The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones

Page 425 of the Health Care Bill, Head-deskery of the highest order.

2009-07-27T16:00:00.007-04:00

The kind of thing that really irks me as a skeptic (and the kind of thing to make me update my blog for the first time in months) is the kind of fly off the handle reaction to news that is designed to scare the hell out of people. If I were to be in some position of authority and go on the radio claiming that in 2 days an asteroid the size of the moon was about to plow through the Earth, there is a large percentage of the population that would start up their last rights without once looking up to do the very easy job of verifying the news. What I got in my email inbox today fit this scenario quite nicely.

Lacking PZ's Block quote of Gumbies, a standard block quote must do...

Hi, Be sure to listen to the Fred Thompson interviews at the bottom of the e-mail. This is unbelievable.

It's TIME to contact our representatives, folks!! Is this not ridiculous??

(If this doesn't make your blood boil........... nothing will!!)

Page 425 of Health20Care Bill - Listen to this interview Fred Thompson's Radio Show interviewing Betsy McCaughey (pronounced Mc Coy). Or look it up onwww.fredthompsonshow.com, under interviews.

On page 425 it says in black and white that EVERYONE on Social Security, (will include all Senior Citizens and SSI people) will go to MANDATORY counseling every 5 years to learn and to choose from ways to end your suffering (and your life). Health care will be denied based on age. 500 Billion will be cut from Seniors healthcare. The only way for that to happen is to drastically cut health care, the oldest and the sickest will be cut first. Paying for your own care will not be an option.

Now, CALL YOUR PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tell them to read page 425 if they don't read anything else. Surely some of them have parents.

CF

"ON PAGE 425 OF OBAMA’S HEALTH CARE BILL, the Federal Government will require EVERYONE who is on Social Security to undergo a counseling session every 5 years with the objective being that they will explain to them just how to end their own life earlier. Yes...They are going to push SUICIDE to cut medicare spending!"
Fred Thompson: Interviews

(BE SURE TO CLICK ON THE ABOVE LINE!)

So right off the bat we've got Authority behind the statement, and we even have the confirmation bias going too. Conservative listeners to a conservative radio show are probably more inclined to believe that Evil Liberal Obama wants to kill Grandma to save a few bucks. Cue immediate acceptance of the claim sans any evidence for it what so ever.

The email even encouraged me to "Read below the details from page 425" despite the fact that nowhere in the email was any part of that page quoted. Merely some one's thoughts on the interview of someone else that said they read the bill. Are we seeing where this Skep is having a problem yet?

The email oozed with emotional appeal based on a claim that it seems no one down the chain before it came to me thought to verify. And it really isn't that hard. They've said its in the health care bill on page 425. This bill must be on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'. Oh wait... its online (http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf).

If you take the time to click that link and scroll to page 425 you will find a discussion of the nefarious plot to have Social Security recipients meet a councilor every 5 years to discuss... power of attorney? Hospice care? Advanced directives? Wait, where's the euthanasia clause? The part of this bill that says we have to knock off the old often and early to cut costs of health care? The part that says the elderly will be denied care because they're old? It looks, to me at least, like it isn't there at all.

Seems like a lot of people are going to have their legs pulled soon by this email and I expect to be hearing these claims in the news soon. To all the people that will be hearing this, remember that the more a claim seems tailored to make you believe it, the more you should want to go out and verify it.

The Accolade - best news I've ever heard out of Saudi Arabia

2008-12-05T14:56:00.004-05:00

Anyone from the west has probably heard many of the horrible things to come out of Saudi Arabia involving women. Women being arrested for meeting a business partner in public, a woman charged as a criminal for being raped, women being arrested and beaten for "being a witch", etc. Well here is something great to come out of SA, an all girl band called The Accolade. Apparently, these girls have managed to successfully go against the reactionary culture of their homeland in order to Rock Out. Take a listen to their first hit (this is the best sound quality YouTube vid I could find of them, also has lyrics)...

I seriously hope to hear more from them soon. Only good things can happen when women gain freedom. The would be tyrants here in America thrash around the most anytime they are reminded that they no longer hold lock and key over our women's bodies and minds. Rock Hard girls of Saudi Arabia! You are an inspiration.

Tip of the horns to The Young Turks for reporting on them. I never would have known otherwise.

Behold turning the other cheek

2008-11-12T13:11:00.007-05:00

Tip of the hat to Norm at onegoodmove on this.

Remember when "offensive" displays of Mohamed sparked Islamic believers around the world into violence in disorder. Well, apparently the other Abrahamic faiths can be just as bitchy.

Christians have warned of a backlash of art world vandalism, following a decision to halt a private prosecution of a Gateshead gallery which exhibited a statue of Jesus with an erection.

Yes, that's right. No bomb-turban equivalent depicting your religious figurehead as a violence-inciting being... just a statue of Jesus with a feature that most people would hope he'd be able to have if he were in fact born as a man. I'm not sure why displaying the savior as flaccid would be any better... seems to me that portraying the savior of all souls as virile and masculine would be just the thing most Abrahamic groups would want. Of course no "offense" to Christianity would be complete without a little fatwa-envy...

Christian Emily Mapfuwa, 40, of Brentwood, Essex, said the show, entitled Gone, Yet Still - was offensive to her faith and instructed her lawyers to seek a private prosecution against the gallery. She argued the Baltic would not have dared depict Mohammed in such a way.

And we even have some wonderful examples of turning the other cheek...

"If the CPS wanted to give the green light to blasphemous art their decision may paradoxically have the opposite effect. With the threat of destruction hanging over it, the Zabludowicz statue is now locked away by its wealthy owners and is unlikely to see the light of day again. The same will go for any other blasphemous works of so-called art. Put simply, Christians won't tolerate insults to Jesus Christ.

You hear that! They won't tolerate it. Despite the fact that as written, the man seemed to be the kind of character that would very much tolerate insults and did quite a few times. Also that whole being god thing and being above small human goals and perspectives. Seems like Jesus wouldn't have such a fragile self-esteem to go all teary at the sight of his own turgidness and need someone to hide behind for protection. Hell, if their god is so powerful, why should they need to resort to destructive disorder? Why not just pray for god to afflict the offenders with a pox of some sort (you know, get all old testament and such).

But let us not forget... they weren't forced to see this statue. It also wasn't as if they weren't warned.

Warning signs at the doors to the gallery warned of the exhibition's contents - which included dozens of plaster figures including ET and Mickey Mouse, all with erections.

Sounds to me that much like the "offense" cause during the Mohamed cartoons, the offense here was carefully constructed for the purpose of using terror and threats of violence to get their way.

Monday morning, economy plummets?

2008-11-10T11:22:00.005-05:00

More effects of the impending socialism from Comrade Obama and the librul congress. The DJI opened today up about 200 points from yesterday. As with my last post, I blame Obama for this rise in the market. Just watch that market wince.

Must be all that Socialism

2008-11-07T16:12:00.005-05:00

Yeah, everyone saw it coming. I've heard all over my office and from relatives about how if Obama is elected and the Democrats take over congress, the stock market will be negatively effected. Well, I guess they were right.

The DJI just rose 248.1 points today. I blame all that socialism.

I should have grounded my irony meter today.

Final decision on prop 8

2008-11-07T14:49:00.004-05:00

As I have stated on my Facebook page and in person to several friends, I will now state here...

California, go eat a bag of dicks!

I am aware that this is not a rational argument, but the argument from those that supported prop 8 wasn't either. It was nothing more than lies, slander, and fear-mongering. If you meet things like that with reason, you simply give them legitimacy, as Jefferson said "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."

The "New Atheist Movement" is far from over

2008-11-06T12:32:00.003-05:00

There is an article over at the Huffington Post that makes a strong declaration. Not only has President-Elect Obama's victory struck a possibly fatal blow to the Religious Right, but it has also done the same to the, and I really hate the term, New Atheist Movement (as a recent Atheist myself, even I don't see how the statement "I don't believe in God" said by me 2 years ago is so revised and new-fangled than Schopenhauer saying the same words in the 19th century).

Now that is a big claim to make, and I feel like I should give the article a much more thorough going through later, but the claims I have read in it are enough that I can make a counter-claim. This may very well have struck out the religious right, but the drive of secularism seems in no way to be undone. I should early on make it clear that Atheism is no basis for a political movement, nor has it claimed to be one. Secularism, however, is and you can be secular while also having religious beliefs. From this point on I will address the conflict as between the Religious Right and the Secular Movement since trying to pin Atheists to the right or left is like trying to pick the political party of "those that don't collect stamps".

The motives of the religious right are not just to have a spiritual/religious person in office that says nice things about religion and finds inspiration in it, they want someone that will not be afraid to come to my home and force me to my knees and to a conversion. They want someone that will make every law from the Bible a part of the American law. Not just "Thou shalt not kill" (which how many times does YHVH order that one broken with flourish), but that the death penalty should exist for adultery, apostasy, blasphemy, homosexuality, cheeking your parents (to borrow Prof. Dawkins' charming usage), and working on the Sabbath.

The mistake made in Schaeffer's article is in thinking that the secular movement wants the same thing, but from a different direction. That we want a president to come in and declare religion illegal and demand that all peoples come and worship at the altars of philosophical materialism, psychological monism, and methodological naturalism. That we are demanding that blind devotionals to great scientist be forced upon students in school at the beginning of each day ("Oh, Darwin, who art dead now, hallowed be thy theories." or "Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the Principia of Newton. Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally.")

So what is the secular movement looking for? All we want is for reason to stand in its rightful place. Reason and rational argument are what have lead to our modern advancements and even the creation of the US government. No matter the inspiration of these ideas, such as Newton's hope to understand the hand of god in the universe by studying it or the Founder's hope to uphold rights they felt were endowed to men by a creator of some sort (they didn't specify), the works that came out of these inspirations came not from reading a scripture and declaring it inviolable, but by testing that inspired idea against the harsh winds of reality and the uncaring chisel of experimentation. Ideas had to be cast aside when they broke under these harrowing test, and a wise person should always be ready to toss away a long cherished idea if reason shows it to be naught but a dead weight.

In short, the secular movement just wants reasonable people in power, who will base decisions off of reasoned argument and not on blind faith. If that leader wishes to start action on a policy based on a proscription from the Bible, that is their personal right as guaranteed by the US Constitution and I doubt that a free thought advocate would fault a person their own thought process (Die Gedanken sind frei). However, if they wish to bring that policy to a law over people that do not find inspiration in the Bible, then they must bring it with an argument beyond "Because the Bible says it is so". The argument must be something that people of all and no religions can agree to and thus by its nature would be a secular reason for a policy inspired by a religious text. I am perfectly fine with this sort of thing. It is honestly all the secular movement is looking for in a leader... and wait... Barack Obama says just that in a speech to a Church no less.

As for the changing of people's attitudes on religion, the secular movement could care less who is in power when it comes to doing that. We will still work on that through writing, education, debate, and argument. Add besides, the movement for secularism is not just about the USA. It's about seeing rationality used to make decisions all across the world.

As long as I have to see articles like THIS, I can assure you, the Secular Movement and the outcry from the champions of Reason is far from over.

...or maybe Prop 8 doesn't

2008-11-05T11:43:00.003-05:00

This news story is giving me a little hope for the next few days. Despite the current 400k vote lead in favor of Prop 8, there are still around 3M absentee ballots left to count AFTER the precincts are closed.

There may still be a chance for California to remain sane... despite the fact that other states this election decided to jump on the bigot-bandwagon.

Prop 8 passes in California

2008-11-05T09:41:00.003-05:00

So now that marriage in California is only between one man and one woman, I think we need a clear definition of what defines a man and a woman.

To go simply by sexual organ expression, that leaves the door open on individuals with Mixed Gonadal Dysgenesis and Gonadal mosaicism. Since they express both sex organs what gender will they be considered when trying to marry? Will California set up their own Apartheid courts to determine whether a person with one of these conditions is male or female enough to be allowed to marry their partner?

Should we go by the functionality of said organs? Proponents like to push the idea that marriage is for children. Then that disqualified from marriage any sterile individuals, individuals with a vasectomy or tubal ligation, and post-menopausal individuals.

Should it be purely genetic? That seems to be an easy way. Two x-chromosomes is a woman and an x and a y chromosome is a man. This, however, disqualifies from marriage anyone with Turner Syndrome (X0, just one x, no paired sex chromosome) and leaves open the question on Klinefelter's syndrome (XXY, that has two X AND a y, it meets both criterion) and XXYY Syndrome (two X and two Y... once again can meet both). And then there are the mosaicism cases where an individual's body contains both XX, XY, or other combinations of chromosomes as found in 46XY/47XXY, 46XX/46XY, or 46XX/47XXY mosaic.

So let us get that definition set out soon, so we know who to deny the right to marry.

Election Day! |Citizen|<>1--1-|Vote|

2008-11-04T12:22:00.005-05:00

Been a while here since I made a post, but I figured now is a good time. I was out voting today at the Church that is my polling location (that in and of itself is a small issue for me). This is about the only time of the year that you'll catch me in a church for something other than a wedding or a funeral. I've got to say, they seemed to be keeping the religious material out of my face for the most part. Sure, they had the bulletin board up showing their schedule of activities... but hey, I'm an atheist not a dick, I'm not going to demand the removal of all those stapled up sheets just so I can walk past... I really don't give a damn one way or another when your next youth retreat is. The one thing I do ask is that you maybe take down the propaganda that is right next to the table that I pick up my voter's card at. Right next to the table was a nice eye catchingly orange and red sign with the phrase "I will repent." in white letters (I'll get pictures up in a bit). I find myself wondering why they felt the need to leave that sign up... right where I get the little smart card to make the voting machine work.

Oh, and they didn't miss the chance to do a little captive audience advertising. The exit to the polling place had the usual plates of donuts and coffee pots... and the standard "Hey come join our little friendly church" fliers. Huzzah! I the polling place of my partner... a school. That's the kind of place every poll should be, in a place of learning and not a place of unlearning.

Expelled is on its way

2008-04-15T10:06:00.004-04:00

I guess all of us EVILutionists should go hide in fear. Ben Stein is coming at us with Expelled this week. Expelled, for those who have been under a blogospheric rock for the past few months, is a ~~documentary~~ propaganda piece for the ID movement. True to creationist form, Expelled, contains everything from misrepresentation, to misdirection, to outright lies to get its point across (and here I thought those religious types really liked the 9th commandment, 8th if you're a Catholic or Lutheran).

Be sure to check out Expelled Exposed to see all the wonderful lies that went into making this soon to be released piece of trash.

Tha Dick to tha Dawk to tha PhD!

2008-03-30T21:44:00.003-04:00

I am thoroughly convinced that this is the funniest thing I've seen in weeks.

This week in Religious Stupidity

2008-03-28T16:17:00.004-04:00

Woman in India beaten for being a witch.

Yes, once again the good old fashioned custom of punishing witches rears its head. After the Saudi conviction of a woman for witch craft, I was hoping to not see more of this for a while, but it seems that India has decided to get in on the game too. And after we just had such good news from India at that.

Now this whole thing is a bit different from the previous case in Saudi Arabia of a woman condemned to death over witchery, but I still feel that we as a species should be past this. In this case the woman was allegedly hired to perform her services as a witch to improve another woman's health. When said woman's condition deteriorated from the lack of ACTUAL MEDICAL CARE, the husband accused the hired sorceress of performing black magic, where upon the fraud witch was tied to a tree and beaten by a crowd.

She didn't suffer any serious injuries, but the principle of the thing still stands. This woman was hired to say "magic words" over someone's health then, when doing nothing had the expected effect of causing the sick woman's condition to worsen, the crowd proceeded to punish someone for an impossible crime (namely the crime of black magic). I think what's worse, is the number of people that just stood there and watched this happen. "Oh look someone is beating that poor woman." "Ah yes, but she's a witch so that's okay."

Most intelligent people stop believing in witches some time around the time they stop dressing up as them for Halloween. Some people just keep using the idea so that they don't have to take responsibility for their problems. Apparently there are a lot of these people in Dumaria, India.

Dispelling Expelled: An Idea for the science blogosphere

2008-03-26T08:53:00.007-04:00

An idea recently entered into my mind.

For those that have been under the proverbial rock for the past few days, PZ Myers of Pharyngula was recently "expelled" from a showing of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. This whole "ordeal" was made all the more humorous in that one, PZ was not hurt, but was downright tickled pink by the whole thing, two, that Richard Dawkins made it in to see the movie, and three, the creators of Expelled have been doing all the lying for Jesus that they can in a half cocked attempt to spin this into good PR.

As I've been sitting here in my cube or at home, laughing at the pure stupidity they've shown an idea has been slowly forming. Sure, the educated will be able to see through the poor film quality and the blatant lies, but we aren't the target. The target is the less educated, easily scared populace. The populace that hangs on anyone that presents them with the idea that some huge secret organization is plotting their down fall, the kinds of people that believe in Reptiloid take overs of the Earth's governments, in mind control chemicals in the contrails of air planes, and that Ghost Hunter TV shows are skeptical. This movie plans to sneak its lies into the minds of the American people using one of the sure fire tricks to get past the memetic defenses of the American mind. It's playing the underdog.

They present themselves as the vanguard of a revolution. Poor underdog cdesign proponentsist are being kicked out of their jobs by the massive lumbering behemoth of BIG SCIENCE!! The secret Darwinist conspiracy, plotting to keep science from moving forward, its huge bulk crushing all that stand in its way or that dare march out of line. They are the rag tag group of maverick rebels that are here now, risking everything to show you how to fly right down the trench of Big Science and launch that torpedo of truth into the Thermal Exhaust port of evolution. Given that America was founded on rebellion, this tactic has a sort of heart string tug to it. We cheer the underdog and boo the established order in movies.

This is why we have to use it first.

My proposal is this. We in the scientific sections of the blogosphere have an invaluable tool. Some of our ranks have seen this travesty of a movie. They know the arguments that Expelled will use. They know the lies, the deceptions and the tricks it plans to use. We can use this. By gathering all of the information together that we have on what will be in the movie, gathered from tens of people viewing the advanced screening, we can put together a booklet. This booklet will in simple, non-technical language lay out for the reader ever single lie and deception in this movie. It will contain links and references for the intrepid mind to follow further up the line. We can then place a person at every theater showing Expelled that we can reach that will hand this to viewers as they enter. We will play the underdog.

They are the massive establishment, spreading lies and keeping education from the masses. We are the mavericks, the rebels, armed only with our backpacks full of pamphlets, we rally against their Hollywood movie in our desperate battle to protect the people from the brainwashing of the evil secret organization of Intelligent Design. We risk outing ourselves in a world that is against the scientist to save people from falsehood. And what will make us different from them is that we ARE actually the underdog in this country. We ARE attempting to spread truth.

The movie premiers on the 18th of April. I think 23 days is plenty of time to organize a rebuttal booklet and print them by the thousands at Kinkos.

Anyone with me?

Long live the king of the RPG

2008-03-04T14:40:00.003-05:00

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/03/04/obit.gygax.ap/index.html

I will admit it. I am a DnD geek at heart. Today a legend to gamers everywhere is gone. I'll probably be putting together an impromptu game tonight or tomorrow in honor of the creator of a whole genre.

Roll some 20s for Gygax tonight!

Message to all cells!

2008-02-27T13:59:00.002-05:00

URGENT CALL

There is a chink in our public facade! It has become obvious that there is a mole within our vast web of influence. We must work quickly. Mobilize all black out units to strangle public criticism. In the event that anyone openly questions our policies of deception and darkness, the use of drugs and forced brainwashing is advised.

Let not the blinded public see the truth. If evolution is disproved to them, our ability to control the world through drug traffic, human slavery, and prostitution will be in jeopardy.

We will conquer this threat! Victory to the hordes. May the viscous one grant us strength in this time of scattering.

-Dark Clan Higher Viscount Jones

But no, seriously... a Dark Clan of evolutionist with a web of influence backed by secret well funded societies strangling decent in the world and immune to question by the public? What do they think we are, Catholics?

A better thought out look at DNA as data

2008-02-25T11:09:00.007-05:00

DNA and its place within a Turing Machine model: Part 1

It has occurred to me that in my attempt at defending the idea that small amounts of code can do big things, I have been stuck in the mind set, apparently mistakenly, that DNA is the program in this analogy of life as a computational system. With a bit more sleep on an idea that hit me only moments after posting my last topic, I have come to what I consider to be a much cleaner conclusion on the topic of Junk DNA and DNA as data.

Note the use of data instead of code in the above statement.

Before breaching the topic of where DNA fits into my current analogy, which I am certain will get the point across in a much more elegant fashion, I must explain a computer science concept, the automaton, and more specifically the automaton call the Turing Machine. That will be the topic of this post.

Automaton are abstract machines in computer science (models used to represent a data process) that take input and perform some functions based on that input. All of the automata in computer theory have an input tape, a head, states, and transition functions. Some have more parts, and we will come to that later.

The input tape can be visualized as a long piece of paper, separated into small squares (called cells in automata theorv). Each cell contains a symbol. This symbol is simply some arbitrary piece of data that has some effect or meaning to the machine. These are sometimes called "letters", as many models use letters to represent the data, but they can theoretically be anything including letters, numbers, shapes, sounds, colors or any other qualifiable object. Symbols in an automaton could be a, B, 9, #, @, ☻, ▼, or Σ. The "alphabet" that these symbols can come from as one might guess is simply the list of symbols that the automaton will recognize. For example in an alphabet (a b c d) the symbol e is not recognized by the automaton while a is. A word in automata theory is simply a connected string of symbols that are all pulled from the alphabet. In the above alphabet aaaaddbbca, abcd, dcba, and a are valid words while ae is not. Finally the language for the automaton is the list of words that can be formed by the alphabet. A language may or may not have a finite size and can have rules placed on what constitutes a legal word by a grammar, but for this example it is not necessary to get into grammars and language theory. The above information is simply provided to define the terms I will be using later.

The head of the automaton is the part which traverses the input tape and reads the symbols to the machine. The head can only move one cell at a time so moving across 3 symbols requires reading all of them. In a Turing Machine, the head has the special ability to move both left and right along the tape and even has the ability to write symbols back to the tape. The head in the abstract system is often represented by a magnetic head reading a magnetic tape, or some camera reading the symbol off of paper, but it could just as easily be represented by a data port getting a stream of data or a keyboard being typed on. Once again the key thing to remember is that the representation is simply an abstract for the important concept of getting the symbols into the automaton.

The final key parts of an automaton are the states and the transition functions. The states are just that, the state the automaton is in. States are typically represented as a shape with a unique name (often as circles as seen in the diagram above). Within an automaton there are two necessary states, a start and an end state. Input from the tape is valid if the automaton is in the end state when it reaches the end of the tape (in the diagram above, the end state, 3 is represented by the double circle). The transitional function in the automaton is what lets it know what to do based on the current state and the current symbol. The functions for the above example are as follows...

state=1 & input=a => new state=2
state=1 & input=b => new state=3
state=2 & input=a => new state=2
state=2 & input=b => new state=3

For Turing Machines, the transition functions also contain information about where to move the head along the tape and what to output. And look more like "state=1 & input=a => output c, move head right, new state=2". By this transitional function, if we are in state 1 and we read the symbol a from the current cell, the automaton will write the symbol c to this cell, move the head to the right on the tape by one cell and then enter state 2. As an aside, the actual computer science representations of the transitional functions are less verbose, appearing more like a graph of state numbers and symbols, but these suffice for my examples.

Now we have all of the basics to define the example I will use and will detail out in further posts. By our example, DNA does not exist as the program at all. DNA by this example takes on the role of the input tape. Transcription proteins take on the role of the head, reading along the DNA to produce an effect in the state of the automaton (the development environment for the organism or desired structure) using appropriate transition functions (chemical signals within the environment).

My next post on the matter will cover the analogy of DNA as an input tape.

(Note: I'll be editting this post through out the day, adding sources and images back in as I have time as this had to be added from a plain text file I brought with me today)

How tiny amounts of code can do big things...

2008-02-25T00:51:00.003-05:00

So a creationist argument has stepped up into my realm. I like the person in this article am not very knowledgeable about genetics or biology, but his comparison of genes to code is a little off. First off we get the argument from incredulity...

However, as a software developer I have a vague idea of how many bytes of code are needed to make complex software programs and I am amazed that something as complicated as a human being is encoded in as little as 3.2 billion base pairs of DNA.

Yes it is hard to believe that a human being can be engineered out of 3.2 billion base pares. Its also hard to believe that gravity is able to affect light which has no mass and that the closer you are to a gravity well the slower time goes, but that doesn't make them any less true. Now into the meat (burnt and dry as it may be) of his arguments.

To be more specific, since the DNA alphabet consists of 4 nucleobases, we can represent a nucleobase with 2 bits data.

This is correct in this context, since there are only 4 bases used in DNA, cytosine, guanine, adenine, thymine, (uracil in RNA can be left out of the coding since it is part of a different language to extend the metaphor). We could easily turn these into bits...

C-00
G-01
A-10
T-11

Next...

This means that 4 base pairs can be represented by a byte of data and approximately 4 million base pairs can be represented by a megabyte of data. This means that the entire human genome can be represented by only 800MB of code.

He actually did get the 4 base pairs = 1 byte correct, there is a mistaken assumption that 4 base pairs = 8 bases = 2 bytes, but this is disproved by the fact that A always pairs to T and G to C meaning that if we find 10 we can always assume a paired 11 meaning there is no unique information that can be gained by leaving in the other 2bit signature for the paired nucleobase. I however have to disagree with his measure that 4 million base pairs equals a megabyte. As much as it may seem now like an admission of defeat due to there being less megabytes in which to fit the human genetic code a megabyte would actually be 1,048,576 bytes (this is the memory addressing standard in computers, if were making the code=DNA analogy lets be accurate) thus 1 megabyte = 4,194,304 million base pairs and one human's genetic structure (if the 3.2 billion base pairs is true) is containable in 762.939453125 MB.

From my 25+ years of experience as a software developer, this would have to be highly efficient code. To suggest that 97% of DNA is junk implies the implausible -- that only 24MB of DNA is not junk. By comparison, Microsoft Word has a size of 12MB which is half as much information.

From my 5+ years as a software developer, I can say that his ideas of the output you can get from small bits of code are a little restricted. I'm guessing that this argument has fallen into the pitfall idea that there is a genetic piece that corresponds to every single little part of the human body. That old idea that every C, G, A, and T positions a cell or determines that cell's type. The analogy to MSWord, I feel shows this. In MS Word, every single bit of code does code directly to a button, border, text field, menu, or some function of the program. However, DNA isn't actively making my eyes see or processing input into models in my brain. There is no genetic "subroutine" for yawning, not "structure" for sleep cycle, no "variable" for short term memory. The biological devices that DO handle these things were built by the genes in our body and getting structured output that is vastly larger than the code put into making that output is not hard by any stretch for a computer scientist.

This is where my specialty (part of the title of my blog) Regular Expressions come in. Lets take the following code (PERL, my current language of common usage) which will create a string 1024 characters in length using a single character as the substrate.

for($i=0,$i<1025,$i++){$_.=0;}

Already we have code (efficiency aside) that generates an output 34.13~ times as long as the code used to make it (this could easily be increased by changing the number in the $i<# conditional).

Next line lets make some marker positions for our new little pattern

$_=~s/.{1024}/AAB{500}A{20}B{500}AA/g;

This little bit now makes a pattern of 2 A's, 500 B's, 20 A's, 500 B's and 2 A's. Kind of like differentiating the tissue for eye spots or sweat glands or anything else like that. Now we want more pattern in the B's for our structure...

$_=~s/B{10}/CD{8}C/g;

Now every 10 B's becomes CDDDDDDDDC.

And finally for our last bit of pattern

$_=~s/DDCCDD/EFGGFE/g;

Which turns the place where our CDDDDDDDDC blocks meet into EFGGFE which would effectively make CDDDDDDDDCCDDDDDDDDC into CDDDDDDEFGGFEDDDDDDC.

All told our full code (line breaks added for readability, figures of length taken without them)...

for($i=0,$i<1025,$i++){$_.=0;}
$_=~s/.{1024}/AAB{500}A{20}B{500}AA/g;
$_=~s/B{10}/CD{8}C/g;
$_=~s/DDCCDD/EFGGFE/g;

..generates a nice little pattern that is 10 times its length roughly (although admittedly by this example the pattern can be compressed down into a 58 byte regular expression while the code is 111 bytes). However by switching the $i<1025 to say, $i<1048576, we can create a pattern one megabyte in length with a final code that is only 114 bytes in length (only 3 bytes more to create a larger substrate).

Converting this code to DNA we have 456 base pairs, I can post them if anyone wants to see it. As you can see, in this code, much to the detriment of the argument that a complex thing must have a piece of code for each little piece of the output is wrong. Each single character in the pattern wasn't placed by way of a code saying put it here. Using Regular Expressions, we can switch on the placement of blocks of characters in a pattern in much the same way that developmental genes switch on the development of blocks of cells in patterns (to all the big boys in biology, if I have this wrong let me know).

This topic actually has me more curious about developmental biology and creating a computational analog that could be used as a more comprehensive metaphor for the process. A scientific outlook on life truly does open up new vistas for you.

I must now sleep, and perhaps research on my lunch break at work tomorrow.

Just a "scientific theory"

2008-02-19T14:34:00.004-05:00

In a stroke of good news, it seems that Florida recently passed a new science standard that now includes teaching the "scientific theory" of evolution.

In what can only be an example of the mind-blowing inanity of the current debate in society over this, the labeling of evolution as a scientific theory was seen as a compromise... a concession to get the motion passed. Quote the article

Board member Roberto Martinez said that the revision had been made to "placate" people who disagreed with the standards.

With the Discotute and creationists slamming down the "Just a theory" rhetoric, it seems that we are now able to have real science taught as long as we concede to label it as what it actually is. Thanks for that DI Fellows. You've made it that much easier for us to publicly make it known that we want scientific theories taught in science class!

Of course some people weren't quite satisfied by the bending over backwards to call the Theory of Evolution a theory in science standards. Some stated that the move didn't even begin to address the problems with the new standards while other once again called for the "Teach the Controversy" drek again. Luckily for Florida students, these opinions didn't make it into the standards which passed with a 4-3 vote today.

Congrats Florida on your new Science Curriculum standards!

Can't they give the stupid a rest for a single day?!

2008-02-14T14:56:00.002-05:00

Once again, our oh-so-modern and civilized allies, the Saudi government, are showing us exactly how hip and with it they are. They are planning to put a woman to death for being a witch! That's right folks, its a good old fashioned witch killing.

This poor illiterate woman (a fact even more sadly expected given women's status in the Islamic world) was arrested, beaten and forced into confessing to making a neighbor impotent with her magic. Could her accuser prove that he didn't just have erectile dysfunction? What kind of evidence do that have that she's a witch besides a beating-coerced confession? Did she turn someone into a newt? (he got better) Does she weigh as much as a duck? Or did they just dress her up like that and put the fake nose on her... and by that I mean are these people actually stupid enough to believe that some poor woman has the mystical power of deflating willies.

I drive to work, and use machines that require processed oil to run, but I really don't think all that is worth propping up a government that is backwards enough to ban the color red for Valentine's Day and to kill innocent women for a fake crime that noone can actually commit!

I know I'm less of a believer now!

2008-02-14T11:21:00.006-05:00

Linky

It is truly inspiring to hear the joyful statements of the unfaithful like these...
"I have always been an Atheist and to see my life choices validated on a piece of toast is truly astounding"

Maybe athe will bless me with the appearance of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation in my lunch today.

I'd declare my love for our allies...

2008-02-12T12:22:00.001-05:00

...but they'd probably ban my display of such love as being un-Islamic.

Yes, Saudi Arabia, our wacky allies in the Middle East are back to their lovable antics of stomping out anything that isn't expressly declared in the Quran as A-OK.

Linky here

The secular, commercial celebration of giving red hearts, heart shaped chocolates, and romantic cards to significant others is now banned in Saudi Arabia as un-Islamic. I know it may seem kind of silly that their religious gestapo are enforcing the ban to the point of forcing shop keepers to remove red wrapping paper, roses, and anything else red, but this is just further proof of the extent to which the Saudi government is willing to go to prevent any foreign influence into its little bubble of religious fundamentalist nationalism.

This is a government that strip searched a woman for daring to hold a business meeting with male colleagues in public. A government that sentenced a rape victim to prison time and lashings for the crime of being outside without the escort of a male relative (a verdict thankfully overturned). This is a government led as a theocratic monarchy that still espouses the idea of a legal body lead by the rulers of the Islamic religion and a law that states that deconverting from Islam is punishable by death. This is a government that our glorious leader considers our closest ally in our goals to fight Islamic extremism and spread democracy in the middle east. That's like saying E.Coli and lack of refrigeration are our greatest allies in improving food quality or that our best hope for on the job safety is to jam our bare hands into spinning machinery.

I've got no love for the Saudi Government and given the fact that they've just banned what is ostensibly a celebration of love, I doubt they have much love for me, or anyone for that matter.

Happy Darwin Day!

2008-02-12T09:46:00.000-05:00

Car of the future doesn't impress me yet

2008-01-15T15:34:00.000-05:00

Story at CNN

Now they didn't give a figure as to what this car's tank size is, but honestly I'm not jumping up and down at 444 miles on a full tank. I've been keeping watch on my miles per gallon ever since gas got above $3.00 where I live and have been pretty impressed by my current vehicle's performance. My already existing 2005 Mazda 6 gets 400 miles on a tank consistently... more if I spend most of the tank on the highway.

I'm happy that they're at least TRYING to market gas efficiency in a car, but unless that tank is a blister of a thing (and after about 10 different sites of searching I can't find a capacity figure), I'm remaining skeptical as to exactly how hard they are trying on this one. Hell, with gas prices as they are, you'd think that maybe we would see more people working on a car that gets 444 miles on no gas at all.

Oh well. It is pretty though, I guess making the car of the future finally look like the movie car of the future should count for something.

I'm Incredulous about his Incredulity

2008-01-10T10:37:00.000-05:00

...but at least I have an argument to back up my disbelief.

Today from Uncommon Descent, DaveScot is going to attempt to show everyone why a logical fallacy is actually a decent way to argue your case. I, on the other hand, will be showing you all why logical fallacies are still not a good reason to argue anything, and that Dave actually fails to back up the claim that the Argument from Incredulity holds any weight.

We often hear that ID is an argument from incredulity. At this point I would tend to agree. That said, arguments from incredulity aren’t necessarily wrong but in fact are rather reliable and employed constantly and consistently by everyone every day.

I may be incredulous about things on a regular basis, but I try to refrain from basing my entire argument around the phrase "I just don't believe that X is possible". Incredulity is a horrible argument, but it is a great place to open up the path to further inquiry. "I don't believe that X is possible, however I have now been told that X is true. Either this person is full of it, or I am completely mistaken about the functioning environment in which X occurs. Perhaps I should do my own research on the subject and see where that gets me." While incredulity was the starting point in that, a person cannot field a defensible argument against a subject simply on the grounds of incredulity. To do so is the argumentative equivalent of plugging one's ears and repeatedly shouting "NO NO NO! ALL WRONG! NOT POSSIBLE!".

Let’s take the example that Granville Sewell offered in his most recent post here. He described Schrodinger’s equation and showed us that it’s theoretically possible for a pitched baseball to stop and hover in mid-air. A commenter who appeared to have a reasonable understanding of Schrodinger’s equation at first protested then ended up agreeing that it’s possible but the odds against it are long and for all practical purposes incalculable. They went on to agree that the quantum uncertainty is tractible[sic] in the analysis of a single electron orbiting a single proton (a hydrogen atom) but that the math is intractible[sic] for a pitched baseball because such a large number of particles are involved.

Now we see here exactly what I was talking about above. The commenter in this example may have started from a POSITION not an ARGUMENT of incredulity, but upon further debate and explanation the commenter agrees that it may be quantumly possible, if not ridiculously statistically improbable, for a baseball to stop in mid air by way of interactive forces. There was no argument from incredulity at all here. No "I don't believe X therefore not X". There was a starting point of a lack of understanding of the probability of baseballs simply stopping in the air, an exchange of information, and apparently in the end an agreement.

So how do we “know” that a pitched baseball won’t stop and hover in mid-air? Incredulity is how. We can’t precisely calculate the odds against it due to the system being so complex but we know it is (literally) incredibly improbable. It’s the same thing with ID. Although we can’t calculate the odds precisely we do know enough to see that self-organization of atoms into structures as complex as the machinery found in living cells is incredibly improbable. We couple this with the sure knowledge that intelligent agency routinely produces organizations of matter that, absent the intelligent agent’s intervention, are incredibly unlikely.

Oh wait, so now we KNOW that the ball won't stop after we spent the last paragraph saying that it is possible but improbable? Either way incredulity is why you believe it can't possibly stop, but it is certainly not how you would determine such a thing. In fact the third sentence clearly states that we use shaded probability to determine the improbability of such an event, not just a simple stance of incredulity. After that we immediately return to the fact that ID proponents routinely ignore the idea of accumulation in biology. Yes the odds of a complex cell arising spontaneously with all its parts intact is just as improbable as a baseball halting in the air, but there isn't an accumulation effect in the baseball event. The baseball MUST go from high velocity to zero velocity while somehow gaining a net vertical acceleration of 0 m/s^2 in a single instantaneous event. The odds of that happening are rightly so improbable that one can easily dismiss the odds of ever having to deal with it happening.

The cell on the other hand shows evidence of multiple formation events. Ancestral forms of cellular components CAN be found and these forms can be moved between by small only slightly improbable steps. Evolution never said the Eukaryotic cell simply blinked into existence. Of course DaveScot has the answer for how it could happen that way (a problem that he introduced himself to postulate the solution), an intelligent agent. However this once again ignores the glaring hole that must always be pointed to in an argument with ID proponents... if complexity cannot self assemble what assembled the intelligent agent?

Here’s a good example. In principle it is possible for two cows to mate and give birth to a chimpanzee. The reason we don’t ever expect to see such a thing is we know (now) that the genetic differences between a cow and a chimp are so complex and specified that the odds against it actually happening in a single generation are nearly impossible. We can’t calculate the odds precisely but we know it is incredibly improbable. The argument that two cows won’t mate and produce a chimpanzee is an argument from incredulity.

This is not a great example, its not even a bad one. If anything this example is a clear refutation of the apparent point of the post. Using a Way of the Master-esque example of Cows giving birth to chimpanzees. We know that cows don't give birth to chimpanzees because in order to give birth to a chimpanzee the parent's gametes must contain half of a chimpanzee's DNA each in order to form a chimpanzee embryo. The regulatory mechanism at work in embryology are quite beyond me as a computer scientist, but a simple look at organ transplantation shows that the genetic difference between two individuals of the same species can result in tissue from one being rejected by the body of another. Even if the millions of simultaneous codon swaps and chromosome fusions could be accomplished in one generation, the immune system of the cow would most definitely reject the radically different embryo. The amount of evidence we have that this sort of thing doesn't happen is such a far cry from an argument from incredulity that I must question why this was thought to be a good example at all. This is clearly an argument from evidence in the fields of genetics and embryology, not just a simple argument that a person can't believe that it would ever happen.

So the next time someone tells you that ID is an argument from incredulity you can simply respond by saying “Yeah, so what? Arguments from incredulity are common and quite reliable in all aspects of life from the physics of baseball to the physics of biology.”

The next time that someone tells you “Yeah, so what? Arguments from incredulity are common and quite reliable in all aspects of life from the physics of baseball to the physics of biology.” Ask them the last time they successfully defended any argument by simply stating that they can't believe that the opposing point could be right. Either that or point them to this post.