AE Public BB
Texas school board evolving ID strategy
Post by Wesley R. Elsberry
Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,01:43)Why not teach several of the various theories? (Ie: Evolution, Creationism, ID, Theistic evolution) Evolution shouldn't be the only de-facto theory taught. I mean, it can't even convince the full gamut of the scientific community who think that stuff up. Why try and teach it as the only truth?
You seem to have mistaken a socio-political movement for science. It is a common failing of those within the religious antievolution movement to have difficulty distinguishing between unsupported propaganda and actual scientific content.
You also seem to have overlooked the fact that the theistic evolutonists want real science taught, not the propagation of antievolution ignorance.
Evolutionary science should be taught as science, which means that it is a part of the knowledge delivered via the scientific process, not "the only truth". It is the only set of explanations that has passed the review of the scientific community, which means it is also the only set of explanations that will be topical during a class on science.
Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,01:43)Why not teach several of the various theories? (Ie: Evolution, Creationism, ID, Theistic evolution) Evolution shouldn't be the only de-facto theory taught. I mean, it can't even convince the full gamut of the scientific community who think that stuff up. Why try and teach it as the only truth?
You seem to have mistaken a socio-political movement for science. It is a common failing of those within the religious antievolution movement to have difficulty distinguishing between unsupported propaganda and actual scientific content.
You also seem to have overlooked the fact that the theistic evolutonists want real science taught, not the propagation of antievolution ignorance.
Evolutionary science should be taught as science, which means that it is a part of the knowledge delivered via the scientific process, not "the only truth". It is the only set of explanations that has passed the review of the scientific community, which means it is also the only set of explanations that will be topical during a class on science.
Categories: AE Public BB
Texas school board evolving ID strategy
Post by Wesley R. Elsberry
Quote (dhogaza @ Mar. 10 2010,14:43) Quote Plus, I'd feel silly if I stood aside and let the religious antievolutionists take over and large-scale nuclear exchange did not happen.
Sounds oddly like Pascal's wager ...
Except that I get the benefit of my action now, not later.
Quote (dhogaza @ Mar. 10 2010,14:43) Quote Plus, I'd feel silly if I stood aside and let the religious antievolutionists take over and large-scale nuclear exchange did not happen.
Sounds oddly like Pascal's wager ...
Except that I get the benefit of my action now, not later.
Categories: AE Public BB
Philo 4483: Christian Faith and Science
Post by Reed
Quote (bjray @ Mar. 15 2010,23:12)1)_Why is there such an irrational disgust for scientific data or theories that might combat evolutionary theory?
Your premise is incorrect. Science accepts new data all the time, and scientific data that challenged current theories of evolution would have no problem. There are plenty of acrimonious disputes in real science, but eventually the most useful models prevail. If ID produced a more useful model than evolution, it (or whatever part made it useful) would eventually be accepted... unfortunately for ID proponents, ID currently doesn't produce any useful model of anything. Dressing "goddidit" up in some sciencey sounding jargon doesn't provide any useful insight.
Quote A gentleman phoned in and suggested that evolution be the only theory taught (period). When the broadcaster questioned, why not teach theistic evolution, creationism, intelligent design, and evolution?
Here we get to the stuff that does trigger disgust, but this is not an irrational reaction. Creationism, whether in the ID flavor or otherwise, is not supported by any coherent scientific theory (if you believe there is a scientific theory of ID, please feel free to present it!) For those of us who value the scientific process, the attempt to pass off nonsense as science is directly contrary to our interests. The reaction you get when you try to get creationism into the science class is the same reaction you get from a doctor who sees a quack passing off some ineffective treatment off as a cure for cancer. Real science cures diseases. "Goddidit" does not.
Theistic evolution generally doesn't fall into this category, because it's proponents* don't try to pass it off as science. It doesn't belong in science class, because it's a theological or philosophical argument, but unlike ID, it's not an attack on the whole enterprise of rational inquiry.
* Ken Miller is a good example of this. Oh, and unlike Dembski, he showed up at Dover. His testimony is worth reading, as is the whole transcript. You can find it at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html Seriously, if you want to understand why most of the scientific world views ID as creationism in a cheap tux, it's a good place to start.
Finally, you will find a lot of snark and crude jokes on this forum. It's a place where people come to unwind, frequently by mocking creationists who have shown themselves to be immune to reason. If you wish to engage in a serious discussion, you are free to ignore responses which do not pertain to it. There are many here who will engage in serious discussion, as long as you do likewise. OTOH, if you show that you aren't capable of engaging in rational discussion (e.g. Robert Byers), then eventually all the responses you get will be mockery. If you want an excuse not to address serious questions, "OMG TEH MEANIE EVILUTIONISTS SAID NASTY THINGS" is ready made for you.
Quote (bjray @ Mar. 15 2010,23:12)1)_Why is there such an irrational disgust for scientific data or theories that might combat evolutionary theory?
Your premise is incorrect. Science accepts new data all the time, and scientific data that challenged current theories of evolution would have no problem. There are plenty of acrimonious disputes in real science, but eventually the most useful models prevail. If ID produced a more useful model than evolution, it (or whatever part made it useful) would eventually be accepted... unfortunately for ID proponents, ID currently doesn't produce any useful model of anything. Dressing "goddidit" up in some sciencey sounding jargon doesn't provide any useful insight.
Quote A gentleman phoned in and suggested that evolution be the only theory taught (period). When the broadcaster questioned, why not teach theistic evolution, creationism, intelligent design, and evolution?
Here we get to the stuff that does trigger disgust, but this is not an irrational reaction. Creationism, whether in the ID flavor or otherwise, is not supported by any coherent scientific theory (if you believe there is a scientific theory of ID, please feel free to present it!) For those of us who value the scientific process, the attempt to pass off nonsense as science is directly contrary to our interests. The reaction you get when you try to get creationism into the science class is the same reaction you get from a doctor who sees a quack passing off some ineffective treatment off as a cure for cancer. Real science cures diseases. "Goddidit" does not.
Theistic evolution generally doesn't fall into this category, because it's proponents* don't try to pass it off as science. It doesn't belong in science class, because it's a theological or philosophical argument, but unlike ID, it's not an attack on the whole enterprise of rational inquiry.
* Ken Miller is a good example of this. Oh, and unlike Dembski, he showed up at Dover. His testimony is worth reading, as is the whole transcript. You can find it at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html Seriously, if you want to understand why most of the scientific world views ID as creationism in a cheap tux, it's a good place to start.
Finally, you will find a lot of snark and crude jokes on this forum. It's a place where people come to unwind, frequently by mocking creationists who have shown themselves to be immune to reason. If you wish to engage in a serious discussion, you are free to ignore responses which do not pertain to it. There are many here who will engage in serious discussion, as long as you do likewise. OTOH, if you show that you aren't capable of engaging in rational discussion (e.g. Robert Byers), then eventually all the responses you get will be mockery. If you want an excuse not to address serious questions, "OMG TEH MEANIE EVILUTIONISTS SAID NASTY THINGS" is ready made for you.
Categories: AE Public BB
Texas school board evolving ID strategy
Post by bjray
Why not teach several of the various theories? (Ie: Evolution, Creationism, ID, Theistic evolution) Evolution shouldn't be the only de-facto theory taught. I mean, it can't even convince the full gamut of the scientific community who think that stuff up. Why try and teach it as the only truth?
Why not teach several of the various theories? (Ie: Evolution, Creationism, ID, Theistic evolution) Evolution shouldn't be the only de-facto theory taught. I mean, it can't even convince the full gamut of the scientific community who think that stuff up. Why try and teach it as the only truth?
Categories: AE Public BB
Philo 4483: Christian Faith and Science
Post by bjray
Mr. Ames, you finally get your chance to engage with a student of the oh-so famous “Dr. Dr. D” as you refer to him.
First, I would like start off by offering my gratitude for the place to come and offer up questions in regards to, well, Dr. Dembski for one (since you seem to have such an extensive knowledge about him); and secondly about science and evolutionary theory (assuming the later are the types of questions you are seeking?)
Unfortunately, I do not have such an extensive knowledge of Dembski’s background as you; however, I do meet with the man for several hours every week. (That has to count for something, right?) But, do know that comments and questions about him and his past actions are of no consequence to me.
I think a good place to start might be with the questions you posed in your previous post. Several of your questions deal with Dembski’s past events, of which I do not wish to specifically entertain due to previously mentioned reasons. However, I will comment on the first question you posed.
When Dembski mentioned in his syllabus (which I see you’ve got your hands on) these sites (like this one) will “open your eyes;” I understood him to mean that we will come to realize that the “scientific” community at large are not so receptive to alternate theories to evolution. Furthermore, they tend to be more tenacious about refuting even the thought of some sort of Creationism/Intelligent Design. (Of which I take you to be the opposite beings you seem so anxious to receive any questions I might have, but I guess we’ll see.) Dembski has in fact mentioned “respectful treatment” in so many words. From my class experience thus far, he is very respectful and seeks to explain the various viewpoints many mainstream scientists hold (ie: Francis Collins, Dawkins, Behe, Gould, etc.). However, after reading several forums, responses to Dembski’s work, and a few other things, I have found that the environment is not as objective when seeking truth in science. (For example, look at this post up until my own. They are either full of conniving remarks about Dembski’s past actions or babblings about receiving a post from me (a student). It is these types of posts that are there to “open your eyes.” (Although, I am not so naive to realize that people (in general) are like this, no matter what the topic.)
Unfortunately I cannot comment on your second question as I am not as read-up on the Kitzmiller v Dover case as I should. My assumption would be that Dembski has perfectly good reason for the action he took (if you’d like I can ask him :) ).
In response to your third question, I would first like to know from where you got your citation of Dembski stating that there is “some kind of Scientific Conspiracy” that is suppressing the ideas he advocates in Intelligent Design? Then I might be able to assist in finding the answer to your question.
In response to your fourth question: This seems to be the mantra of anyone who holds to a view that is not the mainstream perspective or the most acceptable among those in higher authority. In other words, the minority view tends to be seen as the one being preached among only those who will believe it. One of the things that would hold anyone from promoting a minority/adversarial viewpoint (especially in the scientific community) that would combat the mainstream viewpoint, subjects themselves to the chance of “committing intellectual suicide.” I’m not suggesting that Dembski has done this, but it would appear that his chances for a full-on proliferation of ID in the scientific community are slim to none, so long as evolution is the dominant theory to be held. Furthermore, Dembski’s only method of engaging his ideas is not always among those who would agree with him.
I think that is enough about Dembski for a bit. One might think the class was primarily about him.
If I might pose a few questions myself:
1)_Why is there such an irrational disgust for scientific data or theories that might combat evolutionary theory? For example, just this past week I was listening to a radio broadcast taking questions/comments on the Texas textbook issues. A gentleman phoned in and suggested that evolution be the only theory taught (period). When the broadcaster questioned, why not teach theistic evolution, creationism, intelligent design, and evolution? The man erupted and was distraught at the idea of any separate (inaccurate – the man’s wording) theory being taught other than evolution. He confidently asserted that evolution was the ONLY and wholly ACCURATE theory. Why be so dogmatic against other views?
2)_Most mainstream scientists that I have read so far would all agree to something of this effect: Creationists are irrational and fail to objectively look at scientific evidence. Help me understand how this might be true and if evolution proponents can live up to the same scrutiny?
All right, I’ve said plenty for the first post. I look forward to hearing your response. Note that I will do my best to respond to all of the reply posts I get to this one, because I imagine I am out-numbered here (me being the only student thus far..)
Also, to OgreMkV:
_Dembski has the requirement in his syllabus for the purpose of discussion and sharing thoughts/ideas. I doubt that he is worried that any of his students might “lose their way” as you stated. Why do you automatically suspect that what his students have to say might be inherently false and what you (or others) have to say is truth? Haven’t you already then defeated the purpose of this forum?
Oh, and regarding your insolent comment about him administratively dropping his students, let’s be serious, stick to the forum’s purpose.
Mr. Ames, you finally get your chance to engage with a student of the oh-so famous “Dr. Dr. D” as you refer to him.
First, I would like start off by offering my gratitude for the place to come and offer up questions in regards to, well, Dr. Dembski for one (since you seem to have such an extensive knowledge about him); and secondly about science and evolutionary theory (assuming the later are the types of questions you are seeking?)
Unfortunately, I do not have such an extensive knowledge of Dembski’s background as you; however, I do meet with the man for several hours every week. (That has to count for something, right?) But, do know that comments and questions about him and his past actions are of no consequence to me.
I think a good place to start might be with the questions you posed in your previous post. Several of your questions deal with Dembski’s past events, of which I do not wish to specifically entertain due to previously mentioned reasons. However, I will comment on the first question you posed.
When Dembski mentioned in his syllabus (which I see you’ve got your hands on) these sites (like this one) will “open your eyes;” I understood him to mean that we will come to realize that the “scientific” community at large are not so receptive to alternate theories to evolution. Furthermore, they tend to be more tenacious about refuting even the thought of some sort of Creationism/Intelligent Design. (Of which I take you to be the opposite beings you seem so anxious to receive any questions I might have, but I guess we’ll see.) Dembski has in fact mentioned “respectful treatment” in so many words. From my class experience thus far, he is very respectful and seeks to explain the various viewpoints many mainstream scientists hold (ie: Francis Collins, Dawkins, Behe, Gould, etc.). However, after reading several forums, responses to Dembski’s work, and a few other things, I have found that the environment is not as objective when seeking truth in science. (For example, look at this post up until my own. They are either full of conniving remarks about Dembski’s past actions or babblings about receiving a post from me (a student). It is these types of posts that are there to “open your eyes.” (Although, I am not so naive to realize that people (in general) are like this, no matter what the topic.)
Unfortunately I cannot comment on your second question as I am not as read-up on the Kitzmiller v Dover case as I should. My assumption would be that Dembski has perfectly good reason for the action he took (if you’d like I can ask him :) ).
In response to your third question, I would first like to know from where you got your citation of Dembski stating that there is “some kind of Scientific Conspiracy” that is suppressing the ideas he advocates in Intelligent Design? Then I might be able to assist in finding the answer to your question.
In response to your fourth question: This seems to be the mantra of anyone who holds to a view that is not the mainstream perspective or the most acceptable among those in higher authority. In other words, the minority view tends to be seen as the one being preached among only those who will believe it. One of the things that would hold anyone from promoting a minority/adversarial viewpoint (especially in the scientific community) that would combat the mainstream viewpoint, subjects themselves to the chance of “committing intellectual suicide.” I’m not suggesting that Dembski has done this, but it would appear that his chances for a full-on proliferation of ID in the scientific community are slim to none, so long as evolution is the dominant theory to be held. Furthermore, Dembski’s only method of engaging his ideas is not always among those who would agree with him.
I think that is enough about Dembski for a bit. One might think the class was primarily about him.
If I might pose a few questions myself:
1)_Why is there such an irrational disgust for scientific data or theories that might combat evolutionary theory? For example, just this past week I was listening to a radio broadcast taking questions/comments on the Texas textbook issues. A gentleman phoned in and suggested that evolution be the only theory taught (period). When the broadcaster questioned, why not teach theistic evolution, creationism, intelligent design, and evolution? The man erupted and was distraught at the idea of any separate (inaccurate – the man’s wording) theory being taught other than evolution. He confidently asserted that evolution was the ONLY and wholly ACCURATE theory. Why be so dogmatic against other views?
2)_Most mainstream scientists that I have read so far would all agree to something of this effect: Creationists are irrational and fail to objectively look at scientific evidence. Help me understand how this might be true and if evolution proponents can live up to the same scrutiny?
All right, I’ve said plenty for the first post. I look forward to hearing your response. Note that I will do my best to respond to all of the reply posts I get to this one, because I imagine I am out-numbered here (me being the only student thus far..)
Also, to OgreMkV:
_Dembski has the requirement in his syllabus for the purpose of discussion and sharing thoughts/ideas. I doubt that he is worried that any of his students might “lose their way” as you stated. Why do you automatically suspect that what his students have to say might be inherently false and what you (or others) have to say is truth? Haven’t you already then defeated the purpose of this forum?
Oh, and regarding your insolent comment about him administratively dropping his students, let’s be serious, stick to the forum’s purpose.
Categories: AE Public BB
Science Break
Post by fnxtr
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 15 2010,13:51) Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 15 2010,21:28)At least some Canadians can think and do experiments.
Canadian teenager finds bacteria that degrade plastic bags.
I am genuinely impressed! The boy knows his science process all right!
(But the first word of the article was "WATERLOO". I expected something ID-related :))
Sure, praise him now, but when these things get loose and become the plastic-eating equivalent of the Ringworld silicon bug, you'll....
blame Canada!
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 15 2010,13:51) Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 15 2010,21:28)At least some Canadians can think and do experiments.
Canadian teenager finds bacteria that degrade plastic bags.
I am genuinely impressed! The boy knows his science process all right!
(But the first word of the article was "WATERLOO". I expected something ID-related :))
Sure, praise him now, but when these things get loose and become the plastic-eating equivalent of the Ringworld silicon bug, you'll....
blame Canada!
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by fnxtr
That must be because
SGgolfball = 0.91*
*ρ is rho in html 4.0 but doesn't work here, apparently.
That must be because
SGgolfball = 0.91*
*ρ is rho in html 4.0 but doesn't work here, apparently.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 3
Post by didymos
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 15 2010,16:47)O'Leary admits: in her world, [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/speciation/uncommon-descent-contest-question-21-reposted-what-if-darwins-theory-only-works-6-percent-
of-the-time/#comment-349903]"Statistical significance" = "margin of error"[/URL]
Fist bumps all 'round.
of-the-time/#comment-349906" target="_blank">LOL: Quote
hrun0815
03/15/2010
8:48 pm
Yeah. I agree with Denyse. For example, if only six percent of the population are serial killers, it’s probably not a big deal. I mean, with an assumed four percent margin of error…
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 15 2010,16:47)O'Leary admits: in her world, [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/speciation/uncommon-descent-contest-question-21-reposted-what-if-darwins-theory-only-works-6-percent-
of-the-time/#comment-349903]"Statistical significance" = "margin of error"[/URL]
Fist bumps all 'round.
of-the-time/#comment-349906" target="_blank">LOL: Quote
hrun0815
03/15/2010
8:48 pm
Yeah. I agree with Denyse. For example, if only six percent of the population are serial killers, it’s probably not a big deal. I mean, with an assumed four percent margin of error…
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by blipey
JoeTard: Quote Ya see Throton said it was a baseball-sized rock.
Yet that doesn't make any sense.
A piece of granite with the circumferance of a baseball would weigh much more.
And a piece of granite that weighed the same as a baseball would be smaller.
So how the fuck can a piece of granite be baseball-sized?
Later JoeTard: Quote Hail could be golf-ball sized.
JoeTard: Quote Ya see Throton said it was a baseball-sized rock.
Yet that doesn't make any sense.
A piece of granite with the circumferance of a baseball would weigh much more.
And a piece of granite that weighed the same as a baseball would be smaller.
So how the fuck can a piece of granite be baseball-sized?
Later JoeTard: Quote Hail could be golf-ball sized.
Categories: AE Public BB
The Bathroom Wall
Post by Lou FCD
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 14 2010,12:13) Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 09 2010,13:58)Moved from the UD thread, where it would be off topic.
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Mar. 09 2010,13:19)
Just like ID is not just naysaying of evolution (UD insists that it is so), nonwarming is not just the naysaying of climate science. Surely Joseph would not make something up! :O
On a marginally related note, I still laugh when I think about AFDave making up data as part of his argument and SteveStory making the TARD graph in response. Does anyone have that permalink to that chart handy? And where is AFDave these days?
The original graph
...with AFD's additions
...the punch line.
Here is where all that went down, in the original "AFDave's UPDATED Creator blah blah blah" thread.
(Hat tip to the girls.
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 14 2010,12:13) Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 09 2010,13:58)Moved from the UD thread, where it would be off topic.
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Mar. 09 2010,13:19)
Just like ID is not just naysaying of evolution (UD insists that it is so), nonwarming is not just the naysaying of climate science. Surely Joseph would not make something up! :O
On a marginally related note, I still laugh when I think about AFDave making up data as part of his argument and SteveStory making the TARD graph in response. Does anyone have that permalink to that chart handy? And where is AFDave these days?
The original graph
...with AFD's additions
...the punch line.
Here is where all that went down, in the original "AFDave's UPDATED Creator blah blah blah" thread.
(Hat tip to the girls.
Categories: AE Public BB
Can you do geology and junk the evolution bits ?
Post by Schroedinger's Dog
Quote (khan @ Mar. 16 2010,01:07)Page fault?
Definitly...
Quote (khan @ Mar. 16 2010,01:07)Page fault?
Definitly...
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 3
Post by Hermagoras
O'Leary admits: in her world, [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/speciation/uncommon-descent-contest-question-21-reposted-what-if-darwins-theory-only-works-6-percent-
of-the-time/#comment-349903]"Statistical significance" = "margin of error"[/URL]
Fist bumps all 'round.
O'Leary admits: in her world, [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/speciation/uncommon-descent-contest-question-21-reposted-what-if-darwins-theory-only-works-6-percent-
of-the-time/#comment-349903]"Statistical significance" = "margin of error"[/URL]
Fist bumps all 'round.
Categories: AE Public BB
Can you do geology and junk the evolution bits ?
Post by Henry J
Can we bear this kind of discussion? Or will it cause polarization, and thus seal our fate?
Can we bear this kind of discussion? Or will it cause polarization, and thus seal our fate?
Categories: AE Public BB
Happy (belated) Birfday Alan Fox
Post by Schroedinger's Dog
I haven't had time to follow the French stuff lately. Did we fair well?
I haven't had time to follow the French stuff lately. Did we fair well?
Categories: AE Public BB
Happy (belated) Birfday Alan Fox
Post by Louis
The first rule of Fight Club a lacklustre England performance is that we don't talk about Fight Club a lacklustre England performance.
It is in the memory hole, it didn't happen. Sadly it has been not happening rather a lot recently. I blame immgrants/gays/liberals/single mothers/scientists (delete as applicable).
Louis
The first rule of Fight Club a lacklustre England performance is that we don't talk about Fight Club a lacklustre England performance.
It is in the memory hole, it didn't happen. Sadly it has been not happening rather a lot recently. I blame immgrants/gays/liberals/single mothers/scientists (delete as applicable).
Louis
Categories: AE Public BB
Philo 4483: Christian Faith and Science
Post by Louis
Quote (Tom Ames @ Mar. 15 2010,22:20)[SNIP]
Oh, and please feel free to ignore anything that the poster named "Louis" puts up. He comes from a Very Special Place, and I'm told he really can't help it.
Not true. I can help it, I just don't want to. Where would be the fun in that?
Louis
Quote (Tom Ames @ Mar. 15 2010,22:20)[SNIP]
Oh, and please feel free to ignore anything that the poster named "Louis" puts up. He comes from a Very Special Place, and I'm told he really can't help it.
Not true. I can help it, I just don't want to. Where would be the fun in that?
Louis
Categories: AE Public BB
Philo 4483: Christian Faith and Science
Post by Tom Ames
Hi there, Dembski students! Just over a month to go to finish your project!
Please read the first post of this thread and then go ahead and ask your question. I'm sure we'll have the required number of words posted in no time at all! (Though we do request that the majority of these words be original to you, rather than the cut-and-pasted words of others.)
Oh, and please feel free to ignore anything that the poster named "Louis" puts up. He comes from a Very Special Place, and I'm told he really can't help it.
Hi there, Dembski students! Just over a month to go to finish your project!
Please read the first post of this thread and then go ahead and ask your question. I'm sure we'll have the required number of words posted in no time at all! (Though we do request that the majority of these words be original to you, rather than the cut-and-pasted words of others.)
Oh, and please feel free to ignore anything that the poster named "Louis" puts up. He comes from a Very Special Place, and I'm told he really can't help it.
Categories: AE Public BB
Science Break
Post by Albatrossity2
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Mar. 15 2010,16:56)OH MY GOD!!!!!
(I ask forgiveness from the atheists in the room)
From the DARPA solicitation Albatrossity2 mentioned...
Quote Recent research on biological sensor systems such as photosynthesis, magnetoreception, and olfaction, has uncovered tantalizing evidence that they operate using “manifestly” quantum effects. The Fenna-Matthews-Olson (FMO) complex forms a portion of the photosynthetic apparatus of purple bacteria. It was shown that at low temperatures and upon photon absorption, the excitons in the FMO complex migrate via quantum coherence. Recent evidence indicates that this coherence still exists at physiological temperatures. Whether it is of biological relevance is still an unanswered question. One of the prevailing theories for magnetoreception in birds invokes long-lived interconverting singlet/triplet excited states of the cryptochrome protein. There is strong evidence that the cryptochrome is involved in the magnetoreception in insects but the nature and mechanism of that involvement has not been fully established. Finally, it has been speculated that odor receptors use phonon-assisted tunneling to sense the vibrational spectra of odorants.
For the purposes of this BAA, “manifestly” quantum effects are defined as those that are intrinsically quantum mechanical in nature, and novel and surprising for a biological system to exhibit. Examples include quantum coherence, superposition, the quantum Zeno effect, and entanglement. Excluded are expected effects such as chemical bonding involving orbitals or van der Waals forces.
The funny thing is that I'm a part owner of a small engineering company that has been subcontracted on a successful DARPA project in the past.
Except for the fact we have no relevant experience in Quantum Mechanics or Biological Engineering it is right up our ally </sarcasm>
I guess I could see if a team could use some data acquisition and computer modeling experts.
I will have to look into this.
Albatrossity2, I don't know whether to thank you or curse you.
I guess I can do both.
Thank you (I reserve the right to curse you later).
You're welcome, for now.
I reserve the right to recurse you
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Mar. 15 2010,16:56)OH MY GOD!!!!!
(I ask forgiveness from the atheists in the room)
From the DARPA solicitation Albatrossity2 mentioned...
Quote Recent research on biological sensor systems such as photosynthesis, magnetoreception, and olfaction, has uncovered tantalizing evidence that they operate using “manifestly” quantum effects. The Fenna-Matthews-Olson (FMO) complex forms a portion of the photosynthetic apparatus of purple bacteria. It was shown that at low temperatures and upon photon absorption, the excitons in the FMO complex migrate via quantum coherence. Recent evidence indicates that this coherence still exists at physiological temperatures. Whether it is of biological relevance is still an unanswered question. One of the prevailing theories for magnetoreception in birds invokes long-lived interconverting singlet/triplet excited states of the cryptochrome protein. There is strong evidence that the cryptochrome is involved in the magnetoreception in insects but the nature and mechanism of that involvement has not been fully established. Finally, it has been speculated that odor receptors use phonon-assisted tunneling to sense the vibrational spectra of odorants.
For the purposes of this BAA, “manifestly” quantum effects are defined as those that are intrinsically quantum mechanical in nature, and novel and surprising for a biological system to exhibit. Examples include quantum coherence, superposition, the quantum Zeno effect, and entanglement. Excluded are expected effects such as chemical bonding involving orbitals or van der Waals forces.
The funny thing is that I'm a part owner of a small engineering company that has been subcontracted on a successful DARPA project in the past.
Except for the fact we have no relevant experience in Quantum Mechanics or Biological Engineering it is right up our ally </sarcasm>
I guess I could see if a team could use some data acquisition and computer modeling experts.
I will have to look into this.
Albatrossity2, I don't know whether to thank you or curse you.
I guess I can do both.
Thank you (I reserve the right to curse you later).
You're welcome, for now.
I reserve the right to recurse you
Categories: AE Public BB
Science Break
Post by midwifetoad
Solid state electronics would be impossible without quantum theory.
Solid state electronics would be impossible without quantum theory.
Categories: AE Public BB
