Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talkrational: atheism's gadfly.

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 210565 times) previous topic - next topic

Dave Hawkins and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32525
Pingu - I checked to make sure, and from what I can see, China has about 4200 years of recorded history (counting the Xia dynasty), depending on how you count the emperors and sovereigns (which are usually considered somewhat mythological). Sumer gets older, to around 5300 years. 5000 seems a reasonable statement.
thank you. Somebody else that this forum has at least an ounce of sanity.
what are you thanking uncool for?
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32526
And when are you going to stop evading the distribution of the lactase persistence allele?

And no.,the oldest tree is not 5000 years old.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32527
Quote
So design - or at least the appearance of design - is an objective reality at least on earth and I think it extends throughout the universe.  If you are still not convinced, consider an example as mundane as a goat.  It doesn't take many brain cells to realize that a goat was "designed" to eat green stuff - grass, weeds, brush, leaves, etc.  If you try to feed a goat steak and mashed potatoes ... or milk it will not go well.

So yes, my approach to science BEGINS with the assumption that at least the Earth - if not the solar system and the entire universe - can be and should be viewed as a SYSTEM which at least has the appearance of being designed ... for example, if we look at the System of the Global Hydrologic Cycle we see that there is a subsystem in place for desalinating ocean water (evaporation), a subsystem for transporting this water over land (clouds and wind), a subsystem for depositing this water onto the land (rain, snow, etc), a subsystem for slowing down the return of water back to the ocean so that it provides maximum benefit for the land based life that depends on it (Soil Organic Matter - SOM), and so on. 

Well, let us see where this method takes us. Consider the human head: it has a system for getting around and attaching eggs safely. It has a system for transporting nutrients from deep in the body to the scalp, where it can be accessed easily. It has a slower system for cycling them away again, to provide the maximum benefit for the creatures that need them. It has a system for regulating temperature to keep it within very specific ranges. It has a system for ensuring that the air remains sufficiently moist. It even has an intricate system to ensure overcrowded heads can shed some excess population to new, uncolonized ones!

Obviously it is an objective reality that the human head was designed for the benefit of headlice, using the same logic that shows us the earth is designed for us. I mean just look at all the appearance of design!

Of course we can arbitrarily switch things around, and say the louse was designed for the head. But then we hit another question:  designed to fill what function, exactly? Let us apply the design-science method: we assume it is designed, and that it is designed with a function that is beneficial to us. We then work backwards, trying to see if anything comes up that is compatible with that.

There is one possible benefit from getting headlice: it makes you *slightly* more resistant to clothing-lice, which is a disease vector. For Typhus, among other things.  But then what was the clothing louse designed for? Why not simply not design one if we need something to keep them from being a problem?

Problematic. Now we can simply say "Oh well. Mysterious ways and all that" and leave it at that. We can't really try to work backwards again, because we used resistance to clothing lice as a function for the headlouse. If not getting them is important enough to warrant a whole species, how can they be good for us at the same time?

Maybe we can have our cake and eat it too? We can always invoke some sort of balance! That could work.

Perhaps we need some resistance to keep the clothes-lice within acceptable limits, and it is all a system to ensure optimum health. Maybe those typhus and plague spreading lice actually keep our immune system ticking over, but the headlice were put in place to keep them down a bit so that they do not make us ill!

That should tick all the boxes nicely, actually, and fit right in with your philosophy? I think we have cracked it, from a design-science point of view!

Dave, I think Designience (tm) is suggesting that a healthy, natural population of head- and clothing lice is needed to keep us in optimal health. We should stop eradicating them, and work with nature by making sure we have some of both. Probably pubic lice and fleas too, I would not wonder. After all, infections like Typhus are only a problem when the natural balance has been upset by us not working with nature - in a healthily lousy population it would probably not be a problem at all?

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32528
btw, Dave, while this tree thing is sheer evasion on your part, your argument makes no sense for reasons you are too stupid[1] to begin to understand.

Leaving aside the fact that the root system of the Pando quaking aspen grove is an estimated 80,000 years old and still living, and assuming FOR THE SALE OF ARGUMENT that the oldest tree is indeed no more than 5,000 years old, this does NOTHING for your Flood argument.

IF it were the case that the REASON that the oldest tree is no more than 5,000 year old is that the Flood killed all living trees, THEN we should see LARGE NUMBERS of trees that are only slightly younger.

In FACT such trees are extremely rare.  The vast majority of mature trees are more like a few hundred years old.

So the REASON that very few trees are even as old as 5,000 years, is NOT because there was some Global catastrophe that wiped out all trees prior to that, but because the vast majority of trees do not live anything like that long.

It's such a damn stupid argument that only someone stupid enough not to see why it's so stupid could make it.

Oh, and btw, your bible story says only "that people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth".  It doesn't say that trees and plants were.  Nor that fish were.

And what do the "billions of dead things" overwhelmingly consist of?  Why, marine creatures plus layers of dead trees!

No people.  Very few terrestrial mammals or even terrestrial creatures at all, except on rock layers NOT "laid down by water".  No birds (unless you count dinosaurs, which you don't).
i.e. to blinkered by DaveHasToBeRightism.  Your basic neural equipment is probably fine.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32529
I'll say this for Dave - he's a fluent writer of what superficially looks like English, except that none of the nouns or verbs actually denote anything generally denoted by those terms by actual English speakers.

it's a kind of reverse Reverse Swahili Pig Latin.

And I love the idea that goats were not designed to drink ...milk.


I'm still cracking up at this post.  This is one of those zinger posts that only Aussies and True English(TM) can pull off.

  • Zombies!
  • These violent delights have violent ends.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32530
I'll say this for Dave - he's a fluent writer of what superficially looks like English, except that none of the nouns or verbs actually denote anything generally denoted by those terms by actual English speakers.

it's a kind of reverse Reverse Swahili Pig Latin.

And I love the idea that goats were not designed to drink ...milk.


I'm still cracking up at this post.  This is one of those zinger posts that only Aussies and True English(TM) can pull off.
Why can't you be funny?
I really should call your department head and tell him or her how badly you are behaving while posing as a credentialed professional scientist.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32531
Quote
So design - or at least the appearance of design - is an objective reality at least on earth and I think it extends throughout the universe.  If you are still not convinced, consider an example as mundane as a goat.  It doesn't take many brain cells to realize that a goat was "designed" to eat green stuff - grass, weeds, brush, leaves, etc.  If you try to feed a goat steak and mashed potatoes ... or milk it will not go well.

So yes, my approach to science BEGINS with the assumption that at least the Earth - if not the solar system and the entire universe - can be and should be viewed as a SYSTEM which at least has the appearance of being designed ... for example, if we look at the System of the Global Hydrologic Cycle we see that there is a subsystem in place for desalinating ocean water (evaporation), a subsystem for transporting this water over land (clouds and wind), a subsystem for depositing this water onto the land (rain, snow, etc), a subsystem for slowing down the return of water back to the ocean so that it provides maximum benefit for the land based life that depends on it (Soil Organic Matter - SOM), and so on. 

Well, let us see where this method takes us. Consider the human head: it has a system for getting around and attaching eggs safely. It has a system for transporting nutrients from deep in the body to the scalp, where it can be accessed easily. It has a slower system for cycling them away again, to provide the maximum benefit for the creatures that need them. It has a system for regulating temperature to keep it within very specific ranges. It has a system for ensuring that the air remains sufficiently moist. It even has an intricate system to ensure overcrowded heads can shed some excess population to new, uncolonized ones!

Obviously it is an objective reality that the human head was designed for the benefit of headlice, using the same logic that shows us the earth is designed for us. I mean just look at all the appearance of design!

Of course we can arbitrarily switch things around, and say the louse was designed for the head. But then we hit another question:  designed to fill what function, exactly? Let us apply the design-science method: we assume it is designed, and that it is designed with a function that is beneficial to us. We then work backwards, trying to see if anything comes up that is compatible with that.

There is one possible benefit from getting headlice: it makes you *slightly* more resistant to clothing-lice, which is a disease vector. For Typhus, among other things.  But then what was the clothing louse designed for? Why not simply not design one if we need something to keep them from being a problem?

Problematic. Now we can simply say "Oh well. Mysterious ways and all that" and leave it at that. We can't really try to work backwards again, because we used resistance to clothing lice as a function for the headlouse. If not getting them is important enough to warrant a whole species, how can they be good for us at the same time?

Maybe we can have our cake and eat it too? We can always invoke some sort of balance! That could work.

Perhaps we need some resistance to keep the clothes-lice within acceptable limits, and it is all a system to ensure optimum health. Maybe those typhus and plague spreading lice actually keep our immune system ticking over, but the headlice were put in place to keep them down a bit so that they do not make us ill!

That should tick all the boxes nicely, actually, and fit right in with your philosophy? I think we have cracked it, from a design-science point of view!

Dave, I think Designience (tm) is suggesting that a healthy, natural population of head- and clothing lice is needed to keep us in optimal health. We should stop eradicating them, and work with nature by making sure we have some of both. Probably pubic lice and fleas too, I would not wonder. After all, infections like Typhus are only a problem when the natural balance has been upset by us not working with nature - in a healthily lousy population it would probably not be a problem at all?
So you disagree with Saint Dawkins?  (May he live forever)  ... Or did you so soon forget that he wrote " "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose"??

Note that there is nothing incompatible with your lice example and my hydrologic cycle example.  Heads DO in fact, as you say, give the appearance of design for being ideal egg laying places for lice.  Bravo!  I'm not following how this example changes anything I have said.  Does the hydrologic cycle as a system suddenly NOT desalinate water?  Does it suddenly NOT transport the freshly desalinated water over land via clouds and wind?  Does it suddenly NOT do any of these things because of "Viv's head lice example"??  Methinks not.

Remember the larger context of my hydrologic cycle example - HOW WE SHOULD DO SCIENCE.

I believe that we are better practitioners of science if we recognize design up front, then work within that design ... and yes, I'm talking about ALL design (or the appearance thereof) including things like ...

1) Goats which appear to be designed to eat green stuff, not mashed potatoes and gravy
2) An earth watering system which appears to be designed to depend on rain among other things to water the land
3) Scalps which have the appearance of being designed for the purpose of head lice laying their eggs

Etc.

Now imagine for a moment if we would stamp our feet and refuse to consider these Basic Designs in Nature and instead of approaching science with these basic acknowledgements, we instead approach science as follows ...

1) This week Dr. Ancel Keys, creator of the K Ration, announced that his team will be pursuing grant money to do a study to see whether goats can subsist on mashed potatoes and gravy or not.  This study will include full chemical analysis of mashed potatoes and gravy, full chemical analysis of feces and urine sample, a complete study of the digestive system of goats, and a psychological study of the goats to determine their sense of well being.  The beneficiaries of this research will be people who live in places like Phoenix Arizona who live in houses with rock yards (no grass) but want to keep a couple of dairy goats so they can have fresh milk.  The idea is to turn human food leftovers into fresh milk.

2) In other news, Elon Musk will be developing a new earth watering system.  It will involve solar powered desalination plants to produce the fresh water which will be delivered by massive pipe and sprinkler systems.  Mr. Musk announced that his first location will be somewhere along the coast in Algeria with the ultimate goal being to re-green the Sahara desert.  Mr. Musk likes to think big!

3) Last but not least, Vivisectus will be initiating a study of Pediculus humanus capitis (head lice).  Dr. V will be working in the poorest school districts in the country - most head lice per capita among students - and working to develop a PLEI (Personal Louse Egg Incubator) which can be carried around in a little back pack by all students.  The PLEI will be engineered to be MORE attractive to Pediculus humanus capitis than the human head.  Market research by the firm funding the research is at least 1 million PLEI units in the first year.  Local factories for building the PLEIs will create jobs in the local market.
  • Last Edit: January 26, 2018, 05:15:24 AM by Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32532
god damn you're an idiot
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32533
Quote
So you disagree with Saint Dawkins?  (May he live forever)  ... Or did you so soon forget that he wrote " "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose"??

What does that have to do with the price of fish? I think "the selfish gene" was pretty amazing, but apart from that I am not particularly bothered with what Dawkins says.

Quote
Note that there is nothing incompatible with your lice example and my hydrologic cycle example.  Heads DO in fact, as you say, give the appearance of design for being ideal egg laying places for lice.  Bravo!
 

Indeed they do! And just like you say it does with the earth, this makes it an objective fact that it was designed for lice. So when we look at the head systems, we can do science better when we understand that they were designed to support lice. In fact, when you do not do so, research becomes inefficient at best, and completely useless many other cases! If we stamp our feet and pretend it is not so, look at all the weird directions research could go in!

Quote
I'm not following how this example changes anything I have said.  Does the hydrologic cycle as a system suddenly NOT desalinate water?  Does it suddenly NOT transport the freshly desalinated water over land via clouds and wind?  Does it suddenly NOT do any of these things because of "Viv's head lice example"??  Methinks not.

Indeed not! Neither does it stop the circulation system from bringing up precious nutrients for the lice. What exactly is your point?

Quote
Remember the larger context of my hydrologic cycle example - HOW WE SHOULD DO SCIENCE.

Indeed! I look forward to all the scientific progress we can make by assuming the head is designed to support lice.

Quote
Now imagine for a moment if we would stamp our feet and refuse to consider these Basic Designs in Nature and instead of approaching science with these basic acknowledgements, we instead approach science as follows ...

1) This week Dr. Ancel Keys, creator of the K Ration, announced that his team will be pursuing grant money to do a study to see whether goats can subsist on mashed potatoes and gravy or not.  This study will include full chemical analysis of mashed potatoes and gravy, full chemical analysis of feces and urine sample, a complete study of the digestive system of goats, and a psychological study of the goats to determine their sense of well being.  The beneficiaries of this research will be people who live in places like Phoenix Arizona who live in houses with rock yards (no grass) but want to keep a couple of dairy goats so they can have fresh milk.  The idea is to turn human food leftovers into fresh milk.

2) In other news, Elon Musk will be developing a new earth watering system.  It will involve solar powered desalination plants to produce the fresh water which will be delivered by massive pipe and sprinkler systems.  Mr. Musk announced that his first location will be somewhere along the coast in Algeria with the ultimate goal being to re-green the Sahara desert.  Mr. Musk likes to think big!

3) Last but not least, Vivisectus will be initiating a study of Pediculus humanus capitis (head lice).  Dr. V will be working in the poorest school districts in the country - most head lice per capita among students - and working to develop a PLEI (Personal Louse Egg Incubator) which can be carried around in a little back pack by all students.  The PLEI will be engineered to be MORE attractive to Pediculus humanus capitis than the human head.  Market research by the firm funding the research is at least 1 million PLEI units in the first year.  Local factories for building the PLEIs will create jobs in the local market.

Dave, you seem to be having a brainfart here. A charitable reading suggests that you seem to think that not sharing your assumptions means striking out completely at random... or something?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32534
I'll say this for Dave - he's a fluent writer of what superficially looks like English, except that none of the nouns or verbs actually denote anything generally denoted by those terms by actual English speakers.

it's a kind of reverse Reverse Swahili Pig Latin.

And I love the idea that goats were not designed to drink ...milk.


I'm still cracking up at this post.  This is one of those zinger posts that only Aussies and True English(TM) can pull off.
Bluffy, you cracked up early in life. It's highly unlikely anything can fix that at this point in time.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32535
I'll say this for Dave - he's a fluent writer of what superficially looks like English, except that none of the nouns or verbs actually denote anything generally denoted by those terms by actual English speakers.

it's a kind of reverse Reverse Swahili Pig Latin.

And I love the idea that goats were not designed to drink ...milk.


I'm still cracking up at this post.  This is one of those zinger posts that only Aussies and True English(TM) can pull off.
Why can't you be funny?
Tragic figures are not supposed to be funny.
Are we there yet?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32536
"And just like you say it does with the earth, this makes it an objective fact that it was designed for lice."

Key mistake you made here.

I do not think it is an objective fact. I agree with Dawkins that it has the appearance of design.

  • Martin.au
  • Thingyologist
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32537
So, what is your plan for studying this earth watering system. I've seen lots of rhetoric and sales pitch, but nothing that demonstrates you have a useful method of study. In fact, it appears you are seeking the opposite. A way to avoid studying such things.
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32538
"And just like you say it does with the earth, this makes it an objective fact that it was designed for lice."

Key mistake you made here.

I do not think it is an objective fact. I agree with Dawkins that it has the appearance of design.

Only if you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope.
A walk through the ocean of most mens souls would scarcely get your feet wet.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32539
"And just like you say it does with the earth, this makes it an objective fact that it was designed for lice."

Key mistake you made here.

I do not think it is an objective fact. I agree with Dawkins that it has the appearance of design.

Sure - and this appearance of design warrants the assumption that it IS designed. Still the same thing, Dave. This appearance of design is an objective reality, as you put it.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32540
As for my three goofy examples that you say are random... note that in all three the scientist involved ignores the apparent designs in nature. So he is ignoring the appearance that goats are designed to eat green stuff, he is ignoring the appearance that the Earth has a designed system in place already to water the land.  actually as I look at the third example, I see a mistake I made. The scientist in the last example it does not ignore appearance of design. Let me think of a better example.

  • Martin.au
  • Thingyologist
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32541
Once again, Dave proves he doesn't know what science is.
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32542
jesus christ learn some reverse swahili pig latin and look up the word teleology.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32543
Once again, Dave proves he doesn't know what science is.
He seems to have it confused with invention.

ETA: Which would explain why he thinks building a mechanical cage to stick goats in is science.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32544
So, what is your plan for studying this earth watering system. I've seen lots of rhetoric and sales pitch, but nothing that demonstrates you have a useful method of study. In fact, it appears you are seeking the opposite. A way to avoid studying such things.
Well I've mentioned sevetal aspects of it several times. I'm not sure why it's taking you so long to absorb. I've mentioned several times that one key part of the hydrologic cycle is soil organic matter. Among other functions, soil organic matter slows down the water in the landscape returning to the ocean so that it can be utilized by land-based life. Now let's apply this to a specific region of the world. China. The Chinese want more trees right? But the problem is that there is not enough soil moisture to support tree growth and that's why they have had so many millions of trees die that they have planted. Allan Savory has come up with an economical solution to thus problem. In fact, its not just economical it actually makes money instead of costing money. That's the beauty of systems which mimic nature.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32545
As for my three goofy examples that you say are random... note that in all three the scientist involved ignores the apparent designs in nature. So he is ignoring the appearance that goats are designed to eat green stuff, he is ignoring the appearance that the Earth has a designed system in place already to water the land.  actually as I look at the third example, I see a mistake I made. The scientist in the last example it does not ignore appearance of design. Let me think of a better example.

Look, Dave. I don't know why you are coming over all reductionist all of a sudden, stamping your feet and trying to deny the objective reality of the appearance of the head as a system designed for headlice. Think of all the useless octohattery we can bypass by assuming the head-systems are designed to create a comfortable home for headlice!

  • Martin.au
  • Thingyologist
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32546
So, what is your plan for studying this earth watering system. I've seen lots of rhetoric and sales pitch, but nothing that demonstrates you have a useful method of study. In fact, it appears you are seeking the opposite. A way to avoid studying such things.
Well I've mentioned sevetal aspects of it several times. I'm not sure why it's taking you so long to absorb. I've mentioned several times that one key part of the hydrologic cycle is soil organic matter. Among other functions, soil organic matter slows down the water in the landscape returning to the ocean so that it can be utilized by land-based life. Now let's apply this to a specific region of the world. China. The Chinese want more trees right? But the problem is that there is not enough soil moisture to support tree growth and that's why they have had so many millions of trees die that they have planted. Allan Savory has come up with an economical solution to thus problem. In fact, its not just economical it actually makes money instead of costing money. That's the beauty of systems which mimic nature.

Hahaha. And he rolls out another sales pitch. That's not what I asked for, Dave.
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32547
Quote
Let me think of a better example.

Maybe in stead Dr Viv could be proposing we create tiny cages for lice and drag them slowly across people's scalps to increase the number of follicles in the scalp?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32548
Quote
So design - or at least the appearance of design - is an objective reality at least on earth and I think it extends throughout the universe.  If you are still not convinced, consider an example as mundane as a goat.  It doesn't take many brain cells to realize that a goat was "designed" to eat green stuff - grass, weeds, brush, leaves, etc.  If you try to feed a goat steak and mashed potatoes ... or milk it will not go well.

So yes, my approach to science BEGINS with the assumption that at least the Earth - if not the solar system and the entire universe - can be and should be viewed as a SYSTEM which at least has the appearance of being designed ... for example, if we look at the System of the Global Hydrologic Cycle we see that there is a subsystem in place for desalinating ocean water (evaporation), a subsystem for transporting this water over land (clouds and wind), a subsystem for depositing this water onto the land (rain, snow, etc), a subsystem for slowing down the return of water back to the ocean so that it provides maximum benefit for the land based life that depends on it (Soil Organic Matter - SOM), and so on. 

Well, let us see where this method takes us. Consider the human head: it has a system for getting around and attaching eggs safely. It has a system for transporting nutrients from deep in the body to the scalp, where it can be accessed easily. It has a slower system for cycling them away again, to provide the maximum benefit for the creatures that need them. It has a system for regulating temperature to keep it within very specific ranges. It has a system for ensuring that the air remains sufficiently moist. It even has an intricate system to ensure overcrowded heads can shed some excess population to new, uncolonized ones!

Obviously it is an objective reality that the human head was designed for the benefit of headlice, using the same logic that shows us the earth is designed for us. I mean just look at all the appearance of design!

Of course we can arbitrarily switch things around, and say the louse was designed for the head. But then we hit another question:  designed to fill what function, exactly? Let us apply the design-science method: we assume it is designed, and that it is designed with a function that is beneficial to us. We then work backwards, trying to see if anything comes up that is compatible with that.

There is one possible benefit from getting headlice: it makes you *slightly* more resistant to clothing-lice, which is a disease vector. For Typhus, among other things.  But then what was the clothing louse designed for? Why not simply not design one if we need something to keep them from being a problem?

Problematic. Now we can simply say "Oh well. Mysterious ways and all that" and leave it at that. We can't really try to work backwards again, because we used resistance to clothing lice as a function for the headlouse. If not getting them is important enough to warrant a whole species, how can they be good for us at the same time?

Maybe we can have our cake and eat it too? We can always invoke some sort of balance! That could work.

Perhaps we need some resistance to keep the clothes-lice within acceptable limits, and it is all a system to ensure optimum health. Maybe those typhus and plague spreading lice actually keep our immune system ticking over, but the headlice were put in place to keep them down a bit so that they do not make us ill!

That should tick all the boxes nicely, actually, and fit right in with your philosophy? I think we have cracked it, from a design-science point of view!

Dave, I think Designience (tm) is suggesting that a healthy, natural population of head- and clothing lice is needed to keep us in optimal health. We should stop eradicating them, and work with nature by making sure we have some of both. Probably pubic lice and fleas too, I would not wonder. After all, infections like Typhus are only a problem when the natural balance has been upset by us not working with nature - in a healthily lousy population it would probably not be a problem at all?
So you disagree with Saint Dawkins?  (May he live forever)  ... Or did you so soon forget that he wrote " "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose"??

Note that there is nothing incompatible with your lice example and my hydrologic cycle example.  Heads DO in fact, as you say, give the appearance of design for being ideal egg laying places for lice.  Bravo!  I'm not following how this example changes anything I have said.  Does the hydrologic cycle as a system suddenly NOT desalinate water?  Does it suddenly NOT transport the freshly desalinated water over land via clouds and wind?  Does it suddenly NOT do any of these things because of "Viv's head lice example"??  Methinks not.

Remember the larger context of my hydrologic cycle example - HOW WE SHOULD DO SCIENCE.

I believe that we are better practitioners of science if we recognize design up front, then work within that design ... and yes, I'm talking about ALL design (or the appearance thereof) including things like ...

1) Goats which appear to be designed to eat green stuff, not mashed potatoes and gravy
2) An earth watering system which appears to be designed to depend on rain among other things to water the land
3) Scalps which have the appearance of being designed for the purpose of head lice laying their eggs

Etc.

Now imagine for a moment if we would stamp our feet and refuse to consider these Basic Designs in Nature and instead of approaching science with these basic acknowledgements, we instead approach science as follows ...

1) This week Dr. Ancel Keys, creator of the K Ration, announced that his team will be pursuing grant money to do a study to see whether goats can subsist on mashed potatoes and gravy or not.  This study will include full chemical analysis of mashed potatoes and gravy, full chemical analysis of feces and urine sample, a complete study of the digestive system of goats, and a psychological study of the goats to determine their sense of well being.  The beneficiaries of this research will be people who live in places like Phoenix Arizona who live in houses with rock yards (no grass) but want to keep a couple of dairy goats so they can have fresh milk.  The idea is to turn human food leftovers into fresh milk.

2) In other news, Elon Musk will be developing a new earth watering system.  It will involve solar powered desalination plants to produce the fresh water which will be delivered by massive pipe and sprinkler systems.  Mr. Musk announced that his first location will be somewhere along the coast in Algeria with the ultimate goal being to re-green the Sahara desert.  Mr. Musk likes to think big!

3) Last but not least, Vivisectus will be initiating a study of Pediculus humanus capitis (head lice).  Dr. V will be working in the poorest school districts in the country - most head lice per capita among students - and working to develop a PLEI (Personal Louse Egg Incubator) which can be carried around in a little back pack by all students.  The PLEI will be engineered to be MORE attractive to Pediculus humanus capitis than the human head.  Market research by the firm funding the research is at least 1 million PLEI units in the first year.  Local factories for building the PLEIs will create jobs in the local market.
Bluffy, Vivisectus was agreeing with your POV, that the appearance of design is obvious evidence of design. You seem to agree with his example of human heads appearing to having been designed for head lice. However, you are less forthcoming in your endorsement of human heads actually being designed for the benefit of head lice. Is that what you think? That human heads are indeed designed for the benefit of head lice? I mean, it must be, given it appears to be the case. If not, why not, it seems to be slam dunk case for design. Would you argue it's just a coincidence all those systems are in place, obviously for the benefit of head lice? That would have to be some really unlikely coincidence. I mean, how likely it is that human heads would come into existence in the first place? It's so obvious The Great Designer (pbui) was looking after head lice. And as such, you need to go right out and get you own colony to support. Otherwise TGD (pbui) is going to be unhappy with you and you know where that leads.

Or perhaps you agree with Vivisectus' further hypothesis that head lice are just there to control body lice but not eliminate them because body lice appear to provide a slight resistance to Typhus? I wonder what pubic lice were designed for. Or was it human genitalia and their use were designed for the benefit of pubic lice?

As to your examples, you do not indicate how any of these are in line or out of line with your insistence on following the appearance of design. BTW, Keys died over a dozen years ago, still an honored scientist. And you might remember, there's a company in Australia doing just what you fantasize Musk doing. Lastly, your third fantasy actually sounds like a pretty good business opportunity, you might even want to get in on it. Head lice are one of the nightmares of mothers everywhere and this work might also apply to bed bugs, for which the human need for sleep was obviously designed, being humans like to sleep in beds and that's where bed bugs live.

BTW, you seem to ignore Dawkin's use of the term "appearance". As well as the fact he appears to be utterly ignorant of physics and chemistry with regard to the complexity of those subjects, either that or highly biased towards the view Biology is much more complex. As well as the fact Dawkin's doesn't really speak for the entire scientific community (presumably because of your hero/authority worship syndrome - but in reverse). Did you read the entire couple of paragraphs you quote-mined that passage from?

What an utterly utter bluffoon.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32549
god damn you're an idiot
Generally, idiocy is genetic or the result of head injury or disease. I am not aware of any of those being the case for Bluffy's twittery. Other than he's the shining example of MINDKPism, almost entirely self-inflicted. Presumably his parents have some responsibility but he's had plenty of time and lots of opportunity to reverse whatever damage they did.
Are we there yet?