Saturday, April 12, 2014

Here is a Protein Machine That Adds Methyl Groups to DNA at Just the Right Place to Control Protein Production

Look What Evolved

Evolutionists say methyltransferases, like this one depicted in blue, and DNA depicted here in pink, were created by a series of random mutations. This even though we now know proteins twenty times smaller have no chance of evolving.

170 comments:

  1. The post you referenced fails to disclose several assumptions with represent misrepresentations of evolutionary theory, among others.

    For example, biological Darwinism does not suggest evolutionary processes conceive of problems as we do. Rather, genetic variation is random with respect to any specific problem to solve. As such, evolutionary theory does not assume evolution proposed specific solutions designed to solve specific problems, such as those solved by methyltransferases, which make them a singular, direct target for mutations to hit.

    IOW, your objections assume that proteins were designed just to perform that role from the start, which you implicitly smuggle into your augment. Without knowing all the possible outcomes, you have no means of calculating the probability of whether evolution is true.

    Furthermore, explicitly disclosing or even acknowledging these assumptions simply doesn't not suit your purpose. After all, you're preaching to the choir, so there is no one to convince. Disclosing your assumptions would only require to you argument for them, thereby unnecessarily exposing them to criticism.

    IOW, this is just another example of the sort of handwaving we see here on a regular basis.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Scott:

    IOW, your objections assume that proteins were designed just to perform that role from the start, which you implicitly smuggle into your augment. Without knowing all the possible outcomes, you have no means of calculating the probability of whether evolution is true.

    No, that is not a premise of the calculations (which are not mine, by the way). You need to read more carefully.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CH: No, that is not a premise of the calculations (which are not mine, by the way). You need to read more carefully.

      That's quite an impressive response. But there's just little problem: I never actually claimed the premise of the calculations were to determine if evolutionary theory was true or probability true. Nor did I claim they were yours calculations. And I need to read more carefully?

      IOW, not only did your response fail to actually address even a fraction my comment, but it merely attempted to disingenuously perpetuate the very same misrepresentations I pointed out in the first place.

      Do you really think so little of your target audience?

      From the post you linked to from the text "no chance of evolving "....

      CH: The first problem with evolutionary theory is that it is unlikely.

      You then go on to reference papers with titles, such as How much of protein sequence space has been explored by life on Earth?, Functionally acceptable substitutions in two alpha-helical regions of lambda repressor, Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds and Experimental Rugged Fitness Landscape in Protein Sequence Space.

      However, these papers are designed to test intra-theory aspects of evolutionary theory, not the theory itself, based on core tenets of evolutionary theory. It's these very tenets that limit what the possibly outcomes are, which make those calculations valid. Yet, you supposedly object to these very same core tenets. So, unless you replace those tenets with those from some other theory, or assumptions on your part, to limit what the possible outcomes are, it's unclear how they are actually useful in the context you're implying.

      This is because, unless a process is completely random and you know all the possible outcomes, probability isn't valid means of determining if a theory is true or even probability true. Nor is biological Darwinism merely "a series of random mutations" - variation is random in respect to any particular problem to solve, not completely random.

      Yet, in posts like this, you keep implying they *are* valid. So, apparently, you disagree with something in the above, otherwise you wouldn't keep referencing the very same papers, over and over again. Right? if so, what parts do you disagree with?

      For example, even if we assume evolution is merely random, for the purpose of discussion, are you claiming it *is* possible to calculate the probability of a random process without knowing all the possible options? If so, how does that work, in practice? Or perhaps you're calming the calculations valid because you do know what all the possible outcomes are? But, again, this would imply you're making assumptions which you haven't disclosed and is not implied in evolutionary theory. If not any of the above, which is it?

      Then again, I'm being chartable here in assuming you're not merely disingenuously repeating the same claim over and over again in the hope that someone will assume it's true if they just hear it enough times.

      Delete
    2. "unless a process is completely random and you know all the possible outcomes, probability isn't valid means of determining if a theory is true or even probability true."

      what a weak piece of logic. By that rationale anything that is improbable is more likely simply because we do not know all the possible outcomes. I suppose my lineage will become a bunch of whales that wear glasses capable of interstellar travel and its probable simply because I do not know all "possible outcomes"

      Delete
    3. Elijah: What a weak piece of logic. By that rationale anything that is improbable is more likely simply because we do not know all the possible outcomes.

      You seem to be confused. If, by "my rational", things that were less probable would become more probable, this implies that probability calculations would still be valid. Yet, my position is that probability is not applicable in all kinds of unknowability since we do not know how to calculate their probability at all. So, it's simply not applicable, either way.

      Nor is it applicable in regards to the question if evolutionary theory itself, as opposed to some intra-theory claim, is true or more probability true. The theory must come first, by which you can constrain the possible outcomes.

      IOW, there is more than one kind of unknowability and probability is only valid in a small subset of those cases, since we simply cannot calculate it. To think it is universally applicable is to grossly overestimate the validity of probability and, in turn, to be confused about why we adopt theories, in practice

      This confusion is what Cornelius is trying to exploit.

      For example, evolutionary theory doesn't suggest larger proteins randomly appear all at once, but that they evolved from simpler proteins that had other functions in their genetic history. Nor does evolutionary theory suggest any particular protein was specifically proposed to solve any specific problem, so it was an intentionally target to hit. Some entirely different set of proteins could have evolved which solve the same problem in some other way, which makes this calculations invalid for calculating if evolutionary theory itself was true or probably true. This is in contrast to whether one intra-aspect of evolutionary is more probability than another, which was the premise of the majority of the papers Cornelius referenced.

      So, my question is, if probability is valid, as Cornelius claims, then there must be some constraints he is using to calculate it. What are those particular constraints? And, if they are not present as part of evolutionary theory, then where did they come from?

      Delete
    4. Scott:

      Scott: IOW, your objections assume that proteins were designed just to perform that role from the start, which you implicitly smuggle into your augment. Without knowing all the possible outcomes, you have no means of calculating the probability of whether evolution is true.

      CH: No, that is not a premise of the calculations (which are not mine, by the way). You need to read more carefully.

      Scott: That's quite an impressive response.


      Well there is not much more that I can say. When you impute a premise to me that I do not make, then there is no way I can prove you wrong, aside from explaining that the premise is not there and you need to read it again. Until you seriously reckon with the problem, there is not much I can say.

      Delete
    5. Cornelius Hunter: When you impute a premise to me that I do not make, then there is no way I can prove you wrong, aside from explaining that the premise is not there and you need to read it again.

      A good way is to restate your position, while paying particular attention to the area of misunderstanding.

      Delete
    6. "You seem to be confused."

      No, not even a drop of confusion. I just know how you dance. You are attempting to deal with the improbability of something by begging that probability be thrown out when the probability does not serve your conclusion. The argument is vacuous. You do NOT have to know all possible outcomes to know something is improbable. Its a ridiculous made up criteria to suit your argument.

      Delete
    7. "A good way is to restate your position, while paying particular attention to the area of misunderstanding. "

      Traditionally with written material its the reader that has the responsibility to read again particularly when the author has indicated a misrepresentation.

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

      Delete
    9. Elijah2012: Traditionally with written material its the reader that has the responsibility to read again particularly when the author has indicated a misrepresentation.

      So it is not incumbent on the writer to clarify their meaning? That's very odd. We would have thought the purpose of writing was communication, especially on a forum.

      Delete
    10. CH: No, that is not a premise of the calculations (which are not mine, by the way). You need to read more carefully.

      Scott: That's quite an impressive response. But there's just [one] little problem: I never actually claimed the premise of the calculations were to determine if evolutionary theory was true or probability true. Nor did I claim they were [your] calculations.

      CH: Well there is not much more that I can say. When you impute a premise to me that I do not make, then there is no way I can prove you wrong, aside from explaining that the premise is not there and you need to read it again.

      Except, as I pointed out in the part of my response which you failed to quote, that's a claim I did not make.

      Rather, I summarized my actual premise as the following..

      Scott: ...in posts like this, you keep implying [the probability calculations you referenced] *are* valid [outside an intra-theory context].

      Furthermore, I pointed out there was significantly more you could say.

      Scott: So, apparently, you disagree with something in the above, otherwise you wouldn't keep referencing the very same papers, over and over again. Right? if so, what parts do you disagree with?

      Scott: For example, even if we assume evolution is merely random, for the purpose of discussion, are you claiming it *is* possible to calculate the probability of a random process without knowing all the possible options? If so, how does that work, in practice? Or perhaps you're calming the calculations valid because you do know what all the possible outcomes are? But, again, this would imply you're making assumptions which you haven't disclosed and is not implied in evolutionary theory. If not any of the above, which is it?


      Perhaps you should first take your own advice, to "read it again", before suggesting it to others?

      Delete
    11. "So it is not incumbent on the writer to clarify their meaning? That's very odd. We would have thought the purpose of writing was communication,"

      Its incumbent on the writer to communicate to most of his readers. Theres no way he can accommodate making every single person understand. Right now I see no more than two or three who don't understand the communication and we cannot ignore its the usual people that feign not understanding anything that does not suit their dogma.

      So go and read and stop begging to be spoon fed. If he is saying he didn't say what you claim he said then yes its incumbent upon you making the claim to state precisely where he said what you you claimed he did.

      Not understanding that is well....odd

      Delete
    12. Elijah: You are attempting to deal with the improbability of something by begging that probability be thrown out when the probability does not serve your conclusion.

      no, I'm dealing with the fact that if probability isn't valid when evaluating a theory because we have no way to actually calculate, it in practice, then you must be using some other criteria to determine which theories to adopt, which you've mistaken for probability.

      That's what I meant by "grossly overestimating the validity of probability."

      Delete
    13. Heh, of course probability is invalid. That's why all those population geneticist are wrong and hopeless monsters is right. Wow, I really back in the 70's. There is one, or at best a handful of possible outcomes that gives you the protein needed. The number of trials can be determined by the time, population, and mutation rates. Given that data the probability of the given protein arising from chance is statistically zero. So of course the math must now become invalid, "Darwin wills it!". It emerged from no foundation, we think, because we're not certain of anything, but it's supported. And so it goes.

      Delete
    14. eklektos: Given that data the probability of the given protein arising from chance is statistically zero.

      That's rather the point of Darwin's theory. Complex structures didn't suddenly self-assemble, they evolved. Highly derived proteins didn't just suddenly appear, they evolved from simpler structures.

      Delete
    15. CH: Well there is not much more that I can say.

      Scott: Furthermore, I pointed out there was significantly more you could say.

      CH: [no response]

      As I suspected, it's not that there isn't much more that you *can* say, but that there isn't much more that you *want* say.

      Delete
    16. eklektos: Heh, of course probability is invalid.

      I bow to your intellect, eklektos.

      I mean, given that my argument defines when probability *is* valid (when you know all the outcomes and the result is truly random) I obviously must think that probability is completely and universally invalid. Right?

      We "evolutionists" should just give up because, if all ID proponents are as well versed in logic as eklektos, we simply don't stand a chance.

      Delete
    17. Scott,

      So it's only invalid when it disproves evolutionary claims. So it's selectively invalid.

      Delete
    18. Zachriel,

      It's rather the point that you can't just stick peptides together an get a large functional protein. There's no proof of any sort they evolved. The statistics are against it. And we haven't even addressed orfan genes which are species unique.

      Delete
    19. There's another glaring problem with evolving these machines. They must be built by DNA. But the DNA is useless without the machines. You must have everything at once. You can't evolve the whole process in stages. Nor has anyone demonstrated anything remotely like the possibility of doing so. So no organism to get it started, and no way of evolving the supposed simplest organism to a more complex one if you had it. Plus the "simplest organism" is incredibly complex from the start. Then of course there's the problem of multicellular organism, which cannot tolerate large scale changes without loss of function and death, and how you get to one in the first place.

      Delete
    20. eklektos: It's rather the point that you can't just stick peptides together an get a large functional protein.

      No, but it's rather the point that you can get small functional proteins.

      eklektos: There's no proof of any sort they evolved.

      The evidence is the nested hierarchy.

      Delete
    21. eklektos: There's another glaring problem with evolving these machines. They must be built by DNA. But the DNA is useless without the machines.

      That's a problem within abiogenesis, not evolution proper. However, RNA can act as both messenger and enzyme.

      eklektos: Then of course there's the problem of multicellular organism, which cannot tolerate large scale changes without loss of function and death, and how you get to one in the first place.

      Evolution posits generally small modifications.

      Delete
    22. eklektos: So it's only invalid when it disproves evolutionary claims. So it's selectively invalid.

      Without knowing how many side a die has, could you calculate the probability of rolling it and getting 20? If the future roles of a die are effected by past rolls, can you calculate the probability of rolling a 20?

      If the answer to those questions is "No", then probability isn't only (selectively) invalid in the case of evolutionary theory.

      Delete
  3. DrHunter

    Evolutionists say methyltransferases, like this one depicted in blue, and DNA depicted here in pink, were created by a series of random mutations. This even though we now know proteins twenty times smaller have no chance of evolving.

    So you are saying it must be designed since there is no chance it evolved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More special pleading for miracles?

      Delete
    2. eklektos

      More special pleading for miracles?

      I believe that is your just so story not mine, evolution is constrained to the non miraculous.

      Delete
    3. V:

      No. What we can say is that evolutionary theory doesn't have a cause (or doesn't have a realistic cause). Like a lawyer needing a weapon in order to make his case in a trial, a scientist needs a cause. Without a cause you're nowhere, and random events is not a scientifically sufficient cause. Perhaps that will change in the future, but today's science is quite clear.

      Delete
    4. Cornelius Hunter: Without a cause you're nowhere, and random events is not a scientifically sufficient cause.

      Mutations are considered random with respect to fitness, but are not without a cause. They are usually due to copying errors, though there are sometimes external influences, such as chemicals or radiation.

      Delete
    5. Special pleading, phony burden shifting, statistical impossibility, a load of bunk. That's evolution for you. Mutation won't get you where you need to go. These are specifically complex systems, not random chance.

      Delete
    6. eklektos: These are specifically complex systems, not random chance.

      We addressed a specific point, that mutations don't have a cause, which was incorrect.

      Delete
    7. It is this simple: if it's a machine it was designed!

      Serious question for me is : does methyltransferase operate as a chemical nano machine or not?

      I studied some other enzymes and processes and concluded they operate like machines or cooperating groups of machines.

      Delete
    8. Eugen:

      Serious question for me is : does methyltransferase operate as a chemical nano machine or not?

      Yes, it does.

      Delete
    9. Thanks Cornelius, I may read about methyltransferase one day. So far it seems all chemical machines operate on same principles.

      Velik, I would very generally define machine as a device or logically arranged group of components that control energy to perform a useful work. I cannot think of anything that naturally self assembles into a machine.

      Delete
    10. Velik, I would very generally define machine as a device or logically arranged group of components that control energy to perform a useful work. I cannot think of anything that naturally self assembles into a machine.

      The Sun,Milky Way, clouds, Niagara Falls, atoms natural or designed?

      Delete
    11. Velikovsky,

      yes, they were designed, and are governed by laws that were designed. But a molecular machine is light years in complexity from a sugar crystal. So like always, category errors, logical fallacies, and despite your projection on to me just so stories. And why, why believe something as obviously silly as Zachriels assertion that nostrils fuse and migrate from the front of the jaw to behind the skull? Why believe evolution? Because you seek to escape the reality of your situation. Evolution requires the miraculous, it just wants miracles without a cause.

      Delete
    12. eklektos: they were designed, and are governed by laws that were designed.

      The evidence suggests that the Sun, Milky Way, clouds, Niagara Falls and atoms formed due to natural processes.

      eklektos: And why, why believe something as obviously silly as Zachriels assertion that nostrils fuse and migrate from the front of the jaw to behind the skull?

      Perhaps we could look for transitional organisms to resolve that question.

      Delete
    13. The evidence is inconclusive and still requires an origin, as we know that something is not produced by nothing. There are no true transitional organisms. What, you expect to find a fossil with it's nostrils in the middle of it's upper jaw? Of course you don't, so now you're back to hopeless monsters. Changing early developmental pathways, which of course leads to deformity or death. You can't escape, you will have a face to face with your creator.

      Delete
    14. eklektos: The evidence is inconclusive

      Oh gee whiz. Clouds are formed evaporation.

      Your philosophical position may be that everything is designed, but as a scientific proposition, if you can't distinguish between designed and non-designed, then you can't form a workable hypothesis, because you can't ever propose distinguishing empirical implications. It's just philosophical woo—not that's there's anything wrong with that—, but it has no scientific validity.

      What is also means is that you can't objectively evaluate evidence that contradicts your philosophical predispositions. You cann't look at the evidence with fresh eyes.

      eklektos: What, you expect to find a fossil with it's nostrils in the middle of it's upper jaw?

      Rodhocetus
      http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/nasal-drift.gif

      What would you expect to see if we looked at embryonic development in whales?

      Delete
    15. Clouds work according to properties that did not come into being by chance, gee whiz. Nasal drift, really, you seriously believe that. What faith you have. I am interested in what can be proven, not what is "supported' a phrase so fungible it can fit almost any contingency. Which is what we've left, and why so much of our science is such nonsense and so subject to constant revision. Biogenesis is a law. It's not supported it's observed at all times and in all places, like the law of gravitation. Nasal drift, it'd be hysterical if it wasn't so sad. Gee whiz..no escape. You might check out your own a priori assumptions. At least I'm honest about mine, I don't try to pass off a phony aura of detached neutrality.

      Delete
    16. eklektos: Clouds work according to properties that did not come into being by chance, gee whiz.

      Gravity, rotation, fusion in the sun, evaporation, adiabatic process, condensation, are not random. If there is such as thing as a natural, these are considered natural.

      eklektos: Nasal drift, really, you seriously believe that.

      This is why we said you couldn't objectively evaluate evidence that contradicts your philosophical predispositions. You flippantly asked "What, you expect to find a fossil with it's nostrils in the middle of it's upper jaw?" We showed you that such a fossil organism exists. So do you reevaluate your position? Of course not. So what would you expect to see if we looked at embryonic development in whales with regards to the nares?

      Try to respond to this: Your philosophical position may be that everything is designed, but as a scientific proposition, if you can't distinguish between designed and non-designed, then you can't form a workable hypothesis, because you can't ever propose distinguishing empirical implications. It's just philosophical woo—not that's there's anything wrong with that—, but it has no scientific validity.

      Delete
    17. Zachriel,

      Naturally, and how did the laws which govern these things arise. How did the matter come into being? Where did the singularity come from? It's a miracle, no, I know it's the result of multiverses, which are totally empirical, right? You are in the same boat philosophically, you're just dishonest about it. Nobody is neutral, we all evaluate facts within a framework. You're just dishonest and attempt to hide yours. So spare me the phony neutrality claims. Science is a convenience for you, not an absolute, you jettison it at will, such as nasal drift, a totally ludicrous and unsubstantiated claim. But "my idol wills it!". You've given me quite the chuckle this a.m.

      Delete
    18. eklektos: How did the matter come into being? Where did the singularity come from?

      Science doesn't answer all questions, but when you enter a scientific debate, you have to apply the scientific method, including skepticism, especially skepticism.

      eklektos: I know it's the result of multiverses, which are totally empirical, right?

      Multiverses is just a hypothesis, with no direct evidence. The possible detection of gravity waves lends support to multiverse theories, but is not conclusive.

      eklektos: You are in the same boat philosophically, you're just dishonest about it.

      That's a sure way to show the weakness of your position. Everyone has philosophical dispositions, but science requires skepticism and objectivity.

      You never did answer. What would you expect to see if we looked at embryonic development in whales with regards to the nares? If you can't distinguish between designed and non-designed, then you can't form a workable hypothesis, because you can't ever propose distinguishing empirical implications.

      Delete
    19. Velik



      "The Sun,Milky Way, clouds, Niagara Falls, atoms natural or designed?"



      They are all magnificent but they don't look like logically arranged components that control energy flow to perform useful work.

      OTOH, atoms could be little quantum machines. Atom's components are arranged in logical way to be able to absorb and emit photons and atoms can "connect" to each other in several ways. Their behavior is guided by set of rigid rules of quantum mechanics. Little bit of freedom atoms have is unpredictability of photon emission and that gives us a time flow or what I call "quantum event ratchet".

      Delete
    20. Eugen: They are all magnificent but they don't look like logically arranged components that control energy flow to perform useful work.

      Sure they are. The fusion engine in the Sun's interior heats the Earth, drives the water cycle, forming clouds, pumping water over the land for crops. Useful to organisms on Earth anyway.

      Delete
    21. ekektos

      But a molecular machine is light years in complexity from a sugar crystal

      As you said,it is a machine and that was the issue.

      So like always, category errors, logical fallacies, and despite your projection on to me just so stories.

      How is your belief in a particular divine being not the ultimate just so story?

      Delete
    22. Zachriel

      "Sure they are. The fusion engine in the Sun's interior heats the Earth, drives the water cycle, forming clouds, pumping water over the land for crops. Useful to organisms on Earth anyway. "

      That it is not work.

      Delete
    23. Blas: That it is not work.

      Work = Force times displacement
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)

      Delete
    24. Zachriel

      "Sure they are. The fusion engine in the Sun's interior heats the Earth, drives the water cycle, forming clouds, pumping water over the land for crops. Useful to organisms on Earth anyway. "

      My broad definition may include that but I think Sun's nuclear reactions are a process rather than machine type work. In a sense we could say that Sun is a furnace, an energy converting machine.

      In this case we are getting closer to what Eklektos said "everything is designed".( I got that impression, sorry if I misrepresent your idea Eklektos).

      Rather, I was thinking about a river and if we imagine a tree branches touching the water they will swing around in a random way. Compare that to a water wheel anchored at the river bank, its paddles immersed into flowing water. Energy is absorbed by the wheel and directed,controlled channeled to perform specific work. This is relatively simple but clever setup that has all the basic elements every other machine has, including nano machines.

      Delete
    25. Eugen,

      They are all magnificent but they don't look like logically arranged components that control energy flow to perform useful work.

      A fusion reactor that provides energy for life ,creates the elements as by products , seems useful.

      Delete
    26. Zachriel

      "Work = Force times displacement
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)"

      Ok, and where is the work in your example?

      Delete
    27. My broad definition may include that but I think Sun's nuclear reactions are a process rather than machine type work. In a sense we could say that Sun is a furnace, an energy converting machine.

      Or think of the Sun as a factory,taking hydrogen and creating heavy elements.

      The issue is you are assuming that machines are designed by an intelligent agent,therefore naturally occurring object which meet your definition of a machine cannot be machines.

      Delete
    28. Blas,
      Ok, and where is the work in your example?


      Conversion of water in the ocean to snow in the Rockies, which is useful to the skiers. Rain which is useful to farmers. It is a sophisticated still which is a machine

      Delete
    29. Velik



      It seems you are stretching my already relaxed definition of machine. Does all environment look like a machine to you? Wind, river, tornado, cloud? How about a tree? Is it a machine that converts sun's energy into leafs and seeds?

      If it is then it's not good for the atheist side because everything is designed to be machine.

      Delete
    30. Velikovsky,

      God is not a just so story, God just is, hence I Am! God is reasonable inference, but one that is repugnant to the natural man. He'd rather believe he's irrelevant cosmic dust. Anything but accountability, purpose, and obligation. Because man is anything but reasonable, despite claims to the contrary.

      Delete
    31. Eugen: My broad definition may include that but I think Sun's nuclear reactions are a process rather than machine type work. In a sense we could say that Sun is a furnace, an energy converting machine.

      The Sun was just one component of the system.

      Blas: Ok, and where is the work in your example?

      The system is a pump that lifts water from the oceans, and moves it over land.

      Eugen: Does all environment look like a machine to you? Wind, river, tornado, cloud?

      A lever is a simple machine .
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_machine

      Delete
    32. Zachriel

      "The system is a pump that lifts water from the oceans, and moves it over land. "

      No Zachriel, it is not a pump. There is no a Force that moves water. In a pump a differential pressure produce a force ( a vectorial magnitude) in a specific direction. In the water cycle there is only diffusion not work.

      Delete
    33. Blas: it is not a pump

      The system moves water uphill.

      Blas: In a pump a differential pressure produce a force ( a vectorial magnitude) in a specific direction.

      Differential pressure. Check.
      Produce a force. Check.
      Specific direction. Check.

      There are a lot of variations, but they have certain common elements; for instance, the summer monsoons. The Sun warms the Earth. This causes evaporation over the oceans. The land warms faster than the oceans, so that air over the land rises, the low pressure drawing in moist ocean waters. As this moist air rises, the pressure decreases, causing the water to condense, falling as rain and snow. In other words, the system moves water uphill against the force of gravity. Very useful.
      https://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/secc_edu/images/monsoon.gif

      The same process also causes the Nile to flood. Or maybe it's Hapi, the god of fertility.

      Delete
    34. ekektos
      God is not a just so story, God just is, hence I Am!


      "In science and philosophy, a just-so story, also called an ad hoc fallacy, is an unverifiable and unfalsifiable narrative explanation for a cultural practice, a biological trait, or behavior of humans or other animals. The pejorative nature of the expression is an implicit criticism that reminds the hearer of the essentially fictional and unprovable nature of such an explanation. Such tales are common in folklore and mythology (where they are known as etiological myths—see etiology)."

      God is reasonable inference, but one that is repugnant to the natural man.

      Perhaps "God" is an inference, but the attributes of that proposed being are not. That knowledge requires faith. Personally I hope there is a God, just not one who would drown children to make a point.

      He'd rather believe he's irrelevant cosmic dust. Anything but accountability, purpose, and obligation.

      The bad news is there could be a " God" and all of those things could be true.

      Because man is anything but reasonable, despite claims to the contrary.

      Some men are reasonable some aren't , but religion doesn't seem to help those that aren't.

      Delete
    35. Velikovsky,

      You kill me. You posit the most unrealistic story, that nostrils migrated from the front of an animals jaw to the back of it's head and became a blowhole. You talk about science and just so stories. An act that must be done in a stage of development where we know the outcome from everything we actually observe to be impossible, as it takes multiple coordinated changes, including novel bone, nerve, reflex, and muscular changes. We see no actual evidence for this, one animal has nostrils, the other a blowhole. You draw a line between them and call it an ancestor. Then you have the unmitigated gall to call someone who doesn't believe this absolute nonsense "unscientific" do to an a priori belief in a designer, and this while being committed to an a priori belief that the cause must be natural while philosophically unable to defend such a position. Science, bah. You believe a billion fictions just to avoid the obvious. You keep claiming I don't understand your science. I understand it quite well, which is why I reject it. You anthropomorphize, talk about unguided process' directing, the power of chance and time, ect.. Let me explain it to you, a 10/77 chance is zero. The odds every time you try it's 10/77, not one less, that's how statistics work. Which is why the odds are zero. Now you must defeat these odds billions of times across millions of species. As to comments about reasonable men you again seem to think merely invoking the name god makes you godly. There is one God, one way to God, and one revelation of that God. It makes exclusive claims, and has a single revelation. God has chosen this method and He is not going to be impressed when you claim that you didn't find it to your taste. Paul speaks much of the natural man, and the picture isn't very pretty. Of course this is what we actually observe, unregenerate men doing ghastly things, even in the name of their god. But as bad as man is about abusing religion it's nothing compared to what we saw in the 20th century done by men totally freed of all religious constraint. Now I'm not one of the "Left Behind" crowd, so I don't know if history is drawing to a close or not. I have a very small perspective from which to judge. But I do know that 3k+ years of recorded history has shown no improvement in mans nature. He is no more civilized than before save in appearances, and just as capable of horrific evil as he ever was. Instead if sacrificing his children to Molech he now murders millions of the unborn on the altar of convenience and personal autonomy. He kills millions every year out of war, ambition, or neglect. Man is not inherently good, and even the best culturalization can disappear in an instant under the right pressure. Now you seem think it's a bad thing God could be true. You better thank your lucky stars God is true, because if He pulls back his hand of restraint you'll see real hell on earth. Think killing fields on a worldwide scale. The only thing between us and that is God, so you might be grateful. Something to think about this Easter when we remember just how much God gave for our sorry, worthless backsides.

      Delete
    36. Vel, Zach



      you are taking a critical step in understanding of our environment which so suspiciously seems set up for life support. ID people have been promoting this for a long time. You go a step further and call environmental processes machines. That's fine.

      Welcome to ID camp!

      Delete
    37. eklektos: You posit the most unrealistic story, that nostrils migrated from the front of an animals jaw to the back of it's head and became a blowhole.

      This is why we said you couldn't objectively evaluate evidence that contradicts your philosophical predispositions. You flippantly asked "What, you expect to find a fossil with it's nostrils in the middle of it's upper jaw?" We showed you that such a fossil organism exists. So do you reevaluate your position? Of course not. So what would you expect to see if we looked at embryonic development in whales with regards to the nares?

      eklektos: You keep claiming I don't understand your science. I understand it quite well, which is why I reject it.

      Try to respond to this: Your philosophical position may be that everything is designed, but as a scientific proposition, if you can't distinguish between designed and non-designed, then you can't form a workable hypothesis, because you can't ever propose distinguishing empirical implications. It's just philosophical woo—not that's there's anything wrong with that—, but it has no scientific validity.

      Delete
    38. Eugen: You go a step further and call environmental processes machines. That's fine. Welcome to ID camp!

      Pointing out that the Sun's energy causes warm moist air to rise is hardly a scientific claim that it was designed by an intelligent agency to do so.

      Delete
    39. Machines are always designed by intelligent beings. Are our environmental processes machines of sort or not?

      Delete
    40. This is why we said you couldn't objectively evaluate evidence that contradicts your philosophical predispositions. You flippantly asked "What, you expect to find a fossil with it's nostrils in the middle of it's upper jaw?" We showed you that such a fossil organism exists. So do you reevaluate your position? Of course not. So what would you expect to see if we looked at embryonic development in whales with regards to the nares?

      It's not in the middle of the jaw, it's slightly farther back on the jaw above a rather unusual extended smaller portion of the front canines. And the gif certainly doesn't look like the actual skull.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodhocetus

      Nor does it look like the nares have actually migrated anywhere, but that the jaw has been protruded out slightly from what we normally see. But it ain't a blowhole structurally. It's hips could support the weight of a terrestrial animal. It's an incomplete skeleton. It's not a transition to anything. So you cherry picked the view you desired and you assert that my preconceptions invalidate my judgements whereas yours are "scientific". Thanks for the laugh.

      Delete
    41. Eugen: Machines are always designed by intelligent beings.

      Apparently not.

      You seem to just be arguing by definition, conflating different senses of a word to reach a tautological conclusion.

      Delete
    42. It's just philosophical woo—not that's there's anything wrong with that—, but it has no scientific validity.

      If it's all designed, and intricately so as to sustain life, then the one spouting philosophical woo is you. You ignore what's apparent to a child in order to escape what are unpleasant conclusions which deflate your sense of self-importance and call it science. You hide your presuppositions behind a façade of objectivity and think you are fooling those with enough sense to see the errors in your arguments. The simple fact is you want miracles with no cause other than chance. You wish to violate biologic laws and call it "science". You don't want to deal with what is actually observed, adaptability with definite limits. 100 years of directed mutagenic studies mean nothing to you because your guiding principle is undirected chance, which you somehow have decided is a more plausible way of explaining your fairy tales. The philosophical woo is all on your side my friends, but there is still hope.

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

      Delete
    44. eklektos: If it's all designed, and intricately so as to sustain life, then the one spouting philosophical woo is you.

      Saying everything is designed is not a scientific claim. Scientific claims rely upon making distinctions. Your conflating woo with science.

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

      Delete
    46. eklektos: It's not in the middle of the jaw, it's slightly farther back on the jaw above a rather unusual extended smaller portion of the front canines.

      That's the point of course. It's transitional between the rostrum to where a modern blowhole would be found. In Aetiocetus, it's moved farther back.

      eklektos: And the gif certainly doesn't look like the actual skull.

      Aetiocetus
      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/images/aetiocetus_skull2.jpg

      eklektos: It's hips could support the weight of a terrestrial animal.

      Good point. It's transitional.

      eklektos: you assert that my preconceptions invalidate my judgements

      Well, they certainly led you to claim something that wasn't true concerning the existence of cetaceans with transitional nares.

      Delete
    47. Zachriel,

      Aeoticetus is not Rodhocetus. Further it has a blowhole in an unusual place, but it's a blowhole, and it's a whale. It's not in any way a land animal. It's a whale and completely aquatic. So to get from one to the other you point out a couple of very dubious similarities and viola, your fairy tale is proven. um..yea. Sell it to the rubes. Not to mention that if your dates are wrong the whole point is moot, and they are.

      Delete
    48. eklektos: Aeoticetus is not Rodhocetus.

      No. You said the Rodhocetus nares was too close to the snout, so we picked another example with the nares further up on the skill, but still short of a modern whale.

      eklektos: Further it has a blowhole in an unusual place, but it's a blowhole, and it's a whale.

      An unusual place. That's funny. We have nares in four different positions, the ordinary mammalian nostril, the blowhole, and two between. That makes for three new gaps!

      Delete
    49. Zachriel,

      A totally aquatic whale with a blowhole, a swimming terrestrial mammal with nostrils, two of them, and a just so story. That's all you've got. This is what you call science. It's a flippin joke. What's funny is your repeated insistence that a few fossils without any genetic information, tissue, or observed behavior proves one morphed into the other. All to support your flight from reality. It's the Darwin of the gaps!

      Delete
    50. Zachriel,

      Let me ask you this, if you were designing a whale that lived in the north pacific, why would you think you'd want the blowhole forward? Think outside the box for a moment.

      Delete
    51. eklektos, David Berlinski asks how many steps there are to make a land animal into an aquatic one. I wonder if that question is ever asked by evolutionists?

      Delete
    52. Marcus,

      I don't think they ask themselves a lot of questions, because they know they wouldn't like the answers. ;)

      Delete
    53. Zachriel,

      It seems wind is an air condition machine to you, right? Hey anybody can say anything on Internet.......

      Delete
    54. Eugen,
      Machines are always designed by intelligent beings.


      Machines can be designed by natural forces. Examples have been provided.

      Are our environmental processes machines of sort or not?

      Yes they seem to fit the definition you provided.. Would you care to provide another definition?


      Delete
    55. , David Berlinski asks how many steps there are to make a land animal into an aquatic one. I wonder if that question is ever asked by evolutionists?

      How many steps did it take the intelligent agent, since the only intelligent designing agent we have observed requires stepwise design?

      don't think they ask themselves a lot of questions, because they know they wouldn't like the answers. ;)

      Questions don't have much value if all the answers are the same. Because God

      Delete
    56. eklektos: A totally aquatic whale with a blowhole

      Except the blowhole is at the middle of the skull, the wrong place for a modern whale. Now what would we expect as regards to the nostril if we were to study a whale embryo? Again, we have a transition with the nares moving from the rostrum, to the middle of the jaw, to the middle of the skull, to the vertex of the skull. You had said such transitional organisms didn't exist—but they did.

      eklektos: if you were designing a whale that lived in the north pacific, why would you think you'd want the blowhole forward?

      Perhaps you can explain why.

      Marcus: David Berlinski asks how many steps there are to make a land animal into an aquatic one. I wonder if that question is ever asked by evolutionists?

      Of course they do. They even mount expeditions to find fossils of transitional organisms.
      http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm

      Eugen: It seems wind is an air condition machine to you, right?

      It would depend how you defined "air conditioner", but sure.

      Delete
    57. Zachriel,

      Perhaps you can explain why.

      Funny, I thought the question was posed to you. A chance to use that objectivity, to think outside the box. But as I supposed you can't, or won't. Instructive. As to your earlier woo it's a whale wherever it's blowhole is. There's whales, and there's terrestrial, and a chasm of enormous proportions between them. Novel placement of the nares on a couple of animals doesn't bridge the gap. Well, except in your conformist brain. Your bleating is unimpressive.

      Delete
    58. eklektos: I thought the question was posed to you.

      It was, but we didn't quite understand the question and thought you might be able to shed light on the subject from a design perspective.

      eklektos: As to your earlier woo it's a whale wherever it's blowhole is.

      A blowhole is just a name for a nostril on top of the head in cetaceans.

      eklektos: There's whales, and there's terrestrial, and ...

      And a variety of semi-aquatic cetaceans, and even cetaceans with hind limbs. By the way, what would you expect to see if we looked at embryonic development in whales with regard to the nares?

      eklektos: Novel placement of the nares on a couple of animals doesn't bridge the gap.

      It directly contradicts your claim above that such organisms didn't exist. In any case, they represent predicted transitionals, and when scientists make predictions based on a hypothesis, then find evidence supporting that prediction, it lends support to the hypothesis.

      It's called science.
      http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm

      Delete
    59. Zachriel,

      No it's your fairy tale, not mine. I pointed out that the nares on Rodhocetus didn't look like they'd migrated anywhere, but that an odd small part of the jaw was protruded forward. You then posted a whale. So of course that, in typical ad hoc fashion, proves that Rodhocetus morphed into a whale. It's called wishful science, fairy tale science, I reject your attempt to turn just so stories into science. A whole edifice of fraud perpetuated to escape the obvious. :)

      Delete
    60. eklektos: I pointed out that the nares on Rodhocetus didn't look like they'd migrated anywhere, but that an odd small part of the jaw was protruded forward.

      If you mean the external nares are found more posteriorly, that's exactly what is expected of a transitional. Meanwhile, Aetiocetus has external nares even more posteriorly, but still short of where a modern blowhole is found at the top of the head. As we said, three more gaps!

      Delete
    61. Basilosaurus is another example of transitional nares.
      http://tanystropheus.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/weekly-spoylight-zygorhiza/

      Delete
    62. Zachriel,

      Yes another Archaeoceti with a thin projected upper jaw. Seems to be a trait. Is it a land animal? Or a dolphin? Is halfway between aquatic and marine, or totally marine? Rudamentary limbs? Really?

      Delete
    63. Basilosaurus has the nares in the middle of the jaw, something you said didn't exist. It was an aquatic organism, but had hind limbs. It has the distinctive cetacean tympanic bulla. Fossils date to the posited transition. You really don't seem to have an argument.

      Delete
  4. This is exactly the problem with darwinian evolution. The line goes: "genetic variation is random with respect to need'. Yet our observations due not bear that out. In fact, we see coordinated changes, we see function arise as required, on and on and on.

    So evolutionists are left with no alternative but to assign 'problem solving' powers to organisms while denying them in the same breath.

    The only thing that can be said for 'change in allele frequency over time' is that it accounts for the continued persistence of what already exists; i.e. a maintenance program.



    Scott: "For example, biological Darwinism does not suggest evolutionary processes conceive of problems as we do. Rather, genetic variation is random with respect to any specific problem to solve. As such, evolutionary theory does not assume evolution proposed specific solutions designed to solve specific problems, such as those solved by methyltransferases, which make them a singular, direct target for mutations to hit. "

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve: The line goes: "genetic variation is random with respect to need'. Yet our observations due not bear that out. In fact, we see coordinated changes, we see function arise as required, on and on and on.

      Yet, if you're starved for vitamin C, your defective vitamin-C-synthesis gene would not therefore be caused to improve - that is, unless you happen to be a genetic engineer whom's brain contains the knowledge of what specific genes are for, including synthesizing vitamin C.

      If a tiger finds itself in a habitat in which it's colorization stands out more, instead of less, it takes no action to change the color of its fur, nor would that change be inherited if it did. This is because nothing in a tiger "knows" what stripes are for.

      IOW, any coordinated changes you might be referring to were themselves due to biological adaptations based on variations that were initially random to any problem to solve. As such, they represent non-explanatory knowledge, which are simply useful rules of thumb and have limited reach. This is in contrast to explanatory knowledge, which represents explanatory that were devised to solve specific problems and have significantly more reach, such as the knowledge that having fur with slightly darker stripes would slightly improve the animal's food supply.

      Steve: So evolutionists are left with no alternative but to assign 'problem solving' powers to organisms while denying them in the same breath.

      While people can create both explanatory and non-explanatory knowledge, only people can create explanatory theories.

      To elaborate, imagine I’ve been shipwrecked on a deserted island and I have partial amnesia due to the wreck. I remember that coconuts are edible so climb a tree to pick them. While attempting to pick a coconut, one falls, lands of a rock and splits open. Note that I did not intend for the coconut to fall, let alone plan for it to fall because I guessed coconuts that fall on rocks might crack open. The coconut falling was random *in respect to a problem I hadn’t yet even tried to solve*. Yet it ended solving a problem regardless. Furthermore, due to my amnesia, I’ve hypothetically forgotten what I know about physics, including mass, inertia, etc. Specifically, I lack an explanation as to why the coconut landing on the rock causes it to open. As such, my knowledge of how to open coconuts is merely a useful rule of thumb, which is limited in reach. For example, in the absence of an explanation, I might collect coconuts picked from other trees, carry them to this same tree, climb it, then drop them on the same rocks to open them.

      However, explanatory knowledge has significant reach. Specifically, if my explanatory knowledge of physics, including inertia, mass, etc. returned, I could use that explanation to strike coconut with any similar sized rock, rather than vice versa. Furthermore, I could exchange the rock with another object with significant mass, such as an anchor and open objects other than coconuts, such as shells, use this knowledge to protect myself from attacking wildlife, etc.

      So, explanatory knowledge only comes from intentional conjectures made by people and has significant reach. Non-explanatory knowledge (created by variation that is random to specific problems to solve, and selection) represent unintentional conjectures, which have limited reach.

      Delete
    2. Steve: Yet our observations due not bear that out. In fact, we see coordinated changes, we see function arise as required, on and on and on.

      That's because we only see the successful modifications, not the unsuccessful.

      Delete
    3. "Yet, if you're starved for vitamin C, your defective vitamin-C-synthesis gene would not therefore be caused to improve - that is, unless you happen to be a genetic engineer whom's brain contains the knowledge of what specific genes are for, including synthesizing vitamin C.

      Except the function that arose as we needed was the desire for fruit and the trees that bear them. Meanwhile some of these plants just happen to send out signals to natural predators of insect that are "attacking" them. What a wonderful fantasy world that all of this happens without regard to function. after awhile your long post become gibberish, just so stories and hand waving.

      Delete
    4. Elijah: What a wonderful fantasy world that all of this happens without regard to function.

      You will find Darwin used the term many times in Origin of Species, so it's not clear why you would say that. Function is essential to mechanisms of adaptation.

      Delete
  5. Scott: Yet, if you're starved for vitamin C, your defective vitamin-C-synthesis gene would not therefore be caused to improve - that is, unless you happen to be a genetic engineer whom's brain contains the knowledge of what specific genes are for, including synthesizing vitamin C.

    Vitamin C is not essential. Human intelligence compensates for it. Contrast that with lizards that develop cecal valves. Definitely required to survive in the new environment. So it produced them.

    As for your other example of tiger stripes, same thing, no essential. Contrast that to e.coli under pressure from a starvation diet. It produced a mutation to be able to metabolize citrate. So again, organisms produce what they need to survive.

    All products of intelligence, not genetic variation random with respect to need.

    In fact it appears, the higher the intelligence level of the organism, the less need to rely on modifications as the intelligence of the animal is sufficient to ensure survival and reproductive success.

    Scott: IOW, any coordinated changes you might be referring to were themselves due to biological adaptations based on variations that were initially random to any problem to solve.

    Of course the above was easily refuted above. Furthermore, we know that random genetic variation is detrimental to the organism. That is why an error detection/correction mechanism was designed in. What gets past this mechanism eventually gets fixed, reducing the efficiency of the organism's systems which eventually wear it down. It compensates for these rogue mutations to the best of its ability but like any system, repairs take their toll until they become a burden.

    Scott: While people can create both explanatory and non-explanatory knowledge, only people can create explanatory theories.

    To elaborate, imagine I’ve been shipwrecked on a deserted island and I have partial amnesia due to the wreck. I remember that coconuts are edible so climb a tree to pick them. While attempting to pick a coconut, one falls, lands of a rock and splits open. Note that I did not intend for the coconut to fall, let alone plan for it to fall because I guessed coconuts that fall on rocks might crack open. The coconut falling was random *in respect to a problem I hadn’t yet even tried to solve*. Yet it ended solving a problem regardless. Furthermore, due to my amnesia, I’ve hypothetically forgotten what I know about physics, including mass, inertia, etc. Specifically, I lack an explanation as to why the coconut landing on the rock causes it to open. As such, my knowledge of how to open coconuts is merely a useful rule of thumb, which is limited in reach. For example, in the absence of an explanation, I might collect coconuts picked from other trees, carry them to this same tree, climb it, then drop them on the same rocks to open them.


    The key issue you try to side step is our ability to take advantage of the split coconut that happened to be random. If you happened to not only have amnesia but were unfortunate to have Down's syndrome, you would have died for lack of response to the random coconut drop.

    In reality, any organism has built in intelligent capabilities that do allow it to take advantage of changes in its surroundings.

    So Darwinian evolution does not get us anywhere, when it rejects intelligence as a causal factor. Without intelligence in play there is no reaction to genetic variation. NS, drift, et al are impotent without pre-existing intelligence that can react to these changes.

    Non-intelligent systems crash and burn when random variation is introduced. Thats why OOL experiments have been unfruitful. Various components of life react differently under different circumstances. Only intelligence can create the processes required to create a macro environment favorable to all the components simultaneously.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Steve: Vitamin C is not essential. Human intelligence compensates for it.

      Vitamin C is essential. While the necessity of fresh foods for health has been known since ancient times, the exact dietary requirement has only been known since Lind's publication of Treatise on the Scurvy in 1753.

      Steve: Contrast that to e.coli under pressure from a starvation diet. It produced a mutation to be able to metabolize citrate.

      Actually, only some lineages did.

      According to your thinking, if bacteria are exposed to antibiotics, they would be induced to develop resistance to those antibiotics. Is that correct?

      The classic experiment concerning this was Lederberg & Lederberg, Replica Plating and Indirect Selection of Bacterial Mutants, Journal of Bacteriology 1952. They showed that the mutation for antibiotic resistance does not occur in response to exposure to the antibiotic. Here's a simplified explanation:
      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1bLederberg.shtml

      Steve: Non-intelligent systems crash and burn when random variation is introduced.

      That is apparently not the case.

      Delete
    3. "Vitamin C is essential. While the necessity of fresh foods for health has been known since ancient times"

      Zach read with understanding or glasses . Steve specifically stated it was not necessary due to compensation of intelligence (and the existence of fruit trees) and I would add our taste for it. Its a dead point. We have fruit trees with vitamin C and we know to eat them.

      If all this isn't already fun just wait till they try telling their just so stories to explain what is coming out of epigenetics.

      Delete
    4. Elijah: Steve specifically stated it was not necessary due to compensation of intelligence

      We read that, but it wasn't until modern times that the relationship was understood.

      Elijah: and I would add our taste for it.

      Evolution can readily explain the taste for sweet fruits.

      Elijah: explain what is coming out of epigenetics.

      Epigenetics has much more to do with phenotype than long term evolution.

      Delete
    5. Steve, you're ignoring the distinction I've made between non-explanatory and explanatory knowledge.

      For example....

      Scott: Yet, if you're starved for vitamin C, your defective vitamin-C-synthesis gene would not therefore be caused to improve - that is, unless you happen to be a genetic engineer whom's brain contains the knowledge of what specific genes are for, including synthesizing vitamin C.

      Steve: Vitamin C is not essential. Human intelligence compensates for it.

      Setting aside the fact that vitamin C is essential, the "Human intelligence" of what genes enable vitamin-C-synthesis in the genetic engineer's brain is explanatory knowledge, not merely a useful rule of thumb. Nor does the tiger contain explanatory knowledge. That's my point.

      Steve: The key issue you try to side step is our ability to take advantage of the split coconut that happened to be random.

      Why would I try to side step what is the key point of the argument I'm presenting? Namely, that biological Darwinism would also be able to take advantage of variations that are random to any specific problem to solve, just as we can. IOW, it's part of our current, best explanation for the universal growth of knowledge.

      Steve: In reality, any organism has built in intelligent capabilities that do allow it to take advantage of changes in its surroundings.

      You're using the term "intelligence" as if it's an immutable primitive which we cannot further differentiate. In reality, those capabilities are based on useful rules of thumb, not explanatory theories.

      This is the key distinction you keep ignoring.

      Delete
    6. "We read that, but it wasn't until modern times that the relationship was understood. "

      we had and had been eating fruit for thousands of years Zachriel. The only time it is an issue is when we are not living off the land which our intellect informed us for a very long time was a smart thing to do . A function arising has nothing to do with our understanding

      Delete
    7. Elijah2012: The only time it is an issue is when we are not living off the land

      That is incorrect. Hippocrates described scurvy in about 400 BCE. It was a common nutritional disease among agricultural peoples who relied on grains as their primary food source.

      Delete
    8. The overwhelming amount of people living off the land did no contract scurvy . That was the point. Exclusions to the rule are no rebuttal. Your premise that recent understanding has anything to do with the issue of functions arising (or always being there) still utterly fails because we had and have been eating vitamin C enriched foods for long before we understood about vitamin C deficiencies. Its a dead horse but you can TRY and flog it some more.

      Delete
    9. "Evolution can readily explain the taste for sweet fruits."

      If you need evolution to inform you of why People like sweet foods you need help and desperately.

      Delete
    10. Elijah2012: The overwhelming amount of people living off the land did no contract scurvy.

      Common enough to be described by Hippocrates. It's was a serious health issue, often seen in the poor, with major outbreaks in grain-intensive civilizations, such as ancient Egypt.

      In other words, it has nothing to do with intelligence. Rather, primates normally have ample access to vitamin-C rich foods. However, when humans settled into agricultural communities, they didn't always have access, depending on a variety of environmental and cultural factors, to those types of foods. They did not develop a vitamin-C gene. They suffered accordingly.

      Delete
    11. Elijah2012: If you need evolution to inform you of why People like sweet foods you need help and desperately.

      Why do people like sweet foods?

      Delete
    12. "In other words, it has nothing to do with intelligence."

      Sigh.......If you know of any unintelligent creatures that planted,picked and stored fruit let me know. Scurvy makes no point whatsoever. It was overwhelming an issue when people got away from diets that did not live off the land from various plant life. From a biblical point of view such diets were encouraged for humans and yes that would also take intelligence to observe as well. All you are doing is confusing intelligence with knowledge of vitamin C deficiencies. Beat the horse some more. Its still dead.

      Delete
    13. "Why do people like sweet foods? "

      Because they are sweet. If you have any other great mysteries of life you need to have solved do let me know and I will try to inform your ignorance whenever I get the time.

      Delete
    14. "Why do people like sweet foods? "

      Elijah2012: Because they are sweet.

      In other words, you have nothing.

      Delete
    15. Scott: You're using the term "intelligence" as if it's an immutable primitive which we cannot further differentiate.

      J: Then define "intelligence" for us, Scott. And then we'll see if that definition "works" to communicate what most people mean by it in most of their conveyances.

      Delete
    16. Jeff: Then define "intelligence" for us, Scott.

      Isn't that what Scott is asking Steve, as it is Steve's use of the term that is in question when he said "In reality, any organism has built in intelligent capabilities that do allow it to take advantage of changes in its surroundings."?

      Delete
    17. Scott: You're using the term "intelligence" as if it's an immutable primitive which we cannot further differentiate.

      J: Then define "intelligence" for us, Scott. And then we'll see if that definition "works" to communicate what most people mean by it in most of their conveyances.

      Yes, Jeff. I know Steve is using his notion of intelligence, which conveys a specific meaning *to him*. That's my point. From an earlier comment...

      ...if you define the very notion of “government” as a monarchy [which was very common until the 20th century], then “government” is only intelligible in terms of the divine right of kings. Yet, the vast majority of all kings in government [today] are kings in title alone. We’ve made progress in that, to a overwhelmingly greater extent, we choose to elect government leaders based on their ideas, not their divine providence.

      Yet, Steve's notion of intelligence doesn't take into account different types of knowledge. This is something I pointed out in the same paragraph, but was conveniently missing from your quote;.

      Scott: You're using the term "intelligence" as if it's an immutable primitive which we cannot further differentiate. In reality, those capabilities are based on useful rules of thumb, not explanatory theories.

      Delete
    18. Scott: Yet, Steve's notion of intelligence doesn't take into account different types of knowledge. This is something I pointed out in the same paragraph, but was conveniently missing from your quote;.

      Scott: You're using the term "intelligence" as if it's an immutable primitive which we cannot further differentiate. In reality, those capabilities are based on useful rules of thumb, not explanatory theories.

      J: There's no such discernible thing as non-explanatory "useful" beliefs. All "useful" beliefs are explanations of something, if only the pleasure you experience when consciously thinking them. Otherwise, they can not be discerned to be "useful."

      Delete
    19. Jeff: There's no such discernible thing as non-explanatory "useful" beliefs All "useful" beliefs are explanations of something, if only the pleasure you experience when consciously thinking them.

      Your argument doesn't take into account the distinction I've made, either.

      We can experience pleasure when consciously thinking about non-explanatory knowledge because knowledge doesn't need to be explanatory to solve problems.

      Returning to my hypothetical example, I can experience pleasure thinking about how I can open coconuts (solve a problem) despite lacking an explanation as to how dropping coconuts on a rock opens them due to my limited, hypothetical amnesia.

      Again, theories are only explanatory in nature if they were intentionally conjectured for the explicit purpose of solving a particular problem. Genes cannot conceive of anything, let alone conceive of problems in the sense we do, as people. Nor can they create explanatory theories about how to solve them, if they could. Only "people", as I'm using the term here, can create explanatory knowledge. This is because only people have made the jump to universal explainers.

      As such, it's unclear how anything could create explanatory theories designed to solve a specific problem unless it was a person who can create explanations for problems it can conceive of.

      Jeff: Otherwise, they can not be discerned to be "useful."

      You're splitting hairs here, Jeff. I didn't say non-explanatory wasn't useful or that things that do not exhibit consciousness could somehow discern something was useful.

      Genes cannot consider anything useful, any more than ants, because they are not people. However, this doesn't prevent us from considering non-explanatory knowledge useful, even if ants cannot. Nor does it prevent either organisms or people, in what ever form they might take, from taking advantage of that non-explanatory knowledge.

      Delete
    20. Scott: Genes cannot consider anything useful, any more than ants, because they are not people. However, this doesn't prevent us from considering non-explanatory knowledge useful, even if ants cannot.

      J: But if you're saying "knowledge" means the same thing if "used" by a conscious mind and an unconscious entity, I don't see how you can define "knowledge." Your past definition about physical storage doesn't work. Because people use "knowledge" independently of any awareness of "storage" in the brain. Thus, knowledge conceived of as that which can be "used" to solve problems is conceived of prior to any inference about a role of storage. This definition of knowledge, as conventionally used, is primarily what epistemology has to do with; not theories about storage.

      In fact, it's not obvious that storage can be conceived of independently of teleology. Seemingly, the only way to distinguish storage from mere duration of location is a purpose FOR that location and its duration. And without such a distinction, any entity or collection of entities that has any definable finite location for any measurable duration just is "stored." But most people don't seem to use the term that way.

      Delete
    21. Jeff: But if you're saying "knowledge" means the same thing if "used" by a conscious mind and an unconscious entity, I don't see how you can define "knowledge."

      Why not?

      Jeff: Your past definition about physical storage doesn't work. Because people use "knowledge" independently of any awareness of "storage" in the brain.

      Apparently, my definition of non-explanatory knowledge just keeps going Zoom over your head because, you just presented an example of non-explanatory knowledge and tried to use it to argue against non-explanatory knowledge.

      Jeff: This definition of knowledge, as conventionally used, is primarily what epistemology has to do with; not theories about storage.

      You've mistaken a particular theory of epistemology, Foundationalism, with the field of epistemology itself. You're smuggling it into your argument. And you keep doing so repeatedly, despite my having pointed this out to you over and over again. For example...

      Jeff: In fact, it's not obvious that storage can be conceived of independently of teleology.

      The idea that some things are obvious is Foundationaism.

      Jeff: But most people don't seem to use the term that way.

      Which is a fallacious argument in an attempt to deflect criticism. I just used the term that way, and so have others. There was a time where no one used the term Atom in a way that assumed they could be split. Yet, they can be split.

      Furthermore, one of the ways we make progress in science, and other fields, it to unify theories. This is precisely what Popper did.

      Delete
    22. Scott: The idea that some things are obvious is Foundationaism.

      It seems obvious to us that gravity is applicable to both falling apples and orbiting planets. However, this wasn't the case just 300 years ago. This is despite the fact that the evidence for gravity had been falling over every square meter of the Earth's surface for billions of years. It was right there for the taking.

      So, it's not that evidence is scarce - there is plenty of it. What's scarce is conjectured explanatory theories that explain that evidence.

      For example, if we could merely extrapolate theories from observations, why did it take us so long to propose the theory of gravity?

      Delete
    23. Jeff: But if you're saying "knowledge" means the same thing if "used" by a conscious mind and an unconscious entity, I don't see how you can define "knowledge."

      Scott: Why not?

      J: Because the meaning of "knowledge" when "used" by a conscious mind just MEANS to intentionally use, if indeed it means what many mean by the word--namely, true, warranted belief. Beliefs that form with no intention have no warrant , true or not. And that's the issue. You don't believe in warranted belief. And that's just another way of saying there is no such thing as positive evidence for any belief whatsoever; that all beliefs are equally a-plausible. I assure you that the vast majority of people who profess to be professional "scientists" disagree with you about that.

      Jeff: Your past definition about physical storage doesn't work. Because people use "knowledge" independently of any awareness of "storage" in the brain.

      Scott: Apparently, my definition of non-explanatory knowledge just keeps going Zoom over your head because, you just presented an example of non-explanatory knowledge and tried to use it to argue against non-explanatory knowledge.

      J: I'm not arguing against an actual definition (i.e., one that doesn't refer to itself directly or indirectly in the "definition"). Actual definitions are just definitions. Rather, I'm contending that epistemology deals with the conventional notion of knowledge, not your definition of it.

      Jeff: This definition of knowledge, as conventionally used, is primarily what epistemology has to do with; not theories about storage.

      Scott: You've mistaken a particular theory of epistemology, Foundationalism, with the field of epistemology itself. You're smuggling it into your argument. And you keep doing so repeatedly, despite my having pointed this out to you over and over again. For example...

      "In fact, it's not obvious that storage can be conceived of independently of teleology."

      The idea that some things are obvious is Foundationaism.

      J: True, and yet you have heretofore claimed that some beliefs are obvious. You and Zachriel both claimed it. And then Z ridiculously tried to argue that he was not a foundationalist after admitting that he found certain beliefs to be "obvious." Now, are you finally agreeing with me that your view means that NO belief is obvious? Even the belief that you have or had one or more beliefs? IOW, that the probability of a history of events void of beliefs is no less discernibly likely as a history wherein beliefs actually formed? And if so, that these posts I'm BELIEVING that I'm interpreting to be intentional communications are not discernibly less likely to be NO such thing?

      Jeff: But most people don't seem to use the term that way.

      Scott: Which is a fallacious argument in an attempt to deflect criticism.

      J: It's not an argument. It's an assertion. And you have no positive evidence to the contrary, remember?

      Scott: Furthermore, one of the ways we make progress in science, and other fields, it to unify theories. This is precisely what Popper did.

      J: No, Popper admitted that he never knew what he was talking about and that was why he so no use for definitions.

      Delete
    24. Scott: The idea that some things are obvious is Foundationaism.

      It seems obvious to us that gravity is applicable to both falling apples and orbiting planets. However, this wasn't the case just 300 years ago. This is despite the fact that the evidence ...

      J: Uh, there's no POSITIVE evidence for ANYTHING, per you. So you'd have to define what you mean by evidence.

      Scott: ... if we could merely extrapolate theories from observations, why did it take us so long to propose the theory of gravity?

      J: Why does it take us so long to figure out how folks built the pyramids and Stonehenge? Some things aren't obvious. It takes very relevantly-intelligent, attentive people lots of time and effort to do it. Most folks--even smart ones-- don't have that much spare time given everything else "on their plate" they're motivated to attend to. Typically it takes very driven people with the requisite free time to do it. Economic/social conditions, alone, can render such free time quite rare.

      Delete
    25. Jeff: And then Z ridiculously tried to argue that he was not a foundationalist after admitting that he found certain beliefs to be "obvious."

      It's obvious the Earth is flat. All claims are subject to criticism, even the most obvious.

      Delete
    26. Z: It's obvious the Earth is flat.

      J: No, it's not. Rather, it is simpler to assume it's flat when you're not trying to account for events most simply that require thinking otherwise. But to say something is simpler to think for the only purposes you currently have is not the same thing as saying it's obviously TRUE.

      Z: All claims are subject to criticism, even the most obvious.

      J: No. If the critical criteria themselves are non-obvious, there is no way to distinguish between beliefs that are warranted and unwarranted, "supported" and "unsupported," etc. In that case, persuasion is not even possible, in which case discussion is futile. It's either radical skepticism or foundationalism of some sort if the LNC is VALID as a principle. If the LNC is not valid as a principle, conventional language doesn't discernibly exist. Because apart from the validity of the LNC, definitions are impossible and therefore conceptual distinctions of every kind are impossible.


      The only argument you've used against the LNC is bogus. You basically say the LNC doesn't apply to claims about entities whose histories are not characterized by attributes with enough duration to allow for definition of the entity. But that has nothing to do with the VALIDITY of the LNC. The LNC only applies when definitions discernibly exist. It makes no sense to claim anything about non-definables. That's just idiotic.

      Delete
    27. Zachriel: It's obvious the Earth is flat.

      Jeff: No, it's not.

      Perhaps not from your vantage, but to people on the Earth's surface, it's rather obvious.

      Zachriel: All claims are subject to criticism, even the most obvious.

      Jeff: No. If the critical criteria themselves are non-obvious, there is no way to distinguish between beliefs that are warranted and unwarranted, "supported" and "unsupported," etc.

      Sorry the tenuous nature of knowledge gives yo vertigo.

      Jeff: In that case, persuasion is not even possible, in which case discussion is futile.

      You've demonstrated discussion can be futile, but it's not always that way.

      Jeff: If the LNC is not valid as a principle, conventional language doesn't discernibly exist.

      So conventional language didn't exist before classical logic.

      Jeff: You basically say the LNC doesn't apply to claims about entities whose histories are not characterized by attributes with enough duration to allow for definition of the entity.

      Don't even know what that means. Probably something about quantum mechanics.

      In any case, while the Law of Noncontradiction forms the basis of modern thought, it's as arbitrary as any axiom. It depends on clear demarcations of categories, and that is not necessarily the only way to consider the universe.

      Delete
    28. Z: Sorry the tenuous nature of knowledge gives yo vertigo.

      J: Not at all. Rather, it's the absence of inductive evidence (and any other defined kind of positive evidence, for that matter) for UCA that causes you so much despair that you babble on with utter irrationality

      Z: Don't even know what that means.

      J: Of course not. All you do is regurgitate what others say.

      Z: In any case, while the Law of Noncontradiction forms the basis of modern thought, it's as arbitrary as any axiom. It depends on clear demarcations of categories, and that is not necessarily the only way to consider the universe.

      J: I'm still waiting for the theories that have utility for humans for which the LNC is irrelevant. I guess it's impossible for you to either put up or shut up.

      Delete
    29. Z: Perhaps not from your vantage, but to people on the Earth's surface, it's rather obvious.

      J: And yet we're still using the LNC. You are clueless as to what foundationalism even means. It means that IF all beliefs we find to be obvious were suddenly no longer obvious, we wouldn't know ANYTHING. Because even believing that you disbelieve particulars is an act of believing THAT you disbelieve particulars. I.e., it's the BELIEF that you remember. You're clueless, dude.

      Z: So conventional language didn't exist before classical logic.

      J: There's no such conceivable thing as conventional language apart from the use of the LNC. The LNC is nothing more than the Law of Identity applied to propositions. There either is or is not more than two beings. Conventional language is based on the common belief that there isn't only one being. The "com" in communication means there are at least 2 being assumed to exist such that IMparting of information has actual meaning.

      Delete
    30. Jeff: yet we're still using the LNC

      Sure, it's fundamental to modern communication.

      Jeff: It means that IF all beliefs we find to be obvious were suddenly no longer obvious, we wouldn't know ANYTHING.

      Sorry that uncertainty gives you vertigo. You have to use a net. That's understandable.

      Jeff: There's no such conceivable thing as conventional language apart from the use of the LNC.

      Language existed long before classical logic.

      Jeff: Conventional language is based on the common belief that there isn't only one being.

      And yet Zen Buddhists have no trouble communicating with language even though they believe there is only one thing, or rather, no-thing.

      Delete
    31. Jeff: It means that IF all beliefs we find to be obvious were suddenly no longer obvious, we wouldn't know ANYTHING.

      Z: Sorry that uncertainty gives you vertigo.

      J: Sorry you're so utterly clueless you don't realize the foundationalism is perfectly consistent with lots of uncertainty. Pretty dang dense you are, Z.

      Jeff: There's no such conceivable thing as conventional language apart from the use of the LNC.

      Z: Language existed long before classical logic.

      J: The laws (tendencies, if you prefer) of thought are what classical logic deals with. Those laws of thought were in operation, as far as we know, long before anyone analyzed the laws of thought well enough to write treatises on logic. You're UTTERLY confused.

      Z: And yet Zen Buddhists have no trouble communicating with language even though they believe there is only one thing, or rather, no-thing.

      J: And yet you just mentioned above that "modern communication" depends on the LNC. So if you're interpreting their words in terms of modern communication, you have no idea what they're saying at all if they deny the validity of the LNC. You are UTTERLY confused. PLEASE tell me you're not making a living off of tax-payers.

      Delete
    32. Jeff: Sorry you're so utterly clueless you don't realize the foundationalism is perfectly consistent with lots of uncertainty.

      But requires a basis in certainty, a safety net. You should use a net because heights give you vertigo.

      Delete
    33. Z: But requires a basis in certainty, a safety net. You should use a net because heights give you vertigo.

      J: If by "certainty" you mean what seems "obvious," yes. But you insist that things seem obvious to you as well. You contradict yourself left and right. YOu're utterly clueless.

      Delete
    34. ... you even say that all ideas are subject to criticism. But how could you know that if it's not obvious to you? YOu're UTTERLY clueless.

      Delete
    35. Jeff: If by "certainty" you mean what seems "obvious," yes.

      As we already pointed out, the Earth is flat seemed obvious to people. The idea is subject to criticism, as is the claim that all ideas are subject to criticism.


      Delete
  6. How did ut happen? Ancient monkeys that produced Vitamin c wouldn't need fruits, so why would they evolve a taste for them? But if they didn't like fruits when they lost the ability to make vitamin c then they would eat fruits, and die from scurvy. So ti must be that they evolved the taste for fruit before they lost the ability to make vitamin c. So how did they anticipate the need for eating fruit?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. natschuster: Ancient monkeys that produced Vitamin c wouldn't need fruits, so why would they evolve a taste for them?

      Coevolution. Fruits evolved high sugar content so that they would be eaten as a way of propagating their seeds. Fruits also evolved distinctive colors, while primates evolved trichromacy, enhancing this symbiotic relationship. See Regan et al., Fruits, foliage and the evolution of primate colour vision, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 2001.

      Delete
    2. Coevolution=Ashtonishing coincidence.

      Why there wasn´t coevolution with hamsters that also lack of vitamine C?

      Delete
    3. Hamsters are nearly colorblind and nearsighted. They forage on the ground, so they rely on scent. Primates generally live in the three-dimensional world of trees, so rely more on sight.

      Delete
    4. Zachriel,

      Coevolution. Fruits evolved high sugar content so that they would be eaten as a way of propagating their seeds. Fruits also evolved distinctive colors, while primates evolved trichromacy, enhancing this symbiotic relationship

      LOL, you have no idea what a fool you sound like. Fruits of course knew that by "evolving" sugars they would propagate their seeds through the feces of animals. What smart fruits they were. Oh I forgot, it all happened by accident. See Tooth Fairy et al. Nonsense and the Evolution of Disbelief, 1996.

      Delete
    5. eklektos: Fruits of course knew that by "evolving" sugars they would propagate their seeds through the feces of animals.

      Plants don't have to know. Those plants with sweeter fruits are more likely to be eaten by many animals, and therefore have a greater chance of propagation.

      Delete
    6. Zachriel,

      of course, one those little chance miracles. They evolved them. I understand.

      Delete
    7. eklektos: one those little chance miracles. They evolved them.

      Actually, it's easy to test whether fruits from different plants have varying amounts of sweetness. We can also test whether animals that eat the fruit prefer the sweeter variety or not. Why, we might even testing whether selecting for sweetness if sweetness increases over many generations.

      Delete
    8. Zachriel,

      I suggest you do that.

      Delete
    9. eklektos:Fruits of course knew that by "evolving" sugars they would propagate their seeds through the feces of animals. What smart fruits they were. Oh I forgot, it all happened by accident.

      Again, you're presenting a false dichotomy as your response completely ignores the distinction I presented between explanatory and non-explanatory knowledge. Nothing in the fruit knew, from an explanatory perspective, that being sweet would further disperse their seeds. That's my entire point.

      Rather, variation that is random *to any problem to solve*, along with natural selection, created what is essentially a useful rule of thumb, which represents non-explanatory knowledge. As such, it has limited reach. This is in contrast to explanatory knowledge, which has significantly greater reach. I'd point out this explains why the majority of all life that has existed has gone extinct. The knowledge those organisms contained was non-explanatory in nature, so it lacked the reach to prevent its own extinction in a changing environment.

      On the other hand, ID has no explanation for this beyond, the majority of life went extinct because "that's just what some designer must have wanted". It's a bad explanation.

      Only people can create explanatory knowledge. Both biological darwinism and people can create non-explanatory knowledge.

      I was going to suggest that, if there is something about the above that you do not understand, you should ask for clarification. However, that assumes you're genuinely interested, rather than bound and determined to remain willfully ignorant. I won't be holding my breath.

      Delete
    10. Jeff, are you denying there is a distinction between explanatory and non-explanatory knowledge?

      Returning to my hypothetical example....

      ...imagine I’ve been shipwrecked on a deserted island and I have partial amnesia due to the wreck. I remember that coconuts are edible so climb a tree to pick them. While attempting to pick a coconut, one falls, lands of a rock and splits open. Note that I did not intend for the coconut to fall, let alone plan for it to fall because I guessed coconuts that fall on rocks might crack open. The coconut falling was random *in respect to a problem I hadn’t yet even tried to solve*. Yet it ended solving a problem regardless. Furthermore, due to my amnesia, I’ve hypothetically forgotten what I know about physics, including mass, inertia, etc. Specifically, I lack an explanation as to why the coconut landing on the rock causes it to open. As such, my knowledge of how to open coconuts is merely a useful rule of thumb, which is limited in reach. For example, in the absence of an explanation, I might collect coconuts picked from other trees, carry them to this same tree, climb it, then drop them on the same rocks to open them.

      Are you really suggesting the above is not distinct from...

      However, explanatory knowledge has significant reach. Specifically, if my explanatory knowledge of physics, including inertia, mass, etc. returned, I could use that explanation to strike coconut with any similar sized rock, rather than vice versa. Furthermore, I could exchange the rock with another object with significant mass, such as an anchor and open objects other than coconuts, such as shells, use this knowledge to protect myself from attacking wildlife, etc.

      Does the latter not have significantly more reach? Did I intentionally propose dropping the coconut on the rock to test an explanatory theory?

      Delete
    11. There is non-explanatory knowledge if some species of foundationalism is valid. If no species of foundationalism is valid (i.e., no intuitive notions correspond to reality), one can't even define knowledge. To define is to KNOW you're delimiting something from something else. If you don't KNOW you've ever done any such thing (and you insist you don't), you couldn't know there are even definitions of any kind whatsoever.

      Delete
  7. Bu the monkeys have to know that the fruit has sugar in it, before they will eat it, s a fruit evolve high sugar won;t help if they monkeys didn't evolve a taste for it yet. And the monkeys have to evolve color vision before the fruits evolve colors, or the fruits will be making all those metabolically expensive pigments for no reason. Its a chicken and egg thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. natschuster: Bu the monkeys have to know that the fruit has sugar in it, before they will eat it

      Monkeys are omnivorous, and eat a lot of plant food. They would eat the fruit with or without encouragement. However, they will generally prefer fruits that are high in sugar content. It doesn't take them long to acquire a taste, and to seek out fruits.

      natschuster: And the monkeys have to evolve color vision before the fruits evolve colors, or the fruits will be making all those metabolically expensive pigments for no reason.

      The predecessor state to trichromacy is dichromacy, which is typical in mammals.

      Delete
  8. But if they eat the fruit without color vision, why would the fruits develop colors. especially if the monkeys can't see them yet?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. natschuster: But if they eat the fruit without color vision, why would the fruits develop colors.

      Just about all mammals have color vision (dichromacy). Primates have refined color vision (trichromacy).

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

      Delete
  9. velikovskys

    "The Sun,Milky Way, clouds, Niagara Falls, atoms natural or designed?"

    Can you explain wich is the work that Sun,Milky Way, clouds, Niagara Falls, atoms produce?

    ReplyDelete
  10. More on man's nobility. From the "death with dignity" folks:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2598102/They-say-adapt-die-At-age-I-adapt-Retired-teacher-89-ends-life-Swiss-euthanasia-clinic-disillusioned-modern-life.html

    How long until such measures aren't considered efficient enough, who knows?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zachriel,

      What a witty non-response. Donkey!

      Delete
    2. eklektos: What a witty non-response.

      We were discussing protein machines. When that wasn't going well, you changed the subject. Turns out that E=mc^2 even if it leads to the Bomb.

      Delete
    3. Zachriel,

      If you'll observe closely you'll see I wasn't replying to anything, it was a separate post. If you don't want to read it don't.

      Delete
    4. Zachriel,

      So you're on the record as pro-euthanasia for any reason? or no? It's a persons right after all, the State says so! So if the State decides all left handed people should be eliminated to improve humanity that's ok too, right? Because what the State says is right! Has to be, you have no other basis rooted in anything for morality. Do you people even think these things through?

      Delete
    5. They were all in love with dyin', they were drinkin' from a fountain That was pourin' like an avalanche comin' down the mountain..

      That about says it.

      Delete
    6. eklektos: So you're on the record as pro-euthanasia for any reason?

      No. Nor are we for total thermonuclear annihilation just because E=mc^2.

      Delete
    7. eklektos April 16, 2014 at 3:12 AM

      More on man's nobility. From the "death with dignity" folks:


      I don't see the problem. What's wrong with each person being able to decide when and how to end their own lives. Not the State, the individual. Nobody's pressuring anyone to end their lives early for the common weal, but the option should be there should anyone want to avail themselves of it.

      Delete
    8. The culture of death speaks.

      Delete
    9. Zachriel,

      Nor are we for total thermonuclear annihilation just because E=mc^2.

      Looks like a non-sequitur to me. You keep making this point but as I wasn't dealing with anything particularly with science in the post but culture I don't see the reason for this response. Of course these slippery slope arguments are invalid as we never see them come to that extreme. If that is your point you'd be wrong. One of the arguments made against the destruction of marriage is that if expanded for one group it would inevitably lead to expansion for others, which of course was what we immediately saw, and eventually it will become irrelevant as a societal institution. Just as no fault divorce lead to poverty for a great many women and children. So as we see an institution as old as recorded history destroyed in favor of the new "enlightened" mindset women and children will get to suffer more thanks to our "enlightened" scientific ideology. God had much to say about such abuse, and those who support such evil. And of course we see it with euthanasia. "There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death." Welcome to room 101.

      Delete
    10. eklektos: Looks like a non-sequitur to me.

      None of your comment is relevant to the topic.

      Delete
    11. Zachriel,

      Which topic The post I made, or some other topic you're confusing with the post I made? It was a separate post on a separate issue, or do mean to say we can only discuss the protein. Seems you've wandered away from that a bit yourself.

      Delete
  11. Eklektos



    "...Has to be, you have no other basis rooted in anything for morality."

    I live in Ontario. Around 20 yrs ago bunch of girl students demanded of government to change law to allow women to walk topless like men during hot months. Government crooks did it of course, but after 20 yrs no lady is taking advantage of the new law, unfortunately!

    I wonder why not? Government says its OK, it must be fine-they know what's the best for us!



    It would be nice to hear our atheist friends about this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eugen,

      It would be more interesting to hear them explain the need for a skid mark law in San Fransisco..

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

      Delete
    3. Velik



      I know you are not an atheist. Atheism is a strange worldview: atheist has to convince himself everything came from nothing and that anything can explain itself.

      You know when I talk about machines I'm working slowly on something interesting in the background. Unfortunately biology is boring to me so it's hard to stay focused.

      In the meantime you and Zachriel can go out when it rains and shampoo your hair. Rain is an automated shower coming from the cloud machines.

      Delete
    4. Eugen: Rain is an automated shower coming from the cloud machines.

      Unfortunately, it doesn't have a convenient tap.


      Delete
  12. Eugen I live in Ontario. Around 20 yrs ago bunch of girl students demanded of government to change law to allow women to walk topless like men during hot months. Government crooks did it of course, but after 20 yrs no lady is taking advantage of the new law, unfortunately!

    Personally,I'm all in favor. Purely in the interest of furthering sexual equality, you understand.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Welcome back Ian. I fully agree with you.

    May I add that I am mostly promoting scientific observations of gravity effects on mammary glands with possible inclusion of manipulation of the same glands.

    Unfortunately work so far is in theoretical field only with no foreseen possibility for practical side.

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

    ReplyDelete
  15. World Latest vehicles, Super Cars, Super Latest Speed Cars, Expensive Cars, Latest Mazda Models, Racing Cars, International Sport Cars, Concept Cars, PS-Pod, Strange Vehicles, Nissan, Royce Corniche, Ford Concept Cars, Strange Vehicles, Mercedes and More Sport Cars and Vehicles with Pictures and Info
    WorldLatestVehicles.com

    ReplyDelete