"Darwin Day" Topic

Happy Anniversary Tread!

On February 2nd 2009 Gunfreak wrote:

In 10 days it will be 200 years since Darwin was born and 150 sice he published The origin of speices.

I think most universities around the world will mark the day.
I know the univeristy of Oslo will and I will probebly go up there and take look at what they will do.

We've got a new page!

You know what that means folks!

We've started a new page; so I didn't want TJ to use the excuse that he'd missed it. So here we go again, repeating my question of January 26th, which repeated my question of January 21st, which repeated my question of January 15th, which repeated my question of December 19th, which repeaded my question of December 12th and so on……

TJ to remind you this is what I want answered:

When a Prof. of Biology gives a lecture on evolution that is then broadcast on Youtube, then the contents can be rejected because of it appeared on Youtube. So in what circumstances would that lecture be acceptable to the creationists? Could such a format also be shared with the rest of the TMP community?

A year od thread, thats been active all the time, thats new.

With 365 days this thread has on avrage had 3.4 replies a day

Yes, only the "contains what" thread in the Lounge is bigger. I feel proud of my contributions to this evolving thread (and they would be greater in number if the DH was burned down….)

Hi

The retreating glaceir paper was based on an article not by a scientist but an anecdotal article in a rock climbing magainze.

A peer reviewed study on tree ring proof in Siberia turned on 3 selected trees.

Kyoto. I didn't include Canada because it wasn't mentioned in the first post about the US. This is a point I have made before.

Kyoto pushed a 2% reducting from 1990 levels. The numbers available at the time suggested to that 2% below 1990 was already either in place or close for most european countries. No third world countries were affected. Well, between 1990 and 2010, the effective population growth in Europe is zero. In the US and Canada (see this time I included your lot), the population increased 25%. Thus, the effective reduction by person was dramatic.

Thus, the US and Canada were asked to make huge reductions while Europe assigned itself a little, and The third world none at all. This isn't a solution by any measure. It is a political event that does attach american companies and their profitabiltiy. Now, one wrinkle that surprised me at the time was this: currently it is cheaper to fly food from africa to the UK than grow the food in the UK. The carbon debt of that food would be assigned to africa. HOWEVER, the reverse isn't true. Food grown in Canada and shipped to the starving in Darfur, is assigned to Canada.

A double wammy in the form of "solution". If the solution is actually in place, then the CO2 reduction would be uniform rather than just targeted to Canada and the US.

When you toss in the evident problems with curve fitting and such, and it is looking like some of the "piling on" in the IPCC has nothing to do with saving the planet, but punishing the most successful counrries in the history of the planet.

So, to me the issue isn't the science, but the socialism.

Rocky

(my oh my, we just can't avoid the politicial ramifications, can we?…)

And yet it still moves.

Rocky,

What you say may well be true. I'll assume it is.

How does anything you say have anything to do to disprove the existence of man made global warming? It seems you are more upset with the proposed solutions than the background science. The two are not related.

Some examples:

1) I, personally, think that the previous US administration's position on stem cell research was misguided. However, regardless of the US's position, it has nothing to do with the medical validity of the benefits of stem cell research.

2) As impressed I was with Judge Jones III's summation of the Dover court trial, an actual court case decision has nothing to do with the validity of the Theory of Evolution as a proper scientific theory.

We should be careful not to conflate and confuse science with the public/legal/religious/political response to that science. They inhabit different magisteria.

Ralph

Hi

Ralph, I have been following this climate change thing since the 60s. I was going into archeology and took up mainframe programming for the purposes of improving my statistical analysis of evidence. In the course of that, as a programmer I have been following the programming efforts involved in the issue. What I see a lot is called "curve fitting". None of the work has successfully been able to work backwards to explain previous cycles, and projecting forward, the "hocky stick" programs have not been correct yet. Rather, with each new burst of data, the program gets tweeked to fit.

In some cases, data, as has been coming out, been ignored for not fitting the pardigm.

AND THEN, none of the solutions offered will actually address the supposed problem.

I have posted elsewhere about the excitement in archeological circles with exposed farms in Greenland. The presumption always was that the coastal events were earliest, and inland, the stuff under the ice would be last. What has been turning out is that as each site is explosed by the retreating ice, the site is JUST AS OLD as the coastal stuff. Or, warmer well before the industrial revolution.

Thus, before the fashionable stuff of today, I was following the science and computer aspects. And the numbers just were not working for ME.

I talk about the social and political aspects because of the problem with the solutions proposed. Accepting GW is fine, but if it as stated, why aren't the solutions actually addressing the problem?

Rocky

The reduction of CO2 in the air is not a hard statistic either; much disagreement. This is important because of the "tipping point" we are meant to be frightened with: "ACT NOW BEFORE ITS TOO LATE." So we see a "tripling" of CO2 that's supposed to be largely industrial? Okay, assuming that's true: how does anyone define/predict a future increase of CO2 when "they" can't agree on how long it stays in the air? Besides which, we don't see a vast increase in the world's industrial output, do we? So a further, even more rapid increasing of CO2 isn't going to happen. Maybe the asserted 'tipping point" is way out there, far beyond the present or projected industrial output. But O! we musn't take a chance that the planet will pass that "tipping point", and so we must slap the USA and China, et al. the really big industrial powers, with sanctions, carbon "debt", and use that revenue to upgrade the undeveloped nations: BEFORE we fix the problem of CO2 output?! Sounds like a scam to get money and control, plain and simple….

("AAAWWROOOOOoooooo"…. Just practicing my DawgHaus whine….)

…and here I thought you were just entertaining us with some Warren Zevon…do you take requests? How about a little Roland…? ; )

The BBC radio documentary "In Our Time" has put all 488 programs on line. Since evolution crops up in a number of shows, here is the link to the science archive:

link

The have shows on aging the earth, specific geological epochs, evolution, Darwin. The format is a moderator and three specialists, normally university professors. They even have a show on "Inteliigent Design" where a true believer (tm) tries to argue the lie that "ID is real science, not warmed over creationism"

You will need 'Real Player' on your pc. The BBC site has links to enable this program.

Enjoy.

Hope this format is acceptable to TJ – but since you are not interested in answering, simple civil questions, I guess your many readers will never know.

This just crossed my desk. Brings us back to evolution. Having developed aultrism, with they evolve religion?

link

"Hope this format is acceptable to TJ – but since you are not interested in answering, simple civil questions, I guess your many readers will never know"

Of course it's not accepable to TJ, it's a british program, and british people will defend darwin with fanatical devoution, to protect their national identety as the home of the greatest scientist in the world, they are very biased and just as fanatical as creationist, can't trust the source, give him a good american program, preferebly by someone who DOSN'T hold a highschool degree, and he'll start to listen

Frankly I'm not sure how much you can read into these experiments.I'm not sure the robots are "evolving", by it's strict biological definition.

If you put the bunch of us into that hockey rink and told us to move washers about, we could do so. We could then adopt means for doing this more efficiently. Eventually we would realize that be cooperating together we could move the washers faster. Altruism works!

Does that mean we were "evolving"? No, it means we were "learning". And that's what the robots were doing too. You give them some instructional code (vastly different from genes) and the robot tries to follow the instruction as efficiently as possible. Eventually you have robots working together as they learn from their tasks.

Is that evolving?

Ralph

It reminds me of Conways mathematical game of "Life". Living things are represented as filled or "populated" squares on a grid. This showed that from 4 simple rules:

For a space that is 'populated':
1)Each cell with one or no neighbors dies, as if by loneliness.
2)Each cell with four or more neighbors dies, as if by overpopulation.
3)Each cell with two or three neighbors survives.

For a space that is 'empty' or 'unpopulated'
4)Each cell with three neighbors becomes populated.

you can create quite complex, self sustaining "organisms". Remember the complexity from simplicity arguments, Doug?

Most of the time the organisms just die. I think this is a better simulation of evolution that the washer moving robots.

You can download the program here:

bitstorm.org/gameoflife

To run it you need Java installed. Have fun. The game defaults to an already stable organism that moves on its own accord. Change the speed to fast to see how the creature moves. Or you can then clear the field and then click on or off your own patterns and then start the game. Most of the "cells" will die but you should get stable structures easily such as the 4 square cube. Maybe you will get a more complex "blinker". These are very simple stable "creatures" that also cannot move but pulsate.

Ralph

…you can create quite complex, self sustaining "organisms". Remember the complexity from simplicity arguments, Doug?

What I remember is Rocky's observation that there was nothing simplistic about the BB. The universe is and always has been complex. So what we observe with living organisms evolving into more complex organisms isn't really complexity arising out of simplicity, but rather, complexity evolving into DIFFERENT complexity. The four rules you repeated are simple in themselves, conceptually. But arriving at a venue in which the four rules can operate implies a vast complexity,,,,

But arriving at a venue in which the four rules can operate implies a vast complexity,,,,

Now that I look at it there are only three rules. (Rule#3 is actually redundant). I don't see an implication of vast complexity. Three simple rules on a grid that build complexity within the grid where there was non before. You just don't get this.

Check out the glider gun. After about 70 generations a complex "organism" forms that reproduces new "lifeforms" and sends them off into space. No "Complexity Fairies" were sprinkling magic complexity dust to produce this complex structure. No complexity was inherent in anything. It derived from the application of three simple rules. That's it.

Don't look for metaphysical or magical elements where none exist.

Ralph

I don't see an implication of vast complexity.

The concept is simple, the actuating of it as reality, not so simple. What is this "grid"? What is it made of? How big is it? Where does the material come from? What exactly is the premise behind getting the grid started in the first place? I could go on….

The concept is simple, the actuating of it as reality, not so simple

Wha?

What is this "grid"?

It is simply a made up construct for you to understand the automata better. It is not real. It is like the hex-mat for "Check Your 6". It helps you understand the movement of an inverted-S for your airplane, but it isn't real.

What is it made of?

Nothing…..it is a construct.

How big is it?

It doesn't matter. (You really don't get this, do you.)

Where does the material come from?

What material?

What exactly is the premise behind getting the grid started in the first place?

So you could grasp the underlying logic…..didn't work apparently.

I could go on….

I believe you.

Ralph

Oh, if it's not real, then the inference is that it can be anything at all. It doesn't have to be logical or even possible. So it's not a facsimilie of anything, certainly not the universe….

You should talk to Dr. Stephen Wolfram.

"…..the complexity of the universe belies an underlying simplicity in which a few basic rules give rise to complicated and unpredictable behavior. "

I'm glad we have realized that the universe really has few if any secrets about how it all works. Today, hubris, tomorrow, the stars….

That's not what was said. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam n'est pas?

Here are some abstracts to articles. You can purshase the papers and learn something.

link

link

link

link

and on the game of Life's cellular automata in the original 1970 article by the late Martin Gardiner:

PDF link

Ralph

So what is your point, Ralph? Obviously the game is simple in the extreme, but with "endings" yet to be discovered for some arrangements, while others "die" or become "stable".

And the point is?

My point is, still: that "the game", no matter how simple its parts and few/simple its rules, is infinitely complex since the very parts (counters of two colors and an infinitely large "board") require explaining in the first place. How did they come to be?…

Hi

YHWAH said so?

Zeus?

Aliens?

Basic condition of reality?

Intelligent planet buster musing on the meaning of life resulting in "let there be light".

Speculation without evidence.

R

My point?

My point is that simple things will tend to self organize themselves into complexity by simply following the laws of physics.

I see that everywhere. The sand and stones on a beach organize themselves in very complex patterns based on simple wave movement. There is no "design" inherent, nor the action of "complexity fairies".

The universe started and was simply a mass of quarks. By the actions of motion, thermodynamics and gravity they have organized themselves into complexity. There is no "design" needed nor an inherent complexity deity.

Mathematical games show how this complexity arises from simple structures when under the influence of very simple rules.

Nature shows us this, science shows us this, and computer generated automata confirm this.

The only contrary opinions come from the "Godidit" lobbyists and someone on this thread who never lets his lack of understanding of a topic get in the way of having an opinion on that topic.

Remember how I explained to you how everything came together into planets, solar systems, black holes, and eventually life simply by the action of gravity, along while ago? Then you started calling gravity "God". I do. And I knew then, that this would limit your grasp of things.

I guess that's my point.

Ralph

I never called gravity "TFW". It's part of the manifesting going on, ergo gravity is TFW like you and I, this planet, the solar system, the galaxy, the universe, are manifestations. You see in all of it only evidence of some mindless force, eternally "recycling" itself (perhaps), coming up with intelligence without itself possessing intelligence. That's my point: empirical phenomena, like the little 3-rule "checkerboard" game of life and death, are not examples of ex nihilo. Your intelligence notices and appreciates the games, yet won't allow that this venue we call existence is evidence of an appreciation for Existence over Void….

(and they would be greater in number if the DH was burned down….)

You get the torches, I'll organise a mob armed with pitchforks.

From what source? The same one where all this virtual beer and party food people keep talking about comes from? I ain't seen any so far….

I never called gravity…….

I guess my recollection is just better than yours.

Your intelligence notices and appreciates the games, yet won't allow that this venue we call existence is evidence of an appreciation for Existence over Void….

I notice and appreciate that there is a difference between what we see and can measure, and that that we simply speculate on.

Well, so do I. The difference for me is that speculation inevitably leads to enlightenment/invention. If we only weighed and measured what already exists on our plate, we'd be no more curious than the other animals on this planet. But we aren't made that way. So I will continue (as long as I feel inclined) to speculate on what caused that little checkerboard, three-rule game of life and death to exist in the first place; and gave it an empirical venue in which to do its thing….

The difference for me is that speculation inevitably leads to enlightenment/invention.

Doug, you are absolutely correct! There IS no difference between us in that respect.

However, this is a Science board. We are dealing with tangible, empirical, materialistic subject matter. Here's my problem: There is a lot of idle and meaningless speculation brought forward to cover the lack of rudimentary scientific understanding. It is like someone continually bringing up the game of lacrosse on the Napoleonic Boards because, deep down, he doesn't really understand much of Wellington's Peninsular Campaign.

Yes, the ability to play lacrosse and the ability to speculate does make us different from "the other animals on this planet" as you say. However, continually revisiting this distraction, when it is science being talked about does become tedious at times.

Perhaps, the Meaning of Life board would be more appropriate for these musings.

Ralph

It is, and it has virtually NO traffic ::hmph::….

Possibly because, biologically, life has no meaning.

Biologically, life has TEMPORARY meaning. But our brains don't accept death of the body as the end of existence. You can talk your brain into believing that you end when the brain stops functioning, but you won't convince the brain without a fight. We have always been this way, looking for eternal meaning in a temporary place….

You have a way of answering questions that make me want to know if you read the question. At any rate you haven't convinced me how the state of our brains have anything to do with life's supposed meaning.

But our brains don't accept death of the body as the end of existence.

Well I don't think that the death of my body is the end of Existence. But I do think that my death has something to do with the end of my existence. And that is quite sufficient for me.

How do you visualize your end, Ralph? Your brain quits; for many years there are people who remember you, your body has pieces/parts that remain, somewhere: the universe is different because of your presence, alive or dead. At the very least, the fact of your existence has an affect on the universe where you are. And like a pebble in a vast pool, rings go out from you, even far beyond the point where your eyes can detect any difference. That's the LEAST that your existence causes an affect. Purely empirical. YOU won't know about any of that, of course (assuming that you're right), but the universe "knows" that you exist now, and that you existed alive, and that somday you'll exist dead but not entirely gone, ever….

Sounds about right, Doug.

Doug, tank you that was very poetically put.

Here's a wonderfull talk by AronRa my favorite youtuber.

Now Doug and I have talked about just whats the diffrence between humans and other animals and this deal with that.

YouTube link
YouTube link
YouTube link
YouTube link
YouTube link

Among the high points are an elephant that paints another elehpant holding a flower.
Or a BIG ASS herd of african water buffaloes ganging up on a pride of lions to save their calf
We also learn that dog have evolved along side humans and not only been bread, but true evolition and adaptation to human relation. And that that can infact feel true love, not just some inate pack instinct.

Or that Chimps and Bonobo are like to fasets of humanity.
The bigger chimps are violent and warlike and go to war and hunt. the Bonobo are vegiterian peace loving hippes that just lay around eating fruit and ing, like som sort of never ending hedonistic feast orgy

I love AronRa's story.

He was an ill-educated indifferent high school dropout who indulged his love of heavy metal and partying. However, he still harboured a nascent interest for rational thought and science. After a spotty education and career in the graphic arts, he finally stumbled back to his interests.

Now he is a middle aged, married father who is getting a degree in Biology and Geoscience at the University of Texas.

He has become something of a pitbull and advocate for science education (a full time job in Texas), reason and the separation of Church and State. He has become (in)famous for his clearly explained, easily understandable YouTube videos. In so doing he has drawn the ire of IDiots, Creatards, the Woo-Hoo crowd, and the religious right.

I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavours.

Ralph

Here's a funny short artical about AronRa
rationalwiki.com/wiki/Aronra

I love the stuff Edward Current does too.

YouTube link

YouTube link

Here are two samples

Ralph

Another creationist showed his head in another forum, aperantly ACW draws out concervative americans like flies to rotting meat.

He realy is fanatical, with blantent statements like, "Evollution isn't even a thoery, it's an unconfermed hypothesis at best."

Good, keep him there.

An oldy but a goody

YouTube link

Can we just rename this thread to the "Mammoth scientific debate thread"?

I…