At Sci-News: Moths Produce Ultrasonic Defensive Sounds to Fend Off Bat Predators

_{Caspian
July 27, 2022

Evolution, Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Evolution
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Scientists from Boise State University and elsewhere have tested 252 genera from most families of large-bodied moths. Their results show that ultrasound-producing moths are far more widespread than previously thought, adding three new sound-producing organs, eight new subfamilies and potentially thousands of species to the roster.

A molecular phylogeny of Lepidoptera indicating antipredator ultrasound production across the order. Image credit: Barber *et al*., doi: 10.1073/pnas.2117485119.

Bats pierce the shadows with ultrasonic pulses that enable them to construct an auditory map of their surroundings, which is bad news for moths, one of their favorite foods.
However, not all moths are defenseless prey. Some emit ultrasonic signals of their own that startle bats into breaking off pursuit.
Many moths that contain bitter toxins avoid capture altogether by producing distinct ultrasounds that alert bats to their foul taste. Others conceal themselves in a shroud of sonar-jamming static that makes them hard to find with bat echolocation.
While effective, these types of auditory defense mechanisms in moths are considered relatively rare, known only in tiger moths, hawk moths and a single species of geometrid moth.

“It’s not just tiger moths and hawk moths that are doing this,” said Dr. Akito Kawahara, a researcher at the Florida Museum of Natural History.
“There are tons of moths that create ultrasonic sounds, and we hardly know anything about them.”

In the same way that non-toxic butterflies mimic the colors and wing patterns of less savory species, moths that lack the benefit of built-in toxins can copy the pitch and timbre of genuinely unappetizing relatives.

These ultrasonic warning systems seem so useful for evading bats that they’ve evolved independently in moths on multiple separate occasions.
In each case, moths transformed a different part of their bodies into finely tuned organic instruments.

[I’ve put these quotes from the article in bold to highlight the juxtaposition of “evolved independently” and “finely tuned organic instruments.” Fine-tuning is, of course, often associated with intelligent design, rather than unguided natural processes.]

See the full article in Sci-News.

Comments

ET
He can’t even tell us how to test the claim that blind and mindless processes are capable of producing any bacterial flagellum.
Joe, Joe, KF will tell you every tub must stand on its own bottom. Rail against evolutionary if you want but it doesn't change the fact that for "Intelligent Design" there is no tub and no bottom. And still nobody can tell me what FSCO/I is, not even the guy who invented itAlan Fox_{August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

I agree. And Alan's obfuscation and willful ignorance are not arguments against that. What Alan will never present is evidence that blind and mindless processes produced any bacterial flagellum, for example. He can't even tell us how to test the claim that blind and mindless processes are capable of producing any bacterial flagellum. And he doesn't understand that science rejects claims that are evidence-free and cannot be tested.ET_{August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

ET, there is endless talk on fitness functions and hill climbing. There is a common assumption of well behaved functions, though the issue of ruggedness as I discussed is not properly appreciated. However, given FSCO/I, we have issues of multiple, well adapted, matched, properly arranged and coupled parts to achieve function, as is easily seen with the exploded view of a case study, the ABU 6500 reel [simpler than Paley's watch and from a firm that made taxi meters]. In short, islands of function separated by vast seas of non functional clumped or scattered configurations is very real. The dominant search challenge is to get to a shoreline of function for hill climbing and specialised adaptation to modify the body plan or architecture or wiring diagram. Where with 500 - 1,000 bits as a threshold atomic and time resources cannot carry out significant config space search. So, FSCO/I by blind needle in haystack search is analytically maximally implausible. There are trillions of cases by intelligently directed configuration, as intelligence plus knowledge plus technique are fully capable. FSCO/I is a signature of design. All this has been outlined, explained, thrashed out over a decade ago, but we are not dealing with intellectual responsiveness. KFkairosfocus_{August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

1. What precisely is environmental design? 2. How is it quantified? 3. Who, besides Alan and Fred, talks about environmental design?ET_{August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

PPS, for further contemplation:
CONCEPT: NFL, p. 148:“The great myth of contemporary evolutionary biology is that the information needed to explain complex biological structures can be purchased without intelligence. My aim throughout this book is to dispel that myth . . . . Eigen and his colleagues must have something else in mind besides information simpliciter when they describe the origin of information as the central problem of biology. I submit that what they have in mind is specified complexity [cf. p 144 as cited below], or what equivalently we have been calling in this Chapter Complex Specified information or CSI . . . . Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. . . . In virtue of their function [a living organism's subsystems] embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the sense required by the complexity-specificity criterion . . . the specification can be cashed out in any number of ways
[through observing the requisites of functional organisation within the cell, or in organs and tissues or at the level of the organism as a whole. Dembski cites: Wouters, p. 148: "globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms," Behe, p. 148: "minimal function of biochemical systems," Dawkins, pp. 148 - 9: "Complicated things have some quality, specifiable in advance, that is highly unlikely to have been acquired by ran-| dom chance alone. In the case of living things, the quality that is specified in advance is . . . the ability to propagate genes in reproduction." On p. 149, he roughly cites Orgel's famous remark on specified complexity from 1973, which exactly cited reads: " In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity . . ." And, p. 149, he highlights Paul Davis in The Fifth Miracle: "Living organisms are mysterious not for their complexity per se, but for their tightly specified complexity."] . . .”
DEFINITION: p. 144: [Specified complexity can be more formally defined:] “. . . since a universal probability bound of 1 [chance] in 10^150 corresponds to a universal complexity bound of 500 bits of information, [the cluster] (T, E) constitutes CSI because T [effectively the target hot zone in the field of possibilities] subsumes E [effectively the observed event from that field], T is detachable from E, and and T measures at least 500 bits of information . . . ”
I do not think there is necessity to engage in probability analysis, there is plausibility due to blind, needle in haystack search challenge. That is why I point to 10^57 sol system atoms [where most are H and He in the sun] and to 10^80 for the observed cosmos, with fast reactions of organic character rated as up to 10^ -14 s. 10^17s is ord of mag available time. 3,27*10^150 to 1.07^10^301 possibilities swamps those reducing to only negligible search of the configuration space being possible. Where, search for a golden search can be seen i/l/o how a search samples a subset, so for a set of n configs, the set of searches is power set, of scale 2^n, so exponentially harder, suggested golden searches built into the cosmology would be front loaded fine tuning. Blind watchmaker approaches are maximally implausible. PPPS, as you seem unfamiliar with the underlying state or phase space thinking, Walker and Davies:
In physics, particularly in statistical mechanics, we base many of our calculations on the assumption of metric transitivity, which asserts that a system’s trajectory will eventually [--> given "enough time and search resources"] explore the entirety of its state space – thus everything that is phys-ically possible will eventually happen. It should then be trivially true that one could choose an arbitrary “final state” (e.g., a living organism) and “explain” it by evolving the system backwards in time choosing an appropriate state at some ’start’ time t_0 (fine-tuning the initial state). In the case of a chaotic system the initial state must be specified to arbitrarily high precision. But this account amounts to no more than saying that the world is as it is because it was as it was, and our current narrative therefore scarcely constitutes an explanation in the true scientific sense. We are left in a bit of a conundrum with respect to the problem of specifying the initial conditions necessary to explain our world. A key point is that if we require specialness in our initial state (such that we observe the current state of the world and not any other state) metric transitivity cannot hold true, as it blurs any dependency on initial conditions – that is, it makes little sense for us to single out any particular state as special by calling it the ’initial’ state. If we instead relax the assumption of metric transitivity (which seems more realistic for many real world physical systems – including life), then our phase space will consist of isolated pocket regions and it is not necessarily possible to get to any other physically possible state (see e.g. Fig. 1 for a cellular automata example).
[--> or, there may not be "enough" time and/or resources for the relevant exploration, i.e. we see the 500 - 1,000 bit complexity threshold at work vs 10^57 - 10^80 atoms with fast rxn rates at about 10^-13 to 10^-15 s leading to inability to explore more than a vanishingly small fraction on the gamut of Sol system or observed cosmos . . . the only actually, credibly observed cosmos]
Thus the initial state must be tuned to be in the region of phase space in which we find ourselves [--> notice, fine tuning], and there are regions of the configuration space our physical universe would be excluded from accessing, even if those states may be equally consistent and permissible under the microscopic laws of physics (starting from a different initial state). Thus according to the standard picture, we require special initial conditions to explain the complexity of the world, but also have a sense that we should not be on a particularly special trajectory to get here (or anywhere else) as it would be a sign of fine–tuning of the initial conditions. [ --> notice, the "loading"] Stated most simply, a potential problem with the way we currently formulate physics is that you can’t necessarily get everywhere from anywhere (see Walker [31] for discussion). ["The “Hard Problem” of Life," June 23, 2016, a discussion by Sara Imari Walker and Paul C.W. Davies at Arxiv.]
More on the anthropic principle from Lewis and Barnes https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/hitchhikers-guide-authors-puddle-argument-against-fine-tuning-and-a-response/#comment-729507 And on and on for those willing to rise above willful obtusenes and hyperskepticism.kairosfocus_{August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

AF, long since answered, you are playing at willful obtuseness. A descriptive phrase for a ubiquitous phenomenon in an information age being treated with hyperskepticism is a strong sign of just how threadbare the objections are. FSCO/I = "functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information," which describes, it does not invent. And that is a root problem, nominalism; it fails, there are abstracta such as information and quantities, that are very real. Information is measurable as capacity in bits, counted from string length of two state elements to hold it. Wicken pointed out that -- with implied compact description languages -- information is implicit in functionally specific organisation and its wiring diagram. Functionality dependent on configuration is highly observable, look at any auto parts shop or at how readily information is garbled by noise. You contributed many cases in point in this thread or elsewhere. So, you know full well what you pretend to doubt. That tells us just how powerful is the discovery of coded algorithmic information in D/RNA in the cell and its function as basic module of life. Where life is of course notoriously undefined in the sense of a consensus precising statement, but is readily recognised. Definitionitis rhetoric fails. KF PS, it matters not 50c that I use and explain the description, the substance is real and similar phrasing is everywhere. Start with Orgel and Wicken as already cited and see if you can bring yourself to acknowledge they have a point. In speaking of specified complexity [coming from Orgel] and on complex specified information Dembski pointed out that for biological systems such is cashed out in terms of functionality. That is, functionally specific configurations. And Abel, Durston et al have reduced that to an analysis pivoting on observed range of variation in life for enzymes etc.kairosfocus_{August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT}

KF in 193 Thanks for at least using paragraphs and numbering them. The questions that interest me are: 1. What precisely is "FSCO/I" 2.How is it quantified? 3. Who, apart from Kairosfocus, talks about "FSCO/I"?Alan Fox_{August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT}

AF, I will comment on points: AF, 120: >>I try to see the world as it is>> 1: If that were so, it would be admirable objectivity. >>and base my remarks on facts.>> 2: The evidence above shows evasion of facts starting with ubiquity of functional information based on strings or configurations, measurable in bits of capacity and adjusted for redundancy. (You seem to lack familiarity with the underlying theory of information and communication and to imagine that you can dismiss it because of who points it out. Which, of course lacks objectivity.) >>Warrant?>> 3: Warrant is a key component of what is knowable, speaking to credible realities, right reason, sufficiency to ground conclusions. Your unresponsiveness to the bit speaks volumes in a digital age. >> I’m a pragmatist.>> 4: Pragmatism, strictly, is in serious hot water as a view on truth and knowledge. As is any variety of relativism, subjectivism, emotivism etc. We have already seen how objective knowledge necessarily and undeniably exists for any reasonably distinct field of discussion. >>Rules that work best flow from consensus>> 5: Once significant worldviews issues and the attitude of hyperskepticism are on the table, consensus is impossible. Instead, truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence are what we have. Your hyperskepticism does not control our knowledge, nor should it. >> and fairness, >> 6: Fairness is of course part of our first duties, where selective hyperskepticism is always imprudent, unwarranted, a violation of right reason, and is unfair. >>not unquestioned authority. >> 7: Strawman caricature projection, no one in this discussion has seriously advocated blind modesty in the face of claimed authority. To suggest such to taint is snide and out of order. >>There is no absolute objective warrant.>> 8: Such as for this? 9: In short, this is a self referentially incoherent, self defeating, necessarily false assertion. Some things may be warranted to undeniable certainty as self evident, others on known or accessible realities may hold moral certainty, others have a weaker provisional prudent warrant including theoretical, explanatory constructs of science. I get the feeling some reflection on logic, logic of being and epistemology would be advisable. >>People insist, agree, argue, fight, endure whatever rules emerge in human societies.>> 10: This sounds much like cultural relativism, which fails. >>I’m sure we can all think of better ways for our community to function, but there’d be little consensus.>> 11: Irrelevancy and again appeal to cultural relativism. >>You do err, frequently, and at length. It is fortunate you have no power to enforce your ideas to any significant extent on others.>> 12: Little more than turnabout projection, to feed personalisation and polarisation. On the subject in hand, the binary digit is not a personal matter, nor is the concept of functional information, nor that information can be implicit in functional organisation. 13: All of this resort, is to try to dismiss my having drawn from Orgel, Wicken and others that there is an observable [and quantifiable] phenomenon, functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information. That, I abbreviated FSCO/I, and have long since pointed to sources. There is no responsible reason to disregard it, we see here ideologically motivated artificial controversy driven by selective hyperskepticism. 14: The obvious reason? Such FSCO/I is readily observable with trillions of cases and once we are beyond 750 +/- 250 bits, uniformly is seen to come about by intelligently directed configuration. Further, it can be shown that blind needle in haystack search is not a plausible cause for it. So, as this includes the genome, which has coded algorithmic information (so, language and goal directed process), that strongly points to the cell and to major body plans being designed. You cannot counter on merits, but are determined to reject the possibility of design so you have resorted instead to quarrelsome rhetorical stunts. >>A fact for you to consider.>> 15: Considered for over a decade. >>You are unique in claiming that “FSCO/I” is a genuine, quantifiable concept>> 16: False, you have hyperskeptically refused to recognise a descriptive phrase for a ubiquitous phenomenon in a technological, information age, functional information [rather than info carrying capacity] that is beyond a threshold where it is plausible to suggest it could have come about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. 17: I have made available to you clips from Orgel and Wicken, which are my sources, which you have dodged. Let me clip here Wicken's wiring diagram comment:
‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms [[i.e. “simple” force laws acting on objects starting from arbitrary and common- place initial conditions] and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an [[originally . . . ] external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content . . . Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’ [“The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 77 (April 1979): p. 353, of pp. 349-65. (Nb: “originally” is added to highlight that for self-replicating systems, the blue print can be built-in.)]
18: Quantifiability of course, as has been pointed out any number of times, starts with information carrying capacity, often in bits or bytes. Beyond, in an information theory context, when redundancy enters, there is a reduction, a familiar phenomenon with codes as information is connected to surprise and removal of uncertainty. In English, about 1/8 of normal text is the letter e, and rarer ones such as x convey more information. >> yet have failed utterly to justify that claim.>> 19: Manifestly, insistently false to the point of speaking with disregard to truth. So, in the end, the objections fail. KFkairosfocus_{August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
“FSCO/I” is your own unique invention. Nobody else gives it a moment’s consideration.
You "argue" like a child. That the "environment designs" is YOUR unique invention. Nobody else gives it a moment's consideration.ET_{August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

AS, strawman, compounded by Alinsky style personalisation and polarisation that boils down to I demand details then use dismissive rhetorical stunts to evade them when countered. This in an age where complex functional information is ROUTINELY measured in bits and through the informational school of thermodynamics that has long been tied to entropy and the second law. All I did, as you know but of course refuse to acknowledge, is to abbreviate a descriptive phrase for a concept and metric tracing to Orgel and Wicken, who outlined the concept and the principle of measurement prior to the origin of ID by over a decade. Functionally specific information can be explicit in a string as in D/RNA or text in this thread or code on a PC. It can be implicit in the reducibility of a functional configuration through description of the Wicken wiring diagram, as in the process-flow network of cellular metabolism or an oil refinery, equally alike. It is inherently measurable in bits as is a commonplace of an information age. Adjusting for redundancy is what Abel, Durston et al did. You cannot contest those facts nor the blind needle in haystack search challenge beyond 750 +/- 250 bits. The cell, just on genome, is 100k - 1,000 k bases and body plans 10 - 100+ mn, vastly beyond sol system or observed cosmos capacity. Worse, we have alphanumeric, string, coded algorithms, directly language and goal directed processes. There is just one empirically founded causal source with capability for such, design. There is excellent reason to infer design, and such is only resisted for ideological reasons tied to the self-refuting a priori evolutionary materialistic scientism highlighted by Lewontin and quite a few others. KFkairosfocus_{August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PDT}

Don’t guess when you can find out.
Physician, heal thyself. ;)Alan Fox_{August 2, 2022
August
08
Aug
2
02
2022
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

KF in comment 173
[KairosfocusAugust 2, 2022 at 6:24 am] AF, you continue definitionitis. Okay, here is a description and context for FSCO/I
You make my point for Me. "FSCO/I" is your own unique invention. Nobody else gives it a moment's consideration. Though, I'll see if I can find time to wade through that field of chaff to find any wheat. In the mean time what would impress me is if KF could show me where anyone else is discussing "FSCO/I" and taking it seriously.Alan Fox_{August 2, 2022
August
08
Aug
2
02
2022
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT}

Cardena’s paper.
Where are the people with these supernatural abilities? Why are they not on front pages, prime-time TV?Alan Fox_{August 2, 2022
August
08
Aug
2
02
2022
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT}

JVL at 186, Don't guess when you can find out. The decriers were mostly people who specialized in aerospace. This information either shocked them or they sought to cover it up. They should not be misinformed. Another way of putting it is this: What was the U.S. doing with a Mach 10 wind tunnel in 1947? The answer is not nothing. Something like this was too advanced for the late 1940s. Considering also that it was a wartime German development. You lack a comprehensive knowledge of wind tunnels and their alleged historical development. The German variable wind tunnel that could reach Mach 4.4 was in operation by late 1940. Again, early in terms of other developments in other countries.relatd_{August 2, 2022
August
08
Aug
2
02
2022
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Relatd: The Mach 10 wind tunnel went into operation in the U.S. in 1947 or 10 years earlier That's quite a range of years considering that a lot of work was being done at the time. I guess I'm not completely sure what you are saying: that kind of early development by US scientists was quick but not if they had information from work that had already been done in Germany . . . or not? I get that some people are not familiar with the history of the research but, given that, is any of the results that far out of expectations? Your decriers sound just misinformed to me. So? They couldn't even be bothered to do a decent online search. I guess that's your whole point.JVL_{August 2, 2022
August
08
Aug
2
02
2022
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Relatd, the one snatched from Germany and taken to the US? Germans have a reputation for over building, e.g. their radars were snatched to use as radio telescopes, they were way better than necessary for purpose. Then there was was it Hitler's dismissiveness of the T34 because of crude fit finish except where needed. And more. KFkairosfocus_{August 2, 2022
August
08
Aug
2
02
2022
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

JVL at 183, The Mach 10 wind tunnel went into operation in the U.S. in 1947 or 10 years earlier, which explains the 'objections' raised by the 'experts.' A photo of a wind tunnel model of the A-4 (German designation for V-2) is shown in a variable speed wind tunnel with a range of Mach 1.1 to 4.4, on page 39 of V-Missiles of the Third Reich - The V-1 and V-2 by Dieter Hölsken.relatd_{August 2, 2022
August
08
Aug
2
02
2022
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

Relatd: Does this fit in with your view of what happened? https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12567-015-0078-0 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272362585_The_1_1_m_hypersonic_wind_tunnel_KochelTullahoma_1940-1960 The V-2 rocket traveled at over Mach 4.3. References?JVL_{August 2, 2022
August
08
Aug
2
02
2022
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

JVL at 181, I have some expertise in this area. In 1947, supposedly, no one had anything fast enough to warrant the building of a Mach 10 wind tunnel. This isn't cutting edge, this is 'beyond anything that existed at the time' according to those 'experts' I referred to. Things are not built for no reason. So, you are quite wrong. This was far beyond any "known" - according to the history books - technology from the period. The V-2 rocket traveled at over Mach 4.3.relatd_{August 2, 2022
August
08
Aug
2
02
2022
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

Relatd: The wind tunnel was installed in the United States in 1947. The supposed ‘experts’ on another board either didn’t want to believe it or to suppress the knowledge that it occurred in that year. Well, as far as I can see, the technology was definitely cutting edge, the Nazi's worked on it, but not that surprising or out of line with known research.JVL_{August 2, 2022
August
08
Aug
2
02
2022
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

JVL at 179, I have no idea where your information comes from. The wind tunnel was installed in the United States in 1947. The supposed 'experts' on another board either didn't want to believe it or to suppress the knowledge that it occurred in that year.relatd_{August 2, 2022
August
08
Aug
2
02
2022
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

Relatd: A Mach 10 wind tunnel. Initially developed by Nazi Germany? And eventually realised in Tennessee in the 50s? Is that view controversial?JVL_{August 2, 2022
August
08
Aug
2
02
2022
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

JVL at 176, A Mach 10 wind tunnel.relatd_{August 2, 2022
August
08
Aug
2
02
2022
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Relatd, TV was teens and twenties, first broadcast was 1939, BBC. Pulse Code Modulation was 1939 too. So was the first jet flight, Heinkel 178 IIRC. Things were happening far earlier than people may realise. KFkairosfocus_{August 2, 2022
August
08
Aug
2
02
2022
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

Relatd: I suspect the primary reason was that it was about a piece of technology that appeared earlier than history would lead people to believe. The other problem was that it was obtained from a foreign country after World War II. Just curious . . . what bit of technology was that then?JVL_{August 2, 2022
August
08
Aug
2
02
2022
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

Doubter at 174, Wikipedia can be useful. In some cases, such as you describe, it can be edited by anyone or modified by anyone. In the case of the business I work for, we have a Wikipedia page. It contains false, inaccurate and other problematic pieces of information. We attempted to post a corrected version. Persons unknown changed it back. In the case of my example, certain people on another message board attempted to either convince themselves or others that the information I provided, backed up by a NASA Technical Report, could not be true. I suspect the primary reason was that it was about a piece of technology that appeared earlier than history would lead people to believe. The other problem was that it was obtained from a foreign country after World War II.relatd_{August 2, 2022
August
08
Aug
2
02
2022
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

Relatd@171 There are many subjects/movements that despite ample evidence for their reality are derided by their articles in Wiki, in an obvious smear campaign against anything that seems to conflict with reductive materialism and the mainstream consensus of what reality is, that it is ultimately meaningless matter in a void, and that current conceptions of science are final absolute reality despite the obvious fact that this tends to change every few generations paced by the rate of the funerals of the "experts". A sure sign of the grip of the secular religion of scientism on our current society. This is essentially the worship of naturalism and reductive materialism, and the active persecution and suppression of any tendency to stray from the faith. The treatment by Wiki of Intelligent Design is perhaps even worse than its treatment of esp and the paranormal in general. Wikipedia similarly falsely claims ID is pseudoscience, and adds the also patently false claim that it is Creationism in disguise. Materialist propaganda aimed to convince people that the evidenceless secular religion of Darwinism is the truth.doubter_{August 2, 2022
August
08
Aug
2
02
2022
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

AF, you continue definitionitis. Okay, here is a description and context for FSCO/I https://uncommondescent.com/mathematics/times-arrow-the-design-inference-on-fsco-i-and-the-one-root-of-a-complex-world-order-being-logic-first-principles-25/ KFkairosfocus_{August 2, 2022
August
08
Aug
2
02
2022
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

Wikipedia is good for rock band trivia. Beyond that... Andrewasauber_{August 1, 2022
August
08
Aug
1
01
2022
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

Doubter at 170, I have studied ESP and PSI. There are other subjects where others react the same way. At first, it surprised me. Later, I concluded that they either do not want to believe good data or they are trying to hide something. The example I'm referring to included a NASA Technical Report. But the replies were just howls of "No! It can't be!" Uh, it's in the NASA Technical Report produced by NASA and I get this? None of these people could give a rational response even though at least a few claim to have some expertise in the example in question.relatd_{August 1, 2022
August
08
Aug
1
01
2022
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 15 16 17 18 19 … 23 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply