Posts by Pole

In the evolution process it may be possible to calculate some things also, but the problem here is that the influences, then number of external parameters in the formulas are to large.

True, but the complexity of the model does not mean that it's "pure mathematical randomness". Similarily, current weather models are believed to be relatively deterministic in principle (that's why our supercomputers allow us to predict weather patterns for the next day or two), but in practice the complexity of those patterns is so mind-boggling that we like to simply the description of such phenomena by calling them "random".
As I said thousands of different probability distributions have been observed in nature. Let's not put them all in the same bag.
Pole

65

I'm an ex-dub as of tonight.

by Pole in

jw
friends

i just want to let you know my updated status.

today i had another elder visit.

last time i had a call about a month ago.

Pole

google,
:: LOL. you know what? i've got the keys too. i could go to the hall and party all night...
That's a brilliant idea!!! hehe
Pole

49

Creationist Answer Please

by skyman in

yesterday there was a post that made me think.

i have a question for you.

i think creationist are ruled by emotion and not by provable facts.

Pole

foreword wrote
:::No one has a leg to stand on. Proofs are rare. It's just hard for me to believe it all came out of chance.
SNG replied:
::I just want to remark that chance is only one half of the evolution equation. It is true that the present diversity of life could never have come about by chance. But that is not what evolution is proposing. We use "chance" to describe the genetic changes that happen, which we cannot predict, seemingly at random.They very well may be controlled by very definite rules which, if completely known, would allow us to predict them. But at any rate, that point aside, this so-called chance provides the genetic diversity from generation to generation, but the exact opposite of chance, namely the cold, hard fist of reality, does the selecting.
You see, SNG, I only told you yesterday on the GUID thread it's useful to learn something about random processes and probability distributions in Nature to refute the randomness fallacy, and here we go - you have to deal with it again ;-).
foreword,
1)
SNG, has already touched upon the problem you've raised, but be careful when you talk about purely random processes in the Universe. It's ok when you say the movement of gas particles is largely random. But most processes described by the theory of evolution are not that random. They have specific probability distributions. In other words, there is only a certain limited amount of randomness involved. The border between pure randomness (total enthropy) and strict rules is a fuzzy one. Most phenomena have both characteristics but probability distribution rules can nevertheless be viewed as fuzzy rules.
For instance you could claim that the frequency of phone calls to a big office is a random process, therefore you'd find it difficult to believe that there is some pattern to them. But it's interesting to know that phone calls frequencies are well modelled by the Poisson distribution. So there you go - you have a statistical rule. It may not be fully deterministic - you cannot say that the exact time of the next call, but you can say how probable it is that the next call will be within the next minute. And it's not necessarily 50%-50% probability. Sometimes it is 99%. Samelogic can be applied to some biological phenomena.
2) ::It's just hard for me to believe it all came out of chance.
No wonder. You are a human. "Making sense" and beliveing is one of your fundamental surviving techniques. Ever wondered why we have all those "constellations" of stars named after divine heros with all the stories attached to them?
Pole

22

Boy

by prophecor in

.

any questions?

Pole

Roger that, jgnat. I'm his/her fan already. I wonder what JCannon thinks of Boy, though. Ahhh, I couldn't help it...
Pole

49

Creationist Answer Please

by skyman in

yesterday there was a post that made me think.

i have a question for you.

i think creationist are ruled by emotion and not by provable facts.

Pole

The feeling that God is matter is also a strange one. It means God is his own creation...

Wouldn't such a view count as a variety of pantheism?

Pole

22

Boy

by prophecor in

.

any questions?

Pole

prophecor,

Is that you after a plastic surgery? I liked your other face better.

Pole - of the "I don't understand the cultural reference, so I'll make a silly remark" class

22

Fun with GUIDs * Geek Topic Advisory *

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

recently i worked on a db file storage system that saved files under guid id's.

i became curious what the odds were of the db accidentally generating a duplicate guid for two different files, so i did the math.. here is what i found:.

number of possible 128bit guids:.

Pole

Danny,
::I think the gaussian distribution is the same as the normal distribution mentioned in the thread.
C'est vrai, but I've already said that, my friend ;-). BTW, are you a French, or Dutch speaking Belgian?
::This gaussian distribution is observed in nature a lot. Especially in quantum physics.
And in social sciences. Except that perfect gaussian (normal) distribution is rarely to be found in practice.
Pole