Re: can DE do anything?

H. M. Hubey (
29 Nov 1995 00:59:02 -0500

Alex Duncan <> writes:

>>yeah,and if God wanted us to tinker with the DNA of plants
>>and animals instead of "let there be light" he would have
>>given us the Maxwell's equations, and Schrodinger's equations,
>>and laws of thermodynamics. Ergo, we should not be futzing around
>>with genetics, and instead become modern day Hindus, and revere
>>viruses and bacteria for being what they are.
>>How moronically PC can one get?

This is the PC part, and the people who accuse me of being
creationists better think about their own attitudes.

>After carefully reading through Dr. Holloway's original post, I can see
>nothing that warrants the "anti-PC" commentary above. I suspect that Dr.

I hope you're right.

So far all I see is people bringing out a modern fashionable view
of the old creationist view that we cannot do certain things

"God says so" has now been replaced by something like a
cross between Zen Buddhism, Hinduism, and pop-science mixed
in with cheap version of multiculturalism extended to bacteria
and viruses. Add to this the few decades old attack on science
by the jealous social scientists left over from the 1970's
New Left, and that's what you get.

It looks like the sci-fi movies in which the mad scientists
and robots go on a rampage has not been replaced with a general
idea that scientists and not the ignorant and illiterate
politicians and demogogues are the greatest threat to
world peace.

It's irritating to see this pop up in science decades after
being beaten to death in economics and political science.

>It seems to me like Dr. Holloway has issued a simple challenge. You've
>claimed that DE's can be used to answer all questions of biological
>interest. This seems like a relatively easy problem to solve, compared

What was that phrase about "straw man"?

>based largely on extinct organisms. Do you wish now to withdraw your
>claims regarding the omnipotence of differential equations? If you can't

sophomoric anthropomorhising and straw man attacks.

Only read what I write.

YOu should have been doing it from the beginning. That's your
problem (and also your fellow pesterers').

>provide us with some lame excuse why you're incapable of performing this
>simple operation. You claim to be mathematically advanced over all the

After I wrote that 3,000-5,000 nonlinear DE's would be
required to describe a single cell?

here's my other advice again. Read what i write.

>rest of us (you certainly stomp me, I know nothing about DE). Here's a
>chance to show us you know what you're talking about. Stop throwing
>equations at us, and solve a specific problem. I don't think it's too

I've already solved some. YOu can give up your anthropomorhizing
and sophomoric explanations which you've no doubt picked up from
all time great-scientists of all fields. Why don't you now simply
replace those silly mental models with mine and elevate me on
to the top of the pedestal :-)...

Weren't you the guy that said that what Darwin wrote was the
greatest thing since Newtonian mechanics and the flush


Regards, Mark