Replies

Undanted, the sarcastic post

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1704943/posts?page=246#246

I replied with (which you haven't replied to) wasn't intended to be an insult, I was using sarcasm to help to demonstrate the absurdity/improbability of a chance universe. You deserve credit, there is a connection with what you wrote and the topic at hand "A Mathematician's View of Evolution", which is above the fray of most of your like-minded peers on this thread. I wish you the best in graduate school..("I majored in Math, Computer Science, and Physics as an undergrad.")...I deeply enjoyed graduate school studying similar areas.

I know that you will think I am crazy when I say this as you don't believe in God.....but I will pray for you. You have an understanding of the mathematics of probability. I dare you to honestly ask the question was evolution via chance and natural process probable, was spontaneous generation probable etc? What are my presuppositions about ultimate reality, do they match or contradict the world I observe? I will lovingly and with true tears pray that the shelter you have built up will be removed and that this will allow the truth of the God's created world--reflecting His eternal attributes, his eternal power and divine nature--to shine on you. May God bless you, and may God change your heart.

I've had orientation in my department all day and it's taken a while to settle down and catch up.

First, it's quite presumptuous of you to tell me I don't believe in God.

Second, your sarcastic post made little sense. I study computational math, and I'm interested in physical modeling. All those games and movies you watch which use CGI, most of those are based on physics engines. The simple facts that the algorithms we create to approximate nature are designed and the computers we use to integrate these algorithms are designed make no statement as to the "design-edness" of the system being modeled - we attempt to recreate natural events from initial conditions as closely as possible using the fundamental principles and forces of nature... without intervention.

Your analogy is wrought with falacies. I'll name a few:
1. the "Fitness function" of biological evolution is not designed, it is completely circumstatial and arbitrary.
2. nature provides a very effective means of determining which "programs won't compile" - death. In the analogy, the decision algorithm required is actually undecidable - Halting problem reduction.
3. The rest is even more absurd jibbering, which I won't address. I'm not partial to analogies... way too easy to fall into falacies.

Which brings me to my last point. Interestingly, the one thing I find missing most from these threads is... biology. Being an applied mathenatician, I prefer to apply theories to toy examples and get used to how they function, what are some common pitfalls, and how they may be overcome. One of my favorite links is a list of these specimins:

http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm

Now, the knee-jerk reactions to the Blind Cavefish:

Creationist: Why are you questioning god's... I mean the creator's... judgement?

Biologist: This fish is likely the descendent of a freshwater fish which had eyes. A population of these fish likely broke off and found a niche - a place where they could live with little competition - in a cave. A good place to start would be to try and find "cousins" of these fish. We do this genetically and morhpologically.