CC said,What put that stuff into your head?
I find it amusing that there are people who dismiss science as a valid inquiry into the cause of existence, yet have the hubris to claim knowledge of an “unknowable creator god”.
And all that without a shred of evidence…remarkable.
W4U: Thanks CC. I plan to add all that to my reference library.If that's the case you might want go to: https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2019/12/pageant-of-earth-evolution-in-24hr-part.html
I have the same list there, except all the key words are linked to the said article or video. Much better version to copy and share 
Seeing how Adonai avoided my comments and the information I shared got me to thinking about motives and then I got to thinking about that fuzzy thing in the brick wall optical illusion.
I’m a smart guy, and there was a something hiding as a fuzzy thing, I oughta be able to figure it out. I looked at it every which way. I was given a descent hint, tried looking at it though supposedly fresh eyes, still nothing. I was convinced it still looked like a fuzzy thing.
It wasn’t til a proverbial smack upside the head, smashed my tunnel vision, when I backed off and took in the big picture I’d been avoiding. The I saw something else altogether.
Philosophically . . .
I can now see the self-certain one-road to salvation Christian, they are certain that fuzzball God is the center of everything. It’s so easy to make good arguments for it, any which way you closely examine it, it remains a fuzzball. Which is good because they’ve build their identity around the reality of that fuzzball. And that’s how it is, even if there’s a whole lot more in that world. But if there’s no interest in questioning oneself, that’s that, it is settled.
Now me I belong to that other half of humanity - I had reason to think there could be more to that fuzz ball. Even after repeated failures, I tended to blame myself, my own deficits, because I know I have blind spots and occasional tunnel vision, I don’t always trust myself, so I’m curious. When I ask questions or offer challenges - I stand ready for responses, then ready to face them wrestles with them in good faith, take my licks if need be. Good stuff has always come out the other end, even if the process hurts some.
Why?
Because genuine constructive learning is the goal, because this reality I was born into is way bigger than my ego and outlook.
I want to understand IT, My Ego is big enough to be okay with mistakes and learning.
I can listen and engage -
Adonai can’t do any better than advertise - then run and hide from the challenging considerations.
He and his type love telling others all sorts of unsupportable nonsense - and in return they make a point of never absorbing, digesting, or learning from what others share in good faith .
==================
There’s more to unpack here, unfortunately precious little time to write.
Back in the world of family and friends, It’s been a great evening, an I’m about to drop, we hosted a little neighborhood (three households along our road) Winter Solstice Celebration - my wife and I got to spend day cleaning the cabin and fixing a nice little spread, then cleaning up. Very cool though, since they tend host a fair amount of respective dinners, including haircut parties and such. Even occasional Russian New Years. So we try at least a couple a year. Guess I’m digressing, well… I have no time for a fresh post, so there.
Cheers all
Thanks CC
Looks impressive and I’ll check it out .
Happy Holidays to you and yours.
A couple of issues with the original post.
First, evolution doesn’t say anything about the formation of the first cells. That’s abiogenesis, a completely different field of study. We know far less about abiogenesis than we do evolution, which is why anti-evolutionists like to lump it in with evolution. It makes the “god of the gaps” arguments easier when the gaps are bigger.
Second, scientific theories, unlike religious beliefs, are not about what we want to be true. Abiogenesis and evolution do not promise us eternal life or to punish our enemies with eternal damnation. Scientific theories are not formed haphazardly with an end goal in mind. Scientists look at the data, do some experiments, come up with an explanation which matches, test that explanation, present that explanation for peer review and then re-test each other’s work. The answers they come up with are not necessarily complete, nor do scientists claim that they are necessarily right, just that they’re the best explanation for the evidence we have. Abiogenesis is the best explanation we have for the origins of life that did NOT start with the answer and work backward, which is a sure fire way of getting both the answer you want and the wrong answer. And people keep coming along with a Bible as their research material claiming to know more than the scientists who study this for a living. The science may not be right, but if you disagree with it you are definitely wrong. You don’t even know what you don’t know about the origins of life, much less enough to come up with a definitive answer when even science has not come up with a “definitive” answer.
Come back when you have a PhD in biology and organic chemistry and I’ll listen to what you have to say. I won’t believe any of it because it’s your fellow scientists you need to convince, not me, but I’ll listen.
Widdershins said,First, evolution doesn’t say anything about the formation of the first cells. That’s abiogenesis, a completely different field of study. We know far less about abiogenesis than we do evolution, which is why anti-evolutionists like to lump it in with evolution. It makes the “god of the gaps” arguments easier when the gaps are bigger.
Come back when you have a PhD in biology and organic chemistry and I’ll listen to what you have to say. I won’t believe any of it because it’s your fellow scientists you need to convince, not me, but I’ll listen.IMO, as with the "exponential function" many people do not fully understand the astronoical numbers of chemical reactions are generated by universal scale mineral surfaces, enormous (billions of years) time-spans, and environmental conditions, starting with ultraviolet radiation in cosmic clouds yielding the first biochemical compounds.
Robert Hazen does have the required qualifications for you to listen to what he has to say. He estimates that earth alone has performed 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical interactions during its relatively short evolutionary life span and small surface area. Now multiply that by galactic spaces and time frames. The numbers are incalculable even by our most sophisticated computers.
I have posted his lecture at Carnegie Institute for Science elsewhere, during which he demonstrated the first self-organizing cellular structures and self-duplicating polymers but here is a recent lecture.
p.s. Mitosis (celldivision) is performed by “microtubules” which is a self-organizing biological processor consisting of only two tubulins, forming a dynamic (adjustable) nano-scale spiral tube by the trillions in all Eukaryotic living organisms. it is a “common denominator” in all living things.
Tubulin in molecular biology can refer either to the tubulin protein superfamily of globular proteins, or one of the member proteins of that superfamily.α- and β-tubulins polymerize into microtubules, a major component of the eukaryotic cytoskeleton.[1]
Microtubules function in many essential cellular processes, including mitosis. Tubulin-binding drugs kill cancerous cells by inhibiting microtubule dynamics, which are required for DNA segregation and therefore cell division.
Thank you W4U, The intimate link between biology and geology gives me a more expansive few of evolution - I can’t make sense of any dividing line proposed, because there were always prerequisite building blocks at every stage of biology. Fractals all fractals. Heck you can’t understand detailed biology without taking into account the quantum soup and electromagnetic behavior of atoms, and that takes Evolution right back to the big bang. Doesn’t it?
sorry wanted to ramble but need to cut it short.
CC-v.3 said,Heck you can’t understand detailed biology without taking into account the quantum soup and electromagnetic behavior of atoms, and that takes Evolution right back to the big bang. Doesn’t it?
Matter is the "stuff" that makes up the universe — everything that takes up space and has mass is matter.All matter is made up of atoms, which are in turn made up of protons, neutrons and electrons.
Atoms come together to form molecules, which are the building blocks for all types of matter, according to Washington State University.Both atoms and molecules are held together by a form of potential energy called chemical energy. Unlike kinetic energy, which is the energy of an object in motion, potential energy is the energy stored in an object.
There are four natural states of matter: Solids, liquids, gases and plasma.The fifth state is the man-made Bose-Einstein condensate, but which does seem to occur naturally in parts of the universe.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20131218-absolute-zero-to-absolute-hot
In physics, a quantum (plural quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity (physical property) involved in an interaction. The fundamental notion that a physical property can be "quantized" is referred to as "the hypothesis of quantization".[1] This means that the magnitude of the physical property can take on only discrete values consisting of integer multiples of one quantum.For example, a photon is a single quantum of light (or of any other form of electromagnetic radiation). Similarly, the energy of an electron bound within an atom is quantized and can exist only in certain discrete values. (Indeed, atoms and matter in general are stable because electrons can exist only at discrete energy levels within an atom.) Quantization is one of the foundations of the much broader physics of quantum mechanics. Quantization of energy and its influence on how energy and matter interact (quantum electrodynamics) is part of the fundamental framework for understanding and describing nature.
IMHO, “quanta” are mathematical objects, possessing mathematical values and interacting via mathematical functions.
Ultimately the universe is a collection of pure mathematical values interacting via mathematical functions which can be represented with man-made symbolic languages (human mathematics).
I believe that Tegmark addresses this in his theory of a Mathematical Universe. To me this is a very persuasive argument, as to my knowledge, there is no other comprehensive functional model in existence…
Wow. This is obviously “your thing”. Very cool, if a little beyond me.
And when I say I’ll listen when you have a PhD, my default “belief” on any subject scientific is whatever consensus currently says, but with the understanding that may change. Michael Behe has a PhD in biochemistry, but he’s still an idiot because consensus says he is. Well, and because he wants to change the definition of “science” to include intelligent design, also sweeping in ether propagation of light and astrology as being “scientific” in the process.
Wow, what a beautiful chart. First time I’ve seen it.
BBC Future takes the temperature of our planet – and the Universe – to find the hottest and coldest things ever measured.It's an amazing representation, no "understanding" it - simply stand back and behold. This is what we were made out of.
Thank you W4U, great Christmas present
I think next time I use the word “God” I just might link it to that image. Sounds like fun, imagining folks hitting the link and then having to reconcile that universal perspective with whatever God thing was going on in their minds. My kind of fun.
Widdershins said,Michael Behe has a PhD in biochemistry, but he’s still an idiot because consensus says he is.
Behe argued that the flagellum is one of these irreducible complex objects because this little motor could not be broken down into simpler useful components. This was argued in a court of law during the Kitzmiller trials which was the second court case proving that flagella are indeed reducible into simpler but function components.
This is where I became interested in “microtubules” the little motors which are not only reducible in complexity, but are responsible for a host of other functional processes on which life depends.
Microtubules are found in the entire cytoplasm of a cell which forms a segment of the cytoskeleton. They undergo both accumulations and dissipates within a cell to form more complex structures. They play a fundamental role in the cellular process, in maintaining the structure of a cell and in their movements. Apart from these functions, they are also involved in the division of chromosomes during the process of mitosis and in locomotion.Microtubules are arranged in the form of microtubule organizing centers. They are structures that are found in eukaryotes. During the interphase, most of the animal cell consists of microtubule organizing centers. Several proteins are bound to microtubules namely dynein and kinesin.
Looks like a processor doesn’t it?
IMO, it is single common denominator in living things capable of processing and memorizing all sorts of electro-chemical information and may well be the network responsiblw for consciousness, according to Hameroff, who is an anesthesiologist and practically deals with controlling consciousness everyday.
CC-v.3 said,It’s an amazing representation, no “understanding” it – simply stand back and behold. This is what we were made out of.
Observe the temperature range which the simple “water-bear” (Tardigrade) can withstand. This incredible creature can survive almost all environments including significant time in space. It is truly the toughest creature on earth. I worship the water-bear.
This creature could live on Venus if it could find food, no problem!
And his face looks like T rump’s butt!
Michael Behe’s Intelligent Design is founded on the belief that there are “irreducible complexities” which would suggest an Intelligent Designer/Creator, which would be a persuasive argument if it was true.I have a bit of a problem with that statement. To explain why let's look specifically at irreducible complexity and intelligent design and the claims they make. Now, bear with me until the end of this, where you will see that I am not saying what it sounds like I am saying.
Irreducible complexity makes a single claim, that some features found in organisms cannot be the product of evolution because there are no steps between nothing and the fully formed component. You either have that component fully formed or you have something completely useless. If this were true it would be a compelling argument against evolution. Taken by itself irreducible complexity does not point to an alternate method by which the component could come to be, it only suggests that the currently accepted method cannot explain it.
To get to the explanation we go to intelligent design with irreducible complexity as a supporting theory. The single claim intelligent design makes is that life was designed by some intelligence. Although they never actually say it because it would expose the creationist roots of intelligent design very plainly, this intelligence would then have to create the things which it designed. There are many glaring problems with this claim.
First, it is invoking a supernatural explanation, which is forbidden in scientific method. You can offer only natural explanations and creationism is a supernatural explanation.
Second, what evidence is there for this designer/creator? Why decide that it must have been an intelligence? How are you ruling out all unknown possibilities to come to the conclusion that there must have been a designer/creator? What evidence is there for this designer/creator? Because we’ve already established the irreducible complexity is evidence against evolution, not evidence for anything. There is no evidence which would force us to jump to this conclusion. In science it would remain an “unknown” until we had direct observation and facts which pointed to a designer/creator and none has been offered. All that has been offered was, “Evolution is wrong, so this, being all that is left, must be right”. Science doesn’t work this way. You don’t “infer” what is by proving what is not.
Third, it is untestable. There is no test you can perform to give evidence to support the existence of a supernatural designer/creator.
Fourth, it makes no predictions. Based on this, what predictions can you make? That you would find other examples of irreducible complexity in nature? That’s not really a prediction, more of a statement of the obvious. It does, after all, have to be repeatable to be science. If you only ever found one example of irreducible complexity then it would be a fluke. I can think of no real predictions you can make with this.
Fifth, it’s useless. So there’s a designer/creator out there. And? I can’t do anything with that. It won’t help me to live longer or grow better crops. It won’t help me to unravel the mysteries of the universe or figure out why light always travels at the same speed. The conclusion is utterly scientifically useless. There is absolutely nowhere to go from there (which is exactly why a supernatural explanation is forbidden).
ID wouldn’t even make it past premise, much less to hypothesis or theory.
Now, given what you’ve posted even recently it is plainly obvious that you already knew all of that. I am not trying to educate you, just explain the source of my objection to that statement. I can’t see the “persuasive argument” in any of that. Irreducible complexity is an argument against evolution. If true, of course that argument would be persuasive because there would be some evidence to back it up. So that seems like it didn’t need stating. But when it comes to intelligent design, even if it were absolutely true there is no persuasive argument to be had until you can bring me a designer/creator (by the way, I love that you used that too. They use the word “designer” to hide the fact that they are talking about a “creator” and I always love to see when someone is seeing through that). Or at least some evidence to suggest there is one other than what you “infer” because you are unable to think of any other process by which something could come to be. “I don’t know” is a legitimate answer in science, and always more legitimate than, “I can’t think of anything else, so this must be the answer.”
If I misread what you are saying please feel free to correct me. There is every possibility in that. But I don’t see any persuasive arguments in ID at all. As far as I see it’s nothing more than the standard “right by default” mindset held by pretty much all followers of any woo where if they can just prove that all other explanations don’t hold up then theirs, being the only one left, is the “right” answer. You see that in every form of woo. Pushers of alternative medicine try to discredit the pharmaceutical industry. Pushers of alien visitation try to show what a UFO could not be. Pushers of a particular religion try to show that all other religions are wrong. Pushers of crop circles try to show lack of evidence of human involvement. And intelligent design tries to show that evolution is wrong. They think that if they can just eliminate the competition then, being the only one left claiming to have answers will mean that their answer is “right”. That’s not how science and reality work, it’s how woo and bullshit work.
I have no quarrel with any portion of that post. Seems we are in synch with the entire argument against irreducible complexity which could only be produced by a motivated intelligent designer. And of course that argues against evolution as the creative causality of complex systems and patterns.
I do support the concept of mathematical self-organization, but of course that is an evolutionary process, which is also subject to natural selection.
I’d like your take on the concept of a universe which is mathematical in “essence”. I cannot see any other possible method that can express itself in a regular and constant way, except by means of inherent mathematical relative values and their associated mathematical interactive functions. When we speak of universal constants, are we not positing that these constants (predictable values) are mathematical in essence?
IMO, the proof of this lies in the fact that human symbolic representations of physical values and functions can make exquisitely accurate predictions of functional universal physical patterns.
This is proposed by Tegmark, but seldom do I hear that the mathematical concept is echoed by the concept of a fractal universe.
As we know fractals are mathematical objects and Renate Loll et al have proposed a beautiful hypothesis named;
Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT).
Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and popularized by Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent.This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.
IMO, this suggests that the evolution of the universe itself progresses via mathematical values and functions. But perhaps that belongs in a new thread.
TimB said,And his face looks like T rump’s butt!
And his face looks like T rump’s butt!No Tim, I can't ask.
I’d like your take on the concept of a universe which is mathematical in “essence”. I cannot see any other possible method that can express itself in a regular and constant way, except by means of inherent mathematical relative values and their associated mathematical interactive functions. When we speak of universal constants, are we not positing that these constants (predictable values) are mathematical in essence?That is a fascinating subject I just recently thought about because of a conversation in another thread. It was about one of the arguments for the necessity of a designer. Thinking about that I came up with a notion that I think you will particularly like. Yes, the universe absolutely follows mathematical rules. And this is often used as an argument that there must have been some intelligence which put that in place. How can the universe follow rules, after all, if there was no intelligence to force it to follow those rules? But you have to take into account that the rules came after the universe. So it's not that the universe is following these mathematical rules, it's that the creation of these rules is a consequence of the way the universe works. Mathematics exists as it does because the universe works the way it does, not the other way around.
CC, you can ask how I know. I am a psychic but my only power is being able to imagine what people’s butts look like.
