Pushing KDE's Science: Evolution Simulation
Tuesday, 27 July 2004 | Rlangerhorst
Ever dreamed of a nice piece of software that actually tries to simulate the evolution of an universe? Ever thought it would be possible? Now after a long time of planning and writing of some source code a small group of developers goes public with their innovative project: the G System.
The G System, often simply called "G", is an effort to create exactly this: simulation of evolution. This is both, a scientific exercise and a virtual reality where many "users" can participate in an ever changing, realistic and ... evolving universe.
The goal is a virtual reality which can be experienced by users as a realistic world and as a place for scientific development with a goal of creating a realistic evolution simulation. The realism is not so much of physical reality but more of a realistic human - and especially life as a whole - evolution. This also means that nothing keeps us from creating space shuttles that allows for exploring a whole solar system, which can get quite fascinating ;)
Currently the system is in an early stage of development. We have come so far that we think it IS possible to create a realistic evolution simulation and now we want to "bootstrap" development. That means we are looking for contributers. If you are fascinated by the idea you probably already fit the requirements, fascination is what drives development forward. To get an overview of the technology that is covered/used by the project, this list should help: network layer for a "grid" of server systems as well as client connections, database systems, 3D client application with KDE integration, artificial intelligence and some common sense for evolution; Qt and KDE as base libraries. But this list is not complete, there also are many areas where no special knowledge is needed. And after all, everything can be learned.
At the moment a small demo application is already available, it currently shows that the core infrastructure works but doesn't provide much in terms of virtual reality. A later release will bring the system nearer to this goal and will let people enter this simulation experience.
For more information you can take a look at http://www.g-system.at (it is an international site, the .at domain was just easier to get in our case). The source code release and the API documentation are already available. Check out the page at KDE-apps.org!
Comments:
Mythology - Craig B - 2004-07-27
Evolution has become the modern mythology. The universe did not just evolve my accident but was designed with a purpose. This list of design for evidence was taken from the http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml?main#design_in_the_universe Reasons to believe web site. For physical life to be possible in the universe, several characteristics must take on specific values, and these are listed below.1 In the case of several of these characteristics, and given the intricacy of their interrelationships, the indication of divine fine tuning seems incontrovertible. 1. Strong nuclear force constant 2. Weak nuclear force constant 3. Gravitational force constant 4. Electromagnetic force constant 5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant 6. Ratio of proton to electron mass 7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons 8. Expansion rate of the universe 9. Mass density of the universe 10. Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe 11. Space energy density of the universe 12. Entropy level of the universe 13. Velocity of light 14. Age of the universe 15. Uniformity of radiation 16. Homogeneity of the universe 17. Average distance between galaxies 18. Average distance between stars 19. Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters 20. Fine structure constant 21. Decay rate of protons 22. Ground state energy level for helium-4 23. Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio 24. Decay rate for beryllium-8 25. Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass 26. Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons 27. Polarity of the water molecule 28. Epoch for hypernova eruptions 29. Number and type of hypernova eruptions 30. Epoch for supernova eruptions 31. Number and types of supernova eruptions 32. Epoch for white dwarf binaries 33. Density of white dwarf binaries 34. Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter 35. Number of effective dimensions in the early universe 36. Number of effective dimensions in the present universe 37. Mass of the neutrino 38. Decay rates of exotic mass particles 39. Magnitude of big bang ripples 40. Size of the relativistic dilation factor 41. Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty 42. Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae 43. Positive nature of cosmic pressures 44. Positive nature of cosmic energy densities 45. Density of quasars 46. Decay rate of cold dark matter particles 47. relative abundances of different exotic mass particle
Re: Mythology - Rayiner Hashem - 2004-07-27
It's comical how the "but it requires so many coincidences" argument causes a certain category of people to jump to the "intelligent design" conclusion. All you're taking into account are the individual phenomena --- not any higher-order relationships between them. A small set of simple rules can easily lead to a complex system. Until you discover the higher-order relationships and thus the underlying rules, you cannot use complexity as an argument for intelligent creation. Now, science does not currently have knowledge of these rules, so it cannot definitively say that intelligent creation is not involved (using a scientific argument --- various philosophical arguments exists on both sides) but at the same time, it cannot definitively say that intelligent creation *is* involved.
Re: Mythology - teatime - 2004-07-28
You make the mistake of assuming you are important. If, as you say, "For physical life to be possible in the universe, several characteristics must take on specific values" this also means that they are needed for that observation to be possible. This means they are not there by chance but by necessity, which deflates the whole argument. If you could prove that a much simpler universe was not only much more likely than our current but could also house physical life, then your argument would hold water. Then, and only then, would our existence be "surprising". This is kinda off topic anyway...
Re: Mythology - CPH - 2004-07-28
Sure but given the size of the galaxy/universe/big-bang space with the possibility of your various variables to vary in other areas, there will be no one there to observe them (or if there is we have not had the experience of communicating with them yet and even if we could they may not experience reality as most of us do - or worse they may bot have any deities to believe in or they may try to convert us to their bushy tailed, all smelling, blue skinned, light consuming, one eyed god).
Re: Mythology - ac - 2004-07-28
Cut this guy some slack. He's stuck in Crawford while the convention is going on, and he's clearly bored.
Re: Mythology - Wisdom - 2004-07-28
Haha, yeah, keep trying to convince yourself. I suggest you at least read some Carl Sagan, it should be simple enough for you to follow.
Re: Mythology - T. Middleton - 2004-07-28
While we're at the writerly recommendations, might I suggest that you check out some Dostoevsky?
Re: Mythology - Craig B - 2004-07-30
Design and the Anthropic Principle by Hugh Ross, Ph.D. Summary Human existence is possible because the constants of physics and the parameters for the universe and for planet Earth lie within certain highly restricted ranges. John Wheeler and others interpret these amazing "coincidences" as proof that human existence somehow determines the design of the universe. Drawing an illogical parallel with delayed-choice experiments in quantum mechanics, they say that observations by humans influence the design of the universe, not only now, but back to the beginning. Such versions of what is called the "anthropic principle" reflect current philosophical and religious leanings towards the deification of man. They produce no evidence to support the notion that man's present acts can influence past events. Furthermore, their analogies with quantum mechanics break down on this point. The "coincidental" values of the constants of physics and the parameters of the universe point, rather, to a designer who transcends the dimensions and limits of the physical universe. related articles: * Evidence for Design of the Cosmos * New Astronomical Proofs for the Existence of God * Quantum Mechanics, a Modern Goliath * Astronomical Evidences for the God of the Bible Cosmic Connection Now that the limits and parameters of the universe can be calculated, and some even directly measured, astronomers and physicists have begun to recognize a connection between these limits and parameters and the existence of life. It is impossible to imagine a universe containing life in which any one of the fundamental constants of physics or any one of the fundamental parameters of the universe is different, even slightly so, in one way or another. From this recognition arises the anthropic principleeverything about the universe tends toward man, toward making life possible and sustaining it. The first popularizer of the principle American physicist John Wheeler, describes it in this way, "A life-giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world."1 Of course, design in the natural world has been acknowledged since the beginning of recorded history. Divine design is the message of each of the several hundred creation accounts that form the basis of the world's religions.2, 3 The idea that the natural world was designed especially for mankind is the very bedrock of the Greek, as well as of the Judeo-Christian world view. Western philosophers of the post-Roman era went so far as to formalize a discipline called teleologythe study of the evidence for overall design and purpose in nature. Teleology attracted such luminaries as Augustine, Maimonides, Aquinas, Newton and Paley, all of whom gave it much of their life's work. Dirac and Dicke's Coincidences One of the first to recognize that design may also apply to the gross features of the universe was American physicist Robert Dicke. In 1961 he noted that life is possible in the universe only because of the special relationships among certain cosmological parameters4 (relationships researched by British physicist Paul Dirac twenty-four years earlier5). Dirac noted that the number of baryons (protons plus neutrons) in the universe is the square of the gravitational constant as well as the square of the age of the universe (both expressed as dimensionless numbers). Dicke discerned that with a slight change in either of these relationships life could not exist. Stars of the right type for sustaining life supportable planets only can occur during a certain range of ages for the universe. Similarly, stars of the right type only can form for a narrow range of values of the gravitational constant. The Universe as a Fit Habitat In recent years these and other parameters for the universe have been more sharply defined and analyzed. Now, nearly two dozen coincidences evincing design have been acknowledged: 1. The gravitational coupling constanti.e., the force of gravity, determines what kinds of stars are possible in the universe. If the gravitational force were slightly stronger, star formation would proceed more efficiently and all Stars would be more massive than our sun by at least 1.4 times. These large stars are important in that they alone manufacture elements heavier than iron, and they alone disperse elements heavier than beryllium to the interstellar medium. Such elements are essential for the formation of planets as well as of living things in any form. However, these Stars burn too rapidly and too unevenly to maintain life-supporting conditions on surrounding planets. Stars as small as our sun are necessary for that. On the other hand, if the gravitational force were slightly weaker, all stars would have less than 0.8 times the mass of the sun. Though such stars burn long and evenly enough to maintain life-supporting planets, no heavy elements essential for building such planets or life would exist. 2. The strong nuclear force coupling constant holds together the particles in the nucleus of an atom. If the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker, multi-proton nuclei would not hold together. Hydrogen would be the only element in the universe. If this force were slightly stronger, not only would hydrogen be rare in the universe, but the supply of the various life-essential elements heavier than iron (elements resulting from the fission of very heavy elements) would be insufficient. Either way, life would be impossible.a 3. The weak nuclear force coupling constant affects the behavior of leptons. Leptons form a whole class of elementary particles (e.g. neutrinos, electrons, and photons) that do not participate in strong nuclear reactions. The most familiar weak interaction effect is radioactivity, in particular, the beta decay reaction: neutron à proton + electron + neutrino The availability of neutrons as the universe cools through temperatures appropriate for nuclear fusion determines the amount of helium produced during the first few minutes of the big bang. If the weak nuclear force coupling constant were slightly larger, neutrons would decay more readily, and therefore would be less available. Hence, little or no helium would be produced from the big bang. Without the necessary helium, heavy elements sufficient for the constructing of life would not be made by the nuclear furnaces inside stars. On the other hand, if this constant were slightly smaller, the big bang would burn most or all of the hydrogen into helium, with a subsequent over-abundance of heavy elements made by stars, and again life would not be possible. A second, possibly more delicate, balance occurs for supernovae. It appears that an outward surge of neutrinos determines whether or not a supernova is able to eject its heavy elements into outer space. If the weak nuclear force coupling constant were slightly larger, neutrinos would pass through a supernova's envelop without disturbing it. Hence, the heavy elements produced by the supernova would remain in the core. If the constant were slightly smaller, the neutrinos would not be capable of blowing away the envelop. Again, the heavy elements essential for life would remain trapped forever within the cores of supernovae. 4. The electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons in atoms. The characteristics of the orbits of electrons about atoms determines to what degree atoms will bond together to form molecules. If the electromagnetic coupling constant were slightly smaller, no electrons would be held in orbits about nuclei. If it were slightly larger, an atom could not "share" an electron orbit with other atoms. Either way, molecules, and hence life, would be impossible. 5. The ratio of electron to proton mass also determines the characteristics of (he orbits of electrons about nuclei. A proton is 1836 times more massive than an electron. if the electron to proton mass ratio were slightly larger or slightly smaller, again, molecules would not form, and life would be impossible. 6. The age of the universe governs what kinds of stars exist. It takes about three billion years for the first stars to form. It takes another ten or twelve billion years for supernovae to spew out enough heavy elements to make possible stars like our sun, stars capable of spawning rocky planets. Yet another few billion years is necessary for solar-type stars to stabilize sufficiently to support advanced life on any of its planets. Hence, if the universe were just a couple of billion years younger, no environment suitable for life would exist. However, if the universe were about ten (or more) billion years older than it is, there would be no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of a galaxy. In other words, the window of time during which life is possible in the universe is relatively narrow. 7. The expansion rate of the universe determines what kinds of stars, if any, form in the universe. If the rate of expansion were slightly less, the whole universe would have recollapsed before any solar-type stars could have settled into a stable burning phase. If the universe were expanding slightly more rapidly, no galaxies (and hence no stars) would condense from the general expansion. How critical is this expansion rate? According to Alan Guth,6 it must be fine-tuned to an accuracy of one part in 1055. Guth, however, suggests that his inflationary model, given certain values for the four fundamental forces of physics, may provide a natural explanation for the critical expansion rate. 8. The entropy level of the universe affects the condensation of massive systems. The universe contains 100,000,000 photons for every baryon. This makes the universe extremely entropic, i.e. a very efficient radiator and a very poor engine. If the entropy level for the universe were slightly larger, no galactic systems would form (and therefore no stars). If the entropy level were slightly smaller, the galactic systems that formed would effectively trap radiation and prevent any fragmentation of the Systems into stars Either way the universe would be devoid of stars and, thus, of life. (Some models for the universe relate this coincidence to a dependence of entropy upon the gravitational coupling constant.7, 8.) 9. The mass of the universe (actually mass + energy, since E = mc2) determines how much nuclear burning takes place as the universe cools from the hot big bang. If the mass were slightly larger, too much deuterium (hydrogen atoms with nuclei containing both a proton and a neutron) would form during the cooling of the big bang. Deuterium is a powerful catalyst for subsequent nuclear burning in Stars. This extra deuterium would cause stars to burn much too rapidly to sustain life on any possible planet. On the other hand, if the mass of the universe were slightly smaller, no helium would be generated during the cooling of the big bang. Without helium, stars cannot produce the heavy elements necessary for life. Thus, we see a reason why the universe is as big as it is. If it were any smaller (or larger), not even one planet like the earth would be possible. 10. The uniformity of the universe determines its stellar components. Our universe has a high degree of uniformity. Such uniformity is considered to arise most probably from a brief period of inflationary expansion near the time of the origin of the universe. If the inflation (or some other mechanism) had not smoothed the universe to the degree we see, the universe would have developed into a plethora of black holes separated by virtually empty space. On the other hand, if the universe were smoothed beyond this degree, stars, star clusters, and galaxies may never have formed at all. Either way, the resultant universe would be incapable of supporting life. 11. The stability of the proton affects the quantity of matter in the universe and also the radiation level as it pertains to higher life forms. Each proton contains three quarks. Through the agency of other particles (called bosons) quarks decay into antiquarks, pions, and positive electrons. Currently in our universe this decay process occurs on the average of only once per proton per 1032 years.b If that rate were greater, the biological consequences for large animals and man would be catastrophic, for the proton decays would deliver lethal doses of radiation. On the other hand, if the proton were more stable (less easily formed and less likely to decay), less matter would have emerged from events occurring in the first split second of the universe's existence. There would be insufficient matter in the universe for life to be possible. 12. The fine structure constants relate directly to each of the four fundamental forces of physics (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear). Compared to the coupling constants, the fine structure constants typically yield stricter design constraints for the universe. For example, the electromagnetic fine structure constant affects the opacity of stellar material. (Opacity is the degree to which a material permits radiant energy to pass through). In star formation, gravity pulls material together while thermal motions tend to pull it apart. An increase in the opacity of this material will limit the effect of thermal motions. Hence, smaller clumps of material will be able to overcome the resistance of the thermal motions. If the electromagnetic fine structure constant were slightly larger, all stars would be less than 0.7 times the mass of the sun. If the electromagnetic fine structure constant were slightly smaller, all stars would be more than 1.8 times the mass of the sun. 13. The velocity of light can be expressed in a variety of ways as a function of any one of the fundamental forces of physics or as a function of one of the fine structure constants. Hence, in the case of this constant, too, the slightest change, up or down, would negate any possibility for life in the universe. 14. The 8Be, 12C, and 16O nuclear energy levels affect the manufacture and abundance of elements essential to life. Atomic nuclei exist in various discrete energy levels. A transition from one level to another occurs through the emission or capture of a photon that possesses precisely the energy difference between the two levels. The first coincidence here is that 8Be decays in just 10-15 seconds. Because 8Be is so highly unstable, it slows down the fusion process. If it were more stable, fusion of heavier elements would proceed so readily that catastrophic stellar explosions would result. Such explosions would prevent the formation of many heavy elements essential for life. On the other hand, if 8Be were even more unstable, element production beyond 8Be would not occur. The second coincidence is that 12C happens to have a nuclear energy level very slightly above the sum of the energy levels for 8Be and 4He. Anything other than this precise nuclear energy level for 12C would guarantee insufficient carbon production for life. The third coincidence is that 16O has exactly the right nuclear energy level either to prevent all the carbon from turning into oxygen or to facilitate sufficient production of 16O for life. Fred Hoyle, who discovered these coincidences in 1953, concluded that "a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology."10 15. The distance between stars affects the orbits and even the existence of planets. The average distance between stars in our part of the galaxy is about 30 trillion miles. If this distance were slightly smaller, the gravitational interaction between stars would be so strong as to destabilize planetary orbits. this destabilization would create extreme temperature variations on the planet. If this distance were slightly larger, the heavy element debris thrown out by supernovae would be so thinly distributed that rocky planets like earth would never form. The average distance between stars is just right to make possible a planetary system such as our own. 16. The rate of luminosity increase for stars affects the temperature conditions on surrounding planets. Small stars, like the sun, settle into a stable burning phase once the hydrogen fusion process ignites within their core. However, during this stable burning phase such stars undergo a very gradual increase in their luminosity. This gradual increase is perfectly suitable for the gradual introduction of life forms, in a sequence from primitive to advanced, upon a planet. If the rate of increase were slightly greater, a runaway green house effectc would be fell sometime between the introduction of the primitive and the introduction of the advanced life forms. If the rate of increase were slightly smaller, a runaway freezingd of the oceans and lakes would occur. Either way, the planet's temperature would become too extreme for advanced life or even for the long-term survival of primitive life. This list of sensitive constants is by no means complete. And yet it demonstrates why a growing number of physicists and astronomers have become convinced that the universe was not only divinely brought into existence but also divinely designed. American astronomer George Greenstein expresses his thoughts: As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agencyor, rather, Agencymust be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?11 The Earth as a Fit Habitat It is not just the universe that bears evidence for design. The earth itself reveals such evidence. Frank Drake, Carl Sagan, and Iosef Shklovsky were among the first astronomers to concede this point when they attempted to estimate the number planets in the universe with environments favorable for the support of life. In the early 1960's they recognized that only a certain kind of star with a planet just the right distance from that star would provide the necessary conditions for life.12 On this basis they made some rather optimistic estimates for the probability of finding life elsewhere in the universe. Shklovsky and Sagan, for example, claimed that 0.001 percent of all stars could have a planet upon which advanced life resides.13 While their analysis was a step in the right direction, it overestimated the range of permissible star types and the range of permissible planetary distances. It also ignored many other significant factors. A sample of parameters sensitive for the support of life on a planet are listed in Table 1. Table 1: Evidence for the design of the sun-earth-moon system14 - 31 The following parameters cannot exceed certain limits without disturbing the earth's capacity to support life. Some of these parameters are more narrowly confining than others. For example, the first parameter would eliminate only half the stars from candidacy for life-supporting Systems, whereas parameters five, seven, and eight would each eliminate more than ninety-nine in a hundred star-planet systems. Not only must the parameters for life support fall within a certain restrictive range, but they must remain relatively constant over time. And we know that several, such as parameters fourteen through nineteen, are subject to potentially catastrophic fluctuation. In addition to the parameters listed here, there are others, such as the eccentricity of a planet's orbit, that have an upper (or a lower) limit only. 1. number of star companions * if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbits * if less than one: not enough heat produced for life 2. parent star birth date * if more recent: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase * if less recent: stellar system would not yet contain enough heavy elements 3. parent star age * if older: luminosity of star would not he sufficiently stable * if younger: luminosity of star would not be sufficiently stable 4. parent star distance from center of galaxy * if greater: not enough heavy elements to make rocky planets * if less: stellar density and radiation would he too great 5. parent star mass * if greater: luminosity output from the star would not be sufficiently stable * if less: range of distances appropriate for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the rotational period for a planet of the right distance 6. parent star color * if redder: insufficient photosynthetic response * if bluer: insufficient photosynthetic response 7. surface gravity * if stronger: planet's atmosphere would retain huge amounts of ammonia and methane * if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water 8. distance from parent star * if farther away: too cool for a stable water cycle * if closer: too warm for a stable water cycle 9. thickness of crust * if thicker: too much oxygen would he transferred from the atmosphere to the crust * if thinner: volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great 10. rotation period * if longer: diurnal temperature differences would he too great * if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would he too great 11. gravitational interaction with a moon * if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would he too severe * if less: earth's orbital obliquity would change too much causing climatic instabilities 12. magnetic field * if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe * if weaker: no protection from solar wind particles 13. axial tilt * if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great * if less: surface temperature differences would he too great 14. albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface) * if greater: runaway ice age would develop * if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop 15. oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere * if larger: life functions would proceed too quickly * if smaller: life functions would proceed too slowly 16. carbon dioxide and water vapor levels in atmosphere * if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop * if less: insufficient greenhouse effect 17. ozone level in atmosphere * if greater: surface temperatures would become too low * if less: surface temperatures would he too high; too much uv radiation at surface 18. atmospheric electric discharge rate * if greater: too much fire destruction * if less: too little nitrogen fixing in the soil 19. seismic activity * if greater: destruction of too many life-forms * if less: nutrients on ocean floors would not be uplifted About a dozen other parameters, such as atmospheric chemical composition, currently are being researched for their sensitivity in the support of life. However, the nineteen listed in Table 1 in themselves lead safely to the conclusion that much fewer than a trillionth of a trillionth of a percent of all stars will have a planet capable of sustaining life. Considering that the universe contains only about a trillion galaxies, each averaging a hundred billion stars,e we can see that not even one planet would be expected, by natural processes alone, to possess the necessary conditions to sustain life.f No wonder Robert Rood and James Trefil14 and others have surmised that intelligent physical life exists only on the earth. It seems abundantly clear that the earth, too, in addition to the universe, has experienced divine design. Man the Creator? The growing evidence of design would seem to provide further convincing support for the belief that the Creator-God of the Bible formed the universe and the earth. Even Paul Davies concedes that "the impression of design is overwhelming."32 There must exist a designer. Yet, for whatever reasons, a few astrophysicists still battle the conclusion. Perhaps the designer is not God. But, if the designer is not God, who is? The alternative, some suggest, is man himself. The evidence proffered for man as the creator comes from an analogy to delayed choice experiments in quantum mechanics. In such experiments it appears that the observer can influence the outcome of quantum mechanical events. With every quantum particle there is an associated wave. This wave represents the probability of finding the particle at a particular point in space. Before the particle is detected there is no specific knowledge of its locationonly a probability of where it might be. But, once the particle has been detected, its exact location is known. in this sense, the act of observation is said by some to give reality to the particle. What is true for a quantum particle, they continue, may be true for the universe at large. American physicist John Wheeler sees the universe as a gigantic feed-back loop. The Universe [capitalized in the original] starts small at the big bang, grows in size, gives rise to life and observers and observing equipment. The observing equipment, in turn, through the elementary quantum processes that terminate on it, takes part in giving tangible "reality" to events that occurred long before there was any life anywhere.33 In other words, the universe creates man, but man through his observations of the universe brings the universe into real existence. George Greenstein is more direct in positing that "the universe brought forth life in order to exist ... that the very cosmos does not exist unless observed."34 Here we find a reflection of the question debated in freshmen philosophy classes across the land: If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to see it or hear it, does it really fall? Quantum mechanics merely shows us that in the micro world of particle physics man is limited in his ability to measure quantum effects. Since quantum entities at any moment have the potential or possibility of behaving either as particles or waves, it is impossible, for example, to accurately measure both the position and the momentum of a quantum entity (the Heisenberg uncertainty principle). By choosing to determine the position of the entity the human observer has thereby lost information about its momentum. It is not that the observer gives "reality" to the entity, but rather the observer chooses what aspect of the reality of the entity he wishes to discern. It is not that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle disproves the principle of causality, but simply that the causality is hidden from human investigation. The cause of the quantum effect is not lacking, nor is it mysteriously linked to the human observation of the effect after the fact.g This misapplication of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is but one defect in but one version of the new "observer-as-creator" propositions derived from quantum physics. Some other flaws are summarized here: Quantum mechanical limitations apply only to micro, not macro, systems. The relative uncertainty approaches zero as the number of quantum particles in the system increases. Therefore, what is true for a quantum particle would not be true for the universe at large. The time separation between a quantum event and its observed result is always a relatively short one (at least for the analogies under discussion). A multi-billion year time separation far from fits the picture. The arrow of time has never been observed to reverse, nor do we see any traces of a reversal beyond the scope of our observations. Time and causality move inexorably forward. Therefore, to suggest that human activity now somehow can affect events billions of years in the past is nothing short of absurd. Intelligence, or personality, is not a factor in the observation of quantum mechanical events. Photographic plates, for example, are perfectly capable of performing observations. Both relativity and the gauge theory of quantum mechanics, now established beyond reasonable question by experimental evidence,37 state that the correct description of nature is that in which the human observer is irrelevant. Science has yet to produce a shred of evidence to support the notion that man created his universe. Universe Becoming God? In The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, British astronomer John Barrow and American mathematical physicist Frank Tipler,38 begin by reviewing evidences for design of the universe, then go on to address several radical versions of the anthropic principle, including Wheeler's feed-back loop connection between mankind and the universe. Referring to such theories as PAP (participatory anthropic principle), they propose, instead, FAP (final anthropic principle). In their FAP, the life that is now in the universe (and, according to PAP, created the universe) will continue to evolve until it reaches a state of totality that they call the Omega Point. At the Omega Point Life will have gained control of all matter and forces not only in a single universe, but in all universes whose existence is logically possible; life will have spread into all spatial regions in all universes which could logically exist, and will have stored an infinite amount of information including all bits of knowledge which it is logically possible to know.39 In a footnote they declare that "the totality of life at the Omega Point is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient!"40 Let me translate: the universe created man, man created the universe, and together the universe and man in the end will become the Almighty transcendent Creator. Martin Gardner gives this evaluation of their idea: What should one make of this quartet of WAP, SAP, PAP, and FAP? In my not so humble opinion I think the last principle is best called CRAP, the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle.41 In their persistent rejection of an eternal transcendent Creator, cosmologists seem to be resorting to more and more absurd alternatives. An exhortation from the Bible is appropriate, "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy."42 Insufficient Universe It is clear that man is too limited to have created the universe. But, it is also evident that the universe is too limited to have created man. The universe contains no more than 1080 baryonsh and has been in existence for no more than 1018 seconds. Compared to the inorganic systems comprising the universe, biological systems are enormously complex. The genome (complete set of chromosomes necessary for reproduction) of an E. coli bacterium has the equivalent of about two million nucleotides. A single human cell contains the equivalent of about six billion nucleotides. Moreover, unlike inorganic systems, the sequence in which the individual components are assembled is critical for the survival of biological systems. Also, only amino acids with left handed configurations can be used in protein synthesis, the amino acids can be joined only by peptide bonds, each amino acid first must be activated by a specific enzyme, and multiple special enzymes (enzymes themselves are enormously complex sequence-critical molecules) are required to bind messenger RNA to ribosomes before protein synthesis can begin or end. The bottom line is that the universe is at least ten billion orders of magnitude (a factor of 1010,000,000,000 times) too small or too young for life to have assembled itself by natural processes.i These kinds of calculations have been done by researchers, both non-theists and theists, in a variety of disciplines.43-58 Invoking other universes cannot solve the problem. All such models require that the additional universes remain totally out of contact with one another, that is, their space-time manifolds cannot overlap. The only explanation left to us to tell how living organisms received their highly complex and ordered configurations is that an intelligent, transcendent Creator personally infused this information. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have brought the universe into existence. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have designed the universe. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have designed planet Earth. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have designed life. FOOTNOTES: a. The strong nuclear force is actually much more delicately balanced. An increase as small as two percent means that protons would never form from quarks (particles that form the building blocks of baryons and mesons). A similar decrease means that certain heavy elements essential for life would be unstable. b. Direct observations of proton decay have yet to be confirmed. Experiments simply reveal that the average proton lifetime must exceed 1032 years.9 However, if the average proton lifetime exceeds about 1034 years, than there would be no physical means for generating the matter that is observed in the universe. c. An example of the greenhouse effect is a locked car parked in the sun. Visible light from the sun passes easily through the windows of the car, is absorbed by the interior, and reradiated as infrared light. But, the windows will not permit the passage of infrared radiation. Hence, heat accumulates in the car's interior. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere works like the windows of a car. The early earth had much more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere. However, the first plants extracted this carbon dioxide and released oxygen. Hence, the increase in the sun's luminosity was balanced off by the decrease in the greenhouse effect caused by the lessened amount of carbon dioxide In the atmosphere. d. A runaway freezing would occur because snow and ice reflect better than other materials on the surface of the earth. Less solar energy is absorbed thereby lowering the surface temperature which in turn creates more snow and ice. e. The average number of planets per star is still largely unknown. The latest research suggests that only bachelor stars with characteristics similar to those of the sun may possess planets. Regardless, all researchers agree that the figure is certainly much less than one planet per star. f. The assumption is that all life is based on carbon. Silicon and boron at one time were considered candidates for alternate life chemistries. However, silicon can sustain amino acid chains no more than a hundred such molecules long. Boron allows a little more complexity but has the disadvantage of not being very abundant in the universe. g. One can easily get the impression from the physics literature that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is the only accepted philosophical explanation of what is going on in the micro world. According to this school of thought, "1) There is no reality in the absence of observation; 2) Observation creates reality." In addition to the Copenhagen interpretation physicist Nick Herbert outlines and critiques six different philosophical models for interpreting quantum events.35 Physicist and theologian Stanley Jaki outlines yet an eighth model.36 While a clear philosophical understanding of quantum reality is not yet agreed upon. physicists do agree on the results one expects from quantum events. h. Baryons are protons and other fundamental particles, such as neutrons, that decay into protons. i. A common rebuttal is that not all amino acids in organic molecules must be strictly sequenced. One can destroy or randomly replace about 1 amino acid out of 100 without doing damage to the function of the molecule. This is vital since life necessarily exists in a sequencedisrupting radiation environment. However, this is equivalent to writing a computer program that will tolerate the destruction of 1 statement of code out of 1001. In other words, this error-handling ability of organic molecules constitutes a far more unlikely occurrence than strictly sequenced molecules.
Re: Mythology - RenoX - 2004-07-30
I don't know why I answer to such piece of sh.. but here you are: there are some people who beleive in the multiple universe "theory". I put theory between quotes, because this "theory" has the same amount of proof that God exist, that is to say none. What they beleive is that there is a very,very huge number of universe which have different physical properties, in some of these universe life is not possible, in some other life is possible. How can one choose between the "multiple universe" beleif and your "intelligent design" belief? Answer: nobody can! So my sceptic argument is: nobody has the slightest clue of why the universe is the way it is, maybe science will help in the future, maybe not, but saying that the universe has been created by something called God (which God(s) by the way?) does nothing to answer the question!
Re: Mythology - RenoX - 2004-07-30
I don't know why I answer to such piece of sh.. but here you are: there are some people who beleive in the multiple universe "theory". I put theory between quotes, because this "theory" has the same amount of proof that God exist, that is to say none. What they beleive is that there is a very,very huge number of universe which have different physical properties, in some of these universe life is not possible, in some other life is possible. How can one choose between the "multiple universe" beleif and your "intelligent design" belief? Answer: nobody can! So my sceptic argument is: nobody has the slightest clue of why the universe is the way it is, maybe science will help in the future, maybe not, but saying that the universe has been created by something called God (which God(s) by the way?) does nothing to answer the question! And if the reason why the universe is so 'nice' is that it has been created by something called God, who has created God? *Sigh*
Re: Mythology - laffy - 2005-11-08
don't be so goddamned ignorant there's nothing arbitrary about GOD. you expect'em to play pickaboo behind clouds and shit like that to stoop to your fuckin ignorant level sacks of shit bastard philosophers.
Re: Mythology - Pierre Delagrave - 2004-07-28
The point is more to try to develop the mathematical (codable) concept of "evolution". A "life" who could evoluate by itself. Finding the piece of code that will auto-modify itself to gain always more stability is fesable. The "laws" (constants) for this stability and the "evolutioning" code is what we can play with. From this point, only the information storage and processing speed counts. If the human system that you are presently exist, why it couldnt have been created by a luck? You can't reject this argument. But I agree it may be easier to believe a god created us. Since we dont know yet, choosing one idea to absolutly beleive in is kinda pretentious. How much uncertainty can you live with?
Re: Mythology - Raphael Langerhorst - 2004-07-28
> The point is more to try to develop the mathematical (codable) concept > of "evolution". A "life" who could evoluate by itself. > Finding the piece of code that will auto-modify itself to gain always > more stability is fesable. The "laws" (constants) for this stability and > the "evolutioning" code is what we can play with. I think this first paragraph does put things in a correct scope, that's what the system is essentially about. But also see below. > If the human system that you are presenting exists, > why it couldnt have been created by a luck? > You can't reject this argument. But I agree it may be > easier to believe a god created us. > Since we dont know yet, choosing one idea > to absolutly beleive in is kinda pretentious. Although the resulting system will be a mathematical concept (since it's the only thing you can really "code" as you said), I think the way that leads to this mathematical (or "scientific") conception is important. And this is where Philosophy/Mythology/Religion (whatever you will call it) meets science. So in my opinion one has to form a complete and logical concept about the WHOLE thing of evolution/creation. You won't get to this by only tracking one approach - either the scientific part, in it's current state, or the mythological part (also in it's current state). You have to merge these areas (might look difficult these days). A main problem is that both these areas quite exclude the other area. And this is exactly the reason why they won't be able to find solutions "alone". So, to respond to another post as well, neither "religious" nor "scientific" postings are off topic here. This system would never work if one or the other part would be ignored. The last two paragraphs are important when working on the system(!). I have thought about such concept for a long long time (I haven't coded much during the last two years, but at least I spent have of my internal CPU power on thinking about this). The result was, that all manifestations in a universe (IMHO!!) can be reduced to a VERY slim mathematical concept. This of course requires a high level of abstraction, which is reached in the core system (if you fetch the source release you can take a look). But without knowing how this system can be used or what was intended with it, it will be difficult to understand it. Of course this system is still by no means finished, but I think it has reached a state where I can say that it will do the trick. And that's why I decided we should release because I think it won't be losing itself in nirvana. Also please don't ask me now "and how CAN the system be used/understood"... this is part of the "G Internals" document which is also included in the release. This document is a work in progress and I think it will reach a good length (300 pages?) before it explains the whole stuff very well. Once understood I think the concept can again be abstracted to a slim system by the reader.
Re: Mythology - Raphael Langerhorst - 2004-07-28
just a note: I don't claim any of the knowledge my own. Talks with personal friends that are already involved in the project, books, a good intuition (for which I'm truly grateful), own life experience and a couple of other things all contributed to this.
Re: Mythology - Kavau - 2004-07-28
Code that will auto-modify itself to gain an advantage... that's how it started. And then they became autonomous and took over the world. I suggest you read Dan Simmons' Hyperion/Endymion series for an interesting take on this! ;-)
greeeeeeeeeeeeat - anon - 2004-07-28
Let's turn this whole thread into an off-topic discussion about religion. Seems like a great idea.
Re: greeeeeeeeeeeeat - anon - 2004-07-28
HEY, did you read the news title? It says: pushing KDE's science: Evolution Simulation If you dosent understand why people are posting some philosophical content, then complain about the whole news being off-topic.
Re: greeeeeeeeeeeeat - rballer - 2004-07-28
"...turn this whole thread into an off-topic discussion about religion..." Ok, let's say I decide to create a program that simulates the wonderful creation of God and attempt to post a news article on KDE. I probably wouldn't even be able to get it on the news site. If I did, I would have people bashing me all over. I would probably even have an article written about me on Slashdot. What I'm saying is that if you post something, expect criticism to come, good or bad.
Re: Mythology - Waldo Bastian - 2004-07-28
Evolution comes down to "things that keep existing, keep existing" I find it amusing that people have religious objection to that. If KSameGame doesn't allow you to click on the yellow balls, is it then due to divine intervention that you end up with a lot of yellow balls at the end of the game?
Re: Mythology - dapawn - 2004-07-30
I believe the general Christian "religious objection" to Evolution comes from the Bible's account of Creation, where God said that each species was to "bring forth after its own kind". This would contradict the Evolutionary Theory that one species evolves into another species (which has never been scientifically observed, nor corroborated through the fossil records). Most Christians would have no "religious objection" to species adapting to their environment or to the notion of survival of the fittest (which have both been scientifically observed). Also to most Christians it is extremely important that God create man, because that would mean that we have a purpose or reason for existing (as defined by the one that created man), just as the G-System was conceived and is being developed for a purpose which it's designer states as being a simulation of evolution. Although considering how much "intelligent design" is going into creating this project, its would be better states as a simulation of the creation of code that can learn and adapt to its environment. Anyone who is interested in knowing the purpose or meaning of life from a Christian perspective, feel free to contact me using the name below at cheerful dot com. Thanks. dapawn
Re: Mythology - dapawn - 2004-07-30
I'm not sure if "species" is the right word, but you probably know what I mean. :-) Thanks. David
Re: Mythology - dapawn - 2004-07-30
I guess species is the correct word using the preeminent definition; The Biological Species Concept (BSC), which defines a species as a reproductive community. "The definition of a species that is accepted as the BSC was promulgated by Mayr (1942). He defined species as '... groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups.'"
Re: Mythology - Roberto - 2004-07-30
If you are using that definition, then it not only is suggested by the fossil record (it can´t be exactly shown, since how do you know what set of bones can interbreed with another?), but it has been directly observed about a dozen times in the last 100 years. Yes, **observerd**, as in these things´ parents used to be able to interbreed but now they can´t.
Re: Mythology - Craig B - 2004-07-31
Examples?
Re: Mythology - Roberto Alsina - 2004-08-02
How hard is it to use google, dude? I even said this in another post: google for "observerd instances of speciation". If you do that, you get this nice article as the very first result: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html While you probably will find the source of the article not to your taste, the quotes from actual scientific reports should give you pause about saying that speciation hasnever been observed, if you intend to be honest.
Re: Mythology - dapawn - 2004-08-05
That is a very long article, and certainly not my area of expertise, but after reading the "observed speciation" section, I do not see any real evidence to support natural evolution of one species into another. Most of the instances listed involved unnatural manipulation through hybridization or controlled reproduction. Other speciation events were not reproducible, allowing one to question the credibility of those experiments. And the article just glossed over animal speciation entirely. But even if the full list (only a handful) of "observed speciation" events over the past 50-100 years in the article were accurate, for naturalistic evolution to work, the rate of speciation must, by nature alone, exceed the rate of extinction. Observed reality and the fossil record say it does not. In fact, extinction is accelerating (for some obvious reasons), hundreds of species go extinct ever year. Thanks. dapawn
Re: Mythology - Roberto Alsina - 2004-08-05
Sorry, but the rate of speciation doesn't need to be higher than the rate of extinction constantly, but only as an average. For example, when photosintetic algae released oxygen in the atmosphere, they caused the extiction of almost every orm of life, since all life, at the time was anaerobic. So, even if you could show that the rate of speciation right now is too low, (which you can't really, since how do we know how much speciation is going on?), that proves nothing. As for the substance of your post: it all depends on how you define species. Some of the examples given show speciation, according to the specific definitions of species used by biologists, and explained at length in the article. If you disagree with the definitions, of course, you will disagree with the experiments.
Re: Mythology - observedspeciation - 2007-04-09
The person who claimed that the observed speciation events were man-made didn't get past the first speciation event out of the hundreds that are listed. That fact that man can macroevolve living things is macroevolution period. The other observed instances show observed speciation in the lab and in the wild!
Re: Mythology - Kuba - 2004-08-03
The creation of man by God, if one chooses to believe in it, doesn't necessarily need to be a direct act in which man is created at once and in current shape and for. It may be for example by creation of a universe in which man can evolve. As far as I'm concerned such an indirect route seems, at out current level of knowledge, to be way "trickier" to execute -- as others have pointed out, minute changes in physical constraints could lead to possibly an inhabitable universe, at least by our mediocre standards. My own way of thinking about it agrees with that of Einstein -- God doesn't throw dice. That leaves only one possibility open -- that he decides all the results -- gazillions of them every second. What would bring as any closer to an omnipotent and fair to all God than a God who picks up the result of each and every quantum outcome? It nicely brings together the qualities already mentioned, as well as being omnipresent and affecting everything... IMHO this way of thinking brings one to a higher level of abstraction -- all that talk at the level of species seems to be so "earthbound" and ignorant of the possibility that if we're not the only intelligent beings around... Anyway, if things are offtopic let them be :]>
Re: Mythology - Jos - 2004-07-28
The anthropocentric principle states that many universes may have spawned. Most are not fine tuned for human life. In these, there is no human life and no-one to observe the wonder of the universe. Only in universes tuned, by chance, for humans, do humans exist and are able to believe that they were put in this world specifically designed for them.
Re: Mythology - island - 2004-07-29
Not to advocate "intelligent" design, but that many-universes crap doesn't hold scientific water without proof, because it requires an unjustified leap in complexity.
Re: Mythology - Roberto Alsina - 2004-07-29
However, the weak anthropocentric principle is trivial: had the univers not bein fit for humans, we would not be having this argument. Maybe some plasma cloud would be wasting neutrinos over something similar, though.
Re: Mythology - island - 2004-07-29
That's the incomplete version, which is considered by most physicsts to be a tautology, at best. But my contention is that a weak "entropic" anthropic principle is a proven fact, where the conduciveness of landscape is eqally important to both, our survival and the entropy of the universe, so that the energy that we can expend must be readily expendable, within the bounds of practical human ability, or we would not survive. Heres the problem and, I love the beetle example, although I prefer to use a Dung Beetle in my example... ;) http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Anthropocentric "Anthropocentric is any belief that suggest that humans are the ultimate locus of value. While all beliefs are biased towards anthropocentrism because humans thought them up, this is not necessarily so. Beliefs thought up by humans are always anthropogenic but they may not be anthropocentric. Anthropocentric beliefs are different from anthropogenic beliefs in that the latter beliefs are acknowledged as emerging from humans but they do not regard humans as the sole or most important source of value. For instance, a human who believes beetles should be valued for themselves may be anthropogenic, but they aren't anthropocentric." But a human that notes the fact that we are BETTER sh_t stirers than dung beetles is simply correct, and there's nothing "tautologous" about that. A "new" Anthropic principle goes as follows, and please note that the primary entropic inclination of every object in an expanding universe says that you cannot make an unfounded faith-like philosophical leap outside of this primary inclination of nature to conclude anything but the following : 1. The constants of the universe are finely tuned to require intelligent life by the Principle of Least Action as a means for maximizing entropic efficiency within the constraints of inherent asymmetries. 2. The weak argument simply states that the landscape is equally important to this, and must be conducive to increasing entropy, e.g., the energy that we can expend in the direction of survival must be readily expendable, so the cooperative environment enables entropy to increase, and this means that the entropically preferred system can raise the energy level enough to breach whatever relevant environmental constraints in order that entropy may continue to increase. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASYMTRANS.html 3. In other words, the evolutionary process indicates that entropy continues to increase to higher orders of entropic efficiency, (as it is observably proven if humans "leaped" to evolve from apes to the fire breathing monsters that they are today), and this is how asymmetries are carried perpetually forth by the second law in the impossible effort toward idealistically pure symmetry. Nature express a primary inclination, and there's plenty of purpose behind that. Technology is a huge player, so science can finally get off of the random roulette wheel of chance and adopt a real concept. How many systems in nature can produce anti-particles?... puts us right up there with black holes and super-novae in terms of entropic efficency on the high energy end of things, and the fact that the human-system is possibly the ONLY system that "attempts" to mix all levels of energy in nature is a strong indication that we are linked to the universal like no other system in nature is, but even the worst case scenario places us high on the list, having a truly universal connection. Like the man said... "god" doesn't throw dice', and they should have listened the first time.
Re: Mythology - Roberto Alsina - 2004-07-29
Ok, the post below is a flamey rant, don't take it personally, but as an exercise in style: Saying that men produce anti-particles is about as true as saying algae produce anti-particles. Men don't produce anti-particles, they just change the environment in ways that produce them. So do algae (for example, by switching the earth to a O2-containing atmosphere, thus enabling combustion, thus enabling particle accelerators). Algae just have a long-term view. Oh, you may say algae don't do it consciously, as men do, but that is a non-falsifiable proposition, and thus pretty not scientific. On another aspect, the stuff about how men by mixing all levels of energy are somehow linked "to the universal" is simply stupid, on the level of claiming dung beetles are connected to the universe because they eat dung from all species of animals. In other words: your posts reek of semi-digested pseudo-scientific new-agey mumbo-jumbo bordering on voodoo. But don't let my opinion discourage you: your thoughts are useless to me, but they may be useful to you, and it would be worse if you had not thought at all. At least a bit.
Re: Mythology - island - 2004-07-29
LOL... what a trip this place is Okay moron... I'm done with you
Re: Mythology - Roberto Alsina - 2004-07-29
What, got an appointment to pin needles in a doll somewhere?
Re: Mythology - Craig B - 2004-07-30
Evolution is the new dogma. These people just believe it blindly without bothering to investigate.
Re: Mythology - ed moyse - 2004-07-30
Actually, you can *watch* evolution happening with fruit flies. Evolution happens, and I have never yet met anyone who doesn't believe in evolution, unless it is because it clashes with their religon. Which makes them extremely biased and frankly I'm not interested in arguing with fruitcakes. Now, claiming that the universe is perfect for life which proves the existance of god or whatever, is a completely different point. Physics CANNOT refute this. Our current physics is meaningless outside the universe. I therefore have no real issues with the concept of "god" flicking a switch and creating our universe. This is totally unrelated to evolution
Re: Mythology - Craig B - 2004-07-31
Actually you can't watch it happen in friut flys at all. Not at all. If you are talking harmful mutations that is more of an example of the design of the fruitfly and how diverging from that design is very harmful.
Re: Mythology - LazyJim - 2006-07-07
If, as is said in religion today, God created man in his image, then perhaps God is something that evolves. Pretty simple really, there's never been a conflict between religion and science, just between religious people and scientists! Science always has been and alway will be the study of God, regardless of his existence or non-existence.
Re: Mythology - Sebastian Stein - 2004-07-28
I think you are starting the long known discussion between holism and reductionism. I bet you won't find a solution. But of course it is an interesting topic, because both sides can learn from each other. The truth may be, that the world is not holism and reductionism, but something between. So taking a look at the world with a good simulation is a very good idea. Nevertheless, people already tried building a world model in the 1970th and they failed. I have discussed this topic in my diploma thesis (in German) before applying the idea to software development. If interested please read http://emergenz.hpfsc.de/ Sebastian
Re: Mythology - Raphael Langerhorst - 2004-07-30
thanks for pointing to this, not sure yet whether I have the time to read it, but might be useful.
Re: Mythology - a.c. - 2004-07-28
hummmm. And the universe rotates around Earth? And the Earth is Flat? Oh, the dinasaurs were fakes that were placed here in the last 5000 (or sometimes, 10000) years. Believing in a higher power in life does not require that you ignore the truth before you. Nor does it rquire that you create a bunch of twisted logic concerning it. Nor does it give you the right to create a belief system that allows you to control others.
Re: Mythology - Craig B - 2004-07-30
I would agree 100%. the sun is heating up drasitcly but intelligent people will say that it has nothing to do with global warming. Directive breeding has not been able to turn a dog into something other than a dog. No new species have "evolved" since man has shown up. In fact your arguement is very similar to darwins. Set up a straw man agruement of a creation and use to to show that Evolution is the only other option.
Re: Mythology - Roberto Alsina - 2004-07-30
Well, in biology species has a very specific meaning. Now, go and google for "observed instances of speciation", then forget this line of argument, please.
Re: Mythology - Craig B - 2004-07-31
Well why don't you google and look up irreducible complexity.
Re: Mythology - Roberto Alsina - 2004-08-02
Hmmm... because I already know what it is, and it doesn't matter? I mean, you are the one saying that something has never been observed. To prove you wrong, all that's needed is an example, regardless of my position. (posted twice because I posted in the wrong article)
Re: Mythology - Roberto Alsina - 2004-08-02
Hmmm... because I already know what it is, and it doesn't matter? I mean, you are the one saying that something has never been observed. To prove you wrong, all that's needed is an example, regardless of my position.
Re: Mythology - Jonathan Dietrich - 2004-07-28
Even if a higher power set all of these conditions in place, it does not mean that said being is not using an understandable set of "rules" to build the universe and human beings. Religion is concerned with "WHO" & "WHY" it was created. Philosophy is concerned with "WHY" & "HOW" it was created. Scinece is concerned with "HOW" & "WHEN" it was created. Please pardon my simplification. WHY can't we be friends? JCD
Read this: - Mr. Fancypants - 2004-07-28
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html or, more specifically, this: hytp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance.html (which is referenced by the first faq; search for "wildly improbable").
Re: Mythology - IOANNIS - 2004-07-28
WOW I GUESS THAT GOD HAS WOW OF A COMPILER!
Re: Mythology vs. reality - Lee - 2004-07-28
Err, no. You think it has been designed because we are built by the same standards, so to us, it seems 'sensible'. In fact, it's just nothing more than what happened.
Re: Mythology - a.c. - 2004-07-28
I think the list is quite wrong. Some of the facts listed are consequences of lower level laws/conditions. A better description is (IMO): 1.~20 Standard Model free parameters (you forgot e.g. all the mixing angles) or the ~100 MSSM free parameters (or whatever theory you belive) 2.Initial conditions. Where point 2 means intial conditions for a very large number of particles 10^xx with xx >> 1.
Re: Mythology - Chris Goldman - 2004-07-28
I'll have to side with the majority here, and say that I'm still waiting for evidence of an intelligent design. However, maybe this can be a useful measure of success of the G project: If you can eventually simulate an argument between the denizens of the simulated universe about evolution v. intelligent design, you'll know you've got it right. Chris
Re: Mythology - raphael - 2004-07-28
funnily, I tried to simulate a "social situation" [was a small argument] with the G System (back then on paper, with nice circles representing elements and their connections,...) and got a quite nice picture of it, I think such things - and especially such things - will be suitable for simulation with this system. ... and since I started on the project I actually try to put almost everything I experience into a G System "setting" inside my head, this is constant testing of the concept.
Re: Mythology - David - 2004-07-29
This thread. What can I say but Holy Crap!
Re: Mythology - BCMM - 2004-07-30
If I am going to have to accept a metaphysical answer as to the origins of your "physical tuning", I would think that even the anthropic principal is more believable than intelligent design, since you have already implicitly claimed the existence of other universes (somewhere for the designer to live). This site describes the idea, which can be extended to apply to the universe as a whole instead of the earth: http://www.anthropic-principle.com/primer.html Furthermore, how do you know that, had any of those constants (or variables, in some cases?) been slightly different, some other kind of self-organizing system would not have evolved? And what sort of reason is #12, "Entropy level of the universe"? The entropy level is increasing all the time, so it had to reach the right level for life at some point. Numbers 15-19 are all closely enough related to be considered the same thing. 6 and 25 are very closely related, and not really separate values to be tuned at creation. I think that 40 is dependant on 13. #14, "Age of the universe"? Do you really think that this was chosen by God at the moment of creation? ;-) Admittedly though, the "Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons" is a bit weird.
Re: Mythology - James Richard Tyrer - 2004-07-31
Are you familiar with the concept commonly called the Lamppost Theory? -- JRT
Re: Mythology - Ken Arnold - 2004-08-02
As a Christian KDE user who has seem plenty of the debate on these topics, I just thought I'd clear up a few prominant misconceptions and add what I hope is more insight than heat. 1. When "talking origins", people on all sides (yes, there are more than just two!) tend to blow much more hot air than facts. Accept that, accept that your side is doing it too, and move on. 2. The truth of Christianity does not depend on acceptance of a certain interpretation of science. I've seen very smart Christians who believe in evolution, others who believe in various forms of intelligent design, and others who hold to young-earth or even young-universe creation. There are also many non-Christians and anti-Christians who have doubted evolution. So evolution vs. design is not really about "religion". 3. There is presently no "theory of everything". All extant scientific theories rely on the existence of something outside their theory. For example, in terms that computer users can readily understand: there is clearly much much more information ('bits') in the universe today than at its moment of inception (Big Bang or whatever you believe in). A universal theory would have to account for where all of that information came from. Quantum mechanics strongly suggests that the processes that would normally give rise to increase in information content are non-deterministic. So the universe needs a "random number generator". Software developers should know well that an RNG isn't a given -- it must be explicitly programmed into the system. I've seen no complete theory yet for the random number generator in our universe. I know this is simplifying things way too much, but you should get the idea. In general, all the relevant scientific theories propose a way that the universe got from "then" to "now", but inevitably leave unsaid how the "then" came to be. Lest the theists start cheering here, I caution that it's a problem for us too: all the finite-regress-to-God theories leave unknown how God came to be. I strongly suspect that the problem of origins, as it is generally given, is unsolvable. Perhaps this was purposeful, to keep us from getting arrogant about our theories. 4. All that Intelligent Design can ever allow us to conclude is the existence of a Designer. I haven't met anybody who is really bothered by that. By extension, if all we have to go on about the nature of God is philosophy and ritual (e.g. most "Eastern" religions and the insiduous New Age "spirituality" movements of today), then we could really conclude, as many want us to, that everyone is equally right. But that's not all we have to go on. The arbiter between religions is the historical evidence of God interfering in the course of history. As far as I have been able to determine, all theories of how the historical record as we have it today could have come about without the actual resurrection of a 1st century Jew named Yeshua have been shown to be flawed. As far as I have been able to determine, nearly all accusations of historical or cultural inaccuracies in Biblical accounts have been repudated by archaeological finds mainly within the last century. And as far as I have been able to determine, all alledged contradictions between the 40 (plus or minus) authors of various books of the Bible have been explained, many as not only acceptable alternatives but as expected harmonies. I have not reached these conclusions without many doubts and uncertainties; I wouldn't listen to anyone who makes these kind of conclusions without wrestling with the alternatives. In fact, while researching for this post, I came across other conflicting views that I have no answer to yet. However, the answer to encountering conflicting views is not to run back to your sand fortresses and throw sand at one another. No, the answer is to meet in the middle and talk. You might even find out the answer to the greatest mystery of life: what happens when it's over. In the name of truth, Ken PS - This is already off-topic for this discussion board, though it could be argued that the article itself is off-topic. So if you feel the need to say something in response, I suggest that you email me instead. You should be able to figure it out from the link under my name, but if not, look on directory.cornell.edu. PPS - Please, please, do not injure anyone in the name of your theories. That's the ultimate in arrogance. So while I speak no harm to Muslims in general, I hope you will join me in unilaterally condemning those (mainly) Islamic fundamentalists who seek to destroy rather than love. (But do not fear: they will be judged.)
Re: Mythology - Roberto Alsina - 2004-08-02
Ok, here's the best answer I can come up with, which is not very good. I value reason. I find the idea of a god that creates the world and populates it with the evidence of a spurious past, like the young earth or young universe adherents propose to be the unnecesary creation of an evil god who cheats its creation, giving it a mind and feeding lies to its senses. I find such belief repugnant, yet luckily unnecessary. The idea that because things have a cause, all causes must regress to something that's uncaused makes sense (although it's not very interesting). Why that uncaused cause is supposed to be an omniscient supernatural human-like entity, I have no idea. I find such belief childish and immature, yet luckily unnecessary. I *am* bothered by the idea of a designer, if such designer is one of the two described above. In the first case, I consider such designer to be evil and a liar. In the second case I consider such designer distasteful, stupid, and an insult to its creation, who would seem to be toys for its amusement. Consider it: god can prove god exists, and end all doubt. But he doesn't. What's the point? I refuse to play a sick game of hide and seek. I won't even bother with the idea of predetermination, which is amoral, and an excuse for avoiding responability. So, I would rather be the result of random linking of molecules than the creation of evil, or stupidity, were it my choice. It is not my choice, though, but I must accept I don't know which one is the truth. However, I can see, because I value reason, what is *not* the truth, and call it when I see it (for example, claiming that speciation has never been observed). On the rest of the moral argument: I want justice on this world. I like justice to be a deterrent, I like justice to be verifiable, I like justice to be conmensurable to the damage. In all those criteria, the justice described by most religions fail to pass. I would rather all those who "sin" against me to be judged by fellow men and convicted or set free than have their souls weighted by Anubis, or sent to a lake of fire for failing to confess a sin before dying, or to go to limbo for being unbaptized, or whatever your favourite religion prescribes. So, dear god, if you happen to exist and are reading this site, I'll sign it: I am not asking for divine justice for anyone. If you judge someone it is not in my name, just like any religious fanatic that burns something, or the warmonger that shoots the religious fanatic are not doing it in my name, either. Of course this post, in several religions, would be enough to go to hell. Well, if that's so, that's the way the cookie crumbles, it would be just another sign of god's evilness. So, peace brothers, and love your fellow men, because we are all there is, as far as the eye can see. Now, I am outta this thread.
Re: Mythology - Wisdom - 2004-08-03
Bravo! My feelings exactly (except that you are more eloquent than I).
Physics Foibles - Melvin Goldstein - 2005-01-06
A Book "Physics Foibles" for math, physics and computer students by Melvin Goldstein The Theory of Everything occupies the attention of many of our great thinkers. It is a noble effort but it may be misnamed. There may always be unknowables. Will a real Theory of Everything be trumped by Entropy, Godel Incompleteness, Heisenberg Uncertainty and Chaos? Read Physics Foibles. Stephan Hawking, ranked on the like of an Einstein, gave a talk at Texas A&M in 2003. The subject: "Universe still an Unknown". Hawking said: "Physics has problems that prevent it from being used to develop an ultimate theory to explain the universe. Physicists have been searching for a rule that would overcome the problems of current theories. I belonged to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I am now glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end because we will always have the challenge of new discoveries. Without it, we would stagnate." Read "Physics Foibles" and opine on Hawkings statement and the Theory of Everything. Click on the following to view more details on the book: http://web2.airmail.net/mgold/tst2.htm http://physicsfoibles.com http://www.trafford.com/robots/03-0139.html email questions to the author: bonum@physicsfoibles.com
OK, someone is going to say this.. - teatime - 2004-07-27
.. I might as well do it. Shouldn't it be the K system? ;)
Re: OK, someone is going to say this.. - Raphael Langerhorst - 2004-07-28
Honestly, I expected something like that :) The thing is, that I started to take down ideas about it exactly 2 years ago. Back then I had not much todo with KDE (it was just the desktop on the system I used, but I had nothing to do with KDE development). And ... "G" is what came to my mind back then (note: the name has nothing to do with the GNOME desktop as well, or GNU or whatever, I just had the feeling it should be "G"). Raphael
Screenshots? - app - 2004-07-28
2004 and you release an announcment without screenshots? Come on :)
Re: Screenshots? - Juergen - 2004-07-28
Oh, didn't you know: we are living in a screenshot :-)) J.
Re: Screenshots? - name - 2004-08-02
There is no screenshot.. :-))
Shouldn't it be called K? - burki - 2004-07-28
Or is God a Gnomie?!
Re: Shouldn't it be called K? - Raphael - 2004-07-28
I already replied to exactly this kind of question (I know, it's probably something many people would ask...) please see above.
Re: Shouldn't it be called K? - Rayiner Hashem - 2004-07-28
Of course God is a Gnomie. God = GNU Omnipotent Divinity.
todo: implement everything - ac - 2004-07-28
@todo: advanced concepts of G, evolution of human beings @todo: (as hinted in the introduction) @todo: subsets (mental, intuition, ... physical, ...) @todo: interaction between subsets @todo: interaction between humans @todo: connections @todo: evolution Erm, hello God, how are you today? Kidding besides, I actually compiled it and looked at it. My conclusion, here we see an awfull lot of bold theory where in reality we see 3 spheres rotating around 1 and we can move around the 1 ball in the middle. Look, I know this is early stuff, but please, remain having some grip on reality before you go too deep into this. A project is not innovative as long there is a todo list which basically says: implement the innovation. Be humble before you go online saying "you are going to simulate a universe". That said, it's original (at least the theory behind the concept of the application), it could become quit interesting, but any simulation of "the evolution of a universe" is going to require bizarre system specs and some serious insight into data structures and biology, chemistry and physics. Look my point is, good luck _getting the forum up first_, then next, erm, perhaps the evolution of a universe (in that order).
Re: todo: implement everything - Raphael Langerhorst - 2004-07-28
THIS todo list is actually from the documentation, this has nothing to do with the source code todo list(!) But you are right when you say there is still _much_ to implement ... but not everything. The core system exists for a year now and it had only minor modifications since - which means that this is already stable. If you take a close look at it you will find that most of the work has to be done _outside_ this core system, defining the "rule systems" by implementing agents (among other things), but again this can be (essentially) small if it is abstracted enough. > ... grip on reality before you go into this... well, yes, I am rolling around the idea for about two years now and as I said we now think it is possible to simulate this stuff in a "reasonable" code base. > Be humble before you go online saying "you are going to simulate a universe". honestly I am, and I have really much respect from creation. But I think just this fascination from creation caused the project in the end. ... and it will happen - AFAIK ;) > Look my point is, good luck _getting the forum up first_, > then next, erm, perhaps the evolution of a universe (in that order). Someone else is in charge of the homepage and the forum ... we are working multithreaded / multiprocessed(?) ;) [the bad thing is that again someone else is in charge of the server and he will be back from holiday on 1st August - he needs to update some stuff on the server to make the forum (and database) work] Thanks for constructive criticism by the way.
Re: todo: implement everything - annma - 2004-07-28
The main problem I see (apart of not doing much): it's very very slow. It takes time to display, it takes time to get the keyboard key answer and I cannot even move the window. I would say you start with investigating why it is so slow. My system is an Athlon AMD 2500 with 512 Mg RAM so it's not the cause. I have been recently interested in AI that's why I ran this. I was quite disappointed.
Re: todo: implement everything - Raphael Langerhorst - 2004-07-28
make sure you have 3D acceleration enabled!! It does run without it as well because the X Server is emulating it, but it runs loads faster with 3D acceleration. check if you have a /dev/dri/cardX entry, if you have, you are halfway there. "chmod o+rw /dev/dri/cardX" can do miracles. If you don't have such a device (/dev/dri/card0) then check /etc/X11/XF86Config and have a look at the module section, make sure modules "glx" and "dri" are loaded (I guess in some cases you only need one or the other, I don't know the details). If you then get the device, you still have to make sure that the permissions are correct (see above). I run this thing fluently with a 1 GHz PIII mobile CPU and a 830M board (it's a laptop). But if I don't have 3D acceleration enabled it is also extremely slow on this system. Good luck!
Re: todo: implement everything - annma - 2004-07-28
I have the 2 modules loaded Load "glx" # 3D layer Load "dri" # direct rendering My video is an ATI Mobility Radeon. Anyway, I don't want to mess with my system just to see a sphere :]
Re: todo: implement everything - raphael - 2004-07-28
the chmod o+rw /dev/dri/card0 (as root) won't hurt, but I agree, the demo itself is not such an excellent "show", as I said it currently serves testing purposes mainly. The next release will provide more in terms of interface and world/universe content.
Re: todo: implement everything - ac - 2004-07-28
>>Be humble before you go online saying "you are going to simulate a universe". >honestly I am, and I have really much respect from creation. But I think just this fascination from creation caused the project in the end. ... and it will happen - AFAIK ;) I don't think you are humble enough personally. It is not a simple matter of simulation by a group of people trough some magical codebase who imagine how certain things are like. You will eventually end up making a many great compromises and present very rough "interesting" interactions between variables positioned in certain complex data structures. All this stuck to an OpenGL framework for the sake of acheiving some kind of recognizable form of visuals. You will not end up with a stable relational self evolving environment in the sense that it simulates a complete stable universe as we know it including the evolution of itself in moments of time. The very formation of sub atomic particles into matter and from thereon the higher reaches of reality. If you do, you would have to be the greatest person to have been born on this planet. So far, Quantum theory, general relativity and string theory are the closest thing you can get to "emulating" a universe - and all those math based theories took centuries to develop by a great many man - and they agree to call it "only" theory so far. And so far that has only been based on the universe as we are currently capable of observing it. You think you can beat all that and some more with an x86 based chip architecture and some code based logic and data sets on some miserable little planet called earth? 3 spheres rotating around 1 other sphere are just that and what you and others call it is just part of your young and growing perception of that little OpenGL "universe". I will not argue ever about the fact that it's a nice educative exercise for people to participate in, but you have to stay realistic about some things.
Re: todo: implement everything - raphael - 2004-07-28
wait and see, as I have posted somewhere else you won't reach the goal by getting to it from only _one_ side, as you try to do. Of course there are many good(?) mathematical/scientific conceptions about such things, but they all suffer from the same "bug", they try to start _solely_ from the manifested physical world which is just so complex that you practically can't find a unified system in it ... alone. Oh, and yes, I can't simulate everything with it, but I have some idea where the border of what still _can_ be done is, and what not, everything above this border is beyond reach for us persons anyway, so we need not be concerned with it, we just need to know it is there.
Re: todo: implement everything - ac - 2004-07-28
>wait and see OK, fair game, I will "wait", you take care of the "see" part ;)
Chosionists vs. Creationists... equally clueless - island - 2004-07-28
There's a third probability that nobody ever thinks of because both sides of the creation/evolution debate are too busy worshiping their respective gods to think for themselves. "Chaosionists" worship the lord, Chaos with equally fanatical zealotry as "Creationists". 1. The universe is decidedly one sided, the "INCLINATION" is for it to come apart more than it "TENDS" to stay together. 2. This defines a purpose, since it means that the universe is BIASED toward equilibrium... even if you can't get there from here, the OVERWHELMING drive is still PREDOMINANT. 3. So, the purpose of our expanding univese is defined by its entropic effort toward equilibruim... since t=10^-43 when the Big Bang INSTILLED this PRIMAL inclination into EVERY object in it. hmmmm... humans are BETTER at the advancing the entropy of the universe than most every other system in the universe... and this ability has increase exponentially since we... "leaped"... coincidence?... or causal mechanism??? YOUR mistake is to automatically assume that their ISN'T purpose in a universe that expresses a VERY CLEAR one, just because you are SO AFRAID that their god will replace yours. Here's the correct model for your universe, BTW, ignore it at your own peril. http://www.geocities.com/naturescience/index.html
Re: Chosionists vs. Creationists... equally cluele - Jim - 2004-07-28
Using quotes for emphasis: -15 credibility. Overuse of capitals: -10 credibility. Multiple question marks together: -20 credibility. Claiming that everybody else is wrong and you are right: -100 credibility. Dire threats should you not listen: -20 credibility. Geocities homepage: -50 credibility. Grand total: -215 credibility. I don't think I'll be paying much attention to your theories, thank you very much.
Re: Chosionists vs. Creationists... equally cluele - island - 2004-07-28
Hey STOOPID... The science stands alone on its own merrit, and, well, you obviously know nothing about the subject, or you would know this. OR... It requires the typically manipulative stupidity of willful ignorance to use the crackpot index as an argument against the validity of what is right in front of your face. Not to mention the lame calls for a higher authority, speaking of crackpots. FYI, only the fanatics disagree with me, not real honest scientists.
Go on! Admit it! - Mr. Fancypants - 2004-07-28
That was copied from a spam mail you received!
Re: Chosionists vs. Creationists... equally clueless - island - 2004-07-29
Okay... enough games. Dispute my post... point by point... or shut up: There's a third probability that nobody ever thinks of because both sides of the creation/evolution debate are too busy worshiping their respective gods to think for themselves. "Chaosionists" worship the lord, Chaos with equally fanatical zealotry as "Creationists". 1. The universe is decidedly one sided, the "INCLINATION" is for it to come apart more than it "TENDS" to stay together. 2. This defines a purpose, since it means that the universe is BIASED toward equilibrium... even if you can't get there from here, the OVERWHELMING drive is still PREDOMINANT. 3. So, the purpose of our expanding univese is defined by its entropic effort toward equilibruim... since t=10^-43 when the Big Bang INSTILLED this PRIMAL inclination into EVERY object in it. hmmmm... humans are BETTER at the advancing the entropy of the universe than most every other system in the universe... and this ability has increase exponentially since we... "leaped"... coincidence?... or causal mechanism??? YOUR mistake is to automatically assume that their ISN'T purpose in a universe that expresses a VERY CLEAR one, just because you are SO AFRAID that their god will replace yours.
Re: Chosionists vs. Creationists... equally clueless - Roberto Alsina - 2004-07-29
Blah. Your point is unarguable. And I don't mean that in a nice way. For example, all that stuff about "coincidence or causal mechanism". Coincidence doesn't preclude causality, it precludes intention. Sure, Z happens because of Y, which happens because of X, and so on, but if A is casual, then there is no design, despite it all being caused from it. Just because things happen, and actions have consequences, it doesn't follow that intention is at the start of the chain. The stuff about how humans are better at advancing entropy... well, depends on how you measure it. I am pretty sure nuclear reactions in the sun have a larger effect on entropy than men! So, before you say that, you should define it somehow.
Re: Chosionists vs. Creationists... equally clueless - island - 2004-07-29
The fact that this clown ducked the main points in order to attack what the fool PERCEIVES that I cannot prove, proves that he is a fanatically opposed to physical logic that goes against his "BELIEF SYSTEM". This person has no interest in science they are strictly motivated by politics
Hold the Presses... maybe I misread you - island - 2004-07-29
Look, I have defined it in numerous places around here, so either you will either accept the obvious plausibility... or you're necessarily going to stick you neck into a scientific noose! Sorry if I misread your intentions, but I'm still not convinced that I did
Re: Hold the Presses... maybe I misread you - Roberto Alsina - 2004-07-30
Before untangling the universe, learn to reply to the correct post, so I get notified. No, you have not defined anywhere what being "better at advancing entropy" is. If you did, I missed it. Better by unit of mass of the agent? better in a specific period of time? Better in its lifetime? better in the lifetime of the universe? Mind you, a star has you beat on every one of those, but be my guest to show how you advance entropy faster than, say, 200 pounds of detonating TNT, over a period of 1/10000th of a second. Or better than a star over your respective lifetimes. Or, at least, say what the hell you mean. I'll wait on that corner over there.
Re: Chosionists vs. Creationists... equally clueless - Roberto Alsina - 2004-07-29
a) Clowns at least serve a useful social function b) Insistence on how telling your opponent how he should argue his position is childish. You say things the way you like, I mock them the way I like. Isn't free speech nice? c) I thought you were finished with me. Be coherent. d) Your last post is on the edge of incoherence. On the far side. I attacked what seems easier to attack. If you expect your opponent to do something else, you are expecting your opponent to be stupid. And I am not. e) Please, please, be a little more grammatical. I don't mind spelling.
This is the causal mecanism for the AP... - island - 2004-07-29
The single most important failure of particle theory has to do with the fact that we do not readily observe nearly as much antimatter as it predicts exists, because antimatter particles are typically very short lived, and they annihilate when they meet up with ordinary matter. No priori distinction gets made between matter and anti-matter since the observed antiparticle has postive mass in spite of its sign. Dirac's, " Sea of Electrons " was dismissed as implausible for this reason, but the opposite sign of all other charges indicates that the asymmetry between the two classes of particles is due to the fact that the anti-particle, (the " hole "), has negative mass AND density, until it becomes a real particle. Dirac's, cosmological model is valid if the sign of the mass indicates that the asymmetry that exists between the two classes of particles is due to the fact that the anti-particle exists in a negative energy state, by way of -rho and negative mass, until enough vacuum energy is condensed over an isolated area to achieve positive gravitational curvature. Particle theory says that for every fermion type there is another fermion type that has exactly the same mass as its counterpart particle, and negative mass and density particles explain this without jumping to the conclusion that particle theory is necessarily wrong because our observations don't seem to support this predicted symmetry. Symmetry is maintained if particles that are created from the energy of the vacuum, have negative mass and density before they are condensed into positive mass and density virtual particles, which can then be converted into real particles, given enough energy. Negative energy and density is then **Generally** maintained by the negative pressure component, so both virtual and real that are created will increase negative pressure via further rarefaction of the vacuum. The process described above will affect vacuum expansion while G will remain constant, because the increase in mass energy which occurs by way of condensation of vacuum energy, will immediately be offset by the described increase in negative pressure which necessarily occurs if negative mass particles have negative density... until they don't! The main difference between this and Dirac's Hole Theory is that BOTH both the electron as well as the anti-electron will leave REAL holes in the vacuum. As with electric charge, the *normal* distribution of negative energy does not contribute to pair creation. Only *departures* from the normal distribution in a vacuum will isolate enough vacuum energy to produce virtual particle pairs. These pairs can be converted into real particles given enough energy, but they do not have -rho if they represent localized departures from the norm. Modern Quantum Field Theory is not a replacement of Dirac's hole theory. The only difference is in the treatment of the Boson fields, where the positive spectrum condition has no Dirac sea analogue. The net charge density still exists as the zero-point charge, but it's cancelled out. The cancellation represents an anomaly removal condition amounting to the restriction on the charge spectrum, where... 4(nu)+4(e)+12(up)+12(down)=0 The condition is often credited as a consequence of quantum gravity, but in reality, it's a direct consequence of the requirement that the zero-point charges all be finite. Dirac's subtraction argument hasn't been removed by quantum field theory, it has only been shifted into a different place... ...the operator, as normal ordering of QED. Negative mass particles make up the cosmological constant by way of -rho, which is entirely difffernt than observed antimatter particles, which do not. Holes that get left in the vacuum are a result of condenstion of energy that only has negative mass because it exists in a negative density state until the emmense gravitational energy of a Black Hole or other high energy photon events result in an incease in uncertainty that cause vacuum fluctions which enables the creation process. General Relativity tells us that gravitation is essentially curvature due to the energy contained in a region, so the condensation of enough vacuum energy over a region of space effectively converters this energy to the positve mass of particle pairs, and the 'departure' is maintained in this manner. These departures will no longer produce negative curvature, so they cannot have negative mass, because the energy density of these particles does *not* represent the background density. In terms of the Entropy of a Black Hole, the emmited anti-electron has the same gravitational properties as an electron and the electron has a greater chance for survival, (thus maintaining the departure, *indefinitely*), since it might be a long time before it meets an antiparticle if its counterpart antiparticle gets sucked into the black hole. There will be a contribution -e for each occupied state of positive energy and a contribution -e for each unoccupied state of negative energy, because negative pressure increases in proportion to the holes that the departures represent. Taking a supported, but speculative shot at gravity from this: Uncertainties in the vacuum state (inherent imperfections in the energy), CAUSE the matter/antimatter, gravity/antigravity asymmetry into being per the second law of thermodynamics, which, when taken for its face value and without further assumption, says that the described, natural imbalance requires that the entropy of the universe must always increase. This idea is readily and plausibly supported by the previously given physics.
This is how it works as it applies to evolution - island - 2004-07-29
...and that has nothing to do with the reputability of the website, the point is valid, regardless. I don't know anything about the sponsor of this particular website, but it was the only example that I could find on the net. That doesn't mean that the idea is by any means new to science. Here is an excellent illustration for how it works on both scales, as it applies to the high energy physics, as well as human evolution: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASYMILL.html This DOES represent the correcly calculated odds: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASYMTRANS.html
Order only increases with a potential for disorder - island - 2004-07-29
... in an expanding universe and this effect gets compounded by a positive cosmological constant which serves to pull harder and harder on the matter in it until forces get isolated in order to satisfy increasing negative pressure. That just means that the universe isn't perfect, so imperfections in the energy cause it to work harder toward balancing the whole mess out and this is what necessarily gives rise to the many different forms of accomplishing this task in a force decoupled universe. It takes a religious-like form of faith to think that we're not just another player in the game of imperfection constrained entropy, just like everything else in the universe.
Specially ordered... I mean... - island - 2004-07-29
I should have said that it takes a religious-like form of faith to think that we're not just specially ordered players in the game of imperfection constrained entropy, just like everything else in the expanding entropic universe that has a positive cosmological constant.' We're "Special" because we satisfy the grand scale effort that's described by the physics in the first post of this barrage. This is directly associable to the universe's method for evolving to a higher order of entropic efficiency as described in that same post. That clearly defines our purpose here.
This is then inversely supported... - island - 2004-07-29
... by human entropic evolutionary theory, which predicts that the universe will, as humans have leaped to a higher order of entropic efficiency, (as this is observationally proven). So the physical logic then falls out where, ~ A big bang is to an evolutionary leap... ... what punctuated equilibrium is to a "NEAR" static universe. ... as supported by all of the three theories, above; high energy physics, entropic favoritism, and human evolutionary theory. ~ -and after much observation, Darwin had produced enough obvious macroscopic evidence for evolution... that they finally had no choice but to conclude that he must be right!'
Re: This is then inversely supported... - Ryan - 2004-07-31
Are you insane? No one is listening to you. It looks like your copying pages out of physics textbooks at random. Please confine your confused ramblings to KDE. Cheers, Ryan
Not pushing intelligent design - Mike - 2004-07-28
While I'm not pushing intelligent design, I wish that the people who denigrate it would come up with an alternative a little bit more convincing than evolution.
Re: Not pushing intelligent design - Erik Hensema - 2004-07-28
Problem is: evolution does not exclude intelligent design. Even when God created the earth and its inhabitants 5000 years ago, the evolution theory still holds. Evolution tells us how life evolved, not what the beginning of life was. However, religion has one big problem with the evolution theory: it makes a higher power less nescesary. When you think about it, you don't need a God. And that's a dangerous thought to religous people. It's far easier to deny evolution, making creation a nescessity, rather than a possibility. Another thing I don't understand: if you're convinced that evolution doesn't work, you must also be convinced that this program will never work. Problem solved.
Re: Not pushing intelligent design - island - 2004-07-28
Exactly... well, design can also come about as a result of a physical need in nature that has nothing to do with a higher intelligence, like god... and no real scientist will even try to deny this. Evolutionary theory doesn't necessarily negate a higher authority, where abiogenesis, evolution, and even the survival instinct arise from the physical need for intelligent humans, where an increase in order represents an increase in the potential for disorder. The effect gets compounded by expansion and a cosmological constant serves to isolate the forces toward the satisfaction of the higher need. It requires an unfounded leap of faith to presume that humans are anything more or less than required players in the thermodynamic process of the universe, and the fact that we can isolate the release of enough energy to create real particle from the energy of the vacuum puts us right up there with black holes and supernovae in terms of high energy entropic efficiency.
Re: Not pushing intelligent design - Ryan - 2004-07-29
I'm glad you know what you're saying, cuz sure as hell no one else does. This is a KDE forum, not your own personal crazy-land. Take it elsewhere. Cheers, Ryan
Then get an education or shut the f----k up! - island - 2004-07-29
Then perhaps you should study the subject that you are so pathetically unable to even address, before you run your ignorant mouth about stuff that you have absolutely no clue about... in ANY forum. What a totally lame assed ignorant thing to say... Take it to kindergarden where you belong, punk, because I can assure you that you are utterly clue-less about stuff that any real scientist or even your average science nut can understand.
Re: Not pushing intelligent design - Crouching Tiger - 2004-07-29
The 5000 years ago thing is bunk. That figure came from a monk in the (don't remember when - but it was a long time ago) who tried to figure out how old the earth is by counting the generations from Adam (and how long the prophets and patriarchs lived) from clues in the bible, and followed it down to his time. It's a guess-timate, but it somehow got into popular christian mythology and has continued on to this day amongst bible-literalists. Have any other religious folk out there considered that maybe god created the world through a process of evolution by laying down the "ground rules" that it follows and then sitting back and watching? And with regards to "Adam is the first man" thing in what context? The bible doesn't say. Maybe he's the first man of God, and not literally the first man. That's my take anyways, but it is interesting to note that writing appears on the scene 5000 years ago. Anyone wanting a good read on the debate on the age of the earth can look here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-age-of-earth.html
Re: Not pushing intelligent design - ac - 2004-07-28
I think the big problem with the term evolution is that it is a word applied to both observable facts AND a nineteenth-century theory designed to explain those facts. Think of it this way. Gravity is a fact. It happens, there's no getting around it. Newton came up with a theory about how it worked. It was good, but flawed. Eventually someone came along and proved that Newton was wrong. Does this mean gravity ceased to exist? No, Newton's theory of how gravity worked was simply invalid. Same thing goes for evolution. Darwin's explanation for how evolution worked has problems. People have developed new theories that are better than Darwin's. However, evolution still happens. It's an observable fact. The mechanism by which it operates is subject to debate. It so happens that all scientific theories that have since replaced Darwin's evolutionary theory also lump themselves into the category of "Evolution"--because they are really more derivative theories based on Darwin's work than entire new theories. Want a better theory than Darwin's evolution and its progeny of latter-day evolutionary theories? Sorry, there aren't any. Not a single one. If someday all current evolutionary theories are categorically prven false, do you know what that means? Nothing. Scientists, when asked to explain how evolution works, will say "we don't know." They are simply not going to jump on some creationist hypothesis due to lack of available sound scientific theories. This completely ignores that fact that 1) creationism and evolution and NOT MUTUALLY INCOMPATIBLE and 2) creationist theories are by their nature unprovable. If there was cold hard evidence, faith wouldn't be faith. When you start to pretend God is a quantifiable entity, you're pretty much not talking about God anymore anyway. And hiding God/creationism behind a nontheistic "intelligent design" moniker is disingenuous and doesn't do anyone any favors. You're lying to yourself and misrepresenting yourself to others. If you believe in God show some balls and admit it.
Newton's Gravity isn't wrong... - island - 2004-07-29
Just an FYI, but GR reduces to Newton's "G" in the low relative speed limit. Other than that... great post!
Re: Newton's Gravity isn't wrong... - ac - 2004-07-29
Not to split hairs, but Newton's theory has an error in it. That error is so small that, at normal human-scale calculations, it is undetectable--but it's there. That's not saying that Newton's theory isn't amazingly accurate all things considered, but wrong is wrong, even if it's only wrong by a hair. There's a reason kids learn Newton's theory instead of GR in high school. It's mathematically and conceptually simpler, and it's very accurate for any real-world tests they would be capable of doing. In contrast, Darwin's theory had a lot of unneccessary rules: a very nineteenth-century "a place for everything and everything in its place" belief that each species had its own niche, and that the species only competed with itself for how best to fit that niche (precluding the possibility that two totally different species could compete for the same niche) Also, Darwin's theory staked a lot on the belief that evolution occurs infrequently and randomly, and only the fit survive. Modern theories allow for evolution to occur in fits and starts, with long periods of no evolution at all, sometimes nonrandomly triggered by major climate change, plague, etc. The most important thing is that evolution is NOT an alternative to "intelligent design". It's an alternative to "we don't know". "Intelligent design" is an alternative to "the scientific process". Want a new theory? Come up with one that can be tested. If you can't do that, don't waste our time.
Re: Newton's Gravity isn't wrong... - island - 2004-07-29
Well, I may have been splitting hairs, but the flaw only makes it less correct, not, wrong. So your statement: "but wrong is wrong, even if it's only wrong by a hair." ...is false, in that sense. General Relativity is expected to have a critical mathematical flaw in it, precludes it from compatiblilty with QFT, but that doesn't make it wrong, just, "less-preferred" than one that doesn't have this flaw. "Want a new theory? Come up with one that can be tested. If you can't do that, don't waste our time." Been there, done that... http://www.geocities.com/naturescience/AnthropicBias.html http://www.geocities.com/naturescience/NaturalDesign.html http://www.geocities.com/naturescience/The-1thLaw.html
Re: Newton's Gravity isn't wrong... - ac - 2004-07-29
Less correct equals more incorrect, or am I mistaken? Yes, I agree that if you define "correct" as "only PERFECTLY correct" than all scientific theories could be deemed incorrect, because they are mere approximations. That's really not relevant unless you're particularly attached to a certain theory and don't like to see it go away. Science is a neverending process; a constant refinement of understanding. Theories are just milestones along the way. Nice pseudoscience web pages, but I've seen less amateurish efforts elsewhere. In particular, I'm impressed by the efforts of the people behind some of the more convoluted "earth is the center of the universe" theories, such as the hollow-earth theory, etc. These theories have light travelling in arcs, new rules of gravity, all kinds of stuff throwing Occam's Razor to the wind to come up with an alternative explanation of how the world works. Sure, they're complete crackpots, but they're industrious little crackpots. Those sites you reference look more like the work of a single person who confuses science with the healing power of crystals. (I can see it continuing with: "You must change your base assumptions that there is nothing until you prove it. It is more natural to assume that OM exists until you prove it does not. OMMMMMM!")
Re: Newton's Gravity isn't wrong... - island - 2004-07-29
Yes, you are mistaken. Less accurate is not wrong. And FYI... since you obviously don't have the ability to recognize real science for yourself... the group that I posted these to does not allow unsubstantiated speculation, and every post is reviewed by a real physicist from places like, CalTec, and MIT prior to approval. Those people, (unlike yourself), can tell the difference between pseudo and real science: http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2003-11/msg0056466.html http://olympus.het.brown.edu/pipermail/spr/Week-of-Mon-20030818/012478.html http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2004-04/msg0060276.html http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl4141424102d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=3F958A4C.7D181A4D%40sundial.net So... you either don't know what you are talking about... OR, more likely, you are just fanatically and willfully ignorant
Re: Newton's Gravity isn't wrong... - ac - 2004-07-29
Whoops, looks like you were showing off your own work instead of pointing me to a funny site. Didn't realize I'd offend you. Sure, if less than correct can still be correct, then I'm sure your nice theories are perfectly correct by that definition. Have fun with your little group. Let me know if anyone takes you seriously, other than university professors working well outside their respective areas of expertise. Maybe you can redefine matters so that in physics, less correct theories are more correct. Because a law professor at Cornell says so and Cornell is a reputable school even if the guy isn't a physicist.
Re: Newton's Gravity isn't wrong... - island - 2004-07-29
So, we've resorted to lies and misinformation... Figures... I'm guessing... "Chosionist"
Re: Newton's Gravity isn't wrong... - ac - 2004-07-29
...and I'm guessing "hollow Earth". Let me know when the lizardmen come for us. I really don't care why you don't like Evolution. What's disturbing is that there don't seem to be any steps in your world between hypothesis and theory. As if all scientists have to do is sit around and come up with ideas until they land on the correct one. Theories are meant to be analyzed, tested, peer-reviewed, and revised. Lack of this process is what separates science from Internet ramblings. Theories are designed to be attacked, tested, and modified. Be sure to send me your journal articles when you get published. Yes, journals can and do cling to old theories and have biases against new interesting theories. But the great thing about those cases is that eventually the rejected theories were vindicated by overwhelming scientific support and eventually published. I'm sure you're just waiting for that to happen. Have a nice wait.
Re: Newton's Gravity isn't wrong... - ed moyse - 2004-08-03
Nice post! ;-)
Re: Newton's Gravity isn't wrong... - Kris Kuitkowski - 2006-12-06
Yes, I've got a theory and would like your comments. See attachement
evolution - David - 2006-02-20
Where can I observe evolution happening right now? Can anyone tell me where I can find this. david
Re: evolution - LittleFritz - 2007-05-28
It happens right now in the process of bacteria becoming resistant to the antibiotics currently in use. It happens right now in the constant development and change of the many viruses that cause what we call a cold. Fritz
What is it I see. - Mark Hannessen - 2004-07-28
When I start the demo, I see three balls slowly moving around and through the one big ball in the middle, then they get closer and closer to the big ball and after that, they seem to get punched away by the big ball, harder and harder but always returning to the big ball, after some time I don't see them anymore at all, but that might also have to do something with the speed that they have around that time. can anybody explain what it is that I see?
Re: What is it I see. - Raphael Langerhorst - 2004-07-28
... ah, yes, interesting question. [did you have a look at the documentation?] First, what you see: the demo is for testing the internal system. Currently this includes delivery of influences from various elements to their destination through the world engine (GWE) and the agents system itself. That means, agents are running and actually doing something AND responding to influences. Currently those three balls all have an attract agent and a move agent. The attract agent responds to influences by increasing the speed _towards_ the source of the influence and the move agent actually performs the movement with the speed. ... did you have a look at the README file by the way? I think most of this is explained there (and the referenced files). The second thing: the balls get "punched away" ... you probably found a bug in one of the agents... [yes, I noticed this too from time to time, but this release really wasn't intended to be "perfect"]
Re: What is it I see. - Mark Hannessen - 2004-07-28
I've attached a movie to this post with the "bug", Enjoy!
huh? - ac - 2004-07-28
>The realism is not so much of physical reality but more of a realistic human - and especially life as a whole - evolution. Jeez, arn't those two fundamentally connected?
Re: huh? - Raphael Langerhorst - 2004-07-30
connected yes, but just think about this: if you hold something in your hand and you let it go, it falls down on the floor - that's what I mean with "physical" law. ... now take your attention to yourself, to your thinking or your feelings... think about your social "connections"... are these things that are covered by the same "physical" laws? (note that it "could" be possible that on some level these laws are the same anyway, but in an abstracted form so these laws are just specialisations.) But I completely understand your reaction to this statement ;)
Please start from something that works - Roger Larsson - 2004-07-28
Use something like avida http://dllab.caltech.edu/avida/ It already has a Qt visualizer BTW... ./configure --enable-qt-viewer --enable-standard-prefix make make install installs in the unpacked directory structure (for me atleast) qt-viewer "has to"(?) be copied from work directory to bin or maybe it can be run from the work directory... After this you will only need to modify the parameters/goals for the simulated environment to match our universe... - then you will only have to wait and see :-)
Sound like framestick - John - 2004-07-29
This sound like the software called framestick (for winDOZE) which I was "playing" with a few years ago. Does anyone what happend to the software? I cant locate it anymore :( Regards John
Evolution has long been proved impossable - Craig B - 2004-07-31
A Crash Course in Irreducible Complexity "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." --Charles Darwin, Origin of Species With this statement, Charles Darwin provided a criterion by which his theory of evolution could be falsified. The logic was simple: since evolution is a gradual process in which slight modifications produce advantages for survival, it cannot produce complex structures in a short amount of time. It's a step-by-step process which may gradually build up and modify complex structures, but it cannot produce them suddenly. Darwin, meet Michael Behe, biochemical researcher and professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. Michale Behe claims to have shown exactly what Darwin claimed would destroy the theory of evolution, through a concept he calls "irreducible complexity." In simple terms, this idea applies to any system of interacting parts in which the removal of any one part destroys the function of the entire system. An irreducibly complex system, then, requires each and every component to be in place before it will function. As a simple example of irreducible complexity, Behe presents the humble mousetrap. Shown above is a modified sketch of Behe's mousetrap as taken from http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/mousetrap.htm. It contains 5 interdependent parts which allow it to catch mice: the wooden platform, the spring, the hammer (the bar which crushes the mouse against the wooden base), the holding bar, and a catch. Each of these components is absolutely essential for the function of the mousetrap. For instance, if you remove the catch, you cannot set the trap and it will never catch mice, no matter how long they may dance over the contraption. Remove the spring, and the hammer will flop uselessly back and forth-certainly not much of a threat to the little rodents. Of course, removal of the holding bar will ensure that the trap never catches anything because there will again be no way to arm the system. Now, note what this implies: an irreducibly complex system cannot come about in a gradual manner. One cannot begin with a wooden platform and catch a few mice, then add a spring, catching a few more mice than before, etc. No, all the components must be in place before it functions at all. A step-by-step approach to constructing such a system will result in a useless system until all the components have been added. The system requires all the components to be added at the same time, in the right configuration, before it works at all. How does irreducible complexity apply to biology? Behe notes that early this century, before biologists really understood the cell, they had a very simplistic model of its inner workings. Without the electron microscopes and other advanced techniques that now allow scientists to peer into the inner workings of the cell, it was assumed that the cells was a fairly simple blob of protoplasm. The living cell was a "black box"-something that could be observed to perform various functions while its inner workings were unknown and mysterious. Therefore, it was easy, and justifiable, to assume that the cell was a simple collection of molecules. But not anymore. Technological advances have provided detailed information about the inner workings of the cell. Michael Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, states "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10^-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." In a word, the cell is complicated. Very complicated. In fact, Michael Behe asserts that the complicated biological structures in a cell exhibit the exact same irreducible complexity that we saw in the mousetrap example. In other words, they are all-or-nothing: either everything is there and it works, or something is missing and it doesn't work. As we saw before, such a system cannot be constructed in a gradual manner-it simply won't work until all the components are present, and Darwinism has no mechanism for adding all the components at once. Remember, Darwin's mechanism is one of gradual mutations leading to improved fitness and survival. A less-than-complete system of this nature simply will not function, and it certainly won't help the organism to survive. Indeed, having a half-formed and hence non-functional system would actually hinder survival and would be selected against. But Behe is not the only scientist to recognize irreducible complexity in nature. In 1986, Michael J. Katz, in his Templets and the explanation of complex patterns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986) writes: "In the natural world, there are many pattern-assembly systems for which there is no simple explanation. There are useful scientific explanations for these complex systems, but the final patterns that they produce are so heterogeneous that they cannot effectively be reduced to smaller or less intricate predecessor components. As I will argue ... these patterns are, in a fundamental sense, irreducibly complex..." Katz continues that this sort of complexity is found in biology: "Cells and organisms are quite complex by all pattern criteria. They are built of heterogeneous elements arranged in heterogeneous configurations, and they do not self-assemble. One cannot stir together the parts of a cell or of an organism and spontaneously assemble a neuron or a walrus: to create a cell or an organisms one needs a preexisting cell or a preexisting organism, with its attendant complex templets. A fundamental characteristic of the biological realm is that organisms are complex patterns, and, for its creation, life requires extensive, and essentially maximal, templets." Behe presents several examples of irreducibly complex systems to prove his point, but I'll just focus on one: the cilium. Cilia are hair-like structures, which are used by animals and plants to move fluid over various surfaces (for example, cilia in your respiratory tree sweep mucous towards the throat and thus promote elimination of contaminants) and by single-celled organisms to move through water. Cilia are like "oars" which contain their own mechanism for bending. That mechanism involves tiny rod-like structures called microtubules that are arranged in a ring. Adjacent microtubules are connected to each other by two types of "bridges"-a flexible linker bridge and an arm that can "walk" up the neighboring microtubule. The cilia bends by activating the "walker" arms, and the sliding motion that this tends to generate is converted to a bending motion by the flexible linker bridges. Thus, the cilium has several essential components: stiff microtubules, linker bridges, and the "motors" in the form of walker arms. While my description is greatly simplified (Behe notes that over 200 separate proteins have been identified in this particular system), these 3 components form the basic system, and show what is required for functionality. For without one of these components, the system simply will not function. We can't evolve a cilium by starting with microtubules alone, because the microtubules will be fixed and rigid-not much good for moving around. Adding the flexible linker bridges to the system will not do any good either-there is still no motor and the cilia still will not bend. If we have microtubules and the walker arms (the motors) but no flexible linker arms, the microtubules will keep on sliding past each other till they float away from each other and are lost. This is only one of many biochemical systems that Behe discusses in his book, Darwin's Black Box. Other examples of irreducible complexity include the light-sensing system in animal eyes, the transport system within the cell, the bacterial flagellum, and the blood clotting system. All consist of a very complex system of interacting parts which cannot be simplified while maintaining functionality. Evolution simply cannot produce complex structures in a single generation as would be required for the formation of irreducibly complex systems. To imagine that a chance set of mutations would produce all 200 proteins required for cilia function in a single generation stretches the imagination beyond the breaking point. And yet, producing one or a few of these proteins at a time, in standard Darwinian fashion, would convey no survival advantage because those few proteins would have no function-indeed, they would constitute a waste of energy for the cell to even produce. Darwin recognized this as a potent threat to his theory of evolution-the issue that could completely disprove his idea. So the question must be raised: Has Darwin's theory of evolution "absolutely broken down?" According to Michael Behe, the answer is a resounding "yes." http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/irredcomplex.htm
Re: Evolution has long been proved impossable - Dragen - 2004-08-01
Googling I found several good reviews of the Behe book, to put forward one: American Scientist lists six fallacies of book: 1: There is a boundary between the molecular world and other levels of biological organization. 2: The current utility of a given feature (molecular or otherwise) explains "why" the feature originally evolved. 3: Unless we can identify advantages for each imaginary gradual step leading to a contemporary bit of biochemistry, we cannot invoke a Darwinian explanation. 4: Molecular evolution: "a lot of sequences, some math, and no answers." 5: There is a conspiracy of silence among scientists concerning the failure of Darwinian explanation 6: The evolution of complexity is unaddressed and unexplained. http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/22794 I suggest that further discussion on evolution are moved to a more suitable forum like talk.origins on news. http://www.talkorigins.org/
Re: Evolution has long been proved impossable - Craig B - 2004-08-02
That is a great book own it read it and its on the book shelf. I would like to pont you to another book called the finger print of God by Hugh Ross.
Re: Evolution has long been proved impossable - rsv - 2004-08-02
behe, what a waste of bandwidth. How many people here are talking about the software in question? Darwin's theory of Evolution is NOT Evolution itself. It is outdated and has already been disproved, though not thoroughly. The idea still lives on and is in fact well accepted and will not be disproved. The ciliary system took 2 billion years to evolve, and it has been conserved today, simply because this design works best. Todays system is finetuned in 2 (or more correctly perhaps 1.6) billion years (ciliates evolved in the earliest life forms, which themselves appeared after a long period of "molecular evolution"). This is through trial and error at the molecular level, where events are much faster. Bacteria such as E. Coli have a 20 min doubling period and molecules change way faster. A colony of bacteria can acquire resistance to an antibiotic in a short time, starting from a single cell which has the right mutation. And these bacteria have cilia. The mosquito in your living room has survived nearly every insecticide you throw at it (I mean the population, not the individual). Even your own immune system can produce novel antibodies by molecular jugglery whenever a new pathogen attacks you. Evolution occurs at every fraction of a second in your body. If it didn't, you shouldn't be living and trolling on this site. The cumulative effect of molecular evolution is seen as evolution of a species. This approximates, but is not the same as Darwin's theory. The larger the animal, the slower is the cumulative molecular evolution on it (i.e. without recombination or sexual reproduction). Try putting your complex system together in even a 100 years, and the non-evolutionist theories go in the deluge. You are hitting the hatchet on your own head. The so called 'irreducible complexity' is proof for the theory of Evolution, not any other 'creationist' theory. The complexity cannot be reduced in a short time (but it can be reduced in a much longer time). It seems to me that 'God' is used as a nice tool to attribute everything to that our incompetent little brains cannot decipher. Accept the fact that our brains are incompetent and try to solve the problem rather than sit lazily and attribute it to a 'God'. I came to this article just out of curiosity. Is there a molecular visualizer available for kde (and I mean for kde, not rasmol/vmd/jmol etc)? I am a bioinformatics student, who is still learning programming and would like to try.
Re: Evolution has long been proved impossable - Craig B - 2004-08-02
That certianly is the party line and its what you'll be feed in a college bio class but the effidence does not support that. In fact the effidence points to life "apperaring" right after the late bombardant. Thats at the very earlist sustainable moment. There was no millions of years required for it to evolve.
Re: Evolution has long been proved impossable - thing@thing.com - 2004-11-30
I think you should watch what you say, because this God stuff has offended me! Iagree with the other person and it has not been proven. I just don't think that we used to be stupid monkeys! Beat that loser!
Re: Evolution has long been proved impossable - Anon - 2004-12-02
What do you mean, used to? You are living proof of constant evolution, if only by being overdue for it.
Re: Evolution has long been proved impossable - D. - 2006-07-17
Large scale change of one type of organism into another, so-called "macro-evolution", is beyond the ability of mutation coupled with natural selection to produce. Evolutionists acknowledge this is a "research issue". Even non-creation scientists (such as Denton and Behe) have written books giving the hard scientific facts that document why this is impossible.
Ummm.. - Alex - 2004-08-02
Evolution happens, it's a fact, this software provides a simulation for it, this has nothing to do with your religious beliefs. Oh boy, I'm going to stay out of this one.
posthumanity - wsmithvegas - 2005-03-03
'READ' the following title: UNINTELLIGENT DESIGN BY MARK PAREHK