Myth of evolution and new drug discovery

[itinerant1]

“…I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now small trifling particulars of structure often make me feel uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!” (Darwin to Asa Gray Apr. 3, 1860)

Well… go right ahead Charlie or should we call you Chuck :coolinoff:.

View attachment 6829

When the design of the feather is looked at, it is obvious that it could not have arisen naturally since the information for the mathematical formations are not inherent to the barbs themselves.

View attachment 6828

View attachment 6827

The bronze and blue colour needs to start and stop along each individual barb to produce the pattern and this needs to be precise to be mathematically accurate.

If you look at the link Rossum provided :New Glimpses of Life’s Puzzling Origins it states ***“Yet rocks that formed on Earth 3.8 billion years ago, almost as soon as the bombardment had stopped, contain possible evidence of biological processes.” ***They believe peacocks feathers have their origin in rocks.

All the experiments by Takahashi, et al, Petrie, Loyau et al, Yasmin, Yahya et al, Marion, Halliday, Sanders, Carolyn et al only serve to demonstrate that peacocks and peahens reproduce peacocks and peahens, just as the **Book of Genesis **says they would, so they are no help to the theory of evolution.

Just so there is no question, would you mind posting the verse(s) from Genesis that you have in mind. And then we shall go from there…

 

[itinerant1]

All the experiments by Takahashi, et al, Petrie, Loyau et al, Yasmin, Yahya et al, Marion, Halliday, Sanders, Carolyn et al only serve to demonstrate that peacocks and peahens reproduce peacocks and peahens, just as the **Book of Genesis **says they would, so they are no help to the theory of evolution.

If evolution is science fiction in action, then creationism is theological fiction in action.

 

[grannymh]

Ahh, OK. You would not want to trade into a position where you had no claim on a soul, or some other distinctive the “united spiritual and corporal” person has that you value, that a brute animal lacks. I think I understand you now.

Bingo And other bits of slang To live in the natural world, I would definitely claim a soul. If I didn’t have a soul, I would check out Walmart.

Mountain Dew and Twinkies? I think those are both inorganic food sources, right?

 

[rossum]

They believe peacocks feathers have their origin in rocks.

Genesis also supports origin from rocks: And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures … Genesis 1:24

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Genesis also supports origin from rocks: And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures … Genesis 1:24

rossum

Pardon me. But how did Re: The Completely Ridiculous Theory of Evolution appear on your post 638 in the thread Re: Myth of evolution and new drug discovery ?

 

[itinerant1]

Pardon me. But how did Re: The Completely Ridiculous Theory of Evolution appear on your post 638 in the thread Re: Myth of evolution and new drug discovery ?

I fixed the title granny. Someone, obvious who it is, messed with the title.

 

[itinerant1]

“…I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now small trifling particulars of structure often make me feel uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!” (Darwin to Asa Gray Apr. 3, 1860)

Well… go right ahead Charlie or should we call you Chuck :coolinoff:.

View attachment 6829

When the design of the feather is looked at, it is obvious that it could not have arisen naturally since the information for the mathematical formations are not inherent to the barbs themselves.

View attachment 6828

View attachment 6827

The bronze and blue colour needs to start and stop along each individual barb to produce the pattern and this needs to be precise to be mathematically accurate.

If you look at the link Rossum provided :New Glimpses of Life’s Puzzling Origins it states ***“Yet rocks that formed on Earth 3.8 billion years ago, almost as soon as the bombardment had stopped, contain possible evidence of biological processes.” ***They believe peacocks feathers have their origin in rocks.

All the experiments by Takahashi, et al, Petrie, Loyau et al, Yasmin, Yahya et al, Marion, Halliday, Sanders, Carolyn et al only serve to demonstrate that peacocks and peahens reproduce peacocks and peahens, just as the **Book of Genesis **says they would, so they are no help to the theory of evolution.

Don’t change the thread title. Not cool at all.

 

[itinerant1]

When the design of the feather is looked at, it is obvious that it could not have arisen naturally since the information for the mathematical formations are not inherent to the barbs themselves.

Looks to me like a totally unwarranted conclusion. You will have to better than that. Perhaps you could present a well-reasoned and informed argument to support the conclusion above. Is that asking too much?

 

[reggieM]

Well… go right ahead Charlie or should we call you Chuck :coolinoff:.

His Holiness, Reverend Chuck, Grandmaster of the Temple of Charlie.

 

[rossum]

Pardon me. But how did Re: The Completely Ridiculous Theory of Evolution appear on your post 638 in the thread Re: Myth of evolution and new drug discovery ?

Thanks for noticing, I was responding to a poster who had changed the title and I did not notice. This time I did.

rossum

 

[liquidpele]

When the design of the feather is looked at, it is obvious that it could not have arisen naturally since the information for the mathematical formations are not inherent to the barbs themselves.

The bronze and blue colour needs to start and stop along each individual barb to produce the pattern and this needs to be precise to be mathematically accurate.

people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm

 

[hecd2]

Until you grasp the concepts of necessary and sufficient conditions of cognitive processes you are wasting your time. You ignored the distinction and how it applies to the issues when it was brought up. Hence you are unwilling to engage in any kind of meaningful discussion about cognitive activity, brain research, mind-body problems, and so on.

You said "Well, I suppose the “real” concept is reserved for the immaterial domain in your world, your claim is trivial by virtue of your definiton of “concept.” You are talking pure, unadulterated nonsense because I never gave my definition of concept. I just challenged your flawed definition. Neither did I define “idea”. You just evaded the whole conversation. A very strange tactic indeed.

You also said, “a recent study that used fMRI to locate the parts of the brain that are utilized to do semantic processing for abstract and concrete concepts.” There is nothing in these studies that contradicts anything I said. You would know that if you understood the studies and understood what I have been saying. Furthermore, the media and incautious advocates of a point of view, like yourself, make more out of these studies than the researchers themselves do.

There is no consistent logic to your arguments because, frankly, you are way in over your head with this stuff. You avoid the critical points and continue as if the critical points don’t exist. You’ll have take your “straw man” arguments against your imaginary ideas such as “religious epistemology” and proceed with out me. My time is better spent in serious discussion.

P.S. No cigar and no more do overs.

I’m afraid I don’t see at all where TS is in over his head - in fact, I’d say yours are the arguments that are embarrassed. As far as I can see you are relying on the necessary/sufficient distinction, and having to do so increasingly urgently as more and more evidence emerges that every human cognitive aspect has a neural correlate, and moreover that cognitive aspects depend on the functioning of the specific neural subsystem. It is even the case that individual neurons can be shown to fire if and only if the subject is presented with a specific concept such as the picture of or the written name of an individual - see for example Quiroga et al, Invariant visual representation by single neurons in the human brain, *Nature *435, 1102 - 1107 (2005)

Given these findings, it is clear that the material brain is *necessary *for all that we ascribe to mind. So now, the question becomes “is it sufficient?”, and here the burden of evidence falls on you. We have increasingly more precise correlation between brain states and mind states, and we know that brain states are real phenomena of matter-energy, so the default explanation is that mental states and brain states are different aspects of the same phenomenon. We should of course, revise that conclusion if we find a compelling reason to suppose that the material brain is insufficient to cause the phenomena we ascribe to mind, but I have seen so far no compelling evidence that there is such evidence or reason. Of course, I have come late into the thread, so I hope you’ll be kind enough to repeat it or link to it if I’ve missed it.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Touchstone]

Bingo And other bits of slang To live in the natural world, I would definitely claim a soul. If I didn’t have a soul, I would check out Walmart.

Well, I’m all for a clear-eyed understanding of the world around us, ‘dark implications’ of that or no. But even so (or probably because of that), I recognize the wisdom of the great modern philosopher Axl Rose’s imperative: Use Your Illusions.

There’s some interesting research which comes from brain mapping done during awake brain surgery. To get the brain in gear in order to move the corresponding body part, stimulation by an electrode (spelling ?) is needed. Personally, I would shy away from having my brain zapped every time I wanted to use my tongue, voice box, etc. to express a theory. An immaterial soul as a source sounds a lot better to me.

Like I said – use your illusions. From a materialist standpoint, this same kind of issue comes up regularly in the case of free will, physical determinism, and compatibilism. So when I say that, it’s not just tongue-in-cheek. Free will, even if it is highly illusory, has much to recommend it, even/especially when embraced as an illusion. That’s an oversimplification of the situation, but you get the idea.

Depending on which area of your brain is being zapped, what is it you remember? Sorry, I couldn’t resist the mental picture of having one’s head wired like a Christmas tree.

I think my head probably would evoke more of a “pinball game” image. The " I remember" was the eternality of the soul, and “dualist” (I know, know, it’s monism with ‘dual aspects’ – erk) view of immaterial self as the source of “fundamentally free will”, whatever that would be. The soul being that which drives the “more than mere biology” conceit (and it seems ‘mere’ is obligatory in the that phrase).

At the risk of bringing down the wrath of philosophers, I would venture that it is possible for non-theists to acknowledge the immaterial something which is part of our human nature. The immaterial something is an explanation for what the material somethings cannot explain. Did I just write that convoluting sentence without getting out Christmas decorations?

Yes. I have atheist cohorts who are all over the map on that question. One atheist friend believes in ghosts – no gods, but ghosts. Go figure. Others buy into the idea of “abstract universals” having some kind of immaterial existence – the laws of logic, for example. That’s not the same as an immaterial soul, or an immaterial vector to our human nature (or maybe it is that?), but atheists and other non-theists can and do embrace such notions. I don’t embrace those notions and think that relies on the same intellectual surrender as “God did it”, but that’s not exclusive to theism, by any means.

-TS

 

[grannymh]

The " I remember" was the eternality of the soul, and “dualist” (I know, know, it’s monism with ‘dual aspects’ – erk) view of immaterial self as the source of “fundamentally free will”, whatever that would be. The soul being that which drives the “more than mere biology” conceit (and it seems ‘mere’ is obligatory in the that phrase).

Yes. I have atheist cohorts who are all over the map on that question. One atheist friend believes in ghosts – no gods, but ghosts. Go figure. Others buy into the idea of “abstract universals” having some kind of immaterial existence – the laws of logic, for example. That’s not the same as an immaterial soul, or an immaterial vector to our human nature (or maybe it is that?), but atheists and other non-theists can and do embrace such notions. I don’t embrace those notions and think that relies on the same intellectual surrender as “God did it”, but that’s not exclusive to theism, by any means.

-TS

There are times I wish Descartes had kept his mouth shut about dualism. It would make exploring human nature much easier. In my humble opinion, looking at “fundamentally free will” as being opposed to an illusion of free will would ultimately describe the true nature of the human species without any intellectual surrender such as one to a god of the gaps. Cogito ergo sum. I flat out refuse to belong to the brute animal kingdom.

Blessings,
granny

The quest is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[Touchstone]

There are times I wish Descartes had kept his mouth shut about dualism. It would make exploring human nature much easier. In my humble opinion, looking at “fundamentally free will” as being opposed to an illusion of free will would ultimately describe the true nature of the human species without any intellectual surrender such as one to a god of the gaps. Cogito ergo sum. I flat out refuse to belong to the brute animal kingdom.

I hear you, and I respect and revere that kind of honest clarity. I have zero beef with anyone who states it thus – making it a moot point, essentially, based on your flat refusal. Accord with that stance is no problem for me. My objections obtain from the persistent view that such a stance isn’t based on flat refusal, but is somehow based on science, or “first philosophy”, or invincible intuition, etc.

I think if theists were to “mass adopt” your clarity here, there’d be a whole lot less controversy and arguing.

-TS

 

[itinerant1]

I’m afraid I don’t see at all where TS is in over his head - in fact, I’d say yours are the arguments that are embarrassed. As far as I can see you are relying on the necessary/sufficient distinction, and having to do so increasingly urgently as more and more evidence emerges that every human cognitive aspect has a neural correlate, and moreover that cognitive aspects depend on the functioning of the specific neural subsystem. It is even the case that individual neurons can be shown to fire if and only if the subject is presented with a specific concept such as the picture of or the written name of an individual - see for example Quiroga et al, Invariant visual representation by single neurons in the human brain, *Nature *435, 1102 - 1107 (2005)

Given these findings, it is clear that the material brain is *necessary *for all that we ascribe to mind. So now, the question becomes “is it sufficient?”, and here the burden of evidence falls on you. We have increasingly more precise correlation between brain states and mind states, and we know that brain states are real phenomena of matter-energy, so the default explanation is that mental states and brain states are different aspects of the same phenomenon. We should of course, revise that conclusion if we find a compelling reason to suppose that the material brain is insufficient to cause the phenomena we ascribe to mind, but I have seen so far no compelling evidence that there is such evidence or reason. Of course, I have come late into the thread, so I hope you’ll be kind enough to repeat it or link to it if I’ve missed it.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Unfortunately, your comments are based on a discussion in which I could not present my views because certain logical distinction had to be taken into consideration for the discussion could proceed. Those distinction were never addressed or acknowledged by my interlocutor. You should have grasped that from a number of my posted complaints. Yet, like him, you are more interested in presenting your views without any kind of proper base for the discussion. The data you discuss is open to different and more compelling interpretations.

Hence, your argument is posed against someone who never presented his position because of gridlock. Did you notice that my “definition” of concept was debunked when I never offered a definition? Did you notice the other dozen or so like absurdities that served to obstruct rational discussion? Apparently not. I suggest if you want to criticize my position you find out first what it is. I’ll accept that as rational discussion. But not the nonsense you just posted.

 

[itinerant1]

I’m afraid I don’t see at all where TS is in over his head - in fact, I’d say yours are the arguments that are embarrassed. As far as I can see you are relying on the necessary/sufficient distinction, and having to do so increasingly urgently as more and more evidence emerges that every human cognitive aspect has a neural correlate, and moreover that cognitive aspects depend on the functioning of the specific neural subsystem. It is even the case that individual neurons can be shown to fire if and only if the subject is presented with a specific concept such as the picture of or the written name of an individual - see for example Quiroga et al, Invariant visual representation by single neurons in the human brain, *Nature *435, 1102 - 1107 (2005)

Given these findings, it is clear that the material brain is *necessary *for all that we ascribe to mind. So now, the question becomes “is it sufficient?”, and here the burden of evidence falls on you. We have increasingly more precise correlation between brain states and mind states, and we know that brain states are real phenomena of matter-energy, so the default explanation is that mental states and brain states are different aspects of the same phenomenon. We should of course, revise that conclusion if we find a compelling reason to suppose that the material brain is insufficient to cause the phenomena we ascribe to mind, but I have seen so far no compelling evidence that there is such evidence or reason. Of course, I have come late into the thread, so I hope you’ll be kind enough to repeat it or link to it if I’ve missed it.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

BTW, in all due respect for learning in physics, etc. you are not above misinterpretation of one’s position. For example, sometime we should discuss the article on your website that critique’s Cardinal Schonborn’s op-ed piece. The article is replete with mistaken assumptions and misinterpretations of Schonborn’s position.

 

[hecd2]

BTW, in all due respect for learning in physics, etc. you are not above misinterpretation of one’s position. For example, sometime we should discuss the article on your website that critique’s Cardinal Schonborn’s op-ed piece. The article is replete with mistaken assumptions and misinterpretations of Schonborn’s position.

Sure - would be happy to do this. Needs a new thread. Do you want to start?

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm

 

[hecd2]

Unfortunately, your comments are based on a discussion in which I could not present my views because certain logical distinction had to be taken into consideration for the discussion could proceed. Those distinction were never addressed or acknowledged by my interlocutor. You should have grasped that from a number of my posted complaints. Yet, like him, you are more interested in presenting your views without any kind of proper base for the discussion. The data you discuss is open to different and more compelling interpretations.

Let’s agree that I accept the logical distinction between necessary and sufficient and take it from there. What are these different and more compelling interpretations for the findings of modern neuroscience such as concept neurons and other neural correlates of human cognition and why are they more compelling than the conclusion that our minds are phenomena of our material brains?

Hence, your argument is posed against someone who never presented his position because of gridlock…I suggest if you want to criticize my position you find out first what it is. I’ll accept that as rational discussion. But not the nonsense you just posted.

Be my guest - off you go. Of course, I don’t accept that what I posted was nonsense at all

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[itinerant1]

Let’s agree that I accept the logical distinction between necessary and sufficient and take it from there. What are these different and more compelling interpretations for the findings of modern neuroscience such as concept neurons and other neural correlates of human cognition and why are they more compelling than the conclusion that our minds are phenomena of our material brains?
Be my guest - off you go. Of course, I don’t accept that what I posted was nonsense at all

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Of course, you do not accept that what you said is nonsense. Who ever does? But I was only referring to your take on a discussion that you jumped into without understanding what had been transpiring over many posts.

That is a different matter than your interpretations of neuroscience. I don’t consider that interpretation, insofar as what little you stated, to be nonsense. I just take it to be a faulty interpretation based on a modern ideological bias.

The bias of course is a philosophical materialism, or in matters of human psychology, it would be metaphysical behaviorism, as distinct from a methodological behaviorism.

We can agree that a theory of philosophical materialism is not nonsense. However, when anyone, scientist or otherwise dogmatically asserts philosophical materialism as true, then he is speaking nonsense. Philosophical materialism by its very nature cannot prove itself to be true. It can only remain an unproven assumption at best.

Next, the reduction of human psychology to physics leaves one with little explanatory power when it comes to human consciousness and thinking.

Locating areas of the brain and certain neurophysiological processes concomitant to or involved in certain psychological events does not tell us what the mind is or what its relation is to the body. One can merely assume that mind is an epiphenomena of brain activity, but that is not proven by detection of physiological correlates to mental activity.

No researcher will claim, or rationally can claim, that he can observe mental events in the same way that he observes physical activity in the brain.

The most that brain studies have shown is that brain and its processes are a necessary condition of consciousness and thinking.

Do you believe that computers also think?