|Keep It Simple, Stupid|
GotToBTruby GotToBTru (Curate)
|on Jun 15, 2010 at 13:25 UTC||Need Help??|
many years ago when an EDI trading partner insisted on using FTP instead of a VAN. I needed a quick way to send and receive that could be embedded in a scheduler, and I knew "Perl does that." 4 hours later, we were up and running.
I use Perl to examine data files and system logs, to produce automated emails and database updates, to perform file transformations, and to perform automated file transfers (moves and/or ftp).
The name GotToBTru is from the title of a song by Christian singer/songwriter Steven Curtis Chapman, and marked his first foray into something approximating rap music. He uses the lyrics to poke fun at himself (and also his listeners). Two things I like: the fact that despite his "superstar" status he doesn't take himself too seriously, and the reminder in the lyrics that nobody will believe my words unless my behavior backs them up.
is a Yaesu FT-101ZD ham radio transceiver. This was the last of several models of this radio made in the 1970s and 80s. Note the stylish LCD display. My own (not pictured) is almost as old as Linux.
Favorite Quote of the (indeterminate period of time):
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
And then the fight started
Apropos of a long discussion in CB (2014-05-16): evolution has not been proven. Indeed it would not be possible to prove. Nobody observed it, and there is no way to prove it experimentally. What we can say is this: evolution is accepted as the only possible explanation for life and its observed diversity on the planet by the vast majority of scientists. That would seem to be a very good reason to declare it as good as proven. And that is why so many people say it is proven, and are mystified that anyone would not accept it.
Here is my own short version of why I personally don't accept it. 1) Someone Who was there (God) when the world and life were created says He did it another way. Why would I believe this person? I believe Him because He has proven Himself completely reliable. Now, if you haven't had the same experiences as I have with God, you don't have the same confidence in Him that I do so I can't expect you will find this reason convincing. That's fine, that is my first reason, I am not claiming it is (or even should be) yours.
2) The discovery of DNA provides overwhelming justification for rejecting any random process as the means for assembling or changing life. Complex things don't just happen. Darwin himself said that to suggest that the human eye had resulted from his mechanism was absurd. He assumed we would later discover a process that could account for complex structures, and it would fill in the details to explain where we got stuff that mutation and natural selection couldn't make. To date, we don't have that, and every biology textbook insists that Darwin was wrong about his own theory; simple incremental changes over the course of time have done everything. Of course, Darwin didn't know about DNA which is many orders of magnitude more complex than eyes. I believe if he had, based on his own remarks, he would never have proposed evolution. By the way, this does not mean I reject natural selection -- that is observable science, or that I don't believe that mutations could cause changes in plants or animals -- also observable science. But the complexity inherent in life could not have come about through such a crude mechanism as evolution. Mathematics, chemistry, statistics, thermodynamics are the greatest threats to evolution, not Creationism.
3) Intelligent Design is to my mind the most rational explanation for what we do observe. There's someone here at PM who has a quote about "Nothing in Intelligent Design makes sense except in light of Creationism" in their profile. Now it's my turn to be mystified. I would summarize ID as follows: A) When we find a past effect with an unknown cause, and we know of a similar current effect and its cause, it is rational to posit the same present cause for the past effect. B) DNA contains information of unknown origin. C) In the present if we observe information being created, the cause is *always* the action of an intelligence. D) Therefore, we posit the actions of an intelligence as the cause for DNA. I don't see any Creationism in there myself.
4) Okay, this last isn't a very scientific reason, I'll admit that up front. But the truly amazing hostility (and sometimes violence) that greets anyone who questions evolution is very troubling to me. If someone is truly so confident that their explanation holds up to scrutiny, they should welcome it. This is how science is supposed to work, right? The hostility is not reserved for the Creationists, by the way, those who reject evolution, but even for those who seek only to clarify and improve the theory. What reaction would Darwin himself face today, with his candid admission that his theory was only a partial explanation?
I have wanted to sit down and write out something like this for a while; I thank those involved in the discussion in PM for providing the impetus to actually do it.
Posts I'm proud of:
Sainthood!679th Saint in the Book 12-10-14.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----