UPDATE:

Here's the link to the latest draft of an article I'm prepping to refute Perry S. Marshall's ludicrous arguments on information theory.

Although not complete, I offer it here for checking and your comments: particularly to make sure that my own ignorance of something important doesn't drop me in hot water. Further articles for the site are welcome - each author has their own page.

http://www.cosmicfingerpuppets.com/drafts/writers/Marc_Draco/Inform...

Please read it before commenting. This is the first in a series and peer review is important to make sure we get them all right.

Tags: Cosmic, Fingerprints, Marshall, Perry, communication, fallacy, logical, theory

Views: 85

Replies to This Discussion

The mutations to the chimera were random. So now, I need mutations to a natural occuring lifeform for it to count. Nice moving of the goal posts.

In case anyone is tempted to consider 5% an insignificant divergence between the proteins of the two strains used to create the 'chimera', I seem to recall that the difference between the human and chimpanzee genome is around 2%.


Irrelavent. Individual proteins differ by much more than 5% between human and chimp. You can't compare a single protein with an entire genome and expect the same meaning. There is no difference or in some cases one amino acid difference between human and sea urchin in a certain gene involved in DNA binding, does that say something too? How about a particular gene that barely aligns between two species of Caenorhabditis genus because they have diverged.

And if I don't pick a designed analogy, I'm left with evolved analogies. And since I'm talking about evolved systems, that isn't really an analogy is it?

You still haven't proven to me that cars ALWAYS need fuel to run by the way. I think some sort of mental field powers mine when I run out of gas. Prove me wrong.
The whole point of having faith in material reductionism is believing that all naturally occurring life forms are the end result of cumulative random (un-intelligent) mutation and only random mutation. Those are your goal posts, planted on your playing field. Now win with them.

Creating an artificially constructed chimera = moving the goal posts.

There are NO gaps in our comprehension of exactly how the internal combustion engine requires and utilizes fuel. There are no veridical examples of internal combustion engines operating without fuel ... not even anecdotal. You will need to provide credible evidence that your car has ever operated on an empty fuel tank.

While you're at it, prove that cumulative beneficial mutations occur at random.

And don't forget to demonstrate that RNA and DNA are each the product of accumulated random self-replicating mutations.

That would be extremely interesting. I would be suitably impressed.
Who has faith in anything? Who mentioned material reductionism? Go back to your bridge, troll.

Note that I NEVER said that only random mutation causes new lifeforms. As a matter of a fact, I said the opposite.

Of course it isn't always random. Humans cause mutations for things we find beneficial, like protein production in rice and what not.

Nice strawman attempt though.

. You will need to provide credible evidence that your car has ever operated on an empty fuel tank.

Brilliant! Now you provide me evidence for intelligent design that isn't the humans doing the designing.
Oh.... my mistake. I was so sure that you believed in material reductionism.

Apparently We each believe that conscious intervention causes new life forms.

It also appears that neither one of us believes in a deity.
Apparently We each believe that conscious intervention causes new life forms.

It also appears that neither one of us believes in a deity.


I in no way believe the first statement.

Oh, and one of these statements has to go.
I have a blog post specifically dealing with my views on material reductionism and other philosophical points if you are really interested.
Waiting on any evidence for intelligent design by the way.
It amazes me that you'll just to the defense of the IDiots even when they make horrid arguments. But, that's what I'd expect from a theist.
There's that false, black and white "choice" between theism and atheism again. (Yawn.....).
Maybe I misunderstood you. Did you say that all minds in all times form a type of supermind that was involved in the creation of the universe? If I'm wrong I apologize.

And the choice between atheism and theism is black and white. You either believe there is a god, or you don't. You can't not know what you believe unless you just don't have the ability of introspection.
The theory I find most convincing thus far is that of an aggregate consciousness which favors the development of life in myriad forms.

As each species develops it appears to retain and augment its own increasing intelligence over time, while continuing to differentiate, and all of nature is extremely competitive and unforgiving.

There is no benevolent deity or common "creator" interceding on behalf of anyone or anything. Each life form develops in its own way, and in its own interest.

The aggregate consciousness is the same as a crowd. It is not an entity. Each individual adds to the consciousness of the crowd, but retains its own purpose and agenda.

It is particularly fascinating to me the way life relentlessly burgeons again following near complete extinctions. And as far as I know, we have not yet discovered the nature and mechanism of the "switch" which turned random (or perhaps non-random) combinations of lifeless substances into the first self-replicating life forms... or why they differentiated into almost countless life forms which also relentlessly reproduce and seek to preserve their own lives.
The theory I find most convincing thus far is that of an aggregate consciousness which favors the development of life in myriad forms.


Then you are a theist. Additionally, what possible evidence could you have for this? Oh, that would be none except for the ramblings of Sheldrake, ramblings thoroughly debunked.

As each species develops it appears to retain and augment its own increasing intelligence over time, while continuing to differentiate, and all of nature is extremely competitive and unforgiving.


Species retain and augment intelligence? Proof? How do slugs augment intelligence? How about ameoba? Bacteria? Viruses?
It seems you are making the confusion between culture and learned behaviors and something biological like learning capacity.

... or why they differentiated into almost countless life forms which also relentlessly reproduce and seek to preserve their own lives.

That's gets you a "duh". The species that didn't do this didn't survive.

You can claim you aren't a theist, but a "god" doesn't have to be benevolent or anything that intercedes on anything's behalf. You did say earlier:

Apparently We each believe that conscious intervention causes new life forms.

Now you say:

There is no benevolent deity or common "creator" interceding on behalf of anyone or anything. Each life form develops in its own way, and in its own interest.

Time to pick one.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service