under
selection, stable equilibria for game-theoretical strategies, sex
ratios, et cetera.

The finding of stable equilibria can also be based on adding time
derivatives to physical system states governed by a potential V(x;c),
described (in part) by a point x, an element of the field R^n, which
serves to minimize potentials; where changing external conditions
change the values of the control parameters c; changing c, in turn,
changes the shape of the potential V(x;c); as the shape of the
potential changes, the original global minimum in which the system
state sits may become a metastable local minimum (because some faraway
minimum assumes a lower value), or it may even disappear -- under
these conditions the system state may jump from one local minimum to
another. An excellent text on the tools involved here is from the
author, Gilmore.

I bring this particular one up because of some of the rather naive
suggestions I've seen here in s.e.d. regarding coming up with new
ideas out of whole cloth on a subject which would impact such
predicted quantitities and their observed frequencies. And, it's just
not there. So get off it and learn a little something.

There are some free books on the web I found from Steven Frank in
Irvine. You might visit:

http://stevefrank.org/

He has made a couple of his books available on the web, they include
theory and predictive, quantitative equations, and he specializes in
some of the quantitative aspects of evolutionary theory. For example,
on his "research interests" page, he says, "It is now possible to see
below the surface of complex phenotypes to the biochemical and
genetical mechanisms that control those characters. I have continued
to focus on complex phenotypes as I did earlier in my career, but now
with particular emphasis on how the quantitative dynamics of
genetical, biochemical, and cellular mechanisms determine those
phenotypes, and how evolutionary processes in turn shape the
mechanisms and dynamics that give rise to phenotypes."

You can't even get the basics right, John. Learn a little and _then_
apply your imagination to it. It will help.

Jon

Certainly microevolution and genetic drift and such are quantifiable.
Macroevolution is less well understood.

My only real suggestion here has been that evolution should be able to
optimize evolution itself: evolution evolves. And the implications of
that are manifold, and lead to some ideas that produce some
interestingly hostile reactions.

John