Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: Not buying the whole "poor discriminated against atheist" meme

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Photon

"So if you get to a point in an investigation where you can't think of anything other explanation, "God did it", what you say.  It means you've given up finding any natural explanation. What else could it mean?"

It means just what I said it means.  "It appears the goddidit because we can't think of anything else logical, but let's keep looking."

It also means "Hmm ... IF we tentatively adopt the goddidit hypothesis ... complete with the 'mankind is made in God's image' part ... what questions would we ask about biology that might prove fruitful for lines of research?"

As it turns out, this paradigm does indeed provoke some good questions.
So, fill your investigations with unevidenced, comforting assumptions, and that spurs a superior methodology to NOT having those assumptions? Especially when, in some cases, those unevidenced assumptions will categorically forbid certain avenues of investigation AND pre-emptively deny certain conclusions that follow from the data?

Dave, this is beyond stupid.

And shows exactly how your assumptive world-view has contaminated your ability to objectively evaluate data.
I DO think Shapiro and Co. are moving us closer to a "God view" but not because they advocate any kind of woo.  Rather, it's because they are helping biologists recognize the "chicken / egg' nature of all biological systems.  They are forcing biologists into head scratching mode.  Which is where creationists have been forever.  We look at biology and scratch our heads and say "WTF ... we cannot figure out how this stuff could come to be except via some Highly Sophisticated ET that we know very little about."  In human technology, stuff like we see in biology comes about only via Intelligence.  So why should it be any different in Biology?  Until we know better, that's the best explanation, although admittedly it's not an "explanation" at all in the normal sense ... it's just "all we've got."
Cheerleading for God of the Gaps, argument from incredulity combined with misunderstanding of biological systems.

Dave, are you trying to get your picture in the dictionary next to cliche?
Which isn't to say people get stuff wrong, just that EVIDENCE should precede the conclusion, not the conclusion demanding evidence.
Dave, the Surgeon General in 1967 said that?

Take a look:

Sounds like more of the same misinterpretation and propagation of myths, very much like you and YEC, Dave.
Quote from: VoxRat
I was in Kent for my late brother's laying to rest.

Shoot man, that sucks. You have my condolences.

Guys ... ignore Pingu for now ... she's lost her mind temporarily ... read Shapiro instead ...
McClintock realized two things from those highly original studies of the X-ray mutants. The first was that the action of the X-rays was to break chromosomes. Breakage alone, however, was not sufficient to generate a mutant chromosome. Broken chromosomes would be lost. The cell's ability to repair the damage by fusing broken ends was essential. In other words, X-ray mutagenesis required cell action. It was not a passive consequence of the physical damage induced by the radiation.

The second realization was that maize cells have sensory and other capacities needed to identify, locate, and join the broken chromosomes. Repair was an example of action by what McClintock came to call "smart cells."

"There must be numerous homeostatic adjustments required of cells. The sensing devices and the signals that initiate these adjustments are beyond our present ability to fathom. A goal for the future would be to determine the extent of knowledge the cell has of itself and how it utilizes this knowledge in a "thoughtful" manner when challenged" (McClintock 1984).

This kind of thinking was indeed far outside the mainstream. It is the reason that the neurobiologist and bacterial behavior researcher, Dennis Bray, comments in his 2009 book, Wetware: A Computer in Every Living Cell (Bray 2009), that McClintock was the first biologist to ask what a cell knows about itself.
Who are you talking to? It is quite clear she DOES know what she's talking about, and you are militantly confused. Your muddled reasoning and addled conclusions are a reflection on YOU, not Pingu.
Well, now that a lone B&B owner has posted in an obscure corner of the internet that a paper concluding the opposite of what he thinks is somehow support for what he thinks, that's human origins sorted then.
Yep, and shockingly, it leads us right back to the Bible, it had it right all along!!1!1!
Have you all ever done any self reflection and noticed that most of what you say is "Bah humbug ... can't be done ... nah ... never happens ..." etc?

And have also noticed how often your negativity turns out to be wrong?
Most recent example is "bah cells can't think."

Turns out they can though.

Did you know that table salt can think?  If you expose NaCl to water, those molecules just know that they should dissociate into ions and form an electrically conductive solution.  Do you think that is by accident?  Those atomic nuclei become positively charged, and then the atoms direct their electrons to become essentially free in a harmonious conducting soup.  With exposure to the environment that contains water, the molecules sense the presence of water and decide to break up into constituent parts.

At the time Shapiro wrote the following (April 2013), no one knew if things like gene duplications are the result of "NGE" or not ...

If we are able to observe cells coordinating NGE functions to make useful complex inventions in real time, major questions arise. How do they perceive what may be useful? We need to find out whether there are feedbacks between sensory inputs and genome changes. Is there any connection between the biological challenge and the NGE output? Cells can adjust other activities to meet the goals of survival, growth and reproduction. Can they do the same with DNA changes? We need to figure out how to do experiments on this.

Right now, for example, we do not even know if E. coli produces the same DNA changes in response to carbohydrate starvation (producing the internal signal cAMP) as it does in response to amino acid starvation (producing the internal signal ppGpp). There is certainly no scientific problem in postulating that high levels of cAMP may stimulate different DNA changes than high levels of ppGpp.

If experiments show that cells can make distinct appropriate NGE responses to different adaptive challenges occurs, we need to figure out how they do so. This almost certainly would prove to be more than a strictly mechanical process. How do cells carry out their computations to make useful goal-oriented responses? A successful answer to that question will certainly involve cybernetics. If such investigations take evolution science into areas that are more than strictly material, so be it. As long as we stay within the realm of natural processes, there are no boundaries on what science can address.
Speculations are evidence for what, exactly?
All the franoogling is a clear sign you don't understand what those sources are saying, Dave. Ctrl-F is no substitute for understanding.

Oh? Perhaps you'd like to present your objections?
You're not interested. You like your fake beliefs.
Never has Dave written anything more clearly that shows he is not interested in truth.
Mary had a little lamb.

Mary had a little lamb. On toast?

Mary had had a little lamb?

Had Mary had a little lamb?

Had Mary hid a little lamb? In her nightie?

Ooooh, lookit me, I'm getting all...whats that word?...Starts with C?
Circumspect and conniving? Clever and contriving? All part of the Darwinist Club of Manipulators, no doubt. Dave can't admit to your creativity, it will destroy his biased preconclusions.
Let's see what Photon has to say about this ...

President Trump's Stunningly Effective North Korea Policy Leaves Professional Diplomatic Corps Gobsmacked...

The statement tonight by South Korean National Security Adviser Chung Eui-yong is so jaw-dropping in significance it has left the professional diplomatic apparatus stunned.

A year of targeted and strategic geopolitical policy execution by President Trump, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley has resulted in North Korean leader Kim Jong-un accepting denuclearization and requesting a meeting with President Trump to achieve terms therein.

Yeah, HO-LEE-CATS is an understatement.  The possibility of a willingly denuclearized Korean peninsular is such an astounding policy victory; it is difficult to conceptualize.  Here's the statement from South Korea's Chung Eui-yong:

-- my buddy Sundance
Hey Dave, where, exactly, did NK accept denuclearization?  You don't really have a great track record with what is real and what is raving fantasy.
Franoogling is an established term to describe Hawkins behaviour, after all.
Photon wins the prize for dumbest response
I'd like to thank my family, the not_Lord Jesus, and most of all, Dave Hawkins for this honour.  Were it not for his misinformed ravings, I wouldn't be here making fun of him.

Yes, I know it was talking about potentialities, Dave, but this is something you do, and then offer those predictions as evidence of your brilliance. 

I also notice you have no response for any of the points brought up.  This is also typical of your content-free cheerleading approach to all aspects of life.
I have shown how the mtDNA evidence is consistent with the Out of the Middle East theory.
Umm, no.  You haven't.
posted by Hannity Staff - 3 hours ago

So, is this more Hawkins-esque counting the success before it occurs?  Trump's idiotic wavering positions on taxes, health care, tariffs, gun control, and international relations, combined with his utter lack of a legislative record (except for the tax bill that only increased wealth disparity by stealing from the disadvantaged to line the pockets of the rich), point to this not being successful.

Trump is a world-class idiot, who cannot put a filter on his running mouth, if he is involved in any way with the talks with North Korea, I predict it will end in one of two ways: 1. Dismal failure, 2. Trump going on record recognizing how awesome ANOTHER world dictator is. 

Dave, just like you can't count your hoped-for successes in animal-based farming going to save the world, you can't count this as a Trump success in any way yet.

In fact, it is difficult to count ANY Trump successes in his first year of office.  Dismantling environmental regulations like a drunken tycoon, and issuing executive orders do not represent lasting change, typically, let alone successes.

I really hope he testifies before the Mueller probe.  He'll sink himself on his own overblown perception of his abilities, and his misunderstandings of the law.  He can't help but say untrue things, if he thinks it will put him in a positive light.  It is a pathological character flaw with the man.
... interesting that the deeper I get, the more I'm convinced that Shapiro's big sweeping statements are pretty accurate.
Funny how that always works for you.
No matter what you're "investigating"::)
Not true. Walt Brown Is a perfect case in point.
So, have you abandoned all of Brown's ridiculous claims, then?
You spent a lot of time defending zooming continents and asteroid belt creation from ejecta from the Fountains of the Deep, remember? Do you now admit your defense of ridiculous orbital mechanics arguments was really misinformed cheerleading?
... interesting that the deeper I get, the more I'm convinced that Shapiro's big sweeping statements are pretty accurate.
Funny how that always works for you.
No matter what you're "investigating"::)
Not true. Walt Brown Is a perfect case in point.
So, have you abandoned all of Brown's ridiculous claims, then?
"Cells don't intend anything, Dave."

Yes they do. You are absolutely wrong here.

Obviously it's different then talking about Pingu intending to do something, but there is definite intention with cells.

It's not the same as human intention, it's more like artificial intelligence intention.
Nope, it's more like a chemical reaction that occurs due to a chemical gradient shift in the environment.
Or like a leaf that gets blown off a tree by the wind falls to the ground because of the surrounding gravity field.

Do chemicals want to react in a reaction, Dave?  Does the leaf intend to fall to the ground? 
If you don't like the car analogy, fine. The bottom line is still that when cells divide, damage sometimes  occurs.

And THAT is a more honest way to put it.
For the analogy to sort of work, each car would need to have its blueprints as part of the car.
Production would be done by copying the blueprints (posibly with damage, from the copying process or before) from an existing, and still working, car and then build a new one from that.
You can always refine analogies because they are never perfect.  But the point of an analogy is not to make it perfect ... it's to help people understand the true nature of the situation.

So "cell replication is a mechanism for generating mutations" makes it sound like the cell intends for copying errors to happen because they are needed as the "raw material for evolution to proceed" (lol).  Pure spin.  But the cell does NOT intend for copying errors to happen.  If anything, the cell intends for copy errors NOT to happen because of the sophisticated systems that the cell has to try to prevent them from happening. 

So what I am complaining about here is SPIN.  It's not an outright lie.  And in a weird way, it's technically true.  But it gives a warped view of reality.  A view that's warped in favor of the totally unevidenced Darwin Dogma that "copy errors are needed as the raw material for evolution" .... notice I'm not saying that "copy errors are always bad" as LIAR PHOTON is insisting.  Photon apparently is out of arguments so he has to invent fiction and put words in my mouth.  
You are the one that wants to characterize copy errors as "damage", a word right from your mouth (fingers). Show the connotation of that word that implies occasional benefit. You can't. Therefore it is YOUR characterization, and YOUR words that are wrong.

Yet you insist that Pingu's statement is spin, when it is an accurate description of reality. You seemingly cannot deal with your inaccurate characterization, but that is YOUR failing/flailing, not Pingu's.  And I certainly didn't put words in your mouth. YOU are the one describing copy errors as damage, which makes no sense if the process can sometimes result in increased fitness.
Like I said... Titania crania
So, no acknowledgement of your faceplant? Sad.

Keep lying, Dave. I'm sure Jesus won't care.
If you don't like the car analogy, fine. The bottom line is still that when cells divide, damage sometimes  occurs.

And THAT is a more honest way to put it.
No, it's not.

"Damage" has connotations that are NOT indicative of a process that sometimes yields novel material that improves biological fitness.
Ding ding.  Which is why the word is more honest.  DNA copying errors almost never improve fitness.


   1. physical harm caused to something in such a way as to impair its value, usefulness, or normal function.

So, Dave, are copying errors ever beneficial?

You've already admitted they are. Therefore your "damage" characterization is false. It is a loaded term you are using for your antiscience bias and ridiculous YEC positions, nothing more.

The End.