Monday, September 19, 2011

Infra Dig: What Goes Around Comes Around and Why Evolution is a Fact

re•li•gion [ri-lij-uhn], noun: A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the world, especially when considered as the creation of a god or gods.

The view that God should work according to natural laws rather than direct providence has always been attractive to religious believers. These believers prefer a more distant God for many reasons. For instance, is it not obvious that God would not have directly created such an evil world? Instead, God must have created the laws and went away. Like Aristotle’s Prime Mover, God is removed from the evil and not culpable. But there are several other theological traditions that argue just as strongly against divine intervention, and for creation by natural law. One is that the world, especially the lowly things of the world, are beneath God’s dignity.

In the era of modern science the infra dignitatem argument, or infra dig for short, traces at least back to the Cambridge Platonists in the seventeenth century. The idea was that God would not, as the Anglican botanist John Ray put it, “set his own hand as it were to every work, and immediately do all the meanest and trifling’st things himself drudgingly, without making use of any inferior or subordinate Minister.”

The subordinate minister or agent was Plastic Nature which, unlike the Creator, was not infallible or irresistible. Instead, Plastic Nature had to contend with the ineptitude of matter. The results were those “errors and bungles” of nature.

Such gnostic tendencies by no means ceased with the seventeenth century. Indeed, this view seemed to have a divine sanction. After all, to control the world exclusively through natural laws—God’s secondary causes—required an even greater God. In 1794 Darwin’s grandfather Erasmus Darwin wrote this Gnostic-sounding vision of how natural history should be viewed:

The world itself might have been generated, rather than created; that is, it might have been gradually produced from very small beginnings, increasing by the activity of its inherent principles, rather than by a sudden evolution by the whole by the Almighty fiat. What a magnificent idea of the infinite power of the great architect! The Cause of Causes! Parent of Parents! Ens Entium! For if we may compare infinities, it would seem to require a greater infinity of power to cause the causes of effects, than to cause the effects themselves.

A striking example of these gnostic tendencies in Darwin’s time arose when John Millais’ painting Christ in the house of his parents was first exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1850. In the painting, the boy Jesus had injured his hand in his father’s carpentry shop. Mother Mary attended to the boy while Joseph continued with his work. Outside the door sheep patiently awaited their future savior. The scene was both symbolic and realistic, with wood scraps lying all about and workers going about their duties.

But the Victorians emphasized God’s wisdom, power and transcendence. Could he really have bruised his hand in a messy carpenter’s shop? The Times complained that the painting was revolting, for its “attempt to associate the holy family with the meanest details of a carpenter’s shop, with no conceivable omission of misery, of dirt, even of disease, all finished with the same loathsome meticulousness, is disgusting.” Blackwood’s Magazine said “We can hardly imagine anything more ugly, graceless and unpleasant,” and Charles Dickens called the painting “mean, odious, revolting and repulsive.”

The gnostics could not believe God became a man for the same reasons they could not believe God directly created the world—they could not envision God involved in a world so fraught with misery. Similarly, just as the Victorians were troubled by Millais’ depiction of the human side of Jesus, they also would have trouble with the idea that God so lowered himself to create the messy and detailed biological world, so full of not only of useless bloodshed but of anomalies and particulars. It was all beneath God’s dignity.

A few years earlier the Reverend Baden Powell had insisted that physical and moral problems had completely separate foundations and should have nothing to do with one another. God’s works and God’s word were separate and moral and physical phenomena were completely independent. He wrote in 1838:

Scientific and revealed truth are of essentially different natures, and if we attempt to combine and unite them, we are attempting to unite things of a kind which cannot be consolidated, and shall infallibly injure both. In a word, in physical science we must keep strictly to physical induction and demonstration; in religious inquiry, to moral proof, but never confound the two together. When we follow observation and inductive reasoning, our inquiries lead us to science. When we obey the authority of the Divine Word, we are not led to science but to faith. The mistake consists in confounding these two distinct objects together; and imagining that we are pursuing science when we introduce the authority of revelation. They cannot be combined without losing the distinctive character of both.

The message here is that religion and science are to be kept separate. God is retained to supply the former, but it would never do to consider him in the latter. So it is not too surprising that in his 1844 book Vestiges, Robert Chambers reissued the infra dig argument:

How can we suppose an immediate exertion of this creative power at one time to produce the zoophytes, another time to add a few marine mollusks, another to bring in one or two crustacea, again to crustaceous fishes, again perfect fishes, and so on to the end. This would surely be to take a very mean view of the Creative Power.

Divine providence could engage in the noble activity of impressing laws upon matter, but not grovel in the muck of nature.

Alfred Wallace agreed. Evolution’s cofounder argued that the universe was self-regulating according to its general laws and in no need of continual supervision and rearrangement of details. “As a matter of feeling and religion,” concluded Wallace, “I hold this to be a far higher conception of the Creator of the Universe than that which may be called the ‘continual interference hypothesis’.”

Darwin, for his part, was keen to the implications of this modern gnosticism. If God was not intimately involved in the world, then was He involved at all? In a letter Darwin challenged his American friend Asa Gray to think this through:

I see a bird which I want for food, take my gun and kill it, I do this designedly. An innocent and good man stands under a tree and is killed by a flash of lightning. Do you believe (and I really should like to hear) that God designedly killed this man? … If you believe so, do you believe that when a swallow snaps up a gnat that God designed that that particular swallow should snap up that particular gnat at that particular instant? I believe that the man and the gnat are in the same predicament. If the death of neither man nor gnat are designed, I see no good reason to believe that their first birth or production should be necessarily designed.

Many argue about whether Darwin believed in God, but Darwin certainly held strongly to the popular beliefs about God. It was reasonable for Darwin to argue that God would not be personally involved in the swallow’s attack on the gnat and then leverage his theological principle to conclude that all of biology arose on its own. Evolution is the right conclusion given a gnostic starting point. God and matter don’t mix, so life wasn’t created. If Archimedes needed only a place to stand to move the world, Darwin needed only a theological ledge.

Not surprisingly Darwin also used gnostic ideas to defend his theory against the problem of complexity. Darwin pointed out that while it is tempting to see God as the master engineer who crafted complex organs such as the eye, this would make God too much like man.

Darwin agreed that the perfection of the eye reminds us of the telescope which resulted from the highest of human intellect. Was it not right to conclude that the eye was also the product of a great intellect? This may seem the obvious answer but Darwin warned against it, for we should not “assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man.” Better to imagine the eye as the result of natural selection’s perfecting powers rather than having God too much involved in the world.

The Victorians could not believe that the boy Jesus actually labored in his earthly father’s carpentry shop. Likewise, it was reasonable for Darwin to argue that complex organs were not likely shaped by God because that would mean he works as man does.

These Gnostic tendencies remain with us today. Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, for example, admiringly recounted the Darwin-Gray correspondences. The problem, according to Gould, is not the religious motivation in Darwin’s supposedly scientific theory, but rather that Darwin’s position can be depressing. Gould wrote a book on how we are supposed to understand this new gnosticism. He believed that science and religion do not overlap and are non-overlapping magisteria.

Likewise Niles Eldredge takes the position that “religion and science are two utterly different domains of human experience” and Bruce Alberts, writing for the National Academy of Sciences, informs us that:

Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each.

Similarly Salman Khan at the Khan Academy explains that an all-powerful God would not design the particular. God, if there is one, would use simple laws to create a complex world. Khan concludes:

That to me is a better design.

And isn’t that all that matters?

These are just a few of the many examples of modern gnosticism within evolutionary thought. God must be disjoint from creation and any attempt to force-fit them together is bound to be awkward. Or again, how is it that God could create the universe but have nothing to do with science? The answer of course is that God did not create the world, at least not directly—the world evolved. The historian’s assessment of gnosticism could just as easily apply to evolution:

The cardinal feature of gnostic thought is the radical dualism that governs the relation of God and world … The deity is absolutely transmundane, its nature alien to that of the universe which it neither created nor governs and to which it is the complete antithesis … the world is the work of lowly powers. [Hans Jonas, quoted in: Philip J. Lee, Against the Protestant Gnostics, p. 16, Oxford University Press, 1987.]

The gnostic’s hope in “lowly powers” was fulfilled in evolution’s natural selection. And the acceptance of evolution, in turn, reinforced gnosticism in modern thought. Darwin gave form to the gnostic’s vision, but that brought with it a movement towards gnosticism. The influence of gnostic thought today is not often acknowledged or understood. It is, according to Harold Bloom, the most common thread of religious thought in America. He calls it the American Religion, and he finds it “pervasive and overwhelming, however it is masked, and even our secularists, indeed even our professed atheists, are more Gnostic than humanist in their ultimate presuppositions.”

It is perhaps one of the great enigmas in religious thought that one can profess to be an agnostic, skeptic, or even atheist regarding belief in God yet still hold strong opinions about God. Evolution may breed skepticism, but its adherents have continued to make religious proclamations. Indeed, those proclamations are really no different than those made by Darwin and his fellow Victorians.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

52 comments:

  1. Once again, a post demonstrating that scientists can have religious beliefs, but nothing at all about whether SCIENCE ITSELF is rooted in (or driven by) religion.

    Scientists are human beings. Of course they may or may not hold any of the almost infinite number of possible religious beliefs.

    Does that mean science is a religious process? No. God is not allowed in the lab. Science assumes naturalism - that miracles and magic do not happen. Everything that happens is assumed to be the result of measurable, constant natural forces. Is this, in itself, a religious assumption? Perhaps, but it is one made out of pure necessity, and made by all scientists in all fields working on all theories. If you stand against it, then you stand against all science. It is totally illogical and extremely foolish to arbitrarily pluck a particular theory from the myriad which make up our scientific knowledge, and scapegoat this theory as the harbinger of a scientific principle which was around long before the theory was even drawn up!

    Science assumes naturalism. ToE, being a scientific theory, thus also assumes naturalism. That is exactly what a scientific theory should do. Disagree with assuming naturalism? Then you disagree with science.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Scientific gnosticism does seem to be an elaborate system of thought. Its strong appeal does deserve a cogent analysis. Regardless of the simplistic belief that an all-knowing God would not know the details of evolutionary creation, the strong appeal of this argument deserves an equally strong investigation into the facts of history of creation. Fortunately science has advanced enough to settle this debate. If one follows the evidence of the fossil record it is obvious that God creates en mass, abruptly, and with infinite complexity. One should rationally conclude therefore that God does directly create. Case closed for the rational thinker.
    .

    ReplyDelete
  3. Peter -

    You have smuggled in the assumption that a creative God exists at all into your argument. If it something you want to conclude, then it is something you need to support.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Evolution’s cofounder.."

    Really? Wallace cofounded evolution? Wow, I didn't realize that he was there to not only witness the first self replicators but actually cofounded them. Amazing!

    "Outside the door sheep patiently awaited their future savior."

    jesus was a sheep savior? What was he saving them for, and from?

    "...but Darwin certainly held strongly to the popular beliefs about God."

    Held strongly to? What is that supposed to mean?

    "..the perfection of the eye.."

    What's perfect about "the eye"? Exactly which "the eye" are you referring to?

    "..natural selection’s perfecting powers.."

    Perfecting powers? Which scientists claim that natural selection has "perfecting powers"?

    "It is perhaps one of the great enigmas in religious thought that one can profess to be an agnostic, skeptic, or even atheist regarding belief in God yet still hold strong opinions about God."

    Hmm, you are a theist who believes in a god yet you have strong opinions about science, evolution, evolutionary theory, agnosticism, atheism, materialism, naturalism, "Darwinism", etc. That's interesting. Do you have a strong opinion about bowling too? How about gangster rap and cheese burgers?

    "Evolution may breed skepticism, but its adherents have continued to make religious proclamations. Indeed, those proclamations are really no different than those made by Darwin and his fellow Victorians."

    Nice try, but it won't work. Using the word "gnosticism" is just your new, and deceptive, way of conflating some sort of religious beliefs with the findings of scientists who work in the field of evolutionary theory. Your assertions are so ridiculous that it's hard to believe that you can't see how crazy they are.

    Everything you accuse "evolutionists" of is actually what you're doing. You and your fellow religious zealots are the ones who make religious claims that have no basis in evidence or reality.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cornelius,

    I'm a realist, but not merely based on the fact that it suits my intuition. Rather, I think the existence of a external realty independent of observers is the best explanation for what we observe.

    On the other hand, you seem to think that various forms of creationism are somehow compatible with realism or, apparently, even mandated by it. But I simply cannot get there from here. Rather this seems to be due to the fact that creationism parochial in nature, which is yet another reason why it's a bad explanation.

    Specifically, the majority of all creation myths end up (intentionally or unintentionally) implying that specific aspects were created in such a way that they are beyond human reasoning and problem solving. In the case of the Judeo-Christian creation myth, one specific aspect is the biosphere and human beings in particular. This is because human beings are thought to play a special role in its theology.

    However, this is the equivalent of saying that atoms were created in a specific way that makes atomic theory impossible or that photons were created in such a way to make the theory of optics impossible, because they play a special role in some other theology. This would be no less arbitrary.

    Furthermore, most creation myths (intentionally or unintentionally) end up portraying the creator as creating false knowledge. Again, in the Judeo-Christian creation myth, God creates the biosphere in a way that makes it appear *as if* it evolved, but in reality this is false. OEC claim God created the earth *as if* it was billions of years old, but was actually less than 10,000.

    But this is a variant of solipsism and represents anti-realism.

    With this in mind, I'd invite you to watch Salman Khan's video again. Specifically, note when he "puts on his engineering hat". The net result of his personal option is that, should God exist, Khan thinks God would use simple and elegant process, which would make a theory of biological complexity possible; just as a theory of the Mandelbrot fractal image is possible. In fact, Khan points to DNA as containing the "knowledge" of how to build each species. The better we understand how this knowledge was created, the better we'll understand the biological complexity we observe.

    However, all variants of creationism point to a unexplainable mind that exits in an unexplainable realm. As such, a creator is a bad explanation for what we observe.

    ReplyDelete
  6. -- continued --

    Now, you might say this is a religious belief. However, I'd suggest that this claims is also parochial in nature, as it fails to take into the account that I have a coherent and comprehensive criteria which I use to discard a creator as an explanation. I've concluded this based on the definition of God provided by others and the criteria I've outlined elsewhere. I do not believe in divine revelation. Rather I'm pointing out that the Bible having depicted God as always knowing what he created is a bad explanation for the biological complexity we observe. We can distill this down to…"That's just what God must have wanted"

    In other words, unless you consider realism a religious belief, I'd need to appeal to special pleading in the case of God for my position to be religious in the sense you suggesting. This is why I keep asking you for a coherent and comprehensive criteria, which apparently you do not have.

    Of course, it could be that we do live in a universe where bad explanations might true. But I'd ask, why should we assume this is the case? Because it might be logically possible that God might have created a universe in which bad explanations are true?

    This is yet another bad explanation. Rather than God creating the universe in a way that that makes a theory of reality impossible, (which is solipsism) God specifically created biology in a way that made a theory of biological complexity impossible. Again, it's a variant of solipsism and anti-realism.

    Furthermore, how could we know if God didn't create everything as if bad explanations were true? Why not atoms and photons? Because they do not play a special role in your theology?

    Of course, for all we know, one could even claim God may not want us to seek reason. We all must pull ourselves up by our bootstraps in this respect. But should we accept this, it's unclear how one could accept a creator who creates a universe where bad explanations are true.

    And, if this were the case, then how do you explain our recent and rapid increase in the creation of knowledge?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Cornelius,

    Given the definition you posted, is realism religion?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'd also note, I personally not think of God as a source of morality or even having a moral component.

    In fact, Robert Wright as laid out an extensive argument that God has evolved over tens of thousands of years from the underlying question: why do good things happen to some people but not others and how can I influence this cause in my favor?

    As such, our earliest conceptions of Gods completely lacked a moral component.

    Wright also goes into details about how monotheism formed gradually, including strong arguments for the Bible having been edited to appear monotheistic much earlier than depicted.

    In other words, when I point out how the means by which others supposedly identify God's actions in the world, or lack there of, appears arbitrary, I'm not drawing on a personal belief that God even has a moral component, an assumption of monotheism, etc.

    So, it would seem you're argument is based on a selective view of history.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Religion: Thunder is created when Thor wields his hammer.

    Religious person: Thunder is created when Thor wields his hammer.

    Science: The sudden increase in pressure and temperature from lightning produces rapid expansion of the air surrounding and within a bolt of lightning. Lightning, in turn....

    Science person: Our explanation is better since Thor wouldn't create thunder the way people say he creates thunder.

    The proclamation of the religious person is religious because he is stating what his religious says.

    The proclamation of the science person is religious because he is stating what someone's religion says. What is important here is that it is the conjunction of the religious claim and the scientific claim that is religious. On it's own, however, the scientific claim is NOT religious.

    The science person made a mistake when making the comparison in the first place, since it does nothing to bolster the case of the scientific explanation (more than as a rhetoric device to show how silly the religious Thor worshippers' beliefs are). The science person might belive that he is making a valid comparison, but that is just because he is philosophically naive, just as is Cornelius.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Religion
    1belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe
    expression of such a belief in conduct and ritual

    That is the funny thing about words,they can have more than one meaning. For instance, the infra dig argument obviously uses the above, the problem of evil is incoherent unless the divine is involved.So it is not merely a set of beliefs,It is based on the existence of god. It's use of natural causes was to insulate god.

    Science,and evolutionary theory , use natural causes for their effectiveness in explaining the natural world. Natural causes are the saw cutting the board. It works,but to carry the analogy it is worthless setting a screw. Just as science towards the divine,but of course you know this.

    CH
    It is perhaps one of the great enigmas in religious thought that one can profess to be an agnostic, skeptic, or even atheist regarding belief in God yet still hold strong opinions about God.

    They may hold strong opinions about music,movies, the best French Fries as well. That is exactly why the assumption of methodological naturalism is in place. To remove as much as possible the unverifiable from the equation. Hence gut feelings might be expressed, but they don't count as proof.

    A nice post though,I am sure it is very convincing to the already convinced.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Whole truth:


    "Outside the door sheep patiently awaited their future savior."

    jesus was a sheep savior? What was he saving them for, and from?


    Dinner

    ReplyDelete
  12. CH:
    It is perhaps one of the great enigmas in religious thought that one can profess to be an agnostic, skeptic, or even atheist regarding belief in God yet still hold strong opinions about God.

    Or more accurately, one can profess to be an agnostic, skeptic, or atheist and hold strong opinions about what others believe about God. There is a distinction to be made.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Wow! I think you struck a(nother) nerve, Dr. H. The critics continue to prove their unwillingness to admit their metaphysical commitment.
    All they really have to do is prove that Darwin, et. al. did NOT have a dualistic metaphysical commitment and that his ToE did not incorporate his commitment.
    OK. Well, failing that effort...
    Ritchie said...
    "God is not allowed in the lab. Science assumes naturalism - that miracles and magic do not happen." OK, except when there are no natural processes to "explain" the very first "simple self-replicating molecule", then some super-natural process (which we "know" "must have" occurred) is invoked.
    Ritchie said...
    "Peter -
    You have smuggled in the assumption that a creative God exists at all into your argument. If it something you want to conclude, then it is something you need to support."
    Of course, Ritchie in the first place smuggled in the assumption that God couldn't have anything to do with creation (even if He did!) because "Science assumes naturalism..."
    I mean, really Ritchie, shouldn't you be asked to support the dualistic idea that God has nothing to do with the physical world?
    And Scott said and said and said...

    ReplyDelete
  14. Norm Olsen:

    ---
    Or more accurately, one can profess to be an agnostic, skeptic, or atheist and hold strong opinions about what others believe about God. There is a distinction to be made.
    ---

    But PZ Myers said *he thinks* god wouldn't create this world, and Dawkins said *he thinks* god wouldn't design our backward photoreceptor cells.

    ReplyDelete
  15. CH: But PZ Myers said *he thinks* god wouldn't create this world, and Dawkins said *he thinks* god wouldn't design our backward photoreceptor cells.

    I don't think standing on one's head would cure cancer. Is this because it's logically impossible? No. It it because it's unfalsifiable? No, it would be trivial to test. Yet we discard it, along with an infinite number of possibilities every day. Why? Because we have no explanation as to why standing on one's head would cure cancer.

    Why is God any different?

    That's just what God must have wanted is a bad explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  16. CH: "But PZ Myers said *he thinks* god wouldn't create this world, and Dawkins said *he thinks* god wouldn't design our backward photoreceptor cells."

    Well, it might be one thing to say this if we knew absolutely nothing about the nature of Gods. But in the case of the Christian variety, we know a surprising amount. Indeed we can discern quite a lot about this God from the putatively regarded Holy Scripture, which not only describes God's character, motives, plans, events - and even a nice succinct creation story.

    Of course this creation story is scientifically hugely problematic when taken literally, so a common tactic among theologians is to relegate it to mere allegory or as a true "myth" - full of God's meaning and intent, but not necessarily a literal account. Yet these same theologians have no issue interpreting events just a few chapters later in Genesis as true historical accounts. Yet there is no real clue in the text as to what should be taken literally and what is not - yet that doesn't stop theologians from producing literally libraries full of long-winded exegesis on the topic.

    Aren't Christians falling into exactly the same metaphysical trap here CH that you complain about? They are making arbitrary decisions on how to interpret scripture based on prior metaphysical convictions?

    Again, I think it's quite reasonable to questions and ponder God's methods and motives, since He supposedly Himself has given us such a large amount of source material to work with. And again, how exactly then does ID fit with the Bible and the creation story?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Red Reader -

    "OK, except when there are no natural processes to "explain" the very first "simple self-replicating molecule", then some super-natural process (which we "know" "must have" occurred) is invoked."

    No. No supernatural process is invoked. When faced with a mystery, the scientific response is to say 'We don't know', and then investigate. Not 'It must have been some supernatural force', which is the religious knee-jerk reaction.

    "Of course, Ritchie in the first place smuggled in the assumption that God couldn't have anything to do with creation (even if He did!) because "Science assumes naturalism...""

    I'm not saying God couldn't have had anything to do with creation. But we must assume naturalism in order to assume science. If you have a problem with assuming naturalism, then you have a problem with the WHOLE of science and every single theory in it. Why Cornelius continues to single out ToE for criticism on this point when it applies equally well to the theory of gravity, atomic theory, germ theory, etc, is a mystery to me.

    "I mean, really Ritchie, shouldn't you be asked to support the dualistic idea that God has nothing to do with the physical world?"

    Not really. To argue that would be to assume that there is a God. Which, in fact, I do not believe.

    Where Cornelius goes wrong is to assert that ToE is based on the reasoning of 'There is a God, but He wouldn't have made life/the universe this way, therefore it wasn't God, it was evolution instead.' This is entirely Cornelius' strawman.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ritchie:

    "Where Cornelius goes wrong is to assert that ToE is based on the reasoning of 'There is a God, but He wouldn't have made life/the universe this way, therefore it wasn't God, it was evolution instead.'"
    =====

    Yet in many of Cornelius' subject posts of where he provided prime examples in several threads of this very thing, the defenders of evolution have taken up that very metaphysical argument cause and intellectaully strung it out further than the originator could have ever hoped to do. The imperfect Giraffe neck is one example that was intellectualized to death. No doubt future examples will be nothing more than unholy water off a Duck's back as well.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Cornelius,

    But PZ Myers said *he thinks* god wouldn't create this world, and Dawkins said *he thinks* god wouldn't design our backward photoreceptor cells.

    And *he thinks* this because a lot of christians think that their God would only make things perfect. Thus, if something looks imperfect, then it seems like God didn't make it. That's an argument against God (with a capital G), not against gods in general. The fact that this is irrelevant when it comes to the evidence for evolution might be lost on Dawkins et al. The fact that your moaning about "religious evolutionists" is irrelevant to the evidence for evolution is definitely lost on you.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hawks:

    The fact that this is irrelevant when it comes to the evidence for evolution might be lost on Dawkins et al. The fact that your moaning about "religious evolutionists" is irrelevant to the evidence for evolution is definitely lost on you.

    So evolution is a fact?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Eocene -

    "Yet in many of Cornelius' subject posts of where he provided prime examples in several threads of this very thing..."

    He has never done so, to my knowledge, and I'm quite a regular visitor.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ritchie:

    "He has never done so, to my knowledge, and I'm quite a regular visitor."
    ====

    Blind Faith can do that to you sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Cornelius,

    I wrote: The fact that this is irrelevant when it comes to the evidence for evolution might be lost on Dawkins et al. The fact that your moaning about "religious evolutionists" is irrelevant to the evidence for evolution is definitely lost on you.

    Cornelius answered:

    So evolution is a fact?

    Why would you write that in response to what I wrote? I never claimed such a thing, did I? I was pointing out that you are wrong. The science of evolution is not religious. What you do is take a scientific claim, add a religious claim from some evolution supporter and conclude that given that the conjunction of the scientific claim and the religious claim is religious, it also follows that the scientific claim on it's own is religious. That is simply wrong.

    As I said, the fact that your moaning about "religious evolutionists" is irrelevant to the evidence for evolution is definitely lost on you.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Eocene -

    "Blind Faith can do that to you sometimes."

    Cute, but empty rhetoric nonetheless.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ritchie:

    "Cute, but empty rhetoric nonetheless."
    ====

    Then start reading back through the archives and stop whining crybabying about it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ritchie:

    "Science assumes naturalism."
    ====

    They don't assume anything in this regard. They actually demand it and it is #2 on that list of articles of faith after "No Intelligence Allowed".

    ReplyDelete
  27. Eocene -

    "Then start reading back through the archives and stop whining crybabying about it."

    No, I am informing you that you are not making any coherent point. You are just chest-thumping. Grown-ups debate by producing logical arguments and discussing the points of contention, not just declaring themselves correct. That leads nowhere.

    "They don't assume anything in this regard. They actually demand it and it is #2 on that list of articles of faith after "No Intelligence Allowed"."

    Like this. No real point, just chest-thumping rhetoric. You're becoming quite the timewaster here, you know...

    ReplyDelete
  28. Ritchie:

    "No, I am informing you that you are not making any coherent point. You are just chest-thumping. Grown-ups debate by producing logical arguments and discussing the points of contention, not just declaring themselves correct. That leads nowhere."
    =====

    What is this ??? Some kind of hormonal imbalance. Read the damn archives Ritchie and dump the prissy crap. I still don't understand what advantage you believe flailing about like some over emotional Ethel Mertz gives to your point.
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "Like this. No real point, just chest-thumping rhetoric. You're becoming quite the timewaster here, you know... "
    =====

    More double standards and Pot Calling Kettle Black. When nothing viable is to be offered use of the old failed fall backs believing it will work even if it's in your own mind. I'm sure the UK has clinics for your disorder, oh wait, that's right, you're not in the UK.

    ReplyDelete
  29. EOcene -

    "What is this ??? Some kind of hormonal imbalance. Read the damn archives Ritchie and dump the prissy crap. I still don't understand what advantage you believe flailing about like some over emotional Ethel Mertz gives to your point."

    More chest-thumping.

    "More double standards and Pot Calling Kettle Black. When nothing viable is to be offered use of the old failed fall backs believing it will work even if it's in your own mind. I'm sure the UK has clinics for your disorder, oh wait, that's right, you're not in the UK."

    And again...

    ReplyDelete
  30. Eocene said...

    Ritchie:

    "Science assumes naturalism."
    ====

    They don't assume anything in this regard. They actually demand it and it is #2 on that list of articles of faith after "No Intelligence Allowed".

    -----------------------------------

    eocene, it doesn't matter to science that you don't like the way science works. Science works by investigating things that are natural, and real. You, on the other hand, believe in religious fairy tales and want them to replace science and reality. It ain't gonna happen. Get used to it.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Not Too Tightly Wrapped:

    "eocene, it doesn't matter to science that you don't like the way science works. Science works by investigating things that are natural, and real."
    ====

    Well this is another example of twisting and lying on autopilot.

    No one has question science or how it is SUPPOSED to work. What gets questioned and exposed is the constant lying cheating and hijacking of intelligence design concepts and attaching evolutionary lables on them.
    ----

    Not Even Close:

    "You, on the other hand, believe in religious fairy tales and want them to replace science and reality. It ain't gonna happen. Get used to it."
    ====

    It must really get under your skin to be shackled to the rules of Cornelius forum where you are forbidden to use the degraded vocabulary so common found on that illiteracy rag you call a blog. ROFL

    ReplyDelete
  32. Eocene -

    "No one has question science or how it is SUPPOSED to work. What gets questioned and exposed is the constant lying cheating and hijacking of intelligence design concepts and attaching evolutionary lables on them."

    Constant? Even a single example would be nice...

    And while you're at it, how about a little elaboration on the mechanisms by which ID is supposed to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dorothy:

    "Constant? Even a single example would be nice...

    And while you're at it, how about a little elaboration on the mechanisms by which ID is supposed to happen."
    =====

    Wow, what an over bloated glutton for punishment. Almost every cheating lying evolutionary experiment which refuses to prove where blind pointless undirected forces with no goals accomplish even miniscule complex things. But rather cheats lies and steals Intelligent Design when rigging an experiment and then defiantly insisting this was "No Intelligent Allowed" proof when storytelling it's imagined ancient mythology, but then gets offended when the lie is pointed out and when asked to provide actual proof as opposed to faith statements provided by the intellects who should have known better. Brown nose those Panel of Peers all you want Dorothy, it still ain't Evo-World.

    ReplyDelete
  34. eocene said:

    "No one has question science or how it is SUPPOSED to work. What gets questioned and exposed is the constant lying cheating and hijacking of intelligence design concepts and attaching evolutionary lables on them."

    Now THAT is an example of twisting and lying on autopilot. All you IDiots ever do is bash science, question science, question how it's supposed to work, and assert that you know how it should work. But of course you never do any science of your own.

    All of your arguments are negative. You never provide any positive, scientific evidence of your ID claims. You don't and won't even provide coherent definitions of, or details about, the mysterious terminology and methods used in the alleged 'science' of ID.

    If you were honest, you'd just admit that you are thoroughly and blindly religious, that you think you are special and created in the image of your chosen god, that you just don't like the idea of evolving from an ape and other so-called 'lower' life forms, that you are afraid of death and other aspects of reality, and that you fear and hate science because it has discovered and will continue to discover things that show your religious beliefs to be the fairy tales they are.

    If you really believe that your religious beliefs are solid and true, and based on reality, you wouldn't fear ANYthing. You would welcome all challenges and discoveries.

    Because I don't depend on a 'faith' in religious fairy tales, I don't fear or hate science and I'm not at all worried about what has been discovered or may be discovered. I'll gladly accept whatever comes along as long as it's based on reliable evidence.

    The fact that you live in constant fear and hatred of science, or at least the parts of it that challenge your religious beliefs, should tell you something about how you really feel about your beliefs. Whether you'll admit it or not, you know deep down that your beliefs are not based on anything real, and you just can't stand the thought of having to accept and admit that you have wasted your life on fantasies.

    Science and reality scare religious zealots, and it matters.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Not Even Close to the Truth:


    "Science and reality scare religious zealots, and it matters."
    ====

    Haven't had much luck lately playing follow the leader , have you ???

    ReplyDelete
  36. Eocene -

    "Dorothy:"

    Maturity of a five-year old. It's really rather sad.

    "Almost every cheating lying evolutionary experiment which refuses to prove where blind pointless undirected forces with no goals accomplish even miniscule complex things."

    The forces are all assumed to be natural until shown otherwise. That's naturalism - a cornerstone of science.

    "But rather cheats lies and steals Intelligent Design when rigging an experiment and then defiantly insisting this was "No Intelligent Allowed" proof when storytelling it's imagined ancient mythology, but then gets offended when the lie is pointed out and when asked to provide actual proof as opposed to faith statements provided by the intellects who should have known better."

    Setting up an experiment is not intelligent design. Why can't you grasp this simple concept?

    "Brown nose those Panel of Peers all you want Dorothy, it still ain't Evo-World."

    What must it be like to live inside your head? You honestly think you know better than everyone else in the whole world - particularly the experts, who are all liars, cheats or deluded if they don't agree with you. The arrogance is staggering.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Richael:

    "What must it be like to live inside your head? You honestly think you know better than everyone else in the whole world - particularly the experts, who are all liars, cheats or deluded if they don't agree with you."
    ====

    Hey, I'm not the one who started playing the eccentric sissy card, you did that. You want to play games, then all I've done is acknowledge it. So I'll play your game. Especially since none of this is about science anyway. It's about justifying a lifestyle. Always has been and always will be. Oh, and you may want to check the bottoms of your sneakers.
    ----

    "The forces are all assumed to be natural until shown otherwise. That's naturalism - a cornerstone of science."
    ====

    That's called FAITH. Cheating by using intelligent designing manipulation does NOT in any way teach or illustrate the Evolutionary dogma of just how blind pointless purposeless forces influence chemicals by unplanned mistakes to accomplish anything remotely complex and sophisticated. Again, if you don't like it, then find a new Church or become a Theistic Evolutionist and choose whatever god you wish and explain how this mysterious blind force of a god accomplished this.
    ----

    "Setting up an experiment is not intelligent design."
    ====

    Wow, so scientists are complete imbeciles ??? Why don't you provide a video tape where we can observe where the scientist just filled a room full of plastics, metals, voltage, chemcials etc, proceeded to walk away and magically filmed all the componants of the experiment which were void of any goals just happened to self-assemble and it is clear that evolutionary concepts of blind pointlessness are the key to life happening.

    Unfortunately, Joyce and others didn't get your strict memo on those important points.
    ----

    "Why can't you grasp this simple concept?"
    ====

    I understand perfectly what fraud and lying are. If your own arrogance can ever come clean and admit this fatal flaw in your thinking, then by all means give an honest and proper experimental example of where the blind undirected forces WITHOUT the intelligent fingerprints of a cheating scientist motivated by dogmatic religious worldview can be observed creating sophisticated informationally driven complex nano-machines. Do that and then we can talk directed evolution. Until then you'll always be a liar and a cheat.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Eocene -

    "So I'll play your game. Especially since none of this is about science anyway."

    No, this IS about science. The problem is that you have no idea what science is or how it works.

    "That's called FAITH."

    No it isn't. It is a practical necessity that we HAVE to assume naturalism in order to perform any science.

    "Wow, so scientists are complete imbeciles?"

    No, that's your argument. I'm arguing that they are perfectly competent in their respective fields and we should listen to what they say. And what they are saying, loud and clear, is that ID is not science and evolution is a fact.

    "Why don't you provide a video tape where we can observe where the scientist just filled a room full of plastics, metals, voltage, chemcials etc, proceeded to walk away and magically filmed all the componants of the experiment which were void of any goals just happened to self-assemble and it is clear that evolutionary concepts of blind pointlessness are the key to life happening."

    Why would I do that? That wouldn't be a demonstration of any process of evolution.

    "I understand perfectly what fraud and lying are."

    You understand nothing beyond your own stubborn conviction that you simply MUST be correct.

    "If your own arrogance can ever come clean and admit this fatal flaw in your thinking, then by all means give an honest and proper experimental example of where the blind undirected forces WITHOUT the intelligent fingerprints of a cheating scientist motivated by dogmatic religious worldview can be observed creating sophisticated informationally driven complex nano-machines. Do that and then we can talk directed evolution. Until then you'll always be a liar and a cheat."

    Lenski's E.Coli bacteria study. A beautiful example of evolution in action - an increase in information observed over several strands of the same bacteria, documented in meticulous detail. And absolutely naff all to do with ID.

    ReplyDelete
  39. That's Rich:

    "No, this IS about science. The problem is that you have no idea what science is or how it works."
    ====

    Oh I fully understand what science is. Your problem is that your core atheism beliefs of "No Intelligence Allowed" and blind UNDIRECTED FORCES are your main articles of FAITH and you force them to fit into the biased worldview. This is about worldview promotion and nothing more.
    -----

    "No it isn't. It is a practical necessity that we HAVE to assume naturalism in order to perform any science."
    ====

    But they refused to use any blind undirected natural forces in any of their fraud excuses for experiments you IDiot! That's the whole point.
    ----

    "No, they are perfectly competent in their respective fields and we should listen to what they say. And what they are saying, loud and clear, is that ID is not science and evolution is a fact."
    ====

    And yet the lying cheats used loads of dastardly step by step guiding I.D. manipulation in their experiments and then lied about what the outcome proved. No we should not listen to these lying cheats. You are comfortable with it because their asessment massages your ego of a worldview and discusting lifestyle.
    -----

    "Why would I do that? That wouldn't be a demonstration of any process of evolution."
    ====

    Because blind undirected unguided forces of nature with no purpose or goals is what your own core dogmatic beliefs insist on and dictate. These core principles where NEVER ONCE used.
    ----

    "Why would I do that? That wouldn't be a demonstration of any process of evolution."
    ====

    Hmmmmmmm, no look who's breast beating.
    ----

    "Lenski's E.Coli bacteria study. A beautiful example of evolution in action - an increase in information observed over several strands of the same bacteria, documented in meticulous detail. And absolutely naff all to do with ID."
    ====

    Lenski's fraudulant example was nothing of the sort. How does he know that the bacteria produced an unpurposed unplanned unconscious lucky mistake ??? Those creatures are self-aware(unlike Joyce's lifeless molecules) and have ability to make descisions to the extent they do make them. Given the sophistication of the information contained in their DNA which scientists insist would fill an entire small library, how does Lenski know ability to re-arrange and assemble a program wasn't already within the organism if it so chose to add a newly encountered element to it's diet ??? Nylonase is yet another perfect example.
    James Shapiro even gives an example of a protozoa which when put into a hostile living environment can make a conscious descision and completely disassemble and restructure it's DNA to be compatible with the newer environment. That conscious choice has zero to do with luck and chance. Even Lenski did a certain amount of rigging within his own intelligently created artificial environment. The organism also didn't change into a brand new creature, it was still a same bacteria. Lenski has no way of providing proof of an unplanned lucky chanced mistake, given the sophistication with which we know of how the mechanisms within a cell work.

    Find a better unintelligent experiment minus the necessary lying Ding-Dong and we'll talk. As it is you're still grasping at STRAWS and blowing cannabis smoke.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Eocene -

    "Oh I fully understand what science is. Your problem is that your core atheism beliefs of "No Intelligence Allowed" and blind UNDIRECTED FORCES are your main articles of FAITH and you force them to fit into the biased worldview."

    Science has no problem with intelligent agents. It just has a problem with SUPERNATURAL intelligent agents.

    Science mandates naturalism. And it does this out of pure necessity. You simply cannot have science without it.

    "But they refused to use any blind undirected natural forces in any of their fraud excuses for experiments you IDiot! That's the whole point."

    Joyce et al? No they didn't. Put creatures in an environment and leave them alone until the strong have outcompeted the weak, and that is natural selection - a blind and perfectly natural force.

    "And yet the lying cheats used loads of dastardly step by step guiding I.D. manipulation in their experiments and then lied about what the outcome proved."

    HOW did Joyce et al.'s experiments anything to do with ID? Show me. Explain exactly how what they did was ID and not evolution!

    "These core principles where NEVER ONCE used."

    YES THEY WERE!!! Natural selection is a blind, unguided, natural force!

    "Lenski's fraudulant example was nothing of the sort. How does he know that the bacteria produced an unpurposed unplanned unconscious lucky mistake ??? Those creatures are self-aware(unlike Joyce's lifeless molecules) and have ability to make descisions to the extent they do make them. Given the sophistication of the information contained in their DNA which scientists insist would fill an entire small library, how does Lenski know ability to re-arrange and assemble a program wasn't already within the organism if it so chose to add a newly encountered element to it's diet ?"

    Wait, you think the bacteria just CHOSE to start eating citrate?

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! That's even madder than I thought.

    "James Shapiro even gives an example of a protozoa which when put into a hostile living environment can make a conscious descision and completely disassemble and restructure it's DNA to be compatible with the newer environment."

    Show me this study, please.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Ritchie:

    "Science has no problem with intelligent agents. It just has a problem with SUPERNATURAL intelligent agents."
    ====

    Science shouldn't have a problem with intelligent agents, it's evolutionists where the problem comes in. Even though evolutionists will lie and cheat using intelligent designing concepts and lable them blind chance.
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "Science mandates naturalism. And it does this out of pure necessity. You simply cannot have science without it."
    ====

    That makes sense since physical beings as ourselves only relate to physical explanations, but intelligent options are far superior in infering complex sophisticated things than blind chance. There has yet to be one honest chance experiment which adequately illustrates any fact of "No Intelligence Allowed" doctrine.
    ----

    Rich:

    "HOW did Joyce et al.'s experiments anything to do with ID? Show me. Explain exactly how what they did was ID and not evolution!"
    ====

    Already been done and you stamped your feet and crybabied like a little girl about it. YAWN!!!
    ----

    Rich:

    "Wait, you think the bacteria just CHOSE to start eating citrate?

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! That's even madder than I thought."
    ====

    Ah, the typical evolutionary problem with consciousness and self-awareness. They also form wolf hunting packs and communicate to each other if one of them discovers a food source, but don't let that stop you from being a fool.
    ----

    Rich:

    "Show me this study, please."
    ====

    You're a big girl. Google it!

    Even if I linked it, you'd only lift your leg and pee on it anyways. This "has been well established" LOL ROFLMAO!!!

    ReplyDelete
  42. Eocene -

    "Science shouldn't have a problem with intelligent agents, it's evolutionists where the problem comes in."

    ToE behaves as every scientific theory should.

    "That makes sense since physical beings as ourselves only relate to physical explanations, but intelligent options are far superior in infering complex sophisticated things than blind chance."

    Superior in what way? If you are inferring an intelligent creator for the very start of life then you need to state who that creator is. And that's where ID runs into problems.

    "Already been done and you stamped your feet and crybabied like a little girl about it. YAWN!!!"

    Translation: "We've been through this before and I got pummeled so I don't want to go through it again, so I'll just throw at a half-arsed insult instead. So there!"

    "Ah, the typical evolutionary problem with consciousness and self-awareness. They also form wolf hunting packs and communicate to each other if one of them discovers a food source,"

    Source, please!

    "You're a big girl. Google it!"

    Have done. Can't find it.

    "Even if I linked it, you'd only lift your leg and pee on it anyways."

    Try me.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Rich:

    "ToE behaves as every scientific theory should."
    ====

    No, it is the ONLY theory given special and specific religious status with purpose and intent of it's religious leadership in charge of caring for it's unholy writings.
    ----

    Rich:

    "If you are inferring an intelligent creator for the very start of life then you need to state who that creator is. And that's where ID runs into problems."
    =====

    This isn't necessary, since even if studying whether or not an automobile was created or happened as a result of blind pointless purposeless forces of nature, it isn't necessary to find the orignal creator of an automobile to infer it came as a result of an intelligence.

    Gerald Joyce proved this with his own intelligence showing that one has to use one's own mind to imagine and follow through on a purposed artificial environment which was conceived by the thoughful reflective meditations of an intelligence. Then rig a controlled computer program to step by step rigging, contolling, forcing molecules to follow the goal and purpose of that creator(in this case Gerald Joyce) who is motivated by biased worldview. Otherwise Joyce would have offered his flavourite dirt molecules watching/observing experiment where all those same outcomes would have happened with a intelligent fingerprints handsoff approach. Then he would have to lie about the fable created of this is just how it took place in prebiotic times. Unless of course Joyce's mind should be considered a complete moronic imbecile.
    -----

    Rich:

    "Translation: "We've been through this before and I got pummeled so I don't want to go through it again, so I'll just throw at a half-arsed insult instead. So there!"
    =====

    YAWN!!!
    -----

    Rich:

    With self-righteous indignation -

    "Source, please!

    "Have done. Can't find it."
    =====

    LOL, I just googled with a few simple words and bacterial wolfpack hunting strategies are all over the Net, you LIEd again!!! ROFLMAO

    ReplyDelete
  44. Eocene -

    "No, it is the ONLY theory given special and specific religious status with purpose and intent of it's religious leadership in charge of caring for it's unholy writings."

    Absolutely incorrect. ToE behaves just as every scientific theory should.

    It takes, as a starting premise, naturalism.

    All scientific theories take, as a starting premise, naturalism.

    However, it's only when it comes to ToE that stupid religious people object because this is where they want to interject their supernatural religious ideas.

    "This isn't necessary..."

    I'm afraid it is. If you conclude something was built, but there was no-one around to build it, then you have a mystery.

    Of course, the ID people don't WANT to identify this mysterious miracle-working, omnipotent creator because to actually say theG-word would be to reveal it as the thoroughly religious idea that it obviously is. They'd rather tell people: "Hey, look, life must have had a mysterious all-powerful creator. I wonder who that could have been, nudge nudge wink wink."

    ID is just dressed-up Creationism.

    "Gerald Joyce proved this..."

    Joyce set up and experiment and LET THE ENZYMES GET ON WITH IT!!! He did not personally engineer every single self-replication the enzymes made. THAT would have been ID. Joyce did not do that. He did not engineer which enzymes would out-reporiduce others. That was down to them. That is natural selection. It is not ID.

    "LOL, I just googled with a few simple words and bacterial wolfpack hunting strategies are all over the Net, you LIEd again!!! ROFLMAO"

    No, I can actually find something by Shapiro which is kinda close -

    http://www.sci.uidaho.edu/newton/math501/Sp05/Shapiro.pdf

    But it does not really state what you said it does. These bacteria are not making CONSCIOUS DECISIONS. Looks like you are the one who lied ROFLMFAO!!!

    ReplyDelete
  45. Ritchie:

    "No, I can actually find something by Shapiro which is kinda close -

    http://www.sci.uidaho.edu/newton/math501/Sp05/Shapiro.pdf

    But it does not really state what you said it does. These bacteria are not making CONSCIOUS DECISIONS."
    =====

    You've chosen to make yourself look like the complete Moron here Larry, I mean Ritchie. The abstract alone is loaded with terminology for which decision making, cooperation strategies, Intercellular communication and multicellular coordination etc, etc, etc are an act of a conscious self aware living thing's decision making processes. It doesn't matter if the creature is or isn't as sophisticated as we are or not. There is a measure of conscious choices being made here by the living self-aware entities. That is something Gerald's Intelligently Designed unnatural artificial molecules never had, though he spun a mythical story line to make it appear that way.

    Your own sophisticated immune system does exactly the same thing even though as a conscious self aware living thing, you are not aware of it happening at the time. Blind pointless purposeless circumstances do not create such sophisticated mechanisms. As intelligent beings, we ONLY relate to such sophistication as having been designed. Unless of course we insert our own personal biased flawed worldview into the picture and insist "No Intelligence Allowed", at which point lies need to take over and fabricate fable invention based on nothing more than Faith Statement creation. TOE was invented because of Religion.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Eocene -

    Nothing at all in Shapiro's abstract implies that the bacteria consciously make decisions or choose to coperate with group strategies.

    WHat he is saying is that a group of unicellular organisms can collectively behave like a multi-cellular organism.

    If you had a cut on your arm, that cut would heal. The cells of your arm around the cut do not consciously decide to repear the cut, they just do it. No consciousness or decision-making is necessary or implied. You do not have to tell the cells in your arm to repair it. It is an automatic response. If you were in a coma and received a cut, the cut would still heal.

    Bacteria do not make decision, or plans.

    The ability of Lenski's E.Coli bacteria to process citrate was the result of two random mutations, amply documented and demonstrated by Lenski himself. Random mutation followed by natural selection. Evolution. Producing an increase in complexity.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Ritchie's foot stomping tantrum:

    "Bacteria do not make decision, or plans."
    ====

    Excuse me for a moment folks - $¤/#?\0% - I just had to puke again.

    Astonishing!!!

    Intelligent Bacteria - Cells are Incredibly Smart!!!

    Hmmmmm, so it turns out bacteria are way smarter than we thought. Dr. Bonnie Bassler from Princeton University presents a beautiful TED talk on how bacteria communicate with each other by forming words out of simple molecules.

    She also explains…

    (1) How bacteria strategize together on how to ‘take down’ their host

    (2) Elegant systems of bioluminescence

    (3) Symbiotic relationships between organisms

    (4) How bacteria cells speak multiple languages

    ----------

    Go for it Ritchie, figuratively defecate on Bonnie Bassler.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Of course you're not "motivated by biased worldview", are you eocene?

    You're obviously oblivious to the fact that every derogatory thing you say about science, scientists, evolution, and evolutionary theory actually applies to you and your religious beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Eocene -

    "Go for it Ritchie, figuratively defecate on Bonnie Bassler."

    I don't need to. I don't think there's anything wrong with what she is saying. The problem is yours! You are misinterpreting what she is saying!

    We have known for years that cells react chemically with those around them. This is nothing new. This is what Bonnie Bassler means when she says bacteria 'talk'. Notice the word is in inverted commas even in the article you linked to!

    This does not mean bacteria converse! They do not have a chat about how their day is going. They do not impart thoughts, ideas, feelings and emotions. They do not decide and plan. They simply sense other bacteria around them (and, mor particularly, the enzymes and molecules the surrounding bacteria are giving off) and react accordingly.

    It's like when you get goosebumps from the cold. Your skin cells have not, indiviually or collectively CONSCIOUSLY DECIDED to react in that way - it is simply how your skin cells react to the cold. It is an inate response, with no conscious decision-making going into the process.

    Even plants can 'talk' in this loose, chemical sense.

    http://www.livescience.com/1909-plants-communicate-warn-danger.html

    Does this mean plants are sentient, that they have thoughts and feelings, emotions and ideas, that they philophise and joke, plan and innovate? No. This 'chattering' is nothing more than sensing and reacting to chemical stimuli. You could programe robots to do the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Ritchie's PMS:

    "I don't need to. I don't think there's anything wrong with what she is saying. The problem is yours! You are misinterpreting what she is saying!"
    =====

    Nobody said there was something wrong with what she was saying. Do you just make this crap up as you go along ??? The only misrepresentation here is your emotional effeminate passion for lying again.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "We have known for years that cells react chemically with those around them. This is nothing new. This is what Bonnie Bassler means when she says bacteria 'talk'. Notice the word is in inverted commas even in the article you linked to!"
    ====

    What's with the "We" ??? You're not part of that "We". You denied it in the first place and then when backed into a corner with the link, suddenly and mysterious fabricated another lie of "this is nothing new" as if you personally had been on board the whole time. What you lied and denied about was the communication and planning strategies Bonnie Bassler spoke about in the first place. And no one said anything here about "Talk", as in human communication, but it is communication and planning strategies for which you self righteously got indignant over.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "This does not mean bacteria converse! They do not have a chat about how their day is going. They do not impart thoughts, ideas, feelings and emotions."
    =====

    This was already dealt with you IDiot. There was no comparison to them conducting life's activities as a human being. However, I realize deflecting to be nothing more than the usual wasting of time.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "They do not decide and plan."
    =====

    This is another lie since Bonnie Bassler is the one who says they do plan and strategize. Conclusion:
    Bonnie Bassler and her Students couldn't possibly know something Ritchie doesn't, therefore they must apparently all be liars.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "They simply sense other bacteria around them (and, mor particularly, the enzymes and molecules the surrounding bacteria are giving off) and react accordingly."
    =====

    Translation: I have no idea what I'm talking about, but this woman hater keeps picking on me and won't leave me alone so I have to counter with some kind of blather.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    Even plants can 'talk' in this loose, chemical sense.

    http://www.livescience.com/1909-plants-communicate-warn-danger.html
    =====

    YAWN!!! Yes this has been known long before your cited article, years in fact. But their communication is far more sophisticated and specific than you could possibly imagine before you shoved this imagined trump card in my face.

    They don't just communicate with each other. They also communicate specifically as to who and what is attacking them. Communicate if it's an insect, pathogen, fungus, spider mite etc, etc, etc. They also have specific messages to certain specific preditory insects to come rescue them and do so at certain times of the day or night depending on that insects habits. And there are a plethora of other plant communication anomalies that evolution just can never explain, with the exception of a lying evolutionIST making it up on the fly on a public forum.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "Does this mean plants are sentient, that they have thoughts and feelings, emotions and ideas, that they philophise and joke, plan and innovate?"
    =====

    And yet, no one EVER suggested such a thing. But if it makes you feel like a big girl, then go for it and be my guest.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Eocene -

    "The only misrepresentation here is your emotional effeminate passion for lying again."

    *Thump thump thump*

    "What's with the "We" ??? You're not part of that "We". You denied it in the first place and then when backed into a corner with the link, suddenly and mysterious fabricated another lie of "this is nothing new" as if you personally had been on board the whole time."

    You're living in a fantasy world! What I refuted was bacteria make CONSCIOUS DECISIONS and you have failed to show that they do! It's not what Shapiro showed, it's not what Bonnie Bassler is showing!

    Rewind to where this came in. We were discussing Lenski's bacteria experiment. You said:

    "Those creatures are self-aware(unlike Joyce's lifeless molecules) and have ability to make descisions to the extent they do make them. Given the sophistication of the information contained in their DNA which scientists insist would fill an entire small library, how does Lenski know ability to re-arrange and assemble a program wasn't already within the organism if it so chose to add a newly encountered element to it's diet ?"

    As though bacteria from Lenski's experiment just CHOSE to start eating citrate one day! It just thought to itself, 'Hmmm, I wonder what this citrate stuff tastes like'.

    It was not a CONSCIOUS DECISION to start metabolizing citrate, it was the convergence of two specific random mutations, amply documented by Lenski et al.

    "This is another lie since Bonnie Bassler is the one who says they do plan and strategize."

    Not in the sense that they make a conscious, deliberate, informed decisions! These are reactions to chemical stimuli, not intelligent brain function. You are totally misunderstanding Bassler!

    "Translation: I have no idea what I'm talking about, but this woman hater keeps picking on me and won't leave me alone so I have to counter with some kind of blather."

    Ha ha. Project much?

    "But their communication is far more sophisticated and specific than you could possibly imagine before you shoved this imagined trump card in my face."

    I'm not denying it is sophisticated. What I am denying is that it is the result of conscious, cognitive brain functions.

    "And yet, no one EVER suggested such a thing."

    Then what are you suggesting happened with Lenski's bacteria?

    ReplyDelete