The figure on the right has been circulating on Facebook. It suggests that philosophers in the Philosophy of Science are perplexed about the nature of reality. Some might actually believe that reality doesn't exist.
The diagram evokes the memory of undergraduate debates about whether that chair actually exists or whether we live in the matrix. These debates seem silly on the surface but they are actually very important in classes devoted to logic and critical thinking. They provide real experience in thinking.
My son, Gord, and his friends Colby Young, David Lam, and Sean Hoyle [The Dev Team] formed IronOak Games. Their first game will be "For The King" and they need money to pay for development. I am shamelessly1 promoting their Kickstarter campaign at: Kickstarter - For The King.
I'm buying a university and a professor-sage character who gives players advice on how to win the game. Ms. Sandwalk is buying a village fair with a princess who lets you win valuable prizes in the midway games.
For only $50 you can name a ghost after yourself or your favorite creationist! And for $175 you can become a dead adventurer or name one after Richard Dawkins or Stephen Jay Gould! For $500 you can become a Scourge in the game. This is ideal for the trolls who infest Sandwalk.
$15 - TRAVELER
+Digital Copy of the Game (Includes Early Access on Steam, PC or Mac)
$20 - QUEST RUNNER
+Closed Beta Access
+Backer Forum/Poll Access
+KS Exclusive PC and Phone Wallpapers
+Digital Copy of the Game (Includes Early Access on Steam, PC or Mac)
$25 - ADVENTURER (EARLY BIRD) Limited reward (250 left of 250)
-Get everything from the Adventurer Tier below at a discounted price!
$30 - ADVENTURER
Includes all rewards from the tiers below plus:
+KS Exclusive In-Game Hat Skins for each of the main characters
+Your name in credits
+Digital "Illustrated Adventuring Guide" An experienced adventurer never leaves home without their favorite hat. Unlock hats for each of the main characters so you can adventure in style.
$40 - BANSHEE (EARLY BIRD) Limited reward (100 left of 100)
-Get all the Banshee level rewards at a discounted price
$50 - BANSHEE
Includes all rewards from the tiers below plus:
+A ghost named after you in game!
+A digital print of the lore page for your ghost
+Original soundtrack by John Matz as digital download Your body is no more, but your spirit lives on! Your ghost will appear near the graveyard as an enemy (with your name) which players can encounter and fight
$70 - WRAITH
Includes all rewards from the tiers below plus:
+Upgrade your in-game ghost to a Wraith
+A digital print of the lore page for your Wraith
+An exclusive KS BackPack skin for your characters Be directly responsible for even more carnage and suffering by being able to attach your name to a powerful Wraith that roams the areas surrounding the graveyard and places deep underground.
$80 - LET'S GET PHYSICAL! (EARLY BIRD) Limited reward (25 left of 25)
+Get the rewards of the Let's Get Physical Tier at a discounted rate!
$95 - LET'S GET PHYSICAL!
Includes all rewards from the tiers below plus:
+Physical "Illustrated Adventuring Guide"
+For The King or IronOak T-Shirt (Your choice)
-Shipping included for anywhere in US or Canada
-Please add $20 for shipping to other countries
$125 - DESIGNER - BLACKSMITH Limited reward (30 left of 30)
Includes all rewards from the tiers below plus:
+Design an in game item, weapon, or armor piece.
+Receive a one of a kind physical print of your item in a lore page style
+Designer Credit
-Shipping included for anywhere in US or Canada
-Please add $20 for shipping to other countries Work with the design team to create an actual item that will appear in the game. Choose between a weapon, helmet, herb, or other trinket. Describe it's appearance and positive/negative effects!
$175 - DESIGNER - REAPER Limited reward (25 left of 25)
Includes all rewards from the non-designer tiers below plus:
+Become a dead adventurer whose body can be found in game.
+Receive a one of a kind digital print of your dead body in a lore page style.
+Designer credit
-Shipping included for anywhere in US or Canada
-Please add $20 for shipping to other countries Your quest has come to an untimely end but you can still serve the king. Choose how you died, your appearance and name, and what you may have been carrying for other more fortunate adventurers to find.
$250 - FOR THE KING! - NO PHYSICAL
Includes all rewards from one of the designer tiers below plus:
+Includes 2 additional digital copies of For The King (3 total)
+Receive any future For The King DLC, Expansions, or Add-Ons for free
+Choose to design an in game item or dead adventurer (see designer tiers for more details, no physical print)
+Special Executive Producer Credit Great for international supporters, no shipping costs. Bring along your friends with a total of 3 copies for the ultimate cooperative adventure with free DLC forever on all 3 games. Plus you get to choose to design an in game item or dead adventurer (see designer tiers for more details).
$300 - FOR THE KING!
Includes all rewards from one of the designer tiers below plus:
+Includes 2 additional digital copies of For The King (3 total)
+Receive any future For The King DLC, Expansions, or Add-Ons for free
+Choose to design an in game item or dead adventurer (see designer tiers for more details)
+Special Executive Producer Credit
-Shipping included for anywhere in US or Canada
-Please add $20 for shipping to other countries Bring along your friends with a total of 3 copies for the ultimate cooperative adventure with free DLC forever on all 3 games. Plus you get to choose to design an in game item or dead adventurer (see designer tiers for more details)
$500 - CREATOR - SCOURGE Limited reward (5 left of 5)
Includes all rewards from the non-designer tiers plus:
+Become a scourge in game!
+Receive a one of a kind physical lore page about the scourge you created!
+Special Executive Producer and Creator Credit
-Shipping included for anywhere in US or Canada
-Please add $20 for shipping to other countries If you can't beat 'em, join 'em! Work with our design team to create, design, and name a scourge, give them some wicked game altering abilities and be immortalized in game as the one everyone loathes!
$1000 - CREATOR - HERO Limited reward (5 left of 5)
Includes all rewards from the non-designer tiers plus:
+Become a playable character in game!
+Receive a one of a kind physical lore page about the character you created
+Special Executive Producer and Creator Credit
-Shipping included for anywhere in US or Canada
-Please add $20 for shipping to other countries The ultimate hero. Work with our design team to create a character's traits, appearance, class, starting items and special abilities. Immortalize yourself or just be creative. Your character will appear in game as an adventurer that everyone can play.
1. Well, maybe a little bit of shame. But what's the point of having a blog if you can't use it to help keep your son from living in our basement?
For The King is a turn based RPG that can be played solo or cooperatively online. Featuring long term strategic adventuring, turn based combat, and persistent choices, For The King aims to distill the epicness of traditional RPGs into an adventure that can be completed from beginning to end in a single session. Players must survive cunning enemies and creatures, wicked weather and brutal traps in their quest to solve the mysterious death of the king and bring order to the land.
Online Multi-Player Adventure: Embark on your own or with up to 3 people online. Travel and fight together or dare to set off on your own.
Short, Epic, Replayable: All the grandness of an epic adventure distilled into a 2 hour highly replayable game from start to finish.
Turn Based Combat: Turn based combat with unique slot and combo system, battle stances, focus points, items, and special abilities.
Strategic Procedural World: The map, realms, and locations you'll encounter will be different every play through. Every time it's a unique adventure.
Persistent Lore: Collect and research in lore to build a unique game world by unlocking special persistent game mechanics in the order of your choosing.
Day/Night Cycle: New challenges and horrors emerge at different times of day.
Persistent Weapon Crafting: Craft powerful weapons over multiple play throughs.
Dynamic Weather and Nature: Encounter weather and natural events that have a variety of effects, good and bad.
Gordon Moran1 is the artist responsible for most of the images you see in the trailer below. He did not inherit his talent from me.
This is a game for those of us who loved Hack and Rogue and don't like the modern games.
If you like the idea, get ready for the Kickstarter campaign that begins tomorrow. As soon as it starts, I'll post the link and the list of rewards. I'll also tell you what characters Ms. Sandwalk and I are buying. You will get to see them when you play the game.
If you give enough money you may be able to name an evil character. Wouldn't it be fun to battle "Casey Luskin" or Jonathan Wells"?
1. He is my son. I have a personal interest in promoting this game. I don't want him moving into the basement. Just so you know.
3 Quarks Daily is running their annual contest to pick the best blog posts in the past year. The finalists will be picked by popular vote and the winner will be selected from the finalists by Nick Lane. You can review the rules at: Nick Lane to Judge 6th Annual 3QD Science Prize.
The formal description of the prize is "6th annual prize for the best blog and online-only writing in the category of science." This is important because although the rules refer to "blog posts" and "blog entries" it's clear that most of the nominees are more like online poplar science articles than typical blog posts.
I recently stumbled on a paper with an intriguing title" "Sixty years of genome biology" (Doolittle et al., 2013). It celebrates the 60th anniversary of the Watson & Crick paper on the structure of DNA. The editors of Genome Biology describe key advances in genome biology.
Introns
Several editors (Graveley, Ule, Henikoff, Doolittle) said that the discovery of "genes in pieces" was a very significant advance in genome biology in the past sixty years. You can't argue with that.
Restriction Mapping
George Weinstock counts restriction mapping as a key advance. I understand his point since the development of restriction mapping gave us maps of the actual structure of the genome for the first time (genetic maps are imprecise and depend on the presence of mutations).
A new regulatory paradigm: micoRNA
John Rinn, who coincidentally works on small RNAs thinks this is a significant advance in genomics. I don't agree.
The original 'data explosion': microarrays
Alicia Oshlack is an astrophysicist who got into genomics through bioinformatics and the analysis of microarray data. Microarrays are important in genomics and should be included in any list of significant advances as long as the list includes technological advances.
Michael Schatz says, "The most significant advance in genome biology since 25 April 1953 has been the rise of large-scale DNA sequencing ...." He is correct, if technologies are to be included in the list.
'Sequence is power': the human and mouse genome projects
Chris Ponting, Mark Gerstein, and Peter Fraser think that the publication of the human genome sequence is the most significant advance in genome biology. I suppose it depends on what you want to know about genomes. If your focus is on humans and medicine then, obviously, the sequence of the human genome is important. I thought the sequences of the yeast, nematode, and Drosophila genomes were pretty exciting and so were the sequences of bacterial genomes.
Retelling the human story: analysis of ancient and historical DNA
The is Detlef Weigel's contribution.
The exception to the rule: lateral gene transfer
Curtis Huttenhower thinks that the discovery of lateral gene transfer is "one of the most remarkable [discoveries] in the history of genome biology."
Nobody mentioned junk DNA and the resolution of the C-value paradox. Nobody mentioned the small number of genes in the human genome in spite of the fact that a great many articles begin with the claim that this was a shocking discovery [but see False History and the Number of Genes]. Jernej Ule mentioned alternative splicing but nobody else did in spite of the fact that many papers claim that most human genes are capable of making several different proteins. This is also a false claim, IMHO, but you'd never know that from reading the journal. Peter Fraser was the only one who mentioned the vast regulatory network of enhancers as claimed by the ENCODE Consortium. If true, that would clearly count as a major discovery. (It's not true.) Eukaryotic genomes are chock full of defective transposons but none of the editors thought that was a key advance in our understanding of the genome.
Doolittle, W.F., Fraser, P., Gerstein, M.B., Graveley, B.R., Henikoff, S., Huttenhower, C., Oshlack, A., Ponting, C.P., Rinn, J.L., Schatz, M., Ule, J., Weigel, D., and Weinstock, G.M. (2013) Sixty years of genome biology. Genome Biol, 14(4), 113. [doi: 10.1186/gb-2013-14-4-113]
Eukaryotes are the descendants of a fusion event where a primitive archaebacterium fused with a primitive alphaproteobacterium. Over time, the genome of the alphaproteobacterium became reduced as many of its genes were transferred to the genome of the other partner. Today, the remnant of the alphaproteobacterium is the mitochondrion and the remnant of the archaebacterium has become the nucleus.
The human mitochondrial genome is a small circular genome of 16,570 ± 50 bp (Rubino et al., 2012). It contains only a few genes but it is still invading the nuclear genome. The average human genome contains about 600 fragments of mitochondrial DNA ranging in size from 30 bp to almost the full size of the mitochondrial genome (Simone et al. 2011). They are called NumtS or nuclear mitochondrial sequences. 1
Some of the genome inserts are 100% identical in sequence to the standard mitochondrial genome sequence indicating a recent colonization event. Others are as little as 63% identical, the cut-off similarity. The total amount of mitochondria-derived DNA in one individual was 627,410 bp amounting to only 0.02% of the genome (Simone et al., 2011).
Constructive Neutral Evolution (CNE) is a term that describes the evolution of complex systems by non-adaptive mechanisms. The idea (and the name) was developed by Arlin Soltzfus in 1999 (Stoltzfus, 1999) but it has antecedents in the literature and in the environment where Stoltzfus did his post-doc (Michael Gray and Ford Doolittle). It has been promoted by a number of prominent evolutionary biologists/population geneticists, notably Michael Lynch in his book The Origins of Genome architecture. Several examples have been described and discussed in the scientific literature and in popular books. For example, there is good reason to think that the evolution of the complex spliceosome that removes introns has evolved by mainly non-adaptive evolution.
Ford Doolittle and Michael Gray are fans of constructive neutral evolution. They and their collaborators wrote a review of the idea in Science (Gray et al., 2010). It has the provocative title "Irremediable Complexity." The same authors (different order) published another review the following year (Lukeš et al., 2011).
It's important to understand this concept because it challenges the idea that the evolution of complexity is adaptive and it sets the stage for challenging the idea that all adaptive structures arose exclusively by natural selection. Almost everyone who writes about constructive neutral evolution understands that it poses a problem for those who cling to adapatationist or selectionist views of evolution. It also helps us understand why the core idea behind irreducible complexity has been refuted.
I met James (Jim) Lake for the first time more than 20 years ago but I had a chance to talk to him more recently in Chicago in 2013 [People I Met in Chicago at SMBE2013].
He became famous (infamous?) for challenging the Three Domain Hypothesis of Carl Woese (and friends) and for advocating better methods of constructing gene trees. Jim Lake proposed that eukaryote nuclei arose from within the archaebacterial clade and not as a sister groups of Archaea as the Three Domain Hypothesis claimed. The sister group was the "eocytes," represented at the time by Sulfolobus solfataricus, an archaebacterium that lives in hot springs (~80°C) and uses sulfur as a source of energy.
I've had a chance to read most of Debating Darwin's Doubt and, as I mentioned earlier today, it doesn't address any of my criticisms. Here's the list of my blog posts ...
I'm really jealous because the IDiots spend a lot of time on Nick Matzke's blog post and on other posts.
I can only assume that they have no rebuttal. I know they read my blog and they should have been on the look-out for my critique in September 2013 because David Klinghoffer specifically challenged me to review Darwin's Doubt.1 [On Darwin's Doubt, Still Waiting to Hear from Big Shots in the Darwin Brigade]. Here's what he said on September 4, 2013 just before I put up those posts.
Most scientists and science lovers cannot win a debate with the best intelligent design creationists ... That's because their knowledge of science is nowhere near as good as they think it is. One of the other reasons for debating creationists on my blog is to educate the non-creationists. I spend almost as much time criticizing fellow scientists as I do attacking creationists.
For the record, I don't think that David Klinghoffer is one of the best Intelligent Design Creationists. However, I stand by that statement as long as you understand that it refers to genuine debates.
Later on in his post, Klinghoffer criticizes me for spelling Ann Gauger's name incorrectly in one of the times I referred to her in a recent post. I corrected that typo. (I accidentally wrote "Guager.")
Klinghoffer refers to me as Lawrence Moran but my first name is spelled Laurence. (He can call me "Larry" if it's too difficult to spell Laurence correctly.) I note that he also spells my first name incorrectly in Debating Darwin's Doubt. (David Klinghoffer is the editor of that book.)
Klinghoffer adds ...
Leave aside the gratuitous reference to creationism, which Moran knows perfectly well that we don't advocate [see photo above] if he reads us as regularly as he seems to do [I do read them accurately, that's the problem], and if words have any meaning [the word "creationist" has meaning and Klinghoffer is a creationist]. Give him credit, though, for accuracy on this point: Most ID critics could not stand up in an encounter with an ID advocate like Meyer. You're right! I agree. They couldn't. Could you, Dr. Moran? That's something I'd love to see.
Well, David, you just might get your chance.
As you know, I posted a number of articles critical of Stephen Meyer's book Darwin's Doubt. Now that I have a copy of the book you edited, Debating Darwin's Doubt, I'm looking forward to all the rebuttals of my arguments that you included in that book. Here are my posts, in case you forgot.
Oops, my quick scan of the book failed to find any mention of any of those blog posts! Damn. I guess Stephen Meyer and his creationist buddies are waiting for Debating Darwin's Doubt: Part Deux in order to address my criticisms. I'm a little miffed though, because the book tries to rebut other blog posts and it even addresses a different blog post of mine.
The latest issue of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B (Sept. 26, 2015) is devoted to Eukaryotic origins: progress and challenges. There are 16 articles and anyone interested in this subject has to read all of them.
Many (most) of you aren't going to do that so let me try and summarize the problem and the best current ideas on how to solve it. We begin with the introduction to the issue by the editors, Tom Williams, Martin Embley (Williams and Embly, 2015). Here's the abstract ...
A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.
Alexander PopeI've been following Angelo Grasso on Facebook because he posts a lot of biochemistry stuff. His schtick is to post some complicated pathway or structure then marvel at how complex it is and how it had to be designed. For a while I was commenting on his posts in order to show him why his interpretation was wrong or misleading but he just kept posting more examples gleaned from biochemistry textbooks.
This is a classic examples of someone who knows just enough to be dangerous. His latest post is about glycolysis and membrane-associated electron transport in animals. You can see it on the reasonandscience.heavenforum website: Glycolysis. Here's the bottom line ...
New Scientist has published a list of ten ideas that, if true, would change the way we perceive ourselves and our place in the universe [World Turned Upside Down]. I think some of them are pretty good—many of them really would have a profound effect. Of course, some of them are never going to happen and some of them are silly. One of them is already true.
Cornelius Hunter is a fellow at the Center for Science and Culture (Discovery Institute). That makes him a card-carrying Intelligent Design Creationist.
Charles Darwin presented his theory of evolution in 1859. In the century and half since then our knowledge of the life sciences has increased dramatically. We now know orders of magnitude more than Darwin and his peers knew about biology. And we can compare what science has discovered with what Darwin’s theory expects.
It is not controversial that a great many predictions made by Darwin’s theory of evolution have been found to be false. There is less consensus, however, on how to interpret these falsifications. In logic, when a hypothesis predicts or entails an observation that is discovered to be false, then the hypothesis is concluded to be false. Not so in science.
I was reminded of these "predictions" a few days ago when Casey Luskin interviewed Cornelius Hunter in ID the Future: Casey Luskin and Cornelius Hunter Discuss Darwin's Predictions. I assume that most Sandwalk readers aren't familiar with all these false predictions of Darwinism so here they are with my own brief description.
I replied to that post, quoting the Ontario curriculum and pointing out that it was pretty damn good when it comes to evolution [Teaching evolution in Ontario Schools]. The curriculum concentrates on fundamental principles of evolution as they apply to all species. It does not cover any details of the history of life per se. It doesn't specifically mention the evolution of whales, or birds, or any other lineage. It doesn't say which examples have to be included in the classroom instruction. It refers frequently to the fact that humans are not different than any other animals when it comes to biology.
