Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Building life in a lab - Synthetic Biologists
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 55 of 152 (237733)
08-27-2005 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic
08-27-2005 1:39 PM


Re: Science revealing God...
It is completely cognizable that if ID ushers in a differen event for the synthetic biologist that ID contains a social environment LARGER than the current lab paradigm that drives, let one say, nanotech onwards.
It is going towards this area whether ID is true or if non-believers create a collopased ecological web in the future.
I hope you sense and realize that it takes LONGER than the areas'daily work week to pursue the consequences of positing God(if) and calling THAT a day, while it only takes a day's worth of work to work for the same day. Good day. This time is not indeterminate even if the thought IS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 08-27-2005 1:39 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 08-28-2005 9:44 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 57 of 152 (237957)
08-28-2005 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic
08-28-2005 9:44 AM


Re: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
Why dont you ask me?
Do you have a problem with that?
Kant page 63
quote:
Conviction is opposed to Persuasion, which is an assent form inadequate reasons, of which we do not know whether they are only subjective or are also objective.
Persuasion often precedes convicion. Of many cognitions we are conscious only in scuh a manner as not to be able to judge whether the grounds of our assent are objective or subjective. Hence, in order to be able to advance from persuasion to conviction, we must first reflect, that is, see to what faculty a cognition belongs; and then investigate, that is , try whether the grounds are, in relation to the object, adequate or inadequate. Many do not get beyond persuasion. Some go as far as reflection; few reach investigation. The man that knows what belongs to certainty willnot readily confound conviction and persuasion, nor will he allow himself to be readily persuaded. Assent is sometimes determined by a mixture of objective and subjective grounds; and most men never seperate the combined effect of these.
Although persuasion is always in a form (formaliter)false - namely, because in it an uncertain cognition seems to be certain - yet in matter (materialiter) it may be true.And it differs in this respect from opinion, which is an uncertain cognition held as uncertain
p63 Introduction to logic.
"translation" indicates determination rathter than a prior reflectivity you may hold to unawares by me that I would guess is needed if you are not convicted to respond but only not persuaded. If you were trying to ajudge if to be persuaded by me or not then why did you ask someone other than me to answer WHILE responding TO ME???????????????????? You do not need to agree with (me etc)on a common assent in the dissent on the descent of man or not but give a few cents about the decent sent a taste for it rejoins on EVC please already sent and I am holding you to it. This is not a fire.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-28-2005 12:45 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 08-28-2005 9:44 AM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 08-28-2005 12:37 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 59 of 152 (237988)
08-28-2005 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic
08-28-2005 12:37 PM


Re: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
This does not refer to a "source" but a "utility". They are not the same. Please give me something about either a part of that post or who "YOU" as in "we" you already posted are. What do you believe.
Do you really think that issues in quantum entanglement have NOTHING to do with ecological science? etc etc etc.
Of course it made sense. I dont know which part you cant on your own enlarge on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 08-28-2005 12:37 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 08-28-2005 12:57 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 61 of 152 (237993)
08-28-2005 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic
08-28-2005 12:57 PM


Re: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
You said previously
quote:
To the point where science meets philosophy. As long as there is empirical evidence to find and experiments to try it benefits mankind to seek the knowledge science can bring. Belief in your brand of god is a philosophy and its purpose is not to teach us about the material world. The material world is the domain of science.
I am afraid you would need to investigate this point further.
I had said
It is completely cognizable that if ID ushers in a differen event for the synthetic biologist that ID contains a social environment LARGER than the current lab paradigm that drives, let one say, nanotech onwards.
It is going towards this area whether ID is true or if non-believers create a collopased ecological web in the future.
I hope you sense and realize that it takes LONGER than the areas'daily work week to pursue the consequences of positing God(if) and calling THAT a day, while it only takes a day's worth of work to work for the same day. Good day. This time is not indeterminate even if the thought IS.
Time is not space.
The position of communicable thought is.
One can be a synthetic biologist and a creationist.
In fact it is probably EASIER for that to happen but not in the current research environment of US unis.
LauraG wrote
quote:
As this field progresses, we'll be seeing more and more complex organisms created with specific purposes. What's to keep us from thinking this will eventually lead to the synthesis of fully engineered human (or human-like) DNA resulting in beings undistinguishable from current humans?
We need to differentiate natural products from purposed nanotech biologicals.
Pleae investigate the artifical selection of it all else ask a particular in response.
I was surprised how wimpy the evcers responded to what it might be imagined that we will evolve our-selves into. It seems you and I would do better discussing the object of this topical objective in that threa d where less would be at stake.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-28-2005 01:12 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 08-28-2005 12:57 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 08-28-2005 1:20 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 63 of 152 (237996)
08-28-2005 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic
08-28-2005 1:20 PM


Re: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
Ok- but I did take some "offense" to your USING the term "biology".
That is water under this bridge.
I take it then that you would be against the "logic" of
Difficult Questions. Thoughtful Answers. | RZIM
but more in tune with Gould's Magesteria concept??
Gould's crack in a church vault/spandrel

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 08-28-2005 1:20 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 08-28-2005 1:44 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 65 of 152 (238004)
08-28-2005 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic
08-28-2005 1:44 PM


Re: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
Great, I guess.
I would only like to note that Ravi HEARD Polkinghorne
in the UK and I agree with the latter when not also the former on Gould's use of architeture IN BIOLOGY(analogically). I think nanotech can change things but that only time will tell.
DIVINE ACTION: AN INTERVIEW WITH JOHN POLKINGHORNE
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-28-2005 01:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 08-28-2005 1:44 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 68 of 152 (238211)
08-29-2005 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by iano
08-24-2005 9:26 AM


Re: Abiogenesis ...abiohope
You suggested
quote:
The effects on creationist would be, I pose, absolutely none.
How do you repose with the following information-?
quote:
at ICR; those strategizing for the upcoming research initiative in genomics. Worldwide discoveries have produced a wealth of raw genomic data just crying for a creationist interpretation.
The Institute for Creation Research
If creationists put out the tears it seems that the years will bring something other than "none".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by iano, posted 08-24-2005 9:26 AM iano has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 73 of 152 (238336)
08-29-2005 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by iano
08-29-2005 2:45 PM


Re: Science revealing God...
Iano, someone's got to answer.
Look at how confused they got in BioScience (Aug 2005, vol 155 no 8)
quote:
Turning to Mayr's findal book, most chapters are borrowed from his previous writings but with several new ones to pull things together. Most chapters bear on the stated subject of the book - the autonomy of biology as a scientific discipline - but their integration into a cohesive whole is often more implicit than explicit. Hence, the book reads more lie a collection of essays than like one long argument. Mayr also often refers to points he has made elsewhere, which may leave some readers feeling obliged to track down the other sources. There are also some poorly edited sections. One particularly jarring passage has Mayr saying, out of the blue, "Yes, God was the creator of this world and either directlyu or through his laws he was responsible for everything that existed and occurred"(Mayr 2004 What Makes Biology Unique? Considersations on the Autonomy of a Scientific Discipline). From what follows, it would seem he meant this statement to express an idea compatible with those of early physicists, like Galelio, who accepted a superior organizing force beyond their theories.
Mayr needed to have said this to me in 88 if he didnt really want to respond to my question. I am glad he finally got it out.
Now Henry Morris in Back to Genesis 201 clearly puts a question at the difference of synthetic biology from rocks or water. I think this is the correct division (hydro- vs hydrophobic) AND as he correctly indicates, it seems to me, is that the issue is a metabolism EITHER by catalysis or replication. LauraG has indicated that IF replication WERE done what would it change?
I dont see you responding.
I think it would change the relative amount of cyclic vs acyclic causal graph representations but because recursivity might be applied different first in rocks or out and then in catalytic structures or not (perhaps without retaining an ultimate division of ultimate and proximate biology without self-replications being referred to etc) it seems that Creationists could respond to changes either in creationist circles or out differently.
Someone will respond if not just because some one will do it. Some one has cloned. What's next?
I havent been able to locate this B->G but I got it already via snail mail. I guess I am just not used to ICR's new site.
The Institute for Creation Research

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by iano, posted 08-29-2005 2:45 PM iano has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 75 of 152 (238374)
08-29-2005 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic
08-29-2005 4:52 PM


Re: Science revealing God...
If ID can self explain itself in terms of this FORM then it doesnt matter that they get the probabilistic constiuents wrong. time tolls and tools... But if this is not taught as "science" then it would have to be that math""(what goes for it even in some "higher" schools) is not 'empirical'. Kitcher has written a book challenging that.
I have gone from a thought where I used to actually assume that logical propositions DO interpret as being about forms to clear thoughts about what the consituents of the forms the propostions form are. I guess this kind of evidence is not what you are asking for Theus. It is interesting to trace in set theory and logic how Russell’s use of propositional functions have been depreicated.
quote:
Now I want to come to a subject of completely general propositions and propositional functions. By those I mean propositions and propositional functions that contain only variables and nothing else at all. This covers the whole of logic. Every logical proposition consists wholly and solely of variables, though it is not true that every proposition consisting wholly and solely of variables is logical. You can consider stages of generalization as, e.g
‘Socrates loves Plato’
‘x loves Plato’
‘x loves y’
‘x Ry.’
There you have been going through a process of successive generalization. When you have got to xRy, you have got a scheme consisting only of variables, containing no constants at all, the pure scheme of dual relations, and it is clear that any proposition which expresses a dual relation can be derived from xRy by assigning values to x and R and y. So that that is, as you might say, the pure form of all those propositions. I mean by the form of a proposition that which you get when for every single one of its constituents you substitute a variable. If you want a different definition of the form of a proposition, you might be inclined to define it as the class of all those propositions that you can obtain from a given one by substituting other constituents for one or more of the constituents the proposition contains. E.g., in ‘Socrates loves Plato’, you can substitute somebody else for Socrates, somebody else for Plato, and some other verb for ‘loves’. In that way there are a certain number of propositions which you can derive from the proposition ‘Socrates loves Plato’, by replacing the constituents of that proposition by other constituents, so that you have there a certain class of propositions, and those propositions all have a certain form, and one can, if one likes, say that the form they all have is the class consisting of all of them. That is rather a provisional definition, because as a matter of fact, the idea of form is more fundamental than the idea of class. I should not suggest that as a really good definition, but it will do provisionally to explain the sort of thing one means by the form of a proposition. The form of a proposition is that which is in common between any two propositions of which the one can be obtained from the other by substituting other constituents for the original ones. When you have got down to those formulas that contain only variables, like xRy, you are on the way to the sort of thing that you can assert in logic.
To give an illustration, you know what I mean by the domain of a relation: I mean all the terms that have the relation to something. Suppose I say: ‘xRy implies that x belongs to the domain of R’, that would be a proposition of logic and is one that contains only variables. You might think it contains such words as ‘belong’ and ‘domain’, but that is an error. It is only the habit of using ordinary language that makes those words appear. They are not really there. That is a proposition of pure logic. It does not mention any particular thing at all. This is to be understood as being asserted whatever x and R and y may be. All statements of logic are of that sort.
It is not a very easy thing to see what are the constituents of a logical proposition. When one takes ‘Socrates loves Plato’, ‘Socrates’ is a constituent, ‘loves’ is a constituent, and ‘Plato’ is a constituent. Then you turn ‘Socrates’ into x, ‘loves’ into R, and ‘Plato’ into y. x and R and y are nothing, and they are not constituents, so it seems as though all the propositions of logic are entirely devoid of constituents. I do not think that can be quite true. But then the only other thing you can seem to say is that the form is a constituent, that propositions of a certain form are always true: that may be the right analysis, though I very much doubt it is.
There is, however, just this to observe, viz., that the form of a proposition is never a constituent of that proposition itself. If you assert that ‘Socrates loves Plato’, the form of that proposition is the form of a dual relation,but this is not a constituent of the proposition. If it were you would have to have that constituent related to the other constituents. You willmake the form much too substantial if you think of it as really one of the things that have that form, so that the form of a proposition is certainly not a constituent of the proposition itself. Nevertheless it may possibly be a constituent of general statements about propositions that have that form, so I think it is possible that logical propositions might be interpreted as being about forms.
I can only say, in conclusion, as regards the constituents of logical propositions, that it is a problem which is rather new. There has not been much opportunity to consider it. I do not think any literature exists at all which deals with it in any way whatever, and it is an interesting problem.
page 239 in Logic and Knowledge . This series of lectures was given in 1918 at Gordon Square London.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 08-29-2005 4:52 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 108 of 152 (239513)
09-01-2005 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by LauraG
09-01-2005 11:13 AM


Re: two edged sword-fencing-the start of life as we know it?
the "rim" is geodesic & the reference punts to physical teleology denied by BEST"" elite philosophy of biology as not necessary.
Sure something can be sufficient but not necessary. If the rim is a geodesic it might be necessary also. It is a lot harder to imagine the spherical symmetry in Russell's view on perception but I'll bet a discontinuous aggregate might demand such a one and would answer your questions a bit better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by LauraG, posted 09-01-2005 11:13 AM LauraG has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by iano, posted 09-01-2005 12:26 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 113 of 152 (239675)
09-01-2005 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by iano
09-01-2005 12:26 PM


Re: two edged sword-fencing-the start of life as we know it?
creation and evoltion thinking is not hard. One just has to have the mind for it. I guess it is becoming more the norm that two posters want to post the same thought at the same time as we are getting quite good on evc in the facts.
It is taking me some time to get a good handle or hook on your posting so it might take a few days to a week say before I really start in on your rather voluminous recent amounts of posts. I needed to say something to LauraG so as to try to keep this thread in its own weave.
You seem to be presenting enough details to enable me to push my own converstation here on evc further. as for spoke and hub well
it seems that one synthetic biologist might try to be Aristophanes' tailor. Plato wrote
quote:
In the second place, primeval man was round, his back and sides forming a circle; and he had four hands and four feet, one head with two faces, looking opposite ways, set on a round neck and precisely alike; also four ears, two privay members, and the remiander to correspond. He could walk upright as men now do, backwards or forwards as he pleased, and he could also roll over and over at a great pace, turning on his four hands and four feet, eight in all, like tumblers going over and over with their legs in the air; this was when he wanted to run fast. Now, the sexes were three, and such as I have described them; because the sun, moon and earth are three;
from Plato's Symposium.
Let's eat!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by iano, posted 09-01-2005 12:26 PM iano has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 116 of 152 (239887)
09-02-2005 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic
08-29-2005 9:10 AM


Re: Science revealing God...
quote:
I understand that a scientist can also hold a theistic philosophy. Those scientists understand that they are separate and distinct tools. It’s really the creationists that can’t be objective since their philosophy is diametrically opposed to certain sciences and overlaps in ways that can not be reconciled without reevaluating their philosophy
quote:
The whole reason there is a EvC debate in the first place is that there is a grey area that creationists are responsible for creating. Creationists like to make theistic philosophical assertions about the physical universe. The young earth fallacy is a good example. When science finds evidence to the contrary then the debate begins.
AEA, dont think I dont know how to play the glass bead game.
here is the link that I did not get in in time as it was not on-line at the time
The Institute for Creation Research
quote:
In this issue of Elements, four of the most creative minds in origins research present their original insights on the geochemical origins of life. Each author has studied the field in depth, and each has come to an inescapable conclusion: rocks and minerals must have played a pivotal role in the transition from the blasted, prebiotic Earth to the living world we now inhabit.3
Nevertheless, Hazen has to conclude that:
Scientists are still far from understanding the ancient, intricate processes that led to the origin of life.4
The journal in which these studies appeared is a relatively new journal, sponsored by several important geo-chemical and mineralogical societies. Like the writers in most other scientific journals, these scientists are all committed to a naturalistic evolutionary origin of life, even though they all -- one by one -- admit they don't have a real clue as to how it happened. But they seem sure that it could not have been in the primeval soup. So it must have been in the rocks and minerals.
The question is what would change for the creationists given the existence of synthetic biology. Yes, it is indeed true that the two model approach c/e or e/c etc leads to "seperate and distinct tools" given our currently original science and thus "these scientists know" as you said, but as Henery Morris was reporting there has been a change IN THE SCIENCE from a tendency to look into waters to looking into rocks. You may feel free to think that this reporting is just playing into ICR rated hands and feel free to so comment. I also assume that this is the STATE of origin/synthetic biology research as I have not found Dr. Morris to misreport BUT one must also understand that the consensus science that appears in front of creationist speakers IS science that matters first and mostly only for different positions being taken by creationists themselves, scientists, as you said.
Using the case of TIME is just NOT what is relevant in this thread as the issue is where practical results will substitute for where ethical invariances currently reside, unless the times were correlated for anyone to see to actual chemical rxns in or out of water or in or out of rocks. Why cant we see someone next saying all this is in the atmosphere? or deep space??
By filtering through what IS creationist product in Dr. Morris well takeable article I can not conclude that "debate" starts AFTER consensus science finds contra evidence, we have NO IDEA"" on origins really but we do know or could know where the labs are or will be that are trying to make synthetic life, and the TOOLS themselves will not be seperable in the sense we are discussing.
It is true that they "are" seperable to the extent that ICR can START GENE
quote:
The GENE project has been given the highest priority because recent advances in the field of genetics (genomics) appear to offer a stunning opportunity to advance the concept of a recent, supernatural creation. Sequencing of the human genome and the genome of many other species has recently been completed and these data are available in the public domain to all researchers for interpretation. New equipment and software are available for research in this field at costs which are affordable by even the smallest laboratory.
link
The Institute for Creation Research
but it is how the research will be done and what other reasearch it entails (much like RATEI->RATEII) that pudding is proof of or QED has been defined and presented for the seperation you wrote.
Think of it as a priority QUEUE not a check board!!!!!!!!!!
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-02-2005 08:43 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 08-29-2005 9:10 AM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 09-02-2005 10:07 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 117 of 152 (239893)
09-02-2005 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic
08-24-2005 9:28 AM


is the creationist really the stumbling block?
quote:
by bringing to biotechnology the same engineering strategies used to build computers, bridges and buildings.
Page Not Found: 404 Not Found -
I am maintaining propositionally, that this strategy, as cited in the opening link above "engineering strategies" ARE NOT sufficient where current ethical concerns are concerned. I also think that creationist who might work with the same tools/resources COULD end up with DIFFERENT enginerring structures.
It is true that it seems more likely that making DNA Computers might not come from creationists to begin with but these applications which DO abstract computer strategies etc into life only bear on implementations of secondary applications in biology unless some notion of what synthetic life really was is. As I see the literature there is consistent writing that creationists did not forsee the exisitence of poorly desinged shapes in organsims, ("why cant god produce mal formed things on purpose?") and that what will change is the perception of consensus scientists that this was really only an adaptive oversight on the part of non religous folk and those that later agreed the modern evolutionary synthesis entialed a "hardening" of adaptationism etc. I could be wrong but I do see changes in the creationist work accompanying changes in evos sociality not the other way around. Evos seem to change if forced but not willingly.
Of course this is sort of guessing the future for there are many science criticisms of just such attempts to build life with current mole bio tools and fix disease that way. It plays rather into macroeconomic concerns than the ethical ones that the original question in this thread remands.
If you think that creationism can not rewrite our understanding of "current genetic code" then simply think about the difference of stack (LIFO vs FIFO) abstracted by an array vs a linked list. I guess it is all just par for the course.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-02-2005 09:27 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 08-24-2005 9:28 AM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 123 of 152 (240043)
09-02-2005 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic
09-02-2005 10:07 AM


the tailor or the cook, you decide
As long as there is some original mystery it is not possible to seperate origin from rates of change since any supposed starting point preCISEly due to the size derivable from Weyl's
quote:
Here we have attempted to develop the formal scheme of genetics in such general form as to comprise all more or less irregular occurrences. Nowhere in this scheme was it necessary so far to speak of sex; but of course the fact cannot be ignored forever that syngamy between two gametes takes place only if one is a sperm, the other an egg. This is a polarity (gamete sexuality) that has nothing to do with genes.^(Denote by --- an organism arising from ...)On the other hand...
Thus while we can be in basic data agreement, as I do believe you and I are, unless you are, inaddition to be a seperatist of the Gouldian variatey etc, you are a FISHERIST or an HALDANIST (IE NOT A CROIZATIST etc) there is no way to CHOOSE a graphical seperation of TOE and ABIOG(enisis) as is discussed NOT ingernal IN THIS THREAD but remands in the blue-print or whatever color scheme is used in reconstuction of any proposed dissection. The dissection is not the section of seperation even if metadata be stored methodically. The gene point and the point physics are not textually seperated anymore in this discussion, hypothetically. I personally think that evergreen seeds fall to the sun and angiosperm seeds fall to the earth but hey, that is just me.
Cognitive dissonace is irrelavant. It is how you think of deceptive evolution individually (Fire flies out blinking other fire flies, do plants really have neuroendocrinological valences etc).
The theory of evolution deals with synthetic biology in so far as there are or we can delimit the limits of natural selection BY artifical selection. If you are a Fisherist you will not think necessarily that fitness and the second law of thermo are more than kissing cousins, otherwise you might make sure you are not within kissing distance of this idea. This is not a matter of belief, in so far as I have analyzed it properly but only about the d-sep tests that distiguish cases of acyclic and cyclic representations so pre-printed before the tests contra morality ensue or were already violated.
The more viscous nature of the science in creationism is less likely to cause this violation prima facie as relevant inter thread alia. But as for the degree of incredulity one might sense at first, and sometimes with first hand experience, moving OFF the topic in this particular thread,"recent, supernatural creation" has to be taken as the three words that it WAS not as is 'read' readability included.
Ruse for instance refused to admit that there was a difference of terms "creation science " and "scientific creationism". There just is. Thus his more general sympathy, say with DS WILSON etc , towards the social nature of creationism IS LOST MENTALLY in such writings of e/c simply by failure to locate the group involved. I admit I am not a dillitant of creationism and am likely to step on some creationistic mice now and then but I am ready to be corrected on that. What you say here does not seem to indicate what you think will change if a cloned human population were made on Mars. Instead you seem be thinking that "no change" from creationism (as they aready said it was "supernatural") as iano said and yet there is so much writing between the two of yous such that I cant see how what both of you say has anything to do with the time when the "recent" becomes "now". Is that too thick or can that be thought by you?
Agains you say "philosophy" but it would be "Scientific Creationism" rather than "creation science" on my reading if ICR's GENEs dominate the genomic influence(the origin of genetic information) of baraminologists on general directions within research stratgies to be engineered, hopefully with proper controls, both inside and outside secular research universities.
Quote from PHILOSOPHY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE by Hermann Weyl
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-02-2005 05:34 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 09-02-2005 10:07 AM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 09-06-2005 11:40 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 124 of 152 (240570)
09-05-2005 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by iano
09-02-2005 2:49 PM


Re: The tentative wheel
I messed up my trees!
I had actually thought the angiosperm goes to the sun not the evergreens.
This might invert some perimeter a meter or so, so it might matter but I have not found anyone reading my own posts as closely as I do. The trees between Oxford and Cambridge are way too straight. Iguess the earth got in my way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by iano, posted 09-02-2005 2:49 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by iano, posted 09-05-2005 1:38 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024