Two challenges for KL – (fossil) Lucy’s defender

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 3, 2011

Human evolution}

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

A most interesting discussion has got started here at “But ‘Lucy’ herself is mostly an artifact”. Commenter KL got it going, I suspect, by observing that

I certainly don’t consider you hicks. However, my spouse and associates are primate researchers, physical anthropologists, geologists and archeologists. It’s strange to come here and see their work dismissed as a just so story. Some of them have been in the field extensively and have published many, many papers. Are you guys saying that somehow all these people are simply mistaken?

Yes, it is quite possible.

My question is, is there anything fronted by “evolution researchers” that KL wouldn’t believe? How about the Big Bazooms theory of human evolution? Or Marc “Well, the monkeys talk to me!” Hauser? How about any single item on this list? Is there nothing that KL would even wonder about? Does he know that E. O. Wilson has retracted his own kin selection theory?

Two things: The public of a free society is not stupid. When we see a parade of amazing nonsense – marketed as evolution – we wisely don’t believe any of it. I don’t bother sorting through it for the same reason as I don’t scan the tabloids to see if anything in them is true.

It is no use berating us, let alone blaming us for low science scores. Revisit your strategy.

And second, would KL be willing to read The Nature of Nature, to understand what the controversy is really about? Then we could have a serious discussion.

(Note: KL has a spouse and associates in primate research, and I have a number of relatives and friends in medicine. That does not commit me to any particular theory, no matter how widely espoused, and a good thing too: Look how much medicine has changed. )

Comments

Indium: What happened to the initial 212 - 230 MYA results on K-Ar by Fitch and Miller, why? How did the investigators carry out the "careful extraction of undoubtedly juvenile components" to get samples that gave the 2.6 MYA "securely dated" value used by Richard Leakey? What about the Brock and Isaac paleomagnetism study that gave 2.7 - 3.0 MYA for the layers in/below which 1470 was found? Why did these worthies say:
The correlations shown in Figure 4 are not fully independent, and rely partly upon K.Ar and faunal evidence as well as upon the basic polarity data. The starting point for the correlation is the age of 2.61 ± 0.26 Myr obtained by Fitch and Miller from selected sanidine crystals from pumice specimens from the KBS Tuff.
What does "not fully independent" mean? As well "rely partly upon K.Ar and faunal evidence"? Does this sound to you like, ho hum, even without cross-correlation, things line up within error bars, presto? What of Hurford's fission track date of 1974, where he spoke of annealing at c 1.8 MYA that reportedly did a reset, for LOWER sediments [how comes, not the relevant ones too?]? Why does L. report that:
Late in 1974, Fitch, Miller, and associates published the results of their revised study confirming their original dating of the KBS Tuff at 2.61 ± .26 m.y.a. They also reported a broad scatter of apparent ages from ten different samplings ranging from 0.52 to 2.64 m.y.a. Referring to the other studies, they stated: “The compatibility of independent evidence is a very strong argument for accepting the chronology now proposed for East Rudolf.”
But, if H. said his results were not independent, how are they suddenly independent confirmation? And, if the samples were all now being cherry picked to be "juvenile," were they really independent? What if a sample went "off," as with the first one? Would it even be reported or just tossed as a failed sample? And so, we come to L's summary of where the rest of the story went:
Skull 1470 with its estimated date of 2.9 m.y.a. presented the evolutionary world with an intolerable situation. Richard Leakey did not exaggerate when he declared: “Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man.”16 The problem was quite simple. The theory of human evolution did not allow for a skull so modern in morphology to be that old. It was absolutely predictable to those of us who watched these matters unfold that something would have to give. Only three things could happen to relieve the stress that the theory of human evolution was experiencing: (1) the date for 1470 could be revised? (2) 1470 could be assigned to the most distant and primitive form of Homo? or (3) 1470 could be reevaluated and designated an australopithecine. Actually, all three of these solutions happened in one way or another. The date was eventually revised, the fossil was assigned to the category Homo habilis, and some—including one of Richard Leakey’s close associates, Alan Walker—said that 1470 was actually an australopithecine.
Now, compare how Wiki reports: _______________ >> Homo rudolfensis is a fossil human species discovered by Bernard Ngeneo, a member of a team led by anthropologist Richard Leakey and zoologist Meave Leakey in 1972, at Koobi Fora on the east side of Lake Rudolf (now Lake Turkana) in Kenya. The scientific name Homo rudolfensis was proposed in 1986 by V. P. Alekseyev for the specimen Skull 1470 (KNM ER 1470). Skull 1470 has an estimated age of 1.9 million years. Originally thought to be a member of the species Homo habilis, the fossil was the center of much debate concerning its species. Assigned initially to Homo habilis, the skull was at first incorrectly dated at nearly three million years old. The differences in this skull, when compared to others of the Homo habilis species, are too pronounced, leading to the presumption of a Homo rudolfensis species, contemporary with Homo habilis. It is not certain if H. rudolfensis was ancestral to the later species in Homo, or if H. habilis was, or if some third species yet to be discovered was. UR 501 (original specimen), the oldest fossil of Genus Homo In March 2007, a team led by Timothy Bromage, an anthropologist at New York University, reconstructed the skull of KNM-ER 1470. The new construction looked very ape-like (possibly due to an exaggerated rotation of the skull[1]) and the cranial capacity based on the new construction was reported to be downsized from 752 cm³ to about 526 cm³, although this seemed to be a matter of some controversy.[2] Bromage published his results in 2008 where the cranial capacity was now estimated at 700 cm³.[3] Bromage said his team’s reconstruction included biological principles not known at the time of the skull’s discovery, which state that a mammal’s eyes, ears and mouth must be in precise relationships relative to one another.[2] >> _______________ See how the major debate on the dates is glided over neatly? In that context, Indium, I think you will understand my doubts on claims of independent methods, and consilience even without corrections. I repeat: we have model timelines for geochronology, but we were not there to observe the remote past, nor do we have generally accepted records. So, I remain a geochronology agnostic. Models which seem critically dependent on intellectual phase locking, and do not have a genuinely independent external test, are models not facts. We should be aware of that, and not present them as though they were practically indisputable or had no trace in them of the human hand and mind. I observe, too, that you are silent on my contrast; on cosmological evidence. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 10, 2011
April
04
Apr
10
10
2011
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT}

Sorry for forgetting to close the bf tag.Indium_{April 10, 2011
April
04
Apr
10
10
2011
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT}

kf You ignore my question and continue to talk about calibration. But calibration is only needed for extra precision. While I would really like to know why you dismiss the calibration that was not my question, which is: How do you explain that the data points agree very well even without further calibration? Even without any alignment ice cores, tree rings, C14, U/Th and so on have a very good agreement. What is your explanation?Indium_{April 10, 2011
April
04
Apr
10
10
2011
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT}

BA: Amen! JR: I have finished discussing the matters debated in this thread with you until tone can be reduced to a moderate and civil level, but that does not preclude hope and prayer; for we are redeemable. Just remember, the rhetoric and rage provided for free in the fever swamps is intoxicating -- and toxic -- to you, too. Please, think again. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 10, 2011
April
04
Apr
10
10
2011
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT}

Indium: Pardon, but that rhetorical line is getting long past its sell-by date. Please stop begging questions and dismissing credible facts from relevant cases. When C-14 dating, as just one instance, has to be "calibrated" against other methods as the level of C-14 in the atmosphere is not in a steady equilibrium, it is no longer an independent method. Observe, calibration against tree rings, stalagmites in the Bahamas, and lake deposits; as previously linked, with page references. Did you read the relevant page of that paper from Uni of Arizona?
(1) If so, then why are you still talking about independent methods? (2) If not, why are you saying what you don't know about as though it is a fact beyond dispute?
As touching the increasing fuzziness of historical dates as we move into the window of about 1,000 - 2,000 I take it -- from the silence of initially dismissive objectors since I linked the notes on the subject -- this is now recognised by one and all. Similarly, when we see that in the infamous case of KNM-ER 1470 -- again, did you read before posting? -- as documented in Nature etc, we see back and forth of ISOCHRON dates, cherry-picking of samples, and "calibration" against fossil fauna, all duly reported in the leading Journals, we cannot justifiably take such dates as independent and in consilience. (Recall, an initial date was over 200 MYA, corrected on fossils, leading to cherry picking samples to get rid of perceived contamination. Then we had a back-forth across the range 1.9 to 2.6 and 2.9 MYA. Finally settled on pig fossils from over 100 miles away. As Lubenow reports, one of the participants in the debate quit the field and went to do medicine after that mess. But, I remember how the major newsmags at the time breathlessly announced -- with wonderful photopaintings etc -- how the ancestral tree of man was ever so well solved. I remember a fellow sixth former shaking the open full page spread diagram of I think it was Newsweek at me when I said I had some doubts.) Instead, they are being fitted to a consensus picture of a school of thought. And, more. Just like is blowing up all over the place since the Climategate scandal broke. (And notice how the "victories" are getting ever closer to the home islands . . . ?) BTW, someone who tanked up on too much intoxicating rhetoric and rage in the fever swamps was trying a Torquemada demand on whether or no the skull is humanish or ape-like. That has gone back and forth over the past 40 years, and it has revealed just how subjective the fossil reconstructions are. Likewise, is Lucy's arm chimp like or human like? Her rib cage? And even, is it she or he? There is a lot of subjectivity and seeing what one hopes/expects to see at work. As Lucy's discoverer seems to have admitted in the 1990's. So, then, when the public is presented with clay models, or photo paintings or animatronic displays, and even computer animations as though these things sat for portraits or were caught on video, it gets worse and worse. We are now in the territory of Plato's Cave shadow shows! GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 10, 2011
April
04
Apr
10
10
2011
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT}

H'mm: Excellent discussion overnight. I must particularly say this: material.infantacy, we need to hear more from you! (And it seems/I hope my point on facing facts about uncertainties on history and geochronology and cosmological timelines, is getting through. There is always that problem that relatively few people follow up links. Like for instance the previously linked critique on Lucy. It will do good for some to see that the fabled ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked Creationists can do a useful critical survey on a topic, raising some significant points. It is time to exorcise some strawmannish bogeymen.) Maybe I can add something on those basic laws of thought and first warranted credible truths, on the discussion in my work in progress course, here. Let's draw a sort of diagram: {{ . . . (A) . . . }} 1: Let A be some definable, distinct object in the wider world [NOT-A], say a red ball on a table.
--> This specificity is just to focus our minds on a sufficiently clear case to see what is going on in those laws that are so often irrationally disputed.
2: Law of identity: A is itself, not something else (symbolically, [A => A] = 1); 3: Law of non-contradiction: A will not be the same as NOT-A ([A AND NOT-A] = 0); and 4: Law of the excluded middle: there is no third option to being A or NOT-A ( [A OR NOT-A] = 1). 5: In addition, we have the concept of sufficient reason. If A is there, there is a reason -- an answer to "why A?" -- for it. 6: In case that A began to exist or may cease from existing, it has a cause, something outside it that is in part required for A to exist, and as a whole is sufficient for A. 7: To see this, consider A to be a flame. Air, heat and fuel are each necessary and are jointly sufficient for A. Take away any necessary causal factor and A ceases or will not start, but once a sufficient set of factors is present, A will exist. That is, we see here necessary and sufficient causal factors and their relationship to the beginning, sustenance and termination of a contingent being, A. 7: What would happen if there were a being N, with no external necessary causal factors? 8: Such a being would be independent of external causes, would not have a beginning, and cannot be terminated. N is a necessary being, and the sufficient reason for N lies in its nature. Two key candidates are things like numbers, and the root cause of our credibly contingent cosmos. 9: What about cases where we have empty sets and contrasts? Such things of course are discussions of literally no-thing, and so for this special case, the "square of opposition" is modified; though -- technical point -- we should note that the existential quantifier, reverse-E, has existential import. It is the Universal quantifier, inverted A, which has no existential import, and can deal with hypotheticals that may not exist. 10: in any case, the world undeniably exists -- try the denial and see where it lands you, i.e. in immediate absurdity (so we need not unduly detain ourselves with those stuck in such absurdities) -- and we undeniably exist, where both ourselves and our cosmos as a whole are contingent. 11: Thus, there is a necessary being as external causal factor. And as Craig pointed out in his debate with Krauss, numbers and the like have no causal power. Equally, matter is contingent [cf. E = m*c^2]. We are left with immaterial mind as the most credible nature for the root-cause necessary being [RCNB]. 12: Further to this, we observe the existence and fine-tuning of the observed physical cosmos for C-chemistry, intelligent life, and its credible beginning at a finite distance in the past, implying that the RCNB is mind capable of creating and acting on matter. The very existence of a contingent, finetuned physical world points to the possibility of mind acting on matter. 13: A RCNB with the above capacities is supremely powerful, skilled, knowledgeable and intelligent. Indeed, such a being sounds rather familiar, i.e. it is credible to argue:
RCNB = God, the Creator
14: In addition, we find ourselves bound by the force of OUGHT. For instance, we find ourselves to have rights, which are morally binding obligations that we mutually owe: your right to life implies my duty to respect your life and vice versa. 15: So, only a world rooted in a being who is an IS who can ground OUGHT is reasonable. The simplest, best solution to that is that the Creator God is inherently good and reasonable. In such a world, the root IS grounds OUGHT. (And certainly, a materialistic view has in it no IS that can ground OUGHT, only the appeal of naked force; whilst the very point of ought is that the most vulnerable do have rights that we OUGHT to respect. Do I need to spell it out: R-A-P-E?) 16: In short, theism -- contrary to the fulminations of those tanked up on materialistic rhetoric and atheistical rage -- is a reasonable worldview, one anchored in our knowledge of ourselves and our world, including the deliverances of science. 17: Going on, on our experience of ourselves in our world, we find ourselves to be contingent, conscious, self-moved, initiating, minded, embodied causing agents under moral obligation. Thus it is reasonable to infer that we are created, minded, enconscienced, significantly -- as opposed to absolutely -- free and responsible moral and semiotic agents.
(For a model of how this can be, cf. the Derek Smith two-tier MIMO cybernetic system model here. The 2-way radio model [which takes in the cell phone!] -- is also a good way to picture this, BTW; especially the antenna signal/information transfer interface. We already know from some of the peculiarities of Quantum observations that there are things that are suggestive of a realm beyond the lab scale physical world, e.g. the famous quantum version of the double slit type experiment. As in, how can a system like that "know" the setup and respond like that, sometimes even superluminally? [Cf the Dr Quantum video here.])
18: Now, we cite and adapt Josiah Royce via Elton Trueblood -- Warranted, Credible truth 1, WCT 1: Error exists. 19: Not only true as a matter of consensus fact, but UNDENIABLY true. For, to try to deny WCT 1 immediately and inescapably ends up giving an instance of its truth. 20: Whether we want to say WCT 1 or NOT-WCT 1 is the error is immaterial, one or the other but not both, must be wrong. And in fact, immediately we see that it is NOT-WCT 1 that is the error. 21: As direct corollaries, we see also:
WCT 1a: truth exists WCT 1b: knowable -- warranted, credible -- truth exists. (Even to the level of being self evident and undeniable.)
22: Already, we are sweeping away the credibility of any worldview that denies truth or knowledge beyond opinion: bye bye radically relativist modernism and ultra-modernism, aka post-modernism. We may not be able to know all things to the level of undeniable certainty, but we know some key things to that degree. Radical relativism and radical skepticism are dead. 23: Selective hyperskepticism that inconsistently picks and chooses what it wishes to demand "extraordinary" -- as opposed to adequate -- warrant for, is also dead, of self-defeating incoherence and/or outright hypocrisy. 24: But don't some quantum events happen without a cause? Nope: once we see that a necessary causal factor is a causal factor we see that a decaying atomic nucleus or particle such as an extra-nuclear neutron has to be "there" in space and has to have certain properties before it can decay. We may not know, may even never be able to know the SUFFICIENT causal factors but cause is not the same as sufficient cause. 25: We can go on:
WCT 3: We live in a real world that exists, and contains individual things that also have real existence. (Just try to deny that and see where it lands you!) . . . . WCT 6: Evil exists (NB: this is best understood as the objectionable, harmful and destructive privation and/or perversion of the good), so that governing moral truth, principle and obligation also objectively exist. --> Thus also, only a worldview that has a grounding IS that is a proper foundation for OUGHT is a reasonable faith . . . . WCT 7: We, our circumstances, challenges and our common world are at least in significant part intelligible (and so discuss-able) in light of reason, experience and credible first principles used with good inferential logic. (Try to deny it and see where this gets you!)
___________ Where does this all leave us? In a world in which we can think clearly, if we are inclined to do so, instead of heading off to the nearest fever swamp to tank up on rage and rhetoric and then fly off to inject it on some unwilling victim. The choice -- and its consequences -- lie in our hands. Okay, GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 10, 2011
April
04
Apr
10
10
2011
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT}

kf, With regard to dating methods:
So mutual agreement may be more of our circle of thought than of objective reality.
That is not even wrong. The independend methods agree very well (+- some perecentage) even without any calibration. Why do you think C14 dating, tree ring dates, ice core dates and U/Th dates agree more or less even without any calibration/cross referencing? How do you explain this agreement across all kinds of methods before alignment/calibration?Indium_{April 10, 2011
April
04
Apr
10
10
2011
12:58 AM
12
12
58
AM
PDT}

---QuiteID: "If I may, I think the impasse here is predictable." There is no impasse. When atheism confronts reason, atheism loses. When irrationality confronts rationality, irrationality loses.StephenB_{April 9, 2011
April
04
Apr
9
09
2011
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT}

---JemimaRacktouey: “I’m not claiming that such things can be. I’m claiming that your God allows such things to be possible, if it wishes. By definition. “ As I have already pointed out, your claims are unwarranted and false. I have also explained why. What is it about the following facts that you do not understand?-- The Christian God is unchangeable, declares himself to be unchangeable, and is understood by His believers to be unchangeable. Thus, “my God,” as you put it, cannot change his mind about truth and reason’s principles. The point is confirmed by Scripture and 2000 years of oral tradition. Please make a note of it since I would prefer not to repeat myself yet again. ---“Unless your God decides to make them unexist.” First, you say that I “invented” the rules of logic. Then, when I point out that Aristotle “discovered them,” you shrug off the corrective and change the subject. Meanwhile, you timidly hold back your own opinion on the matter, even though you don't hesitate to speculate on what you think "my God" thinks about it. A remarkable exercise in serpentine evasion. An ounce of intellectual courage would be worth a ton of bluffing. ---“A bit simplified, but so be it. I’m talking to somebody who evidently believes that minds are beamed into the brain like some kind of radio signal, or that minds exist separate from the physical brain despite the fact he can’t provide a scintilla of evidence for that claim.” What's that you say? …..”Minds beamed into brains?”….That characterization of hylomorphic dualism [look it up] is so recklessly inaccurate, it is downright entertaining. ...“Not a scintilla of evidence?” Begin by reading “The Spiritual Brain,” by Denyse O’Leary and Dr. Mario Beauregard. When you finish that assignment come back for more. --“The eyes you see it with and convert into electricity and feed it into your brain, all physical. The brain that is stimulated, the electricity that does the stimulating. ---All physical. All measureable.” Well, let's put your novel claim to the test. If, as you say, the concepts of justice, mercy, and love can be measured, tell me this: How much does each quality weigh? Or, if you like, tell me how much mass in involved. ---“StephenB, tell me how you know for sure that the mind is not the brain? I know this for many reasons. I will provide only three: (1) My mind can resist, control, and redirect my brain’s impulses. (2) The placebo effect in medicine shows that the mind can change the brain’s chemistry. (3) I can form new habits by using my mind to form new habits that will crowd out bad habits, forging new neural pathways in my brain. ---“If it’s not, what is the brain for? It seems awfully complex for something that’s not needed to create a mind.” The brain is absolutely essential as our most complex organ, but it is the mind that plays the major role in the acquisition of knowledge. On the matter of how we know things, the non-material mind puts us in contact with the conceptual world, and the senses, which are regulated by the brain, put us in contact with the material world. Our knowledge begins with sense impressions about the particulars of an object from the physical world, but the mind provides an image of the universal category inherent in that same object. Hence, through our senses, we feel and see this or that tree; through our intellect, we perceive treeness, or that which is universal with all trees. Our senses, which give us color, size, and shape, tell us whether we are observing this tree or that tree; our non-material intellect, which perceives “tree-ness” as a category, tells us whether we are looking at a tree or a giraffe. If our brains were all we had, we could not distinguish between universal categories. We would perceive particulars and nothing more. Particulars are grounded in matter, just as the brain is grounded in matter. Universals are independent of matter. Tree-ness has no size, shape, color, mass, or energy. Neither does justice, love, peace, or honesty. Thus, when I meet a new person, I perceive his size, shape, color, and other physical attributes through my senses. I understand his universal humanity through my intellect [immaterial mind]. Through the senses, I know how that individual is different from every other human that ever lived. Through my intellect, I know what that individual has in common with every other human that ever lived.StephenB_{April 9, 2011
April
04
Apr
9
09
2011
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT}

very well put! you may enjoy this song I’m dedicating to JemimaRacktouey
Thanks BA77, and thanks for the music link. :-)material.infantacy_{April 9, 2011
April
04
Apr
9
09
2011
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

material.infantacy, very well put! you may enjoy this song I'm dedicating to JemimaRacktouey; Lies-Evanescence-Origin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml7JSG2KC44bornagain77_{April 9, 2011
April
04
Apr
9
09
2011
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

I’m not claiming that such things can be. I’m claiming that your God allows such things to be possible, if it wishes. By definition.
What sort of jackassery is this? I have to marvel at the chutzpah of atheists, whose pride P can be calculated as "the estimation of one's own knowledge" E over "acceptance of reason's rules" R. Notice how pride P goes to infinity as reason R goes to zero, regardless of the value of the knowledge estimation E. Lim(P=E/R), R->0 = INF. No wonder Jemima believes it is arguing successfully. God is not capricious, only atheist's views of morality and reason are.
And yet there are no mental concepts without mass and energy. And if concepts are immaterial why does the electrical activity of the brain change for certain concepts. Why does it need to do that?
This is what you get when you combine question begging with the fallacy of believing that correlation implies causation, mixed in with a little "lack of imagination." If the brain provides a faculty that permits the mind to relate the concrete (physicality) to the abstract (understanding), we'll call this perception; and if -- wait for it -- the brain helps the mind relate the abstract (will) to the concrete (activity), let's call this volition, then it stands to reason that regions in the brain would be active when these functions are being utilized, unless you reject as a matter of principle that this might be the case. That wasn't very hard. See, if we don't assume materialist philosophy right off the bat, we can posit more than one cause for a given effect and evaluate the evidence objectively. Try it, it's fun.
Except parsimony dictates that your non-material mind is irrelevant and can be done without. It adds nothing to our understanding of how the brain creates consciousness.
Fallacy 1 is the first sentence above. Parsimony dictates that causes not be multiplied beyond the sufficient. There is no evidence that electro-chemical interactions are sufficient to produce consciousness, because it has never been observed that sophisticated processing of information gives rise to the ability to reason. Of note: If I say that "physics and chemistry are insufficient to produce self-aware agents with the ability to reason in the abstract, and who use foresight to plan actions from seconds to years into the future," this is a falsifiable statement. We should expect it to go out with the invention of AIs, whose reasoning abilities rival our own. Fallacy 2 is the second sentence of the quote. We don't have an understanding of how the brain creates consciousness. I know that this can be hard to fathom when you've decided ahead of evidence that, from matter and energy comes consciousness. You Jemima (or anyone) can't explain consciousness any more than you can explain OOL. All you can do is be certain beyond reason that the explanations all rest exclusively in the interaction between physical objects, and that someday you'll be vindicated. Fallacy 1 is born of fallacy 2. Fallacy 1 demonstrates the misuse of parsimony by assuming that which is being investigated, that is, the cause of consciousness is a result of an interplay between matter and energy, which you can't know until you explain consciousness, see. The cause for these sorts of errors is materialist metaphysics which has nothing to do with science proper.
Show me a mind without a brain and perhaps I’ll believe you.
Show me the velocity of A=pi*r^2 and perhaps I'll believe you. Or perhaps you could prove that e is blue, or red, or chartreuse. How much does the indefinite integral of f(x) = x^2 weigh?
I’m talking to somebody who evidently believes that minds are beamed into the brain like some kind of radio signal, or that minds exist separate from the physical brain despite the fact he can’t provide a scintilla of evidence for that claim.
And he's talking to somebody who believes that particles in motion can poof a mind into existence via Time + Chaos. He's talking to someone who believes that non-foresighted mechanisms can produce foresighted machines. He's talking to someone who believes the efficacy of random forces to develop nanotechnology is superior to an intelligent agent's. Or perhaps I'll begin believing that the voice coming out of the radio is produced by a complex arrangement of electronic components and logic circuits. Odd though, how the radio is designed by one, and broadcasts the messages of another. This conundrum can easily be overcome if we make the radio self-replicating, however. Only the best radios survive: and we've solved that little problem! The radio invented itself and it broadcasts the messages of its own will. Isn't evolution grand?
…what is the brain for? It seems awfully complex for something that’s not needed to create a mind.
It seems awfully complex for something that must perform quantum computing at virtually unimaginable bandwidth. Yeah, what's all that extra gray matter for anyway? I didn't think image processing and recognition required so much complexity. Nor speech processing and recognition. Nor the coordination of kinematics in a hundred limbs and joints. No, translating concrete physicality to and from an active Will isn't all that complicated, really. Jemima, when you're old enough to think for yourself instead of seeking the approval of your peers, you might begin to recognize that all those pesky rules of logic actually apply to you as well, regardless of the value of P. Until then, let the adults speak. They're very much more interesting to read. All you have accomplished here is to show that which you believe: there is no burden of evidence on those who believe beyond reason that Time + Chaos gives rise to extraordinary order and sophistication.material.infantacy_{April 9, 2011
April
04
Apr
9
09
2011
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

If I may, I think the impasse here is predictable. Each side thinks the other is being unreasonable and evasive, but that's because each thinks the other side must answer its questions on its own terms before moving on. It's not surprising, given all that, that each side thinks the other is providing strawmen, red herrings, etc.QuiteID_{April 9, 2011
April
04
Apr
9
09
2011
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

Jemima, you are hilarious! You think you are actually making sense with the logical skills of a three year old! Hahahaha!kuartus_{April 9, 2011
April
04
Apr
9
09
2011
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
By refusing to recognize reason’s rules, you draw irrational conclusions, such as when you claim that Jupiter can exist and not exist at the same time or that unchangeable things can be changed, or that universes can just pop into existence without a cause
I'm not claiming that such things can be. I'm claiming that your God allows such things to be possible, if it wishes. By definition.
There is no mass or energy in mental concepts.
And yet there are no mental concepts without mass and energy. And if concepts are immaterial why does the electrical activity of the brain change for certain concepts. Why does it need to do that?
The object of the investigation, which is material, is different from the receptive and interpretive mind of the investigator, which is non-material.
Except parsimony dictates that your non-material mind is irrelevant and can be done without. It adds nothing to our understanding of how the brain creates consciousness. It just skips to the end of the problem with a claimed answer that is as much of an answer as "it was designed" is an answer to where Lucy came from.
you do not recognize the distinction between mind and matter.
Every mind ever has been instantiated in a physical brain. Show me a mind without a brain and perhaps I'll believe you.
They have always existed. You just don’t care to acknowledge them.
Unless your God decides to make them unexist.
Do you think that justice, goodness, compassion, fairness, love, and honesty exist?
When the last human dies then those things will cease to exist, at least in a human context. Alien life might well hit upon them.
Do you labor under the misconception that they contain mass and energy, or that they are composed of molecules?
Of course they are. And those molecules make up neurons. And those neurons interact. And there you are! A bit simplified, but so be it. I'm talking to somebody who evidently believes that minds are beamed into the brain like some kind of radio signal, or that minds exist separate from the physical brain despite the fact he can't provide a scintilla of evidence for that claim.
The physical world and our descriptions of the physical world are two different things. The former is material, the latter is not.
Of course it is. The pen you write it down with is physical. The eyes you see it with and convert into electricity and feed it into your brain, all physical. The brain that is stimulated, the electricity that does the stimulating. All physical. All measureable. Just because those descriptions of the physical world can be manipulated by us in ways that are not physically possible does not mean that those descriptions are somehow distinct from that physical reality. Without that physical reality they cannot exist. We can treat them as if they do not have a physical existence but ultimately they do. Of course, it seems to us that an idea has no physical existence. But we're seeing our minds from the inside out. StephenB, tell me how you know for sure that the mind is not the brain? If it's not, what is the brain for? It seems awfully complex for something that's not needed to create a mind.JemimaRacktouey_{April 9, 2011
April
04
Apr
9
09
2011
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

KF, KNM ER 1470. Human or Ape? What do you say?JemimaRacktouey_{April 9, 2011
April
04
Apr
9
09
2011
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

KF, The International Society for the Study of Origins of Life has just released a .pdf with 214 pages of abstracts: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2691805/pdf/11084_2009_Article_9164.pdf In 2008, the International Society for the Study of Origins of Life, held a symposium on the origins and early evolution of life. The .PDF is the result of that. 350 scientists from all over the world came together with more than 310 presentations. Perhaps if you explained FSCO/I to them they'd have a look for it? But it makes a mockery of your claims that the "evo mat" explanation for the origin of life is lacking. That .pdf contains only the abstracts! And yet it contains more detail then has ever been given for any ID idea ever and that's just one years worth! KF, what do you make of that .pdf? I guess it's all wrong because they are starting with the wrong premise yeah?JemimaRacktouey_{April 9, 2011
April
04
Apr
9
09
2011
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

Indium: Do you not see the problem of thinking in a circle, in a ballpark? Do you not see that the alignment of historical events and their calibration against our calendar, especially as we go into the window of roughly 1 - 2,000 BC, begins to get fairly fuzzy? Beyond that records get rather thinner and thinner on the ground, and we are into relative dating ever and ever more. I have pointed out that esp as we move beyond 5 ky BP, C-14 is less and less to be trusted as independent, it is being calibrated against other methods in a circle. So mutual agreement may be more of our circle of thought than of objective reality. WE WERE NOT THERE, and generally credible and clear records locked to fixed points we can trust are getting scarce like hen's teeth. Indeed, even astronomically locked points like the rising of Sirius for the crucial Egyptian records, have more of interpretation in them than we would like. (Where something was observed can have a key impact, and just what was observed may also be an open question. For instance in some cases whether we are looking at an eclipse, a full eclipse or just a dust storm, becomes an open question. Look up the notes I already linked on that, and look at the debates Rohl sparked off. Wasn't the date for Hammurabi more flexible than was formerly thought?) That is for when we do have records! When we move up to the really deep time stuff, things get seriously circular. The KNM ER 1470 case shows this strikingly for the issue of index fossils, radiodating methods, samples and the like. In short there is a basic problem with geochronology, not with my saying that we need to take it very carefully, not as effectively certain fact. Maybe some would call it physicist's arrogance [and the quick retort is physics envy], but I think that a lot of cosmological level stuff is a lot cleaner, which is why I lead my unit with cosmological stuff as origins science done right: 1 --> The H-R diagram fits into gravitationally collapsing H-ball models which project a dynamical pattern for stars. 2 --> the open clusters like the Hyades etc, give us groups of stars that are at about the same distance, so comparative magnitudes on a HR diagram are all tat is needed. As the diagram shows, we then can plot breakaway lines to the giants branch, which can be calibrated against the h ball models for main sequence burnout. 3 --> Cluster ages drop out of that [up to about 10 BY], and as a bonus we have clusters as a distance metric. 4 --> We can scale distance metrics up to galactic distances off delta cepheid variable stars, using a magnitude-period relationship. [Polaris is a star of this type.] 5 --> Other methods allow us to scale enough galaxies to see the Hubble red shift relationship, which fits with an unexpected property of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity on the cosmological scale. 6 --> Hubble expansion, even through debates on the rate, project back to the singularity 10 - 20 BYA, and so we are at the big bang model, further supported decisively by cosmos scale blackbody [cavity radiator] background radiation. 7 --> i need not elaborate on fine tuning issues here, you know that these warrant an inference to cosmological design as men of the calibre of a Hoyle pointed out long since. 8 --> But, the recent extrasolar planets with orbits at all sorts of inclinations etc as well as the longstanding concerns on angular momentum distribution raise serious questions that we do not properly understand solar system formation. 9 --> So, there is a distinct difference between cosmological modelling and the projected timelines for that, and geochronology. Much less of circularity, much more of pretty fairly direct empirical support, indeed I see recent YEC models that seek to fit a young earth with a 15 BY cosmological timeline, which is evidently possible with some scenarios they propose. Should tell us something. 10 --> But the biggie is that on finetuning we already are looking at a designed cosmos set up for C-chemistry cell based intelligent life, even on a timeline of 10 - 20 BY. 11 --> In that context, I have no problems with seeing that the balance of evidence on origin of FSCO/I points to design of cell based life. 12 --> Similarly, body plans are designed, including our own. 13 --> And if you look above, it is plain that JR was desperately trying to distract from the fact that the evo mat view has no way of accounting for how we are PHYSICALLY equipped for verbally symbolic speech using cascaded phonemes [as discrete units that are strung together in acoustic string structures] and conceptual thinking to go with that; all, deeply embedded with FSCO/I only empirically explainable on design. 14 --> So, regardless of the debates on Lucy's skeleton -- which plausibly looks like a version on a chimp to me -- and on how she can be dated [3.5 MYA makes the problems just as bad as would 6 - 10 MY, once we see the FSCI threshold] -- t5he evo mat advocates have no sound empirically anchored explaantion of how chance variation and natural selection could transform a Lucy into you and me in any reasonable span. 15 --> But, the FSCO/I involved, plainly can be accounted for on the empirically observed source for that, in a context and chain of other similar inferences back to the origin of the cosmos: design. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 9, 2011
April
04
Apr
9
09
2011
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

--Jemima Racktouey: “Your God can change the laws of reason, who are you to say otherwise? Since you continue to raise the issue of “my” God, I will comment. My God, the Biblical God, is synonymous with Unity, Truth, Being, Beauty, and Goodness. That God has already declared that He cannot or will not change Truth or the laws of reason. [The same God “yesterday, today, and tomorrow.”] You are perhaps thinking of the Muslim God that can change his mind about such things. They call that the doctrine of “abrogation.” The Christian God cannot or will not change his mind about what is true or what is reasonable. You really ought to investigate these matters before commenting on them. One way to begin is to simply ask questions. ---“Why? StephenB says so? Fact is you are making all of this up.” No, I am simply introducing to you for the first time concepts that you have never heard of. Just as I had to introduce you to the first principles of right reason, I now have to introduce you to the concept of a perfect, unchanging Christian God. It is your right to disagree with or refuse to believe in such a God, or to reject reason's rules, but it is not your right to claim that I am “making all this up.” ---“That’s the very core of your position however, that there was an uncaused cause. Therefore you are irrational by your own logic.” Again, you are shooting from the hip without even aiming. The rule in question is that nothing can BEGIN TO EXIST without a cause. The Uncaused Cause did not begin to exist. By refusing to recognize reason's rules, you draw irrational conclusions, such as when you claim that Jupiter can exist and not exist at the same time or that unchangeable things can be changed, or that universes can just pop into existence without a cause. --“And the value for that immaterial measurement has no existence outside of a material brain that is taking the reading.” Matter cannot investigate matter. ---“The framework for those words contains mass/energy. They are stored as digital bits somewhere which have measurable properties. Without that framework those words cannot exist.” You are confusing technology and the transmission of information with mental thought. There is no mass or energy in mental concepts. ---“Exactly so. Temperature is a property that we’ve invented and applied to a given system.” The speed of the molecules is a material phenomenon, and our description of that phenomenon is a non-material phenomenon. The object of the investigation, which is material, is different from the receptive and interpretive mind of the investigator, which is non-material. As a materialist, you cannot recognize the relationship between the investigator and the object of the investigation because you do not recognize the distinction between mind and matter. ---“Just like the other “immaterial” properties you’ve invented and given to various systems.” As a matter of historical fact, I didn’t invent the laws of logic. Aristotle “discovered" them over two thousand years ago. Also, there is a fellow named Euclid who provided similar self-evident principles for mathematics. Don’t you even have a basic intellectual curiosity about these things? ---“They did not exist before you invented them.” They have always existed. You just don’t care to acknowledge them. It’s the spirit of the age and you are a child of that age. Why not try to rise above it? All great souls do. ---“These “immaterial” things you claim exist in fact only exist in our minds.” Do you think that justice, goodness, compassion, fairness, love, and honesty exist? Do you labor under the misconception that they contain mass and energy, or that they are composed of molecules? I hope not. ---“Thanks for helping me prove my point I proved my point. The physical world and our descriptions of the physical world are two different things. The former is material, the latter is not. If I had not understood the principle, I would not have been able to provide a relevant and specific example.StephenB_{April 9, 2011
April
04
Apr
9
09
2011
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

kf
C-14 dates, esp. as we begin to move out to 5 kya and beyond, are clearly NOT absolute
Raw C14 dates underestimate the age of a sample. So, whatever the raw C14 age is, your sample is most probably even older! We know how we have to apply corrections to get a better approximation of the real value. That we have to take into account the internal resistance of a battery doesn´t mean that Ohm´s law is wrong either. In any case the differences are relatively small. It is amazing how well the curves from different regions of the earth coincide. And not only do C14 dates from different regions more or less coincide, they also coincide very well with ice core dates and tree ring dates. We know there are errors. But how do you explain the general consilience of evidence that the C14 methode is a very good tool? How do you explain that C14 agree with U/Th dates?Indium_{April 9, 2011
April
04
Apr
9
09
2011
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

Sonfaro: On historical warrant for the Christian faith, there is actually more than enough warrant as an historical matter; and to infer to theism on contingency of the cosmos and on fine tuning is strong enough that it changed the mind of the number one philosophical atheist in the world a few years back, Antony Flew. The problem is that JR is dismissive of solid history with considerable archaeological support, while she is uncritically swallowing dating schemes that are in fact riddled with circularities driven by the basic -- and undeniable -- fact that we were not there nor do we have generally accepted records. Had she bothered to simply read the story of KNM ER 1470, she would have found out specific cases of tossed dates, tossed samples, cherry-picked samples, and debates settled not on radioactive results but on fossil correlations across I think it is actually over 100 miles. With the well known journal Nature as witness against interest, no 1. And she continues to harp on how dare you write off the work of ever so many august experts when in fact the basic problem is that the field of origins science is under thralldom to the sort of a priori imposition of materialism that Lewontin and others have documented. There are even attempts to redefine science to fit that censorship. But instead of dealing seriously with the real problem -- materialistic bias and its deleterious consequences for the ability of origins science to be objective -- we find slander-laced strawman attacks. You are insulting ever so many hard working scientists who have piled up ever so many findings. You are a creationist. You empty headed chatterbox [translated from J/can], etc. Absolutely, and sadly, telling. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 9, 2011
April
04
Apr
9
09
2011
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

Sonfaro: JR is trying to use Jamaican children's empty dismissive insults, not particularly well. (If she were to switch to adult J/can insults, she would get herself banned, rapidamente.) Especially since there is a gaping hole in her whole case that opens up every time she makes a post. Notice, there is no haste to summarise or link the grand evo mat account of the origin of language with the observationally based empirical data all neatly lined up. No prizes for guessing why. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 9, 2011
April
04
Apr
9
09
2011
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

JR: On blatant and insistent, slanderous incivility, you have forfeited the right of general dialogue. Until you can answer to the origin of language, on observational data and relevant demonstration of the origin of FSCO/I on blind watchmaker chance and necessity, your very posts demonstrate that there is a gaping hole in the foundation of your case. The capacity to use language is itself based on FSCO/I, and the only empirically known source of FSCO/I is design. So, there is every epistemic right to infer from the FSCO/I to design. And that would include the issue of changing from something like Lucy to a modern human. As has been repeatedly pointed out, and just as repeatedly ignored, and distracted from, with red herrings led to strawmen soaked in slanderous ad hominems and ignited to choke, cloud, polarise and poison the atmosphere. You have a substantial issue unanswered and a major civility challenge that lies still unaddressed. Not that onlookers are not seeing that. Good day madam. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 9, 2011
April
04
Apr
9
09
2011
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

F/N, FT Record: On varves and C-14 calib to try to cover for non-equilibrium in the atmosphere, cf here, try p. 3 on l. Suigetsu. Try the next section on Bahamas stalagmites and observe on "corrections," too. Then there are the issues on the actual original data for the dendrochronology calibrations. C-14 dates, esp. as we begin to move out to 5 kya and beyond, are clearly NOT absolute. When we move to isochrons and other deeper time RA methods, that problem continues. The saga of KNM ER 1470 is significant because it was so public for those able to track the back issues of Nature etc. (The RA measurements that are pivotal were before the skull and debates happened, so seeing how the pigs eventually won the dating game is all too telling on the behind the scenes issues.)kairosfocus_{April 9, 2011
April
04
Apr
9
09
2011
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

KF
that the discordant results are errors and must be tossed
Please provide a specific example of such. If you can.
There is a serious want of truly independent tests, and that obtains across the whole spectrum o methods.
You blacken the name of many respectable scientists and institutions by your slurs. People who would laugh you out of the building were you to turn up with such vague evidence for such slanderous claims. You really don't know what you are talking about do you? Name a specific dating method. Name the specific problem you have with that method. Please don't refer me to "your always linked". If you must, copy and paste your specific claim here. Science is about specifics. If you have a problem with a dating method let's find one that you don't have a problem with. A problem that you can articulate anyway. Up for it?JemimaRacktouey_{April 9, 2011
April
04
Apr
9
09
2011
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

@ JR, We're all gravy then. ;-) - SonfaroSonfaro_{April 9, 2011
April
04
Apr
9
09
2011
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

Sonfaro,
Okay. Sounded like you were suggesting there was ‘no’ evidence though, which was my contention.
No. And as you say later, for this sort of thing evidence is not really relevant. If you have evidence you don't need belief. My comment was indeed mostly directed at KF, as you noted.JemimaRacktouey_{April 9, 2011
April
04
Apr
9
09
2011
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Ah! Sagan! I knew it had a name. Thanks KF. - SonfaroSonfaro_{April 9, 2011
April
04
Apr
9
09
2011
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

Hey again JR, -"Sure, but incredible claims require incredible evidence." I'm pretty sure that's a fallacy with a name to it I've seen before. When I find it I'll post it. A claim just needs evidence. Otherwise someone could keep saying 'the evidence isn't enough' over and over again - as some YEC's do for age of the earth. -"All I’m saying is that if we consider the evidence for the age of the earth and if Jesus walked on water, there’s alot more evidence for the age of the earth." Okay. Sounded like you were suggesting there was 'no' evidence though, which was my contention. -"Yet KF cannot form an opinion on the age of the earth but cannot articulate a single reason why not apart from the vaguest of vague generalities and demands that I explain consciousness. Yet he’ll accept unquestioningly that water was walked on and will wonder at your sanity for pointing this inbalance of evidence out." KF's a christian. His religion isn't a scientific position - it's one of faith. Yours (supposedly) is, which is why he's asking you to explain it. At least that's what I gathered from the exchange. If I'm wrong on that KF please correct me dude. -"There are multiple independent lines of evidence that all independently point to a single age of the earth. One that they all agree on within the limitations of each particular method. Check it out if you don’t believe me!" Crap. You got me wrong JR. I'm not arguing against the Age of the Earth (though I'll admit I'm kinda agnostic to it too - well, more like apathetic. Don't matter to much to me either way.) Like I said, I was defending my faith against what I, at first glance, believed to be kinda a basic atheist argument. -"And yet despite those multiple independent streams of evidence KF cannot form an opinion on the age of the earth. What would it take to convince him one has to wonder?" Don't know. That's kinda like asking what it would take to bring you to Christ. Probably a miracle either way. -"Good for faith on the whole. But it illustrates my point that you’ve no way of knowing the actual name hence the arguments from people of faith all over the world. The difference with science is that you can come to an agreement and move on, using what you agreed on as the foundation for the next step." No problem there. -"Standing on he shoulders of giants. nanos gigantium humeris insidentes" Nice quote... though I have no idea why it's here, sorry ;_; -"And my point is only that by dismissing as wrong the life’s work of a group of people whose arguments and evidence he does not even comprehend he deserves to be shown up to be an empty suit, all mockery but no substance." Eh...okay. Again, my post was just dealing with the youtube atheist part of your argument. Though I should point out that, if indeed Darwinian evolution is wrong as most of us on this board believe it to be, then yeah, their lifes work was kinda worthess. Well, not worthless, I'm sure they found a couple things helpful. But on the whole... yeah. -"If you were able to replace it all at a single sweep with a new paradigm, one that would instantly be more productive then fine, such arrogance would be par for the course." One mans 'productive' is another mans 'religion' it seems. Kinda hard to get around that with some people. -"But to have nothing but an empty shell of a website and some made up terminology to replace such a deep and wide body of work with? Delusional." Aww come on now, I think that's harsh. :-( "KF does not understand the scope of nor appreciate the level of detail built up over decades which is present in the fields he dismisses out of hand. And yet he accepts evidence of a objectively much poorer nature as the foundation of his religious belief system." One is science, which has to be held to a strict standard. The other is faith, which I don't think has the same issues. "I’ve got no problem with people choosing to be religious, for whatever reason." Good, though it can sometimes sound like you think their all idiots instead of merely wrong. I've found quite a bit of the... eh... opposition (for lack of a better word) on this site tends to do that. (Couple of cats on our side do it to, I ain't gonna lie. But it's like one or two. The contrast is weird.) -"I’ve got a problem with people who hide behind their religion when asked to defend their scientific claims. I’ve got a problem with people who claim to know better then entire groups of professionals when he can’t even answer the simplest questions about the subject at hand. People who justify the moderation of the comments from the person this thread was supposed to allow to defend their viewpoint I have a problem with." Meh, I don't have an issue here. This is mostly a jab at KF anyway. "Explain Lucy KF. Tell me something about Lucy that only common design would predict. Tell me something about Lucy that only ID would be able to determine." Too KF, obviously. Though if indeed we were designed I'm sure we could point out the structure bit by bit for how the creature was assembled... though if I remember right we don't have a lot to go on, do we? Like 60%? Am I way off? -"Mr Chatty-Chatt be force ripe, or fasse, zeen? Mout-a-massy plenty." Eh... this last bit is to KF again right...? Cause I have no idea what this means. ;_; - SonfaroSonfaro_{April 9, 2011
April
04
Apr
9
09
2011
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

KF,
sort of issues that point to the gaping holes in the evo mat account of origins,
If by gaping hole you mean things like this: http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai/ool-www/program/ Then I guess you are right. There are massive holes in what they are proposing. There are whole domains that are not crossed and no explanation of how they were crossed. And yet..... And yet..... If all you have is a sign pointing to the failure of the "evo mat" account of origins then I would suggest that you find somewhere to put it down. You won't need it much longer. And then what? As from what I can see there is much progress to report and you've not even addressed one single data point of it. If that body of work alone is a "gaping hole" then presumably you have something more detailed? No? Then if this "gaping hole" is a failure what does that make your "alternative"? I guess it makes it a just-so story. A story that you wish were true, that you wish you had any evidence for. Dare you? Shall we look at one of the presentations together? Swap notes at the end? Perhaps Narrowing the Gap between Hadean and Abiotic Earth by Catalytic Processes on Iron-Sulfur Mineral Surfaces and Particles? It's only 20 minutes long!JemimaRacktouey_{April 9, 2011
April
04
Apr
9
09
2011
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply