The logic of lawyers
Barry Arrington is a lawyer from Colorado [Encyclopedia of American Loons]. Here's an example of the logic of lawyers posted on Uncommon Descent [Not Merely False].
The following statements are so obvious as to be considered truisms.
1. The primordial datum: I am subjectively self-aware.
2. It is not possible even in principle to account for mental facts, such as the primordial datum, on the basis of physical facts. They are different sorts of things; therefore one cannot account for the other. Trying to account for subjective self-awareness by suggesting it is an epiphenomenon of the electro-chemical process of the brain is like saying the color blue can be reduced to its constituent banana peels.
3. It follows that a reductionist materialism is not merely false but obviously false.
4. Just as obviously, it does not follow that committed materialists will admit that reductionist materialism is false, for they have reasons to put their faith in their metaphysical commitments that have nothing to do with the evidence and logic of the matter.
I would not want him to defend me if I were innocent. On the other hand, he might be a good choice if I were guilty because I could easily fool him into thinking that I was innocent.
217 comments :
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 217 of 217Allan. Sigh.
Sorry about the typo. I have been overwhelmed with work and have been rushing my answers.
On your bike, Gary. The fact that my paper was published in 2004 (OMFG!) and yours in 2013 is immaterial. All your paper adds to knowledge on the matter is a single case study and a repeat of speculations that date back to the 1970's. There is no population biology offered.
The problem is in part the logical construct of Darwinian Theory, which leads to contradictory findings that allow you to cherry pick the research papers that support the conclusion you wanted. You are now doing that, in order to to try stopping a systematic based theory that now requires you to demonstrate that 46 chromosome humans are fully reproductively viable with 48 chromosome great apes.
I posted there a couple of months ago, but got tired soon. They didn't block me; I just stopped visiting UD.
"However, at least one of the tests of General Relative is pretty straight forward, namely the deflection of light passing near the Sun during a total eclipse.". In practice this is beyond non scientists. The deflection is tiny - 0.000486 degrees. This is about one thousandth of the angular diameter of the moon. (apologies if there errors in my calculation).
Gary, if I was cherry-picking, you could simply cite the papers I'm supposedly ignoring. I've addressed your 44-chromosome man case. Any more?
The chromosomal speciation theory makes specific 'predictions' about what we should find in genomes should it have been operational in a particular case (noting the application of 'prediction' - if X were true, one would expect Y). It has particular population genetic problems to overcome in an obligately outcrossing species. I have cited a paper that tests those predictions, and finds them unsupported in this case. If you have contrary papers - the twigs from among which I supposedly picked the cherries - let's see 'em.
So far, you've simply clung to a single case study of a 44-chromosome individual (who is NOT, we should note, the 46-chromosome individual you invoke at the putative species boundary, but someone completely different with a completely different translocation), and some speculations by people who appear as unaware of the population biology as you. At this point, your crankiness is laid bare, since you completely fail to address the specific problems raised in my posts and in the cited paper, flinging instead unsupported (and ungracious) accusations of 'cherry-picking'. You've simply decided that chromosome speciation is the primary reason for the human/chimp split vis a vis Chromosome 2, and I doubt that anything will disabuse you of your fondly-held notion. But you've offered no evidence, and failed to address counter-arguments.
Allan said: "You've simply decided that chromosome speciation is the primary reason for the human/chimp split vis a vis Chromosome 2, and I doubt that anything will disabuse you of your fondly-held notion.
What "human/chimp split"?
That is clearly not what I nor the theory explains. Chimps?
And with the way I carefully worded/qualified the paragraph the debate over "chromosome speciation" does not even matter to the fate of Chromosomal Adam and Eve, or the theory.
Our human genome design has an easily recognized "signature" in the phylogenetic data where the most obvious feature was produced by a chromosomal fusion/rearrangement speciation event through a progeny born to 48 then 47 chromosome ancestors who were not of the chimpanzee design, they were protohumans. Without our unique chromosome design being expressed they were not yet systematically human. Therefore where fully "human" is operationally defined as a 46 chromosome ancestor from our lineage (the result of chromosome fusion speciation) there is the genetic signature of a man and a woman progenitor couple expressing the new human design who deserve the colloquial name of Chromosomal Adam and Eve, whose descendants preferred to be with their own kind, through time, all the way from them to us..
And hopefully you noticed that the only statement that must remain true for Chromosomal Adam and Eve to exist is this one, while all the rest that predicts it was a species changing event can be removed from the paragraph:
Our human genome design has an easily recognized "signature" in the phylogenetic data [46 chromosome from 48 via fusion].
Crackpot theory: 1. any theory that puts a kink in your worldview 2.. any theory that Sandwalk, PT, and TSZ just don't like very well. 3. any theory that didn't juggle, tap dance, lap dance, or sing karaoke in front of ....The Panel.
@ Acartia Tonsa,
Guys at "After the Bar Closes" have mentioned you in dispatches. They'd be interested in your deleted comments if you kept copies. There's a dedicated thread for the banned.
And hopefully you noticed that the only statement that must remain true for Chromosomal Adam and Eve to exist is this one, while all the rest that predicts it was a species changing event can be removed from the paragraph:
All I notice is that you still don't get it. Coalescence must be upon a single fusion chromosome copy in one male-or-female individual. A population of heterozygotes can arise that will, for the fusion chromosome, trace their ancestry back to that individual. Its Adamness/Eveness is indeterminate, and there's only one of 'em. With increasing frequency, many different homozygotes will be produced to heterozygous parents before the fusion is fixed - both males and females. None of them is a founder, merely a carrier. They pass on a single copy, not the pair, to any individual offspring. Until fixation, descendants of a homozygote can be 46, 47 or 48 - ie, 'human', 'proto-human' and 'ape' according to your arbitrary classification. How do you get a 48-chromosomed descendant of a 46-chromosomed individual without intervening breakage? Think about it. Either way, there's no Adam/Eve concept for autosomes or the X.
Anyway, the thread has gone over 200, a sure sign that someone doesn't know when to let go. I'm uncomfortably aware that that someone is frequently me, so this will be my last word.
It gets even better:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/how-to-get-banned-from-ud-be-a-troll/
And before Barry deletes my next response, here it is:
"Barry, now who is being disingenuous? In my previous incarnation (acartia_bogart) I criticized Mung, Quereus and others. In none of these did I call people morons, idiots, liars, or worse. Yet I have been called this and worse by the very same people. Yet they are still honoured citizens of UD.
But I make a few comments critical of you (none as abusive as the ones directed at me) and I am banned. And rather than leave up the comments that resulted in my bannisment, so that others can judge your decision, they are removed.
So, please tell us again how your rules for excile are not personally and ideologically based.
Not that I expect this comment to remain, or my comment status to be retained. But at least this will be confirmation to me, and the few that read this before you take it down, that I am correct.
To be followed shortly by: "Acartia, you are such a cry baby"
I just came across an article that some of you may find interesting. It's about consciousness, self-awareness, etc. Notice the part about "Cotard’s delusion".
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/what-neuroscience-artificial-intelligence-teach-about-consciousness/
(FYI the commenter Louis Savain is Mapou at UD)
a neat article in the latest New Scentist on consciousness being a "fourth state of matter"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229645.000?cmpid=EMP|NSNS|2014-2309-GLOBAL-septwk3|conscious&utm_medium=EMP&utm_source=NSNS&utm_campaign=septwk3&utm_content=conscious&
I managed to find an online discussion: http://currenteventsii.yuku.com/topic/22728/The-fourth-state-of-matter-Consciousness
Sounds very Deepak to me.
The latest salvo fro Barry:
Barry @11: “Now I understand the basis of your belief that ID is religiously based. The essence of your belief is a cynical and uncharitable refusal to take people at their word. OK, you are entitled to be cynical and uncharitable. No law against that.”
Followed almost immediately by:
Barry: “Blasphemy crosses the line. Graham2 is no longer with us.” (your bolder text, not mine).
I guess there is a law against it. It has been nice knowing you G2.
So, Barry, please explain to me again how my view that ID is a religious doctrine is “cynical and uncharitable “?
Apparently I have now ranked with the few who Barry deems it necessary to draft an UD OP about.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ws-wants-to-know-why-he-is-cynical-and-uncharitable-a-tutorial/
I guess that I should be flattered. But, as is par for the course, he quotes me out of context. I was critical of my perception that ID was essentially a religious doctrine.
The chronology is rather humorous.
Post a Comment