Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Professor Kleiner on Neurobabble and Aristotle

Professor Harrison Kleiner at Philosophy@Utah State has a nice post about Neurobabble and Aristotle:

“Neurobabble” is the excited talk of a certain kind of materialist who takes every new discovery in neuroscience to be a demonstration of the the mind’s reducibility to the neural processes.
I'll post more on Neurobabble in time. It is the conflation of levels of explanation in science. It assumes that the identification of a material correlation with a mental act provides a significantly deeper understanding of that act, and even that the correlation between material process and mental act demonstrates the reducibility of the mental act to the material process. 


Neurobabble is analogous to asserting that a chemical analysis of the ink used to publish a book containing the play Hamlet provides insight into Shakespeare's meaning. Materialists (like Steven Novella) take it even one step further: they assert (by analogy) that the chemical analysis of the ink would provide a complete explanation for Shakespeare, without remainder. 


The fallacy is obvious.


Kleiner notes that, unlike materialism, Thomistic dualism provides a rich conceptual framework for the philosophical and neuroscientific understanding of the brain/mind relation without the materialistic or Cartesian dualist fallacies:



Since the Aristotelian-Thomist position requires bodily activity as a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for acts of the human intellect, the A-T gladly accepts the findings of modern neuro-science, “not as a reluctant concession forced on the theory by the successes of modern neuroscience, but, on the contrary, precisely as a prediction of the A-T position as it has been understood from the beginning.  Were Aristotle and Aquinas to be made familiar with the sorts of neuroscientific discoveries frantically trumpeted by materialists as if they should be an embarrassment to the dualist, they would respond, with a shrug: “Of course.  Told you so.””
[Philosopher Ed] Feser concludes, “The fact is that Aristotelian-Thomistic hylemorphic dualism is the theory most clearly consistent with all of the philosophical and neuroscientific evidence.”
The materialist view of nature is an impoverished philosophical error. It stems from atheist dogmatism. Nowhere is the inadequacy of that feeble worldview more obvious than it is in the understanding of the mind-brain relation.

60 comments:

  1. Neurobabble? I like it!
    Mike wrote:

    "Nowhere is the inadequacy of that feeble worldview more obvious than it is in the understanding of the mind-brain relation."

    This may be for a neurosurgeon, but for me the field of war will forever be the biggest example of that view's impotence and irrelevance.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No doubt the usual complaints that terms like "hylemorphic dualism" are mere Courtier's Reply bafflegab will soon be forthcoming.

    You see, this is the rule:

    If you don't agree with an atheist's explanation of something, it's because you're an idiot. And if the atheist fails to even begin to comprehend your explanation of something (and is wholly unwilling to put in the slightest good faith effort to do so) it's because...you're an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  3. FYI Mike,
    I took your advice and have been having a good look at Feser's stuff (online).
    I must say I am impressed.
    Thanks for the nudge ;)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I really liked the word Neurobabble. It accurately describes of lot of the official science being peddled these days. Here are a few more noteworthy babbles:

    Evolutionbabble
    Mutationbabble
    Selectionbabble
    Multiversebabble
    Randomnessbabble
    Godlessnessbabble
    Liberalismbabble

    It is also possible to find personal babbles:

    Dawkinsbabble
    Hitchensbabble
    Dennettbabble
    Harrisbabble
    PZMyersbabble
    Coynebabble

    I am getting a bit tired of all this babbling. Please add your own…

    PS: the quantity of intelligence in the world is constant, but the population keeps growing!

    ReplyDelete
  5. There's something wrong with the spam filter. I wrote a longish comment and it's not going through so I'll try again later.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @bachfiend

    It's not the spam filter, it's a regular plumbing fixture!

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  7. I guess the comment is stuck somewhere Bach. You will just have to wait for Dr egnor.

    I found weird XD that this spam filter just hold long posts.

    ReplyDelete
  8. OK,

    I'll try a shorter comment.

    Hylemorphic dualism isn't a theory, it doesn't start with facts, it's an explanation. It suffers from the defect that anyone could then come up with another explanation that works better, equally starting fact free, and there's no way of distinguishing between the two. It's just telling stories.

    I find the idea that physical objects having essences bizarre. A tree isn't just something with roots, a trunk, limbs and leaves, it also provides timber for humans and shelter for birds. A painting isn't just daubs of paint on a canvas...

    So atoms, which according to materialist theory have no colour, odour or taste, means that since humans can see, taste and smell, they must also have a nonmaterial essence. Well, that's the argument. Unfortunately, the senses of sight, taste and smell are amongst the best worked physicochemical processes.

    I also find it bizarre that a hylemrorphic dualist could look at any finding of neuroscience and just metaphorically shrug claiming that that finding was expected. It would be more impressive if it could actually predict the finding in advance.

    By the way, could you correct the title; it's 'Kleiner' not 'Kliener'.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am wondering about Hylemorphism... So form and matter, and form is inherent in matter. So if the crazy nuts that wrote this wikipedia article is not smoking as much pot as my fellow physics students... Form is related to matter.

    As if I put matter number 1 I would get form number which has "THAT" form. So it sort of works like listing the elements in the periodic table but instead of symbols I get forms and the type of matters that relate to them ??? Am I correct so far ???

    Well that means that would be a different metaphysical plane that relates to our Physical plane ? Am I right ???

    ReplyDelete
  10. @bachfiend:

    I rescued your comment from the spam filter, but I don't see it up. Sorry.

    Thanks for the note about the spelling in the title. Corrected.

    @Edward:

    I'm not sure that I understand all of your question, but this is my understanding of the basics of hylemorphism:

    The only things that exist in nature are substances. A tree, a rock, a person are individual substances.

    Substances are composites of matter and form. Neither matter nor form are things that exist in themselves. Only substances exist. But matter and form are principles that together make a substance.

    A tree in my front yard is a substance. The intelligible principle of the tree-- the aspects of the tree that can be understood-- is its form. Leafiness, tallness, bark, roots, green, all are aspects of the tree's form. But notice that the intelligible principle of the tree is not adequate to completely signify it, because the intelligible principles could in theory apply to any tree, not necessarily just to the tree in my front yard.

    What is needed is the concept of individuation-- which is matter. The tree in my front yard is an individuated instance of treeness.

    Real things in nature are always composites of matter and form- individuation and intelligibility. Neither matter nor form exist as substances. They are principles, not things.

    What we (and materialists) call matter is really substances, each of which is a composite of matter and form. The matter is what makes it this atom or that planet; the form is what makes it intelligible, and the proper object of science.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Michael,

    Can you run that past me again?

    I gather what you call 'substance', stating that your tree is a substance, I (and every physicist, chemist, biologist or anyone who is anchored in physical reality) calls 'matter'. But then you go on to state that 'form' is the universal characteristics of a category, the 'treeness' in your example.

    You then go on to define a substance as being matter and form. OK, I can see that there are categories of matter, using 'matter' in the usual manner. But a lot of categories are artificial and human made. For example, Pluto has been rightly demoted from the status of planet, because the human definition of 'planetness' was changed to avoid the risk of increasing the number of planets to almost infinite numbers as more and more Kuiper belt bodies are discovered.

    So how does adding 'form' increase understanding?

    From what I can gather Feser postulates form to explain why colorless, odorless and tasteless atoms cause vision, smell and taste in humans, when the actual mechanism is well understood by science.

    And how does hylemorphic dualism Dualism help in predicting anything?

    And another thing that I can't understand is how a real solid object such as a tre can be considered to consist of 'not things', principles, of matter and form. It seems to me you've generated something from two nothings.

    ReplyDelete
  12. So let me see how it goes here in my head. See if I got it.

    Substance => made of matter and forms

    Substances are all that is

    Matter and form are principles

    Form is intelligible

    Matter is a principle of individuation

    * Okay, I think I got a bit about how the whole thing goes, now 8D I will just read what Bachfiend has to say so I can make a big answer full of typos to make him anger XD! *

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    "But then you go on to state that 'form' is the universal characteristics of a category"

    "But a lot of categories are artificial and human made."

    "So how does adding 'form' increase understanding?"

    "And how does hylemorphic dualism Dualism help in predicting anything?"

    "And another thing that I can't understand is how a real solid object such as a tre can be considered to consist of 'not things', principles, of matter and form."

    ________________________________________________

    I think I see how it goes. But this ontological model is so, well so hard to get used to it easily. Must be because I am a slow thinker XD.

    Now first. So substances are all there are. The form part of the substance allow me to identify certain characteristics of the substance, and the matter part is what makes this substance unique.

    Now Bach pointed out that form is just the universal characteristics of a object or substance in this case.

    SO let me see if I get this, Form is the intelligible parts of the substance, for instance the shut down screen in front me, has a reflex and this reflex is part of the form of this substance, however if I am correct here than Bachs idea that universal characteristics = form is obviously wrong. So Form would be closer to characteristics that I can identify and categorize of a substance ??? is that it ???

    I think Bach that this is a Ontological model not a Epistemological model.

    I think Bach that is not two nothings. But rather two categories of the same "substance" that we see or something like that.

    This Model is reall counterintuitive... is like worse than learning Relativity.

    Well, is it me or the model actually puts fourth that Matter is what makes things unique.

    I am still really lost here, and I think that Bach is having a brain seizure XD.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Edward,

    I'm not having a brain seizure. I just can't see that hylemorphic dualism actually adds anything, besides completely arbitrary terminology. I can't see that it predicts anything, in the manner that climate models do.

    I can't see that substances that are matter and form is superior to the conventional outlook that there's just matter which can be divided into categories, either real as in elementary particles such as quarks and electrons or artificial and human devised as in trees (bananas don't actually grow on trees, although they look like them, they're actually herbs) or planets.

    It isn't counterintuitive, it just isn't necessary or even practicable. Talking about relativity, I read today that contrary to public opinion, there's actually no such thing as gravity ... Mass just curves space-time and objects just 'tend' to move through space-time in the shortest distance, so when you're sitting still, your speed through time in faster, and when you're running your speed through time decreases. To me that sounds much more sensible than this hylemorphic dualism.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bach, it is a ontological model. Is different from Logical positivism or rationalism, or pragmatism. You are just mixing the things. The model doesn't seem to be made to find new knowledge or, to dictate what correct knowledge is. Is more to describe reality, but it goes apparently outside of Pragmatism.

    Your objection is just a epistemological one. But I guess we are not really talking about Epistemology but rather Ontology. Seriously XD.


    You are just attacking one school thought by dictating other school of thought as correct. That doesn't really work ar argument... well because you already uses as premises other school of thoughts. And in this case I think your school of thought does not go along with ... Hylemorphic Dualism.

    Sorry I guess you got things wrong. I was referring to how you have to go in your mind from classical to relativity. Things just feel counter intuitive. And I was talking about Special relativity, not General.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Is my understanding correct?

    Substance = water
    Matter = 2 atoms of Hydrogen and one of Oxygen
    Form - liquidity

    ReplyDelete
  16. Edward,

    If it's an ontological model, then the first thing its proponents should do is prove that its components exist, otherwise the epistemological method used to derive it is 'just sucking things out of their thumbs' (I was tempted to use another expression using 'pulling things out of their' and a four letter word starting with 'a').

    Anonymous,

    Heaven knows what it means. The four elements and four humours of the Ancient Greeks seem sensible in comparison, and the Europeans were sensible enough to discard most of that in medieval times.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Pépé wrote:
    "PS: the quantity of intelligence in the world is constant, but the population keeps growing!"

    too true. I have said the same thing, worded differently of course, many time.
    Kudos Pépé!

    PS
    All the other 'babbles' made me LOL :P Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Bach I guess, that you don't need the epistemological model that derivates in this case. You can just use as a frame possible framework. You don't need to say no to nothing just because it doesn't seem useful.

    Just calma down man XD, no need to worry about hylemorphic dualism as of now I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Bach wrote:
    "Heaven knows what it means."

    That's right! And so does anyone with a first year philosophy course...except materialists.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Edward,

    'you don't need to say no to nothing just because it doesn't seem useful'.

    A triple negative in one clause! What does that mean. In English a double negative means yes, in Russian a double negative still means no, but 3 negatives.

    Anyway, models aren't useful if they're not true. Michael seems to have weaseled out of describing why the hylemorphic model is so useful in ... I don't know what.

    Climate change denialists dismiss AGW because they criticize the models.

    CrusadeRex,

    I think this model is like the 4 elements and 4 humors, and also should have been discarded too centuries ago. Not only is it wrong, but it's also not useful.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @bachfiend:


    [I just can't see that hylemorphic dualism actually adds anything, besides completely arbitrary terminology.]

    You believe that random variation and 'survivors' survive explains life, and you have the audacity to claim that hylemorphic dualism is an empty concept?

    Hylemorphic dualism explains the biggest problem in philosophy of mind-- intentionality-- naturally and easily, and it explains qualia, persistence of self, the interaction problem, and is entirely consistent with neuroscience. It also places the mind entirely in the natural world. The mind is to the body just as form is to matter.

    You can't even define 'materialism'.


    [I can't see that it predicts anything, in the manner that climate models do.]

    You're joking, right? Climate models!? Ha ha ha ha...

    [I can't see that substances that are matter and form is superior to the conventional outlook that there's just matter which can be divided into categories, either real as in elementary particles such as quarks and electrons or artificial and human devised as in trees (bananas don't actually grow on trees, although they look like them, they're actually herbs) or planets].

    Define 'matter'. What properties count as 'material'? Examples don't count.

    ReplyDelete
  22. hahaha I realised the mistake to late Bach XD and a triple negative is still a negative XD!!!

    Dalton model of the atom is incredably usefull. and it is not true.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Michael,
    Variation is never random. No one survives, but what's important is the number of offspring and grandchildren.
    Models that explain only are useless, read the book 'Everything is Obvious, Once You Know the Answer' I recommended a while back.
    Climate models predict future climate. They can then be found to be right or wrong. Hylemorphic dualism is just sucked out of the end of someone's thumb.
    Materialism states that all there is matter and energy. It's up to those who reckon that there's something else to provide the evidence.
    Matter is anything made of hadrons and electrons (it's the standard definition); what do you think it is? Material is the stuff that makes up things and is the same as matter.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Actually variation is random .... if the neo-drawinian model is correct.

    Actually Bach, what exists is a hardcore phylosophical question. Judging from your point of view, O guess you are a positivist, even if it doesn't seem to you.

    What if ... hadrons and electrons are made of dots, with no dimensions ??? where would the dimensions come from Bach? Trick in our heads?? or a non reductionist reality ?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Edward,

    Variation isn't random, it comes from recombination of genes and occasional mutations. If the genes aren't there in the population then there's no variation. Variation isn't infinite, it's discrete.

    Hadrons (actually composed of quarks) and electrons are known to have size period. So your objection that if they were dots, without dimension, is irrelevant. The electron is known to be the most spherical object in the Universe (so far).

    Dalton's atomic model is correct, it's just that it's not as correct as later ones.

    Neodarwinian models of evolution aren't the latest ones. You need to keep up with the times. It's been enriched with developing knowledge of eve-devo and epigenetics.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Bach, the variation that Neo-Darwinism depends on is random. I know the gene has a pretty much NOT random face to it. But genetic errors that MIGHT cause the next evolutionary path to occur or be accessed is random.

    No they are not known to have sizes. We know that they are smaller than ( measured in lab number ). They could be punctual.

    My objection is relevant XD, don't throw the baby with the water.

    Dalton model is wrong. The alpha particles being collided against the gold sheet proved that. But the model is incredably dictatical.

    Well the more I read about evo-devo the less I get it. If I am not mistaken , and most likely I am, so I ask of you, your Highness XD to correct me if so. Evo-Devo study our embrionary development right ??? And it supposely will explain evolution from that point of view. But I remember Sean Carroll saying that evolution apprently uses what it has to create the new step.

    If he phrase is correct and Sean meant, that evolution KNEW something... than that shit is not Darwinian evolution man. Darwinian evolution has no freaking idea what is going on.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @bachfiend:

    [Variation is never random.]

    Huh?

    [No one survives, but what's important is the number of offspring and grandchildren.]

    Oh... that's what evolution means! How foolish of me...

    [Models that explain only are useless, read the book 'Everything is Obvious, Once You Know the Answer' I recommended a while back.
    Climate models predict future climate.]

    Some models are heuristic, and some provide quantitative predictions. To expect that a metaphysical system would provide quantitative predictions, just as a computer model would, is idiotic.

    By the way, what do computer models generated by atheism predict?

    [They can then be found to be right or wrong. Hylemorphic dualism is just sucked out of the end of someone's thumb.]

    Hylemorphism is the basis for Western philosophy, to this day. We're just so ignorant that we don't understand where our everyday ideas come from.

    [Materialism states that all there is matter and energy.]

    Is that 'statement' matter or is it energy?

    [It's up to those who reckon that there's something else to provide the evidence.]

    You don't get to set the rules. We all need to provide evidence. I don't blame you for trying to insulate your ideology from the need to provide evidence. It's your only hope of success.

    [Matter is anything made of hadrons and electrons (it's the standard definition); what do you think it is? Material is the stuff that makes up things and is the same as matter.]

    How many hadrons and electrons are there in the opinion that "Matter is anything made of hadrons and electrons"? If you can't tell me, does that mean that your definition doesn't exist?

    Materialism is an infantile fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Edward,

    Firstly, elementary particles do have size. Continuing to repeat that they COULD be Sizeless dots is pointless, because they aren't.

    Secondly, Dalton's atomic theory was correct. It accurately represented atoms bound in the correct ratios in molecules and was an advance in chemistry. Believe or not, physicists in Germany doubted that atoms existed till the early 20th century. The model just wasn't as correct as later models.

    Thirdly, you have the idea, I think, that science is static, that it's like religion with revealed truths. The neo-Darwinian synthesis is old hat. It's just evolutionary biology.

    Mutations aren't random. Imagine if you change one nucleotide in a gene for another. With the triplet code, most of the time what happens is that one codon for a certain amino acid is changed for a codon for exactly the same amino acid or a similar amino acid (replacing a basic amino acid with a similar but different basic amino acid). This is because the triplet codes aren't random. Replacing one codon for its 'synonym' isn't necessarily silent, sometimes the gene is transcribed more, sometimes less.

    So with mutations, you mostly have either little change, a little worse or a little better, which aren't particularly selected against or for, or large bad effects, such as stopping transcription immediately mid gene, which are often eliminated immediately because they don't produce viable embryos for example. Large good changes just don't happen.

    So what happens is that in populations you get progressively increasing mutations of small effect, slightly good or slightly bad, increasing genetic variation.

    And then what kicks in is that with recombination during the formation of gametes, the genes get mixed up, so that slightly good genes get combined to give a large significant benefit, which is selected for, because that individual is more successful in having offspring.

    Are you thinking of the 'hopeful monster'? The one with the big random mutation hoping for a similar mutatation in an individual of the opposite sex nearby. That doesn't happen.

    Sean Carroll is correct, although if what you report ihe said is correct, he's slipped into teleological language, which is commonly done, but can be avoided if one tries. It's like a journalist reporting that 'Britain says ...' when what he means is that the British PM, or the British public (in an opinion poll) or whatever says. 'Evolution is blind' is almost on the same lines, but it means that the only traits that can be selected for or against are the ones that are already there.

    Please stop using Darwinian evolution. Darwin's 150 years ago. There was a lot of things that he didnt know. It's just evolutionary biology.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Bach
    Particles

    ____________________


    They could be punctual XD, no kidding. We have no idea what shape they have. We just know the radius in a certain position that we could find the particles. We do not know how they look like, we jusst it's effects.

    --------------------------------

    Dalton's Model

    ________________________________


    Dalton model was wrong. It predicted that the alpha particles were NOT going to through but they did. You are just saying that because it furthered our understanding in some fields it is correct. But ... welll that is not really so. It is correct when we have no evidence against it and it explains the evidence so far.

    ---------------------------------------

    My opinion on science

    _______________________________________

    Well I do not believe that that science is static. Where the heck did you arrived at that conclusion XD ???

    ---------------------------------------

    Evolution

    _______________________________________

    Hey we are making progress... sort of XD.

    I surely see the point you are trying to make.

    howwwever...

    There are two points that intrigues me. First that you are somehow saying that accumulation of good traits is pretty much evolution ( Macro or Micro Evolution ? ). And that the new traits tend to "survive" thanks to natural selection. Am I right so far ?

    Weellll ... funny. I have two questions for you?

    One, If we accumulate genetic changes, will we always get Macro-evolution ?

    Two, Do small traits could lead to the next evolutionary step? and If so... HOW so ?

    I promise I am not interested in your Hopeful monster.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    I was going to take look at Macro Micro evolution... first site on the row: Atheism.com XD. The third one is Talk Origins.

    Funny why should google direct me to an atheist site when we talk about evolution XD. And people still say that evolution tries to be religously neutral hahahah c'mon XD!

    6th Site seems like a creationist site. other sites are got question. Wikipedia.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    There are two things that I want you to think about Bach.

    First, there is still a lot of debate that macro evolution is micro evolution MADE BIG.

    Second, that when we breed animals, and try to create the greatest animal evar! we do not get new especies. Even Darwin knew that one, after all the guy was a animal breeder.

    See these two problems ... are problems, that one has to think about when talking about evolution. because they are damn important man XD.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @bachfiend:

    Re: your description of evolution:

    Yawn. Stuff changes and survivors survive (or reproducers reproduce). What crap.

    [Sean Carroll is correct, although if what you report ihe said is correct, he's slipped into teleological language, which is commonly done, but can be avoided if one tries.]

    You're trying too hard to evade teleology. It's real.

    [Please stop using Darwinian evolution. Darwin's 150 years ago. There was a lot of things that he didnt know. It's just evolutionary biology]

    You stop celebrating Darwin Day, stop all the bullshit hagiography, the idiot assertions (Dennetts: 'Darwinism is the best idea anyone ever had...'), and I'll think about stopping calling it Darwinism.

    Evolutionary biology is a branch of science. It's not identical to your theory. But I don't blame you for evasiveness.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Michael,

    I don't celebrate Darwin Day, I celebrate Lincoln Day.

    Teleology isn't real. What makes you think it is?

    Hylemorphic dualism? Yawn ... What crap!

    Edward,

    No, no, no. We know particles have size. Stop insisting that they don't. Ask a physicist. Just because they're small, doesn't mean they points.

    Dalton's atomic model was correct, to the same extent as Copernicus' heliocentric model and the idea that the Earth is a sphere. They're just not as accurate as later models.

    Google search (or whatever browser you're using) just lists the sites in order of popularity, which ones get clicked, so it's irrelevant that the first site is an atheist site. I once wondered how long comets lasted (after all, they do evaporate a little each orbit) so I goggled it and most of the 10 top sites were young Earth creationist sites (I don't know if they're expert in astronomy).

    Evolution is slow. We've been breeding domestic animals for around 10,000 years, and most of these wouldn't survive in the wild now. The ancestor of corn looks nothing like our domesticated corn. Polar bears and brown bears split 800,000 years ago in one of the glaciations, and they're still capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring.

    Evolution is multiple small changes over long periods of time. It's artificial to talk of one species changing into another overnight. If 2 species diverged 3 million years ago, and if you had a time machine and took a modern member of one back it time, it certainly wouldn't be able to breed with a member of its line 3 million years ago, perhaps 2 million years ago and probably 500,000 years ago.

    Getting back to Dalton. The model is still used in chemistry, so it's still correct. It didn't predict that alpha particles would be stopped because alpha particles had not discovered then. It's a model of atoms, not atomic structure. The alpha particle experiment replaced the 'plum pudding model' of electrons and protons mixed together to form atoms. Bohr's model was an improvement but still not quite correct.

    But anyway, Dalton's model has evidence in its favor. This hylemorphic dualism model has NO evidence in its favor besides making Michael feel happy.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I did asked a physicist XD. We just now where they possibly are. We can make very accurate predictions with our theories, but we have no idea how they look like. Could be spheres, could be blocks, could be amorph material, Could be shell with strings in it. For instance we don't know how the particles are the same way you know how your computer is, that is all. Even better, the particles could be creates by fields.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    A model is correct if it explain the evidence and has no evidence against it. Just because we made the models better doesn't mean they were correct just because we didn't scrapped them. You see, science only knows when something is wrong, because our evidence contradicts it.

    It is a atomic model man. It is used in chemistry because it is dictatical. The structure of the atom in the Dalton model is clear. It is a hard sphere. Hard spheres grouped together wouldn't let the Helium nucleus AKA Alpha particle XD, to go through. The pudding model was a improvement of the Daltonian model.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Guess there is a war on science ahahhaha. Funny I wrote on google, the search engine I use, and I made the search you did. Found 1 post that the guy, probably not a creationist, asks about how long comets lasts, since if the Universe was Billions of year old they should be all gone. Never heard that, but that is why you found so many sites. Well I found no creationist site and only a post on the top 10. Guess it must your region heheheh XD

    Right ... and exactly what that has to do with the questions about evolution I talked about?

    What about punctuated equilibrium O_O, is like a over night in evolutionary standards. A new especies showing up in 10.000 years or 50.000 years.

    Well since you are talking about breeding. Tell me do you think that the entire especies evolve into a direction or into a few directions, or that part of the population simply stay as they are... how do you think is a good description of one especies creating another one ????

    Because ... I have no freaking idea how random mutation going to all possible evolutionary pathways will create the next step in evolution. So how would it be ???

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Right, and since when I was comparing the Hylemorphic philosophical theory with Dalton Atom Model ???

    ReplyDelete
  33. Edward,

    I think quite a few comments ago you brought up the fact that models can useful although not true, using Dalton's model as an analogy for hylemorphic dualism.

    And Dalton's model is true, chemically. Atoms do behave as hard solid spheres in chemical reactions. Dalton was a chemist! In chemical reactions, atoms don't split.

    You're confusing Heisenberg's uncertainty principle with the size of a fundamental particle (my favorite joke; 'If you know Werner Heisenberg is, you don't know where he is'). Experimentally, it has recently been determined that an electron is perfectly spherical so it has definite size. You didn't ask your physicist friend the right question. The idea that particles may be strings is ... Well string theorists have been trying to make sense of their model for decades without success.

    Punctuated equilibrium is easily explained. A population is split into two, one large, one small, by some geographical barrier, perhaps a desert, a new sea, a large river, or whatever. Small populations evolve faster than large ones, just because new variants aren't being swamped by the old versions and neutral drift is enough. But small populations don't leave as many fossils, and they might be in areas not accessible to today, but the large population leaves many more fossils. And then the geographical barrier falls, the desert 'greens', the sea or river dries out, and the two populations can now mix again. If the new population is able to compete better then it replaces the old population very quickly both in geological and evolutionary time, with one fossil apparently being replaced by a new one almost immediately.

    Another problem is that the definition of species in fossils is a little problematic. How do we know that different fossils represent separate breeding populations? Some paleontologists have suggested two separate dinosaur species just represent the juvenile and adult stages of one species.

    Looking at species today we get the false impression that they're defined only geographically, whereas actually they are merge together back in deep time.

    Google ratings in its search engine varies with time. It depends on how many people are searching and what they type into the search engine, and the number of times each result is clicked on. Results can change over time, and unscrupulous people can rig the results too. Perhaps when I looked at the longevity of comets, that was the favorite argument of young Earth creationists, and they'd rigged the rating system? Or perhaps I'd typed in slightly different words to you? Or perhaps when I did it there was more interest in comets? I don't know the exact reason, but there will be an explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Damn! I've ruined my favorite joke.

    It should be:

    If you know who Werner Heisenberg is, you don't know where he is.

    ReplyDelete
  35. lol ... good joke ... lemme answer to you ... very calmly because I think RickK is playing with my face. =_= seeeeriously.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Models

    - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    I got your point. There is a bit of a difference between the metaphysical Hylemorphism dualism model and the more physical Daltonian model. How ever I understanf your point. Actually you seem to following quite in the footsteps of Comte, seriously XD, I have this positivist vibe from your rhetoric skills

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Dalton

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Yeah, but see Dalton thought the atom as solid. for realz. That is why we had to improve his model.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Common Ancestry... Universal or multiple trees

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Well I remember reading that the genetic code of all living beings have different command libraries. Like the same commando changes completely in a different especies. Is this has something to do with epigenetics ???

    Anyway, I think multiple evolutionary trees are far more likely THAN Universal life tree, because you would have to change commands all of a sudden, creating the hopeful monster problem, or hoping that new strain of genes with different commands

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    The Spheric ELECTRONS!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Mind showing me u_u the information... because... well I want to see it, and object just for the lulz XD.

    And about strings... yeah that thing makews no sense.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Search Engine

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    I think it could be the different countries. For instance I usually end up getting American sites when I write in English, but hardly find other english speaking sites. Maybe it is just my location.

    Creationism in Brazil is very ... sort of marginal. Is not like we don't people that believe in full fledged 6000 year old Earth creationism; But they tend to be really nice and cool about their positions. I was impressed, to find out that we had 3 Creationism Organizations and the biggest one was in favor of teaching standard Evolution model ( Darwinism/Neo-Darwinism or Modern Synthesis which is Neo-Darwinism expanded 0_0 ). I thought they would be going to evolutions throat, but they are all cool about it. SO different from what I read from USA.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    ReplyDelete
  37. Species Dynamics

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Although the obvious problem of naming which especies is which in the fossils ( without saying that you CAN use the definition os especies you desire while you publish a paper T_T!!! ); There is something that is more intriguing. See, for instance if we had 100 beings from especies A. Now imagine that for every breeding cycle one of them evolves, just one.

    The 98 A's will have 49 A's and the extra A will breed with Mr or Ms X. Now get a deck of cards and remove the K, Q, J and Jokers so only 1 through 10 will be in your deck.

    1 to 10 is 10 possible evolutionary pathways. Take a card and create your evolved buddy.

    Now at the second Breeding cycle we have 148 A's and 1 Mr 2 let's say and a baby A2

    Do it again and again until you have 100 Mutants from 1 evolutionary pathway.

    If you want you can flip a coin to see who lives and who dies XD, just to get things more real.


    Now... Bach if the logic is flawed... it could be... you see that A will be a freaking HUGE part of the population, the hybrids will be a good part, and those 1 to 10 will be very marginal. Imagine that everysingle one them can actually reproduce... isn't it weird that possibly the evolutionary step is more likely a hybrid that most like has nothing in common with the mutants 1 to 10 and possibly nothing in comming with themselves and ... has the A gene pool but FULL of extra stuff ????


    Is it me or we naturally, at least in this level of mutation, 1 per cycle, is just not enough to create the next great evolutionary step? See like our ancestor did.


    O_O justtt think about thislittle simulation... don't read stuff on TO and PT hahahaha and no books... use logic mate! Is this model a good simplyfied model of the dynamics that a especies will "see" during their evolutionary proccess?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Imperial College of London. No wobbles on laser means that electrons are round. Hmmmm I can't critique just as of nowwww hahhahaha. But perhaps later when i learn more about it.

    By the way ... there was no academic paper about it T_T, how sad, these guys find these things and there is no hype XD.

    However I still need to see the experiment. u_u After all... who knows. There could be a experimental procedure problem n_n!!!!... Yeah I am Evil Bach... I pretty go after the defect of things muhahhahaha ... Trust me, it has a higher purpose to create my model for over model searching system for science \o/. which will probably be another crackpot theory but hey ... it is worth a shot.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Edward,

    I don't have the time to read all of your comments, so I'll just restrict myself to one;

    The genetic code across all species is basically the same, with very minor exceptions. All species have extremely similar codes, with very occasional codons coding for slightly different amino acids OS acting as a stop signal.

    Scientists are actively looking for lifeforms on Earth with a completely different genetic code, as the next best thing to finding life elsewhere in the solar system let alone Universe, the assumption being that it would mean that life has arisen twice on Earth, and therefore it must have been easy to happen, and would also happen easily elsewhere. Or perhaps not.

    At any rate, using the amino acids and a triplet code, the total number of possible codes is enormous, more than 10 to the power of 84. Presumably the variants in the code arose with simpler lifeforms with fewer genes where the slight changes that happened didn't have bad effects. Changing the code in humans now would be disastrous.

    Of course, it doesn't rule out common design, although the other convergence of evidence strongly favors common descent.

    Actually mutations aren't rare in each generation. There's more than 1. Two groups actually went to the trouble of determining the genome within individuals within families and a surprising number of mutations in all the genes were found in the offspring over the parents. It was mentioned in SGU podcast a while back, I didn't take much notice of it (it was a small study after all), and most of the changes were very minor. We have always assumed error correction in DNA was very good, but that's largely due to the fact that we didn't have the technology to look at DNA in detail. Just finding the alterations in 3 billion base pairs takes powerful computers (I have enough trouble avoiding typographical errors in what I'm typing, spell check causes some lovely typos).

    Another thing; species don't change into another species in one generation. Populations change into another species over extremely large numbers of generations over very long periods of time, and it's only because all the ancestors have died that speciation occurs.

    Brazilian creationist groups being in favor of evolution doesn't surprise me. There's old Earth creationism in addition to young Earth creationism. Also some YECs want hyperevolution to get all the extant species from the limited number of kinds Noah took on board the Ark just 4000 years ago.

    Got to walk the dog ...

    ReplyDelete
  40. But the exceptions if I am not mistaken are really vital. Dunno... Would have to check XD. Last time I was checking the code I just looked at all that and said... YOu know what ... fuck it XD too lazy to find patterns in this even though the whole thing was already made for researchers to look at it and know right away what they were talking about.

    I find kind of funny. Although I can see primitive especies being simpler at the genetic code... There is still all the sstuff necessary to make the cell work, and depending on the leve of fine tuning, the evolutionary pathways become in the great majority deathtraps.

    I think that Common descent and Common design of systems like orthogenesis that force different thing to look alike because they are sort of ... going to perfecction or something like that, are hard to compare. For instance I would choose Common descent simply because it has less pieces... not because it is necessarily the best explanation... meaning, I would not be certain IF I am correct.

    Actually the dynamic was to get 1 in a population of 100. Is that if a model maybe closer to reality. Taking in consideration deaths by all sorts of causes, How overall fit the group in question is and even going to the point of checking their overall gene characteristics, could be, of course, much better model. But have you noticed that Species A would just be a humongous part of the population until it reaches the max population for the current resources. Then we add the idea that the most adapted creatures would eventually win, but that is IF, they fight against each other and IF, there is some kind of resource drop and the mutants die for some reason... who knows maybe that just have no Lucky Genes XD.

    I mean look at catastrophes, they would bloody explain major extinctions and explain why the mutants won in the end of the day and how the next evolutionary step took place... but I bet that the sheer amount of catastrophes necessary to wipe out all ancestral species XD would be rediculously high.

    Just saying... it neve adds up, unless if I take in consideration that evolution has a guide. I mean Ortogenesis had a objective... Of course people would get all worried because it removes the Niihilistic view of Evolution and that would piss off all sorts of people, but it DOES solve gaps. Instead of hoping that the blind man in the middle of nowhere find the water jar and survive, you just put a guy that can see XD.


    Actually ... I Think they are YEC XD... they are just no hardcore, because their reading material seem pretty much ripped off creationists sites I found in English. I remember readding something about Hyper-Evolution. You know what I like the most about Evolution... especulation. Was probably something that I liked the most in Biology, and bothered my poor teacher with it hahhahaha ... yeah since then I didn't believe in Darwinian evolution u_U call me a fundamentalist...

    ReplyDelete
  41. Edward,

    This is my last comment on this thread (even though I'm retired, there still aren't enough hours in the day to read more than 6 blogs with more than 2 threads).

    The differences between different codes are minor. Of the more than 10 to the 84th power possibilities, there are perhaps 17 or 18 variants known which differ in just the meaning of 1 or 2 triplet codons. Scientists would be extremely excited (creationists probably too) if an organism with a massively different code, one in which all or most of the triplets meant something completely different, or perhaps one which used groups of 4 instead of 3 base pairs with extra amino acids. But of all the possibilities that exist, they all cluster in one very tiny area of the range of possibilities.

    Extinction is almost the rule. Almost 100% of past species have gone extinct after an average of about 3 million years. See my explanation of punctuated equilibrium. In the scenario I described, the larger population was well adapted but a geographical barrier disappeared and they were outcompeted and went extinct quickly.

    Mass extinctions due to catastrophes don't favor mutants, it just favors the hardy generalists. When the Indian Deccan Traps supervolcano wiped out the nonavian dinosaurs 65 MYA (I think the Chicxulub impact theory increasingly implausible), the smaller hardier mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, etc were able to survive, just, it wouldn't have been pleasant, and the large dinosaurs (and pterodactyls and pleiosaurs) went under.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The Entire code was not different per se. It was a small difference... BUT, if were to have a son with that "difference" he would die. His proteins would be all fucked up. I gonna have to read the bloody codes data base u_u" ... I hate work!

    I think of the catastrophes as the hardcore Natural Selection that Darwin needed to .... errr save his theory. Otherwise natural selection gets weak all over again, and random mutations would eventually F*** a especie. You ... in his early models anyway.

    It is okay man XD ahahhaha ... probably we gonna talk about evolution again in some other time... you retired ... DAMN! ... I feel so out of place in this blog XD!

    ReplyDelete
  43. @bachfiend

    "Punctuated equilibrium is easily explained..."

    'Evolution' is a hodgepodge of genuine science, sloppy science, and fanciful stories. To professionally survive, an evolutionary biologist must respect certain ideological boundaries. Atheism for instance.

    'Punctuated equilibrium' is a public confession by Gould and Elderidge that the fossil record didn't support gradualism, which was the hallmark of Darwinism. The sudden appearance of different forms in the fossil record is the rule, not the exception.

    Darwinism is stories, and punctuated equilibrium is just another story. It has nothing really to do with science. It's about defending ideology.

    The discontinuous fossil record should have demolished Darwin's theory soon after its publication.

    I am not a young earth creationist, and I don't really believe in special creation. I accept common descent, although it is by no means proven.

    But the most parsimonious explanation for the discontinuous fossil record is special creation.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Michael,

    Can you consider your last 3 sentences of your last comment, and tell me that you haven't taken leave of your senses. 'I'm not a young earth creationist, and I don't really believe in special creation. I accept common descent, although it is by no means proven. But the most parsimonious explanation for the discontinuous fossil record is special creation'.

    Anyway, the most parsimonious explanation for the 'discontinuous' fossil record (it isn't really, it would be discontinuous if you had trilobites and then whales with nothing in between) would be missing the fossils in between. The less parsimonious explanation would be that God allowed a species to go extinct and then create a species almost exactly the same. Miller's serial incompetent creator in fact

    ReplyDelete
  45. Bach. It is just like Carl Sagan. The Big Bang has goo evidence to it but I believe the universe is eternal.

    Which could be depending on how much the multiverse can preve AKA everything XD.

    ReplyDelete
  46. M.E. said: "But the most parsimonious explanation for the discontinuous fossil record is special creation."

    Ahhh... yes, I can see how you'd come to that conclusion given how effective supernatural or divine causation have been in explaining other natural phenomena. Just THINK of all those times throughout history where a natural explanation was definitively overturned by a supernatural or divine explanation. Go ahead, Michael - since you are such a big fan of quotes from history - please list your favorite examples of natural explanations being definitively replaced by divine/supernatural explanations.

    If you can list several examples, then invoking "special creation" might indeed be the parsimonious explanation. But in the absence of such examples, then invoking The Matrix would be a similarly parsimonious explanation - or invoking the actions of midichlorians - or invoking the vomit of Mbombo.

    Now, there ARE just a couple of examples I can think of where divine/supernatural explanations were replaced by natural explanations.


    The Sun - was a god, now a ball of fusing hydrogen
    The Moon - was a god(dess), now a big round dusty rock
    The stars - were gods or spirits, more flaming gas balls
    The tides - were attributed to gods, now gravity
    The seasons - attributed to gods, now Earth's tilt
    Earthquakes - were caused by gods, now plate tectonics
    Lightning - was thrown by a god, now static electricity
    Rain & drought - was God, now atmospheric moisture
    Health & disease - was God, now germs & genetics
    Schizophrenia - was demonic possession, now brain chemicals
    Epilepsy - was divine possession, now neurology
    Origin of species - was God, now science (evolution)
    Identity & personality - was the soul, now neuroscience

    Shall I continue?

    Given its ancient and unbroken record of failure, divine magic is NEVER the parsimonious answer, Michael.

    "To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today."
    — Isaac Asimov

    As for the fossil record, when scientists are able to fill gaps in the fossil record by using evolutionary theory, geology, plate tectonics and models of ancient environments to predict when and where a fossil can be found for a previously undiscovered intermediate species, then the whole "discontinuity of the fossil record" argument dies. They do this regularly, so the "discontinuity of the fossil record" is a dead argument.

    Besides, I don't need to name all your ancestors back 5000 years to conclude you actually had ancestors - that you are the product of many generations of human physical reproduction and not a magical creation.

    There is more DNA evidence for common descent than there is for every criminal trial in history combined. The fossils are just icing on the cake - convenient little snapshots of how things really looked way back then.

    ReplyDelete
  47. @RickK:

    [Go ahead, Michael - since you are such a big fan of quotes from history - please list your favorite examples of natural explanations being definitively replaced by divine/supernatural explanations.]

    Example:Origin of universe:

    "Natural" explanation: eternal universe (accepted science until 20th century)

    "Supernatural explanation: Big Bang (creation ex-nihilo is by definition supernatural)

    All of Creation is now best explained as arising ex-nihilo. "From nothing" is not a natural cause.

    Aside from the universe and everything in it, you make a good point.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  48. Michael,

    The eternal universe is still accepted science. The 'Big Bang' as part of an eternally inflating Multiverse is accepted science. The Multiverse's existence is demonstrated by quantum physical phenomena such as interference.

    You are at least in good company. Ken Miller who rejects your ID because it posits God as an incompetent serial creator, agrees erroneously with you that the start of this part of the universe indicates a creator. Even if it did, it wouldn't indicate that it was Jehovah.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Ah, nope Michael - you can't appeal to something that hasn't or can't be definitively answered because of lack of data. That's a cowardly cop out, and if you're intellectually honest, you know this.

    Please provide an example where the divine/supernatural is as definitive an answer for some natural event as, say, germs and genetics are for explaining diseases.

    After all you're a neurosurgeon - you should be able to come up with SOME example a little closer to home than the farthest reaches of cosmology, can't you Michael?

    ReplyDelete
  50. @bachfend:

    [The eternal universe is still accepted science. The 'Big Bang' as part of an eternally inflating Multiverse is accepted science. The Multiverse's existence is demonstrated by quantum physical phenomena such as interference.]

    The evidence for the multiverse? Why is speculation about universes outside of nature not 'super-natural' speculation?

    ReplyDelete
  51. @RickK:

    Please provide an example where the divine/supernatural is as definitive an answer for some natural event as, say, germs and genetics are for explaining diseases.

    Each of Aquinas's Five Ways demonstrate the existence of a Prime Mover/First Cause/Necessary Being... etc. that is necessary to explain the existence of every aspect of nature at every moment.

    These arguments are very strong. I'm posting on Aquinas First Way tomorrow, and I'll cover all of them in time.

    So, aside from the need for a supernatural explanation for the Big Bang, the entire universe, and everything in it at every moment, I can't think of anything else that needs a supernatural explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I keep forgetting rackets. The first paragraph above is a quote from RickK.

    ReplyDelete
  53. "brackets", not rackets. I need more coffee.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Oh don't bother to post Aquinas, PLEASE.

    The simple question "then who created God" destroys the first three "ways".

    And if God is granted an exception, then you've started with two assumptions without evidence: that God exists, and that God is immune from Aquinas's logic.

    That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

    Find something better - something that actually FITS THE DATA! You're a scientist - do you only accept the conclusions from data from 9 to 5 and ignore it for the rest of your life?

    We are sitting on thin islands of rock floating atop a vast ocean of molten rock held together by an invisible force in roughly the shape of a sphere hurtling through an unimaginably large vacuum while spinning at 1000 miles per hour.

    Thomas Aquinas would have considered you mad if you told him that, yet it is the truth. My children understand more about the true origins of the Earth and of humanity than Aquinas and every great mind upon which he built his philosophy combined.

    The theological logic of ancient philosophers is NOT evidence, Michael. And your appeal to the existence of the universe remains a cop out.

    You are unable to provide an example where the divine/supernatural was EVER the correct, definitive answer. So I will bring this nonsense back to reality and restate:

    Given its ancient and unbroken record of failure, divine magic is NEVER the parsimonious answer, Michael. Not for your "special creation" and not for any other question to which we don't know the full answer.

    "Every mystery ever solved turned out to be... NOT magic"
    -- Tim Minchin

    ReplyDelete
  55. @RickK:

    [Oh don't bother to post Aquinas, PLEASE.]

    You're out of luck.

    [The simple question "then who created God" destroys the first three "ways".]

    As you'll see, that is a stupid reply. The prerequisite for refuting an argument is understanding the argument. You fail to meet that prerequisite.

    [And if God is granted an exception, then you've started with two assumptions without evidence: that God exists, and that God is immune from Aquinas's logic.]

    God's existence is the conclusion of the argument, not the assumption for the argument.

    [That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.]

    The argument has never been refuted, and it won't be refuted by you. As you will see, you don't even understand it.

    [Find something better - something that actually FITS THE DATA! You're a scientist - do you only accept the conclusions from data from 9 to 5 and ignore it for the rest of your life?]

    Aquinas' Five way are based on logic, with only minimal sense data required.

    [We are sitting on thin islands of rock floating atop a vast ocean of molten rock held together by an invisible force in roughly the shape of a sphere hurtling through an unimaginably large vacuum while spinning at 1000 miles per hour.]

    And your explanation for the existence of this universe is that 'shit happened'. Great foundation for science, huh?

    [Thomas Aquinas would have considered you mad if you told him that, yet it is the truth.]

    Aquinas' Five Ways had no dependence whatsoever on any theory of cosmology. He actually assumed an eternal universe, because it was the greatest challenge to his proofs. They worked anyway.

    [My children understand more about the true origins of the Earth and of humanity than Aquinas and every great mind upon which he built his philosophy combined.]

    Your children understand nothing about the classical arguments for God's existence. They base their worldview on smug ignorance of their own metaphysical stance. Just like you.

    [The theological logic of ancient philosophers is NOT evidence, Michael.]

    Of course not. It's logic. What a stupid thing to say.

    [And your appeal to the existence of the universe remains a cop out.]

    You have no answer for my observation that the existence of the universe can only be explained by the existence of a Prime Mover/First Cause/Necessary Existence outside of the universe.

    [You are unable to provide an example where the divine/supernatural was EVER the correct, definitive answer.]

    Refute Aquinas' Five Ways, and I'll do more than smirk at your silly arguments.

    [So I will bring this nonsense back to reality and restate:Given its ancient and unbroken record of failure, divine magic is NEVER the parsimonious answer, Michael. Not for your "special creation" and not for any other question to which we don't know the full answer.]

    The assertion that 'shit happened' explains the universe is magic. Aquinas's assertions are logical and rational.

    "Every mystery ever solved turned out to be... NOT magic"
    -- Tim Minchin"

    God is not magic. Explaining the universe without God requires all sorts of magic.

    ReplyDelete
  56. (once again, I'm unable to post under my google account, hence the Anonymous post)

    RickK said...

    Ok, then we're agreed.

    There is no evidence of divine magic or divine creation, even in the creation of the universe. There is only the logic of a 13th Century theologian.

    And there are no examples of divine magic as a definitive cause since the birth of the universe.

    So your statement that "special creation" is the most parsimonious answer to gaps in the fossil record is premised upon the assumption of the existence of something for which there is no evidence.

    After all, if your only argument for special creation is to invoke Thomas Aquinas, that's hardly parsimonious.

    Good, I'm glad that's settled.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Michael,

    I said that the evidence for the Multiverse are quantum physical phenomena such as interference. It's not speculation.

    ReplyDelete
  58. @bachfiend:

    [I said that the evidence for the Multiverse are quantum physical phenomena such as interference. It's not speculation.]

    If the Multiverse is a subset of our universe, it is natural. If it (or any portion of it) is not a subset of our universe, it is super-natural.

    Logic, bachfiend, logic.

    ReplyDelete
  59. No Michael,

    The Multiverse isn't supernatural. It's natural.

    ReplyDelete
  60. @bach:

    1) Define natural

    2) Provide your data about the multiverse that supports your assertion that it is natural

    3) What caused the multiverse? (Aquinas' second way)

    ReplyDelete