-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
One common tactic in the creationist’s war against evolution is to falsify evolution by demonstrating a counterexample. If such a counterexample existed, it would indeed spell the demise of evolution. The Precambrian Rabbit would be such a counterexample. After failing to find even one counterexample, some creationists have given up trying to falsify evolution and now seek to disabuse evolution by claiming it is not falsifiable. Other creationists, unable to falsify evolution, get all metaphysical and point out that the principle of falsifiability is not falsifiable.A recent paper in the journal Nature, Insights into hominid evolution from the gorilla genome sequence, after sequencing the western lowland gorilla genome, it was found that “in 30% of the genome, gorilla is closer to human or chimpanzee than the latter are to each other.”
Creationists pounced, noting that depending on which DNA fragment is used for analysis, humans are more closely related to gorillas than to chimpanzees. Although this was termed “Bad News” for evolution, it would have been worse news for probability theory. While the genomes of humans and chimpanzees show a mean genetic difference of 1.37%, and a 1.75% difference between humans and gorillas, the key word is “mean.” These probabilities do not imply that there is a uniform genetic difference across all genes. Of the tens of thousands of genes, some are more similar and some are less similar. On average, humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than to gorillas.
On the genetic path from our Most Common Recent Ancestor (MCRA) to humans and gorillas, different genes mutated at different times. Although cladograms, like the one below for Humans, Chimpanzees, Gorillas, and Orangutans, show a single branch to each species, this does not imply that all the genetics differences occurred simultaneously. One would have to be a creationist to believe that all the mutations occurred simultaneously.
One would also expect to find that certain DNA fragments would more similar between humans and orangutans. This is exactly what was found in this report, based on a complete orangutan genome, published in Genome Research, in which the authors said that “in about 0.5% of our genome, we are closer related to orangutans than we are to chimpanzees.”
Even the well-funded BioLogos, a group dedicated to trying to accommodate Christianity and science, sees the errancy of these arguments:
This is exactly what one expects from the species tree: humans and chimps are much more likely to have gene trees in common, since they more recently shared a common ancestral population (around 4-5 million years ago). Humans and orangutans, on the other hand, haven’t shared a common ancestral population in about 10 million years or more, meaning that it is much less likely for any given human allele to more closely match an orangutan allele.
Creationists are engaged in a desperate, but lucrative, attempt to pull a Precambrian Rabbit out of their hat. This attempt is particularly pathetic.
H/T: Pharyngula, John Wakeley (pdf), Pharyngula.
Bron,
No one ever said the Rule of Identity wasn’t real. Only that your Godess misused it. It is, after all, a tool. It is ethically neutral in itself, but perfectly capable of abuse as is any tool.
Your grandpa’s dictionary? Well that sure explains a lot. Now that you’ve made up new meanings for all words, why don’t you just take a swing at making your own grammar while you’re at it. I don’t have grandpa’s dictionary, but let’s see what Webster’s and the OED has to say about what is science and religion.
science \ˈsī-ən(t)s\, n.,
1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws (Webster’s)
science /ˈsīəns/, n.,
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: the world of science and technology
a particular area of this: veterinary science the agricultural sciences
a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject: the science of criminology
archaic knowledge of any kind. (OED)
religion \ri-ˈli-jən\, n.,
1a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (Webster’s)
religion /riˈlijən/, n.,
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion
a particular system of faith and worship: the world’s great religions
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance: consumerism is the new religion (OED)
By definition, religion and science and their practice both require the use of formalized systems, ability to apply and understand abstract thought and reason, (specifically in the case of science) the ability to systematically observe the world and conduct experiments, and (specifically in the case of religion) the ability to hold beliefs. Bacteria do not build systems of knowledge or know anything – they are not intelligent, they don’t think in abstractions, they lack the ability to learn or understand (and no, instinctual response is not understanding) or to deal with new or trying situations, they lack both memory reason and the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria nor do they have emotions or beliefs.
Bacteria are instinctual.
Algae utilizing a feature of quantum mechanics in their photosynthetic processes doesn’t mean that algae understands quantum chromodynamics or practice science. They didn’t formulate the Uncertainty Principle nor do they possess the abstract thought required to understand it.
Yeah, you’re ignoring alright. That much is evident, Dredd. And ignoring is the root of all ignorance.
The fact that you think computers as they exist today are intelligent in any way betrays your ignorance. An expert system is not intelligent. It’s the imitation of intelligence. Watson is no more actually intelligent than a rock is alive. Your “work on computers” has prepared you to be delusional about the nature of biology and intelligence. Computers don’t practice science either. Computer as they exist today are still nothing more than really fancy calculators. A non-living machine. Or as Dr. Chorost puts it:
“It doesn’t matter how impressive they look on the outside. It doesn’t matter if they can beat a world chess champion or Jeopardy player. Once you open them up and look at the code, you can see that they are just machines following preset rules.
The clearest evidence of this is that Watson, for all its Jeopardy prowess, couldn’t play Wheel of Fortune. Even more to the point, it couldn’t want to play Wheel of Fortune.”
Machines aren’t alive. Machines aren’t intelligent. Machine intelligence might happen some day, but not today. You might wish computers were so you could have an android girlfriend, but they aren’t. Your wishful thinking shows that you are far more comfortable with machines than living things. You should see a professional about that. In the mean time, you keep on abusing the language and making up definitions to suit your fantasy. However, your fantasy and, as I said, you have grown tedious.
Your case is non-existent; built on conflations and blatant misunderstandings and designed to give you some sense of orderly comfort in a naturally disorderly world.
Delusional is delusional.
Enjoy your delusion.
A comment I made on a blog dealing with ideological evolutionary battles:
(A response to Jerry Coyne).
“There is only one Rule of Identity, no matter how much you want to try to make up your own definitions again. If you are too cynical to accept that A=A or simply too stupid or delusional is your failing, no one else’s.”
And everyone gives me shit for that, and I dont think I ever used it in a sentence.
But I will drink to the law of identity.
” The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature.”
“A thing is—what it is; its characteristics constitute its identity. An existent apart from its characteristics, would be an existent apart from its identity, which means: a nothing, a non-existent.”
Gene H. 1, April 9, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Rune 1:
I am not preaching, nor ignoring. I am like all the scientists I quote, anti-Darwinian where he was dead wrong.
Saying and doing that is accepted in evolutionary science now. Your grandpa’s dictionary just does not cut it anymore in that regard.
Rune 2:
“if you think microbes are intelligent life”. I have not used “microbes are intellignet life” nor any argument in that regard.
But there are many living things that are not intelligent, in some definitions of that word. Words that are not in your grandpa’s dictionary.
For example:
I would say, based on my past use of computers, that some microbes are intelligent in that sense.
But do not get all rogue and mavericky on me, of course I do not think they are as intelligent as you or your mother (who would not have been able to give you birth if it were not for microbes, as I explained up-thread).
Rune 3 & 4:
Send me a copy of your grandpa’s dictionary, and that will solve that problem. hehe
Rune 5:
“Natural is natural”, “processes described is processes described”, “science is science”, ok grandpa’s old dictionary is sure cool. Processes that are scientific are science … like in computer above? (see Rune 2)
Why don’t you just pencil that into your grandpa’s dictionary, unless of course it is a sacred document.
Rune 6:
That must be a metaphor, unless you are giving your briefs weird names again.
Rune 7:
Computers practice science because they are intelligent terminals (See Rune 2).
Microbes do a hell of a lot more than that, including but not limited to, helping your momma’s placenta to form what would later be you (see Rune 2).
Rune 8:
I really like that last control sentence (“every confidence”). You da confidence man.
But your argument preceding it is phony. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying you are not in control, just sayin you are not in control of what you should be.
Rune 9:
Ok, I will talk about tu quoque: “tu quoque is tu quoque”, “machines are machines”, “metaphor is metaphor”. “computer intelligence is computer intelligence”, “intelligent computer terminals are intelligent computer terminals”, “computers are computers”, “intelligent computers are intelligent computers”.
Are computers machines? Pencil the answer into grandpa’s dictionary … unless of course it is sacred to you (use a pencil in case you get scared later and need erasure).
Rune 10:
“Likes is likes”, “not likes is not likes”, “dipshit is dipshit”. This control stuff is fun, I can see why you keep grandpa’s dictionary around too.
But I can’t agree with your keeping it around … gene H needs to mutate, not stagnate.
Rune 11:
“identity is identity”, “rule is rule”, “A is A”, “not A is not A”. I get it … some things never change … if you don’t let them.
Grandpa said don’t let your gene H mutate, and so you don’t. The “only one rule of identity” clade.
Rune 12:
“A species of machine is a species of machine”, “a type of machine is a type of machine”. A computer is a machine, an intelligent terminal is a computer.
“STOP them!” says grandpa’s dictionary.
Rune 13:
Two of my quotes of scientists up-thread:
Your grandpa’s dictionary says that these scientists, and anyone who quotes them, must be delusional. Your grandpa’s dictionary is controlling of course.
Rune 14:
I wish it was my “carefully constructed fantasy”, but alas the Phd scientist dudes did it. I fraud you not.
Runing on empty:
A gene H mutated against his grandpa’s dictionary’s will is a gene H still.
Cool, but not all genes are so inactive.
Also and again, just because you read and quote something daily, Otto, it doesn’t mean you understand it. I suggest staying away from biology. It’s not your strong suit.
Rune 1:
You’re ignoring that what your preaching is thinly veiled anti-evolutionary anti-Darwin clap trap.
Rune 2:
No. You’ re indeed the one who is full of shit if you think microbes are intelligent life. You have no evidence to back this assertion and, no, making up your own definition of intelligence won’t work either.
Rune 3 & 4:
Making up your own definitions based on science you don’t understand properly is still making up your own definitions.
Rune 5:
You’re the one who keeps bringing up insecurity when you don’t have an valid argument. Your insecurity “does not mean [you are] insecure in the face of [my] definitive assertion that intelligence is the beginning of scientific practices. That is nothing more than insecurity posing as intellect, fearful of new understanding, making unfounded dogmatic assertions.” I am glad you feel secure in your delusions about the nature of science, Dredd. It just proves how complete your break with reality is that you cannot recognize that science is a human activity. Natural processes described by science are not science. They are the objects of study. And who studies these natural processes? Intelligent beings.
Rune 6:
You wouldn’t know polemics from science if it bit you on the ass.
Rune 7:
Evade all you like. By claiming microbial life practices science you have indeed claimed microbial intelligence. Just because you’re too intellectually cowardly to come out say what you’re advocating is de facto Intelligent Design is your weakness.
Rune 8:
Again, you’re the one who keeps coming back to insecurity. I know for a fact you’re full of crap and haven’t made your case. I have no insecurity in stating you have not understood what you have read and conflated it into some kind of fantasy analogous to the “midi-chlorians” mythology of Star Wars where all of existence is determined by our microbial overlords. You are what is known in real proper scientific circles as utterly and completely full of shit. I say that with every confidence.
Rune 9:
Talk about tu quoque, Mr. Mechanistic Chemical Compounds Are Literally Machines. You don’t get to abuse a metaphor and then assert metaphor as a defense and get taken seriously. Especially when your metaphor implies microbial intelligence and you just spent a blathering paragraph about how you didn’t inject intelligence into the discussion.
Rune 10:
You’ve mistaken me for someone that can be actually insulted by the likes of you. So far the pinnacle of your skill has been to call me “dipshit” and compare to me to bdaman. Don Rickles you’re not.
Rune 11:
There is only one Rule of Identity, no matter how much you want to try to make up your own definitions again. If you are too cynical to accept that A=A or simply too stupid or delusional is your failing, no one else’s.
Rune 12:
Again, words have meaning and not just the meanings you make up for them. Machines are not a species. You use of the Pathetic fallacy and your composition fallacy stand unrefuted, your metaphysical whining notwithstanding. Just saying “they are too!” isn’t proof or even a cogent rebuttal. You are assigning attributes of living things to non-living things and you are mistaking that just because parts of the universe are sentient and intelligent that all of it is. Microbes don’t practice science or religion because they are not complex enough to understand let alone apply the concepts. Prions aren’t life nor are they machines. They are mechanistic chemical compounds. They don’t practice science or religion either. Hallucinate to the contrary all you like.
Rune 13:
I don’t care that you don’t recognize you’re delusional on this topic. Agnosia often runs hand in hand with delusional beliefs. Your assertions about science and religion are prime facie ridiculous and delusional.
Rune 14:
And alas the one with the true control issues is revealed by your comment. You fight this so hard because the reality of the situation would require you give up your carefully constructed fantasy.
Blah blah blah, Dredd. You are getting tedious.
You’ll never be able to prove to me that microbial life is intelligent because you have no evidence other that your propensity to abuse metaphor and make up definitions to rationalize some bizarre pseudo-religious/pseudo-scientific belief system about non-sentient life, or worse, non-life being able to practice science and/or religion when by definition both of those activities are the sole province of intelligent complex life with humans being the only known current practitioners of either.
Gene H. 1, April 9, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Rune 1:
Hilarious. Nal’s post (this thread) is of cladist ideology, using cladograms, and clade oriented arguments.
Further, you have ignored that reality by mixing other types of classification methodology as if they are one and the same. They are not.
Cladistics is not generally accepted (“Cladistics, either generally or in specific applications, has been criticized from its beginnings”).
I am advocating word definitions used by scientists in their own published papers. You are demanding the right to use your grandfather’s dictionary.
Rune 2:
Unless it is you who is completely full of shit, not having mentioned clade or cladogram even once in this thread. Your blather that your shit does not stink is self-authenticating rubbish.
Rune 3 & 4:
Letting me get away with “
making up your own definitions” quoting scientists whom you have maligned up-thread, really is a control issue, but your lack of control of decent discourse is what stands out.Rune 5:
Just because, in your eyes, your fangs are bigger than mine does not mean I am insecure in the face of your definitive assertion that intelligence is the beginning of scientific practices. That is nothing more than insecurity posing as intellect, fearful of new understanding, making unfounded dogmatic assertions.
Rune 6:
Yes, cosmology. Big Bang baby. I am the only one who has mentioned it originally in this thread / post. You have only mentioned it in your polemics. I know “science is science”, “machines are machines”, “spooky is spooky”, and “Gene H is always right”, no matter what competent scientists say.
Rune 7:
Wrong again. I never used the world intelligence, that is something you keep bring up in a matter that brings intelligence into question, because you do not point to where I made any such statement, except to point out that you were raising it late in the game when it had not been asserted before.
It is a continuation of dishonesty to mischaracterize my comments to assert that I said microbes have intelligence.
Some science is obviously not always intelligently done.
Such as when you feign scientific discussion, making extraordinary claims purporting to refute recognized scientists (e.g. Wilson) in their fields, whom I have quoted. Such extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, especially when non-scientists like yourself assert those claims against decent scientists.
You conflate real, new scientific meaning with metaphor.
Rune 8:
Juvenile insecurity of the “I am rubber and you are glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.”
Rune 9:
That is a metaphor. Conflating metaphor with reality is a delusion you need to work on. I am for intelligent design, unintelligent design causes accidents and bad arguments of the sort you keep on blathering about.
Rune 10:
The insult will go away when you no longer do things that insult competent scientists by your need to control.
Rune 11:
There are many rules of identity. Some new ones will be discovered and you will resist them with walls of dictionaries you purchase at second hand textbook stores.
Rune 12:
Species of machines are both a specie and a machine. Conflating words for the purpose of control is whining out of control. It is that gene H.
Rune 13:
“Harmless is harmless”, “delusion is delusion” … “yada is yada”. Your dictionary is really under control there as a result of the all powerful, all fangiful, gene H. It will be a scientific Encyclopedia before you know it.
Rune 14:
I have already taken control gene H, and you are mutating to another clade, which you will call a taxa when you awake.
I will never be able to prove you that intelligent life wrote your microbial bullying dictionary, but I am satisfied here in second place along with the competent research scientists I quote and read daily.
Rune 1:
You’re showing a marked propensity to make up your own definitions, so I’ll pass on your take of the subject. If Bron doesn’t get to make up his own definitions for his arguments without getting called on it, its only fair that you don’t either.
Rune 2:
In situations where someone is completely full of shit, I’m going to point it out. Control has nothing to do with it. Accuracy does. Control is an illusion.
Rune 3 & 4:
Again, control has nothing to do with not letting you get away with making up your own definitions. That you think it does says far more about you than anyone else.
Rune 5:
Insecurity? Project much? By all means, if you want to make the ridiculous assertion that microbe practice science, it’s no skin off my back. I’ll sit over here and laugh with the other rational people until you have evidence of actual intelligence (and not just information exchange).
Rune 6:
Cosmology, huh? Sure you were. Sure you were making up the meaning of words again that is. You were using what you considered spooky language the same way religionists use spooky language. Cosmology may be the study of everything in the broadest sense of the term, but it isn’t “universal science”. Science is a human activity and remains a human activity until complex intelligent alien life is discovered (whom may or may not have science).
Rune 7:
Ad hominem that totally ignores the fact you are mistaking information transfer for intelligence. As for the fangs? So far you aren’t proving any sort of real competition so my earlier statement stands. Your case for intelligence in microbial life is weak to non-existent. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So far you have little and/or insufficient proof. You clearly believe microbial life is intelligent. Your belief is not proof any more than a Christians belief in the Resurrection is proof of Jesus’ divinity. You are making the same literalism error religious fundamentalists do: mistaking metaphor for literal meaning.
Rune 8:
I don’t know where you keep getting the idea about insecurity unless it is looking in a mirror.
Rune 9:
Little people? My. Your delusion is showing again. Why don’t you just admit you are for Intelligent Design and cut through the pretense what you are talking about is belief instead of science?
Rune 10:
You can do better than that for an insult. Or maybe not.
Rune 11:
The Rule of Identity is simple. Something is what it is. A=A. A≠B simply because you believe it does.
Rune 12:
Again, words have meaning and not just the meanings you make up for them. Machines are not a species. You use of the Pathetic fallacy and your composition fallacy stand unrefuted, your metaphysical whining notwithstanding.
Rune 13:
Delusions are harmless when they have no damaging or dangerous impact on those who hold them or those around them. Your delusion that microbes exhibit intelligence and utilize science is, to quote Douglas Adams, “Mostly harmless.” Your irrational belief is as harmless to you and others as if you believed in the Flat Earth.
Rune 14:
You need either a stronger argument/better evidence and/or better insults. So far your fangs fail to impress. Try again. So far you haven’t proven that there is intelligent life at your house much less intelligent microbial life.
Anonymously Yours 1, April 9, 2012 at 11:24 am
Dredd,
All you needed to know about hyperbole and never needed to know was on npr this morning….. The Senator supporting the legislation in the state of Tennessee was about as receptive to another’s point of view as the pope is about homos in the priesthood….. Just talked about why the legislation was essential… I am learning that when one so vigorous about ones belief they usually only understand one side of an argument…..
Could alien life be present today…… Are we descendants of an alien life form?
=================================
You tell me.
You haven’t said enough in this thread yet.
Rune 3.5:
Now you have saved religion from oblivion too!
(corrects the conflating and/or missing blockquote between Rune 3 and 4)
Gene H. 1, April 6, 2012 at 8:30 pm
As I pointed out to AY supra, Nal started a thread that uses a cladogram. The discussion needs to keep that cladistics context where clarity is relevant.
Rune 1:
Words have wrong meaning and right meaning depending on the clade.
Rune 2:
In situations where someone throws a control fit, as you have in this thread, it is evidence of a need to control, which is evidence of an inner insecurity caused by extreme events where control vanished.
The better self-medication is to realize that the control envisionsed in any such context is an illusion.
Rune 3:
See how you took control there and saved science from oblivion?
“Religion is a creation of humans because humans said so?”
Religion is the creation of humans because it is as matter of fact. Religion is a collection of cultural systems and belief systems that socially and psychologically relate humanity to spirituality and often moral values. Most religions have narratives in the forms of sacred texts, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning and/or explain the origin of life.Now you have saved religion from oblivion too!
Rune 4:
And the icing on the cake … you saved faith from oblivion too. A threefer.
Rune 5:
You are slipping Gene, using the quotation marks stirs up that little insecurity inside. Don’t use quotes like that, it waters down the absolute uncontrovertable congreteness of elegant truthiness.
Rune 6:
I was referring to cosmology, a universal science. Update your dictionary.
Rune 7:
In your case, which is not a dynamic of communication, but rather a dynamic of proving your fangs are better, by being bigger than other fangs. (“smile at me I will understand, that is something everyone everywhere does in the same language”, Crosby Stills & Nash) I can understand why you
saysignal like that.Rune 8:
Don’t feel insecure. I do not want to dislodge you from your throne. Your fangs abiter than my fangs arbiter.
Rune 9:
Sentient? Is that have the biggest senter … the biggest nose to go along with the biggest fangs? Why make folks think you have these bully proclivities because of inner insecurities? Stop picking on the little people (microbes) who fixed your mother’s placenta so you could be born … that is unless you belong to the rabbit clade. (This post of Nal’s is about clades you know.)
Rune 10:
I will stipulate that you are an expert at interpreting your own signals, but do not know that that is not what reason is.
Rune 11:
The gene H dictionary is very simple. “[word] is [same word].
Rune 12:
Species is not of the cladistic clan man, clade, is? Perhaps we should get back to clade? (I think clade was the name of the Orangutan in “Every Which Way But Loose”.)
Rune 13:
Well, only if the reality they make up is unreal. BTW, delusion is not harmless.
Dredd,
All you needed to know about hyperbole and never needed to know was on npr this morning….. The Senator supporting the legislation in the state of Tennessee was about as receptive to another’s point of view as the pope is about homos in the priesthood….. Just talked about why the legislation was essential… I am learning that when one so vigorous about ones belief they usually only understand one side of an argument…..
Could alien life be present today…… Are we descendants of an alien life form?
Anonymously Yours 1, April 1, 2012 at 9:24 am
So the question remains…. Are we descendants of the chimp, monkey, orangutan or alien life form planted in this vast oasis of oblivion…….
We are what we are and we ain’t what we ain’t…… Signed…. Just looking…..John Prime….
=========================================
This thread was initiated from a cladist perspective, as indicated by the use of a cladogram to illustrate a point. Cladistics may or may not include alien life, depending on the cladist perpetuating this or that ideological clade.
“What is intelligent?
What is design?
None of these things can be defined.”
Words have meaning and resorting to the claim that “none of these things can be defined” is existential epistemological nonsense and the pinnacle of cowardly anti-intellectualism.
“The kind of PTSD that flows in gene H may be traceable to a catastrophic event.”
The kind of irrational gyration and inability to answer straight forward questions in Dredd is directly traceable to him being completely and utterly full of shit or pushing an agenda he doesn’t want to directly name for fear of rightful ridicule.
“The Earth is the center of the universe, because human science said so?”
No one has claimed this. Straw man and argument by non-sequitur.
“Science is a creation of humans because humans said so?”
Science is the creation of humans because it is as matter of fact. Science is a systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the nature of the universe by applying the scientific method to define the system this endeavor utilizes. The goal of science is to build a base of reliable knowledge which can be logically and rationally explained and, when not of a strictly theoretical value, put into practical applications.
“Religion is a creation of humans because humans said so?”
Religion is the creation of humans because it is as matter of fact. Religion is a collection of cultural systems and belief systems that socially and psychologically relate humanity to spirituality and often moral values. Most religions have narratives in the forms of sacred texts, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning and/or explain the origin of life.
“That is only faith in human science and human religion.”
No. That’s a function of history and definition, that humans a tool building creature and that two of the tool humans have built to help us explain and/or interrogate the nature of the universe are religion and science.
“Human science cannot do what microbes do, in terms of science, to this very day.”
Irrelevant and begging the question that microbes “do science”. Microbes don’t and can’t “do science” by definition.
“Universal science is finding out what is the proper interpretation of observations, i.e., what is the proper response.”
Unless you are referring to the metaphysical term used by Plato, the term “universal science” is made up flim flam. If you are using the term in the sense Plato did, you are talking philosophy, not science. The scientific method – the basis for modern science – transformed the interrogation of reality from a philosophical inquiry into an empirical inquiry. Metaphysics, by definition non-empirical, are not science.
“That requires signal / message interpretation, which microbes have done for billions of years prior to humans.”
You mistake information transfer for intelligence. The whole of the universe is one giant information transfer. It isn’t alive or intelligent in any holistic sense of the words. Parts of the universe are alive and intelligent. To think the whole thing is alive and intelligent based upon information transfer is a fine example of both the Pathetic fallacy (when an inanimate object is declared to have characteristics of animate objects) and the fallacy of composition.
“Human science makes mistakes in this regard, and so does microbial science, that does not define what science is, it only means that neither science is intelligent in the sense of not making mistakes.”
So now you are the arbiter of all science? Well that sure explains the malformed ego you’re sportin’ there. Also, as a matter of fact, microbes don’t practice science. They aren’t sentient and they lack the neural complexity to be intelligent life. They are simple organisms. Speaking of simple, only a truly simple being wouldn’t be so ridiculous to think that intelligence is defined by not making mistakes.
“If it isn’t human it doesn’t exist, is a bit dicky.”
Straw man, but on the topic of being “dicky”, I’ll stipulate you are proving yourself to be an expert.
“Machines are a species:”
Reductio ad absurdum combined with an narrow, cherry picked definition to reach an irrelevant (and erroneous) conclusion.
Machines are machines. The term “species” has a specific usage. Species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank – a scientific biological classification. For example, prions are not recognized as a species taxonomically. They are an infectious chemical compounds and like viruses straddle the boundary between life and non-life. They are interactive with biology because they share a common chemistry but they are not alive. Because they are not alive, they do not have a taxonomical species designation. They are not part of a genus or phylum or domain or kingdom because they are not alive. They are machine like in that they can do work but they are not designed by an intelligence ergo they are not actually machines.
They have a word for people who make their own realities: delusional. The only thing you are proving so far Dredd is that you are delusional. Harmless, but delusional.
Machines are a species:
But the machine species are not a biological species:
(The Best Dictionary). Machines have some common characteristics and qualities, and are distinct:
(The Best Dictionary, supra). Electrons orbiting the neucleus of an atom exert effort to accomplish something, which is rotating in a circle so as to do the work of keeping the atom an atom.
If the electron did not do its work the atom would cease to exist.
Electrons also absorb incoming photons by going to a higher orbit around the nucleus, thereby doing the work of storing energy.
The Earth is the center of the universe, because human science said so?
Science is a creation of humans because humans said so?
Religion is a creation of humans because humans said so?
That is only faith in human science and human religion.
Human science cannot do what microbes do, in terms of science, to this very day.
Universal science is finding out what is the proper interpretation of observations, i.e., what is the proper response.
That requires signal / message interpretation, which microbes have done for billions of years prior to humans.
Human science makes mistakes in this regard, and so does microbial science, that does not define what science is, it only means that neither science is intelligent in the sense of not making mistakes.
If it isn’t human it doesn’t exist, is a bit dicky.
The kind of PTSD that flows in gene H may be traceable to a catastrophic event.
Gene H. 1, April 6, 2012 at 9:29 am
Bron,
What do all of those definitions have in common?
Deliberate intelligent design.
======================================
You have quite an appetite for injecting diversion.
What is intelligent?
What is design?
None of these things can be defined.
They are all products of your genie fangs, and since your fangs are the biggest, by your measurements, you be da genie wid da say.
Fine, go jerk off now and leave those of us who are not of the “truthiness” religion alone.
Intellectual arrogance of the sort you spout is obvious, but it really is not helpful to solve these type inquiries.
Bron,
“I already answered that it is off topic, off evolution, and will not determine where science began or where religion began, because they both developed prior to humans.”
That’s what he said, emphasis added.
The phrase “developed prior to humans” is clear and unambiguous. Of course, matter exists outside of consciousness (unless Susskind’s holographic universe postulate is true and matter is an illusion), but that is not what Dredd said. Science and religion both developed after humans, by humans, by definition or CPT symmetry, entropy and the arrow of time are meaningless. We may not fully understand time yet, but we do know it only moves one direction.