tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post5930259117774719859..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: The Evolution of GodLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65959425616860132052009-08-29T23:35:12.084-04:002009-08-29T23:35:12.084-04:00"You missed out 'spineless' in there,..."You missed out 'spineless' in there, I think."<br /><br />I think "Jellyfish" has that covered.William Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16186865822278876087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59855045875173164322009-08-26T11:44:58.478-04:002009-08-26T11:44:58.478-04:00I think Wright and most of his critics may be miss...I think Wright and most of his critics may be missing an important point. Human history has a memory and human beings learn (fitfully) from the past and adventurers and reformers and politicians are always looking for what works for them. Religion is many things, but it is ALSO part of someone's attempt to grab power, organize society and win political battles. THAT function is what drives the prominence of evangelical Christianity and Jihadi Islam and Zionism and Hindu fascism. EVERYONE is not in on the scam, but very definitely there are people using it for their very concrete political ends and they dont give a damn about what philosophical position their theologians use...any position that works will do. It just so happens that a sort of interventionist, fundamentalist position works more effectively than the deist nonsense..on the other hand, maybe the deist nonsense is also being promoted for exactly the same reason: as a position which helps a different group of people with a different political agenda (more liberal, still political).omar alinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42049585521893646492009-08-26T05:10:26.853-04:002009-08-26T05:10:26.853-04:00And yet, when I make the same point, I am a Chambe...<i>And yet, when I make the same point, I am a Chamberlainist Weak-kneed Jellyfish Accommodationist.</i> <br /><br />You missed out 'spineless' in there, I think.<br /><br />This being opposed to the Churchillian straight-backed octopodean exclusivism of Larry and PZ.<br /><br />Churchill, of course, could never have written anything like:<br /><br /><i>One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.</i><br /><br />or:<br /><br /><i>I have always said that if Great Britain were defeated in war I hoped we should find a Hitler to lead us back to our rightful position among the nations.</i>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-610167942444128972009-08-25T15:07:50.007-04:002009-08-25T15:07:50.007-04:00http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/08/autism_q...http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/08/autism_quackery_at_the_university_of_tor.php<br /><br />Just a heads up. There's going to be an anti-vaccine conference at the UoT on Oct. 31st. You should do something about it.will mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298275783374042653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67330093137170350952009-08-25T15:06:17.579-04:002009-08-25T15:06:17.579-04:00Dawkins is perhaps not as much of an adaptionist a...Dawkins is perhaps not as much of an adaptionist as we think he is. In his new book at one point he clearly says this.<br /><br /><i>When you notice a characteristic of an animal and ask what its Darwinian survival value is, you may be asking the wrong question. It could be that the characteristic you have picked out is not the one that matters. It may have “come along for the ride”, dragged along in evolution by some other characteristic to which it is pleiotropically linked. </i><br /><br />http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article6808173.eceWavefunctionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75496899337676195102009-08-25T13:04:31.808-04:002009-08-25T13:04:31.808-04:00John Wilkins says,
And yet, when I make the same ...John Wilkins says,<br /><br /><i>And yet, when I make the same point, I am a Chamberlainist Weak-kneed Jellyfish Accommodationist.</i><br><br>So, what's your point? :-)<br><br>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91539592776006317012009-08-25T10:40:22.001-04:002009-08-25T10:40:22.001-04:00I'm not sure I would agree with the idea that ...I'm not sure I would agree with the idea that the universe is very old - in regards the production of intelligent life.<br />I think we can agree that the evolution of intelligent life probably occurs through evolutionary processes acting on biochemical agents. In order to have sufficiently complicated biochemistry then you need sufficient elements. This wasn't the case in the first few billion years of the universe until enough supernovae had exploded and seeded the galaxy with heavier elements.<br />Perhaps it is only in the past few billion years that life itself became possible anywhere in the universe rather than the full 14 billion years of history.Sigmundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00262375488263086844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25011745857861591332009-08-25T10:25:06.529-04:002009-08-25T10:25:06.529-04:00There is one piece of evidence that this is the ca...<i>There is one piece of evidence that this is the case in that if alien conscious life had the ability to develop interstellar travel then they would rapidly (even at todays theoretical speed limits) be able to visit and colonize the entire galaxy (even with robots). There is no evidence of such colonization so perhaps these superintelligent aliens dont exist in our galaxy.</i><br /><br />Or maybe it is the case that intelligent life has such a short-term evolutionary advantage over the rest of the species on its planet that it tends to self-destruct before it ever gets to the interstellar flight stage. Or shortly after that. The universe is not only very big, it is also very old, and to assume that because we see no colonization going on today, there has been none in the past and there will be none in the future. In other words, this is to think that all intelligent life in the universe/galaxy must evolve at the same time or, once it evolves, it will continue to exist indefinitely. Not likely IMO.<br /><br />Anyway, these are just speculations, we have zero reliable data on the subject.Georgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78634085696900881432009-08-25T09:44:00.552-04:002009-08-25T09:44:00.552-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Sigmundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00262375488263086844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23645374877416481292009-08-25T09:43:49.619-04:002009-08-25T09:43:49.619-04:00I think the chances of life developing elsewhere a...I think the chances of life developing elsewhere are high - it seemed to start on Earth very soon after cooling had occurred which suggests that so long as your planet is in the right place relative to your average sun-like star then life will begin.<br />What is not obvious is that conscious 'thinking' life is inevitable on the planets that do develop life. They might simply contain something akin to algae for billions of years before they are snuffed out by the death of their star.<br />That is not to say that we are likely to be the only conscious beings, just that the vast majority of planets that do have life (I presume there are many) are very unlikely to go on to develop conscious life (the one in a thousand figure doesn't sound out of the question).<br />There is one piece of evidence that this is the case in that if alien conscious life had the ability to develop interstellar travel then they would rapidly (even at todays theoretical speed limits) be able to visit and colonize the entire galaxy (even with robots). There is no evidence of such colonization so perhaps these superintelligent aliens dont exist in our galaxy.Sigmundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00262375488263086844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76444734311415817712009-08-25T09:28:58.953-04:002009-08-25T09:28:58.953-04:00but do we really have to look for an exact duplica...but do we really have to look for an exact duplicate of us? With vastness of the universe, isn't it that the statistical probability of an event that occurred here possibly happened elsewhere (or will happen) is very high?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39291482581583461052009-08-25T09:14:27.791-04:002009-08-25T09:14:27.791-04:00"-- and why not? i mean whats the basis"..."-- and why not? i mean whats the basis"<br />It occurred only once in 4 billion years of life on Earth. Unless there is a pretty good chance that lots of other planets have conditions that would sustain life for as long or longer than Earths it makes it unlikely that the life they contain will have human level consciousness.<br />We are in a rather stable part of the universe. If the conditions for life only lasted three billion years before a nearby supernova blew up or some other planet sterilizing thing occurred then no conscious life would have developed here.<br />As for Larry's deistic statement its not the first time he's made it. He certainly said as much on the recent podcast interview he linked to here.Sigmundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00262375488263086844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41046229088510690142009-08-25T08:31:29.879-04:002009-08-25T08:31:29.879-04:00Because it happened ~0 times here. Sum up the numb...<i>Because it happened ~0 times here. Sum up the number of species that did not, and it is a insignificantly rare event. </i><br /><br />We´re not talking species. We´re talking planets.<br />Also, it doesn´t have to be a necessary outcome, just a plausible one. A fair number of complex organisms is a statistically plausible outcome if you have millions of species, even if complexity is not adaptive per se. Is it unlikely that some will be sentient and have morality?Corneelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02884855837357720225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41009465716650645182009-08-25T02:31:20.999-04:002009-08-25T02:31:20.999-04:00arvinsign said...
-- and why not? i mean whats th...arvinsign said...<br /><i> -- and why not? i mean whats the basis</i><br /><br />Because it happened ~0 times here. Sum up the number of species that did not, and <i>it</i> is a insignificantly rare event. <br /><br />Most of life happily exists in <i>it's</i> absence. So why is <i>it</i> a necessary outcome? We as humans seem to be obsessed with <i>it</i> only because it is arguably the only trait left that makes us fee superior to the rest of life.The Other Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17570666738076378921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78495655705493328532009-08-25T01:47:13.845-04:002009-08-25T01:47:13.845-04:00"I suspect that if we looked at a thousand pl..."I suspect that if we looked at a thousand planets with life we wouldn't see another example. "<br /><br />-- and why not? i mean whats the basisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17313248517705176502009-08-25T00:20:12.962-04:002009-08-25T00:20:12.962-04:00And yet, when I make the same point, I am a Chambe...And yet, when I make the same point, I am a Chamberlainist Weak-kneed Jellyfish Accommodationist.John S. Wilkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04417266986565803683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80905561868296688452009-08-25T00:10:52.644-04:002009-08-25T00:10:52.644-04:00You guys are overreacting. Larry has consistently ...You guys are overreacting. Larry has consistently repeated on several occasions that he thought deism was "compatible" with science - not that he actually believes in it, or that you should. He's the same stubborn physicalist curmudgeon that he's always been.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17463119685735344142009-08-24T23:29:05.374-04:002009-08-24T23:29:05.374-04:00(darshanchande@gmail.com)
Hello friend,
My name ...(darshanchande@gmail.com)<br /><br />Hello friend,<br /><br />My name is Darshan and I am the author of a delicious GK blog The SciTech Journal <br /><br />(http://thescitechjournal.blogspot.com/) I find your blog interesting and hence this idea <br /><br />hit upon my mind: Are you interested in putting our links on each other's blogs? My blog <br /><br />The SciTech Journal, you see, is unique one and holds good potential. I have already put <br /><br />your blog link in my blog roll and in return you do the same for me on yours. In addition <br /><br />to getting us some additional visits it might add value to our visitors as both our blogs <br /><br />are rich with unique content. <br /><br />Write to me if you think the same way about it :)<br /><br />Thanks and best regards,<br />Darshan ChandeDarshan Chandehttp://thescitechjournal.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23360168423635214192009-08-24T21:29:08.152-04:002009-08-24T21:29:08.152-04:00quote mining time
"I'm willing to accept...quote mining time<br /><br />"I'm willing to accept that biological science is more or less compatible with the existence of a supernatural being who created life on Earth... according to the standard rules of physics and chemistry."billybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39176671465100135352009-08-24T21:27:58.779-04:002009-08-24T21:27:58.779-04:00Even so, that's more concession to accommodati...Even so, that's more concession to accommodationism than Larry has ever admitted before. Something must be in the Toronto water supply.<br /><br />He is also correct that the focus on adaptation is a symptom of design thinking. It's a holdover from natural theology, and one of the worst exemplars of this is Dawkins, who, I am convinced, is a natural atheologian.John S. Wilkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04417266986565803683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21890978004264712242009-08-24T21:17:39.323-04:002009-08-24T21:17:39.323-04:00What's up with this? I can't believe I'...<i>What's up with this? I can't believe I'm reading this. I can't believe Larry Moran made this statement.</i><br /><br />I'm not Larry, but I'll point out that it's compatible in the weak sense of not contradicting any scientifically well-established facts, and possibly non-falsifiable. You can always find some gap to hide a deity in, if you're not actually trying to use him to explain anything.Eamon Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262012749524758120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72203728157892808462009-08-24T19:14:49.749-04:002009-08-24T19:14:49.749-04:00Larry Moran said
"However, I'm willing t...Larry Moran said<br /><br />"However, I'm willing to accept that biological science is more or less compatible with the existence of a supernatural being who created life on Earth and then stepped back to let history play out according to the standard rules of physics and chemistry."<br /><br />What's up with this? I can't believe I'm reading this. I can't believe Larry Moran made this statement.Veronica Abbasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07037599323472646996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50318600541546659382009-08-24T19:11:59.595-04:002009-08-24T19:11:59.595-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Veronica Abbasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07037599323472646996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-1542853156513294832009-08-24T17:22:56.353-04:002009-08-24T17:22:56.353-04:00I don't know what to think about Wright. So if...I don't know what to think about Wright. So if his name comes up, I just call him a weirdo and consider my views adequately stated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84971810013707434182009-08-24T16:11:38.069-04:002009-08-24T16:11:38.069-04:00I think biophilia is hard-wired into almost all or...I think biophilia is hard-wired into almost all organisms. Whether they have an awareness of this fact or not.Baymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03436172198266062229noreply@blogger.com