Comments for Welcome to morethanthesum.com

Comment on Atheist? Religious? Either way, science can’t help. by admin

admin — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 00:19:46 +0000

Thanks Jack! I’m discovering that many of the responses I’m getting are actually from spammers trying to sell stuff from wherever they can and I’m now marking them as such to keep them away. But it’s great to get thoughtful comments from you (and so far Mishtu, and a few others) for all the world to read. I hope to get more good responses. Still, there are probably more readers at this early stage than the audience for the average scientific journal, and no snarky editors guarding their turf (except perhaps me!) -DD

Comment on Atheist? Religious? Either way, science can’t help. by Jack Maze

Jack Maze — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 23:56:59 +0000

Kali’s right, science can do nothing for religion nor can religion do anything for science. And if I were really pressed, I’d say that trying to use science to justify religion cheapens the religion, just as using religion to justify science cheapens the science. I have a comment on Intelligent Deign. It is a “God of the gaps” argument; when science is inadequate, you stick in God. But what happens when science plugs the gap? You are put in the position of dismissing God. I will not claim to be theologically sophisticated or particularly devout, but if you’re a serious monotheist, you do not, that’s DO NOT, dismiss God. That’s blasphemous, idolatry and ends up elevating humans to the level of God, which violates the first commandment. And what is ironic is that the defenders of the evolutionary faith haven’t figured this out yet.

Comment on Evolution of altruism by admin

admin — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 03:35:20 +0000

I’m a newbie, or maybe a neophyte (that’s a young plant – a botany joke) as far as blogging goes (I’m not yet sure what’s spam and what’s not), but in terms of the science and evolution, etc. I’m more of an oldie. Sure, you can quote any of my stuff as long as you give me credit – a link to my website would be just the thing to provide!

Comment on Everything isn’t a business by admin

admin — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:29:02 +0000

Governments aren’t businesses! Governments exist to care for the citizens they represent. Businesses exist to make money, and because of that goal they are often far less efficient than representative governments when it comes to governing! I hope Sweden doesn’t let the lying banksters steal everything they can get away with from the Swedish people – that’s what the too-rich plan to do if they can. Some of us Americans happily refer to ourselves as “liberal progressive democratic socialists” (liberal in the social sense, not neo-liberal as in the nasty “free market” sense) – we look to Sweden as an intelligent country that hasn’t (yet!) been fooled by the thieves – don’t fall for the lies!

Comment on Doesn’t it seem political? by admin

admin — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:17:24 +0000

Thanks for your comment! The “neo” in neo-Darwinian refers to genetics – in Darwin’s day quite a lot was understood about inheritance, but not very much about genes or DNA. Neo-Darwinian theory, also known as the “New Synthesis” came along in the 1950s, after Watson and Crick figured out the chemical structure of DNA. Once we discovered a little part of genetic information – that three nucleic acids often provide the information for an amino acid, and from there proteins (including enzymes) can be produced, we thought we had it all figured out. But then we started finding all these other bits of DNA we didn’t understand…and there we still are. Did you read the summary chapters of my book proposal? I’m trying to explain the parts of an alternate theory of evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics (Prigogine’s version), a theory that has been ignored for almost 30 years, though in my opinion it is vastly superior. Of course organisms are adapted! There are no such things as non-adapted organisms – this makes adaptation a conditional statement, not a causal force – to have it both ways takes you into a circular argument. I think it was Waddington who pointed out that if adaptation was all there is to it, nothing would have evolved beyond bacteria, the most perfectly adapted organisms. So, why is increasing complexity a characteristic of evolving life?

Comment on Doesn’t it seem political? by Dennis Nilsson from Sweden

Dennis Nilsson from Sweden — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 09:45:17 +0000

My understanding is that Darwin wasn’t more “neo” than you are. His theory should be read that the most adaptable individuals should be able to reproduce.

That isn’t the same thing as “struggle and competition and fitness”. That’s only what some of us powerhungry humans want’s to hear.

You could be strong, but if you couldn’t adapt you are lost.
The life on Earth tell us also that it’s only the most adaptable who wins.

Comment on Everything isn’t a business by Dennis Nilsson

Dennis Nilsson — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 09:13:00 +0000

Very funny!! :-/

Our politicians, here in Sweden, has gone crazy. They want us now to “copycat” the U.S “business-situation” you are describing.

Comment on A little bit of physics envy, perhaps by admin

admin — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 21:36:42 +0000

Ok, but let’s have some details! That’s not much of a rebuttal, Buddy! So, you don’t think physicists are more open-minded about what may (or may not) be the properties of the universe than biologists are about the causes of evolution? And why is this…?

Comment on What’s wrong with being a theory? by admin

admin — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 22:06:56 +0000

Hey Mishtu!
I can’t remember if I mentioned I was planning to get a blog going, but you found it. Thanks for commenting! Not much on here yet, but I hope to have more pieces of the book done soon (in between job searches), then I have some ideas about promoting it.

Semmelweis kept observing the same high death rate and testing every hypothesis he could think of until he ran out of ideas…and then his colleague got stabbed… It seems to me observation can be used to test a theory, but it’s also the source of the inductive flash-in-the-pan new theory – another one of those yin and yang things.

I think the neo-Darwinians are foolishly calling their theory a fact because they don’t want it questioned – most of the time they can get compliance, especially because the IDers are even crazier than the Darwinians, but this misleads people. Apparently, they don’t care. I was thinking I need a last chapter – probably to be called Guerrilla Science – sort of what we’re forced to do to get around the gatekeepers – unfortunately, these include not only IDers, but Dawkins, EO Wilson, et al.

Hope things are good with you!
-DD (aka “admin”)

Comment on What’s wrong with being a theory? by Mishtu Banerjee

Mishtu Banerjee — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 08:20:13 +0000

I think Darwin once said something like, “all observation is for or against some theory”. If it’s good to believe 5 impossible things each day, it’s probably equally good to doubt 5 commonly known facts each day. Skeptism about facts, it part and parcel of scientific practice. I’m comfortable with evolution being a theory, one supported by a great deal of observation. But it only retains its status as a scientific theory as long as it is subject to scrutiny. The big bang theory is … a theory. People do not refer to it as the big bang fact. The fact that the big bang theory is a theory does not lower it’s status some how so that undergrad programs are pressured into giving “equal time” to some alternative theory on the origins of the universe, say the turtles on the backs of turtles theory. Unfortunately undergrad programs ARE pressured in parts of the US to give equal time to Intelligent Design. That evolution as a theory continues to generate new ideas and sub-theories about specific mechanisms only adds to its strength over time — and that’s a fact ;-}