"War of the Weasels" article in new Skeptical Inquirer

I just wanted to thank you for your original articles; they have stayed with me all this time. I never took any courses on GAs (I'm an EE/CS professional), but that example really crystallized a lot about them for me, especially what makes a "good gene" for purposes of GA and the sort of problems they can solve. I still haven't had the chance to employ them yet -- I have a few candidate ideas -- but I have your article bookmarked for when I do.

I’m quite sure it is not evident to the ID/creationist crowd, but their continued confusion about Genetic Algorithms and Dawkins’ “Weasel” program is directly related to their continuing misconceptions about thermodynamics; the 2nd law in particular.

A simple change in perspective turns “Weasel” into a condensed matter program in which a gas of interacting atoms are condensing into their mutual potential wells. Depending on how strong the “latching” is determines the relative sizes of the mutual potential energy wells and the kinetic energies of the atoms.

Weak or no “latching” is analogous to shallow wells from which atoms can be easily kicked out. It is somewhat like a quasi-liquid stage. Condensed collections can form, but they are approaching a state of being ephemeral in that they can be broken up as others form.

Deepen the wells, and we have a situation in which the mutual potential energy wells are comparable to or larger in magnitude than the kinetic energies of the atoms. We enter a viscous stage or a solid-forming stage.

The fact that the program selects the parent that gets to reproduce simply reflects the lower energy atoms that remain after other atoms or photons or phonons carried off part of their kinetic energy. These remaining atoms become the collection from which the condensate will ultimately form; but there is nothing preventing any of them from picking up additional energy and being kicked out and replaced by other atoms with less kinetic energy.

There are ranges within which one can set the “latching” strength that result in an “exponential decay” in the difference between the number of “unfit” (uncondensed) offspring (atoms) and the ideal organism (condensed atoms) for the given environment (potential well configuration). This results in a straight line on a semilog (log-linear) plot.

The “Weasel” program is also analogous to a radioactive decay of a collection of atoms in the presence of activation.

There is nothing about Genetic Algorithms or Dawkins’ little program that has to be expressed in terms of “information” or “order.” The “target string” could just as well be a string of random numbers giving the shape of the final potential well configuration into which the atoms condense or it could represent the ground state of the decaying atoms.

In other words, real scientists use what they know about Nature rather than assume, as the ID/creationist crowd does, that it is all chaos and uniform random sampling on essentially infinite solution sets.

Ian Musgrave on Weasling

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/03/dembski-weasels.html

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/03/weasles-on-para.html

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/08/of-weasels-and.html

Mr. Elzinga,

It seems that you are putting the cart before the horse.

You seem to be asserting by your above analogy that biological activity is the product of the emergent properties of a large complex of atom and therefore can be analysed in the same way a physicist would analyse atomic activity.

Yet the white elephant is how and why do certain large collections of atoms come together in a myriad of configurations, which exhibit extraordinary properties, while other large collections of atoms do not?

Until this mystery is solved, how can you assert that biological activity is by and large analogous to atomic activity but simply on a different scale?

Isn't it logical to assume that the emergent properties of this large configuration of atoms we call biological organisms would necessarily be different than the non-biological configurations of atoms?

So then, how do we know that there must not be a dichotomy between the two?

BTW, let me make the (apparently necessary on this blog)call-out on my remarks. I am asking the above in earnest, as a layman.

Steve P. said: Yet the white elephant is how and why do certain large collections of atoms come together in a myriad of configurations, which exhibit extraordinary properties, while other large collections of atoms do not?

First of, Steve P., you are misusing your metaphors: a "white elephant" is an object that is both valuable, and a dreadful waste of money to maintain, you're thinking of "the elephant in the room," which is an obvious and dreadful problem no one dares to mention.

The problem with your assessment is that, the elephant in the room you're talking about does not exist. As far as scientists have observed, the atoms of biological entities behave in the exact same manner as to atoms of non-biological objects, especially since organic molecules of a biological origin behavior just like organic molecules of a non-biological origin, as well as the fact that people have observed organisms taking up atoms from non-biological sources for over a century. I think you are conflating biochemistry with atomic behavior.

Actually, the so called "elephant in the room" is not something that is unmentioned or unknown, it is simply replication. Once systems can replicate, cumulative selection can occur, whether the replicators are alive or not. Molecules can replicate, therefore they can undergo selection, therefore they can become more complex over time. It really is that simple, whether the elephant is white or purple.

google screen: CELL-SELEX: Novel Perspectives of Aptamer-Based Therapeuticsby KT Guo - 2008 - Cited by 5 - Related articles SELEX (systematic evolution of ligands by exponential enrichment) is a method to generate DNA ... which are then eluted from the target molecule and amplified by PCR. ... (both of which are used in Macugen, an FDA-approved aptamer), ... The development of aptamer probes for molecular signatures on the cancer cell ... www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › Journal List › Int J Mol Sci › v.9(4); Apr 2008

What have Dembski, Marks, and the whole Theistic Science field accomplished. I don’t mean lately, how about the last 3 millennia. Nothing that I can see.

— raven

Steve P. said: BTW, let me make the (apparently necessary on this blog)call-out on my remarks. I am asking the above in earnest, as a layman.

If you dig deeper, you would not even have to ask the question.

— Mike Elzinga

Mike Elzinga says: In the 40+ years I have been observing them, ID/creationists have never ask a question in order to learn anything; it is always a setup for engaging in argumentation and throwing more crap into the air.

Ben W said: Aww, that's not completely fair. I came here asking questions as an IDist, and now I strongly support evolution. Some of us creationists do learn. Please keep being patient with us, as a dogmatic attitude can be a big turn off for creationists (yes, this is often ironic, I know).

Ben W said: I came here asking questions as an IDist, and now I strongly support evolution. Some of us creationists do learn.

Please keep being patient with us, as a dogmatic attitude can be a big turn off for creationists...

RBH said:

Ben W said: Aww, that's not completely fair. I came here asking questions as an IDist, and now I strongly support evolution. Some of us creationists do learn. Please keep being patient with us, as a dogmatic attitude can be a big turn off for creationists (yes, this is often ironic, I know).

I have to support Ben here. Writing as a one-time administrator of (the late lamented) Internet Infidels Discussion Board, I saw a few instances of that, too.

Steve P. said: Isn't it logical to assume that the emergent properties of this large configuration of atoms we call biological organisms would necessarily be different than the non-biological configurations of atoms? So then, how do we know that there must not be a dichotomy between the two?

Steve P. asks, "how and why do certain large collections of atoms come together in a myriad of configurations, which exhibit extraordinary properties, while other large collections of atoms do not?"

A hundred years ago, when scientists believed cells were full of a mysterious substance they called protoplasm, that was a legitimate scientific question. Before it was possible to magnify the innards of cells enough to see their molecular structure, it made a certain amount of sense to treat the goo inside cells as different from ordinary chemicals.
The realization that the chemistry of living things obeyed the same laws of physics as inanimate minerals largely came from better tools for studying very small objects like molecules-- tools like x-ray crystallography and electron microscopes.
After 1953, when it became obvious that DNA has a regular crystalline structure just as much as salt does, there was no longer any good reason to look for "extraordinary properties" in living cells. The science of molecular biology was born, based on the premise that molecules in living cells would obey the same laws of chemistry and physics as any other chemicals.
If the day comes when scientists discover molecules in living cells don't obey the ordinary laws of chemistry and physics, you may be sure they will rush to uncover the new laws of nature. But don't hold your breath. The fields of molecular biology and biochemistry have gone from strength to strength. It's very unlikely they will run out of exciting hypotheses to test in our lifetimes.

So then, how do we know that there must not be a dichotomy between the two?

Mike Elzinga says:

If you want to show a “barrier” to the phenomenon we call life, then you have to show that scientifically. You can win a Nobel Prize for doing so.

People often say something like that. But in which Nobel Prize category would this putative prize be given? The closest category seems to be "Physiology or Medicine". But that seems to be a real stretch!

George

Mike Elzinga said: Then you both have my apologies. I did not get the impression from the way Steve Ps question was posed that he was serious. Usually honest questions are posed differently; but I could just be getting old and grumpy after seeing so many repeated taunts from ID/creationists over the years.

George Martin said: People often say something like that. But in which Nobel Prize category would this putative prize be given? The closest category seems to be "Physiology or Medicine". But that seems to be a real stretch! George

Henry J said:

So then, how do we know that there must not be a dichotomy between the two?

Maybe because in a century and a half of biochemical research, no differences were identified at the molecular level between biological and non-biological chemistry?

Aww, that’s not completely fair. I came here asking questions as an IDist, and now I strongly support evolution. Some of us creationists do learn. Please keep being patient with us, as a dogmatic attitude can be a big turn off for creationists (yes, this is often ironic, I know).

— Ben W

in an argument which gets very tiring as people say vague things about complexity, Mike Elzinga's posting about decreasing stickiness at increasing levels of complexity is clear and enlightening

I'm feeling a little bit more like there is hope for teaching creationists about interesting feedback phenomena supervening on lower level boring phenomena

Mike Elzinga said:

Henry J said:

So then, how do we know that there must not be a dichotomy between the two?

Maybe because in a century and a half of biochemical research, no differences were identified at the molecular level between biological and non-biological chemistry?

Drinking some hydrofluoric acid should be convincing also.

SWT said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Henry J said:

So then, how do we know that there must not be a dichotomy between the two?

Maybe because in a century and a half of biochemical research, no differences were identified at the molecular level between biological and non-biological chemistry?

Drinking some hydrofluoric acid should be convincing also.

I'm impressed, Mike -- you were able to avoid making a caustic comment about an irritating creationist point.

I’m feeling a little bit more like there is hope for teaching creationists about interesting feedback phenomena supervening on lower level boring phenomena.

— snaxalotl

Keelyn said:

SWT said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Henry J said:

So then, how do we know that there must not be a dichotomy between the two?

Maybe because in a century and a half of biochemical research, no differences were identified at the molecular level between biological and non-biological chemistry?

Drinking some hydrofluoric acid should be convincing also.

I'm impressed, Mike -- you were able to avoid making a caustic comment about an irritating creationist point.

Indeed! He could have so easily said, “drink drano.” Mike, it was a remarkable display of restraint.

snaxalotl said: ... decreasing stickiness at increasing levels of complexity ...

George Martin said: Mike Elzinga says: If you want to show a “barrier” to the phenomenon we call life, then you have to show that scientifically. You can win a Nobel Prize for doing so. People often say something like that. But in which Nobel Prize category would this putative prize be given? The closest category seems to be "Physiology or Medicine". But that seems to be a real stretch! George

One of the most remarkable things about living systems as we know them (the carbon based systems on which life on Earth is constructed) is that they exist in a very narrow energy window corresponding to liquid water.

— Mike Elzinga

Yet the white elephant is how and why do certain large collections of atoms come together in a myriad of configurations, which exhibit extraordinary properties, while other large collections of atoms do not? Until this mystery is solved, how can you assert that biological activity is by and large analogous to atomic activity but simply on a different scale?

Drinking some hydrofluoric acid should be convincing also.

that would be a very short and painful lesson, and death is inherently dissuasive of learning.

:)

hell, he could even just swab some on his arm. That would be sufficient.

*shudders*

far FAR worse than Drano ever thought of being.

Frank J said: Have you read Stuart Kauffman's "The Origins of Order", and if so, what did you think of it?

Kauffman gave a nice talk to our science group back in 2002. He was no friend of ID then, and I suspect still isn't.

Mike Elzinga said:

snaxalotl said: ... decreasing stickiness at increasing levels of complexity ...

(snip) Life slip-slides around in these complex and shallow wells and occasionally exploits deeper wells that involve photo emission and mutation. That is why life is delicate and transient.

fnxtr said: I like to think of it as "sloppy". :-)

The endogenous information provides a baseline difficulty for the problem to be solved.

Ichthyic said: hell, he could even just swab some on his arm. That would be sufficient.

stevaroni said:

Ichthyic said: hell, he could even just swab some on his arm. That would be sufficient.

Or, you could always use a Tesla coil. I'm told that works too.

It is quite possible I have read that work;

— Mike Elzinga

It was much harder to do those kinds of computer studies and plot the results. And the tie-in with organic and living systems was not pursued as it is today; there was no good way to probe such systems without destroying them until a few decades ago. Many of the experimental techniques were observational and qualitative in nature. Now they are much more quantitative.

— Mike Elzinga

Dave Thomas said: Kauffman gave a nice talk to our science group back in 2002. He was no friend of ID then, and I suspect still isn't.

One of the perplexing problems of the origin of life (not to be confused with the subsequent evolution of diverse life forms over billions of years)...

Jesse said:

stevaroni said:

Ichthyic said: hell, he could even just swab some on his arm. That would be sufficient.

Or, you could always use a Tesla coil. I'm told that works too.

I hear that tesla coils are only good to use on people when you're feeling cross.

Frank J said:

It is quite possible I have read that work;

— Mike Elzinga

It's ~700 pages of small print, with lots of equations. Does that ring a bell? I go back to it now and then, and it reminds me how even reading glasses can't make up for the normal declining eyesight of middle age. This is one biochemical system that is definitely "running down." ;-)

Not sure if Steve is past or just very near the “fork in the road” (science on one side, pseudoscience on the other) after which there’s almost no turning back.

I came here asking questions as an IDist, and now I strongly support evolution.

Some of us creationists do learn.

Please keep being patient with us, as a dogmatic attitude can be a big turn off for creationists (yes, this is often ironic, I know).

SWT said: Based on his background, I suspect that Mike has a library full of books that match the description you gave!

Frank J said: Sadly, since then I have come to realize that abiogenesis research is not a priority (and it may be impossible anyway to recreate a "test tube" with millions of cubic miles of catalytic reactions with no life to gobble up the products).

thanks!

"Hello, Mr. Dembski? Yes, this is Thorbjorn Jagland, calling from Oslo! Are you sitting down? Good! Congratulations, sir! You've won the Nobel Prize for Metaphysics! Yes! Well done, Mr. Dembski, well done! You really showed those dreadul PTers how it's done!"

*poof* Dembski wakes up

Mr. Elzinga,

I do think there is a barrier and that barrier has something to do with light. Literally.

IMO, life is the culmination of the integration of light with matter so it is not only utilized by the human body but more than likely is central to its function.

The thought of light came to mind from my work in nanotextiles. We are currently working with FIR (far-infra red) yarns that are produced by mixing ceramic powder, which emits FIR light. I have also just completed a development with Celliant (www.celliant.com)which uses an even more advance mixture of ceramic materials.

Second, my experience with chi also informs me that this intuition is not pie-in-the-sky. I was able to get 'in the zone', which activated my chi. The best way to describe the experience is it resembles a rippling wave moving right to left in a circular pattern through the body.

Finally, my theistic philosophy also informs me about the barrier, since I believe the soul is also a form of light (we are created beings so even our soul must be natural; only the trinity resides in the uncreated realm). Yes, it can't be detected now but in time science will come up with a way to detect this elusive human perception.

So, if I'm gonna win that Nobel, this is where I would start. And I would also want to figure out how information ties light to matter (this is where Dembski and Marks come in).

Sure, these may just be musing from a spaced out, God deluded layman. But then again...

Mr. Hoppe,

Concern/tone troll?

Have to admit its a nice little tool to have in PT's rhetorical bag.

Kinda like proboscis hair tweezers.

I get it. You're not buying into Demski's BS, you're buying into JZ Knight's BS.

Steve P. said: Sure, these may just be musing from a spaced out, God deluded layman. But then again...

Steve P. said: IMO, life is the culmination of the integration of light with matter...

I don't suppose that there's any point in saying that Steve P might as well have said something like: "The flimflam urgle of the needlenardlenoo..."

It doesn't actually mean anything. Where it purports to describe reality, and this description can be parsed, it is grotesquely and bizarrely false to fact.

A rippling wave that moves "right to left in a circular pattern through the body"? How can a circular pattern be also left to right?

The soul is a form of light? A soul is a form of electromagnetic radiation of wavelength between 400 and 700 nm? What, so a lightbulb's a soul generator, then?

Life is the integration of light and matter? Leaving aside the fact that this is gibberish on the face of it, at best an impossibly vague piece of mystical handwaving that says absolutely nothing, how does it explain life that lives in permanent total darkness, in caves or the ocean depths?

And this is to leave aside completely the fact that there is no actual, you know, evidence that chi or souls exist at all, far less that there's a "barrier" (between what and what?), or that the trinity "resides" someplace ("Trinity" implies the Christian God. I thought he was supposed to be omnipresent) or that there's an "uncreated realm", (which would appear to be a denial of the idea that God created everything).

It seems to be a muddled personal mythology, slightly flavoured with non-western terminology, but wholly nonsensical and completely severed from any consideration of reality whatsoever.

So I'll take option A. These are musings from a spaced-out deluded layman. I'll leave God out of it, though. If he created the Universe, he's a damn sight more coherent than this is.

these may just be musing from a spaced out, God deluded layman.

full stop.

Mike Elzinga said: Then you both have my apologies. I did not get the impression from the way Steve Ps question was posed that he was serious. Usually honest questions are posed differently; but I could just be getting old and grumpy after seeing so many repeated taunts from ID/creationists over the years.

Steve P:

your post was so insane, that even though you don't claim to be a fundie, I nominated your quote for this month's "Fundies Say the Darndest Things"

congratulations!

Steve P. said: Mr. Elzinga, The thought of light came to mind from my work in nanotextiles. We are currently working with FIR (far-infra red) yarns that are produced by mixing ceramic powder, which emits FIR light. I have also just completed a development with Celliant (www.celliant.com)which uses an even more advance mixture of ceramic materials.

Of course its all gibberish to you all.

But the question is, have any of you ever learned chikung, or shangkung? Have you ever done yoga breathing techniques? have you evaluated if/how they affect your body? Have you done any self-therapy using a portable low voltage electrical stimulation device promoted by hospitals (here in Taiwan anyway),which substitutes for physical therapy sessions and evaluate its effects on your body?

No, didn't think so. But you all don't need to do that. Because you already know western medicine is light years ahead. Nuff said.

And the second question still remains, have any of your actually bought and used a Celliant product and evaluated whether the FIR light emitted from the nano-ceramic fibers does anything to your body? Does it relieve pain as the marketing claims say, does it actually increase blood circulation?

Have any of you ever verified through a special device, which has a sensor attached to your skin, and allows you to actually see (through a connected monitor) the dramatic difference in the speed with which blood cells travel through capillaries when an FIR infused diamond powder plate was placed anywhere on your body?

Didn't think so, either.

yep, just more woo and lala.

Steve P. said: Mr. Elzinga, I do think there is a barrier and that barrier has something to do with light. Literally. IMO, life is the culmination of the integration of light with matter so it is not only utilized by the human body but more than likely is central to its function. The thought of light came to mind from my work in nanotextiles. We are currently working with FIR (far-infra red) yarns that are produced by mixing ceramic powder, which emits FIR light. I have also just completed a development with Celliant (www.celliant.com)which uses an even more advance mixture of ceramic materials. Second, my experience with chi also informs me that this intuition is not pie-in-the-sky. I was able to get 'in the zone', which activated my chi. The best way to describe the experience is it resembles a rippling wave moving right to left in a circular pattern through the body. Finally, my theistic philosophy also informs me about the barrier, since I believe the soul is also a form of light (we are created beings so even our soul must be natural; only the trinity resides in the uncreated realm). Yes, it can't be detected now but in time science will come up with a way to detect this elusive human perception. So, if I'm gonna win that Nobel, this is where I would start. And I would also want to figure out how information ties light to matter (this is where Dembski and Marks come in). Sure, these may just be musing from a spaced out, God deluded layman. But then again...

Steve P. said: Of course its all gibberish to you all. But the question is, have any of you ever learned chikung, or shangkung? Have you ever done yoga breathing techniques? have you evaluated if/how they affect your body? Have you done any self-therapy using a portable low voltage electrical stimulation device promoted by hospitals (here in Taiwan anyway),which substitutes for physical therapy sessions and evaluate its effects on your body? No, didn't think so. But you all don't need to do that. Because you already know western medicine is light years ahead. Nuff said. And the second question still remains, have any of your actually bought and used a Celliant product and evaluated whether the FIR light emitted from the nano-ceramic fibers does anything to your body? Does it relieve pain as the marketing claims say, does it actually increase blood circulation? Have any of you ever verified through a special device, which has a sensor attached to your skin, and allows you to actually see (through a connected monitor) the dramatic difference in the speed with which blood cells travel through capillaries when an FIR infused diamond powder plate was placed anywhere on your body? Didn't think so, either. yep, just more woo and lala.

Steve P’s posting history suggests that he is very much past that fork.

— harold

Steve P. said: But the question is, have any of you ever learned chikung, or shangkung?... ...No, didn't think so. But you all don't need to do that. Because you already know western medicine is light years ahead.

And the second question still remains, have any of your actually bought and used a Celliant product and evaluated whether the FIR light emitted from the nano-ceramic fibers does anything to your body?

Have any of you ever verified through a special device, which has a sensor attached to your skin, and allows you to actually see (through a connected monitor) the dramatic difference in the speed with which blood cells travel through capillaries when an FIR infused diamond powder plate was placed anywhere on your body? Didn't think so, either.

Steve P. said: We are currently working with FIR (far-infra red) yarns that are produced by mixing ceramic powder, which emits FIR light. I have also just completed a development with Celliant (www.celliant.com)which uses an even more advance mixture of ceramic materials.

Steve P. said: And the second question still remains, have any of your actually bought and used a Celliant product and evaluated whether the FIR light emitted from the nano-ceramic fibers does anything to your body? Does it relieve pain as the marketing claims say, does it actually increase blood circulation? Have any of you ever verified through a special device, which has a sensor attached to your skin, and allows you to actually see (through a connected monitor) the dramatic difference in the speed with which blood cells travel through capillaries when an FIR infused diamond powder plate was placed anywhere on your body?

I do think there is a barrier and that barrier has something to do with light. Literally.

IMO, life is the culmination of the integration of light with matter so it is not only utilized by the human body but more than likely is central to its function.

The thought of light came to mind from my work in nanotextiles. We are currently working with FIR (far-infra red) yarns that are produced by mixing ceramic powder, which emits FIR light. I have also just completed a development with Celliant (www.celliant.com)which uses an even more advance mixture of ceramic materials.

Second, my experience with chi also informs me that this intuition is not pie-in-the-sky. I was able to get ‘in the zone’, which activated my chi. The best way to describe the experience is it resembles a rippling wave moving right to left in a circular pattern through the body.

Finally, my theistic philosophy also informs me about the barrier, since I believe the soul is also a form of light (we are created beings so even our soul must be natural; only the trinity resides in the uncreated realm). Yes, it can’t be detected now but in time science will come up with a way to detect this elusive human perception.

So, if I’m gonna win that Nobel, this is where I would start. And I would also want to figure out how information ties light to matter (this is where Dembski and Marks come in).

Sure, these may just be musing from a spaced out, God deluded layman. But then again…

But the question is, have any of you ever learned chikung, or shangkung?

Have you ever done yoga breathing techniques? have you evaluated if/how they affect your body?

Have you done any self-therapy using a portable low voltage electrical stimulation device promoted by hospitals (here in Taiwan anyway),which substitutes for physical therapy sessions and evaluate its effects on your body?

No, didn’t think so.

But you all don’t need to do that. Because you already know western medicine is light years ahead. Nuff said.

And the second question still remains, have any of your actually bought and used a Celliant product

eric said: However, the effect you claim seems pretty easy to test. I look forward to seeing you or your companies' double-blind, controlled studies in the peer review literature. Until YOU do that - not us, because its not our responsibility, its yours - your claim is just one of many unsubstantiated crank theories.

Dave Lovell asked: Steve, does your company not care about its reputation?

The placebo effect can actually be quite effective for minor things. It's when people rely on it for major things, like pneumonia or pancreatic cancer that they get into trouble.

By "far infra red", do you mean microwaves? Or just low-level heat? 'cause that's what it is.

That graph of frequency vs. intensity would be really interesting to see. Got one?

What some proponents of "traditional/alternative medicine" forget is it is substantially empirical. Ayruveda the traditional medical practice of India - if you forget the talk about Humours/Doshas/Phlegm etc - also categorized a vast collection of herbs with detailed indications, included surgery (which suffered a setback during the Buddhist centuries around the cusp of BCE/CE because of the Buddhist abhorrence of dissecting corpses.
In medieval Europe it was the witches and barbers who practiced empirical medicine while the university educated toffs peddled Woo like bleeding, starvation etc.,

Ya know, most life on earth is, as Steve P. says, "the culmination of the integration of light with matter." But I think scientists have known that for a while. They call it photosynthesis. ;)

hoary puccoon said: Ya know, most life on earth is, as Steve P. says, "the culmination of the integration of light with matter." But I think scientists have known that for a while. They call it photosynthesis. ;)

Steve P. said: IMO, life is the culmination of the integration of light with matter so it is not only utilized by the human body but more than likely is central to its function.

There have been some useful drugs or medicines that came from Chinese traditional medicine - artemisinin, for example, which is a genuinely effective anti-malarial, and some say digitalis as well. Salicylic acid, though "willow-bark" was known to European medicine also. Possibly others.

But there's an enormous amount of nonsense, too. For example, the artemisium plant that contains small amounts of the active antimalarial is only one of over 250 plants, said to be effective against fevers, that were double-blind tested, and it was the only one that did better than placebo. And of course traditional Chinese herbalists did not do anything more than dry the plant parts they used, so the active component was not isolated. Nor did they possess the chemistry to synthesise it, which meant that in traditional medicines it was expensive, of varying effect, in short supply, and mixed with both neutral and actually toxic other substances.

Chinese chemists did the refining, the testing and the synthesising, using the sciences developed in the west, and what do you know? The results worked far better, far more reliably and with far fewer side-effects, and the dosage could be calculated rather than guessed at.

Sorry. Western medicine for me, if I need medicine. It may not work, but it's the way to bet.

I forgot to say, Steve, that's because Western medicine is light years better, and you are peddling woo and lala.

Dave Luckett -

Digitalis was almost unequivocally discovered by "western" medicine through the study of English traditional medicine. Knowledge of its effects may be present in many other traditional systems, for all I know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Withering

Of interest, the somewhat effective traditional way of managing cardiac failure involved a complex mixture of herbs, of which only digitalis was useful for this particular condition, similar to the Chinese case you mention.

Traditional systems tend to lack not empiricism, which is often if not always present, but rigor, organization, and peer review.

I will note that, in primitive conditions when an exact diagnosis can't be made, putting together a "cocktail" of plant products empirically known to have medicinal effects may not have been the least logical approach, in some cases.

Obviously, some traditional medicine systems may well sometimes offer something that is better than either nothing or placebo. It's also worthwhile to study such systems for anthropological and sociological reasons.

None of this changes the fact that "western" medicine is usually the most effective, and virtually always the system that has the strongest tradition of objective scientific testing of claims.

fnxtr said: By "far infra red", do you mean microwaves? Or just low-level heat? 'cause that's what it is.

One of the areas I worked in for many years was research and development on infrared, Schottky barrier, CCD imagers. I did both extensive theoretical work and experimental work on these. We can predict and tailor the behaviors and characteristics of these devices under all sorts of conditions; so IR is not at all strange to many of us in physics.

These devices are used in IR telescopes and satellites, and they also have extensive uses in the military and in other classified applications. They have industrial and medical applications as well.

I could imagine what some of these woo-woo New Age “philosophers” would say if they saw the images produced by these devices. I suspect it would be quite similar to their excitement over Kirlian photography and the photographing of souls and auras.

But it is just interesting and well-known physics all the way down.

kakapo said:

fnxtr said: By "far infra red", do you mean microwaves? Or just low-level heat? 'cause that's what it is.

usually FIR refers to frequencies in the "low" THz (i.e. 0.2-10 THz).

kakapo said: Presumably, they mean that it isn't a bb spectrum and emits preferentially in the FIR. That type of emission spectrum can probably be engineered.

What I would find very surprising is if FIR radiation did have an effect on circulation different from - say - LWIR.

What any of this has to do w/ Dembski or evolution or life, for that matter, escapes me.

Dave Lovell said: Team up with Mike. With his expertise and your product, you should be able to bring a world beating (even world saving) device to market in no time at all.

And the second question still remains, have any of your actually bought and used a Celliant product and evaluated whether the FIR light emitted from the nano-ceramic fibers does anything to your body? Does it relieve pain as the marketing claims say, does it actually increase blood circulation?

woooo wooooo!

chugga chugga - chugga chugga

woooo woooo!

Oh, and I would add this to the observation that Steve P is peddling woo and lala: that he, personally, and the company, corporately, bears the moral responsibility for the harm caused by their products, and his promotion thereof, including the harm caused to persons who accept their claims and use those products instead of effective therapies.

Regrettably, there are legal codes where this moral responsibility is not legally enforceable. Pity.

We are currently working with FIR (far-infra red) yarns that are produced by mixing ceramic powder, which emits FIR light.
And the second question still remains, have any of your actually bought and used a Celliant product and evaluated whether the FIR light emitted from the nano-ceramic fibers does anything to your body? Does it relieve pain as the marketing claims say, does it actually increase blood circulation?

tresmal said: Yarns? Increased blood circulation? If you insulate skin, it will warm up and blood vessels will dilate, increasing circulation. Sounds like Celliant has invented the sweater.

Dave Luckett said: There have been some useful drugs or medicines that came from Chinese traditional medicine - artemisinin, for example, which is a genuinely effective anti-malarial, and some say digitalis as well. Salicylic acid, though "willow-bark" was known to European medicine also. Possibly others.

But there's an enormous amount of nonsense, too. For example, the artemisium plant that contains small amounts of the active antimalarial is only one of over 250 plants, said to be effective against fevers, that were double-blind tested, and it was the only one that did better than placebo.

And of course traditional Chinese herbalists did not do anything more than dry the plant parts they used, so the active component was not isolated.

Nor did they possess the chemistry to synthesise it, which meant that in traditional medicines it was expensive, of varying effect, in short supply, and mixed with both neutral and actually toxic other substances.

Chinese chemists did the refining, the testing and the synthesising, using the sciences developed in the west, and what do you know? The results worked far better, far more reliably and with far fewer side-effects, and the dosage could be calculated rather than guessed at.

Sorry. Western medicine for me, if I need medicine. It may not work, but it's the way to bet.

harold, Stanton, thank you for the specifics on digitalis, a European discovery.

I take it that, being rational people, if you were suffering from a medical condition and were offered a choice between a "mainstream" medicine of exactly specified concentration, known to be effective from double blind testing, with a voluminous literature on toxicity and effectiveness and the incidence, type and severity of side-effects, or a traditional herbal preparation, said to be effective, but with none of those characteristics, you would choose the former.

Well, so would I, which is all I'm saying.

What one might expect is selective excitations of neurons producing the sensation of different amounts of heating. It would depend on many other factors however, including the transparency of surrounding tissue and any selective absorption in the sheathing surrounding the nerves. One would have to know how much relative power was packed into various parts of the IR spectrum.

What any of this has to do w/ Dembski or evolution or life, for that matter, escapes me.

I take it that, being rational people, if you were suffering from a medical condition and were offered a choice between a “mainstream” medicine of exactly specified concentration, known to be effective from double blind testing, with a voluminous literature on toxicity and effectiveness and the incidence, type and severity of side-effects, or a traditional herbal preparation, said to be effective, but with none of those characteristics, you would choose the former. Well, so would I, which is all I’m saying.

Dave Luckett said: harold, Stanton, thank you for the specifics on digitalis, a European discovery. I take it that, being rational people, if you were suffering from a medical condition and were offered a choice between a "mainstream" medicine of exactly specified concentration, known to be effective from double blind testing, with a voluminous literature on toxicity and effectiveness and the incidence, type and severity of side-effects, or a traditional herbal preparation, said to be effective, but with none of those characteristics, you would choose the former. Well, so would I, which is all I'm saying.

harold said: (*Of course, I should note, for fairness, that applying leeches has considerable benefit in some cases, and the even bleeding can be of value - not only in the obvious situation of polycythemia vera, but as a very feeble but mildly effective technique in certain bacterial infections, which could have made a difference in isolated cases. So even the techniques of seventeenth century western medicine, which could fairly be described as one of the worst medical systems that ever existed, were not 100% absolutely worthless or harmful in every single case*.)

harold said: The theory of evolution offers a framework for understanding how terrestrial life has evolved sensory mechanisms for transducing various types of energy from the environment, such as light, heat, and mechanical energy, into electrical and chemical signals that ultimately guide physical behavior by, to summarize tersely, impacting on contractile elements in cells that, consuming chemical energy (ultiamtely derived from solar energy), produce mechanical energy that results in motor movement. I should add that signals from sensory sytems can also result in cognitive but not motor behaviors, and that only a few plants make use of rapid movements in response to environmental stimuli, but that plants do have sensory mechanisms and "behaviors".

Stanton said:

Dave Luckett said: harold, Stanton, thank you for the specifics on digitalis, a European discovery. I take it that, being rational people, if you were suffering from a medical condition and were offered a choice between a "mainstream" medicine of exactly specified concentration, known to be effective from double blind testing, with a voluminous literature on toxicity and effectiveness and the incidence, type and severity of side-effects, or a traditional herbal preparation, said to be effective, but with none of those characteristics, you would choose the former. Well, so would I, which is all I'm saying.

And I'm saying, if not pleading, that, before you dismiss Chinese herbalism as being crank, pseudoscientific hocus-pocus, you should at least be aware that there is literature about experiments and tests concerning effectiveness, toxicity, and side-effects about Chinese herbs, some of which have lead to their use and abuse in Western Pharmaceuticals, such as ephedra-derived drugs. Or, by "literature," do you mean "done in only American labs, done only by American scientists, written only in American"?

Alex H said: Show'm or fold'm, but don't expect anyone to believe you if all you've got is "well, they've been using it for thousands of years so it must work" from a society that still uses Rhino horns and bear gall bladders.

Alex H said: Show'm or fold'm, but don't expect anyone to believe you if all you've got is "well, they've been using it for thousands of years so it must work" from a society that still uses Rhino horns and bear gall bladders.

Stanton said: And please, please tell me that you aren't one of the many yutzes who automatically assume that the Chinese use rhinoceros horn for aphrodisiacs.

kakapo said:

Stanton said: And please, please tell me that you aren't one of the many yutzes who automatically assume that the Chinese use rhinoceros horn for aphrodisiacs.

no, apparently, they are used for lofty purpose of treating fevers and convulsions, though that's of scant comfort to the northern white rhinos.

Stanton asked: Or, by “literature,” do you mean “done in only American labs, done only by American scientists, written only in American”?

Dave Luckett said:

Stanton asked: Or, by “literature,” do you mean “done in only American labs, done only by American scientists, written only in American”?

Not hardly, since I am not an American, and I am proud of my own country's fine record of contributions to pharmacy and medicine generally. I don't doubt that there are some treatments in all traditional medicines that are effective. But in medicine at least, I have a respect for empiricism, rigour, precision, exact knowledge and rational assessment that far surpasses my respect for tradition and immemorial usage.

Do realize that there are both research done on herbs, and that empiricism, rigour, and precision are required when plumbing the effects and side effects of herbs.

That, and the way you dismiss Chinese herbal medicine, one would think that you had the sole impression that they've been doing nothing but make tea out of lawn clippings for five thousand years.

Stanton said:

kakapo said:

Stanton said: And please, please tell me that you aren't one of the many yutzes who automatically assume that the Chinese use rhinoceros horn for aphrodisiacs.

no, apparently, they are used for lofty purpose of treating fevers and convulsions, though that's of scant comfort to the northern white rhinos.

If you want to be more environmentally friendly, you substitute rhinoceros horn with water buffalo horn.

Stanton said:

kakapo said:

Stanton said: And please, please tell me that you aren't one of the many yutzes who automatically assume that the Chinese use rhinoceros horn for aphrodisiacs.

no, apparently, they are used for lofty purpose of treating fevers and convulsions, though that's of scant comfort to the northern white rhinos.

If you want to be more environmentally friendly, you substitute rhinoceros horn with water buffalo horn.

Show’m or fold’m, but don’t expect anyone to believe you if all you’ve got is “well, they’ve been using it for thousands of years so it must work” from a society that still uses Rhino horns and bear gall bladders.

If you want to be more environmentally friendly, you substitute rhinoceros horn with water buffalo horn.

Why would that substitution work? Aren’t they composed of completely different materials?

John_S said: Or melamine powder. If it's good enough for dog food, it should be good enough for quack medicine.

stevaroni said:

John_S said: Or melamine powder. If it's good enough for dog food, it should be good enough for quack medicine.

Actually, melamine is very useful in treating trypanosomiasis. On the other hand, it doesn't make very good baby food.

The point of bringing up chi, FIR light, information, and soul was to show potential markers that could point the way to elucidating the nature of the barrier existing between life and non-life.

Mr. Elzinga asserts there is no barrier between life and non-life, only degree of complexity; an [emergent]property of matter as it were.

If this is the case, we should see various life forms prevalent in the universe, not necessarily justcarbon/water life as on earth.

It should be possible to find iron life on Mars for example or methane life on Neptune, or any of numerous combinations of elements in their solid, liquid, and gaseous forms. The probablistic resources of these numerous elements are such that it should be inevitable matter would find a variety of paths to complexity.

It seems the whole point of SETI and part of NASA's mission is to in fact confirm the probability and inevitability of matter to complexify and lay to rest the idea that life is a special condition of matter, not intrinsic to it.

Yet, we have spent billions in searching our solar system and the cosmos to for signs that would confirm 'life must be common', without success.

The logical conclusion we can draw from the dearth of confirming data in favor of a non-barrier conclusion is that life indeed has a special component responsible for a clear categorical difference between life and non-life.

Repeatedly chastising Dembski and Marks for seeking to elucidate information as a contender for that special component is hardly being scientific but rather dogmatic and ideological.

Steve P. said: The point of bringing up chi, FIR light, information, and soul was to show potential markers that could point the way to elucidating the nature of the barrier existing between life and non-life.

Mr. Elzinga asserts there is no barrier between life and non-life, only degree of complexity; an [emergent]property of matter as it were.

If this is the case, we should see various life forms prevalent in the universe, not necessarily just carbon/water life as on earth.

It should be possible to find iron life on Mars for example or methane life on Neptune, or any of numerous combinations of elements in their solid, liquid, and gaseous forms. The probablistic resources of these numerous elements are such that it should be inevitable matter would find a variety of paths to complexity.

It seems the whole point of SETI and part of NASA's mission is to in fact confirm the probability and inevitability of matter to complexify and lay to rest the idea that life is a special condition of matter, not intrinsic to it.

Yet, we have spent billions in searching our solar system and the cosmos to for signs that would confirm 'life must be common', without success.

The logical conclusion we can draw from the dearth of confirming data in favor of a non-barrier conclusion is that life indeed has a special component responsible for a clear categorical difference between life and non-life.

Repeatedly chastising Dembski and Marks for seeking to elucidate information as a contender for that special component is hardly being scientific but rather dogmatic and ideological.

Steve P. said: The point of bringing up chi, FIR light, information, and soul was to show potential markers that could point the way to elucidating the nature of the barrier existing between life and non-life. ...The logical conclusion we can draw from the dearth of confirming data in favor of a non-barrier conclusion is that life indeed has a special component responsible for a clear categorical difference between life and non-life.

Repeatedly chastising Dembski and Marks for seeking to elucidate information as a contender for that special component is hardly being scientific but rather dogmatic and ideological.

Once again, like clockwork, Steve P. demonstrates that he has no understanding of science, whether it's his whining about alleged barriers to life, and presenting inane non-examples of potential life, to scolding us for being critical of Dembski and friends because they claimed to be doing science but really never were.

I recently had my plumber Steve over to my house to do a minor repair in my basement utility room. While he was making the repair, he noticed a quarter on the floor near the water heater.

"How did that quarter get there?" he asked.

"I'm not sure, I suppose it fell out of someone's pocket and ended up there. Maybe when someone was taking something out of their pocket, the quarter got dragged along and fell out."

My plumber was unconvinced. "The fabric of your pants presents a barrier to coins leaving spontaneously, and it is very unlikely to find a quarter by a basement water heater. There must be some purpose for that quarter to be there."

"Look," I said, "coins fall out of people's pockets all the time. It's simply a consequence of the way pockets are designed and used."

"If that's so, there should be lots of coins everywhere." He then looked more carefully around the water heater; no other coins. He expanded his search, looking near the furnace, the air conditioning unit, and the water softener. Still no other coins.

Steve looked up from the water softener and told me, "According to you, coins fall out of people's pockets all the time. I've just spent a fair amount of time looking very carefully for other coins and found none. This disproves your 'just-so' story about coins falling out of people's pockets. I doubt there are even any other coins in the house; if there were, I would have found some evidence of that by now."

"Seriously? I'm pretty sure that if we looked through the entire house, we'd find coins in the sofa under the cushions, on the floor in the kids' rooms, and a few other places."

"Nope. There's a barrier to coins leaving pockets on their own; there's no point in even looking for other coins, because the only coins you'll find were placed in their current locations deliberately."

"OK, Steve, have it your way. Can I pay you for the job in pennies?"

EPILOGUE: Steve the plumber went on to get some specialized training and now works at the Center for Scrubbing and Cleaning at the Dishwasher Institute. He is currently involved in studying intelligent placement, the theory the inappropriate debris is deliberately placed in automatic dishwashers to cause their failure.

SWT said: I recently had my plumber Steve over to my house to do a minor repair in my basement utility room. While he was making the repair, he noticed a quarter on the floor near the water heater. "How did that quarter get there?" he asked. "I'm not sure, I suppose it fell out of someone's pocket and ended up there. Maybe when someone was taking something out of their pocket, the quarter got dragged along and fell out." My plumber was unconvinced. "The fabric of your pants presents a barrier to coins leaving spontaneously, and it is very unlikely to find a quarter by a basement water heater. There must be some purpose for that quarter to be there." "Look," I said, "coins fall out of people's pockets all the time. It's simply a consequence of the way pockets are designed and used." "If that's so, there should be lots of coins everywhere." He then looked more carefully around the water heater; no other coins. He expanded his search, looking near the furnace, the air conditioning unit, and the water softener. Still no other coins. Steve looked up from the water softener and told me, "According to you, coins fall out of people's pockets all the time. I've just spent a fair amount of time looking very carefully for other coins and found none. This disproves your 'just-so' story about coins falling out of people's pockets. I doubt there are even any other coins in the house; if there were, I would have found some evidence of that by now." "Seriously? I'm pretty sure that if we looked through the entire house, we'd find coins in the sofa under the cushions, on the floor in the kids' rooms, and a few other places." "Nope. There's a barrier to coins leaving pockets on their own; there's no point in even looking for other coins, because the only coins you'll find were placed in their current locations deliberately." "OK, Steve, have it your way. Can I pay you for the job in pennies?" EPILOGUE: Steve the plumber went on to get some specialized training and now works at the Center for Scrubbing and Cleaning at the Dishwasher Institute. He is currently involved in studying intelligent placement, the theory the inappropriate debris is deliberately placed in automatic dishwashers to cause their failure.

“Look,” I said, “coins fall out of people’s pockets all the time. It’s simply a consequence of the way pockets are designed and used.”

Henry J said:

“Look,” I said, “coins fall out of people’s pockets all the time. It’s simply a consequence of the way pockets are designed and used.”

Change is the only constant?

Steve P. said: The point of bringing up chi, FIR light, information, and soul was to show potential markers that could point the way to elucidating the nature of the barrier existing between life and non-life.

Heh. Heh.

"Yarns."

Heh heh.

How a propos.

SWT said: "How did that quarter get there?" he asked. "I'm not sure, I suppose it fell out of someone's pocket and ended up there. Maybe when someone was taking something out of their pocket, the quarter got dragged along and fell out."

fnxtr said: Heh. Heh. "Yarns." Heh heh. How a propos.

Keelyn said:

fnxtr said: Heh. Heh. "Yarns." Heh heh. How a propos.

Well, I think he is trying to spin some good yarns.

SWT said:

Keelyn said:

fnxtr said: Heh. Heh. "Yarns." Heh heh. How a propos.

Well, I think he is trying to spin some good yarns.

Or string us along.

I'm shuttin' the thread down, as only Spammers are weighing in at this point.

Just a reminder, while Dembski and crew are still fixated on "Weasel", evolution happens nonetheless! Without fixed targets or "active information," I might add, unless you want to confuse "active information" with something we call "environment."

Cheers, Dave