Evolution vs Intelligent Design

I've always been interested in this argument.  I suppose this is mostly since I've never really understood how, in the light of Mendel's peas, Darwin's finches, Peppered moths, and the thousands of experiments done each year with Drosophila (fruit flies) in high school and college courses demonstrating the mechanisms of evolution, a rational human being can deny this and say, "we were put on Earth 6,000 years ago and things haven't changed since."  I recently learned that someone whom I respect does not believe evolution is an open and shut case, as I always have.  I was eager to jump at the opportunity to learn about an intelligent design argument without traveling to the ridiculous (see below)

I got a pair of very good sources from this person, one written by William A Dembski (who has himself written several books on the merits of intelligent design), and another by Dr. Caroline Crocker, as recounted in the Washington Post (Dr. Crocker is a former university professor who taught intelligent design as an alternative to evolution and was featured in the documentary Expelled).

First I want to clear the air, because there's a lot of confusion (on both sides) on exactly what intelligent design is.  There are four distinctive camps when in comes to the origin of life.  First, there's the creationists who insist on using the Bible as a literal source of information.  I call them "Creationists." What makes them distinctive is their refusal to admit material evidence into their decision making process.  Next up, there are the Evolutionists, who refuse to admit any non-material evidence into their decision making process.  When I was a practicing Catholic, I belonged to a third camp, where God (or your divine being of choice) worked through evolution.  "Basically," I thought, "evolution is brilliant.  If I were God, I'd have totally designed evolution!"

Lastly, there's the intelligent design group.  This group really has much more merit than most people give them credit for.  They really are trying to use science to prove the divine (however counterintuitive that may seem).  In any case, let me sum up what design theorists do and what they believe

• Design theorists investigate biological and ecological systems for "signs of intelligence"
• EX: Wouldn't Mt. Rushmore look clearly "designed" if investigated by an alien species??
• A sign of intelligence must have a complexity with the following conditions:
• The complexity is contingent, and thus not necessary.
• Not readily repeatable by chance.*
• It exhibits and independently given pattern.
• It is argued that "irreducibly complex" systems are a sign of intelligence
• The Human Eye needs rods, cones, a lens, and many other parts in order to function properly.  Removal of one of these components renders it largely useless.  Keep in mind that each component is itself very complex.  (further research has shown more primitive versions of eyes, called eye spots, on single cell organisms).
• Microevolution and natural selection, in general, is NOT argued against by design theorists.
• Macroevolution and speciation IS argued against by design theorists.

Throughout all my my sources, it astounded me how few biological analogies there were to help explain the points being made.  In her lecture, Dr. Crocker explains that you can't get a new book by making a few spelling mistakes, as an analogy to help make her point that you can't get a new species by making a few errors in the DNA.  That is, "No one has ever seen a dog turn into a cat in the laboratory." Out of many analogies made, I'd like to address this one because it gets right down to this idea of macroevolution.

Back when books were manuscripts, they were copied, word for word, by scribes when a second copy of the manuscript was needed.  Inevitably, these scribes misspelled words or omitted passages, resulting in different versions of the same book.  There are, currently, 80 different versions of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales because of this phenomenon.  Furthermore, we've found through the various genome projects that chimp DNA and human DNA are 96-99% the same.  That means that you're not really looking for a new book.  Relatively simple changes in a book can have vast changes in the story.  Think about "Harry Potter died" versus "Harry Potter lived."  This makes a huge change, and in the right spot, it can completely change the tone of the book.

The crux of this argument, at least for me, is what is taught to children in high school and college.  As those who take design theorists seriously repeatedly refute arguments, those same design theorists will come up with new arguments, floundering to find some foothold.  This means that we need to ask the question, "what belongs in a science classroom?"  Well, science, clearly.  What is science?  In latin, science is knowledge.  In the Mariam-Webster dictionary, science spans several fields, not just the familiar "a body of knowledge which has been tested using the scientific method."  So what is science?

I struggled with this question for a while before I remembered a video which I had seen this past month.  This is Simon Sinek's TED talk (which is very interesting...you should watch it):

In it, he describes his Golden Circle.  Most people approach a task in a What-How-Why fashion.  The most successful of us reorder this, and approach a task in a Why-How-What fashion.  I was asking the wrong question.  The question is not, "What is science?"  The question is, "Why do we science?"  I believe I have the answer.

The best scientists science because they want to ask questions.  The best science experiments have led us on an incredible journey of question after question after question, and always leave us with more questions than answers.  Yes, what science does is answers questions, but we do it so we can ask more questions.  Would we really be content, as a species, if we knew all the answers and had no more questions to ask?  Let's examine what a design theorist and a biologist would do if given a design schematic for a flagellum:

Design Theorist: Hmmm, very interesting diagram.  What would happen if I took out one of these parts?  It wouldn't work!  GOD DESIGNED THE FLAGELLUM.

Biologist:  Hmmm, very interesting diagram.  What would happen if I took out one of these parts?  <experiment>  It didn't work very well.  What else does this part do?  Have I seen it before?  Which gene expresses this protein?  Is there an enzyme used to make it?  Where did the enzyme come from?  Does the enzyme have any other parts?  Hey look!  Here's another bacterium which has a flagellum too!  I wonder if these parts are similar.  How would the bacteria function without the flagellum.....

Do you see the difference?  Both people are going to answer "What is a flagellum?"  They've both done the "What" of science.  But the Design Theorist hasn't done the "Why."  He stops questioning!  He's depriving us of the spirit of science that makes it such an intriguing field.  It hurts.  It pains me to think that we would stop seeking knowledge because we "know" everything.

Right now, we've stopped.  Biology touched a tricky question: "How did we get here?"  We found an answer, an answer that is supported by data and repeatable experiments.  An answer which biologists are confident enough in to say that we've answered the question.  And in the true spirit of science, the biologists have moved on to ask more questions.  Yes it's true, new hypotheses should be rigorously tested and analyzed.  But this one has been, and it has passed the tests.  Please.  Let us inspire a new generation to ask even more questions.  Let us continue our journey as a species, rise to new challenges, and find those juicy answers which give rise to the greatest questions of all.

Trashy Game Theory

Of the trashy TV that I watch, I think that Paradise Hotel has got to be the trashiest.  The first week there were 6 girls and 5 guys on the show.  In order to continue their stay at the Paradise Hotel, the girls would each pick a guy, one by one, to be her roommate for the week.  One pair would then have a "third wheel" (since the girls outnumber the guys), and the guy would then choose which girl he would keep as his roommate.

Now, since I'm a complete nerd, I stated working out odds and percentages and maximizing how to play the game.  Game theory has to do with making decisions based on the decisions of other people.  It's incredibly useful and valuable, so let's take a second to break it down in a more simple example.  Let's say there are two competing coffee shop companies, Staribou Coffee and Carbucks Coffee.

Both are national chains and are looking to expand their business in either New York City or Oklahoma City.  Since NYC real estate is much more expensive than OKC real estate, each chain could either open one shop in NYC or 2 shops in OKC.  Because these are two competing businesses, if both choose to open shops in the same cities, neither company will turn a profit.  How does each business choose where to open the new shops?

We probably need a little bit more information, but each shop is going to use game theory.  If you're in Staribou's position, the most important thing is to not open shops in the same city as Carbucks.  So you're going to put yourself in Carbucks' position.  And you may ask yourself, "well, how did I get here? what would Carbucks do?  I'm going to open my shops where they won't open shops."  Well, Carbucks is doing exactly the same thing, and putting itself into Staribou's position, quoting Talking Heads....Game Theory tends to get very circular ;)

Let's get back to the Game of Paradise Hotel:

In the Game of Paradise Hotel, you either put out, or you go home.  I told you it was trashy!

The first girl and the last girl are trivial choices.  The first girl has open season, and the last girl will be forced to (we'll see why she's forced to in a second) double up on a man.  Let's work on the second girl.  She has a choice; either she can double up on the first girl's choice, or she can pick a new hunk.  IF she doubles up, then she has a fifty percent chance of going home, depending on who the guy chooses (every other girl will choose an open man because that is the choice that gives a one hundred percent chance of staying).  IF she does not, and picks a new man, then we need to find the odds of another girl choosing the same man.  Recursion, ho!

3RD GIRL: We've assumed that the 2nd girl picked a new man.  There are now 3 open men.  She can either pick a taken man (50%) or pick a new man.  Recursion, ho!

4TH GIRL: Assuming 3rd girl picked a new man.  2 open men.  She can either pick a taken man (50%) or pick a new man.  Recursion, ho!

5TH GIRL: Assuming 4th girl picked a new man.  1 open man.  If she picks a taken man, she has a 50% chance of going home.  Since there's one girl to go after her, she has a .2*.5=10% chance of going home if she picks the open man.  The 5th girl will, naturally, pick the last man standing.  Ho, recursion!

4TH GIRL:  OK, how we know what the 5th girl's choice is.  That means that the 6th girl is the only girl that can challenge you for your man.  10% chance of going home if she picks a new man.  The 4th girl will pick an single man.  Ho, recursion!

3RD GIRL:  Now we know what 4th and 5th girls' choices are!  They're going to pick new men!  10% chance of going home for picking a single man, so the 3rd girl will pick a single man.  Ho, recursion!

2ND GIRL: That brings us to the end of the recursive argument.  Now we know what each girl after us is going to do; they're picking new men.  So, to recap, there's a 50% chance of going home if she doubles up.  Since each girl after us is picking a new man, that means there's a 10% chance that, if you pick a new man, the 6th girl will 1) choose your man AND 2) your man chooses girl #6 over you.  Therefore, the 2nd girl will choose a new man.

Thus, each girl will choose a new man (unless she thinks that a particular man has more than a 90% chance of picking her over the other woman).  The 6th girl must be doubled up, and thus has a trivial decision (any man she picks will result in a 50% chance to go home).

Due to the nature of the game, she has a 50% chance of going home.  Every other girl has a 10% chance of going home.

I pity the girl who chooses last!

US Space Program

It's been almost a year since the last shuttle mission.  I've spent a lot of time (time which probably is normally better spent grading or lesson planning...) thinking about the American space program, reasons for its being there, reasons for it not to be there, etc.  Although NASA represents a very small percentage of the federal budget, and has for a majority of the organization's lifetime, the question remains: is space exploration and research a worthwhile use of our money?

In preparation for November's election, I've been trying to figure out, exactly, what my political stance is.  Take the budget for example.  It's easy to say "we need to raise taxes and cut spending in order to reduce the deficit."  However, it's much harder to try and figure out where to cut that spending.  The government provides many services for the people; where do I draw the line to start classifying projects as unnecessary spending?

For example, I think Planned Parenthood is a wonderful program.  It provides safe, easy, and affordable medical services, and contrary to popular Republican belief, does much much more than birth control and abortions.  Could we, as a society, afford to cut it?  Probably.  It's not, strictly speaking, necessary for our lives.  Just the same, I think I'd like to keep it around.

Let's look back at NASA.  They've made some incredible inventions, innovations, and brought technology leaps and bounds within the course of about 60 years.  They are responsible for inspiring and realizing the genre of science fiction.  In turn, the scientists took the best tech that came from sci fi and turned it into reality.  NASA has improved our understanding of the universe and took some of the first steps to exploring that universe.  And yet, somehow I have a sinking feeling that their well has run dry; that space has nothing left to offer.  I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but with this feeling I find it hard to justify spending federal tax dollars to fund NASA.

I think what I need is a set of rules for what the government should spend its money on.  Now, the Constitution has very specific things that it says the federal government is responsible for.  While that will drastically reduce spending, it will also entirely cut out funding for things like Planned Parenthood, NASA, the NSF, and public education, just to name a few.  And I like those things.  They're badass.

I'll leave you with what I think is one of the most powerful clips NASA has made.  It's a view of the Tail Service Masts at the base of a Saturn V rocket.  Try to keep in mind the scale; I could easily drive a truck into one of the five F-1 engines at the base of the rocket.  Each of the TSMs is about 9.5 meters high, and the Saturn V experiences an initial acceleration of about 12 meters per second per second.  Look at how fast the mechanism works to get the TSM clear of the vehicle and safe from the engine exhaust.  It's incredible how many little details there were to get 12 men on the moon.

Anyway.

 

Fair Dice

I came upon this really intriguing question here in the 11th Company forums.  The gist of the question is that if he "knows" his dice have different rolling percentages than average, is it fair to use them?  And when does it cross the line into cheating?  A very interesting question, indeed.  However, with the power of STATISTICS (fanfare), I believe the answer can become quite clear.

When you look at the data, it appears to be fairly irregular.  You should expect around 16-17% for each face of the die, and with one of his sets, he gets a percentage of 22%!  I won't get too much into the meat and potatoes of the statistics here, but I took the original poster's data and ran it through a Chi-square goodness of fit test (By the way, for all you haters, this sample size is plenty big).  Assuming the dice are fair to begin with (a standard assumption with any hypothesis test), there is a 12.13% chance that you would get similar results or a more extreme result.  This means that I have (roughly....) a 10% chance of any face showing up 22% of the time or more!  It's only for very large sample sizes (read: infinite sample sizes), where you expect to have exactly 16.67% proportions for each face of the die.

Just for fun, I did another goodness of fit test with the OP's second set of dice.  Instead of asking "what's the probability that I get a more extreme result" like I did last time, I asked "what's the probability of getting a more consistent result."  Our assumption that the dice are fair remain the same.  Guess what?  The probability that we get this level of a result or a more consistent result (that is, proportions closer to 16.67%) is only 8.78%.  It's very very rare to take a finite sample size and get perfect proportions.

To illustrate this point, I'd like to bring up a childhood anecdote.  On my TI-83 plus from high school, I got an application called "probability simulator."  When I was bored in class, I would call up this application and simulations.  Simulations with thousands of trials.  Despite this, I never got a perfectly uniform bar graph.  Why?  Because probabilities address only long-term proportions.  And long term does not mean a thousand trials.  It doesn't even mean a million trials.  Long term means an infinite number of trails.

Click to embiggen

That being said, let's talk about the cheating aspect of the question.  At what point would I consider this cheating?  My answer if very simple.  You're cheating if you brought unfair dice, knowingly or not.  If you make a decision based on an series of test rolls, you're probably just fooling yourself; there's nothing spectacularly unusual about the first set of dice.  And let's say that you engineered your dice so that sixes were rolled 20% of the time instead of 16.67%.  On average (that is, in the long-term), that means that you get an extra four sixes out of every hundred rolls of the die.  I don't believe that's enough of a chance to ruin a game.

Can you test for this?  Of course not!  That would be silly!  Nearly as silly as this xkcd.  (the "p" in the comic is the probability that you saw an increased chance of acne assuming that jelly beans are not correlated with acne.  .05 means 5%.   There.  Now you can read it and understand!).

Of course, the joke here is that they tested 20 different jelly bean colors and one of those tests was significant.  1/20 is 5%.  It's bound to happen that, if you do an experiment enough, you get the significant results.  That's the nature of the game.  And this would directly apply to a tournament testing dice.  If I have 64 people in a tournament and I'm testing at a 5% level, I would, on average, throw out 3 of them for having unfair dice, even if they had fair dice.


There's one last topic I'd like to address that was brought up in the thread.  That's the idea of "precision dice."  Why do people sell "precisions dice" if they're just as good as normal, cheapo dice?  Well, probably because people want to buy into it.  It's been shown time after time that tap water is at least as safe as bottled water (and/or that bottled water comes from a city's municipal water supply....in layman's terms...tap water), yet the bottled water industry is wildly successful.  It's all about how you sell your product, and Penn and Teller do a marvelous job of showing it.

Gay Rights and General Thoughts

I stumbled across the upcoming proposal to the North Carolina constitution today, which prompted an extended chain of videos and blogs, ending in some of my favorite anti-atheist videos and a search as to why the Christians are against gay marriage (from a legal and secular standpoint).

Peanut Butter depends on the lack of evolution!

I found a story of a man named David Parker who's son was exposed to the "gay agenda" in Kindergarten, where teachers were talking about families with two dads, same-sex couples, and so on.  David decided he didn't want his son exposed to this "radical" thinking, marched into the school to get some change happening, didn't get it, and was subsequently arrested for trespassing when he refused to leave.

Well then I'll just live in this tree school until I get what I want!

At first, the school's actions surprised me.  Normally we try to appease parents, and it's not unheard of to have parents request and grant requests for their children to "opt out" of evolution, much like David wanted to opt his child out of the gay curriculum (no pun).  The reason why David's request wasn't granted was because this is a basic civil rights issue.  The Catholic Church (at least in my experience) seeks to dehumanize those with different sexual identities.  I can't count the number of sermons I sat through with the priest professing the sins of being gay, the eternal hellfire which awaited them, and how gay people embodied the spirit of Lucifer himself, only to take everything back by saying, "If you are gay, we can save you!"

It got me to wondering what schools were like around the time of Brown v. Board of Education (desegregation of schools).  Were there 1950s versions of David who marched into their children's schools, demanding that interracial marriage (GASP) not be exposed to their poor innocent children?  Were there similar lawsuits and appeals filed to try to get children "opted out" of social change?

I just have one more thing to get off my chest, and I know it's a desperate plea and that it won't change anybody's mind, but here it goes...

The United States is a secular government.  Which is to say, it's not religious in nature.  Therefore, when you say things like "God said so" in support of a legal document, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.  Religious laws should be used to govern your personal life, not to govern the people of this country.  I have absolutely no problem with the Catholics saying that they don't want to marry gay couples.  Fine.  But when you use your religion as reasoning behind a legal action, it is against the spirit of the constitution of these United States.