tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post4217161130693104675..comments2024-03-28T20:04:20.286-07:00Comments on One Cʘsmos: Lizards and Mammals and Men, Oh My!Gagdad Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comBlogger114125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-13289113083516056122008-06-18T12:04:00.000-07:002008-06-18T12:04:00.000-07:00I find I need to add on a little to my last post, ...I find I need to add on a little to my last post, since I should explain that an infinite God is infinitely involved in the particulars, designing as seems apparent as much or more from the bottom up as the top down, which is why we (gasp) are infinitely precious to Him. Thus the singular soldier is infinitely important. This is why a soldier's love is more important than politics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-19015200439974788752008-06-18T11:59:00.000-07:002008-06-18T11:59:00.000-07:00Hey! watch that language there VanHey! watch that language there VanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-20668356963731179192008-06-18T11:44:00.000-07:002008-06-18T11:44:00.000-07:00Van - I've got no problem with people believing in...Van - I've got no problem with people believing in things 'beyond' the mechanics. My problem comes if they use that to argue <I>against</I> the mechanics. Especially when they don't seem to fully understand the mechanics to begin with.<BR/><BR/>I <I>do</I> have problems with 'universal hierarchies'. But then, I've programmed in hierarchical object-oriented languages, and seen how apparently-straightforward hierarchical models fall down when confronted with messy reality.<BR/><BR/>That's not to say that hierarchies don't apply, very well, in various domains. But when you try to join them up into a 'universal' scheme...<BR/><BR/>(I suppose it's a bit like different 'traditions' only capturing a part of the truth.)Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-76763823925966070212008-06-18T11:26:00.000-07:002008-06-18T11:26:00.000-07:00Petey - Of course I have a passion for truth. Unam...Petey - Of course I have a passion for truth. Unambiguous "yes".<BR/><BR/>There are things that I disagree with C.S. Lewis about, but he was right about many things. And one of the 'rightest' was that we should believe things because they are <I>true</I>, not because they are useful or beautiful or bold or noble or...Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-41925960337164234622008-06-18T11:13:00.000-07:002008-06-18T11:13:00.000-07:00ray said "it just seems that what you say and what...ray said "it just seems that what you say and what he says doesn't quite jibe. You say you have no problem with the science, and he says he does."<BR/><BR/>Ray, Maineman and I may disagree on the mechanics, but because we don't make the error of thinking there is <I>only flat mechanics</I>, there is no significant or meaningful disagreement between us regarding what is True.<BR/><BR/>You prohibit yourself from that. "I mean, which is higher in the hierarchy - the color blue or mozarella cheese?", you are self exiled, or rather soph Xi'holed.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-20883470342358617852008-06-18T11:04:00.000-07:002008-06-18T11:04:00.000-07:00Van - I'm not trying to start a fight between you ...Van - I'm not trying to start a fight between you and Maineman, it just seems that what you say and what he says doesn't quite jibe. You say you have no problem with the science, and he says he does. I'm seeking clarification, that's all.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-16137825736711994532008-06-18T10:40:00.000-07:002008-06-18T10:40:00.000-07:00ray said "You, like Van, should read Wilson's EfE....ray said "You, like Van, should read Wilson's EfE. It actually goes into the differences between humans and primates, and why small differences add up into such a large gap."<BR/><BR/>For some. You should commence to adding, and then demand to know where your gap went.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-87266108435539134162008-06-18T10:33:00.000-07:002008-06-18T10:33:00.000-07:00Maineman - Here's a transition you can partially t...Maineman - Here's a transition you can partially test on your own body. Lay your fingers on the side of your jaw. Now, trace along the edge up to the very top of the jawbone. Notice how close your fingers are to your ear canal. Inside the inner ear are three bones, the ossicles: malleus, incus, and stapes. They are carefully arranged to transfer sound energy from the eardrum to the cochlea as efficiently as possible. How could such an amazing mechanism arise? (One that's been cited, even, as 'irreducibly complex' - just Google around a bit.)<BR/><BR/>It turns out that a classification of dinosaur called the therapsids had two jaw joints. The therapsids are known (by several independent lines of evidence) to be ancestral to modern mammals... and we have a basically <I>complete</I> fossil record of the gradual transition of one of those jaw joints into the modern bones of the inner ear. Fossils representing over 11 separate stages have been found. Note that intermediate steps were <I>all</I> advantageous, though not as efficient or optimized. Some transitional forms did help amplify sound energy but didn't work while the animal was chewing. We still have problems with that under some circumstances (try to listen to someone while eating celery) but the separation is far more developed now. What, exactly, does 'natural selection' <I>not</I> account for there?<BR/><BR/>Now, not-life to life? I've, uh, <I>already said</I> that's an open problem. But that's not evolution's domain. It's a related area, certainly, but even Darwin talked about the origin of species, not of life. (It sounds like you're saying economics is invalid if it can't account for where natural resources are found...)<BR/><BR/>You, like Van, should read Wilson's EfE. It actually goes into the differences between humans and primates, and <I>why</I> small differences add up into such a large gap. (Did you know that humans have a high color and brightness contrast between the sclera and the iris - and other primates don't?)<BR/><BR/>And yes, I meant what I said about consciousness. Progress has been made, and startling results have been found, but that doesn't mean it's a solved problem. (However, they do seem to be on the right track. Have you had the misfortune to see a loved one afflicted with Alzheimers? The limit of consciousness as brain goes to zero is less than epsilon, sadly.)<BR/><BR/>And a member of the human species adapting to a different <I>human</I> environment than the one they were raised in is not evidence against natural selection. Having a member of another species doing so without genetic changes - <I>that</I> would be problem for natural selection.<BR/><BR/>(And, actually, many millions have died <I>because</I> of a <A HREF="http://ingles.homeunix.net/rants/stupids.html#expelled" REL="nofollow">refusal to accept neo-Darwinian evolution</A>.)Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-75115419189648356782008-06-18T10:13:00.000-07:002008-06-18T10:13:00.000-07:00ray said "On another note, what's your problem wit...ray said "On another note, what's your problem with natural selection, anyway? Would Van agree with you on it?"<BR/><BR/>You seem to be beginning to show your true colors, and blue ain't it.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-43312466765799452762008-06-18T10:02:00.000-07:002008-06-18T10:02:00.000-07:00Maineman - Can someone survive on the color blue? ...Maineman - Can someone survive on the color blue? Would a pepperoni-and-blue pizza taste better than a pepperoni-and-cheese one?<BR/><BR/>I'll grant that the color blue, as a concept, is less concrete than mozzarella cheese, as a concept. Of course, I'm repeatedly urged here to be less abstract and more concrete, so I can't see how that could be more important...<BR/><BR/>On another note, what's your problem with natural selection, anyway? Would Van agree with you on it?Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-50679351701957737542008-06-18T09:50:00.000-07:002008-06-18T09:50:00.000-07:00Bob, Yes indeed there is a difference. I am presu...Bob, Yes indeed there is a difference. I am presumptuous, hoping I am among those who are viewing from above.<BR/><BR/>It reminds me of the fellas from Nam and any other war in any of the other streets. They say almost to a man that grunts fight for each other, not for ideals, which are left to the politicians.<BR/><BR/>The fight between good and evil still evolves into a fight amongst us when it comes to soldiering. And then the morality becomes the love of brothers (and sisters) for each other. Oddly enough often the enemy is given the same love at the death moment.<BR/><BR/>That is the actual view from above.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-30312176764609768512008-06-18T09:42:00.000-07:002008-06-18T09:42:00.000-07:00Yes. There is an infinite difference between esca...Yes. There is an infinite difference between escaping duality from below vs. transcending it from above. Man has the right to transcend logic and rational (not to mention, moral) argument, but never to deny or contradict it.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-74887990243555388822008-06-18T09:29:00.000-07:002008-06-18T09:29:00.000-07:00But Christopher, you act as though ideas have no c...But Christopher, you act as though ideas have no consequences. Millions of people have died as a result of some of these ideas, so doing a Buddhist skate-by seems extraordinarily irresponsible. Most of us sense, even if we don't believe it, that there is a war being waged between good and evil, light and darkness, and that we play a role in that conflict.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-88509772455799859892008-06-18T09:06:00.000-07:002008-06-18T09:06:00.000-07:00I guess the primary point made here is how some lo...I guess the primary point made here is how some love to argue. It is an attachment in the Buddhist sense. It ultimately leads to the same result as all attachments.<BR/><BR/>I believe both sides have won in a mostly empty field. The Dawkinsians are few in number, if vocal and relatively effective in their media domain. Racoons are in a distinct minority too.<BR/><BR/>From a professional point of view, most scientists find the "who made the primordial soup?" question not useful for science activity and in that respect uninteresting.<BR/><BR/>From the spiritual viewpoint, one of you wrote, "science is probably unnecessary" which I took to mean we can proceed spiritually without the constraints of the scientific method. In other words, the same point. Professionally speaking, to a seeker of spiritual wisdom science may be "uninteresting".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-21014122068498697262008-06-18T08:58:00.000-07:002008-06-18T08:58:00.000-07:00The parent article for the Danbury letter, before ...The parent article for the <A HREF="http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html" REL="nofollow">Danbury letter</A>, before and after edits - quite interesting.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-20649111928681225912008-06-18T08:55:00.000-07:002008-06-18T08:55:00.000-07:00No, Ray. You have it backwards. If you're going to...No, Ray. You have it backwards. If you're going to propose an explanation that defies common sense, as does Darwinism, then the burden of proof is on you. And to date, natural selection has come up entirely empty as to how and when one thing turned into another, let alone how not-life turned into life. What you get instead is slight-of-hand -- justifications of the theory by trotting out changes in species, in response to environmental factors, that are already built into that species' genetic make-up. <BR/><BR/>The fact that lactose intolerance can be shown to come and go in certain populations says nothing about how people emerged from monkeys. Nothing. The changes that are documented routinely regress to the mean, by the way, which further indicates that the adaptation was part of that organisms essential make-up all along.<BR/><BR/>Even Wallace, the co-author of the theory, abandoned it during his lifetime because he realized it could not account, for example, for how an aborigine transplanted to another culture could become like his new surrounding population. That is, that the capacities were somehow innate before having been selected for.<BR/><BR/>When we look at the genetic make-up of humans and other primates, what jumps out -- if you've a mind to see it -- is not how similar we are to apes genetically but how different we are given the similarity of our genes. Selfish genes my ass.<BR/><BR/>As for materialists and consciousness, you have to be kidding. Seems like every week a new lobotomized neurologist or psychologist is writing a book about how the mind is just a big computer and there's no such thing as free will.<BR/><BR/>The way you can tell that Darwinism is a religion is that, rather than acknowledging it's increasing inadequacy as a theory, we get holier-than-thou BS from Dawkins and Hitchens about how it's been established as fact and anyone who thinks otherwise is a heretic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-75186260365266562442008-06-18T08:34:00.000-07:002008-06-18T08:34:00.000-07:00Regarding the wall of separation between church an...Regarding the wall of separation between church and state, I think Jefferson's later letter <A HREF="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions60.html" REL="nofollow">Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Samuel Miller, 23 Jan. 1808</A> is much more indicative of his intent, than is the heavily edited <A HREF="http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html" REL="nofollow">Danbury letter</A> usually referenced. In this, Jefferson is more clearly seen to be protecting Church's from Gov't, rather than the other way around, ensuring that Religion would be free from Gov't - and though he certainly would have objected to that as well, he knew the more substantial danger lay with Gov't.<BR/><BR/>"...I consider the government of the US. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U. S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority. But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U. S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. ... I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct it's exercises, it's discipline, or it's doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them...."<BR/><BR/>FYI - To gain an understanding of the full context of ideas the Founders understood to bear upon the issue of Church and State, this link on the <A HREF="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendI_religion.html" REL="nofollow">Amendment I</A> is hard to beat, as is the parent site <A HREF="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/toc.html" REL="nofollow">The Founders Constitution</A>, hosted by the University of Chicago. A truly outstanding resource.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-86218833606522726602008-06-18T08:02:00.000-07:002008-06-18T08:02:00.000-07:00Bob F. - Maybe "Darwinism" does claim that 'nothin...Bob F. - Maybe "Darwinism" does claim that 'nothing else is necessary for life but mutation and selection'... but if that's true, there aren't any Darwinists.<BR/><BR/>First off, you seem to have misunderstood Laplace's phrase, "I had no need of that hypothesis". He was speaking of <I>immediate divine intervention actively stabilizing the orbits of the planets</I>. He didn't even <I>disprove</I> that notion - as he stated, he simply didn't need it to account for the observed behavior.<BR/><BR/>The same is true for much - most - of what we know about the history of life after it originated. It can't be <I>disproven</I> that a God has been hand-(or-other-appendage)-picked each mutation that happened, but if so, there's no sign of it. (For example, go to <A HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html" REL="nofollow">this page</A> and search for the term 'unequal in most cases'. There's a histogram for the divergence of various genes between humans and mice. It fits a bell curve very well - if there's a bias to the mutations it's a very low level of statistical significance. Scientists have actually looked into the evidence for things like 'directed mutagenesis' (google it) and the evidence has been, at best, inconclusive.) Saying that the hypothesis isn't needed is just not the same as saying it's been refuted.<BR/><BR/>(I'm also not aware of any 'materialist' who claims that consciousness has been explained... yet. Even the title of Dennett's book is meant ironically.)<BR/><BR/>Sure, some kind of order is necessary for biological evolution to work - but this isn't news even to evolutionists. The same is true for geology, and - as I noted - banking and baking. But since I'm not aware of anyone - even Dawkins - who argues that evolution can proceed independent of any substrate... well, like I said, I don't see any Darwinists in the sense you seem to mean.<BR/><BR/>I'm aware that ID claims that mutation and selection aren't enough, but all the cases that I've looked into just don't hold up. That doesn't mean they won't come up with a smoking gun at some point, but until then... well, we have had no need of that hypothesis. I suppose in that sense people could be called 'Darwinist', but that seems a rather useless definition.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-48321168954729380442008-06-18T07:45:00.000-07:002008-06-18T07:45:00.000-07:00Ray said "if you've read EoE by Wilson"Oh... yes i...Ray said "if you've read EoE by Wilson"<BR/><BR/>Oh... yes it does read that way, sorry too quickly tossed off (the flame caps the hurried dash out the door frame of mind). No I haven't read Wilson's book, some of his articles... not particularly wow'd one way or the other. I've read my Grandpa's copy of 'Origin of the Species', and the Descent of Man too. In younger years I thrilled to Carl Sagan's 'The Dragons of Eden', 'Broca's Brain', and several other treatments of evolution specifically. Unlike perhaps most, I came to the ideas I have by passing through Science, not past it or the reverse.<BR/><BR/>It is somewhat foolish for me to attempt to speak for the One, but my idea of God has no need to 'tweak' the progress of the Universe... allowing 15 or so billion years to pass before the dawning of Man seems to suggest he's got the patience to let things develop naturally according to the 'laws' in place.<BR/><BR/>I have no problem with evolution. I comprehend, as best as is possible, the idea and how it works. As I'd hoped the lengthy comment above on Huxley and Arnold (if you want examples of ‘nothing but’ types, reread that, or read the links – it’s up to you. See it or not, I’ve no more interest in providing <I>you</I> examples you will not see) would point out, it is not my position which denies science, but the scientifismists who deny the existence of anything outside the reach of their rulers and gauges.<BR/><BR/>It is not my point of view that is limited, but yours. Come out of the lab, have a look around within and without. Or stay. No matter. But please don't give me another Wilson link as if I've no clue. I get it. I got it. Long ago. I don't have a problem with the development of the eyeball, or anything else. I'm not the one feigning blindness.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-5088856664624936512008-06-18T06:47:00.000-07:002008-06-18T06:47:00.000-07:00Ray, to clarify, the color blue is higher than all...Ray, to clarify, the color blue is higher than all forms of cheese. <BR/><BR/>That should be obvious and, if it's not, it means you're not getting answers to your questions because you're searching with your eye closed.<BR/><BR/>Dawkins, meanwhile, is wrong in every way and about everything imaginable because he has chosen to live in a different universe than the one that actually exists. It's a form of self-banishment from absolute truth derived of inflated self-importance -- the same inverse cosmological hierarchy to which I referred originally.<BR/><BR/>I like bob f's outline of the essential problems with Darwinism. Maybe you should re-read it. You seem to be conflating "natural selection" and "evolution" routinely. <BR/><BR/>I venture to say that the belief in Evolution proper is a central tenet of the cosmology of everyone who frequents this site. Natural selection, on the other hand, is properly seen as an antiquated, 19th century notion who's sun is setting as we speak.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-27940000030748501142008-06-18T06:39:00.000-07:002008-06-18T06:39:00.000-07:00Oh, and Ricky - What you say about me is not of pa...Oh, and Ricky - What you say about me is not of particular importance. My point is closer to one Mushroom should be familiar with (he quoted Heinlein on his blog): "Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Remember this - it <I>may</I> offer a way to make him your friend."Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-85134625463088485602008-06-18T06:25:00.000-07:002008-06-18T06:25:00.000-07:00Van - speaking of safe barns, I'm trying to point ...Van - speaking of safe barns, I'm trying to point out that maybe <I>you</I> have misinterpreted what some other people have said, too. So long as we're being passionate, "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."<BR/><BR/>Specifically, can you point out someone who thinks "THERE'S NOTHING BUT" evolution, along with some statements of theirs that led you to this conclusion?<BR/><BR/>(For example, if you've read EoE by Wilson, do you think he's in that mold? And can you cite a passage in that book that you disagree with?)Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-45155375040011214292008-06-18T06:16:00.001-07:002008-06-18T06:16:00.001-07:00Hoarhey - as an example of "irreducible complexity...Hoarhey - as an example of "irreducible complexity" that hasn't held up to scrutiny, we could take the <A HREF="http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/05/behe-vs-lamprey.html" REL="nofollow">clotting cascade</A>.<BR/><BR/>As to "what created the pattern imposed on change" - well, as I said to Maineman, the patterns we see often turn out to be elaborations of simpler patterns. At normal Earth pressures, water freezes at 273.15 kelvin. That's a remarkable fact, but it turns out to derive from more fundamental principles - the charges and masses of electrons and protons, the speed of light, and so forth. Given what water is, it couldn't freeze at any <I>other</I> temperature.<BR/><BR/>As to why the constants we've identified have the values they do... we dunno yet. But even those constants are not <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Planck_units_and_the_invariant_scaling_of_nature" REL="nofollow">totally unrelated</A>, and we haven't necessarily found all the relationships yet.<BR/><BR/>The other issue is that, given the constants that we've found - whatever may have 'fixed' them (assuming they <I>could</I> be different) - other things necessarily follow. Things that reproduce with occasional errors <I>will</I> undergo evolution, inevitably. Biology is one (spectacular) example, but as I've noted, it can be easily demonstrated in <A HREF="http://ingles.homeunix.net/software/minev/intro.html" REL="nofollow">other areas, too</A>.<BR/><BR/>And, finally, another note about patterns, from Bertrand Russell: "[W]here you can get down to any knowledge of what atoms actually do, you will find they are much less subject to law than people thought, and that the laws at which you arrive are statistical averages of just the sort that would emerge from chance. There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design; on the contrary, if the double sixes came every time we should think that there was design. The laws of nature are of that sort as regards a great many of them. They are statistical averages such as would emerge from the laws of chance; and that makes this whole business of natural law much less impressive than it formerly was."Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-6370459797595511002008-06-18T06:16:00.000-07:002008-06-18T06:16:00.000-07:00Ray! I've Read IT! I've read Darwin, I've got a we...Ray! I've Read IT! I've read Darwin, I've got a well thumbed second edition of his, I see the sense that is in it, and I see the sense that is denied by those who pretend to understand it.<BR/><BR/>It isn't the science that I don't buy, it is the positions of the philistines that are beyond belief.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-66058235255350520502008-06-18T06:11:00.000-07:002008-06-18T06:11:00.000-07:00'Ray Ingles - Keeping the sides of barns safe and ...'Ray Ingles - Keeping the sides of barns safe and un-punctured!'<BR/><BR/>Ray WILL YOU GET THE FRICKIN' CLUE!!! NOT DENYING EVOLUTION!!! DENOUNCING THE FOOLS WHO NOT ONLY THINK BUT INSIST THERE'S NOTHING BUT!!!<BR/><BR/>Unbelievable.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com