Evolution Engineered

Cold! Smooth! Refreshing! Just like some articles of interest!

“It is time to make a radical change in our present geocentric mindset for life as we know it on Earth,” said Dr Leitner. “Even though this is the only kind of life we know, it cannot be ruled out that life forms have evolved somewhere that neither rely on water nor on a carbon and oxygen based metabolism.”

Exotic Life Beyond Earth? Looking for life as we don’t know it – PhysOrg.com

Nor is it likely we will ever confirm it.

In the comments section of the previous post, a link was provided that led to the following definition of reverse engineering:

In a landmark paper on the topic, M.G. Rekoff defines reverse engineering as “the process of developing a set of specifications for a complex hardware system by an orderly examination of specimens of that system.” He describes such a process as being conducted by someone other than the developer, “without the benefit of any of the original drawings … for the purpose of making a clone of the original hardware system.”
Reverse Engineering and Design Recovery: A Taxonomy- E.J. Chikofsky and J.H. Cross II

The first sentence is a fairly straight forward definition of reverse engineering that very few would have issues with. It is the second sentence, when examined in parts, that I find interesting.

1a. “He describes [reverse engineering] as being conducted by someone other than the developer [or designer]“  While this may seem obvious, it is an important aspect that is missed or overlooked when using the reverse engineering argument in ID. Alone, this would make for many long (and perhaps boring) philosophical discussions and discourses.

1b. “…’without the benefit of any of the original drawings …’ “ Again, this seems obvious, but it is even more important than point 1a. It is an extremely difficult task to reverse engineer a structure/process without the original plans, without the original design notes, and without making off-the-cuff remarks about the designer. Reverse engineering often deals with incomplete information and that, in of itself, should temper any claims/findings from the process.

2. “… for the purpose of making a clone of the original hardware system.” The two-part question I pose to both critic and defender of ID is this: should someone reverse engineer and then subsequently and successfully re-engineer a single-celled organism, a) would that be considered science (either the reverse engineering or the re-engineering processes or both combined), and b) would that constitue evidence (no matter how comprehensive/complete it may be) of a designer for the cell that was re-engineered?

The asylum is now open.

Note: the Rekoff quote was referenced from “On Reverse Engineering”, IEEE Trans. Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, March-April 1985, pp. 244-252

In a previous post, I called attention to what looked like an interesting debate at Telic Thoughts on defining intelligence. While entertaining at times, it was somewhat dissappointing.

However, an interesting side debate started on defining design. I have separated it from the main thread (minus the whining, chest-thumping and fluff) for ease of viewing. So pop your popcorn, crack open a bottle of suds, and enjoy (it’s a long read)!

Continue reading »

In his book The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, Lee Smolinmakes the case that theoretical physics research has been in a state of stagnation for more than 20 years, and he places a large portion of the blame on the dominance of string theory in American universities. According to Smolin, one of the reasons for this is tenured professors whose specialty is string theory favour hiring younger professors who are interested in string theory research. There wouldn’t ordinarily be a problem with this except that:

a. string theory is not a single theory but rather a “landscape” of theories (up to 10^500 different theories),

b. string theory does not make predictions that can be readily tested,

c. even when newly uncovered evidence shows that string theory is wrong (ex: the universe’s expansion is accelerating), string theorists don’t discard but rather amend the theory.

To help combat this dominance, Smolin suggests (among other things) that science should adopt democratic rule where dissenting voices can have a turn without fear of punishment. This is in direct contrast to what another physics researcher has to say about science:

Science more or less dispenses with all criteria except number one. Science is a meritocracy, one of the few true meritocracies. What has always been relevant in science is: what is the quality of your work? and, to a lesser extent, what is the volume of your work?

I concur. This is how science should work. Not by democratic voting, but by the merits of one’s work.

However, if Dr. Smolin’s portrait of the state of physics research is true (and if physics is representative of the natural sciences in general), then it is apparent that science is not a meritocracy, but rather an aristocracy, where the rulers (the tenured professors) generally determine the direction of research.

So which is it? Democracy, meritocracy, aristocracy, a combination or two or more, or something else entirely?

I don’t normally do commentary on sports-related items, but I have to say something about the mind-boggling decision by the NHL Players Association (NHLPA) executive (essentially player reps from all 30 teams) to fire executive director, Paul Kelly, after almost 2 years on the job.

Now I’m not the most union-friendly guy out there*, but historically speaking, if anyone needs strong representation, it is the NHL players. That said, no other union seems as much determined to run itself into the ground as the NHLPA. There was the Alan Eagleson fiasco, to Goodenow hardball tactics, to the Ted Saskin-2004-05 lockout fiasco, and now this.

Without many facts becoming clear at this time, it would appear that the NHLPA, with only 2 years until the current CBA expires, wants to take a more confrontational approach. IMO, this is disasterous and could lead to contraction of one or more teams should a lengthly work stoppage occur. After all, there are not many cities that can currently house an NHL team. Maybe Kansas City and Portland/Seattle. I may be a fiercely patriotic Canadian, but Winnipeg, Quebec City and Hamilton do not have the proper facilities for an NHL franchise at this time, and it is unlikely that they will any time soon. With teams like the Coyotes, Islanders, Lightning, and Thrashers on precarious footing, there aren’t enough cities that can absorb every failing franchise. To top things off, there are other wobbly franchises (Sabres, Stars, Panthers, Predators) that could be in big trouble should finances not improve.

This is not good news for the NHLPA as the more teams there are, the more jobs there are. Get too greedy, and teams will disappear. This is why a confrontational attitude is the absolute worst tactic to take for the NHLPA. IMO, it is in their best interest to get Paul Kelly back at the helm, do a quick mea culpa by firing those involved in this apparent coup, and move on.

*I hereby nominate this for “understatement of the year”