Monday, January 9, 2012

Rib Development Interdependencies: More Complicated Than We Would Have Imagined

Research published last year out of Portugal shows that the development of ribs is more complicated than evolutionists imagined. It turns out that in the developing embryo, rib growth is promoted by one pathway and inhibited by another. The end result is a delicate balancing act between the two to construct the proper design.

And on top of that, the balancing act is further complicated by its coordination with muscle development. As one writer explained:

The researchers went on to unpick the genes involved in this process, and came up with yet another surprising finding: that the whole process relies on first hitting so-called muscle genes in the embryo, which then provide signals to switch on the 'rib' genes to make both ribs and muscle, in a coordinated process.

Did evolution get lucky again by randomly constructing another complex, interdependent process that needs all the major components? Who knows but who cares. After all, evolution is a fact. As the lead researcher assures us, the perplexing result “makes perfect sense” from an evolutionary perspective. And why is that true? Because:

it is no good to make ribs without muscle, so, in the embryo, the production of both ribs and their associated muscles is under the control of a single and coordinated mechanism.

Of course. It is all so clear now. Evolution constructed incredible complexity because ribs are no good without muscles. That’s just the Stuff of Good Solid Scientific Research.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

63 comments:

  1. Hi Prof Hunter,

    Is it true that there is a gap between sponges of about 4 cell types and the simplest multi-cellular organisms of about 50 cell types?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Did evolution get lucky again by randomly constructing another complex, interdependent process that needs all the major components?

    No. That would be silly. Biologists think that there is a history of incremental change passed down through generations of living organisms that eventuated in the currently observed developmental pathway.

    For background information, Google Hox genes

    ReplyDelete
  3. Who knows but who cares.

    Biologists care. That’s why the cited study was done, and why further research on the problem is ongoing.

    After all, evolution is a fact.

    That evolution occurred is well-supported by evidence. That the mechanism in question evolved is an hypothesis that is tested by the cited work in the context of previous work on Hox genes. That hypothesis will continue to be tested by working scientists.

    They won't stop.

    ReplyDelete
  4. No. That would be silly. Biologists [imagine] that there is a history of incremental change passed down through generations of living organisms that eventuated in the currently observed developmental pathway.

    I fixed that for you. But sticking with what can actually be observed, isn't it true that the evolution/unfolding of embryos is purposeful or directed toward an end?

    ReplyDelete
  5. ....did evolution of the rib occur before or after your sky-god climbed up into a little girls vagina in the ancient Middle East two thousand years ago?

    The evolution and unfolding of ribs occurs daily, do you imagine that this happens based on blind processes within the womb of your Mommy Nature?

    ReplyDelete
  6. kilo papa, admittedly some of CH's beliefs are ridiculous, but it reflects badly on you (and us) when you make uniformed comments about what his beliefs are. Christians don't believe that God had intercourse with a human. Hearing you say such is as painful as hearing a creationist say: "You believe that a monkey gave birth to a human once? How silly!"

    If we are to condemn them for their blatant use of straw men arguments, we must refrain from making them ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  7. But sticking with what can actually be observed, isn't it true that the evolution/unfolding of embryos is purposeful or directed toward an end?

    You can remain ignorant, or you can learn why teleological thinking is as useless in biology as it is in other branches of the natural sciences.

    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology

    ReplyDelete
  8. The basic premise of evolution is that such complexity "just happened" by chance randomly and without purpose. But such fortuitous, high complexity has never been observed to occur randomly and purposelessly. Whenever we actually observe something where such complexity has a purpose, the complexity turns out to have been deliberately designed. Evolutionists assume such complexity "must have" happened randomly without purpose, because, well a) evolutionist "know" there is no designer and b) here we are. This is faith, not science.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Red Reader said...

    The basic premise of evolution is that such complexity "just happened" by chance randomly and without purpose.


    No, that's not what evolutionary theory posits. Please learn the basics before attacking what you don't understand.

    But such fortuitous, high complexity has never been observed to occur randomly and purposelessly.

    Wrong again. Iterative feedback processes are empirically observed to produce immense complexity just by following a few simple rules. Evolution is a naturally occurring iterative feedback process.

    Assigning 'purpose' to an outcome is a human preconception not applicable to the natural world.

    Whenever we actually observe something where such complexity has a purpose, the complexity turns out to have been deliberately designed.

    What is the 'purpose' of a banana slug? Of a tree sloth? Of E coli?

    Evolutionists assume such complexity "must have" happened randomly without purpose, because, well a) evolutionist "know" there is no designer and b) here we are. This is faith, not science.

    Claiming biological structures must have a pre-planned purpose merely because they exist is religion, not science.

    ReplyDelete
  10. red reader, see this:

    http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2011/12/torley-defense-of-irreducible.html

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rib Development Interdependencies: More Complicated Than We Would Have Imagined

    You are wrong. Nothing is beyond the delusional fantasies of Darwinian evolutionists.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The door latch on the space shuttle can be used as a bottle opener and the clip board in the cockpit can be used as a tie clip... therefore the space shuttle is not irreducibly complex. Wow, that was easy!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Tedford the idiot said...

    The door latch on the space shuttle can be used as a bottle opener and the clip board in the cockpit can be used as a tie clip... therefore the space shuttle is not irreducibly complex. Wow, that was easy!


    Wow Tedford, even by your low standards that was more stupid and inane than your usual blither.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You can remain ignorant, or you can learn why teleological thinking is as useless in biology as it is in other branches of the natural sciences.

    I'm more interested in if it is true or can be observed than if it is useful. What do you mean by useful? Useful in supposedly progressively building up knowledge by imagining things about the past instead of observing what is going on here and now? Useful in maintaining the professional identity of scientists based on a pseudo-Newtonian view of the world? Who said that something must be useful to be knowledge?

    Your link: A teleology is any philosophical account which holds that final causes exist in nature, meaning that design and purpose analogous to that found in human actions are inherent also in the rest of nature.

    Well, I would deny it in your case. Your brain events are meaningless and emerge from chaos to maintain an illusion of things like knowledge, intelligence and design but can actually be reduced to ignorance. This is apposite. You say, "You can remain ignorant." Yet apparently you can't even admit that knowledge and therefore foreknowledge exist and therefore have effects in the world.

    From your link, "....meaning that design and purpose analogous to that found in human actions are inherent also in the rest of nature." No, of course not, instead we must imagine ourselves to sit at a pinnacle of Progress and Knowledge/scientia and that all other organisms can be reduced to blind, ignorant processes. Apparently this is not the height of arrogance in the minds of evolutionists because they're stupid enough to imagine it to be humility. But if you were truly humble then you'd imagine that your own intelligence and knowledge reduced to "purely" ignorant and purposeless processes while leaving all other organisms alone.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Wow Tedford, even by your low standards that was more stupid and inane than your usual blither.

    No Thorton, you're even dumber than the ape-like creatures that you imagine helped give birth to you. Not to mention the fact that your brain events are as void of knowledge as matter. In fact, you might as well have excrement for brains. Imagine that.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Iterative feedback processes are empirically observed to produce immense complexity just by following a few simple rules. Evolution is a naturally occurring iterative feedback process.

    Assigning 'purpose' to an outcome is a human preconception not applicable to the natural world.


    Apparently you can't talk about the natural world without doing it. Does that happen to indicate anything to your ignorant and random yet "rule following" brain events today?

    I doubt it. Instead I'd imagine that there are no iterative or progressive rules for nature to "follow."

    I'd also imagine that the existence of the pyramids demonstrate that a supposedly iterative progress is not assured just because mankind is capable of technological feats. Despite what the priests of knowledge who seek to sit at the top of the pyramid schemes typical to towers of babble. Even with the full weight of government, censorship and coercion behind them, they are still merely babbling.

    In any event, aren't you the least bit curious about how your progressive creation myths so closely match what you imagine to be progress in knowledge and nature? Even at the individual level, the story of the provincial rube going on a progressive journey toward knowledge is so common that it is provincial itself. Apparently they never scratch their heads and wonder if perhaps they may be projecting their pattern of thought onto nature instead of observing it there. After all, what is observed in organisms is knowledge based purposefulness. To the point that it gets hard to imagine that it's all just an illusion of ignorance. Although it is apposite that is what you try imagine, especially in your case.

    ReplyDelete
  17. mynym said...

    Wow Tedford, even by your low standards that was more stupid and inane than your usual blither.

    No Thorton, you're even dumber than the ape-like creatures that you imagine helped give birth to you.


    LOL! So your Mom, an ape-like creature, didn't give birth to you? I guess you were hatched from a test tube labeled FAILURE.

    ReplyDelete
  18. What is the 'purpose' of a banana slug? Of a tree sloth? Of E coli?

    You imagine that an idiotic creature of chaos, dirt and excrement like yourself sits as judge on the rest of nature? And you know whether it has purpose or not?

    In observing and speaking about organisms it becomes evident that they have many purposes. You might say that some are based on rules that they "follow" and so on. And this is what people engaged in actually observing them say because it can be observed. Then they have been taught to imagine that it is not so. They generally do this by imagining things about the past. It is similar to how one could imagine that everything supposedly knowledgeable or goal directed that you say actually has more to do with idiocy and ignorance in your biological history. Imagine that.

    Or observe what is evident:Most biologists, I suspect, will happily own up to the fact that they think of the organism as engaged in strikingly directed and meaningful activity. The lion stalking the gazelle, the bird building a nest, the larva spinning a cocoon, the rose flowering, the cell dividing and differentiating, the organism maintaining its own way of being amid the perturbations of its environment — they all reflect a kind of intentional pursuit we would never attribute to dust, rocks, ocean waves, or clouds.
    Biologists, that is, will acknowledge that, at molecular and higher levels, they see almost nothing but an effective employment of a thousand interwoven means to achieve a thousand interwoven ends — all in an almost incomprehensibly organized, coordinated, and integrated fashion expressing the striving of the organism as a whole. The organism, they will say, as it develops from embryo to adult — as it socializes, eats, plays, fights, heals its wounds, communicates, and reproduces — is the most concertedly purposeful entity we could possibly imagine. It does not merely exist in accord with the laws of physics and chemistry; rather, it is telling the meaningful story of its own life.

    And then they will take it all back.
    Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness by
    Stephen L. Talbott

    ReplyDelete
  19. LOL! So your Mom, an ape-like creature, didn't give birth to you?

    Was that supposed to be an insult? You're underestimating the inherent intelligence at work in apes. That's why you're still dumber than them. In fact, even your memes seem to be more goal directed and intelligent than you are. One might even imagine that they possess you.

    ReplyDelete
  20. mynym said...

    T: "What is the 'purpose' of a banana slug? Of a tree sloth? Of E coli?"

    You imagine that an idiotic creature of chaos, dirt and excrement like yourself sits as judge on the rest of nature? And you know whether it has purpose or not?


    You didn't answer the question. Quoting a Creationist software engineer's claim "of course it has a purpose!!" isn't an answer.

    ReplyDelete
  21. You didn't answer the question.

    You're on a progressive quest for ignorance, not knowledge. You may imagine that you can sit as judge on other organisms but you only judge yourself. Like a snake eating its own tale, every time you try to imagine away what can be observed at present* in terms of an ignorant past you end up with excrement for brains. This is apposite.

    *E.g. the unfolding and evolution of an embryo.

    ReplyDelete
  22. mynym said...

    T: "You didn't answer the question."

    You're on a progressive quest for ignorance, not knowledge. You may imagine that you can sit as judge on other organisms but you only judge yourself. Like a snake eating its own tale, every time you try to imagine away what can be observed at present* in terms of an ignorant past you end up with excrement for brains. This is apposite.

    *E.g. the unfolding and evolution of an embryo.


    Lots of meaningless verbiage but you still didn't answer the question.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Quoting a Creationist software engineer's claim...

    Apparently that's all you're capable of due to your stupidity. Every claim is to be reduced to the identity and history of the speaker, so we must reduce all your claims to your history as well. So what is it? Before you speak about other organisms, let alone other people, what historical causes are there for the idiotic state of your meaningless brain events emerging like excrement from you? Do they "follow" rules? Are you natural? If you're not natural then you should probably try to imagine yourself to be more scientific.

    ReplyDelete
  24. mynym said...

    T: "Quoting a Creationist software engineer's claim "of course it has a purpose!!" isn't an answer. "

    Apparently that's all you're capable of due to your stupidity. Every claim is to be reduced to the identity and history of the speaker, so we must reduce all your claims to your history as well. So what is it? Before you speak about other organisms, let alone other people, what historical causes are there for the idiotic state of your meaningless brain events emerging like excrement from you? Do they "follow" rules? Are you natural? If you're not natural then you should probably try to imagine yourself to be more scientific.


    More angry diversionary drivel but you still didn't answer the question.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Lots of meaningless verbiage...

    Imagine that there's a purpose to it.

    ...but you still didn't answer the question.

    If you weren't willfully ignorant then you would know that it's apposite because you're not on a quest for knowledge. You seek ignorance and deny the reality of knowledge in the world. Before sitting in judgment on the lives of other organism you should judge yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  26. mynym said...

    "Lots of meaningless verbiage..."

    Imagine that there's a purpose to it.

    "...but you still didn't answer the question."

    If you weren't willfully ignorant then you would know that it's apposite because you're not on a quest for knowledge. You seek ignorance and deny the reality of knowledge in the world. Before sitting in judgment on the lives of other organism you should judge yourself.


    Your lips keep flapping but there's still no answer to the question. The conclusion is you have no answer.

    ReplyDelete
  27. More angry diversionary drivel but you still didn't answer the question.

    No, what you just wrote is a diversion from the fact that everything you write is explicable in terms of ignorance and meaninglessness on your own terms. In this case, one might imagine that your effete methods and the portrayal of critics as angry have more to do with your relationship with your father than reality. It's not exactly an uncommon psychological dynamic in those who fear Father God and cling to Mother Earth.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Your lips keep flapping but there's still no answer to the question. The conclusion is you have no answer.

    The conclusion is that your effete forms of ignorance aren't necessarily my responsibility.

    But I will answer a question if you will. My question is this, how do you imagine your purpose and goals here? You think that if "creationists," whoever they are, are all defeated in some way that progress in science/knowledge is assured? To what end? In other words, what end is your little caped crusader for "science" act directed toward? Are you imagining that people will be safer, more well off, etc., if you defeat all the "creationists"? Or is the goal more puerile... and you simply want to be thought of as more intelligent and part of a knowledgeable class or consensus? Or is it a combination of many goals? (To the extent that anything can be imagined to have a goal, naturally.)

    ReplyDelete
  29. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/nc-to-recommend-compensation-for-eugenics-victims/

    Let the Darwinists at the Ivy League Universities pay.

    It's curious that they like to illustrate with trees, when all they have is a briar patch.

    ReplyDelete
  30. mynym said...

    Your lips keep flapping but there's still no answer to the question. The conclusion is you have no answer.

    The conclusion is that your effete forms of ignorance aren't necessarily my responsibility.


    You're the guy who claimed all life forms have a purpose, so they must be designed. I merely asked you for some examples of that purpose.

    The fact that you can't provide a single one pretty much destroys your claim, wouldn't you agree?

    Since you can't back up the assertion, why did you make it in the first place? Stupid rhetorical games like that have no place in science.

    ReplyDelete
  31. From the link: State officials sterilized more than 7,600 people in North Carolina from 1929 to 1974 under eugenics programs...

    We're really not that far from the little caped crusaders of "science" who support pseudo-science like Darwinism having power. After all, they're never separated from government support. In fact, it often seems that the profession of science that they seek to protect is not less about the pursuit of the truth or knowledge than it is about pursuing a relationship with and the support of government.

    History shows that all the little caped crusaders for science in government ...may do [evil] things with the conviction that they are 'in accord with the natural history and biology of man,' and that one is acting as healer and savior.
    (The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the
    Psychology of Genocide
    by Robert Jay Lifton :491)


    Also interesting: Professionals and intellectuals have additional susceptibilities as an antidote to isolation and weakness...as a denial of effeteness...

    For some this fits the pattern of a near psychotic hatred for space for a separate father God. It's also in the language of the Herd: "overwhelming," "consensus," etc. You might say that they want union and have an urge to merge.

    ReplyDelete
  32. You're the guy who claimed all life forms have a purpose, so they must be designed. I merely asked you for some examples of that purpose.

    They have many purposes.

    The fact that you can't provide a single one pretty much destroys your claim, wouldn't you agree?

    Not at all... after all, I agree with you. But only in your case. As I said, I will answer questions if you will. So what is your goal here? Do you imagine that if you defeat every "creationist" that you will finally prove that you're not an idiot? Because it sure seems like you know you're acting like one.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Wouldn't it be interesting if it could be shown that your memes were more goal directed and intelligent than you are? To the extent that anything is goal directed, naturally...

    ReplyDelete
  34. mynym said...

    T: "You're the guy who claimed all life forms have a purpose, so they must be designed. I merely asked you for some examples of that purpose.

    They have many purposes.


    Yet you can't supply a single one despite being asked four times.

    Your bluff was called and you failed miserably. Too bad.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Yet you can't supply a single one despite being asked four times.

    I can but I will not because you will not answer my questions about your goals. Are there more than one? For most effete and passive writers here it their goals seem to revolve around their professional identity*. But I doubt that's the case for you. I'd imagine that your goal is more puerile and that you merely want to prove yourself more intelligent or knowledgeable than "creationists," whoever they are. And given what is claimed about creationism and intelligent design here by ignorant evolutionists, that would mean that you think that you're more intelligent than the "creationist" Aristotle or anyone else who engages in teleological thinking. I'd note that if that's your goal then you're failing miserably.

    *Which is linked to the way so many write about science as if it's a sentient being, frame everything in passive terms as if that means they are objective and aren't utterly ignorant. Etc.:First-person pronouns such as I and we began to disappear from scientific writing in the United States in the 1920s when active voice was replaced by today's inflexible, impersonal and often boring style of scientific writing. Since then, scientists have used the anonymity of passive voice to make themselves appear as modest, passive and objective observers. This is unfortunate because passive voice greatly diminishes communication.
    How We Write about Biology
    by Randy Moore


    But what is to be expected of people who can hardly even allow themselves to see what they observe and experience, i.e. that they or another organism did something based on knowledge and therefore on purpose.

    Your bluff was called and you failed miserably. Too bad.

    Failure... well, that's interesting. Apparently you'll admit that at least one organism is capable of knowing about a goal or purpose which it can succeed or fail at. That might be a start if you're still capable of using your ridiculously limited intellect to think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  36. mynym said...

    Yet you can't supply a single one despite being asked four times.

    I can but I will not because you will not answer my questions about your goals.


    LOL! You can't. But you will make weak after-the-fact excuses to save your fragile ego.

    ReplyDelete
  37. On another note:
    Nobody in the real world communicates like this. Consequently, the insistence of many biologists...to write only in passive voice forces readers to shift into a foreign mode of communication. This makes passive voice hard to write and even harder to read because, especially when reporting experiments, it doesn't reflect what really happened and sometimes changes the substance of what we did. Nevertheless, many students and professional biologists believe that science must be written in dull, passive style.
    (ib.) emphasis added



    Changes the substance of what we did? Indeed. Ironically, the notion of "pure" objectivity is just as often a barrier to the pursuit of the truth as it is a useful heuristic. Especially when effeminate/"I hate gaps of separation... now where is my Mommy Nature!" types get a hold of it.

    ReplyDelete
  38. You can't. But you will make weak after-the-fact excuses to save your fragile ego.

    Not at all, that's probably merely a direct projection of your weak and puerile sense of self. You say that I should meet a goal or end while denying that organisms can have goals and purposes based on knowledge.

    But I would argue that even a rat can do something on purpose:
    Electrons and nucleons are not known to be sentient, while the higher animals are. If a rat laps up a solution of saccharine, the rational explanation of this lies in the fact that the solution tastes sweet and that the rat likes that. The tasting and liking are facts that physics and chemistry as known today cannot explain.
    And this conclusion gives the whole show away. Because it acknowledges a conscious desire by an individual capable of such desire, it leads on further to the recognition of deliberate actions by individuals and the possibilities of error on their part. Thus a whole series of conceptions emerges that are absent from physics and chemistry as known today. Indeed, nothing is relevant to biology, even at the lowest level of life, unless it bears on the achievements of living beings: achievements such as their perfection of form, their morphogenesis, or the proper functioning of their organs; and the very conception of such achievements implies a distinction between success or failure—a distinction unknown to physics and chemistry.
    (Scientific Outlook: Its Sickness and Cure
    by Michael Polanyi
    Science New Series, Vol. 125, No. 3246 (Mar., 1957), pp. 482)

    ReplyDelete
  39. But I'll agree in your case. Yes, you and everything you write can generally be reduced to a history of ignorance and chaos of one sort or another. The illusion of your intelligence, to the degree that it remains, is reducible to "random" events in the past. In fact, it's probably emerges from a few simple psychological dynamics. That's probably why you seek a puerile and passive position of "Show me I'm wrong. Show me!" instead of a more open and active position of demonstrating your claim that all organisms can be explained in terms of meaningless, ignorant and blind processes.

    ReplyDelete
  40. mynym said...

    But I would argue that even a rat can do something on purpose:


    Whether a rat itself is capable of doing something on purpose and whether the rat is designed with a purpose are two completely different things.

    But do keep up the silly rhetorical bait-n-switch word games. I've got plenty of popcorn. :)

    ReplyDelete
  41. The door latch on the space shuttle can be used as a bottle opener and the clip board in the cockpit can be used as a tie clip... therefore the space shuttle is not irreducibly complex. Wow, that was easy!

    Wow Tedford, even by your low standards that was more stupid and inane than your usual blither.

    Although a chimp fails to recognize itself when it looks into a mirror for the first time, eventually they will become self-aware. The only primate that does not become self-aware is the Darwinist. This proves that Darwinian evolution didn't happen because they are dumber than their professed cousin. Unless Thorton is less evolved than the modern Homo sapiens.

    ReplyDelete
  42. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  43. mynym:

    "they all reflect a kind of intentional pursuit we would never attribute to dust, rocks, ocean waves, or clouds."

    So, you're claiming that your chosen sky daddy didn't design and create dust, rocks, ocean waves, or clouds, or the forces behind them?

    Are you're claiming that none of those things have a purpose, or a function, but that organisms do?

    What do those things consist of, as compared to organisms? What forces are behind them, as compared to organisms?

    If I changed the word forces to laws, would your answer be different?

    What was the very first man made of (or from), according to the bible?

    Can there be function without intent, and/or intent without function?

    Is purpose the same as function, or is purpose the same as intent?

    Is function predetermined, or a result? Is purpose predetermined, or a result?

    Is pursuit the same as function, or purpose, or predetermined, or intent, or all of them or none of them?

    Can there be intent without pursuit?

    Can there be pursuit without intent?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Another question:

    Do meteoroids, asteroids, comets, earthquakes, volcanoes, gravity, planetary orbits, planetary magnetic fields (or lack of them), plate tectonics, diseases, death, extinctions, gamma rays, quasars, galactic collisions, star formation, super novae, or black holes "reflect a kind of intentional pursuit" or "purpose"?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Cornelius wrote:

    Research published last year out of Portugal shows that the development of ribs is more complicated than evolutionists imagined.

    Apparently "evolutionists" imagine everything in biology must be very simple. Like when everybody said cells were nothing but amorphous bags of goo.

    ReplyDelete
  46. But this is not the end of the history, it is not good ribs without absorption of aminoacids, without the synthesis of aminoacids, without Rubisco, without Rieske enzimes, etc etc etc

    ReplyDelete
  47. "I'll answer your question just as soon as you answer my one question."

    *fifteen comments later*

    "I'll answer your question just as soon as you answer my fifteen questions."

    Seriously, mynym, do you think you're fooling anyone? Or do you really not care as long as you can fool yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Whether a rat itself is capable of doing something on purpose and whether the rat is designed with a purpose are two completely different things.

    If the rat knows that it likes a taste and then eats something, the present fact of its liking and knowing have just had an influence in the world. But biologists are trained to imagine the opposite and instead imagine that all knowing in the present and the past is reducible to a closed system based on your imaginary forms of ignorance.

    Given the truths evident in our experience and observation you and others can hardly even imagine what you mean without denying it. And it's not just the apparent knowledge of rats that is to be methodically and progressively imagined away without reason, it is your own scraps of knowledge as well: Love it or hate it, phenomena like this exhibit the heart of the power of the Darwinian idea. An impersonal, unreflective, robotic, mindless little scrap of molecular machinery is the ultimate basis of all the agency, and hence meaning, and hence consciousness, in the universe.

    Of course, the idea of a "machine" brings forth the idea of some type of goal that it is or was once directed toward. But I will admit in the case of imbeciles/"evolutionists" that they are correct. The scraps and illusions of knowledge or meaning in their ideas about things can be explained in terms of mindless ignorance.

    But it's ironic that you pollute the term evolution. After all, it is essentially the antithesis of your philosophy of ignorance and instead gives birth to knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Seriously, mynym, do you think you're fooling anyone?

    If I was interested in fooling people stupid and ignorant enough to take the creation myths of biologists at face value I could. In fact, there generally seem to be only a few points of conditioning and so on that one would need to develop effective propaganda. History indicates that it would generally work well on the effeminate.

    Or do you really not care...

    About "fooling" or manipulating an abysmally ignorant person like Thorton into some sort of agreement or prying him out of the womb of his "blind" Mother Nature? No, I don't really care. But I am interested in his perspective from in there. And it's not really fifeteen questions, in his reductionist view of organisms and their many layers of purpose and so on it can be reduced to one. What is his goal or purpose here as a little caped crusader for what he imagines to be "science"/knowledge? That's all. I answered his question but if left to his own devices he probably will not answer mine due to his passivity, which probably results from effeminacy. That's why he'll shift radically from puerile passive (Show me! Show me!) to what he thinks are active positions (If only you had balls... like me!). Etc. One thing he will not do is moderate the two in a psychologically balanced way based on reason.

    In any event, it's ironic that his memes apparently direct him to mistake ignorance for science and imaginary events in the past for empirical observations and experiences in the present.

    ReplyDelete
  50. So, you're claiming that your chosen sky daddy didn't design and create dust, rocks, ocean waves, or clouds, or the forces behind them?

    Even if one moves away from the psychological dynamics which apparently cause you to hate the idea of a sky God that is separate from the earth and union with the "face of the waters" or a warm little pool and so on, whether or not things like rocks are directed toward an end is still an open question. Ironically you seem to be taking a little bit of knowledge generally gleaned from Victorian era theology and the rejection of Aristotle and turning it into some sort of absolute. But the truth is that you do not know if things like rocks and planets are directed toward an end or goal or not.

    Are you're claiming that none of those things have a purpose, or a function, but that organisms do?

    I'm claiming that we know by our experience of knowledge that we can have goals and so on. So why do evolutionists continually seek to degrade and debase other organisms or other people in the past? Degrade and debase yourselves first and I will agree with you.

    What do those things consist of, as compared to organisms? What forces are behind them, as compared to organisms?

    One difference between rocks and organisms is an awareness of language.

    What was the very first man made of (or from), according to the bible?

    I think that's your real interest, the creation narratives of the Jews. They are very "separate," aren't they? And they do seem to go against the old pagan urge to merge. But in any event, as I recall Adam actually means "creature of the earth" or earthling so that's what man was made of according to the story, dust. But it seems that there's something written in it.

    Can there be function without intent, and/or intent without function?

    Do you intend to find answers to your questions by seeking the truth? I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I answered his question...

    Really? You think no one will notice that you just transitioned from "I will answer the question" to "I have answered the question" without actually answering the question? Or is it just that it's been long enough that you can't really remember, but you're pretty sure you must have answered it by now?

    Actually, do you even remember what the question is?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Venture Free said...

    Actually, do you even remember what the question is?


    I do! It was originally posed to Red Reader who claimed all life exhibited a purpose. I asked:

    "What is the 'purpose' of a banana slug? Of a tree sloth? Of E coli?"

    'Purpose' means an intended function or result that was preconceived and consciously striven for.

    mynym then chimed in with a dozen posts full of word salad but never answered the question. After being asked four times he asked a question back, then started with the "answer mine first!!" childish ploy. He did attempt on diversionary hand wave with "rats can do actions on purpose", which is totally different that rats being *designed with a purpose*.

    So that's where we sit. Lots of hot air and gobbledygook from the Creationists, but no answer.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Márcio Lazzarotto said:

    But this is not the end of the history, it is not good ribs without absorption of aminoacids, without the synthesis of aminoacids, without Rubisco, without Rieske enzimes, etc etc etc

    LOL. Yeah, what good can be ribs without RuBisCO?

    ReplyDelete
  54. mynym, are you a politician by any chance? If not that, how about a preacher or dancer?

    You sure do dance around when it comes to answering questions. Want to try again with mine, and the others you've been asked, and this time actually answer them in a way that is relevant and makes sense?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Red Reader:
    Whenever we actually observe something where such complexity has a purpose, the complexity turns out to have been deliberately designed.

    From there Thorton asked what is the purpose of a sloth, etc., apparently assuming that there must be a singular purpose tracing back to the deliberations of a singular Designer. The only way to jump to those conclusions is based on Victorian era theology in which it is thought that some sort of "perfect" clockwork God mechanistically designs every organism with some "tick tock" version of mechanistic "perfection" in mind.* And since the organism supposedly isn't perfect by such standards, at least according to the "tick tock" of Thorton's imperfect brain events today, it has no purpose. But it is actually "perfectly" rational to say that a sloth eats a leaf because it likes to. After all, we can observe the influence of knowledge and intelligence within the world ourselves so why degrade other organisms?

    *Victorian era theology isn't really the Christian view in which God becomes a man and even a symbolic Lamb/animal, gardens in gardens, gets dirty, carnal and bloody, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  56. ....this time actually answer them in a way that is relevant and makes sense?

    I suppose I could answer them based on what seem to be your philosophical assumptions, to the extent that ignorant people even have a philosophy. Apparently when contrasted with the notion that organisms like the sloth or the slug should have a singular and perfect purpose according to creationists, it becomes evident that they are actually purposeless "accidents." To the extent that I understand the logic of imbeciles, that seems to be the conclusion.

    Note that my question has not be answered, you could even frame it in singular terms if you like. What is your purpose here as a caped crusader for what you imagine to be "science"?

    ReplyDelete
  57. mynym said...

    Note that my question has not be answered, you could even frame it in singular terms if you like. What is your purpose here as a caped crusader for what you imagine to be "science"?


    What is your purpose in beating your wife, stealing money from the church funds, and lying for Creationism?

    ReplyDelete
  58. mynym said:

    "But it is actually "perfectly" rational to say that a sloth eats a leaf because it likes to. After all, we can observe the influence of knowledge and intelligence within the world ourselves so why degrade other organisms?"

    But what does a sloth eating a leaf have to do with your chosen god? And who's degrading any organisms?

    You god zombies are the ones who degrade "other" organisms. You're the ones who believe and claim that humans (actually and especially YOU) are specially created, and are superior to all other organisms. To me, a sloth is more special than you are. At least a sloth doesn't have your massive ego.

    By the way, since a deadly virus, bacterium, or parasite 'likes' to 'eat' its host, is your chosen god responsible for that too, or should your chosen god only get credit for what you think is the good stuff?

    ReplyDelete
  59. What happened to the text size? Suddenly it's tiny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks like the whole board SW had a make-over. We now have "reply" button in comments too.

      Will take a little getting used to.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. It appears that the nesting only goes down one level. That's probably the ideal here since the content/comment area is so narrow. Many sites simply narrow further and further until it's virtually impossible to read comments. Others "wrap around", which ultimately makes it hard to tell a new thread from a wrapped around thread. That can be confusing. We'll see how this works out.

      Delete