Balta1701

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 09:19 AM) Yeah, if you can make it to the convention, that is. Well, I guess there will always be time for that. I'm sitting in a basement office at a school that I chose over MIT and that likes to consider itself a pretty decent rival to that school north of Boston, and I can tell you this...these "futurists" that Juggernaut is referring to as proving ID certainly have eluded me during my time here.

In other words, Juggs's definition of intelligent life is "I'll know it when I see it".

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 10:11 PM) Boat looks a little full there Spicoli. That is a big cake. That's a nice guitar.

QUOTE(knightni @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 10:29 PM) The fact that there is an environment for ANY living organism is the most improbable fact of all. This will be my last post tonight on this topic since I have to go do some reading about crystallization of gabbro under mid-oceanic ridges. Actually...that's not a fact, that's an opinion. Why? Because right now, there simply is no way to quantify what environment a living organism can survive under. In my last post, I laid out what I believe most scientists believe are the 3 requirements for some sort of organic life to form...liquid water, organic molecules, and an energy source. These conditions may have existed on Earth, Mars, Europa, and possibly even Venus or other moons early in the Solar system. To really evaluate your statement that it is a highly improbable event...we need to know what other variables have to be controlled for. Without offering me up any more of those variables (which right now, no one can really do in toto), you cannot give any firm expression for how improbable the sequence of events which gives rise to self replicating organisms truly is. Therefore, you are just asserting your belief that it is highly improbable. I on the other hand would assert that the conditions required certainly existed on 1 early planet in this solar system, and may well have existed on others. Therefore, I would argue that the requirements are not that extreme, and while the probability of life forming may in fact be fairly low...it clearly is non-zero, and may be significantly above zero.

QUOTE(knightni @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 10:20 PM) Okay, you can spontaneously have an explosion occur if gases build up somewhere... But it is HIGHLY improbable that the rocks, debris etc. from that explosion can just happen fall into place so that it creates a planet that is 100% perfect for living organisms. See, now here's the really interesting one...yes, it is highly improbable that everything would fall together that way...but that's not how it happened. What actually happened is that the conditions for the first life to be created were somehow possible on the early earth. How probable is that? Well, that depends on what the requirements for life are. Clearly you need organic material, liquid water, and an energy input. Those circumstances may in fact be fairly common - they may have happened 3 or 4 times in our solar system alone. Without a good explanataion of exactly what is required for life to start on Earth, I cannot give you exact numbers as to probability, so any attempt to do so would be futile. All I can say is that those are the 3 basic conditions that need to be met, and they are in fact fairly common. What conditions need to exist beyond that? I cannot say, because science has not gotten to that point yet. The reality on Earth is that the history of the Earth has been shaped entirely by the existence of life. CO2 has been dramatically reduced in the atmosphere by life forms taking that CO2, using energy to fix it into organic carbon, and then depositing that carbon in a form which is subducted into the earth. Oxygen has been dramatically increased through this same process. The chemistry of the ocean has been dramatically changed by organisms using different available solutes in a wide variety of ways...removing some solutes from the water, dramatically increasing others. The chemistry of the land has been dramatically changed by the colonization of land by life. The Earth was not "created" in a prime condition for life. When it formed, it formed with the water and organic molecules found throughout the solar system on its surface...something not at all unexpected. From there, once life started, life has shaped the Earth into something ideal for life, and the Earth has shaped that life (through natural selection) into a form that is ideal for survival on that planet.

QUOTE(knightni @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 10:05 PM) The earth tilted "just so" and JUUST the right distance from the sun to keep life alive. Oxygen/Nitrogen/Carbon Dioxide levels in a perfect amount for breathing. Even if there was evolution, the beginnings of life are pretty unlikely. I've never seen my breakfast combine into a living organism all on it's own. Anything humans do on earth scientifically is just an adjustment of what is already here. Nothing new has been created on this earth by humans. Actually...oxygen levels have varied significantly throughout geologic time. The first appearance of significant levels of oxygen on Earth didn't happen until roughly 2.3 billion years ago give or take an Eon or two. Prior to that, the Earth had a reducing atmosphere - if you put iron out in the atmosphere, it would not have rusted. It probably would have been loaded with CO2 at times. In fact, the Earth may also have completely frozen over several times, leading to a massive increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as it was pumped up through volcanic activity. Oxygen/nitrogen levels have varied significantly through even more recent geologic time. About 400-300 million years ago, the oxygen level of the earth appears to have been much higher...as high as 30-40% at some times. There is good evidence for this in the fossil record...evidence for massive wildfires fed by the higher oxygen levels, life forms that evolved which were not processing oxygen as efficiently. The Oxygen level may in fact have taken a catastrophic drop right around the time of the End-Permian mass extinction...the worst mass extinction in Earth's history. It may have even dropped below 10%. There is also evidence for this...species that were adapted to harsh environments, such as reptiles which lived at high elevations, were some of the most successful organisms at surviving the die off. Now we're something like 22% oxygen...and that is the perfect level for us. Why? Not because it was designed for us, but because our species evolved in a world with 22% oxygen. Our bodies were designed to survive in 22% oxygen because that is what we were living in. In fact, you can probably see evidence of selection on the human body based on atmospheric pressure...for example, there are villages in Kenya where you can knock on every door and find a marathon champion at each one. Why? It may very well be that their bodies have adapted to lower oxygen at higher elevations, and when you put those bodies at a lower elevation, they suddenly find their bodies loaded with oxygen. As the Mesozoic and Cenozoic preceded, the oxygen level gradually began to recover as a new equilibrium was established between land plants and animals.

QUOTE(knightni @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 10:02 PM) Honestly, I find it tough to believe that life on earth just spontaneously happened. There had to have been some sort of help somewhere. God? Aliens? You can't just spontaneously have something "occur". It's highly improbable. Ok, now here is 1 key point...we're confusing 2 issues. Evolution of Life through Natural Selection of inhereted characteristics says absolutely nothing about the origin of life on Earth or anywhere else. So this is now a totally separate issue from anything dealing with evolution. Evolution based on natural selection only matters once you have a being which is capable of passing on genetic material to its offspring. Without that, Natural Selection doesn't matter. On the second issue...I would say that yes, in fact, you can spontaneously have something just "Occur", if you have an input of energy from an outside source such as the sun. When a large amount of energy is released and absorbed by another system, it must be either released or stored in something. On this planet, it has been stored as information. While we do not yet have a full explanation for how life on Earth first evolved...that doesn't mean there is no answer to that question. At some point in my lifetime, we may very well have a good answer to it.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 09:54 PM) You have nailed it. I view ID to mean Intelligent Design but the majority of the 64% polled view it as Intelligent Designer. All I've advocated is that spontaenous mutation & natural selection alone do not account for human evolution. Darwin himself stated the same thing when asked about the human eye. He used the word "absurd" at that notion.Seriously...who exactly cares what Darwin thought was "Absurd"...Darwin didn't have the full story. He didn't have an understanding of genetics, how traits were inherited, or mutation itself. That doesn't mean that we can't trace essentially a complete lineage of the modern mammalian eye back through time. (Read both part 1 and part 2 here) How exactly is this unexpected? The evolution of a more complex brain would allow easily for the evolution of a more complex eye able to send more complex signals to that more complex brain, and the selective advantage of a more complex eye to a creature that is trying to avoid predators on an African plain should be obvious to almost everyone. What you refer to as strange theories I refer to as eminently practical theories to explain observed behaviors. I see nothing magical in viewing the universe as a series of vibrating strings that move in 12 dimensions, and I don't consider it to be a logical conclusion of it at all. And secondly...and more importantly...a grand unifying theory may lead itself to a discussion of a God, but it does not in any way lend itself to intelligent design in the way you suggest. It may be possible to argue that there was a God who set the laws of the universe and constants of the universe to what they currently are (again here I would say this is just a cop out - saying that because science doesn't yet have a full explanation a God must be the cause, but that's a side point)...but nothing in quantum mechanics, a unified field theory, or any of the other models you present suggest in any way that there is a designer who is willing to interfere with the laws of the universe in order to give rise to "Intelligently designed" species. In fact, it would probably argue even stronger that if there were a designer...he did his designing 15 billion years ago and left it alone, because why else would he have founded a universe based on constant, unchanging laws...thereby providing a strong arguement against your other points about the "Uniqueness" of the human animal.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 09:52 PM) Damn Pierce in Denver... can him and Carmelo co-exist? If Carmelo can co-exist with George Karl... Is it just me, or has anyone else been overwhelmed lately at the attempt to build teams by combining all of the start talent that can be possibly found anywhere and hoping that it works out...kind of the exact opposite of the Detroit model? It started with the Kobe-Shaq-Payton-Malone Lakers... Now you've got the Walker-Williams-Wade-Shaq Heat, the Ginobili/Parker/Duncan/Finley Mavs, the Carmelo/Pierce Nuggets, etc.

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 09:42 PM) yep, I just saw that like 10 minutes ago. I saw that Maddux got the win against the Cards and had to go look at the records. I don't root for the Cubs, I root for Maddux to get another 15 win season. But that doesn't look possible this year. He's got 12 wins, the team has I believe 23 games left...that should give him 4 starts the rest of the year...maybe they could push him up to 5 if they really try and they have off days to shuffle people around. It looks possible...I'm not sure about probable given the team he's pitching for, but it's certainly not yet impossible.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 09:41 PM) I'd go more often but I am a freshman in college and have no money at all. I'm a grad student and 2000 miles away and therefore have no money at all. I have my dad working on Playoff tickets for me (I'll cash in some credit card points for the plane fare).

Bye Bye St. Louis...hope you kept our chair warm for us...and didn't, you know...sully it up or anything. Seriously, let's win about 36 more in a row and put this thing out of reach. In fact, let's win exactly 36 more.

Guys...I promise...I have no money right now...if you make the playoffs and there are tickets available...I will fly back to Chicago and suck some up.

Boston has really needed to pull off a version of the early 00's Bulls, trade some veterans for draft picks and salary flexibility, and truly admit that they need to rebuild, for quite some time. Trading Pierce is in fact a key part of acknowledging that they need to rebuild. I just don't like what they're getting for him...they need draft picks and youth, not extra players.

Now this one is truly heartwarming...in the midst of one of the greatest natural disasters in U.S. history, it's good to know that the Republicans weren't troubled by any crazy notions of wanting to appear bipartisan or allow for accoutability in their aid packages. Those damn treasonous Democrats...if we let them see the text of this bill...The Hurricanists Win!

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 09:03 PM) You won't find many researchers mention the term ID. The term is simply too hot an issue right now for any researcher to risk such media pressure. Instead they will make use of terms suggestive of ID like "blueprint", "unique", "priviledged", "enormous", "exceptionally" "complex", "software", etc. I would do the same thing if I were in there shoes. Use words that are strongly suggestive of an intelligent design but including references to natural selection. Lahn: "Human brain evolution required a major overhaul of the genetic blueprint." Vastly accelerated evolutionary changes in humans is a stark contrast to the belief that natural selection takes eons of time & the selective process at work in other species. It remains a mystery as to why this happened. No, it does not. Vastly accelerated human evolutionary changes simply argues that there was a strong selective advantage to the increased brain size and complexity of humans. That is written throughout the papers that you are trying to cite. In fact, the papers you are choosing to cite have no problem attaching a basis in selection for changes you are claiming are impossible. Secondly...you are clearly failing to define your timescale very well here. We are talking about vast changes in the human genome yes...over a period of 25 million years. This is more than enough time. We are talking about hundreds of thousands, if not millions of generations in there, depending on the average lifespan of each organism. You say that researchers using words like "complex, enormous, exceptionally" are somehow arguments that prove they really want to talk about ID? First, I would ask whether or not you have spoken to those people and actually know that this is what they mean, and you are not just reading additional meaning into it. Secondly, if the answer is no, and you have not in fact spoken to that particular research group and found out that is the case, how is it you can infer from his language that he really is talking about ID in 1 case but really does not mean the words he is writing when he talks about how dramatic of a selective advantage there must have been for those traits to be adopted? Finally...you say it is a mystery exactly why that happened...on this point I must actually agree with you, because there is not yet any scientific consensus about exactly what the main driving force behind the dramatic expansion of the proto-human mind was. Some would say it was driven by the diet. Some would say it was driven by tool use. I would argue communication is the biggest driving factor. But the fact that there is debate going on in an issue at present is clearly not a reason to suddenly toss all of that discussion out the window and point towards an unknown, unexplained, and unprovable designer.

While we're using hindsight...Jason Schmidt left the Giants game after 4 2/3 innings today with some sort of a groin tweak...don't know how serious yet.

QUOTE(qwerty @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 08:30 PM) You have blind hate for kenny williams at this point. Sox would need to win two or three world seriosu before a select few of you would give him props and say he did just a decent job. If KW does not win Exec of the Year...someone needs to put a hit out on Billy Beane.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 08:02 PM) What if Kelvim Escobar pitches instead of Colon? He may very well...Colon is still having back troubles...they held Escobar's pitches down in an appearance yesterday so that he'd be ready to go against us.

QUOTE(Dam8610 @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 09:11 PM) Well, because an undefeated September cannot last into October. Anyway Vive le thread de Septembre! Oh, and hopefully Jimbo's Drinker will start an "OCTOBER TO REMEMBER" thread on October 1st. I tell you what...right now...this sure as hell looks like it's gonna be an October to remember. Right after our 30-0 September of course!

QUOTE(winodj @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 07:50 PM) Shingo blew a 10th inning save in Atlanta tonight. I believe it was Langerhans that beat him...line drive to left field.

QUOTE(AssHatSoxFan @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 09:07 PM) sorry ozzie but you didnt bring your best lefty out of the pen as I recall cotts was not warming up I could have swore that Cotts was warming up an inning earlier. But yeah, you're right on Marte not being the best lefty out there any more. Marte needs to sit down for about a week with Cooper and just work on mechanics. Something's clearly wrong there. The people above me are right that we don't "Need" Marte to be dominant in the playoffs. But wouldn't it sure be damn helpful if he could be?

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2005 @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 08:09 PM) IMO, The number one obstacle standing in the way of the Sox and their first trip to the World Series in 473240464604 years is Ozzie. In My opinion...Ozzie Guillen's going to be getting himself a shiny new trophy at the end of the year saying something about how he was the manager of the year. Yeah, he keeps pissing me off with about 1 or 2 decisions a game. But god damnit, the guy's on pace to win us 100 games...and there's probably not a manager in baseball I'm not going to be pissed off at 1 or 2 times per game. Hell, have you tried watching a Cubs game lately?

QUOTE(Be Good @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 08:57 PM) LOL is it me, or does it sound like we lost tonight, and we're in the midst of a 7 game losing streak. While you can disagree with the Oz decison's I don't think you can complain with results. The best pen in baseball. Actually I believe in terms of ERA, the Indians have a better bullpen than us.

QUOTE(Sox Hustler @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 08:11 PM) The sox now made that 7 game losing streak a thing of the past with their resurgance, hopefully they keep kicking ass. I wanna see more than 8 in a row this time. I think it's been something like 20-25 years since the Sox won 9 in a row. We're due.