The league of (extra)ordinary gentlemen

[thevortex]

Vortex and Psycho,

Do you think Usher BE 718 can work with Lyrita (15 watters?)

Forget about the sensitivity would be my thought. The speakers that we heard that day had only an 87db sensitivity. Also do you remember our conversation the other day about getting one of the EPOS floorstanders from the M series. I was curious and went back to check on their sensitivity. They were all only having 87 db sensitivity. Even the M22i!

I guess only a pairing and an audition could tell us what goes with what. And whether we like it best.

Also are you now looking at the 15W amp from Lyrita. I have been reading quite a lot about these tubes and their characteristics and the general consensus seems to be that for people who prefer lush, intimate sound the 2A3's, 45's and the 300B's to some extent may be the best suited. Of course I am just learning so I could always be mistaken. Any particular reason you are interested in the 15W amp now?

 

[neutral]

@vortex.
Hypothetically speaking , lets say if someone proves someday that this planet and all living things are part of an intelligent design. It has been created by a higher intelligence and the theory of evolution is proven wrong. What then ?

1. I am sure this will be a scientific discovery rather than validation or proof of some man-made religious dogma. The rationalists who believe in evolution will accept the new theory. They are not married to any theory right ?
2. Will this discovery validate any customs/practices practiced by any existing religion ? It surely does not !
For all practical purposes, we will again be in the realm of the unknown. We will just be aware that there is some higher intelligence. No man-made religion is validated. No existing religious customs and practices are validated. No victories for anyone !

What then ?

 

[thevortex]

Vortex,

A good sequencing would be Brief History of nearly everything, selfish gene and Greatest show on earth.

Brief history is an unbiassed documentation of interesting facts, and is a great joy to read, with the touch of british humour (from an america writer).

Selfish gene is more logical and less argumentative.

Dawkins' later writings have a tone of aggressive logic (that i agree with though). God delusion certainly falls in that category. So you may want to reserve these for later.

Thanks for the comments and the sequencing. This is on my to-read list. At the top.

I am convinced that you would atleast put evolution through natural selection above the creatioist theory, if not accept evolution as no more a hypothesis.

This I really dont get. This is like asking people to chose between two solutions, both with holes, but to just consider the one with the smaller hole as the better. Just who is to say which solution is going to patch up its holes faster?

If it is rationale that we seek, then we must accept that there are anomalies and even reverses that Darwin's theory per se does not explain.

Yes, if the question is about which solution appeals to the human rationale a little more then, yes, the evolution through natural selection wins out. But is that enough for science to claim it as fact? Even more importantly as absolute truth? I would love to hear more from members here.

Lastly, scientific theories are never proven. Only laws are proven. Theories only explain all available observations and make predictions. Therefore there is still a gap in semantics that we have to work with.

I read the darwinrepdictions site without any prejudice. Will come back to you with some comments.

I wonder when I am going to get this fine print. Semantics apart, theories are accepted and respected when examples in the future bear them out. In the case of Darwin's theory there are specific and widespread anomalies contrary to it.

Look forward to your comments on darwinspredictions.

 

[thevortex]

@vortex.
Hypothetically speaking , lets say if someone proves someday that this planet and all living things are part of an intelligent design. It has been created by a higher intelligence and the theory of evolution is proven wrong. What then ?

1. I am sure this will be a scientific discovery rather than validation or proof of some man-made religious dogma. The rationalists who believe in evolution will accept the new theory. They are not married to any theory right ?
2. Will this discovery validate any customs/practices practiced by any existing religion ? It surely does not !
For all practical purposes, we will again be in the realm of the unknown. We will just be aware that there is some higher intelligence. No man-made religion is validated. No existing religious customs and practices are validated. No victories for anyone !

What then ?

What then? That is an enigmatic question, neutral. Personally speaking if such a thing is proved, I would read more about it, muse on it a little more, maybe kick the idea around with friends such as the ones here on this forum and sit back and stretch my legs.

Remember as such it is going to have no effect on how I lead my life as I am not at all religious.

But maybe, neutral, we might be more interested in the answers of people standing up for Darwin's theory like psychotropic and srramanujam...

 

[neutral]

What then? That is an enigmatic question, neutral. Personally speaking if such a thing is proved, I would read more about it, muse on it a little more, maybe kick the idea around with friends such as the ones here on this forum and sit back and stretch my legs.

Remember as such it is going to have no effect on how I lead my life as I am not at all religious.

But maybe, neutral, we might be more interested in the answers of people standing up for Darwin's theory like psychotropic and srramanujam...

I like your open mind.

 

[suri]

The dust has settled, the jousting has been good, and the mind and wrists are tired, but sated.

 

[srramanujam]

I wonder when I am going to get this fine print. Semantics apart, theories are accepted and respected when examples in the future bear them out. In the case of Darwin's theory there are specific and widespread anomalies contrary to it.

Look forward to your comments on darwinspredictions.

What i mean is as follows.

a) You would like to accept a hypothesis as theory when all available evidence bears it out. Perfectly acceptable. There will still be some other soul who will scream that is there ever a guarantee that all future proof will also be borne out by this theory. The response from anyone will be No, perfectly right, since no one has a clue of what this future observation is going to look like.

b) So, even if you are convinced that this theory holds (maybe at 99% - 1% ratio) there will be someone else who will wait for the ultimate proof that will never come.

c) what is theory for vortex could be 99% proof, for someone else it is absolute guarantee. This is because he reads theory in its literal meaning, that it is textbookish and not reality. You would look at theory as no existing contradictions. I may look at theory as beyond reasonable doubt.

d) None of this changes what evolution theory is. It exists in its current form with its current evidence. However, different parts of our world apply different standards to accept it.

e) My conviction was that you would be influenced by the logical arguments in these books and up your percentage evidence to some 90% from the 60% currently.

f) I perfectly get your fine print.


My purchase decision - Looks like a long story.

I have interesting combinations that i have to consider, from amongst Dali Ikon 6, Usher BE 718, the dear EPOS and a few other options. I have now taken the grand step of cutting special audition CDs stringing different songs together. Lot of CD purchase et al in anticipation of the grand day when the system will eventually come. Till then my Cowon gives me company.

 

[srramanujam]

Vortex,

Let me give a shot at the first contradiction that is portrayed in darwinpredictions.com. It calls it DNA prediction, a hypothesis that the first life form is a DNA. The entire first "evidence" is about the origin of first life form. Interestingly, evolution is not about this point, it is about evolution of life forms from one another.

This is mischief at its best to twist evolution. The theory of evolution is about natural selection explains how species evolve. No one has credited Darwin (yet) with a credible theory about how first life form was formed.

So, it is funny that it sticks a point to Darwin, points gaps ( i dont have the knowledge to question the points), and then says therefore that evolution theory is wrong. What it should say is that the further hypotheses based on theory of evolution are not proven in any manner. Actually you cant even call the DNA predictions as further hypotheses based on evolution. The DNA predictions (as the site calls it) is all about the origin of the first life form. It need not follow from the theory of evolution. It could very well have been made by anyone, a physicist, a botanist, a palentologist, why even a plumber.

Second, his false claims is betrayed by his own statement, which i reproduce
"The theory of evolution motivated the idea that a lone DNA molecule was the starting point for the history of life on Earth, but we now know of several substantial problems with this hypothesis. Alternative theories have not fared well either."

Emphasis is mine.

Now he claims that DNA prediction was motivated by evolution. DNA prediction is wrong (his claim). Therefore evolution should also be wrong. If this is not mischief, i am mother theresa.

Do correct me if i have read this first prediction wrongly.

 

[srramanujam]

One more, this time "evidence" 2.2 DNA code is not unique.

I quote

"Shortly after the discovery of the DNA code, evolutionists began theorizing how it could have arisen. "

Again the mischief. DNA was discovered well after Darwin's theory. In fact Darwin was not aware of the mechanism of genetics. That came much later. Therefore to ascribe the DNA controversy (if there is one, i do not know) to Darwin, and claim therefore evolution is false, is confusing to me.

Second, his language again betrays his intention. he says after DNA was discovered, evolutionins began theorizing. Why, once the discovery was made, it became a fact. Therefore even my mythical plumber could have theorized where it came from. Why blame all curious onlookers as evolutionists, What has Darwin got to do with it.

Tomorrow, if we find God somewhere, would we call the curious onlookers as as only evolutionists. Then why the partiality to DNA searchers.

 

[suri]

vortex,

let me give a shot at the first contradiction that is portrayed in darwinpredictions.com. It calls it dna prediction, a hypothesis that the first life form is a dna. The entire first "evidence" is about the origin of first life form. Interestingly, evolution is not about this point, it is about evolution of life forms from one another.

This is mischief at its best to twist evolution. The theory of evolution is about natural selection explains how species evolve. No one has credited darwin (yet) with a credible theory about how first life form was formed.

So, it is funny that it sticks a point to darwin, points gaps ( i dont have the knowledge to question the points), and then says therefore that evolution theory is wrong. What it should say is that the further hypotheses based on theory of evolution are not proven in any manner. Actually you cant even call the dna predictions as further hypotheses based on evolution. The dna predictions (as the site calls it) is all about the origin of the first life form. It need not follow from the theory of evolution. It could very well have been made by anyone, a physicist, a botanist, a palentologist, why even a plumber.

Second, his false claims is betrayed by his own statement, which i reproduce
"the theory of evolution motivated the idea that a lone dna molecule was the starting point for the history of life on earth, but we now know of several substantial problems with this hypothesis. Alternative theories have not fared well either."

emphasis is mine.

Now he claims that dna prediction was motivated by evolution. Dna prediction is wrong (his claim). Therefore evolution should also be wrong. If this is not mischief, i am mother theresa.

Do correct me if i have read this first prediction wrongly.

bri.......

 

[suri]

The DNA predictions (as the site calls it) is all about the origin of the first life form. It need not follow from the theory of evolution. It could very well have been made by anyone, a physicist, a botanist, a palentologist, why even a plumber.

yes anyone, even an idiot savant!

 

[psychotropic]

Dear ramanajuam. thanks for that. As I had expected, it appears to be mega bogus Let's hope this brings vortex a bit closer to our camp and thanks for the book recommendations as well, i've read and loved the bill bryson, and dawkins's god delusion, but the others I definitely must pick up.

 

[thevortex]

Vortex,

Let me give a shot at the first contradiction that is portrayed in darwinpredictions.com. It calls it DNA prediction, a hypothesis that the first life form is a DNA. The entire first "evidence" is about the origin of first life form. Interestingly, evolution is not about this point, it is about evolution of life forms from one another.

This is mischief at its best to twist evolution. The theory of evolution is about natural selection explains how species evolve. No one has credited Darwin (yet) with a credible theory about how first life form was formed.

So, it is funny that it sticks a point to Darwin, points gaps ( i dont have the knowledge to question the points), and then says therefore that evolution theory is wrong. What it should say is that the further hypotheses based on theory of evolution are not proven in any manner. Actually you cant even call the DNA predictions as further hypotheses based on evolution. The DNA predictions (as the site calls it) is all about the origin of the first life form. It need not follow from the theory of evolution. It could very well have been made by anyone, a physicist, a botanist, a palentologist, why even a plumber.

Second, his false claims is betrayed by his own statement, which i reproduce
"The theory of evolution motivated the idea that a lone DNA molecule was the starting point for the history of life on Earth, but we now know of several substantial problems with this hypothesis. Alternative theories have not fared well either."

Emphasis is mine.

Now he claims that DNA prediction was motivated by evolution. DNA prediction is wrong (his claim). Therefore evolution should also be wrong. If this is not mischief, i am mother theresa.

Do correct me if i have read this first prediction wrongly.

Ramanujam - I do enjoy your sense of humour. We ought to have just spent time together instead of listening to music for 4 straight hours.

On the points raised, I see how that particular line may seem taken out of context. Please see the below line taken from the self same article. The writer never does claim that Darwin predicted anything about DNA.

The reason why first life is talked about here is as a preamble really. Darwin himself has talked about the processes leading upto evolution. Chemical evolution and then to biological evolution. Non life leading to life and then to more complex life. This is what is refuted by the author in this section. I am no scientist but this is what I infer through my reading. Please let me know your thoughts.

Here is another statement from the same section for your reference:

Though evolutionists do not know how the first cell could have evolved, they refer to the hypothetical processes leading up to the first cell as chemical evolution, and subsequent processes as biological evolution. [13] Because these two evolutionary processes are speculative, there can be some degree of overlap in how these processes are conceived. For instance, selection is contemplated as a mechanism for chemical evolution, as well as biological evolution.

Darwin speculated about chemical as well as biological evolution, and since then evolutionists have continued to speculate and search for mechanisms to explain both types of evolution.

 

[thevortex]

One more, this time "evidence" 2.2 DNA code is not unique.

I quote

"Shortly after the discovery of the DNA code, evolutionists began theorizing how it could have arisen. "

Again the mischief. DNA was discovered well after Darwin's theory. In fact Darwin was not aware of the mechanism of genetics. That came much later. Therefore to ascribe the DNA controversy (if there is one, i do not know) to Darwin, and claim therefore evolution is false, is confusing to me.

Second, his language again betrays his intention. he says after DNA was discovered, evolutionins began theorizing. Why, once the discovery was made, it became a fact. Therefore even my mythical plumber could have theorized where it came from. Why blame all curious onlookers as evolutionists, What has Darwin got to do with it.

Tomorrow, if we find God somewhere, would we call the curious onlookers as as only evolutionists. Then why the partiality to DNA searchers.

Ramanujam - may I hasten to point out that the author never does imply that Darwin or scientists of his time spoke anything about DNA.

A way to look at these facts being pointed out is about the veracity (scientific) of a theory. Many discoveries arising after the postulation of the theory tend to either corroborate or strike down the theory itself. In this case, what we are looking at are discoveries that smashed to smithereens some of the presuppositions taken in by evolutionists belonging to Darwin's group.

I would love more of your thoughts on this subject.

 

[thevortex]

Dear ramanajuam. thanks for that. As I had expected, it appears to be mega bogus Let's hope this brings vortex a bit closer to our camp and thanks for the book recommendations as well, i've read and loved the bill bryson, and dawkins's god delusion, but the others I definitely must pick up.

Please do read the article. The more number of eyeballs that we get on that fairly scientific article, the better it would be in my opinion.

I would love to fall in with the scientific group, Psychotropic, but that has not yet happened.

 

[srramanujam]

Vortex,

Thanks. I completely agree that the article does not ascribe anything to Darwin. But it does many things to discredit Darwin and his theory. First, it calls itself darwinpredictions, whereas the right name would be predictions_of_some_followers_of_darwin.com. Second, it picks some of the followup theories, discredits them (rightly or wrongly i do not know), and by association (his own made up association by the way) discredits the original theory. The site should have clearly said, it is merely trying to point out some of theories that MAY be based on evolution as unproven. The use of the term evolutionists in many places sounds mischievous. Let me provide a parallel.

Today, Chandrayan probes are indicating the presence of water (actually molecules). This is a hypothesis, based on some observations. Subsequent observations will strengthen or weaken this theory. Let us assume, purely for example, that subsequent observations prove this or strengthen this beyond reasonable doubt.

The day after tomorrow, one scientist may ascribe the source of this water to a particular phenomenon (someone is actually saying it as well). You could have another that estimates the total quantity of water (again actually happening). One or both of these predictions could turn out wrong. But the fact that water molecules were found still remains, a fact. Chandrayan cannot be discredited because of errors in SOME of the followup theories. We have to assess it on the weight of evidence for its own predictions, not of those of the followup theories. This is the error that darwinpredictions is making, atleast in the first two pieces of evidence. I suspect it is a conscious error, thats my problem so far with the site.

 

[srramanujam]

In this case, what we are looking at are discoveries that smashed to smithereens some of the presuppositions taken in by evolutionists belonging to Darwin's group.

To emphasise, the first two predictions are about DNA. DNA is a fact. Once this fact was discovered, any scientist could have made further theories, without choosing to be in evolution camp. Accepting the existence of DNA and making further predictions, is very similiar to accepting the existence of appendix and making predictions about what its purpose was. Why should, very conveniently, a choosen set of discredited theories (a claim of failure in any case), be unnecessarily ascribed to "evolutionists belonging to Darwin's group". For all we know, these scientists may not call themselves evolutionists.

 

[ajinkya]

Hi Venkat,

One more area where India is rapidly gaining respect and acceptance- as a first-class space power. The finding of water on the moon, courtesy Chandrayaan-I and NASA minerology sensor, and 7 perfect lift-offs in 20 minutes by ISRO this week. And it's not a software industry

-Ajinkya.

 

[suri]

Hi Venkat,

One more area where India is rapidly gaining respect and acceptance- as a first-class space power. The finding of water on the moon, courtesy Chandrayaan-I and NASA minerology sensor, and 7 perfect lift-offs in 20 minutes by ISRO this week. And it's not a software industry

-Ajinkya.

Hi ajinkya,

a small correction - one perfect lift-off of the PSLV and 7 satellites launched in orbit.

 

[thevortex]

Vortex,

Thanks. I completely agree that the article does not ascribe anything to Darwin. But it does many things to discredit Darwin and his theory. First, it calls itself darwinpredictions, whereas the right name would be predictions_of_some_followers_of_darwin.com. Second, it picks some of the followup theories, discredits them (rightly or wrongly i do not know), and by association (his own made up association by the way) discredits the original theory. The site should have clearly said, it is merely trying to point out some of theories that MAY be based on evolution as unproven. The use of the term evolutionists in many places sounds mischievous. Let me provide a parallel.

Today, Chandrayan probes are indicating the presence of water (actually molecules). This is a hypothesis, based on some observations. Subsequent observations will strengthen or weaken this theory. Let us assume, purely for example, that subsequent observations prove this or strengthen this beyond reasonable doubt.

The day after tomorrow, one scientist may ascribe the source of this water to a particular phenomenon (someone is actually saying it as well). You could have another that estimates the total quantity of water (again actually happening). One or both of these predictions could turn out wrong. But the fact that water molecules were found still remains, a fact. Chandrayan cannot be discredited because of errors in SOME of the followup theories. We have to assess it on the weight of evidence for its own predictions, not of those of the followup theories. This is the error that darwinpredictions is making, atleast in the first two pieces of evidence. I suspect it is a conscious error, thats my problem so far with the site.

Ramanujam - let me try to address this to be the best of my very limited abilities.

I dont think the example that you provided fit the parallel perfectly. The logic that this entire article (darwinspredictions) uses is this - take happenings, discoveries and observations that were recorded much after Darwin's time (DNA et al) and then show us how the evolution theory as proposed by Darwin does not fit the bill.

If a theory is sound, then future observations and records actually bear it out. In the case of Darwin's theory there are not just one or two exceptions to the rule. There are many. Which are kindly pointed out in this article.

By the way, 'predictions' always is directed at the future. Although I doubt that Darwin himself clearly demarcated his own 'predictions' based on his theory, these are clearly taken from his signature work. To that extent liberty has been taken with the word 'predictions'. These may be implied predictions while not actually being written out predictions of Darwin. Other than that I do not see any dishonour in the content or the approach of this article.

Lastly I dont think you are seeing the 'introduction of first life' point the way th author intends us to - at least from my viewpoint. Darwin's theory and his writings are very terse on the subject of first life. What he does commit to is that there was first chemical evolution (non life to life) and then biological evolution (simple to complex life). Again this is just theory. What this author is trying to do is to take the strands (literally) of DNA and other related discoveries and show us how these are in contrast to Darwin's theory and how these do not bear his theories/predictions out.

I am not absolutely satisfied with the way the above paragraph turned out. So, do let me know if you need more clarity on this.