The "ist" and their "ism's"
Offline The “...Ist’s” and their “...Ism’s”
It is interesting to study the groups of people who place titles on their belief
systems concerning the unknown. My favorites are the “...ists” who believe in their “..isms”.
According to Webster’s Dictionary the definition of “ist” is;
A noun suffix denoting an agent, or doer, one who practices,
a believer in; as, theorist, one who theorizes or socialist,
one who holds to socialism.
According to Webster’s Dictionary the definition of “ism”
Function: noun
Etymology: -ism
1 : a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory
2 : an oppressive and especially discriminatory attitude or belief.
I am not referring to those that refer to known principles such as chemists, physicists, biologists or the term scientist itself. I am specifically talking about people that attach themselves to ideals that are not proven. The two biggest groups are the “theists” and “atheists”. These two groups have many similarities. Both have made up their minds and are unwilling to change. Both claim to know and understand the biggest mysteries of life. They are closed-minded and refuse to openly consider other points of view. They will use any method to cling to their beliefs. They will twist logic, ignore the laws of science, and suppress their ability to reason out the truth. Most of them are arrogant, all knowing, and express anger at those who disagree with them. When you hear them debate each other it is easy to see that neither side is actively listening to the other. At the end of the debate there are no comprises, no common threads, just angry stubborn people.
There are many classifications and types of theists and atheists. There are strong and weak versions of both. In order for us to communicate effectively it is necessary to establish some common ground when it comes to definitions.
For the purpose of this discussion, when I use the terms theist or atheist, I am referring to the strong versions of each. Many atheists will overlap their definitions with agnostic definitions. For the purpose of clarity I will assert that they are not the same word.
The strong theist will say that there is a 100% probability that there is a God and that it is THEIR GOD. They have a holy book written by men but claim that their god spoke through these men. They are closed-minded and fill in the blanks with "My God did it".
The strong atheist will say that there is a 100% probability that there is no god, no creator, and no designer. They have books written by men and are also closed-minded and fill in the blanks with "natural selection did it". These are the people I am talking about, the strong theist and strong atheist. They both take great leaps of faith.
There are others. People who are open-minded, who admit to doubts, who will actively listen to opposing points of view, and who are not rigid and immovable. They are not part of this discussion.
Being brought up in religion I was able to see people defend their beliefs at all costs at an early age. I have known many people in my life who had different religious views and observed that this close mindedness was not limited to my religion of upbringing but seemed to be a trait in people of all faiths.
A few years ago a couple of coworkers were having a heated debate about evolution. One of them was an atheist the other was a christian fundamentalist. Since I have a strong interest in science, I got in the middle of it. Since I was the one without strong religious or atheistic beliefs they began to throw their stuff on me as a kind of impartial judge. I was amazed that the atheist was just as emotional about the subject as was the christian. Neither one was really listening to the other.
I have taken many science courses both on the undergraduate and graduate level and have always accepted evolution as scientific fact and leaned more towards the atheist’s point of view. I was disappointed that the atheist’s argument was not as compelling as was that of the christian’s. I decided I would become the defender of scientific reason and do the research myself, I would bury the religous guy with a logical scientific argument that would shut him up once and for all.
As I did my research I discovered that there were incredible holes in the theories regarding the origins of the universe and life itself. Holes no one could fill. I saw many creationists both young and old earth types throwing around a lot of bible verses. I saw a lot of evolutionists (mostly atheists) dodging some pretty important questions, twisting logic, and ignoring fundamental principles of science, logic and reason. Both spoke in terms of absolutes. They both filled in the holes and gaps with either "God did it" or "natural selection did it".
I have taken several advanced courses in logic and statistics and I have seen many “..ist's” twist the principles of both of these in this topic. It was refreshing to run across a movement that attempts to stick to the principles of science, logic, and reason. They are the people of intelligent design. Now understand, I am fully aware that the vast majority of them have religious motive, but at least they are leaving that at home and are only looking for the victories that science can offer them. They then go home and extrapolate their belief systems into their version of the designer.
I’ve observed that they fully answer the questions of the “...ist's” while only clinging to the principles of science, logic and reason. Plus, they are not as arrogant as the “...ist's”.
I am not ignorant enough to negate the fact that many parts of the theory of evolution are spot on. I fully believe the principals of microevolution. And by microevolution I am referring to any evolutionary change below the level of species. Microevolution is observable and testable. What I have problems with is macroevolution. By macroevolution I am referring to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. I also have problems with cosmic evolution and the Big bang theory but I am not arrogant enough to say with 100% certainty that they are not true. I only state that there is a much higher probability of a designer.
I do not extrapolate this into trying to claim understanding of this designer.
Even though many of the conclusions of the creationist were faulty, they also had some valid science on their side. The principle of irreducible complexity concerning DNA and other complex things is compelling.
There seems to be half-truths on both sides of the “...ist's” and their “...ism's”. Yet they both cling to their differences. The atheists will stick with naturalism, and the theists to creationism.
I always thought that scientists were impartial. They should be. I have found that at all levels most people cling to their belief systems. People with lots of degrees, that hold prominent scientific credentials have severely diverse opinions. All of their research, all of their experiments are done to reinforce their pre-existing belief systems. If you start with a goal you will find many things that will support your beliefs and then conveniently fill in the holes and gaps with those beliefs.
You might say that the overwhelming majority of scientists fully believe in all the principles of Evolution. That is correct, due to the fact that that a larger majority of scientists are atheists and they have the political power in science. Opposing theories are blacklisted. The theists have their political power in even more destructive aspects of this world and are fighting heavily against each other and may lead to the ultimate destruction of mankind.
The “..ist's” and their “...ism's” are everywhere. They have all completely made up their minds and the opposition between them is getting more heated. They have 100% certainty in their beliefs and are unwilling to change. There are hundreds of millions of them, perhaps billions of them.
I find that few people are open-minded. Few people are willing to compromise or actively listen to opposing views.
It is important to point out that most of Science is completely factual. There are rigid laws and principles that all scientists agree on. It is rare that major controversy exists in science. The theories on the origins of the universe and life are the most highly debated even by non -ists like myself.
So?...... Are you an “..ist”? Do you follow an “...ism”? Do you have an open mind or have you already solved the biggest mysteries of our existence?
- Login to post comments
Offline Simulating evolution requires intelligence, therefore evolution itself requires intelligence. Obviously, life was intelligently designed.
Likewise, simulating volcanic eruptions requires intelligence, therefore volcanic eruptions require intelligence. Obviously, volcanic eruptions are intelligently guided.
Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.
- Login to post comments
Offline
Here is a large portion of what you have linked to on GA. I have bolded the operative terms and phrases to demonstrate the “INTELLIGENCE” involved.
I can see precisely nil difference between the parameters emboldened and the parameters of biological evolution, nor can I see any evidence of intelligence driving the process of evolution (which, of course, would be contradictory to the idea of evolution, which is blind-guided). Just to be sure, I called a friend in the computational biology department and asked if the recent Genalg experiments were fair tests in that they did not contain any impossible, artificial parameters which would not accurately simulate the biological process they were mimicking. “Of course not”, he replied, suprised. Anyway...
is a programming technique
Of course. Not that it matters, of course. The parameters which would simulate the biological process are imputted into the genalg, which would make it an accurate simulation of the biological process. The fact that they’ve managed to simulate the same paramters that would exist in the natural world are utterly irrelevant to this discussion, as my friend already told me, the test is fair, there are no paramaters programmed in that would make the genalg impossible to run by itself in the same way that a biological function would.
Evolutionary biologists and population dynamicists use the same technique when they run crash and burn simulations of ecological mathematics. They’ll program in every variable they can think of that would accurately simulate the environment being simulated. The fact that they’ve inputted such things makes it a more accurate simulation of evolution, not less. The things they “program” are humidity, temperature, aridity, predator population and kill factors (speed etc), disease vectors, food capacity, water sources etc. Forgive me, but which one of these is “intelligent”?
the input to the GA is a set of potential solutions to that problem
with the aim of the GA being to improve them,
Yes...which is analogous to the evolutionary process. I see you ignored the last line.
these will be deleted.
Of course! This is a simulation of natural selection principles so basic even an idiot could grasp them. The strongest survive and the weakest die out. The fact that the genalg developers are mimicking this process is totally unsuprising nor is it particularly special. As I was explained to, no paramater exists that would not in nature- and selection of the strong is most definitely a natural parameter. The fact that they are selecting them by hand is utterly irrelevant. A genalg is not designed to prove the principles of natural selection by allowing the genalg itself to do the selecting, we have plenty of other ways to do that (like watching it).
These promising candidates are kept and allowed to reproduce
Which, again...is precisely analogous to the process of natural selection. In this case, however, we would refer to it as artifical selection. The two processes are more or less identical. How do you think that the various green vegetables were all generated from a single green leafy plant, or every breen of canine from the hunting wolf?
second round of fitness evaluation
Nothing special here, in evolutionary biology we would call that the F-2 GEN.
The expectation is
That’s because it works.
solutions to the problem (DESIRED RESULT)
It would appear I have met another fan of the doctrine that typing in large letters makes you correct. At any rate, thus far this has been incredibly ordinary. Evolution is a precisely analogous process, with a genetic simulation allowed to run, and occasional traits of advantage being present in a generation, which in turn, causes them to reproduce more at the expense of their weaker brethren (in evolutionary biology we call this the Struggle for Resources), which means that the F-2 gen will have a greater gene pool concentration of the trait, and in turn, will develop some new incremental advanatge, and so on, to F-3, F-4 etc, until within, say 100,000 generations, the phenotype is utterly unrecognizable, and if a new clade has developed due to migration, usually so is the genotype, which means a new species will have been generated. It is the improvement of a preexisting mechanism (functional homology) via the solution to a problem. The genalg mimics this process, except, of course, as you pointed out in large letters, with artificial selection. Well, thus far, I have been severely underwhelmed.
a method is needed to encode potential solutions to that problem in a form that a computer can process.
Of course. Evolution works along an analogous process...its called DNA. Life has existed in an unbroken continuum for 4 billions years, and in that time, it has been entirely based on the information-encoding ribonucleotide molecule called deoxyribonucleic acid (primordial life may have been based on RNA, but we’ll leave that for now). After all, the first thing every aspiring molecular biologist (as I once was) learns is that a cell is an information processing device. That’s what DNA is, its a chemical alphabet that faithfully represents the amino acid sequence to the proteins present in a cell, as well as controlling the rates of translation and transcription and placement of the proteins in question. This cell’s wall will be studded with transmembrane proteins which control things coming in and out of the cell (organic molecules in, waste gas out). Meanwhile, inside the cell, enzymes will be running the day-to-day operations of the cell. Structures inside the cell (usually made of proteins) needed to maintain it will be being broken down, assembled, and repaired in a series of complex pathways all controlled by enzymes. Meanwhile, the cell needs energy and raw materials, so it imports organic molecules (aka “food) and breaks it down into simple subunits (this process is controlled by enzymes) which are then used for energy (a process which is also controlled by enzymes) or used to construct large cellular structures (this is also controlled by enzymes). For all this to happen requires a lot of chemical messages to fly between lots of different parts of the cell so that the cooperative process keeps going, and all different cellular projects are in communication and taking cues from the environment for what to do (these processes are controlled by signal integrating proteins, signal amplifying proteins and signal transducing proteins).
Controlling all this is the genetic code. The genetic code holds the “master key” to all the proteins. The rate at which proteins are assembled from genes is controlled by other genes, which in turn usually end up being controlled by other genes. Since proteins work in teams, the concentration of each different protein, as controlled by the genetic code, affects the cell as a whole. Most of the time, the demand for various products operates on a feedback loop. If a product is needed, it triggers a stimulus which sends a message to the genetic template. This can result in a particular gene being switched on or off or increasing rate of production or decreasing or a host of other things.
In other words, the genetic code of a cell functions like a microprocessor. It takes input from the environment, processes it, and delivers an output. In this way, the whole balance of the cell can be controlled by the genes. However, this analogy is not entirely accurate since the relation between proteins and genes are reciprocal ie proteins can control genes (these are called DNA binding proteins)
encode solutions as binary strings: sequences of 1's and 0's
So...the best you can do is point out that evoluton relies on a base-four code, while the experiment runs in base two?
This technique
I grow weary of your useless emphasis. All you have shown is that the genalg runners have encoded a system of information to run the genalg. “Smacks forehead”, if only I hadn’t been aware since the age of seven that evolution is a process which runs on precisely the same paramaters. An existing system of information is allowed to change based on encoded variables via random changes which are inhereted by the next generation whereby the deleterious inputs are deleted by natural selection. In fact, as far as I can see, all you have managed to prove is that the computational biologists who ran this simulation followed the biological process they were mimicking to the letter, with precise exactitude.
, random changes can be brought about by changing the operator or altering the value at a given node in the tree, or replacing one subtree with another.
Well done, you have discovered the binary counterparts to running a point mutation and a homologous duplication mutation respectively, which, if you read the short piece I wrote on Proteomics, you will know, drive evolution (one does, anyway).
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
- Login to post comments
Offline Deludedgod-said the following.
So-called complexities requiring a designer can be explained in terms of structure and function by Hox genes, Notch control, and Gene regulatory node pathways. Computational biologists can now array on an FGPA panel an Genalg which can create irreducibly complex systems within 6000 generations or less, by itself, as shown here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html
Wow! You sound smart! You'd think you would need a degree in this field to argue this point. FALSE! I have seen this pattern before. It’s way prevalent here. Trying to intimidate by use of complex terms to confuse those not in your field.
You're obviously intimidated and looking for a way to assuage your wounded ego. Please go heal your wounds.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Not really. Even strong atheists who hold to deductive proofs will be open to correction or revision. Strong atheism does not require dogmatism.
1) Strong atheism is not closed minded.
2) Natural selection speaks to changes in allele frequencies, it does not speak to abiogenesis or cosmology.
False. Strong atheism does not require any faith. Theism does.
I don't believe a word of this bullshit.
You don't know what strong atheism is, and I question your ability to accurately assess the sciences.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
No it isn't. It's terrible. Fortunately, this is something in which I am versed being that I am a molecular biologist. For amusement, I shredded an example of Irreducible complexity here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/blood_clotting_and_evolution_a_critique_of_one_of_behes_four_arguments_of_irreducible_complexity
and todangst did here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/irreducible_complexity_reduced_to_absurdity
So-called complexities requiring a designer can be explained in terms of structure and function by Hox genes, Notch control, and Gene regulatory node pathways. Computational biologists can now array on an FGPA panel an Genalg which can create irreducibly complex systems within 6000 generations or less, by itself, as shown here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html
Macroevolution is easy enough to track at the molecular level. I would know. That's my job:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/proteomics_and_its_applications_for_evolutionary_mechanisms_indisputable_proof_of_evolution_and_...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/reading_the_common_descent_endogenous_retrovirals_and_mitochondrial_dna_a_very_short_page
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
His view of strong atheism was so woefully inaccurate that I didn't bother to go through what he said about science. Thanks for handling that.
And yes, to be impressed by Irreducible complexity is to reveal that you know jack shit about biology. Again, his view of strong atheism was so far off the mark I just wrote him off....
http://www.rationalresponders.com/irreducible_complexity_reduced_to_absurdity
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Well it's more that atheists say there is no empirical evidence for a god, not that there is no god with a 100% probabiliy. I mean you can't say unicorns don't exist just because you've never seen one, but probability would suggest with the billions of people on Earth that if one existed it would be on record by now.
What's the problem with macroevolution? So you have a problem with macroevolution but have absolutely no problem in thinking that an 'evolved' organism was just always there??? A designer is a much lower probability.
Being an 'ist' has nothing really to do with being open minded. The 'ist' you are talking about is merely a way of classification of whether someone has a belief in a supernatural hero. BTW did you forget about the deist classification?
If evidence comes that proves 'god', I'll reconsider my position. But I've been waiting for awhile now, not holding my breath.
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."--Stephen F. Roberts
He agrees with you. He's referring to strong atheists.
Strong atheists use deductive arguments, not solely inductive arguments, otherwise they'd be weak atheists.
You can rule out a claim deductively, if you can show that it leads to an internal contradiction. You can also rule out a claim if it is incoherent.
This is basically what strong atheists do. They do not necessarily hold to their conclusions dogmatically. This was the original poster's error.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Ah, thanks for the clarification todangst. Your input is always welcomed
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."--Stephen F. Roberts
After seeing the title of this post I thought I might be able to say something clever about taming a "tic", sadly it seems our poster is a lunatic and not an agnostic and thus impervious to sanitizing.
I really can not take this post at face value. If you want to try this post agian elsewhere consider changing
As soon as I read this passage I knew I did not like sentiment of the post. There was no need to bring up natural selection here and it is not a filler as proposed. I concluded that you are either a slimy Creationist (I use slimy due to the method of the post, I do not commit myself to extending the term to 100% of creationists...but I am an atheist) or somebody so absorbed in the perceived cantankerousness of both camps to disremember the "many science courses" they have taken. For this to be true I am lost as to how such a person is able to cling to reality enough to even create a post.
Rest assured whatever the case may be it is lamentable.
I will graciously acknowledge the tone of my words and will not frustrate any claims that I am precisely what you are talking about - at least, sir, I am honest.
I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.
I'd also add that the delineations of 'strong theist' and 'weak theist' make no sense.... once one is a theist, they are holding to a belief on faith, whether they 'really believe' or 'really really believe'. Both 'strong and weak' theism would be making a positive claim.
The delineations of strong atheist and weak atheist make sense in that they distinquish whether one is holding to a fallback position (weak atheism) or making a positive claim (strong atheism)
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
He hit, he ran, but was sniped in the back by RRS.
Deludedgod-said the following.
So-called complexities requiring a designer can be explained in terms of structure and function by Hox genes, Notch control, and Gene regulatory node pathways. Computational biologists can now array on an FGPA panel an Genalg which can create irreducibly complex systems within 6000 generations or less, by itself, as shown here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html
Wow! You sound smart! You'd think you would need a degree in this field to argue this point. FALSE! I have seen this pattern before. It’s way prevalent here. Trying to intimidate by use of complex terms to confuse those not in your field. Fortunately, anybody who knows how logic works can see where the facts stop and the logic becomes twisted. Here is a large portion of what you have linked to on GA. I have bolded the operative terms and phrases to demonstrate the “INTELLIGENCE” involved. I will agree GA mimics biological evolution as a problem solving strategy. I will add that both GA’s and Biological evolution demonstrate that intelligence is needed for these things to work. If you could put forth a computer program that demonstrates pure randomness without any guidance, constraints, deletions, etc. that can solve a problem and improve itself, then you will have my attention. I understand that the GA is increasing information, similar to us humans with our intelligence. We as humans can use known information to discover new solutions.
See Below (from the link)
Concisely stated, a genetic algorithm (or GA for short) is a programming technique that mimics biological evolution as a problem-solving strategy. Given a specific problem to solve, the input to the GA is a set of potential solutions to that problem, encoded in some fashion, and a metric called a fitness function that allows each candidate to be quantitatively evaluated. These candidates may be solutions already known to work, with the aim of the GA being to improve them, but more often they are generated at random.
The GA then evaluates each candidate according to the fitness function. In a pool of randomly generated candidates, of course, most will not work at all, and these will be deleted. However, purely by chance, a few may hold promise - they may show activity, even if only weak and imperfect activity, toward solving the problem.
These promising candidates are kept and allowed to reproduce. Multiple copies are made of them, but the copies are not perfect; random changes are introduced during the copying process. These digital offspring then go on to the next generation, forming a new pool of candidate solutions, and are subjected to a second round of fitness evaluation. Those candidate solutions which were worsened, or made no better, by the changes to their code are again deleted; but again, purely by chance, the random variations introduced into the population may have improved some individuals, making them into better, more complete or more efficient solutions to the problem at hand. Again these winning individuals are selected and copied over into the next generation with random changes, and the process repeats. The expectation is that the average fitness of the population will increase each round, and so by repeating this process for hundreds or thousands of rounds, very good solutions to the problem (DESIRED RESULT)- that was meJ can be discovered.
...
Methods of representation
Before a genetic algorithm can be put to work on any problem, a method is needed to encode potential solutions to that problem in a form that a computer can process. One common approach is to encode solutions as binary strings: sequences of 1's and 0's, where the digit at each position represents the value of some aspect of the solution. Another, similar approach is to encode solutions as arrays of integers or decimal numbers, with each position again representing some particular aspect of the solution. This approach allows for greater precision and complexity than the comparatively restricted method of using binary numbers only and often "is intuitively closer to the problem space" (Fleming and Purshouse 2002, p. 1228).
This technique (the encode method –emphasis mine) was used, for example, in the work of Steffen Schulze-Kremer, who wrote a genetic algorithm to predict the three-dimensional structure of a protein based on the sequence of amino acids that go into it (Mitchell 1996, p. 62). Schulze-Kremer's GA used real-valued numbers to represent the so-called "torsion angles" between the peptide bonds that connect amino acids. (A protein is made up of a sequence of basic building blocks called amino acids, which are joined together like the links in a chain. Once all the amino acids are linked, the protein folds up into a complex three-dimensional shape based on which amino acids attract each other and which ones repel each other. The shape of a protein determines its function.) Genetic algorithms for training neural networks often use this method of encoding also.
A third approach is to represent individuals in a GA as strings of letters, where each letter again stands for a specific aspect of the solution. One example of this technique is Hiroaki Kitano's "grammatical encoding" approach, where a GA was put to the task of evolving a simple set of rules called a context-free grammar that was in turn used to generate neural networks for a variety of problems (Mitchell 1996, p. 74).
The virtue of all three of these methods is that they make it easy to define operators that cause the random changes in the selected candidates: flip a 0 to a 1 or vice versa, add or subtract from the value of a number by a randomly chosen amount, or change one letter to another. (See the section on Methods of change for more detail about the genetic operators.) Another strategy, developed principally by John Koza of Stanford University and called genetic programming, represents programs as branching data structures called trees (Koza et al. 2003, p. 35). In this approach, random changes can be brought about by changing the operator or altering the value at a given node in the tree, or replacing one subtree with another.