Sunday, November 28, 2010
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Where Did Music Come From?
From thetrumpet.com
Where Did Music Come From?
From the December 2010 Trumpet Print Edition
Learn what musicologists have never taught. By Ryan Malone
"Is music a happy accident? Is this glorious organization of sounds the product of millennia of chance discoveries, trial and error, and so-called evolutionary development? Did vocal music originate from prolonged grunts of early human-like beings? Did instrumental music develop accidentally from a prehistoric hunter becoming fascinated with how his bow twanged after an arrow was unleashed?
The greatest human minds in musicology cannot answer this most basic question: What is the origin of music?
The answer is as inspiring as it is little understood.
Most music historians begin their study of music around the third century a.d. at the earliest, overlooking four millennia of music history—and completely ignoring music’s origin.
The history of “ancient” music needs rewriting, because the greatest source available has been rejected: the Word of God.
Even many professed Bible scholars, though they may reject evolutionists’ happy-accident theory, believe music originated with a descendent of Cain named Jubal (Genesis 4:21). Because they view the Bible as a valid yet flawed historical resource that is not superior or more special than any other historical text, they lend no special credence to what the Bible (and its supposedly biased Jewish authors) says over any other historian’s work.
But if we proclaim to follow Christ, we should—as He said—live by “every word … of God” (Matthew 4:4). “All scripture is given by inspiration of God …” (2 Timothy 3:16).
The Bible actually indicates that the first man knew and practiced music. What’s more, music existed long before Adam.
Music Before Man
When God was talking to Job, putting this wise man in his place in comparison to the creative feats of God Almighty, He asked a question that gives insight into history before Earth’s creation. “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?” God asked, “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4, 7).
This reveals that God created angels before He created Earth, that they witnessed this magnificent moment, that they shouted for joy, and that they were singing!
Consider how sound exists in this spirit realm. Ezekiel heard the “noise” of the great cherubim (Ezekiel 1:24). The book of Revelation records the lyrics of the angels’ shouting and singing around God’s heavenly throne, not to mention that they are playing instruments in this spiritual dimension.
The Bible reveals that God sings (Zephaniah 3:17). He has always existed—without beginning of days or end of life (Hebrews 7:3). The question then arises, since God has always existed, wouldn’t His attributes—His eyes, hair, hands and voice—have always existed, as well as His infinite wisdom? (see Proverbs 8:22). Surely, therefore, music—or at the very least, the capacity for music—has always existed.
Now, there was a moment when music took on a more institutionalized form. That was with the creation of angels. In them, God created innate musical ability. The chief of this angelic (and musical) creation was the archangel Lucifer.
Lucifer’s Music
Ezekiel 28:12-13 relate: “Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.”
This is not a physical king, or else the notion of musical instruments being created “in” him makes no sense. This refers to a magnificent, beautiful, wise spirit being, an angel, who was in Eden.
This being’s “tabret” is very similar to a timbrel, or percussion instrument of the Hebrews (the tabret). The phrase “thy pipes” comes from a root meaning something “hollow,” but it is not the word used to describe the typical Hebrew pipes. In fact, the word neqeb is used only here in the Hebrew Bible. It appears this was a unique spirit instrument that required a unique Hebrew word, though similar to the pipes.
The great cherub Lucifer was endowed with musical talents beyond human capability. God told Job the morning stars “sang together.” This means there was ensemble, community and cooperation in music, and Lucifer was of course included. How this must have changed, though, when he rebelled! Imagine how distorted and warped Lucifer’s music became when he turned from God’s way. Just before the description of Lucifer’s fall, Isaiah 14:11 talks about the “noise” of his neballim—another instrument, perhaps like bagpipes—being brought to the ground."
Wow! A pretty interesting article thanks to thetrumpet.com.
You can read te rest of it here:
Where did music come from?
Thanks and God bless!
Happy Thanksgiving btw ;)
-Rob
Where Did Music Come From?
From the December 2010 Trumpet Print Edition
Learn what musicologists have never taught. By Ryan Malone
"Is music a happy accident? Is this glorious organization of sounds the product of millennia of chance discoveries, trial and error, and so-called evolutionary development? Did vocal music originate from prolonged grunts of early human-like beings? Did instrumental music develop accidentally from a prehistoric hunter becoming fascinated with how his bow twanged after an arrow was unleashed?
The greatest human minds in musicology cannot answer this most basic question: What is the origin of music?
The answer is as inspiring as it is little understood.
Most music historians begin their study of music around the third century a.d. at the earliest, overlooking four millennia of music history—and completely ignoring music’s origin.
The history of “ancient” music needs rewriting, because the greatest source available has been rejected: the Word of God.
Even many professed Bible scholars, though they may reject evolutionists’ happy-accident theory, believe music originated with a descendent of Cain named Jubal (Genesis 4:21). Because they view the Bible as a valid yet flawed historical resource that is not superior or more special than any other historical text, they lend no special credence to what the Bible (and its supposedly biased Jewish authors) says over any other historian’s work.
But if we proclaim to follow Christ, we should—as He said—live by “every word … of God” (Matthew 4:4). “All scripture is given by inspiration of God …” (2 Timothy 3:16).
The Bible actually indicates that the first man knew and practiced music. What’s more, music existed long before Adam.
Music Before Man
When God was talking to Job, putting this wise man in his place in comparison to the creative feats of God Almighty, He asked a question that gives insight into history before Earth’s creation. “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?” God asked, “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4, 7).
This reveals that God created angels before He created Earth, that they witnessed this magnificent moment, that they shouted for joy, and that they were singing!
Consider how sound exists in this spirit realm. Ezekiel heard the “noise” of the great cherubim (Ezekiel 1:24). The book of Revelation records the lyrics of the angels’ shouting and singing around God’s heavenly throne, not to mention that they are playing instruments in this spiritual dimension.
The Bible reveals that God sings (Zephaniah 3:17). He has always existed—without beginning of days or end of life (Hebrews 7:3). The question then arises, since God has always existed, wouldn’t His attributes—His eyes, hair, hands and voice—have always existed, as well as His infinite wisdom? (see Proverbs 8:22). Surely, therefore, music—or at the very least, the capacity for music—has always existed.
Now, there was a moment when music took on a more institutionalized form. That was with the creation of angels. In them, God created innate musical ability. The chief of this angelic (and musical) creation was the archangel Lucifer.
Lucifer’s Music
Ezekiel 28:12-13 relate: “Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.”
This is not a physical king, or else the notion of musical instruments being created “in” him makes no sense. This refers to a magnificent, beautiful, wise spirit being, an angel, who was in Eden.
This being’s “tabret” is very similar to a timbrel, or percussion instrument of the Hebrews (the tabret). The phrase “thy pipes” comes from a root meaning something “hollow,” but it is not the word used to describe the typical Hebrew pipes. In fact, the word neqeb is used only here in the Hebrew Bible. It appears this was a unique spirit instrument that required a unique Hebrew word, though similar to the pipes.
The great cherub Lucifer was endowed with musical talents beyond human capability. God told Job the morning stars “sang together.” This means there was ensemble, community and cooperation in music, and Lucifer was of course included. How this must have changed, though, when he rebelled! Imagine how distorted and warped Lucifer’s music became when he turned from God’s way. Just before the description of Lucifer’s fall, Isaiah 14:11 talks about the “noise” of his neballim—another instrument, perhaps like bagpipes—being brought to the ground."
Wow! A pretty interesting article thanks to thetrumpet.com.
You can read te rest of it here:
Where did music come from?
Thanks and God bless!
Happy Thanksgiving btw ;)
-Rob
The chaos theory of evolution
From newscientist.com
"Forget finding the laws of evolution. The history of life is just one damn thing after another
IN 1856, geologist Charles Lyell wrote to Charles Darwin with a question about fossils. Puzzled by types of mollusc that abruptly disappeared from the British fossil record, apparently in response to a glaciation, only to reappear 2 million years later completely unchanged, he asked of Darwin: "Be so good as to explain all this in your next letter." Darwin never did.
To this day Lyell's question has never received an adequate answer. I believe that is because there isn't one. Because of the way evolution works, it is impossible to predict how a given species will respond to environmental change.
That is not to say that evolution is random - far from it. But the neat concept of adaptation to the environment driven by natural selection, as envisaged by Darwin in On the Origin of Species and now a central feature of the theory of evolution, is too simplistic. Instead, evolution is chaotic.
Darwin's argument was two-fold: First, life evolves from common ancestors. Second, it evolves by means of natural selection and adaptation. The first part has been accepted as a basic premise of biology since 1859. The second is more controversial, but has come to be accepted over the past 150 years as the principal mechanism of evolution. This is what is known as "adaptationism".
Adaptationism certainly appears to hold true in microevolution - small-scale evolutionary change within species, such as changes in beak shape in Galapagos finches in response to available food sources.
However, there is still huge debate about the role of natural selection and adaptation in "macroevolution" - big evolutionary events such as changes in biodiversity over time, evolutionary radiations and, of course, the origin of species. Are these the cumulative outcome of the same processes that drive microevolution, or does macroevolution have its own distinct processes and patterns?
This is a long-running debate. In 1972, for example, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould challenged the assumption that evolutionary change was continuous and gradual. Their "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis argued that change happens in short bursts separated by long periods of stability, as distinct from the more continuous change over long periods expected to be the outcome of natural selection and adaptation.
Later, John Endler, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Exeter, UK, scrutinised claimed examples of natural selection but found a surprising lack of hard evidence (chronicled in his 1986 book Natural Selection in the Wild). More recently, and controversially, cognitive scientists Jerry Fodor of Rutgers University at New Brunswick, New Jersey, and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini of the University of Arizona in Tucson have pointed out philosophical problems with the adaptationist argument (New Scientist, 6 February, p 28).
Palaeoecologists like me are now bringing a new perspective to the problem. If macroevolution really is an extrapolation of natural selection and adaptation, we would expect to see environmental change driving evolutionary change. Major climatic events such as ice ages ought to leave their imprint on life as species adapt to the new conditions. Is that what actually happens?
Our understanding of global environmental change is vastly more detailed than it was in Lyell and Darwin's time. James Zachos at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and colleagues, have shown that the Earth has been on a long-term cooling trend for the past 65 million years (Science, vol 292, p 686). Superimposed upon this are oscillations in climate every 20,000, 40,000 and 100,000 years caused by wobbles in the Earth's orbit.
Over the past 2 million years - the Quaternary period - these oscillations have increased in amplitude and global climate has lurched between periods of glaciation and warmer interglacials. The big question is, how did life respond to these climatic changes? In principle, three types of evolutionary response are possible: stasis, extinction, or evolutionary change. What do we actually see?
To answer that question we look to the fossil record. We now have good data covering the past 2 million years and excellent data on the past 20,000 years. We can also probe evolutionary history with the help of both modern and ancient DNA.
The highly detailed record of the past 20,000 years comes from analyses of fossilised tree pollen from lake and peat sediments. Tree pollen is generally recognisable to the level of genus, sometimes even species, and the sediments in which it is found can easily be radiocarbon dated.
In the 1970s and 1980s, palaeoecologist Margaret Davis at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis created a map using this data which showed how North American tree taxa reached their respective present positions after the glaciers retreated at the end of the last ice age.
She found that the distribution shifts were individualistic, with huge variations between species in the rate, time and direction of spread. For example, larch spread from south-west to north-east, white pine from south-east to north-west. Rates vary from 100 metres a year to over 1000 metres (Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, vol 70, p 550). In other words, trees show no predictable response to climate change, and respond individually rather than as communities of species."
For the original article and to read pages 2 and 3 of it please go here:
The chaos theory of evolution
Thanks.
-Rob
"Forget finding the laws of evolution. The history of life is just one damn thing after another
IN 1856, geologist Charles Lyell wrote to Charles Darwin with a question about fossils. Puzzled by types of mollusc that abruptly disappeared from the British fossil record, apparently in response to a glaciation, only to reappear 2 million years later completely unchanged, he asked of Darwin: "Be so good as to explain all this in your next letter." Darwin never did.
To this day Lyell's question has never received an adequate answer. I believe that is because there isn't one. Because of the way evolution works, it is impossible to predict how a given species will respond to environmental change.
That is not to say that evolution is random - far from it. But the neat concept of adaptation to the environment driven by natural selection, as envisaged by Darwin in On the Origin of Species and now a central feature of the theory of evolution, is too simplistic. Instead, evolution is chaotic.
Darwin's argument was two-fold: First, life evolves from common ancestors. Second, it evolves by means of natural selection and adaptation. The first part has been accepted as a basic premise of biology since 1859. The second is more controversial, but has come to be accepted over the past 150 years as the principal mechanism of evolution. This is what is known as "adaptationism".
Adaptationism certainly appears to hold true in microevolution - small-scale evolutionary change within species, such as changes in beak shape in Galapagos finches in response to available food sources.
However, there is still huge debate about the role of natural selection and adaptation in "macroevolution" - big evolutionary events such as changes in biodiversity over time, evolutionary radiations and, of course, the origin of species. Are these the cumulative outcome of the same processes that drive microevolution, or does macroevolution have its own distinct processes and patterns?
This is a long-running debate. In 1972, for example, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould challenged the assumption that evolutionary change was continuous and gradual. Their "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis argued that change happens in short bursts separated by long periods of stability, as distinct from the more continuous change over long periods expected to be the outcome of natural selection and adaptation.
Later, John Endler, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Exeter, UK, scrutinised claimed examples of natural selection but found a surprising lack of hard evidence (chronicled in his 1986 book Natural Selection in the Wild). More recently, and controversially, cognitive scientists Jerry Fodor of Rutgers University at New Brunswick, New Jersey, and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini of the University of Arizona in Tucson have pointed out philosophical problems with the adaptationist argument (New Scientist, 6 February, p 28).
Palaeoecologists like me are now bringing a new perspective to the problem. If macroevolution really is an extrapolation of natural selection and adaptation, we would expect to see environmental change driving evolutionary change. Major climatic events such as ice ages ought to leave their imprint on life as species adapt to the new conditions. Is that what actually happens?
Our understanding of global environmental change is vastly more detailed than it was in Lyell and Darwin's time. James Zachos at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and colleagues, have shown that the Earth has been on a long-term cooling trend for the past 65 million years (Science, vol 292, p 686). Superimposed upon this are oscillations in climate every 20,000, 40,000 and 100,000 years caused by wobbles in the Earth's orbit.
Over the past 2 million years - the Quaternary period - these oscillations have increased in amplitude and global climate has lurched between periods of glaciation and warmer interglacials. The big question is, how did life respond to these climatic changes? In principle, three types of evolutionary response are possible: stasis, extinction, or evolutionary change. What do we actually see?
To answer that question we look to the fossil record. We now have good data covering the past 2 million years and excellent data on the past 20,000 years. We can also probe evolutionary history with the help of both modern and ancient DNA.
The highly detailed record of the past 20,000 years comes from analyses of fossilised tree pollen from lake and peat sediments. Tree pollen is generally recognisable to the level of genus, sometimes even species, and the sediments in which it is found can easily be radiocarbon dated.
In the 1970s and 1980s, palaeoecologist Margaret Davis at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis created a map using this data which showed how North American tree taxa reached their respective present positions after the glaciers retreated at the end of the last ice age.
She found that the distribution shifts were individualistic, with huge variations between species in the rate, time and direction of spread. For example, larch spread from south-west to north-east, white pine from south-east to north-west. Rates vary from 100 metres a year to over 1000 metres (Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, vol 70, p 550). In other words, trees show no predictable response to climate change, and respond individually rather than as communities of species."
For the original article and to read pages 2 and 3 of it please go here:
The chaos theory of evolution
Thanks.
-Rob
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
Scary Chupacabras Monster Is as Much Victim as Villain
From sciencedaily.com
Scary Chupacabras Monster Is as Much Victim as Villain
ScienceDaily (Oct. 22, 2010) — "As Halloween approaches, tales of monsters and creepy crawlies abound. Among the most fearsome is the legendary beast known as the chupacabras.
The existence of the chupacabras, also known as the goatsucker, was first surmised from livestock attacks in Puerto Rico, where dead sheep were discovered with puncture wounds, completely drained of blood. Similar reports began accumulating from other locations in Latin America and the U.S. Then came sightings of evil-looking animals, variously described as dog-like, rodent-like or reptile-like, with long snouts, large fangs, leathery or scaly greenish-gray skin and a nasty odor. Locals put two and two together and assumed the ugly varmints were responsible for the killings.
Scientists studied some of the chupacabras carcasses and concluded that the dreaded monsters actually were coyotes with extreme cases of mange -- a skin condition caused by mites burrowing under the skin. OConnor, who studies the mites that cause mange, concurs and has an idea why the tiny assailants affect wild coyotes so severely, turning them into atrocities.
In a recent "Monster Talk" podcast posted on Skeptic magazine's website, OConnor explained that the mite responsible for the extreme hair loss seen in "chupacabras syndrome" is Sarcoptes scabiei, which also causes the itchy rash known as scabies in people. Human scabies is an annoyance, but not usually a serious health or appearance problem, partly because our bodies are already virtually hairless and partly because the population of mites on a given person usually is relatively small -- only 20 or 30 mites.
Evolutionary studies done by OConnor and his former graduate student Hans Klompen, now an associate professor at Ohio State University, suggest that the scabies mite has been with us throughout our evolutionary history, giving humans plenty of time to develop defenses. When humans began domesticating animals, Sarcoptes scabiei found a whole new realm of potential victims. Domestic dogs, like humans, have played host to the mites long enough to evolve the ability to fight off mange, but when the condition spreads to wild members of the dog family -- foxes, wolves and coyotes -- watch out.
"Whenever you have a new host-parasite association, it's pretty nasty," said OConnor, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and a curator in the U-M Museum of Zoology. "It does a lot of damage, and mortality can be relatively high because that host species has not had any evolutionary history with the parasite, so it has not been able to evolve any defenses like we have."
In these unfortunate animals, large numbers of mites burrowing under the skin cause inflammation, which results in thickening of the skin. Blood supply to hair follicles is cut off, so the fur falls out. In especially bad cases, the animal's weakened condition opens the door to bacteria that cause secondary skin infections, sometimes producing a foul odor. Put it all together, and you've got an ugly, naked, leathery, smelly monstrosity: the chupacabras.
Do mite infestations also alter the animals' behavior, turning them into bloodthirsty killers? Not exactly, but there is an explanation for why they may be particularly likely to prey on small livestock such as sheep and goats.
"Because these animals are greatly weakened, they're going to have a hard time hunting," OConnor said. "So they may be forced into attacking livestock because it's easier than running down a rabbit or a deer."
While the chupacabras has achieved legendary status, other wild animals can suffer just as much from the effects of mange mites, OConnor said. In Australia, the mite is killing off wombats. "They presumably got the mites from dingoes, which got them from domestic dogs, which got them from us," he said.
And a related mite, just as insidious, can drive squirrels to self-destruct. In his graduate school years at Cornell University, OConnor observed mange-weakened squirrels falling from trees. That observation led him to conduct an informal survey to see if mangy squirrels also were more likely than healthy squirrels to end up as road kill. They were, suggesting that being tortured by mites somehow made the squirrels less adept at dodging cars."
Note: These story's and reports get weirder and weirder... well at least it seems like it!
-Rob
Scary Chupacabras Monster Is as Much Victim as Villain
ScienceDaily (Oct. 22, 2010) — "As Halloween approaches, tales of monsters and creepy crawlies abound. Among the most fearsome is the legendary beast known as the chupacabras.
The existence of the chupacabras, also known as the goatsucker, was first surmised from livestock attacks in Puerto Rico, where dead sheep were discovered with puncture wounds, completely drained of blood. Similar reports began accumulating from other locations in Latin America and the U.S. Then came sightings of evil-looking animals, variously described as dog-like, rodent-like or reptile-like, with long snouts, large fangs, leathery or scaly greenish-gray skin and a nasty odor. Locals put two and two together and assumed the ugly varmints were responsible for the killings.
Scientists studied some of the chupacabras carcasses and concluded that the dreaded monsters actually were coyotes with extreme cases of mange -- a skin condition caused by mites burrowing under the skin. OConnor, who studies the mites that cause mange, concurs and has an idea why the tiny assailants affect wild coyotes so severely, turning them into atrocities.
In a recent "Monster Talk" podcast posted on Skeptic magazine's website, OConnor explained that the mite responsible for the extreme hair loss seen in "chupacabras syndrome" is Sarcoptes scabiei, which also causes the itchy rash known as scabies in people. Human scabies is an annoyance, but not usually a serious health or appearance problem, partly because our bodies are already virtually hairless and partly because the population of mites on a given person usually is relatively small -- only 20 or 30 mites.
Evolutionary studies done by OConnor and his former graduate student Hans Klompen, now an associate professor at Ohio State University, suggest that the scabies mite has been with us throughout our evolutionary history, giving humans plenty of time to develop defenses. When humans began domesticating animals, Sarcoptes scabiei found a whole new realm of potential victims. Domestic dogs, like humans, have played host to the mites long enough to evolve the ability to fight off mange, but when the condition spreads to wild members of the dog family -- foxes, wolves and coyotes -- watch out.
"Whenever you have a new host-parasite association, it's pretty nasty," said OConnor, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and a curator in the U-M Museum of Zoology. "It does a lot of damage, and mortality can be relatively high because that host species has not had any evolutionary history with the parasite, so it has not been able to evolve any defenses like we have."
In these unfortunate animals, large numbers of mites burrowing under the skin cause inflammation, which results in thickening of the skin. Blood supply to hair follicles is cut off, so the fur falls out. In especially bad cases, the animal's weakened condition opens the door to bacteria that cause secondary skin infections, sometimes producing a foul odor. Put it all together, and you've got an ugly, naked, leathery, smelly monstrosity: the chupacabras.
Do mite infestations also alter the animals' behavior, turning them into bloodthirsty killers? Not exactly, but there is an explanation for why they may be particularly likely to prey on small livestock such as sheep and goats.
"Because these animals are greatly weakened, they're going to have a hard time hunting," OConnor said. "So they may be forced into attacking livestock because it's easier than running down a rabbit or a deer."
While the chupacabras has achieved legendary status, other wild animals can suffer just as much from the effects of mange mites, OConnor said. In Australia, the mite is killing off wombats. "They presumably got the mites from dingoes, which got them from domestic dogs, which got them from us," he said.
And a related mite, just as insidious, can drive squirrels to self-destruct. In his graduate school years at Cornell University, OConnor observed mange-weakened squirrels falling from trees. That observation led him to conduct an informal survey to see if mangy squirrels also were more likely than healthy squirrels to end up as road kill. They were, suggesting that being tortured by mites somehow made the squirrels less adept at dodging cars."
Note: These story's and reports get weirder and weirder... well at least it seems like it!
-Rob
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Surprise Link Between Weird Quantum Phenomena: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Sets Limits on Einstein's 'Spooky Action at a Distance'
From ScienceDaily (Nov. 19, 2010) — Researchers have uncovered a fundamental link between the two defining properties of quantum physics. The result is being heralded as a dramatic breakthrough in our basic understanding of quantum mechanics and provides new clues to researchers seeking to understand the foundations of quantum theory. The result addresses the question of why quantum behaviour is as weird as it is -- but no weirder.
Stephanie Wehner of Singapore's Centre for Quantum Technologies and the National University of Singapore and Jonathan Oppenheim of the United Kingdom's University of Cambridge published their work in the latest edition of the journal Science.
The strange behaviour of quantum particles, such as atoms, electrons and the photons that make up light, has perplexed scientists for nearly a century. Albert Einstein was among those who thought the quantum world was so strange that quantum theory must be wrong, but experiments have borne out the theory's predictions.
One of the weird aspects of quantum theory is that it is impossible to know certain things, such as a particle's momentum and position, simultaneously. Knowledge of one of these properties affects the accuracy with which you can learn the other. This is known as the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle."
Another weird aspect is the quantum phenomenon of non-locality, which arises from the better-known phenomenon of entanglement. When two quantum particles are entangled, they can perform actions that look as if they are coordinated with each other in ways that defy classical intuition about physically separated particles.
Previously, researchers have treated non-locality and uncertainty as two separate phenomena. Now Wehner and Oppenheim have shown that they are intricately linked. What's more, they show that this link is quantitative and have found an equation which shows that the "amount" of non-locality is determined by the uncertainty principle.
"It's a surprising and perhaps ironic twist," said Oppenheim, a Royal Society University Research Fellow from the Department of Applied Mathematics & Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge. Einstein and his co-workers discovered non-locality while searching for a way to undermine the uncertainty principle. "Now the uncertainty principle appears to be biting back."
Non-locality determines how well two distant parties can coordinate their actions without sending each other information. Physicists believe that even in quantum mechanics, information cannot travel faster than light. Nevertheless, it turns out that quantum mechanics allows two parties to coordinate much better than would be possible under the laws of classical physics. In fact, their actions can be coordinated in a way that almost seems as if they had been able to talk. Einstein famously referred to this phenomenon as "spooky action at a distance."
However, quantum non-locality could be even spookier than it actually is. It's possible to have theories which allow distant parties to coordinate their actions much better than nature allows, while still not allowing information to travel faster than light. Nature could be weirder, and yet it isn't -- quantum theory appears to impose an additional limit on the weirdness.
"Quantum theory is pretty weird, but it isn't as weird as it could be. We really have to ask ourselves, why is quantum mechanics this limited? Why doesn't nature allow even stronger non-locality?" Oppenheim says.
The surprising result by Wehner and Oppenheim is that the uncertainty principle provides an answer. Two parties can only coordinate their actions better if they break the uncertainty principle, which imposes a strict bound on how strong non-locality can be.
"It would be great if we could better coordinate our actions over long distances, as it would enable us to solve many information processing tasks very efficiently," Wehner says. "However, physics would be fundamentally different. If we break the uncertainty principle, there is really no telling what our world would look like."
For the rest of the article go here:
Science Daily Surprise Link Between Weird Quantum Phenomena: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Sets Limits on Einstein's 'Spooky Action at a Distance'
Very nterestng!
-Rob
Stephanie Wehner of Singapore's Centre for Quantum Technologies and the National University of Singapore and Jonathan Oppenheim of the United Kingdom's University of Cambridge published their work in the latest edition of the journal Science.
The strange behaviour of quantum particles, such as atoms, electrons and the photons that make up light, has perplexed scientists for nearly a century. Albert Einstein was among those who thought the quantum world was so strange that quantum theory must be wrong, but experiments have borne out the theory's predictions.
One of the weird aspects of quantum theory is that it is impossible to know certain things, such as a particle's momentum and position, simultaneously. Knowledge of one of these properties affects the accuracy with which you can learn the other. This is known as the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle."
Another weird aspect is the quantum phenomenon of non-locality, which arises from the better-known phenomenon of entanglement. When two quantum particles are entangled, they can perform actions that look as if they are coordinated with each other in ways that defy classical intuition about physically separated particles.
Previously, researchers have treated non-locality and uncertainty as two separate phenomena. Now Wehner and Oppenheim have shown that they are intricately linked. What's more, they show that this link is quantitative and have found an equation which shows that the "amount" of non-locality is determined by the uncertainty principle.
"It's a surprising and perhaps ironic twist," said Oppenheim, a Royal Society University Research Fellow from the Department of Applied Mathematics & Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge. Einstein and his co-workers discovered non-locality while searching for a way to undermine the uncertainty principle. "Now the uncertainty principle appears to be biting back."
Non-locality determines how well two distant parties can coordinate their actions without sending each other information. Physicists believe that even in quantum mechanics, information cannot travel faster than light. Nevertheless, it turns out that quantum mechanics allows two parties to coordinate much better than would be possible under the laws of classical physics. In fact, their actions can be coordinated in a way that almost seems as if they had been able to talk. Einstein famously referred to this phenomenon as "spooky action at a distance."
However, quantum non-locality could be even spookier than it actually is. It's possible to have theories which allow distant parties to coordinate their actions much better than nature allows, while still not allowing information to travel faster than light. Nature could be weirder, and yet it isn't -- quantum theory appears to impose an additional limit on the weirdness.
"Quantum theory is pretty weird, but it isn't as weird as it could be. We really have to ask ourselves, why is quantum mechanics this limited? Why doesn't nature allow even stronger non-locality?" Oppenheim says.
The surprising result by Wehner and Oppenheim is that the uncertainty principle provides an answer. Two parties can only coordinate their actions better if they break the uncertainty principle, which imposes a strict bound on how strong non-locality can be.
"It would be great if we could better coordinate our actions over long distances, as it would enable us to solve many information processing tasks very efficiently," Wehner says. "However, physics would be fundamentally different. If we break the uncertainty principle, there is really no telling what our world would look like."
For the rest of the article go here:
Science Daily Surprise Link Between Weird Quantum Phenomena: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Sets Limits on Einstein's 'Spooky Action at a Distance'
Very nterestng!
-Rob
Friday, November 19, 2010
Levels of "Intelligence", Supernatural Sasquatch, and the No Kill/Kill Debate
From Frame 352
Levels of "Intelligence", Supernatural Sasquatch, and the No Kill/Kill Debate
"Some are adamant about their opinions on this debate: kill, or, no kill. I'm adamant -- I won't budge -- I'm for a No Kill stance and that's that. Some are less adamant; they qualify their opinions depending on the perceived state of intelligence of the creature. The more human like Sasquatch appears to be, the less likely this type of person would attempt to kill one, but, if the creature is perceived to be "ape like," and more ape, less human, the kill policy reigns. Sasquatch is considered, by some, an animal, less than us, and while clearly intelligent, and astounding in its very existence in terms of scientific discovery, it's still "just" an animal. Still less than us, somehow. And that alone gives some the justification they need to support their kill view.
I don't care if Sasquatch turns out to be "just a big ape," some kind of uber-bear, or an alien. I don't care if the intelligence of Sasquatch is below that of a pinto bean. The intelligence level of Sasquatch should have nothing to do with killing it. I have major issues with hunting, but I do understand the justification for it in terms of survival; if one needs to feed oneself, then I'd be a hypocrite to say one should not hunt for food. If I were to find myself in certain circumstances, I might have to find I'd have to hunt as well. That aside, killing a Sasquatch is a very different issue.
I'll reiterate what I've said so many times before; I don't give a damn if science finds proof of Sasquatch's existence, and certainly not at the expense of a dead body."
For more of Regan Lee's post go here: Frame 352: levels of intelligence supernatural
Note: I think that killing Bigfoot is wrong but at the same time
neccasary if we want proof that he exists aka a body. Hopefully
though he can be captured prehaps for further study if he in
face does exist and I believe that he does.
Bigfoot appears imo to be either a big hairy ape/hominid
or possibly a creature from another dimension.
Levels of "Intelligence", Supernatural Sasquatch, and the No Kill/Kill Debate
"Some are adamant about their opinions on this debate: kill, or, no kill. I'm adamant -- I won't budge -- I'm for a No Kill stance and that's that. Some are less adamant; they qualify their opinions depending on the perceived state of intelligence of the creature. The more human like Sasquatch appears to be, the less likely this type of person would attempt to kill one, but, if the creature is perceived to be "ape like," and more ape, less human, the kill policy reigns. Sasquatch is considered, by some, an animal, less than us, and while clearly intelligent, and astounding in its very existence in terms of scientific discovery, it's still "just" an animal. Still less than us, somehow. And that alone gives some the justification they need to support their kill view.
I don't care if Sasquatch turns out to be "just a big ape," some kind of uber-bear, or an alien. I don't care if the intelligence of Sasquatch is below that of a pinto bean. The intelligence level of Sasquatch should have nothing to do with killing it. I have major issues with hunting, but I do understand the justification for it in terms of survival; if one needs to feed oneself, then I'd be a hypocrite to say one should not hunt for food. If I were to find myself in certain circumstances, I might have to find I'd have to hunt as well. That aside, killing a Sasquatch is a very different issue.
I'll reiterate what I've said so many times before; I don't give a damn if science finds proof of Sasquatch's existence, and certainly not at the expense of a dead body."
For more of Regan Lee's post go here: Frame 352: levels of intelligence supernatural
Note: I think that killing Bigfoot is wrong but at the same time
neccasary if we want proof that he exists aka a body. Hopefully
though he can be captured prehaps for further study if he in
face does exist and I believe that he does.
Bigfoot appears imo to be either a big hairy ape/hominid
or possibly a creature from another dimension.
Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood Review from Gamespot.com
Review from Gamespot.com
"The Good
Huge, beautiful city stuffed with amazing details Lairs and other platforming sequences are fantastic Long, with lots of fun and varied activities Economy is more meaningful than before All sorts of improvements, big and small.
The Bad
Main story is disappointing Assassin recruitment is contrived and ultimately meaningless Glitches. The ladies of Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood have both bark and bite.
If you played Assassin's Creed II, then you already know Caterina Sforza, the comely Italian countess with a soft spot for sly, rugged assassins. She's not the only female character with an important role to play in Brotherhood, however. Claudia Auditore is no longer just a submissive bookkeeper, but rather a strong young woman who eventually learns to handle a blade. And then there's Cesare Borgia's cunning sister Lucrezia, whose sharp tongue is matched by her severe, almost vampiric appearance. These willful women are ensemble players in the continuing drama of Ezio Auditore, the self-assured star of Assassin's Creed II. His story continues in Brotherhood, which begins directly after the events that closed its predecessor. This follow-up tale doesn't have the same impact of the story that spawned it, but Ezio's world is a wonder to inhabit, filled with amazing architectural detail and bursting with tons of enjoyable content.
Ezio spearheads the liberation of Rome.
Comment on this videoWatch this video in High Def
Ezio is not the only leading man in this ongoing tale. He's an ancestor of Desmond Miles, the near-future bartender who has remained a series constant. You play Desmond in several terrific sequences, the final of which concludes with a moment so staggering it rivals Assassin's Creed II's ending for pure shock value. It's unfortunate that Ezio's part of the story isn't as memorable as Desmond's, or indeed, as memorable as his previous journey. The setup is simple: After a battle at the family's villa in Monteriggioni, Ezio's nemesis, Cesare Borgia, steals the all-important artifact known as the Apple of Eden. With the help of Caterina and other old friends, Ezio heads to Rome to retrieve the Apple and rid the city of Borgia influence. There's a bit of drama when an associate is accused of betrayal, but for the most part, Brotherhood's straightforward plot doesn't have much emotional impact, and because Ezio exhibits little personal growth, there's the slightest hint of staleness to his escapades.
That doesn't mean there aren't special story moments to savor, however. One set of side missions is a series of heartfelt flashbacks that put you in the shoes of a younger Ezio, and they let him show off that old charm that he rarely exudes in Brotherhood. Other indelible moments come by way of your glimpses of Lucrezia Borgia, who has a complicated relationship with Cesare. She knows what she wants, and she isn't afraid to test the boundaries of human decency in the pursuit of power. Lucrezia aside, few of the important players are new, but they're all voiced by a great cast that gives further gravitas to a story and world that are presented without the slightest hint of irony. Furthermore, certain story elements are given poignancy by way of their presentation. For instance, spying on a scheming Cesare and Lucrezia through a palace window makes their dialogue seem even more devious."
You can read the rest of the review via the above link.
So far this looks likea great game and very interesting to play no doubt.
The storyline is a bit confusing but the rest looks promising.
-Rob
"The Good
Huge, beautiful city stuffed with amazing details Lairs and other platforming sequences are fantastic Long, with lots of fun and varied activities Economy is more meaningful than before All sorts of improvements, big and small.
The Bad
Main story is disappointing Assassin recruitment is contrived and ultimately meaningless Glitches. The ladies of Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood have both bark and bite.
If you played Assassin's Creed II, then you already know Caterina Sforza, the comely Italian countess with a soft spot for sly, rugged assassins. She's not the only female character with an important role to play in Brotherhood, however. Claudia Auditore is no longer just a submissive bookkeeper, but rather a strong young woman who eventually learns to handle a blade. And then there's Cesare Borgia's cunning sister Lucrezia, whose sharp tongue is matched by her severe, almost vampiric appearance. These willful women are ensemble players in the continuing drama of Ezio Auditore, the self-assured star of Assassin's Creed II. His story continues in Brotherhood, which begins directly after the events that closed its predecessor. This follow-up tale doesn't have the same impact of the story that spawned it, but Ezio's world is a wonder to inhabit, filled with amazing architectural detail and bursting with tons of enjoyable content.
Ezio spearheads the liberation of Rome.
Comment on this videoWatch this video in High Def
Ezio is not the only leading man in this ongoing tale. He's an ancestor of Desmond Miles, the near-future bartender who has remained a series constant. You play Desmond in several terrific sequences, the final of which concludes with a moment so staggering it rivals Assassin's Creed II's ending for pure shock value. It's unfortunate that Ezio's part of the story isn't as memorable as Desmond's, or indeed, as memorable as his previous journey. The setup is simple: After a battle at the family's villa in Monteriggioni, Ezio's nemesis, Cesare Borgia, steals the all-important artifact known as the Apple of Eden. With the help of Caterina and other old friends, Ezio heads to Rome to retrieve the Apple and rid the city of Borgia influence. There's a bit of drama when an associate is accused of betrayal, but for the most part, Brotherhood's straightforward plot doesn't have much emotional impact, and because Ezio exhibits little personal growth, there's the slightest hint of staleness to his escapades.
That doesn't mean there aren't special story moments to savor, however. One set of side missions is a series of heartfelt flashbacks that put you in the shoes of a younger Ezio, and they let him show off that old charm that he rarely exudes in Brotherhood. Other indelible moments come by way of your glimpses of Lucrezia Borgia, who has a complicated relationship with Cesare. She knows what she wants, and she isn't afraid to test the boundaries of human decency in the pursuit of power. Lucrezia aside, few of the important players are new, but they're all voiced by a great cast that gives further gravitas to a story and world that are presented without the slightest hint of irony. Furthermore, certain story elements are given poignancy by way of their presentation. For instance, spying on a scheming Cesare and Lucrezia through a palace window makes their dialogue seem even more devious."
You can read the rest of the review via the above link.
So far this looks likea great game and very interesting to play no doubt.
The storyline is a bit confusing but the rest looks promising.
-Rob
Thursday, November 18, 2010
No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations
From icr.org
No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
"Many Americans believe that the big-picture story of evolution, as biology professors routinely expound it, is false.1 Basically, they haven't bought into the concept that all life descended from one common ancestor that miraculously sprang into being millions of years ago. And that makes sense, considering there are no real examples of that kind of evolution.
If evolutionary biologists could document such evolution in action, they could vindicate their worldview and cite real research to support their surreal claims. In 1980, this search for proof led researchers to painstakingly and purposefully mutate each core gene involved in fruit fly development. The now classic work, for which the authors won the Nobel Prize in 1995, was published in Nature.2 The experiments proved that the mutation of any of these core developmental genes―mutations that would be essential for the fruit fly to evolve into any other creature―merely resulted in dead or deformed fruit flies. This therefore showed that fruit flies could not evolve.
Similarly, Michigan State University evolutionary biologists Richard Lenski and his colleagues searched for signs of evolution in bacteria for 20 years, tracking 40,000 generations.3 In the end, the species that they started with was hobbled by accumulated mutations, and the only changes that had occurred were degenerative. University of Bristol emeritus professor of bacteriology Alan Linton summarized the situation:
But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.4
In a recent study, also published in Nature, University of California Irvine researcher Molly Burke led research into the genetic changes that occurred over the course of 600 fruit fly generations. The UCI lab had been breeding fruit flies since 1991, separating fast growers with short life spans from slow growers with longer life spans.5
The UCI scientists compared the DNA sequences affecting fruit fly growth and longevity between the two groups. After the equivalent of 12,000 years of human evolution, the fruit flies showed surprisingly few differences.
One requirement for Darwin's theory is that the mutational changes that supposedly fuel evolution somehow have to be "fixed" into the population. Otherwise, the DNA changes quickly drift right back out of the population. The researchers found no evidence that mutational changes relevant to longevity had been fixed into the fruit fly populations.
The study's authors wrote, "In our sexual populations, adaptation is not associated with 'classic' sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed."5
They suggested that perhaps there has not been enough time for the relevant mutations to have become fixed. They also suggested an alternative—that natural selection could be acting on already existing variations. But this is not evolution, and it is actually what creation studies have been demonstrating for many years.6
Evolution was not observed in fruit fly genetic manipulations in 1980, nor has it been observed in decades-long multigenerational studies of bacteria and fruit flies. The experiments only showed that these creatures have practical limits to the amount of genetic change they can tolerate. When those limits are breached, the creatures don't evolve—they just die.
Although the experimental results from these studies were given titles with an evolutionary "spin," the actual experiments demonstrate undoubtedly that bacteria and fruit flies were created, not evolved."
References
1.Dao, C. Poll: Majority of Americans Don’t Believe in Evolution. ICR News. Posted on icr.org February 24, 2010, accessed November 9, 2010.
2.Nüsslein-Volhard, C. and E. Wieschaus. 1980. Mutations affecting segment number and polarity in Drosophila. Nature. 287 (5785): 795-801.
3.Barrick, J. E. et al. 2009. Genome evolution and adaptation in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. Nature. 461 (7268): 1243- 1247.
4.Linton, A. H. 2001. Scant Search for the Maker. Times Higher Education. Posted on timeshighereducation.co.uk April 20, 2010, accessed November 9, 2010.
5.Burke, M. K. et al. 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature. 467 (7315): 587-590.
6.For example: "Normal variations operate only within the range specified by the DNA for the particular type of organism, so that no truly novel characteristics, producing higher degrees of order or complexity, can appear. Variation is horizontal, not vertical!" From Morris, H. 1974. Scientific Creationism, Public School Edition. San Diego, CA: Creation Life Publishers, 51.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on November 16, 2010.
No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
"Many Americans believe that the big-picture story of evolution, as biology professors routinely expound it, is false.1 Basically, they haven't bought into the concept that all life descended from one common ancestor that miraculously sprang into being millions of years ago. And that makes sense, considering there are no real examples of that kind of evolution.
If evolutionary biologists could document such evolution in action, they could vindicate their worldview and cite real research to support their surreal claims. In 1980, this search for proof led researchers to painstakingly and purposefully mutate each core gene involved in fruit fly development. The now classic work, for which the authors won the Nobel Prize in 1995, was published in Nature.2 The experiments proved that the mutation of any of these core developmental genes―mutations that would be essential for the fruit fly to evolve into any other creature―merely resulted in dead or deformed fruit flies. This therefore showed that fruit flies could not evolve.
Similarly, Michigan State University evolutionary biologists Richard Lenski and his colleagues searched for signs of evolution in bacteria for 20 years, tracking 40,000 generations.3 In the end, the species that they started with was hobbled by accumulated mutations, and the only changes that had occurred were degenerative. University of Bristol emeritus professor of bacteriology Alan Linton summarized the situation:
But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.4
In a recent study, also published in Nature, University of California Irvine researcher Molly Burke led research into the genetic changes that occurred over the course of 600 fruit fly generations. The UCI lab had been breeding fruit flies since 1991, separating fast growers with short life spans from slow growers with longer life spans.5
The UCI scientists compared the DNA sequences affecting fruit fly growth and longevity between the two groups. After the equivalent of 12,000 years of human evolution, the fruit flies showed surprisingly few differences.
One requirement for Darwin's theory is that the mutational changes that supposedly fuel evolution somehow have to be "fixed" into the population. Otherwise, the DNA changes quickly drift right back out of the population. The researchers found no evidence that mutational changes relevant to longevity had been fixed into the fruit fly populations.
The study's authors wrote, "In our sexual populations, adaptation is not associated with 'classic' sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed."5
They suggested that perhaps there has not been enough time for the relevant mutations to have become fixed. They also suggested an alternative—that natural selection could be acting on already existing variations. But this is not evolution, and it is actually what creation studies have been demonstrating for many years.6
Evolution was not observed in fruit fly genetic manipulations in 1980, nor has it been observed in decades-long multigenerational studies of bacteria and fruit flies. The experiments only showed that these creatures have practical limits to the amount of genetic change they can tolerate. When those limits are breached, the creatures don't evolve—they just die.
Although the experimental results from these studies were given titles with an evolutionary "spin," the actual experiments demonstrate undoubtedly that bacteria and fruit flies were created, not evolved."
References
1.Dao, C. Poll: Majority of Americans Don’t Believe in Evolution. ICR News. Posted on icr.org February 24, 2010, accessed November 9, 2010.
2.Nüsslein-Volhard, C. and E. Wieschaus. 1980. Mutations affecting segment number and polarity in Drosophila. Nature. 287 (5785): 795-801.
3.Barrick, J. E. et al. 2009. Genome evolution and adaptation in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. Nature. 461 (7268): 1243- 1247.
4.Linton, A. H. 2001. Scant Search for the Maker. Times Higher Education. Posted on timeshighereducation.co.uk April 20, 2010, accessed November 9, 2010.
5.Burke, M. K. et al. 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature. 467 (7315): 587-590.
6.For example: "Normal variations operate only within the range specified by the DNA for the particular type of organism, so that no truly novel characteristics, producing higher degrees of order or complexity, can appear. Variation is horizontal, not vertical!" From Morris, H. 1974. Scientific Creationism, Public School Edition. San Diego, CA: Creation Life Publishers, 51.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on November 16, 2010.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
"Metamorphosis" by Rain
A story from my friend Rain aka Elizabeth Villanueva; her youtube channel is
neonHEARTSbitches
"this is roughly edited and corrected i hate spellcheck so i didnt use it haha ::)
its just a bit less gfoggy yu can send it to anybody now :) ooh just warn them im in sixth grade and its chalkfull of typoes :)
In an instant all the threads of my life where unfolded and weaved into a tapestry of disappointment regret depression the very thought of what I knew what was in store for me made me sick left a bad taste in my mouth a knot in my stomach and a sadistic chill up my spine. I was stripped of my happiness my future everything ever good to happen to me dissolved and evaporated into clouds of past foggy memories. And was left was a bitter empty shell of a human that I was forced to call myself .I laid there lifeless eying the mosaic sky watching the clouds dance and marble the purple pinks and blues knowing it would be the last thing I would ever find beautiful in this world the last thought I had, had that wasn't saturated in what was happening to me.
When they where finished I gathered myself it was if they tore me into little pieces like they dehumanized me I was no longer a person but a needless object like the toys you gather over your childhood and dispose of when you no longer find them entertaining but just a chunk of useless plastic and maybe a ribbon or two. Thats what my body was to them a lump of flesh and nothing else. I made sure to look at them I gave them direct eye contact as they left I wanted to memorize every line every, hair, every crease and take it deep inside myself to be buried as if my consciousness was acid breaking it up to be digested . That's all I needed to do is digest this and let it be forgotten.
After that day I was no longer afraid of death I told myself if the opportunity ever presented itself I would welcome death with open arms and let it sway me into the womb of the earth. That's all I really wanted was to sleep and dream of my past or at least what I now had to consider my past. I knew I would never be the same.
The next morning I awoke to the smell of my mothers blueberry pancakes it was a smell that often comforted me but it wasn't enough .I collected myself folded away the corners of my brain that had any trace of what just happened and I placed Far back in the uncharted deeps of my stomach to never be found. I would only know its there ,I knew I couldn't tell my parents as it would tear them apart like it did me they didn't need that. For my my mother has plenty trouble enough being happy already her empty smile has never fooled or persuaded me into thinking that she was even remotely satisfied with her life .My father is oblivious he has so many problems he decides to ignore the ones that probably matter most .As for my sisters they are far to self absorbed and empty to retain anything but themselves .There is no one left even open for consideration to tell I don't long for any ones pity or sympathy.
My mind changed channels back to school I had to get ready one of the hardest things was gathering enough courage to look in the mirror to see myself I felt so very different I pictured I would look it to as if all the intense emotions to happen that had happened to me at once had carved me into a different person when I finally faced the mirror I looked the same except I no longer glowed as I once did.
Every thing looked different transformed less color full like smeared watercolors everything was incoherent. Just blurs the road didn't glimmer the way it used to I remember it used to appear as black oil rivers before me the grass glimmerd and twinkeled with morning dew the smell of fresh cut grass enveloped me; but not now the roads were roads the grass was soggy and uncomfortable and, all i smelt was gasoline from the lawn mower. I stumbled awkwardly to school when I tried to speak my words clumsily collected and swarmed out my throat in jumbles and clusters of confusion. So I didn't speak its as if I was awoken from a coma and had to relearn every step and custom needed to fool people that I was still the happy loving innocent child I once was. And I did I fooled each and every one of them they all said "are you okay something wrong ?"and in a jiffy I would reply "with just dandy". I would force life into my pores and with great strength curve every inch of my mouth into a smile. I lived like this for a good year of my life.Though I am no long bold or hearty enough to call it living.
Then one day I was in biology learning of energy and how it could never be destroyed just converted, so I decided to do that with myself I would recycle back into the earth .I had no need for the energy I was already occupying I thought if those complete strangers could have taken so much from me with out warning why shouldn't I be able to take what is mine my life. In a way I had already died a bounty of life and energy has faded from me like a lamp left on to long I had fluttered out into the seems of the earth to be swallowed and converted into something else .
I hope my energy had been use full had significance as it dwindled away. I think now even if I had the chance swoop up and catch it I wouldn't have. I think that I made the clouds dance that day that every pigment in the sky that appeared before me was my doing a little piece of me .That hopefully that image stayed in the mind of another child so they could have one more reason to find this world as beautiful as I once did.
Because frankly this world the thought of living in it makes my skin coil and shake into rivets of pain and agony I'm constantly screaming even if no one can hear me even if there silenced and in place of a gouging mouth there is a strategically planned smile folded on the corners of my lips the screams are still there fogging my thoughts'.I know im no longer suppose to live for I have no thoughts of any ones pain but myself I'm consumed in my suffering im an oyster.
That's disgust me most of new self I cant think of anything but me and if I do there's a knocking a slight whisperer of that day when I made the clouds dance. I must quiet it and be at peace so I may be recycled into this earth to slip into the grassy coils and roots of trees the very basis of earths life's .
I woke up this morning knowing I wouldn't make it to school ,I ate breakfast savoring the flovors and textures noting the feelings of chewing swallowing I packed theses feelings up and placed them in my pocket I did the same with the image of my mother,father and my sisters.The sounds of theyre voices everything I still fealt connected to I packed them away into my pocket.
I bid my farewells to them,as soon as I fealt as if my love was confirmed I left.There was something diff rent to this morning though with every step I knew I was closer to death and freedom to my old self . I had made it to my destination an abandoned school building it was a rusty shade of red the bricks rough and course to the touch green ivy vines cascaded its borders it to was once filled with life an innocence but now it was empty and lacked purpose I related to this building we shared the same story. I began climbing the stairs to the roof each step was a kiss a newly retrieved memory another piece of myself returned .I sat their on that roof watching the day,the sky I had never witnessed the sky transform all its stages gather and fade all the colors swivel and march before me.
Then it was night I was finally ready as I took my first steps to the edge of the roof a thought occurred I wonder if my mother is okay? A smile hatched on my face willingly I had finally thought of someone besides myself. then a seedling a sense of longing for life knocked on my consciousness I grabbed hold of it wanting it to take me away drag me from the roof to home but as soon as it came it faded that was the hardest part. I couldn't hold onto it. Wth every foot I fell I got even closer to myself all the empty spaces and holes I had been stripped of were filled ,all the energy came back to me it was confusing it was as if the closer I got to death the closer I got to life . Death swayed me into the sky it absorbed every inch of me curled me into a single piece of existence and birthed me into the sky like the stars of the night .I once again made the clouds dance."
A great story.
Very touching.
Thanks Rain!
Coyright and credit goes to Elizabeth Villanueva for this story.
neonHEARTSbitches
"this is roughly edited and corrected i hate spellcheck so i didnt use it haha ::)
its just a bit less gfoggy yu can send it to anybody now :) ooh just warn them im in sixth grade and its chalkfull of typoes :)
In an instant all the threads of my life where unfolded and weaved into a tapestry of disappointment regret depression the very thought of what I knew what was in store for me made me sick left a bad taste in my mouth a knot in my stomach and a sadistic chill up my spine. I was stripped of my happiness my future everything ever good to happen to me dissolved and evaporated into clouds of past foggy memories. And was left was a bitter empty shell of a human that I was forced to call myself .I laid there lifeless eying the mosaic sky watching the clouds dance and marble the purple pinks and blues knowing it would be the last thing I would ever find beautiful in this world the last thought I had, had that wasn't saturated in what was happening to me.
When they where finished I gathered myself it was if they tore me into little pieces like they dehumanized me I was no longer a person but a needless object like the toys you gather over your childhood and dispose of when you no longer find them entertaining but just a chunk of useless plastic and maybe a ribbon or two. Thats what my body was to them a lump of flesh and nothing else. I made sure to look at them I gave them direct eye contact as they left I wanted to memorize every line every, hair, every crease and take it deep inside myself to be buried as if my consciousness was acid breaking it up to be digested . That's all I needed to do is digest this and let it be forgotten.
After that day I was no longer afraid of death I told myself if the opportunity ever presented itself I would welcome death with open arms and let it sway me into the womb of the earth. That's all I really wanted was to sleep and dream of my past or at least what I now had to consider my past. I knew I would never be the same.
The next morning I awoke to the smell of my mothers blueberry pancakes it was a smell that often comforted me but it wasn't enough .I collected myself folded away the corners of my brain that had any trace of what just happened and I placed Far back in the uncharted deeps of my stomach to never be found. I would only know its there ,I knew I couldn't tell my parents as it would tear them apart like it did me they didn't need that. For my my mother has plenty trouble enough being happy already her empty smile has never fooled or persuaded me into thinking that she was even remotely satisfied with her life .My father is oblivious he has so many problems he decides to ignore the ones that probably matter most .As for my sisters they are far to self absorbed and empty to retain anything but themselves .There is no one left even open for consideration to tell I don't long for any ones pity or sympathy.
My mind changed channels back to school I had to get ready one of the hardest things was gathering enough courage to look in the mirror to see myself I felt so very different I pictured I would look it to as if all the intense emotions to happen that had happened to me at once had carved me into a different person when I finally faced the mirror I looked the same except I no longer glowed as I once did.
Every thing looked different transformed less color full like smeared watercolors everything was incoherent. Just blurs the road didn't glimmer the way it used to I remember it used to appear as black oil rivers before me the grass glimmerd and twinkeled with morning dew the smell of fresh cut grass enveloped me; but not now the roads were roads the grass was soggy and uncomfortable and, all i smelt was gasoline from the lawn mower. I stumbled awkwardly to school when I tried to speak my words clumsily collected and swarmed out my throat in jumbles and clusters of confusion. So I didn't speak its as if I was awoken from a coma and had to relearn every step and custom needed to fool people that I was still the happy loving innocent child I once was. And I did I fooled each and every one of them they all said "are you okay something wrong ?"and in a jiffy I would reply "with just dandy". I would force life into my pores and with great strength curve every inch of my mouth into a smile. I lived like this for a good year of my life.Though I am no long bold or hearty enough to call it living.
Then one day I was in biology learning of energy and how it could never be destroyed just converted, so I decided to do that with myself I would recycle back into the earth .I had no need for the energy I was already occupying I thought if those complete strangers could have taken so much from me with out warning why shouldn't I be able to take what is mine my life. In a way I had already died a bounty of life and energy has faded from me like a lamp left on to long I had fluttered out into the seems of the earth to be swallowed and converted into something else .
I hope my energy had been use full had significance as it dwindled away. I think now even if I had the chance swoop up and catch it I wouldn't have. I think that I made the clouds dance that day that every pigment in the sky that appeared before me was my doing a little piece of me .That hopefully that image stayed in the mind of another child so they could have one more reason to find this world as beautiful as I once did.
Because frankly this world the thought of living in it makes my skin coil and shake into rivets of pain and agony I'm constantly screaming even if no one can hear me even if there silenced and in place of a gouging mouth there is a strategically planned smile folded on the corners of my lips the screams are still there fogging my thoughts'.I know im no longer suppose to live for I have no thoughts of any ones pain but myself I'm consumed in my suffering im an oyster.
That's disgust me most of new self I cant think of anything but me and if I do there's a knocking a slight whisperer of that day when I made the clouds dance. I must quiet it and be at peace so I may be recycled into this earth to slip into the grassy coils and roots of trees the very basis of earths life's .
I woke up this morning knowing I wouldn't make it to school ,I ate breakfast savoring the flovors and textures noting the feelings of chewing swallowing I packed theses feelings up and placed them in my pocket I did the same with the image of my mother,father and my sisters.The sounds of theyre voices everything I still fealt connected to I packed them away into my pocket.
I bid my farewells to them,as soon as I fealt as if my love was confirmed I left.There was something diff rent to this morning though with every step I knew I was closer to death and freedom to my old self . I had made it to my destination an abandoned school building it was a rusty shade of red the bricks rough and course to the touch green ivy vines cascaded its borders it to was once filled with life an innocence but now it was empty and lacked purpose I related to this building we shared the same story. I began climbing the stairs to the roof each step was a kiss a newly retrieved memory another piece of myself returned .I sat their on that roof watching the day,the sky I had never witnessed the sky transform all its stages gather and fade all the colors swivel and march before me.
Then it was night I was finally ready as I took my first steps to the edge of the roof a thought occurred I wonder if my mother is okay? A smile hatched on my face willingly I had finally thought of someone besides myself. then a seedling a sense of longing for life knocked on my consciousness I grabbed hold of it wanting it to take me away drag me from the roof to home but as soon as it came it faded that was the hardest part. I couldn't hold onto it. Wth every foot I fell I got even closer to myself all the empty spaces and holes I had been stripped of were filled ,all the energy came back to me it was confusing it was as if the closer I got to death the closer I got to life . Death swayed me into the sky it absorbed every inch of me curled me into a single piece of existence and birthed me into the sky like the stars of the night .I once again made the clouds dance."
A great story.
Very touching.
Thanks Rain!
Coyright and credit goes to Elizabeth Villanueva for this story.
Did dead alien microbes spawn life on Earth?
bioscholar.com
Did dead alien microbes spawn life on Earth?
Tuesday, November 16th, 2010 There are numerous theories on how life spawned on Earth and now a new research has indicated that life came from an interstellar origin; hitched a ride on a speck of dust, blew out of its host star system by stellar winds and then ended up on our planet. This concept is called ‘anspermia’.
“Biologically, the destructive effects of ultraviolet light and cosmic rays means that the majority of organisms arrive broken and dead on a new world,” Discovery News quoted Paul Wesson, a visiting researcher at the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics in Canada, as saying.
“The likelihood of conventional forms of panspermia must therefore be considered low,” he added.
Although these comments don”t necessarily rule out panspermia as a cosmic life-spreading mechanism, Wesson does raise an important point.
Although we know terrestrial life can survive for long periods in space, we”ve only tested how life copes in space for months or years. Panspermia is thought to operate over much longer timescales, possibly millions of years.
This is why Wesson suggests the panspermia concept may need to be modified for interstellar hops when life dies and its genetic chemical bonds degrade in transit.
Although it sounds more like the title of a sci-fi horror movie, he has coined the term “necropanspermia” to describe a rather macabre means of transferring life around the cosmos. Dead organisms could spawn new life.
If the destination is hospitable, the conditions might be right for the dead microbes” genetic code to be reassembled.
“Resurrection may, however, be possible. Certain micro-organisms possess remarkably effective enzyme systems that can repair a multitude of strand breaks,” Wesson concluded.
The research paper published in the journal Space Science Review.
-Interesting to see how this pans out. That dead microbes can create new life
or reassemble old life.
lol
-Rob
Did dead alien microbes spawn life on Earth?
Tuesday, November 16th, 2010 There are numerous theories on how life spawned on Earth and now a new research has indicated that life came from an interstellar origin; hitched a ride on a speck of dust, blew out of its host star system by stellar winds and then ended up on our planet. This concept is called ‘anspermia’.
“Biologically, the destructive effects of ultraviolet light and cosmic rays means that the majority of organisms arrive broken and dead on a new world,” Discovery News quoted Paul Wesson, a visiting researcher at the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics in Canada, as saying.
“The likelihood of conventional forms of panspermia must therefore be considered low,” he added.
Although these comments don”t necessarily rule out panspermia as a cosmic life-spreading mechanism, Wesson does raise an important point.
Although we know terrestrial life can survive for long periods in space, we”ve only tested how life copes in space for months or years. Panspermia is thought to operate over much longer timescales, possibly millions of years.
This is why Wesson suggests the panspermia concept may need to be modified for interstellar hops when life dies and its genetic chemical bonds degrade in transit.
Although it sounds more like the title of a sci-fi horror movie, he has coined the term “necropanspermia” to describe a rather macabre means of transferring life around the cosmos. Dead organisms could spawn new life.
If the destination is hospitable, the conditions might be right for the dead microbes” genetic code to be reassembled.
“Resurrection may, however, be possible. Certain micro-organisms possess remarkably effective enzyme systems that can repair a multitude of strand breaks,” Wesson concluded.
The research paper published in the journal Space Science Review.
-Interesting to see how this pans out. That dead microbes can create new life
or reassemble old life.
lol
-Rob
Sunday, November 14, 2010
LA Weekly In Alleged Cover-Up Of Mystery Missile Trail Over SoCal Skies
From: http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2010/11/missile_trail_contrails_cover-.php
"As far as conspiracy theories go, this one is huge, because it requires the cooperation of not only the U.S. Armed Forces, the Federal Aviation Administration and major airlines, but it also requires little old us to be in on the deal.
After all, we like nothing better than to uncover conspiracies, wrongdoing and other secrets so we can get more readers and win awards.
But it looks like we had to get with the program on the missile-trail mystery of 2010. Sure, we admit it, it was a secret missile launch, an alien spaceship being shot back to space, or whatever else you think it was.
Because logic just doesn't cut it in this online world.
Our commenter of the day, michael, writes:
It was not a plane and if you buy that story well then you are flat out an idiot and deserve to believe your brain gained knowledge. That is one of the worse stories covering up the fact you really don't know I have heard.
He goes on to insult the intelligence of the people of California.
To which we point out that we elected Arnold and Jerry Brown (three times) didn't we?"
Note: I think this is simply put, an airplane, missle or rocket that was launched.
It may have been an optical issusion or phnomenon in the atmosphere but that's
as far as I'll go theory wise.
Have a good Sunday everyone!
-Rob
"As far as conspiracy theories go, this one is huge, because it requires the cooperation of not only the U.S. Armed Forces, the Federal Aviation Administration and major airlines, but it also requires little old us to be in on the deal.
After all, we like nothing better than to uncover conspiracies, wrongdoing and other secrets so we can get more readers and win awards.
But it looks like we had to get with the program on the missile-trail mystery of 2010. Sure, we admit it, it was a secret missile launch, an alien spaceship being shot back to space, or whatever else you think it was.
Because logic just doesn't cut it in this online world.
Our commenter of the day, michael, writes:
It was not a plane and if you buy that story well then you are flat out an idiot and deserve to believe your brain gained knowledge. That is one of the worse stories covering up the fact you really don't know I have heard.
He goes on to insult the intelligence of the people of California.
To which we point out that we elected Arnold and Jerry Brown (three times) didn't we?"
Note: I think this is simply put, an airplane, missle or rocket that was launched.
It may have been an optical issusion or phnomenon in the atmosphere but that's
as far as I'll go theory wise.
Have a good Sunday everyone!
-Rob
Dick Van Dyke 'rescued at sea by porpoises
From: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/40135909/ns/today-entertainment/
"It sounds like a magical scene right out of "Mary Poppins," but Dick Van Dyke claims he once avoided drowning at sea thanks to a pod of friendly porpoises.
"I'm not kidding," the legendary entertainer, 84, said during a Wednesday appearance on "The Late Late Show With Craig Ferguson."
His harrowing ordeal began at his local beach; after hitting the waves, Van Dyke dozed off on his surfboard. Next thing he knew, "I woke up out of sight of land," he said.
"I started paddling with the swells and I started seeing fins swimming around me and I thought 'I'm dead!'"
Instead of sharks, however, the aquatic creatures "turned out to be porpoises. And they pushed me all the way to shore," Van Dyke revealed.
Van Dyke was on Ferguson's show to promote the Blu-Ray release of his 1968 classic "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang." Since his TV show "Diagnosis: Murder" wrapped up in 2001 after 8 years on the air, Van Dyke has continued performing on the small and big screen, appearing in this year's comedy "Furry Vengeance."
The once-divorced star has four children and seven grandchildren; last year, Margie Willett, his longtime partner of over 30 years, passed away."
Copyright 2010 Us Weekly
Wow. Intresting story!!
-Rob
"It sounds like a magical scene right out of "Mary Poppins," but Dick Van Dyke claims he once avoided drowning at sea thanks to a pod of friendly porpoises.
"I'm not kidding," the legendary entertainer, 84, said during a Wednesday appearance on "The Late Late Show With Craig Ferguson."
His harrowing ordeal began at his local beach; after hitting the waves, Van Dyke dozed off on his surfboard. Next thing he knew, "I woke up out of sight of land," he said.
"I started paddling with the swells and I started seeing fins swimming around me and I thought 'I'm dead!'"
Instead of sharks, however, the aquatic creatures "turned out to be porpoises. And they pushed me all the way to shore," Van Dyke revealed.
Van Dyke was on Ferguson's show to promote the Blu-Ray release of his 1968 classic "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang." Since his TV show "Diagnosis: Murder" wrapped up in 2001 after 8 years on the air, Van Dyke has continued performing on the small and big screen, appearing in this year's comedy "Furry Vengeance."
The once-divorced star has four children and seven grandchildren; last year, Margie Willett, his longtime partner of over 30 years, passed away."
Copyright 2010 Us Weekly
Wow. Intresting story!!
-Rob
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Abusing Science
This is a very interesting article regarding ID and darwinism please check it out!!
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/11/abusing-science.html
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/11/abusing-science.html
Man Marries Pillow!
From: http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/816601-man-marries-pillow
Lee Jin-gyu fell for his 'dakimakura' - a kind of large, huggable pillow from Japan, often with a picture of a popular anime character printed on the side.
In Lee's case, his beloved pillow has an image of Fate Testarossa, from the 'magical girl' anime series Mahou Shoujo Lyrical Nanoha.
Now the 28-year-old otaku (a Japanese term that roughly translates to somewhere between 'obsessive' and 'nerd') has wed the pillow in a special ceremony, after fitting it out with a wedding dress for the service in front of a local priest. Their nuptials were eagerly chronicled by the local media.
'He is completely obsessed with this pillow and takes it everywhere,' said one friend.
'They go out to the park or the funfair where it will go on all the rides with him. Then when he goes out to eat he takes it with him and it gets its own seat and its own meal,' they added.
The pillow marriage is not the first similarly-themed unusual marriage in recent times - it comes after a Japanese otaku married his virtual girlfriend Nene Anegasaki, a character who only exists in the Nintendo DS game Love Plus, last November.
.
Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/816601-man-marries-pillow#ixzz14t4ZxZQ7
From: http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/816601-man-marries-pillow
Lee Jin-gyu fell for his 'dakimakura' - a kind of large, huggable pillow from Japan, often with a picture of a popular anime character printed on the side.
In Lee's case, his beloved pillow has an image of Fate Testarossa, from the 'magical girl' anime series Mahou Shoujo Lyrical Nanoha.
Now the 28-year-old otaku (a Japanese term that roughly translates to somewhere between 'obsessive' and 'nerd') has wed the pillow in a special ceremony, after fitting it out with a wedding dress for the service in front of a local priest. Their nuptials were eagerly chronicled by the local media.
'He is completely obsessed with this pillow and takes it everywhere,' said one friend.
'They go out to the park or the funfair where it will go on all the rides with him. Then when he goes out to eat he takes it with him and it gets its own seat and its own meal,' they added.
The pillow marriage is not the first similarly-themed unusual marriage in recent times - it comes after a Japanese otaku married his virtual girlfriend Nene Anegasaki, a character who only exists in the Nintendo DS game Love Plus, last November.
.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Back To School Part 7
From http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/11/back-to-school-part-7.html
"We continue to examine the work of authors George Johnson and Jonathan Losos in their biology textbook, The Living World ((Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2008). In their chapter on evolution and natural selection, these accomplished evolutionists begin by (1) misrepresenting the relationship between microevolution and macroevolution and biological variation here, (2) making a non scientific, metaphysical, truth claim that just happens to mandate the truth of evolution here, (3) making the grossly false statement that the fossils themselves are a factual observation that macroevolution has occurred here and here, (4) making a series of misrepresentations by carefully selecting the evidence to provide to the student and protecting it with circular reasoning here, (5) misrepresenting the molecular evidence here, (6) presenting the student with a blatantly false history of evolutionary theory here and (7) introducing the usual if-and-only-if evolutionary reasoning here.
Johnson and Losos’ next move is to make what is probably the most enduring and powerful metaphysical proof for evolution: biology’s bad designs would not have been intended. In a rebuke to the intelligent design argument, they write:
As you can see in the blown-up image in figure 17.9, the receptor cells are actually facing backward to the stimulus (light). No intelligent designer would design an eye backwards! [302]
Although this non scientific mandate for naturalism goes back to antiquity, it was particularly strong in the early days of modern science leading into the Enlightenment. Theologians and philosophers led the way, but early scientists also agreed. They were on the continent as well as in Britain, including Lutherans, Roman Catholics and Anglicans. By the nineteenth century the reasoning was often accepted with little question.
Darwin’s book was full of arguments from bad design. They were the powerful arguments for his theory. People who do not share the premise (that a bad design would not have been intended) fail to appreciate the power of the argument. The premise does not sway them, so they have difficulty understanding the point. The key here is to assume the evolutionary perspective. Pretend you are an evolutionist for a moment. Pretend you genuinely believe the premise: a bad design would not have been intended.
The argument then becomes clear. And its power is obvious. If you believe in this metaphysical premise, then of course, some sort of evolution must be true. As Darwin argued in his book:
We cannot believe, that the similar bones in the arm of the monkey, in the fore-leg of the horse, in the wing of the bat, and in the flipper of the seal, are of special use to these animals. We may safely attribute these structures to inheritance.
QED: evolution must be true. Bad designs, inefficient designs, even designs not of "special use" must not have been intended—they must have evolved. We may not understand how it occurred (the theory), but we know that it did occur (the fact). As Stephen Jay Gould more recently put it:
Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce. No one understood this better than Darwin. Ernst Mayr has shown how Darwin, in defending evolution, consistently turned to organic parts and geographic distributions that make the least sense.
Our textbook authors could not have demonstrated evolutionary thinking any more clearly. If a designer—who is capable of designing the vast and complicated biological world—would never have designed our backward receptor cells, then of course evolution is a no-brainer. It must be a fact, one way or another.
Evolution is at bottom a non scientific, religious, theory. It states that new forms emerge from biological variation undergoing natural selection—an idea that repeatedly has failed on the empirical science. But no matter, it must be true. Religion drives science, and it matters."
Posted by Cornelius Hunter at Tuesday, November 09, 2010
Note: Thanks also goes goes to uncommondescent for the article and link.
-Rob
"We continue to examine the work of authors George Johnson and Jonathan Losos in their biology textbook, The Living World ((Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2008). In their chapter on evolution and natural selection, these accomplished evolutionists begin by (1) misrepresenting the relationship between microevolution and macroevolution and biological variation here, (2) making a non scientific, metaphysical, truth claim that just happens to mandate the truth of evolution here, (3) making the grossly false statement that the fossils themselves are a factual observation that macroevolution has occurred here and here, (4) making a series of misrepresentations by carefully selecting the evidence to provide to the student and protecting it with circular reasoning here, (5) misrepresenting the molecular evidence here, (6) presenting the student with a blatantly false history of evolutionary theory here and (7) introducing the usual if-and-only-if evolutionary reasoning here.
Johnson and Losos’ next move is to make what is probably the most enduring and powerful metaphysical proof for evolution: biology’s bad designs would not have been intended. In a rebuke to the intelligent design argument, they write:
As you can see in the blown-up image in figure 17.9, the receptor cells are actually facing backward to the stimulus (light). No intelligent designer would design an eye backwards! [302]
Although this non scientific mandate for naturalism goes back to antiquity, it was particularly strong in the early days of modern science leading into the Enlightenment. Theologians and philosophers led the way, but early scientists also agreed. They were on the continent as well as in Britain, including Lutherans, Roman Catholics and Anglicans. By the nineteenth century the reasoning was often accepted with little question.
Darwin’s book was full of arguments from bad design. They were the powerful arguments for his theory. People who do not share the premise (that a bad design would not have been intended) fail to appreciate the power of the argument. The premise does not sway them, so they have difficulty understanding the point. The key here is to assume the evolutionary perspective. Pretend you are an evolutionist for a moment. Pretend you genuinely believe the premise: a bad design would not have been intended.
The argument then becomes clear. And its power is obvious. If you believe in this metaphysical premise, then of course, some sort of evolution must be true. As Darwin argued in his book:
We cannot believe, that the similar bones in the arm of the monkey, in the fore-leg of the horse, in the wing of the bat, and in the flipper of the seal, are of special use to these animals. We may safely attribute these structures to inheritance.
QED: evolution must be true. Bad designs, inefficient designs, even designs not of "special use" must not have been intended—they must have evolved. We may not understand how it occurred (the theory), but we know that it did occur (the fact). As Stephen Jay Gould more recently put it:
Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce. No one understood this better than Darwin. Ernst Mayr has shown how Darwin, in defending evolution, consistently turned to organic parts and geographic distributions that make the least sense.
Our textbook authors could not have demonstrated evolutionary thinking any more clearly. If a designer—who is capable of designing the vast and complicated biological world—would never have designed our backward receptor cells, then of course evolution is a no-brainer. It must be a fact, one way or another.
Evolution is at bottom a non scientific, religious, theory. It states that new forms emerge from biological variation undergoing natural selection—an idea that repeatedly has failed on the empirical science. But no matter, it must be true. Religion drives science, and it matters."
Posted by Cornelius Hunter at Tuesday, November 09, 2010
Note: Thanks also goes goes to uncommondescent for the article and link.
-Rob
Back online!
After a good long while of being offline I am finally back online everybody!!
Thanks goes to my friend Darren for fixing my PC
after the Hard Drive crashed..
He works at the Blue Island Library in IL.
I hope you all had a good and safe halloween and
please bookmark this site and drop by as I will try and update it everyday!
Thanks and God bless ;)
Thanks goes to my friend Darren for fixing my PC
after the Hard Drive crashed..
He works at the Blue Island Library in IL.
I hope you all had a good and safe halloween and
please bookmark this site and drop by as I will try and update it everyday!
Thanks and God bless ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)