The Source Of Identity - The Mote In The 'Mine's I'

I was watching Planet Earth with my nephew the other day (he's still oscillating between the Dinosaur/Nature phase), and was struck for the first time at how many species stake a claim, and seem to know instinctively how the border lines are drawn, as if there's some form of invisible demarcation that separates one squatter's domain over another.

In most cases, these are readily transparent (the bird's nest in a tree, or a bear's cave), but we were watching the episodes about the Arctic Tundra and the Great Plains, where there's a transparent lack of defining landmarks - it's all (relatively) level.

And from the obvious territorialism, some seeds sprouted in the garden of my mind (I trimmed it recently with a weed-whacker, so some things are a little more visible, hehehehe).

Watching birds fending off Arctic foxes, witnessing that even the nomadic Caribou have specific migration patterns, it seems that even the lower forms of life have a fairly powerful grasp of the concept, "Mine!"

So obviously, we can take the old "What came first, the chicken or the egg" scenario, and substitute 'chicken' for 'I', and 'egg' for 'mine'.

I'm sure that smarter folks than myself have come up with this concept.

We often hear this from theists: "How did consciousness get born from the lack thereof" (or something similar)?

It's really so simple, it's brilliant: the vast majority of life on earth has some conception of possession, a sense of ownership. Simple neural pathways of familiarity, from subtle to radical. Some compounded simplicity (evolution), mix in a few benign mutations, a change in diet (from minor to extreme), throw in an environmental shift (or not), and from 'mine' to 'I' is a short leap indeed.

It has been shown that apes, elephants, and some cetaceans evince varying degrees of self-awareness, so we're not quite alone in this development, as some theists posit. True, we've taken it farther (more to our prolificacy, is my bet): none of these critters have developed civilization, language, or any of the other multiple facets of our species. Give it a few more million years (if we don't get pulverized by another galaxy, comet, or meteor), and we will most likely be sharing this world with a number of other species who have managed to develop their own primitive civilizations.

That is, if we don't blow the bloody place up, or learn to transcend our obvious territorialism.

I'd be willing to bet that raccoons might be next up: they're bold as brass, omnivorous, have opposable thumbs, and are actually quite bright critters. While listed as carnivorous, they're actually omnivorous as a rule, and while not a pack animal per se, they do tend to travel in family groups.

What follows is a neat little video - enjoy:

Read More...

Summary only...

Opening The Doors of Misperception

(Crossposted at Gods4suckers.net)

(Due apologies to Aldous Huxley and William Blake)

"If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through' narrow chinks of his cavern." - Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

In some ongoing debates, I've noticed a distinct tendency on everyone's part to codify specific issues that seem to defy logic, i.e., quantum physics, thermodynamics, etc.

So this is directed at everyone - and hopefully, it'll set a few bulbs off, or refresh a memory or two.

When viewing specific topics (see examples given), our anthropic filters seem to befuddle us to no end. I have heard more than one mention that the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't seem to apply on a broader scale than our limited perceptions, for instance.

I say that no law is immutable, nor is it beyond breaking. This doesn't render the law violate: in a universe of flux, stasis is stagnation.

Here, I'll break it down to layman's (layperson's? Gah, I loathe political correctness!) terms.

Here in California (at least in my neck of the woods), the legal speed limit on the highways is 65 mph. If, however, you were to take a drive down I-880, you'll see innumerable instances of that law being broken. The law is still in effect. It's a matter of enforcement (though a black-and-white on the shoulder, writing a ticket, will indeed force other drivers to slow way down).

To take the simile further, if for instance, I don't own a car and/or have a CDL, the law is still in effect, but it doesn't apply to me in any way, shape, or form. I am, to abuse a phrase, above that particular law (or below, or outside of it, if anyone chooses to be overly pedantic about the bloody thing).

That being said, the other misperception we all labor under is one of straight lines.

Perfect example: in the ongoing debate of evolution vs. creationism, the latter inevitably takes the position that being human is the pinnacle of life, when in fact, evolution demonstrates that is simply not the case.

Another perfect example (one we are all prone to), is the straight line. Bear with me here.

Ever heard the phrase, 'Think outside the box'? I'm not overly fond of buzzwords or catchphrases, but cogitate for a minute. You never hear it as 'Think outside the sphere', do you? Why is that?

Because we are creatures of straight lines and angles. We have a system of counting by 10s (our digits: let's not get started on binary, octal or hexadecimal!), our limbs are lines, with angles at the joints. So just from this observation, we think linear. Sometimes, grudgingly, cyclically as well ('All nice things are round, like the universe and a baby's butt', as Chesterton phrased it so nicely).

So, springing from the basis of that observation, we tend to view things as a linear progression (point A to point B).

Then we hit the snags in modal thinking. When we observe something (say, like the 2nd law of thermodynamics), we posit an A-to-B sequence. When in actuality, the 2nd law sometimes doesn't go all the way to B, but stops halfway, and just sits there. In some cases, it'll actually go backwards. On the rare occasion, it'll skip B entirely, and go to point C (here, I will gladly take examples from the resident kibitzers - I don't doubt it happens, but an example can be found, I'm sure). At this juncture, many of us will scratch our heads, and say "What in the world...?"

Evolution's another problem, especially dealing with creationists (who are even MORE prone to this blinkered approach). I (almost) never tire of explaining to them that evolution isn't a linear progression: I compare it to a pool of observable phenomenon (yes, I know, a tree is a better example, and I'm striving to avoid the B-word).

In both circumstances, evolution and the 2nd law (sometimes) don't obey a set number of sequences. More to the point, while there is some predictability in either data set, there will be (and are) exceptions to the rule(s).

In the case of evolution, atavisms, and in the case of thermodynamics, gravitational interactions, for two examples.

So, to nutshell:

1. Let's think non-linear (H.P Lovecraft's 'non-Euclidean' space-time continuums springs to mind), and
2. Until the High Court of Quantum Correctness tosses out the laws of thermodynamics, I intend to abide by them.

"Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis" - “The exception confirms the rule in the cases not excepted.”

Read More...

Summary only...

Nihilo Nihil Fit - More Fun With Thermodynamics

(Crossposted at Gods4suckers.net)

The theist's song:

"I got plenty of nothing
And nothing is plenty for me." Frank Sinatra, I Got Plenty O' Nothin'

The atheist's song:

"Nothing from nothing leaves nothing
You gotta have something to be with me
Nothing from nothing leaves nothing
You gotta have something to be with me."

- Billy Preston, Nothing From Nothing

Here's another flashcard - use it to your heart's content.

I've run into this nonsense on the 'Net more often than I care to - it's simply semantical wordplay, and really, fairly ridiculous.

We constantly hear this crap about the 'Uncaused Cause'. Or 'How did the universe pop into being?'

Sophistry is the word that comes to mind.

The Internet abounds with amateur armchair philosophers (I count myself amongst them) - as if the ability to regurgitate some stream-of-consciousness is validation in and of itself, like for instance, this clown.

I call him a clown, because he blathers on about the 'Uncaused Cause', with all the tired canards of stereotypes, and a witless ignorance of science.

I watched this debate unfold, and just shook my head. It's just too easy to debunk this.

So let's debone the red herring, and fry it up for tonight's dinner, shall we?

The First Law of Thermodynamics (aka the Conservation of Energy) stipulates that energy can't be destroyed - that it only changes. So, unless there's some scientific evidence to state otherwise, we will need to presuppose that energy is infinite in nature.

There - Herr Herring is now descaled. Now to fillet it:

As of May of last year (hat tip to Stardust for this one), apparently there was a contracting universe prior to this one.

According to some proposals, the Big Bang is a repeating cycle. Universes might expand, then shrink back to a point, then expand again. Thus the “bang” would be really more like a bounce.

So, infinite regress is back in the fold. Energy is infinite: the universe, not. Critical philosophers, rejoice!

There you go - science adheres to the complete opposite of exnihilation. Logic demands no less, and neither should we.

Newsflash: it's the religious who claim something from nothing.

And nothing's plenty for them.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Uncarved Block of Ice - Fun With Thermodynamics

(Cross-posted at Godis4Suckers.net)

"Defining entropy as disorder's not complete,
'cause disorder as a definition doesn't cover heat.
So my first definition I would now like to withdraw,
and offer one that fits thermodynamics second law.
First we need to understand that entropy is energy,
energy that can't be used to state it more specifically.
In a closed system entropy always goes up,
that's the second law, now you know what's up."

"You can't win, you can't break even, you can't leave the game,
'cause entropy will take it all 'though it seems a shame.
The second law, as we now know, is quite clear to state,
that entropy must increase and not dissipate."

"Creationists always try to use the second law,
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system, it's powered by the sun,
so fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!
That, in a nutshell, is what entropy's about,
you're now down with a discount." - MC Hawking, Entropy

When first I began blogging, I had nary a clue about thermodynamics, outside of the laymen's version (energy can't be destroyed, etc). And almost inevitably, that worn out, tired canard gets trotted out for the umpteenth millionth time, you know the one, 'evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!' (Herein referred to as 2LoT) Never mind that there's just as many web links that prove this incorrect. Even the panspermiatists agree.

I can attest that I have at least one gray hair that can be named 2LoT - the problem is that it's always viewed (by the creationists, wouldn't you know?) as strictly linear - that is, it's a straight line from point A to B. But, as the first link says, "In fact, as hot systems cool down in accordance with the second law, it is not unusual for them to undergo spontaneous symmetry breaking, i.e. for structure to spontaneously appear as the temperature drops below a critical threshold. Complex structures, such as Bénard cells, also spontaneously appear where there is a steady flow of energy from a high temperature input source to a low temperature external sink. It is conjectured that such systems tend to evolve into complex, structured, critically unstable "edge of chaos" arrangements, which very nearly maximise the rate of energy degradation (the rate of entropy production)."

Never mind that it applies to closed systems (which the earth most distinctly is not, and the universe? Jury's still out).

Theists typically place their deity outside the realm of falsifiability. That is, said critter is immortal, outside the Einsteinian laws of physics (i.e., beyond time and space, citation of Psalms 90:4), aforementioned beastie is immutable, perfect, ergo unchanging (which would make it impossible to interact with us 'imperfect' beings). Nor can we find an instance in nature where the creator is free of the laws of physics that bind the created. Not to mention that it would violate the 2LoT, would it not?

But wait! There's also the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics. Put simply, it's "as a system approaches absolute zero of temperature all processes cease and the entropy of the system approaches a minimum value." Therefore, said deity would have to be frozen, since there's no hint of entropy, right?

So, in order for there to be any kind of perfect deity, in the interests of symmetry and correlation with any of the laws of thermodynamics (note that the 3rd law stipulates that absolute zero cannot be reached, even though they've come within a billionths of a degree), said god would need to thaw itself out before it could ever, ever interact with said creation. And, since this god's entropy would be restored upon the exchange of heat for cold, it would be mutable, mortal, and imperfect, having been shorn of its superconductivity, superfluidity, and Bose–Einstein condensation.

Got all that? Short version: take gawd out of the freezer, and thaw it out. Oh, whoops, that was the hamburger I made from the sacred cow.

Anyways, next time you hear that hoary old chestnut about 2LoT, do feel free to bop them with this one. It should send them all a-flutter.

Read More...

Summary only...

Are These People COMPLETELY Clueless?

(Cross-posted at God is for Suckers)

Thanks to St. Gasoline, my blood pressure has risen considerably.

These brain-dead assholes use every...single...trick in the book. All of which are just that - smoke 'n mirrors.

It begins with the usual crapola: the claim that Darwin was concerned with the origin of life (quick note - the title of the book was the Origin of Species, along with the Descent of Man - and again the abiogenesis=evolution meme is brought into play).

So it blatters on about molecules organizing through...three guesses, yep, you got it - RANDOM CHANCE! Interspersed with pictures of cute kids and the occasional baby seal (go for the cutesy angle), somehow this video drags in the atheistic angle - "Hey, since we're all just primordial batter, that's it! You die, you're gone!" Little subliminal hints - a clock floats by a floating head on a colored pedestal. "Some people think that evolution replaces God."

"Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators." - Dawkins

More crap - "Scientists refer to the theory of evolution as fact, even though in science, theories can never be proven."

Last time I dropped something, it fell. It'll fall over and over again. Black holes bend light, due to their gravity wells. All that's pretty good, for just a theory. Likewise, a mushroom cloud speaks volumes for the theory of relativity.

Obviously, these dimwits don't have a clue. Quotes Hawking, that "even a single repeatable observation can destroy even the most grandiose theory."

He (Hawking) is also on record as saying, "We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special."

It blathers on about accidents a whole lot in this video. Why can't scientists create life from 'dead matter', you know the whole routine.

It runs the usual crap about fruit flies being bombarded by radiation. "Even though hundreds of mutations occurred, no new species were created."

Dipstick obviously doesn't understand what the term 'species' means at all, a demand for some bizarre chimera.

Also, it claims that 'scientists' are grudgingly 'admitting' there had to be some creative force behind the Big Bang, that the universe isn't eternal (no, but energy most likely is). Of course, there's considerable evidence that it's actually a Big Bounce, and that the universe was contracting prior to it.

There's a lot of dishonest quote mining in this...'scientific' video. It quotes Jerry Coyne as saying "We conclude - unexpectedly - that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view...its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak."

Strangely enough, the Wiki entry quotes Coyne as saying this :
"Intelligent design, or ID, is the latest pseudoscientific incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions. [1]

"Coyne argues that Darwin's evidence "destroys the creationist notion that species were created in their present form and thereafter remained unchanged".

"Coyne goes on to make the theological argument that "A creator, especially an intelligent one, would not bestow useless tooth buds, wings, or eyes on large numbers of species."

"He also criticizes Icons of Evolution:

"Jonathan Wells' book rests entirely on a flawed syllogism: ... textbooks illustrate evolution with examples; these examples are sometimes presented in incorrect or misleading ways; therefore evolution is a fiction. [2]"

Of course it vomits up that stale staple of creationism - the 2nd law of thermodynamics. "Everything tends towards disintegration and disorder" - Umm, this idiot might want to look up the zeroth and 3rd law.

And of course, another re-tread refrain of the 'transitional fossil' nonsense. It mentions the 'aquatic animals to land animals' as if there's no such fossil (umm...hello? Whales?).

It misquotes Gould (oh, whadda surprise!): "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil records persists as the trade secret of paleontology."

What were the actual quotes?
"Transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution ... but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim." - Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" (1983)

"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994

It goes over the Cambrian Explosion. Then it quotes Hugh Ross as per the Goldilocks effect.

It even quotes Isaac Asimov - known evolutionist and atheist. Followed by Michael Behe (he of the debunked irreducible complexity and mousetrap fame).

It devolves rapidly into the Watchmaker theory. And all the pictures of cute little kids.

I keep hearing from people that religion is supposed to make people better somehow. But I just ain't seeing it.

For folks what claim the higher moral ground, they sure do seem to enjoy wallowing in the mud on the valley floor.

For your viewing pleasure, the Commander-in-Thief teaching creationism in class - and the consequences: >

Read More...

Summary only...

POISONING THE MINDS OF OUR YOUTH - CREATIONISTS ARE PLAYING MIND GAMES (WHY AM I NOT SURPRISED?)

BANG! THERE WAS LIGHT
from HALLELUJAH EVOLUTION
Once there was nothing, no place and no time
No gravity and no primal slime.
Then suddenly, like a lightning storm at night,
Bang! went creation, then there was light.

(Chorus)
Bang there was light, like dynamite,
No more nothing, no more night.

After the Big Bang, the darkness took flight
Bang, went creation, then there was light.
Nobody knows who first lit the fuse.
Some credit Yahweh, God of the Jews,
But those agnostics who doubt the Bible’s right,
Just say, “S(tuff) happens. Bang there was light.”

(Chorus)
After the Big Bang, events happened fast,
All of the cosmos came from the blast.
Theories are complex, abstruse and recondite,
Which means we can’t say why there was light.

(Chorus)
We can’t say why, but Bang! there was light.
We can’t say how, but Bang! there was light.
We can’t say where, but Bang! there was light.
Fifteen billion years ago, Bang! there was light.

My thanks goes out to FundieWatch for this unmitigated crap.

It's a website titled 'Truth for Youth', and it's a composite of all the variegated lies the Religious Right spreads.

Besides the Flash video, that blames America's societal ills on the removal of school prayer, they even have a manga version of old Jack Chick's cheap tricks. It's mostly pseudo-intellectual wiffleball pretending to be mental rugby and failing ever so miserably. A bunch of pratts regurgitating PRATTs.

It's pathetic, it is. Everyone should be wary of ANYONE, religious or not, of laying dubious claim to having the 'truth'.

Presented are the cartoons on 'Evolution'. If you peer at the margins, you'll see just who has supplied this (dis)information. Yep, you guessed it: our old friends the Discovery Institute, the Creation Foundation Institute for Creation Research, and Answers In Genesis.

And it's the same old blah-de-blah, yada yada yada, worn out refrains of stupidity that we encounter in the blogosphere.

Panel one is a visit to the museum - the crap begins with the old 'man evolved from monkeys' trash. (I wonder if the museum setting is supposed to lend credibility?)

Panel two starts out with the 'evolution is racist' horse manure (hey, the black kid said it: must be true!) - it progressed into the usual discussion of 'frauds' (fancy this - all those were exposed by SCIENTISTS! Mistakes get made - they go right in the crapper). It then devolves into the 'argument from design'. Oh, and the evolutionists are the irrational ones. Go figure. Tu quoque, anybody?

The third panel starts in with the standard canard: "Oh, was anyone there to SEE it?" Apparently, logical induction is subtracted. It goes into detail (easily debunkable if one does the research) about the occasional mis-measurement found in standard datings, like C14, K-Ar (hey, if it's wrong so often, why is it STILL BEING USED?) It also mentions a mass spectrometer. I dug this paper up on talkorigins.org(which utterly thrashes this stupid argument), written by a fellow Christian no less! It (the cartoon) goes into much major Hovindian hoopla, all of which is easily deflated by a few visits to talkorigins. The 'lava flow dating' problem was resolved (excess argon in some of the lava flow), and of course, the creationists spun that one WAY outta control (what a surprise!). Hadn't heard the bit about the mosses before.

Panel four does a quick segue into the Deluge, which quickly becomes an appeal to incredulity, then swings full tilt into the Watchmaker analogy mixed 'liberally' with 'irreducible complexity' bullshit. Oh, did I mention they got the Second Law of Thermodynamics wrong - again?

Panel five is, as with the first four, replete with the same kind of errors - a brief reference to jumping from point A to point F (frogs into princes), the usual stupidity of 'atheistic religion', the weary horse shit about how two people come to two different conclusions viewing the same evidence (ever hear of scientific consensus, you jackasses?), and of course, the youngster being proselytized to converting to Christianity on panel six.

Here's the rub: I grew up in Pleasanton, CA, and you can't get a more white-bred conservative suburbia than that, trust you me. I never heard a peep about evolution - it was fully entrenched by then (I'm guessing here), there was no prayer in schools, nobody ever debated the 'two world views' (yes, there was a lotta drugs and a bit of hedonism here and there), but no one shot each other, no one ever committed suicide (that I know of: in retrospect, I'm betting a whole lot was kept under wraps), and there was the occasional teenage pregnancy, but by any stretch, it was hardly the wholesale anarchy the 'magic wanders' claim it should've been.
I was too busy with the grinding mish-mash of puberty to really give a flying fuck about it all, truth be told. Jebus didn't help me mature, nor did 'being descended from monkies' severely impact my teenage self-esteem.
I had better things to worry about. Other struggles. Peer pressure (I gave up on that fairly quickly, once I figured out how useless it really is), girls (there were those brief moments where I wondered about my sexuality, but a quick glance around the locker room, no arousal? Starting chasing tarts right quick), what I wanted to be when I grow up (still working on it: late bloomer, go figure, hehehehe), all the Sturm und Drang was strictly directed at the day-to-day struggles of my formative years.
The short version is: let the kids grow up first, and let them figure it out when they're adults. There's plenty of time in college for them to get their heads outta their asses, or to shove them up deeper.
I personally think it's a disgusting maneuver to drag children into the middle of an adult squabble, whether it's a divorce settlement or a religious dispute. It's underhanded, sneaky, and reprehensible. I could go on for a hundred more adjectives on this alone.
And if this isn't bad enough, the entire argument for 'intelligent design' is a ragged patchwork quilt composed of 'nuh-UH!' nay saying denial of scientific facts. It's not science: it's pseudo-intellectual junk religion, clad in a white smock, composed of circular rhetoric that can only convince the believer and the uninformed.
It's enough to make a peaceful man come out swinging, it is.
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are one thing: freedom of stupidity is another entirely.
And that, dear reader, is my nickel's worth. Spend it wisely, and well.
Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Summary only...

LIFE FROM ABOVE

Some say that life rained from above. The sweet kiss of life upon primordial soup, however, is said by some to have been brought here not by some divine set of lips, or by a happenstance bolt of lightning into primal stew, but by extra-terrestrial hailstones.

A rather rough kiss, I might add.

The creationists often quote Fred Hoyle. Problem is, that Sir Hoyle was actually a panspermatist, most definitely NOT a creationist.

[Author’s note: I am using the term interchangeably, but exogenesis is what I actually am leaning more towards:”Panspermia is the hypothesis that the seeds of life are ubiquitous in the Universe, that they may have delivered life to Earth, and that they may deliver or have delivered life to other habitable bodies; also the process of such delivery.
Exogenesis is a related, but less radical, hypothesis that simply proposes life originated elsewhere in the Universe and was transferred to Earth, with no prediction about how widespread life is. The term "panspermia" is more well-known, however, and tends to be used in reference to what would properly be called exogenesis, too.”]

Here is the answers.com entry (I have boldened the context dropping of the ID/creationists, by the way):

Rejection of chemical evolution
“In his later years, Hoyle became a staunch critic of theories of chemical evolution to explain the naturalistic Origin of life. With Chandra Wickramasinghe, Hoyle promoted the theory that life evolved in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution on earth is driven by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets.
In his 1981/4 book Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), he calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup wouldn’t have a chance. He claimed:
The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.
Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously. [1]
These analogies have been rejected by biologists as a straw man argument. Richard Dawkins, for example, wrote in The Blind Watchmaker:
If he'd said 'chance' instead of 'natural selection' he'd have been right. Indeed, I regretted having to expose him as one of the many toilers under the profound misapprehension that natural selection is chance.
The evolution of complex systems can occur by means of a ladder of stratified stability. The Nobel Prize-winning chemist Manfred Eigen (beginning in 1971 with an influential theoretical paper) and his collaborators have considered in some detail how a genetic code could get going.
Other controversies:
Further occasions on which Hoyle aroused controversy included his questioning the authenticity of fossil Archaeopteryx and his condemnation of the failure to include Jocelyn Bell in the Nobel Prize award recognising the development of radio interferometry and its role in the discovery of pulsars. Hoyle played an important role in determining the nature of the pulsing radio signals (from the pulsar), but was also excluded from the prize. Hoyle had a famous heated argument with Martin Ryle of the Cavendish Radio Astronomy Group about Hoyle's Steady State Universe which somewhat restricted collaboration between the Cavendish Radio Astronomy Group and the Institute of Astronomy during the 1960s.”
I have been visiting the website, http://www.panspermia.com recently, and find much of this fascinating.

But there is proof (somewhat disputed, see the disputed section of the answers.com entry) that meteorites may have delivered extra-terrestrial microorganisms, which punctures many of the creationists’ myths, such as:
Second Law of Thermodynamics: “It is occasionally claimed that the Second Law is incompatible with autonomous self-organisation, or even the coming into existence of complex systems. The entry self-organisation explains how this claim is a misconception.” In application to closed systems. Obviously, if external forces can…deflower our atmosphere, then it is by no means isolated. If our planet isn’t isolated, then the probabilities are proportionately cut down to size.

I found this very amusing:

“This one is venerable and quite old within the scientific community, which posits that life on Earth may have been seeded from elsewhere in the cosmos. Panspermia was trotted out for the “Scopes II” trial in the 1980s, when Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinge were among the few first-rank scientists to openly disbelieve the standard Origins model — the one that posits life appeared independently out of nonliving chemicals in Earth’s early oceans. Their calculations (since then refuted) suggested that it would take hundreds of oceans and many times the age of the Earth for random chemistry to achieve a workable, living cell.
Alas for the Creationists of that day, Hoyle and Wickramasinge did not turn out to be useful as friendly experts, because their alternative offered no comfort to the biblical Genesis story. They pointed out that our galaxy probably contains a whole lot more than a few hundred Earth oceans. Multiplying the age of the Milky Way times many billions of possible planets — and comets too — they readily conceded that random chance could make successful cells, eventually, on one world or another. (Or, possibly, in the liquid interiors of trillions of newborn comets.) All it would take then are asteroid impacts ejecting hardy cells into the void for life to then spread gradually throughout the cosmos. Perhaps it might even be done deliberately, once a single lucky source world achieved intelligence through … well … evolution. (Needless to say, Creationists found Hoyle & Wickramasinge a big disappointment.)”

From what I’ve culled from TV lawyer shows – one should always make the minimum effort to ‘prep’ the witnesses, shouldn’t they?

The website, Common Ancestry, is a fairly interesting place to investigate. Common Ancestry is a sort of hybrid, as pointed out in the intro page:”We are calling the union of Lovelock's Gaia with Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's expanded theory of panspermia Cosmic Ancestry.”

Thus far, haven’t found anything as radical as Lovelock’s postulation of “proposing and popularizing the Gaia hypothesis, in which he postulates that the Earth functions as a kind of superorganism (a term coined by Lynn Margulis).”

I understand Lovelock has softened his theorem somewhat. It’s a little out there, I’ll admit.

At this juncture, there’s some circumstantial evidence for exogenesis (see the answers.com entry under Evidence), but nothing conclusive.

Some of my own problems are that

1. The Cosmic Ancestry proponents deny the big bang.


2. They posit that life is eternal, i.e., life springs solely from life, without any beginning.


3. The website lists an example that has been debunked (the Orgueil meteorite). In fairness, this is juxtaposed by some relevant data, such as the Murchison meteorite.


4. There are a few problems with some of the info – it states in a few places that the big bang theory (the term Hoyle coined while criticizing it) stipulates that ‘everything came out of nothing’ (which isn’t my understanding at all…I have consistently maintained that matter/energy has always existed, and have asked multiple times for a source quote where ANY physicist of note says this: de nada.)


5. The concept propounded is that life begets life – ergo, life is and always has been eternal. At some point, everything (except matter/energy) has some sort of beginning the way I see it.

In a nutshell, it’s a novel approach; it offers a semi-viable third alternative to the excluded middle polarization issues between abiogenesis and ID, it deflates the ‘isolated system’ concept (thereby puncturing the equilibrium of the ‘violation of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics’, hehehehe), and it adds a possible angle to the Cambrian explosion.

In short, I’ll date this one, not exclusively, nor will I give it my class ring. By no means am I married to the idea.

Nor am I even getting within arm’s reach of Francis Crick’s concept of Directed Panspermia – even if one of my favorite shows, Star Trek had an episode exploring this: “The Chase”. There’s way too many wack-a-doofs positing this, from the Scientologists to the Raelians, on far too little evidence other than a warm ‘n fuzzy feeling.

And that, dear readers, is my nickel’s worth. Spend it, or donate it to charity.

Read More...

Summary only...

WHAT FAITH, EVOLUTION? BURSTING FIVE BUBBLES

" From early days of infancy, through trembling years of youth,
long murky middle-age and final hours long in the tooth,
he is the hundred names of terror ---creature you love the least.
Picture his name before you and exorcise the beast.
He roved up and down through history --- spectre with tales to tell.
In the darkness when the campfire's dead --- to each his private hell.
If you look behind your shoulder as you feel his eyes to feast,
you can witness now the everchanging nature of the beast.

Beastie

If you wear a warmer sporran, you can keep the foe at bay. You can pop those pills and visit some psychiatrist who'll say ---
There's nothing I can do for you, everywhere's a danger zone.
I'd love to help get rid of it, but I've got one of my own.
There's a beast upon my shoulder and a fiend upon
my back.
Feel his burning breath a heaving, smoke oozing from his stack.
And he moves beneath the covers or he lies below the bed.
He's the beast upon your shoulder. He's the price upon your head.
He's the lonely fear of dying, and for some, of living too.
He's your private nightmare pricking.
He'd just love to turn the screw.
So stand as one defiant --- yes, and let your voices swell.
Stare that beastie in the face and really give him hell. "

Jethro Tull - "Beastie"


This is to address the same tired refrains we hear from ID’ers (Intelligent Design), aka the creationists.

First up, is this:”Evolution is a theory!”

Let’s get our facts straight, folks.

The word ‘theory’, from the dictionary, translates to:
“
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. [This is the common usage in science.]
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. [This is the retrofitted translation for the anti-evolutionists]”

It’s blaringly obvious which definition is ‘cherry-picked’ to suit the purposes of the anti-evolutionists. Just in case you’re not paying attention, that’d be number 6.

'Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.' – Isaac Asimov

Second up, is this:”There’s too many holes in it!”

What an utterly ridiculous assertion. Of course there are holes in it. It’s not a recipe for stew. It’s a science that attempts to address the history of life on this earth. We’re talking about a field that makes a valiant effort to explain every single oddity we see in nature, provide empirical evidence from the lowly amoeba to the highest form of life here (I assume that’s us), covers a vast array of topics from biology to chemistry, anthropology to geology, a dizzying plethora of knowledge that boggles the imagination and staggers the mind with data overload.

But of course, it’s not perfect, and it doesn’t provide the nice, easy, concise explanation that ‘god’ as the ultimate source does. It’s imperfect, because it’s in a constant state of development. It is, if I may borrow a phrase from the Linux crowd, ‘Open source code.’ So criticize it when it delivers the final product (whenever that may occur). Until then, it will always be in flux, just as the subject it addresses is in flux: that of Life.

Third up, is this:”It takes more faith to believe in evolution!”As Kyle’s mom on South Park says, “Wha-wha-what?!?!?”

Despite mountains of forensic evidence, the supernaturalists seem to blind themselves willfully to the actual facts of the theory

Rather than lay out all the FACTS regarding evolution, the reader is invited to research for him/herself in regards to it, here.

Instead, we’ll go the route of falsification, as per usage in scientific circles:

(Snip) “In science and the philosophy of science, falsifiability, contingency, and defeasibility are roughly equivalent terms referring to the property of empirical statements that they must admit of logical counterexamples. This stands in contradistinction to formal and mathematical statements that may be tautologies, that is, universally true by dint of definitions, axioms, and proofs. No empirical hypothesis, proposition, or theory can be considered scientific if it does not admit the possibility of a contrary case.

“Falsifiable does not mean false. For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an observation that would show the proposition to fall short of being a tautology, even if that observation is not actually made. The logical precondition of being able to observe something of a given description is that something of that description exists.”
(End snip)

I found this here, and found it to be of some value [the bold type is mine, for emphasis]:
“Jim Arvo.

On the other hand, evolution would be falsified (or at least put into extreme doubt) with the discovery of a reptilian or mammalian fossil in the pre-Cambrian strata, or by the discovery of a non-DNA-based reptile, or a mammal with no junk DNA or pseudo-genes, or two morphologically related species based on radically different proteins. There is a virtually limitless list of such things that could easily refute evolution; but these things are never found.”

Fourth up, is this:”Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics!”

No it doesn’t.
“Complex systems and the Second Law
It is occasionally claimed that the Second Law is incompatible with autonomous self-organisation, or even the coming into existence of complex systems. The entry self-organisation explains how this claim is a misconception.
In fact, as hot systems cool down in accordance with the Second Law, it is not unusual for them to undergo spontaneous symmetry breaking, i.e. for structure to spontaneously appear as the temperature drops below a critical threshhold. Complex structures also spontaneously appear where there is a steady flow of energy from a high temperature input source to a low temperature external sink. It is conjectured that such systems tend to evolve into complex, structured, critically unstable "edge of chaos" arrangements, which very nearly maximise the rate of energy degradation (the rate of entropy production).
Some opponents of evolution claim that life exhibits complexity whose nature differs from the autonomous complexity and self-organisation, which the Second Law allows. The consensus of scientific opinion is that this claim is not well founded, and that no such distinction can be sustained. For further discussion see Creation-evolution controversy. “

Here is a concise discussion of said misperception:

“This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature? “

The link provided bursts a few of the other rather weak bubbles.

Fifth up:

“Look around you! The world itself is a sign of an Intelligent Designer!”

Well, I laid into the concept of designers and designs here. This is a thinly veiled effort at Irreducible Complexity – (snip)

“In 2001, Michael Behe admitted that his work had a "defect" and does not actually address "the task facing natural selection."[2] Furthermore, the concept of irreducible complexity is ignored or rejected by the majority of the scientific community. This rejection stems from the following: the concept utilises an argument from ignorance, Behe fails to provide a testable hypothesis, and there is a lack of evidence in support of the concept. As such, irreducible complexity is seen by the supporters of evolutionary theory as an example of creationist pseudoscience, amounting to a God of the gaps argument.”
(End snip)

I think five bubbles are sufficient for now. Any questions?

That's my nickel's worth: spend it freely, or sock it away for a rainy day.

Read More...

Summary only...