Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Origins of Genomic ‘Dark Matter’ Discoverd–Once Again, ID Predictions are Spot On

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

This just in from Phys.Org.

Pugh added that he and Venters were stunned to find 160,000 of these “initiation machines,” because humans only have about 30,000 genes. “This finding is even more remarkable, given that fewer than 10,000 of these machines actually were found right at the site of genes. Since most genes are turned off in cells, it is understandable why they are typically devoid of the initiation machinery.” . . .

The remaining 150,000 initiation machines—those Pugh and Venters did not find right at genes—remained somewhat mysterious.
These initiation machines that were not associated with genes were clearly active since they were making RNA and aligned with fragments of RNA discovered by other scientists,” Pugh said. “In the early days, these fragments of RNA were generally dismissed as irrelevant since they did not code for proteins.” [Yeah, that’s right—you called it “junk DNA” and said it was proof contradicting design.] . . . . .

Pugh and Venters further validated their surprising findings by determining that these non-coding initiation machines recognized the same DNA sequences as the ones at coding genes, indicating that they have a specific origin and that their production is regulated, just like it is at coding genes. . . . . . .

These non-coding RNAs have been called the ‘dark matter’ of the genome because, just like the dark matter of the universe, they are massive in terms of coverage—making up over 95 percent of the human genome. However, they are difficult to detect and no one knows exactly what they all are doing or why they are there,” Pugh said. “Now at least we know that they are real, and not just ‘noise’ or ‘junk.’ Of course, the next step is to answer the question, ‘what, in fact, do they do?'”[Really?!! “Dark Matter?” You called it “junk-DNA”; it’s only now, now that you’ve been proven wrong on a grand scale that you’ve decided to call it “dark matter.”][P.S. This is what liberals do: when wrong, change the words; e.g., “global warming” = “climate change”, or, “pro-abortion” = “pro-choice”. You see, it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is.]

So, let’s see: 150,000 “initiation machines” (Wow, are there “machines” in the cell?) in the Non-Coding, and 10,000 in the coding portion. I wonder which is more important???? And what has ID been predicting since the late 1990’s? That the Non-Coding portion of the genome is where the bau-plan (blueprint, more or less) of the animal is to be found, and that proteins are but the building blocks (kind of forming the “parts list” of life’s manufacture); i.e., that ‘genes-coding’ portions of the genome are of less importance to life than the ‘non-coding’ portions. Here, it is 15:1 in favor of the Non-Coding—and in full agreement with ID predictions.

And, guess what, finally we get to put to rest the ‘junk-DNA’ argument. How do I know? Because it’s now called “dark matter.”

Comments
The fact that God will not punish us does not mean that there are not consequences for our actions.
Agreed. Dt. 10:12-13 “And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God ask of you but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 and to observe the Lord’s commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good?” God gives us commands and makes demands on us to protect us from harm that we would experience if we choose sin AND, for our own good. In other words He wants us to experience the blessings that come from choosing what is right. He knows better than anyone else what is beneficial to us and harmful to us and He loves us enough to tell us. Anyone can experience this type of protection and blessing just by keeping His commands, regardless of their beliefs. This is similar to the biblical “reap what you sow” principle that you mentioned. (Gal. 6) There are also consequences when we violate our conscience, but this can be overcome by violating it often enough. However, you want to stop the consequences at this point – meaning that you want the consequences to be limited to this world. You claim that God will not hold us accountable for our actions. This is counter to His Word and counter to common sense. Parents punish their children specifically because they love them and want them to learn from their mistakes. The government holds it’s citizens accountable for their actions as well. Why not God? Punishment with love is far more beneficial than total permissiveness. Children long for boundaries. They want to know that their parents care for them.
You say that “our essential nature is also unconditionally loving.”
Hmm. I don’t see that at all. Children do not need to be taught how to sin, how to lie, how to do wrong, how to live for themselves, etc. No, they need to be taught how to love, serve, care for, and think of others. It certainly does not seem like a natural thing for anyone to do – except maybe within the family or parent-child bond. And even then it is not always present.
But it is also important to realize that this earthly plane is not our true home and we are not our bodies. This is just a place we come to to grow spiritually. It is an illusion. We can do no real damage to one another here, so that what appears so important and significant really isn’t, in the larger scheme of things.
It is interesting that you mix a lot of biblical truth in with your views. Then there is other stuff that just comes out of no where like this: Referring to the earth you say “This is just a place we come to to grow spiritually. It is an illusion.” Well it sure is a good illusion. It is an illusion that you can see, feel, hear, touch and smell. Are you referring to a Matrix type of thing? If so, of course, no one can argue with you. The truth of that idea cannot be proven. I guess you just have to take the word of these seers you refer to. But the idea that you can do no real damage to one another here could be a very damaging idea in and of itself if it is not true. The idea that what happens here is not important too could deceive many people if not true. When children bully others and the bullied person commits suicide, I find it hard to understand how our actions can do no real damage to others.
“What would Love do now?” cannot be defined because every now is unique. We are made in God’s image and likeness. This means that we each have an infallible knowing within us of what Love is. The trick is to be able to access that knowingness. It is enough to make the sincere effort.
We have an infallible knowing within us of what Love is? Really? The Bible does tell us that God has written his laws on our hearts so I suppose our basic sense of morality that is given by God could be seen to be this, but most people do not respect God as God and live their lives their own way. Your idea of love is obviously very different from my idea of love. I believe it is loving to discipline my kids and hold them responsible for their actions rather than let them have total freedom. The same applies to God of course. God gives us commands BECAUSE He loves us and wants to protect us as the above verse points out.
Will we make mistakes? Sure. But that is how we learn.
What I want to know Bruce is, what does it matter if we make mistakes? If we are willing to accept whatever consequences we might experience for our actions, what does it matter if we "sin" or not? In other words, there is no responsibility to God for our actions. OK, just trying to understand.
God tells us that in His eyes there is no right and wrong, which tells me that our own sense of right and wrong is not inherent in us, but is implanted there by our conditioning.
So, Bruce, rape is not wrong in God’s eyes? Murder is not wrong in God’s eyes? That is what you really believe? And for you, our moral conscience and sense of right and wrong is nothing more than a cultural thing? OK, but again, it goes against our experience and what we all seemingly "know" deep down in our hearts so I think that will be a hard sell.
You seem to have a different standard for my sources of spiritual truth than you do for your own. The Bible is in fact a collection of many books written by many different authors over vast stretches of time.
Bruce, I think you have been reading too many atheist websites. Like I mentioned earlier, you have mixed up a lot of biblical truth in your own beliefs. However, if I believed like you do that the Bible was full of mistakes and written by men without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then I would not believe in it either. I understand why you reject God’s Word. You are also right that I cannot prove that the Bible is God’s Word. I think there is good evidence for it and I believe it is God’s Word based on that evidence. The Bible is the living and powerful Word of God. It still changes lives of people who believe today as it has done for thousands of years. It has stood the test of time and is still the best seller by far every year. I find it hard to believe that your god, if he exists, would have waited until Walter was born to share this with the world. You say that you believe in these seers, prophets, and visions that Walter had based on your own inner knowing. I guess we each have to make our own decision as to what we will believe. If you are right, then it really doesn't matter what anyone believes or how they live their life. OK, but if you are wrong, many people could be seriously effected. Good luck with your beliefs.tjguy
September 23, 2013
September
09
Sep
23
23
2013
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT
EL @ 59
tjguy: I suggest that you too have your own ideas about who god is and what he is like. You chose the god of a particular branch of a particular religious tradition, based on a particular collection of texts, said to be that god’s word.
Very true. I never denied that, but at least I have a more solid basis for my faith - in my opinion.
Why that one?
That's easy. Because that is what the Bible teaches. I believe the Bible to be God's Word. The Bible has stood the test of time, has had a great influence on the world, has changed the lives of many people, and remains the world's best seller every year. There are eyewitness accounts of Jesus' birth, His teaching, His miracles, His death, His resurrection, the birth of the early Church, etc.tjguy
September 23, 2013
September
09
Sep
23
23
2013
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
I find communication with Mung impossible.
Me too! All them feedback loops! Bruce David:
I think they were both simply trying to convey the fact that for most women, the decision to have an abortion is an agonizing choice.
But a choice, nonetheless. One made voluntarily. Not entirely consistent with the claim that no woman wants an abortion. Elizabeth Liddle:
Mung, I meant: no woman wants an abortion as in nobody wants a root canal.
Moral equivalency argument noted. What are the potential consequences of choosing to not having a root canal? The choice to have a root canal does not terminate a life, a human being.Mung
September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
Bruce: If you claim that your notion of “the left” is not vague, then give me a precise definition that would enable someone to determine whether a particular person belonged to that group or not. This is typical liberal/leftist posturing. You know full well what is meant by 'the left.' But here's a definition: 'the left' is composed of people with a radical political agenda, sharing a materialist, subjectivist, and socialist view of life and being, generally, irreligious. That I have to provided such a definition I consider silly. But be careful. Since you claim that “the left wants to define a ‘fourth trimester’”, your definition of “the left” had better exclude anyone who does not want to define a “fourth trimester”. A definition of “the left” that satisfies that criterion would certainly exclude the vast majority of people who consider themselves to be liberals or progressives. Did I succeed? You know, PaV, it’s easy to make vague generalizations about some demonized group when you are preaching to the choir. But when your audience just might include someone who has just been demonized and who is articulate enough to call you on it, you could be in trouble. I’d be more careful if I were you. First, you chose to feel 'demonized.' Why didn't you respond by saying that you: (a) don't consider yourself a part of 'the left';(b) that you consider the idea of a 'fourth trimester' is barbaric, and so denounce it; and (c) that liberals in general should denounce it vehemently? Second, did I 'demonize' the group? Try to be honest with yourself. I said that 'the left' were on campus seeking student signatures on a petition asking that women be allowed to terminate their pregnancy (? a non sequitor, of course) during a 'fourth trimester.' Should I have said "liberals" were on campus asking for signatures . . . etc? Or, that "conservatives" were on campus? Or that "libertarians" were on campus? Or that "communists"? The simple fact is that you find the thought of a "fourth trimester" to be abhorrent, and then you chose to assume---without any foundation for it---that I included you in that group. For you that was insulting. But, if you were in agreement with a "fourth trimester" then you would have not found the idea abhorrent, and would not have felt that I had "demonized" the group. It's your problem, not mine. I was stating the facts. Your demand that I "define" the "left" is simply a tactic that liberals use whenever it is convenient, usually when they find themselves in an indefensible position. Well, maybe you should change your way of thinking, so it can be defended instead of using childish tactics in order to run away from the truth. And you know what, I even think an apology might be in order. I do, too. When will you apologize for behavior?PaV
September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
Thanks, Lizzie. Did you also catch my #111, which by now is pretty buried? BruceBruce David
September 21, 2013
September
09
Sep
21
21
2013
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
Oh, I see his problem. Mung, I meant: no woman wants an abortion as in nobody wants a root canal. Do try reading for meaning.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 21, 2013
September
09
Sep
21
21
2013
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT
I find communication with Mung impossible. He may be literally correct - there may exist some woman who for some psychopathological reason or other, deliberately becomes pregnant so that she can experience the pleasure of an abortion. I know of no such woman, but it is true that I cannot rule out the possibility that such a woman exists. But yes, my intended meaning was as you interpret it.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 21, 2013
September
09
Sep
21
21
2013
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PDT
Mung, re. #132, Lizzie must speak for herself, of course, if she wishes, and I was simply reporting what another woman said on the subject. In my opinion, I don't think that either of them meant their statements to be taken literally. I think they were both simply trying to convey the fact that for most women, the decision to have an abortion is an agonizing choice. Your taking the statements literally and then attempting to refute them as such misses the point. But of course, that's just my opinion. Only they can tell you what they actually meant.Bruce David
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
11:26 PM
11
11
26
PM
PDT
Bruce David, It's very simple, really. The claim, Bruce, was that no woman would want an abortion. The facts, Bruce, contradict that claim. Simple probabilities, Bruce, contradict that claim. Please provide the statistics of women who did not want an abortion yet consented to having an abortion, if you can. Even Lizzie remains silent on this, even thought she originated the claim.Mung
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
11:12 PM
11
11
12
PM
PDT
goodusername, re. #129: Now that is interesting. Thanks for the update.Bruce David
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
10:54 PM
10
10
54
PM
PDT
Mung, re. #125:
You never intended to quote the person you quoted as if you actually agreed with the quote. My bad. Perhaps, next time that you quote someone who you disagree with, you could provide an indication of such?
There is a very large difference between quoting a woman as an authority on what women feel about abortion and deciding as a man to contradict their statements on the subject. The fact that you fail to see this distinction settles the question: you really aren't very smart. But then again it appears that you also don't have a lot of integrity either. You want to keep calling me names, Mung? I can play that game as well as the next man.Bruce David
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT
Bruce David, As best I can tell PaV is referring to this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-robert-m-myers/fourth-trimester-abortion_b_3665226.html The term "fourth trimester" was invented by Dan Joseph, who is hardly a left winger, to see how many would sign a petition advocating such a thing. In an hour he only managed 14 signatures in a pretty busy area of a college campus. I'd wager that none of the signers are actually for legalizing killing babies, and that the signers are a combination of 1) those that are pro-choice and didn't pay close attention to what they were signing 2) those that believed (understandably) that the petition was a joke and signed to be part of the joke and 3) Pro-life students that understood what the petition was and signed to inflate the numbers. At one point in the video Dan looks at a kid and merely says "I'm not even going to tell you what's on on it. Just sign it." He then signs it. And while signing it Dan says "Don't read it." Several of the students could be seen laughing as they sign. At best, this is a lesson in paying attention to what a petition is before signing.goodusername
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT
goodusername, re. #124:
No, our identity is not our genome. I am not my genome. What we cherish about people are their minds. That is their identity. When someone is brain dead we consider them, in fact, dead. It doesn’t matter that the rest of the body is alive and has a beating heart. It doesn’t matter that they still have their genome. We consider them dead because the mind is gone. What we cherish is gone.
Well said! I would add that in my view, the mind is an attribute of the soul, and the soul is that which leaves the body during NDEs and astral travel. It is the soul---which is made in the image and likeness of God and which is our true self---that we cherish. Bodies, including their DNA, are just vehicles that the soul uses from time to time.Bruce David
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT
Please provide the statistics of women who did not want an abortion yet consented to having an abortion, if you can.Mung
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT
The claim, Bruce, was that no woman would want an abortion. The facts, Bruce, contradict that claim. Simple probabilities, Bruce, contradict that claim.Mung
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT
Bruce David:
How interesting that you omitted the quote marks that were in my original comment, so that it appeared that the passage came from me, enabling you to accuse me of being a hypocrite.
Ack! I did it again! You caught me! You're not the hypocrite! You never intended to quote the person you quoted as if you actually agreed with the quote. My bad. Perhaps, next time that you quote someone who you disagree with, you could provide an indication of such?
I was quoting a woman
This was never in doubt. What was in doubt was your alleged identification. Bruce David:
I think it is the height of arrogance for you as a man to presume to understand what a woman goes through when she learns that she is pregnant and why she would or would not have an abortion.
Hypocrite.Mung
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT
PaV #98
If you look at the genome of an embryo, is it the same as that of the adult?
Yes, but so what? The genome is not what we value. A skin cell has the human genome but we don't consider killing a skin cell murder.
At the moment of conception the identity of an organism is formed. That identity continues on throughout all of its growth stages—much like your ‘water vapor’ and ‘cloud’ simile.
No, our identity is not our genome. I am not my genome. What we cherish about people are their minds. That is their identity. When someone is brain dead we consider them, in fact, dead. It doesn't matter that the rest of the body is alive and has a beating heart. It doesn't matter that they still have their genome. We consider them dead because the mind is gone. What we cherish is gone.goodusername
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT
Mung, re. 117:
You were the one who proclaimed that:
A woman doesn’t want an abortion like she wants an ice cream cone or even a Mercedes Benz. She wants an abortion like a trapped animal will chew off its own foot to escape.
Are you a woman? Or are you a hypocrite? Bruce?
Neither. I was quoting a woman, and as I said at the time, I couldn't remember who it was. How interesting that you omitted the quote marks that were in my original comment, so that it appeared that the passage came from me, enabling you to accuse me of being a hypocrite. Are you lacking integrity or are you simply not very smart, Mung?Bruce David
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT
PaV, re. #120: In #75 you said,
The latest monstrosity is this: now the left wants to define a “fourth trimester.”
If you claim that your notion of "the left" is not vague, then give me a precise definition that would enable someone to determine whether a particular person belonged to that group or not. But be careful. Since you claim that "the left wants to define a 'fourth trimester'", your definition of "the left" had better exclude anyone who does not want to define a "fourth trimester". A definition of "the left" that satisfies that criterion would certainly exclude the vast majority of people who consider themselves to be liberals or progressives. You know, PaV, it's easy to make vague generalizations about some demonized group when you are preaching to the choir. But when your audience just might include someone who has just been demonized and who is articulate enough to call you on it, you could be in trouble. I'd be more careful if I were you. And you know what, I even think an apology might be in order.Bruce David
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT
PaV, re. #119:
That it is now insisted that human life begins at conception is NOT a theological statement, per se, but a statement that flows from the conjunction of what theology teaches us and that which science informs us. I.e., it is science that informs us when ‘life’ begins.
Science tells us nothing of the sort. As I mentioned earlier, the sperm and the egg are alive well before they join to form a zygote. Human life began with the first human on the planet and has been continuous ever since. This is what can be concluded from the current state of scientific knowledge. What science reveals is the process by which sexual reproduction occurs in the species homo sapiens sapiens. The conclusion that "life begins at conception" is drawn from that scientific knowledge, but is false on its face. Life began well before any conception that occurred during the entirety of human history.
Theology simply tells us that that this ‘life’ is ‘human’, and, being ‘human’ is the same as a human person.
Theology is a branch of academic inquiry. It encompasses many theories and many conclusions. To say that "theology tells us" something is akin to saying, for example, that philosophy tells us that everything that occurs is the result of material causes. Theology tells us nothing specific. You can make an argument that a fertilized human ovum is a person from a theological perspective, but it won't be theology telling us anything. The argument must stand or fall on its own merits. So far I have yet to encounter a valid argument for that position.Bruce David
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT
PaV: The latest monstrosity is this: now the left wants to define a “fourth trimester.” Bruce: Once again, PaV, your ability to make distinctions is sadly lacking. I know many people who consider themselves liberal. None of them would endorse such a thing. You find one objectionable idea endorsed by some group of people and then attribute it to this vague idea you have, called “the left”. If you want your thinking to be taken seriously, you’ll have to do better than that! Did you not notice that I said 'the left', and not 'liberals'? Twenty years ago, abortion during the third trimester would have been rejected by liberals; but not now. Thirty years ago, pro-abortionists said that the fetus wasn't human life, thus justifying abortion. Now they say that it is human life. They're simply indifferent to that reality now. It's a very slippery slope. Now, as to this "vague idea [I] have, called 'the left'," you say that if I want to be taken seriously I have to do better than that. How can you deny that 'the left' exists? If you deny 'the left' exists, why should I take you seriously. E.g., should we then believe that the "vague idea of 'the right'" doesn't exist either? There are liberals, and then there are 'leftists.' There are conservatives, and then there are 'rightists'. Oh, that's right, they're 'right-wingers'. The 'left' exists, it's 'left-wingers' that don't exist. And "those on the right" exists as well. Yet, how is it, Bruce, that you find it so easy to simply dismiss the reality of 'the left'? This is exactly what I see liberals doing: denying reality whenever that reality becomes inconvenient for them. Whenever I've looked into anything 'the left'---not necessarily identical with liberals---believes in, it invariably is a myth. Start with the French Revolution, and end with 'global warming.' Myth. How dangerous this all is! You know, Satan is the 'father of lies."PaV
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT
Bruce: I stand corrected on zygote. At least we're now on the same page. You wrote this to Buffalo: The only way to claim that it is a human being is to invoke what it will become if left in the womb, as PaV has done in #75. You can’t even use the fact that it contains a full complement of human DNA. To use that to establish that it is a human being is to make everyone a murderer who has his or her hair cut or his appendix removed. That a 'zygote' is more than just a 'full complement' of chromosomes should be rather clear. The fact is that once fertilization takes place, the ovum changes dramatically, locking out any other sperm, and beginning the processes that lead to life, and, in the case of human beings, one which leads to human persons. I saw elsewhere what you wrote about the 'soul.' Philosophically, the 'soul' is seen as the organizing principle of action for life. IOW, nothing is going to develop in the womb---in the case of human life---if there is no soul. In another post I tried to make clear that human beings have human souls, souls that are ordered to vivify and actuate the person. That it is now insisted that human life begins at conception is NOT a theological statement, per se, but a statement that flows from the conjunction of what theology teaches us and that which science informs us. I.e., it is science that informs us when 'life' begins. Theology simply tells us that that this 'life' is 'human', and, being 'human' is the same as a human person.PaV
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT
The claim, Bruce, was that no woman would want an abortion. The facts, Bruce, contradict that claim. Simple probabilities, Bruce, contradict that claim. Surely, of all the women who have ever chosen to have an abortion, at least one wanted the abortion that she asked for. And this is why, Bruce, neither you nor Elizabeth is credible on this issue. Now, since we want to discus facts, how many women have abortions that they do not want?Mung
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT
BD @ 116: So? You were the one who proclaimed that:
A woman doesn’t want an abortion like she wants an ice cream cone or even a Mercedes Benz. She wants an abortion like a trapped animal will chew off its own foot to escape.
Are you a woman? Or are you a hypocrite? Bruce?Mung
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT
Mung, re. #114: I think it is the height of arrogance for you as a man to presume to understand what a woman goes through when she learns that she is pregnant and why she would or would not have an abortion.Bruce David
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
And BD, why do not all women who are pregnant chew off there feetuses?Mung
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
Bruce David:
A woman doesn’t want an abortion like she wants an ice cream cone or even a Mercedes Benz. She wants an abortion like a trapped animal will chew off its own foot to escape.
And you believe this do you? Why? This would almost (arguably) be believable if women were told prior to having an abortion that "it's just like chewing off your own foot to escape a trap." But that's hardly the truth of the matter, and you know it, and I know it, and Elizabeth knows it, and our readers know it. Elizabeth Liddle:
No woman wants an abortion.
Who, exactly, is forcing them to do what they do not want to do?Mung
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
vjtorley, re. #109:
In any case, there’s no reason why a soul should require an advanced brain: if the soul exists, then its role would obviously be to direct the embryo’s development from the get-go.
My point is that in my view it is a matter of fact the soul does not join the fetus until the brain is sufficiently developed to receive it. This is based on reports of the process from the two books I referenced. My view of the soul is not that its role is "to direct the embryo’s development". That happens automatically by biological processes. The soul exists eternally and continues both before and after any of the many particular bodies it inhabits lives and dies.
Finally, there’s nothing in my argument which hinges on the question of souls. The essence of my argument is that a human embryo is a person, because it is a complete organism, embodying a developmental program by which it directs and controls its own development into a rational human adult, and in addition, because it has already started assembling itself into a rational human adult. What I’m arguing, in other words, is that an entity which is already making itself into a rational adult is just as valuable as that adult. Nothing which is added to it from outside in the course of its development – food, oxygen, lower-level information – confers any additional value on it. V + 0 = V. If an adult’s inherent value is V, so is that of an embryo.
Two points: First, since your argument concerns only the body, it assumes that a mature physical body by itself is a human being. This is what I reject. For me, a human being consists of two distinct elements. The first is the physical body and the second is the soul. Without both being present, there is no human being. And in fact, the value of the human being lies in its soul, not in its body. Secondly, your argument does not follow logically. As I said in my first response, it is the sort of argument that someone who already agrees with its conclusion might find very compelling, but which someone who does not so agree would most likely find underwhelming, as I do. One could just as easily assert, for example, that it is the ability to think that confers value to the organism. The value does not accrue until the capability manifests. Therefore neither the zygote nor the embryo have value since neither can think. Neither position is logically compelling. Either can be held consistently.Bruce David
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
PaV, re. #98: Here is a follow on to my #103: Some counter-examples in which DNA plays the same role: 1. A human baby gives rise to a human adult. The human adult is sexually mature. This does not imply that the baby is also sexually mature. 2. A newborn tiger cub gives rise to an adult tiger. The tiger is an efficient hunter. This does not imply that the cub is also an efficient hunter. 3. A caterpillar gives rise to a butterfly. The butterfly is a flying insect. This does not imply that the caterpillar is also a flying insect.Bruce David
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT
Lizzie, Ok, well if you're willing, send me an email and I will replay with my address here in California. Thanks, BruceBruce David
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply