Posted on 09/25/2014 6:50:38 AM PDT by fishtank
Genome Scrambling and Encryption Befuddles Evolution
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *
One-cell creatures called ciliates are expanding our knowledge of genome dynamics and complexity. Now a newly sequenced ciliate genome reveals unimaginable levels of programmed rearrangement combined with an ingenious system of encryption.1
Contrary to the evolutionary prediction of simple-to-complex in the alleged tree of life, one-cell ciliates are exhibiting astonishing genetic complexity.2 The ciliate Oxytricha trifallax has two different genomes contained in separate nuclei. The micronucleus is dense and compact and used for reproduction while the macronucleus is dramatically rearranged, amplified, and used for the creature's standard daily living.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
"...the differentiator between them is the ability to process/communicate information — which is, of course, wholly immaterial."
If I know you as I believe I do, you most certainly did not use "immaterial" in the legalistic sense of "irrelevant" -- did you? '-)
BTW, my presence on this thread will be almost "immaterial", as I have seventeen (17) presentations scheduled in the next month -- so my visitations to FR will be, of necessity, "fleeting"...
I see.. “immaterial”.. to mean not physical.. like an “idea”..
Nope, certainly not: I didn't intend "immaterial" in the legalistic sense of "irrelevant!"
Good luck with the preparation for all those presentations you're doing! Come back when you can. You are missed, dear brother in Christ!
Hi tacticalogic! So good to see you again! It's been a long time....
WRT the ahove italics, quoted from your last to me: I hardly know what to make of what you're saying to me here.
So, to clarify this situation, I have two questions for you —
(1) I gladly admit that even science cannot solve "every riddle of the Universe." But as you say, it can reliably be depended on to "work on the tiny little bit of it" that happens to come before its purview — based entirely on direct observation — of systematic science, whatever that happens to be at the moment right now — and how any natural process might be subjected to the interpretation of the "instrumental reason" of the human mind and will.
So, does this mean that you acknowledge the separability of "science" into two mutually-exclusive categories? That is, a division of "'science" into "theoretical" and "working" — or methodological — modals?
I gather, in the latter case, that the "working scientist" only cares about what "works." He couldn't give a fig about the "hows?" and "whys?" behind the instrumental success he gets from the application of the insights gained from the great theorists, who tend to deal in universals....
In sum, it seems to me the "working scientist" is entirely derelict, precisely in his failure to give thanks, his gratitude, to the great theoretical geniuses that came before him, whose great insights and achievements guaranteed a field of human endeavor worthy of intellectual pursuit, and thus jobs for people like "working scientists."
So, what is the answer to question (1) — which seems at bottom to involve a lack of gratitude from the "working" scientists, to the great theoretical scientists, without whose tremendous contributions many "working scientists" probably would not even be employed today.
Then there is question (2): What do you make of the following lines, dear tl?
For wisdom is more mobile than any motion; because of her pureness she pervades and penetrates all things. For she is a breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty; therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her. For she is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness. Although she is but one, she can do all things, and while remaining in herself, she renews all things; in every generation she passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God, and prophets; for God loves nothing so much as the person who lives with wisdom. She is more beautiful than the sun, and excels every constellation of the stars. — Wisdom of Solomon, 7:24–30I would love to know that you make of these passages....
Thanks so much for writing, dear friend!
Maybe they should set up altars in the lab.......
I gladly admit that even science cannot solve “every riddle of the Universe.”
I have wondered the same thing.. makes me think of riddles they don’t even know exists..
Which are connected in some way to things they think they know exist....
Like dark matter/energy they “think” exists, but mostly are not sure.. that it does..
except for the ones that know it exists but don’t even know what it “IS”.. if it does..
AND black holes which only the only evidence of, is the absence of any evidence..
They are sure something exists, but speculate of what that is..
Fairy tales for adults in some cases would not be hyperbole..
Not that I’m adverse to fairy tales I am not..
Like God, which I believe in but have never seen, don’t know his name, if he has one or even needs one..
But prefer belief in God.. absent any other practical evidence.. of origination..
Designer fairy tales is an art by humans.. why not science as well..
The mind boggles on the things I might not know.. or even know about..
Pretty much the same situation I was in when I was 3 to 5 years old..
And thats after much college and other “education”..
Some do not have the courage to admit it.. nor I for many years..
The realm of what “might be” is infinite..
Could cause some to lose faith in logic or science but it simulates mine..
What “might be”... is exciting..
When you have a BORG President slave to the collective anything is possible..
Unless he is Ferengi.. pretty much the same result..
What do I know for sure?.... Pretty much limited to my memories..
Those that I still remember..
Bonus: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wf0xzfy37gkrnj3/memorys.avi?dl=0
Life is good...
Thank you so much for your wonderful essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!
Thank you so much for your insights, dear hosepipe!
Nobody said it did. Science is how you get the answers.
Is there any objectively verifiable evidence it's actually happening, or is it manufactured accusation, made up from imagined evidence?
Lovely post, dear brother in Christ, my dear ‘pipe!!! HUGS!!!
You entirely ditched Question #2.
Nice work!
That's a nice, fat, broad brush you're waving around there, but there doesn't appear to actually be any paint in the bucket.
If you seek objective truth in the matter, then you must appeal to God to learn it because only God sees all that there is, all at once - every where and every when. Only He can search the hearts and minds. He and He alone knows objective truth.
But even then, if He revealed the truth of the matter to you I doubt there would be supporting "evidence" you would be able to "objectively verify." After all, that would require that you be at least as powerful as God or more so such that you could "objectively" verify evidence unknowable to mere creatures, i.e. reading hearts and minds, looking into the distant past.
A mere human expecting to attain, or worse believing he has, such knowledge probably suffers from the spiritual disease my dearest sister in Christ has identified many times on Free Republic.
So very true, dearest sister in Christ!
And from a distorted view of the human past, (which is pretty "distant" from those of us now living, especially if we have been "taught" to believe that there is no value as evidence whatsoever WRT investigations into multi-millenianal human history, which has indeed left records that any sane person would regard as "evidence" of something they do not, because on IDEOLOGICAL grounds, they cannot in principle, wish to name; but which most definitely expresses the desire of human souls to seek relation with the divine element of which they were made in the image, or reflection [as entailing reason and free will].....
I'll put a sock in it for now. Notwithstanding, I consider precisely this problem the "Andreas Fault" of American public discourse, nowadays....
Perception of images or reflection has artistic license.. i.e. Picasso, Monet, Dali, Warhol, Cezanne, Chagal, Degas, Renoir, Matisse, Rube Goldberg etc..
Humans create on so many levels it is amazing.. and even wonderful..
It is like; we were made by "a Creator" to create..
Many Gods are and were created, it is definitely Devine on several levels..
And so many Memes are created.... it boggles the mind..
To my atheist friends I say.. if there is no GOD.. then we ought to create one.. be bold..
Heros serve a "devine"" purpose.. to give something to shoot for..
AND if there is a GOD....... so much the better..
Small minds make little gods, larger minds make larger ones..
inspired minds make infinite ones..
When someone goes on and on about their little god or lack of one...
Well...... God Bless Them!...
---------------------------------------------
Resolution: Prayer... <<- click for some help..
You creamed me in your last response evidently because you regarded my last reply to you (which in fact I did answer in my own words/analysis, fully citing my sources therefor. Yet evidently, you didn't like what I had say.... In short, my last was taken out to the "trash," by you. Thanks alot.)
My main problem with you as a supposedly "good-faith collaborator": It just seems to me that you evidently cannot process analogies (or see how they might be germaine to the answering of questions of the real-world type that you have proposed).
Anyhoot, thanks a lot, dear tl, to see you again! (Or not, as the case may be.) RE the issue you raised above: You claimed I stiffed you by not providing a direct answer. Alternatively, I believe my answer was directly responsive — but only if the correspondent in the dispute — that is, you — had any appreciation whatsoever for the proposition that universal answers in any way, shape or form depend on the foundational idea of an "ordered" universe.
The next question becomes: if the Universe is ordered, then who/what caused it to be so, rather than a process conduced by random chance, that is, by the operations of unbounded "chaos?"
But this is the very question that modern science seems not only to refuse to engage, but cannot at all engage, according to its own orthodox "methods."
The scientific finding here is that, with respect to the present problem, there is nothing to object to according to the current methods of science. And "contemporary science" is the most reliable indicator/testator to the world in which biological species exist, which biology claims it can answer.
Even though I am very, very sure that you, dear tacticalogic, detest analogies in principle — your mind seemingly doesn't work that way — I gather that, since you are not "king of the world," your opinion just gets stored in a warehouse that gathers such flotsam and jetsom of human thinking that adds up as close to "0" as possible. No wonder you seem to detest "analogies."
Still, I figure yet another analogy, hereby proposed by me, might shed further light on the issue.
Which means I have to answer the question you raised in the first place (again, but this time I hope in terms that are more directly intelligible to you):
Here is your question, cited entire:
"How many of those would you estimate there are, as opposed to scientists who don't believe the scientific method can solve every riddle of the Universe, but do believe it will work on the tiny little bit of it they're working on right now?"I will take an opportunity to answer this precise question, which you claimed I dumped in the first place. (I didn't. It's just that you seem to have a difficult problem processing "analogies" which, had you understood them, would have answered your question in the first place.)
My answer to your very specific Question 1:
In the first place, I have absolutely no way of ascertaining, or counting, the number of ""working scientists" who currently inhabit this Earth, who have given up on all hope of ever understanding "every riddle of the Universe. "On this point: WRT the persons — "working scientists" — who for the most part seem not to care a fig about the foundational science that they inherit — as to its history, or its theoretical causes propounded and successfully, experimentally tested over time, a collective enterprise of human thought that goes back countless millennia — who just figure that all their job requires is to follow "whatever works." They could care less about the reason, the how, or the why it works.Yet, that's the very thing that I thought God empowered His children to investigate, and ultimately understand, always — He having already endowed His children with the tools — the means of reason and free will — that empower humans to do that. (Under God, of course — really there is no other way that human beings can finally understand their world truthfully, or become themselves, as unique human beings in their own right.)
No longer is the pursuit of Truth the mainspring of scientific endeavor. Your "working scientist" only cares about what WORKS. And what "works" is primarily defined as the efficacy of human knowledge to make the natural world as tractable, as transformable as possible, to the will/desire of human beings to make Nature itself bend to human purposes.
Your "working scientist" is effectively only a part of the "machine," which he expects is all that Nature reduces to. Not to mention that the "working scientist," having no awareness of the legacy of science that he inherits from the very deep human past, has zero knowledge of, or sympathy or thanks for, the great achievements of the theorists who laid down the very parameters of the field in which he toils.
Though I strongly suspect you hate analogical/logical thinking in principle, dear tacticalogic, I am now going to present you with another analogy.
Let us consider the conditions that obtain in a bee hive. A bee hive represents a highly organized society encompassing an indeterminate number of individual beings, striated into various classes of "collective individual." The various classes conduct their daily business according to the "rules" pertaining to their class.
The main class of bee-hive organization seems to be the "worker bees."
But presumably, though worker bees seem exceptionally confident about the work they are supposed faithfully to conduct in their daily lives/activity, if you were to query an individual working bee about the WHY, or to what PURPOSE his daily activity conduced to, he probably, absolutely could not answer that question. Indeed, it is even quite doubtful that any particular working bee had even heard of the existence of the Queen Bee, who symbolizes the sine qua non organizational principle of the hive in which he himself lives, or experiences his being, in the first place....
So along comes tacticalogic, who evidently is so "alone" in his discrete personality, evidently so isolated, in this world of human mortal existence, that he is totally clueless about matters of the larger context in which all existence — and actual human personal realization in its fullest— takes place.
Dear tacticalogic, I get the distinct impression that your preferred model of the universe takes its basis in total chaos. A chaos entails that there are no "organizing principles" that hold in the universe we observe, of which we humans — supposedly self-aware, rational beings — are both parts and participants. Under such conditions, the universe we observe is merely a chancy "random walk" in which "stuff" just happens, without any rhyme or reason to it. And, at bottom, it predicts that human will and intelligence have no role or scope whatever in the universal process over Time.
That's the general take of your position that I have in mind, after more than a decade of direct correspondence I have had with you. Now let's get personal:
Losing the idea of direct connection with God, the individual human being (sans "soul" under this metric) is "freed up" to make his own moral rules. Practically no one nowadays sees that the natural sciences are conducted in a moral universe.
But if this were the general case of the universe, then why would the activities of the human mind, and the activities driven therefrom, have any significance whatsover? What would constitute the truthfully unimpeachable source of their constitution?
As far as the "tiny little bit" of science that "working scientists" are working on these days. May I give you yet another hated analogy?
Consider the bee hive — so essential to the transmission/promulgation of the next generation of bees not to mention the general flourishing of bee society, so very necessary and important to the good order, persistence, and very survival of the bee genera in particular? And more than that, so essential to the distribution of genetic material that is the basis of the next generation of bees, considered as a natural community?
The way you speak to me, dear tacticalogic, is as if you were somehow a active member within a community of bees.
In such a community, I would identify you as a "worker bee." Most of the bee hive is constituted by such. The "worker bees" just go out there every day, doing what their given "Nature" programs them to do. Probably, such critturs have zero concept of there being a Queen that stands as the absolute criterion of the order of their "tribe." They also have no understanding of the "reasons why" they do the things they do. They just do them, without any sort of "reason" whatsoever. The worker bees simply execute their "program." Nothing more, nothing less.
This might stand as a fairly good definition of what passes for "a working scientist" these days.
But do you believe that, somehow, this is a good model for a human community — or for the order of an individual human soul?
Please share your thoughts with me RE: such matters!!! (If you can.) Thanks for your last, dear tl! Best wishes....
Very, very well said, dearest sister in Christ! Thank you!
Your reply was not an answer to the question. It began with the all too familiar claim of incomprehsion:
WRT the ahove italics, quoted from your last to me: I hardly know what to make of what you're saying to me here.
Sidestepping the need to examine and justify your own assumptions and assertions about what's going on in the minds of others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.