The Value And Curse Of Philosophy

A couple of us got together from richarddawkins.net last week and the value of philosophy was discussed. One of the group was skeptical (as I once was). We discussed that one of its values was to think about how consistent your thinking is and how how sound the premises are that you base that thinking on. A position is more likely to be valid if both the premises can be argued for and the argument is internally consistent. This creates a real problem for those who claim supernatural phenomena explain certain aspects of the universe and human nature. How do you make claims about the untestable. At best, a theological argument can be consistent, but its premises can not be reasonably argued for. An example of a consistent argument would be only god eats pencils, therefore anything that eats pencils is god. I went to school with a girl who ate pencils. Therefore, she is god. However, how sound are the premises such an argument is based on? How do actual claims about god differ?

Here is another consistent argument. Watch it and think about the following.

How do we know it is not the truth?

What tools do we have to investigate this?

Is it reasonable to reject this possibility?

It could be true, like a deistic world view could be true, but what evidence is their to back it up

And yes, it was the blondes that drew my attention to the video - wahey, down boy! :-)

Epidexipteryx Hui; A New Transitional Fossil

It looks like another of those pesky supposedly non existent transitional fossils that Satan buried to fool people has turned up in Inner Mongolia. The new fossil, an ancestor of birds, is described in the current issue of Nature is called Epidexipteryx hui. It is around 152-168 million years old, making it possibly older than Archaeopteryx (155 -150 million years old). Like Archaeopteryx, it is a maniraptorian dinosaur, but somewhat more primitive. However, it lacks flight feathers, but has two long pairs of long tail feathers (although simpler than modern feathers). This adds further weight to the idea that feathers evolved for purposes other than flight – perhaps display and or insulation (other parts of the body are covered in barbed hair like filaments). The feathers would then become a selectable pre-adaptation that enabled the evolution of modern avian flight.

E. hui

Bloodless Icefish Makes Creationism Look (Even More) Anaemic

Time for some more creationist bashing. I am preparing a post on the evolution of antifreeze proteins in Notothenoid fish. However, there is also something else interesting about this group.

Let’s see people draw their own conclusions.

Fact 1: All vertebrates have genes for haemoglobin (see fact 3).

Fact 2: 16 species of Notothenoids do not express haemoglobin. (the only known vertebrates without haemoglobin)

Fact 3: 16 species of Notothenoids do not have any functional haemoglobin genes.

Fact 4: 15 of these species have no beta haemoglobin gene and retain a shortened form of the alpha gene.

Fact 5: The remaining species (Neopagetops isionah) has two non functional pseudogenes for beta haemoglobin. One contains only part of the 3rd exon and is very similar to the same fragment of the closely related and haemoglobin bearing Dragonfish. The other pseudogene is closely related to that of other Notothenoids.

Your conclusion ladies and gentlemen: Evolution or creation?

A more technical account can be found here.


Fundies, it may be worth bearing this in mind:

Hebrews 6:18 “God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged."

But, then again, maybe not….

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 “The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.”
Ooops!

Maybe that means that you can’t trust any of the bible. The evidence above exists despite what your book says about it.

What Is Life?

The question of what is life came up over coffee this morning. It is actually not that easy to put a finger on. Some things we have no hesitation in calling alive – like ourselves. With others it is less obvious.
In my first ever biology class at school, I was taught that there were seven characteristics of life, which if memory serves me right include the fact that life has to feed (acquire building blocks), move, grow, respire (produce energy) be organised into cells, be sensitive to the environment and be adaptable. I would also add that it has to locally reverse entropy too.

So, we all do these things, but are they universal? Viruses for example don’t grow or move. They don’t even respire in the sense that they make their own ATP. They get that from their host cells. They are not cellular in nature and are only adaptable in the sense that mutations can occur – they can’t adapt in the sense that a Venus flytrap can turn on antifreeze proteins when they are chilled. So, are viruses alive? They do reverse entropy and appear sensitive to the environment in that some can use cues inside the host cell to reproduce – Herpes for example lies latent for long periods of time.

So, are viruses alive?

Many invertebrate embryos are not initially cellular either – they are syncitial (no cellular divisions between nuclei). Slime Moulds also spend much of their lives in a syncitial state too.

What about salt crystals? It can grow by reversing entropy. Split them in two and given the right conditions, they can grow into two new crystals. It is sensitive to the environment; it “knows” when to grow and when to dissolve. Its component parts have all the information needed to produce an identical crystal, and is organised into unit cells, so is it alive?

Discuss!

Picture Round

This is more one for the climbers. Following on from Dave's mountain and bothy tests, I thought I would see if anyone can identify these.

1 Where is this? (I only think I know, so confirmation will be nice).

2 Name the peak and the climber.

3 Name the peak this is taken from (I'm sure someone I know wasn't there).

4 Name the bothy.

5 Would you tell this guy he looks like Martin O'Neill?

6 What drugs is he on?

7 Name the islands and where it was taken from

8 Name the bothy and who supposedly lived in a cave on the hill on the left? (Other than Charles Edward Papist)

9 Cold is God's way of telling us to burn more Catholics, so who is up the chimney? Also, name the bothy.

10 Name the Bothy. Dave and Craig can't answer this one. The other Dave can. Everyone can name the physical feature in the background. What physical feature is the glen also famous for?

11 What hill was this taken from?

12 Name the two faults. The second is below the knob on the right. (Dave may not answer)

13 From last weekend - who couldn't make it? :-)