>> ^snoozedoctor:
^
"We've also shown in lab environments that we can create life from non-life materials."
I missed that development. When did that occur? I've read about artificial "cells" that are capable of single protein synthesis. That's a long way from a building a self-replicating, self-sustaining organism from scratch. I would think that sort of achievement would have made the newspaper. Then again, maybe not my local newspaper.


Perhaps I jumped the shark a little bit on that, we are very very close however.

This man is the synthetic life pioneer, hes getting real close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter

Him at TED talks.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/craig_venter_is_on_the_verge_of_creating_synthetic_life.html

^
"We've also shown in lab environments that we can create life from non-life materials."

I missed that development. When did that occur? I've read about artificial "cells" that are capable of single protein synthesis. That's a long way from a building a self-replicating, self-sustaining organism from scratch. I would think that sort of achievement would have made the newspaper. Then again, maybe not my local newspaper.

Chogster,
I didn't have time to watch it either, but I did anyway. This is a tough one. I'll try to keep it brief, but that may be hard.

On vitamins and minerals;
If you eat a healthy balanced diet (raise hands please)you get all the vitamins and minerals you need. That's SO not the case in many undeveloped countries, as they rarely eat balanced diets. Taking extra water soluble vitamins, i.e. Vit C, will not hurt you, but it will give you expensive urine. Taking extra fat soluble vitamins can be outright dangerous. Vit A is hepatotoxic in high doses. I recall seeing a patient with end stage liver cirrhosis from chronic cod-liver oil (rich in Vit A) ingestion (how someone can get addicted to that is beyond me.)

There is little credible evidence to prove "extra" amounts of vitamins, above what your body really needs, is of any benefit to your health. Selenium supplementation has been associated with decreased prostate cancer. (So has rapid turnover of spermatozoa and it's more fun than taking selenium.)

The problem with "natural supplements" is several fold. (1) They are still chemicals and, therefore, are not easily differentiated from standard pharmaceuticals, many of which come from plants as well. (2) There is VERY lax quality control in the production of many of these drugs. Assays on potency have shown up to a 100 fold difference between brands that supposedly have the same amount of drug in one pill. (3)Taken in excess, drugs like ephedra are dangerous. It's amphetamine. It will give you a boost in energy, but it also may give you a hypertensive crisis or a fatal arrhythmia.

Medicine is science, and like any scientific endeavor, the proof is in the pudding. There are very few credible studies that demonstrate much benefit to "natural supplements." One speaker in the video, Jim Turner, laments that some of these drugs fall victim to "systematic cause and effect mentality" of the pharmaceutical companies and their "huge, expensive studies." That statement is intellectually bankrupt and I don't think I have to point that out. It takes huge expensive studies to achieve the power of analysis necessary to detect a benefit a drug might have on a relatively rare condition. Say for instance, a drug reduces by 50% the incidence of a complication that happens only once in a thousand patients. You will need to enroll thousands and thousands of patients to reach a power of analysis that will approach statistical significance. It takes, on average, almost a billion dollars to get a typical pharmaceutical drug from synthesis to the US market and that's, in part, due to the rigorous process the FDA requires.

On antidepressants;
Eating right, getting enough sleep, regular exercise and playing in the sunshine are as effective as marketed antidepressants. The side effect of "activation" of SSRIs has been understated. Patients with bipolar illness, rather than typical depression, can experience mania or hypomania, with increased anxiety, racing thoughts and insomnia. That's not what a depressed person needs. While not proven, my personal opinion is that this heightened sense of anxiety may play a possible role in the risk of suicide. Please remember, mentally ill people can hide their illness well. Unforeseen suicides are not uncommon and it's easy to pin the blame on a new medicine, or some other unrelated factor.

I told you it would be difficult for me to be brief. I've practiced for 25 years now.
(1) The FDA is NOT suppressing effective therapies.
(2) All drugs, natural supplements included, should undergo systematic randomized prospective studies to assess their efficacy before being labeled as effective (sadly, that's not always the case)
(3) The drug companies are shamelessly pandering to the public and downplaying side-effects. They have been successful in creating a herd mentality in the U.S. of "I don't feel right, I need a drug." Direct advertising to the public should be BANNED.

Things I cannot speak
She comes on like a crippled plaything,
Spine is just a string

I wrapped our love in all this foil,
Silver-tight like spider legs
I never wanted it to ever spoil,
But flies will lay their eggs


Take your hatred out on me,
Make your victim my head
You never ever believed in me,
I am your tourniquet

Prosthetic synthesis with butterfly,
Sealed up with virgin stitch
If it hurts baby please tell me,
Preserve the innocence

I never wanted it to end like this,
But flies will lay their eggs (Mmm, Mmm, Mmm)

What I wanted,
What I needed,
What I got for me...

Mmm, Mmm, Mmm, Mmm, Mmm, Mmm, Mm

Take it out, take it out
Your not fighting me,
I don't believe me!
I never ever believed in me,
I am your tourniquet

Blankfist,
Our seeming disagreement is only one of syntax, a simple miscommunication. First, evolution IS purely random in terms of events, that does not mean that these events cause a random web of results. Natural selection (as I believe I said above) is the process that results from the random events. Genetic mutation is random. The only thing not random about it is that only certain types of mutation are possible, so that limits the number of random events. Not trying to be an ass, but this is sort of my area. The result is still random in essence, but selective, so it appears non-random. Evolution is not an intelligent entity. It is the seemingly intelligent synthesis of totally random mutation that is selected by advantage to the organism. For every advantageous mutation that occurs in a species, there are thousands of ones that are phased out over evolutionary time because they are disadvantageous and millions of others that are benign and essentially do nothing. I've personally observed this myself in rapidly evolving viruses. You give them a disadvantageous mutation, they will eventually compensate, but that actually mutation occurred totally randomly. It was just immediately selected for. If you put Herpes virus in the presence of gancyclovir for example, it will spontaneously generate mutants who are resistant and those "advanced" mutants will grow, while the "older" version of the virus dies out. These mutants however, occurred TOTALLY randomly. They were just lucky.
That is what I meant when I said Evolution is random. Syntax.

You also seem to have referred to the idea of "irreducible complexity" like Michael Behe loves to argue. I don't know if his argument is working. I think it is more likely that Behe is just not imaginative enough to come up with a "one step more basic eye." Most atheists however would never even consider the possibility that at some points in evolution, God stepped in to give a nudge here and there. You might consider it, but most atheists would go "um, no." Looking at the eye and bacterial motor does make me go "wow". The complexity is absolutely mind-boggling. I wouldn't be surprised to find out these devices were nudged into being.

The other argument is purely syntax. You seem to have been offended that I said atheists only have one source of information, but it is not a negative statement. I was reducing the epistemology of atheists and theists to their single most elemental base. "Pure atheists" (by this phrase I'm referring to those who have rejected the idea of God or any reality beyond what we can see and measure) reduce ALL knowledge intake to logic. Think of anything you believe to be true that is not based on some logical progression of thought. You will probably not be able to come up with anything. The theist meanwhile has the additional primary source of knowledge that is faith. An atheist gains "data" from everything, but only gains "knowledge" from the logic that follows. The thought of taking data to knowledge by any other means seems odd and... illogical. The theist has two avenues from data to knowledge, logic or faith. And if God is real and his revelation and Spirit are real, then both avenues are reasonable and reliable. Otherwise, it just looks stupid. Hence many atheists' opinion of Christians as a group in general. (BTW, I didn't come up with this particular world-view interpretation comparison method. I forget where I encountered it however)
This might not apply to all atheists, some are agnostic enough to say "there might be a God so I consider it when I look at data I take in on a daily basis." That is essentially what an agnostic IS, someone who considers both science and the possibility of the supernatural. Heh, maybe you're more agnostic than you thought.

You are partially right that Christians consider the bible as a primary base of knowledge as I said. They will naturally be skeptical of anything that opposes it. The better response would be to consider both sources. Christians FAR too often seem to think they are smart enough to properly interpret scripture perfectly. Looking at science as a whole, it's generally inaccurate more often than it is accurate. 60% of the time in fact. That doesn't mean that it should be rejected, but if you believe one book happens to be God-breathed and absolutely correct, the priority of what is truth becomes obvious. Science is then treated with patient skepticism if it seems contradictory.

I hope this is clear. There's no attack meant, it's just cold philosophy.

http://vvvv.org/

vvvv is a toolkit for real time video synthesis. It is designed to facilitate the handling of large media environments with physical interfaces, real-time motion graphics, audio and video that can interact with many users simultaneously.

vvvv uses a visual programming interface. Therefore it provides a graphical programming language for easy prototyping and development.

vvvv is real time. where many other languages have distinct modes for building and running programs, vvvv only has one mode - runtime.

vvvv is free for non-commercial use.

< wall of text >

I've recently come to the conclusion that in general, religious discussions on internet forums are futile, unless they are in-house discussions. What I mean is that an argument between an avid atheist and an avid theist always goes nowhere because neither side has any trust in the source information used by the opposite side. For example, if I try to argue that the bible can be proven true by collating the prophetic writings of the old testament and comparing them to what was fulfilled in history and in the new testament, most atheists will simply say that it's all fiction anyway, so the argument is moot. Even if I try to cite other historical documentation of said prophecies being fulfilled, their explanation becomes: "the books must have been written after the fact then since prophecy is impossible in the first place." Meanwhile if two atheists are talking or two Christians (say) are talking in this format, the sort of "language" barrier is broken down and some sort of wisdom can be gained in the discussion. The atheists will agree that the bible is impossible because what is written in it is impossible unless you first believe in God..."and we don't". The theists have decided that the bible IS possible and will try to get some knowledge out of its pages in the discussion.

It can be seen the same way with creation and evolution. First off, to be very straight forward in definitions: Evolution - We and all that is in the universe as we know it today is the result of random chance events alone. Creation - At some point in the history of time as we know it, the universe was created as we know it or in a form previous to as we know it by God or some high power outside of time.

The argument ends AT the definitions alone. A pure atheist will say that since there is no god in the first place, the ONLY option is random evolution (via good ole natural selection and drift). There is no alternative. The argument is over and the theist is left going "but there IS a God, so creation IS a possibility." "No there isn't, so no there isn't." Repeat ad nausium. So the only two useful conversations that can be had (unless you have some extraordinarily open-minded individuals who happen also to be unconvinced of either truth) are those between two atheist scientists (who will discuss how evolution occurred, and speculate as to any possible original cause they can imagine) and those between two theistic scientists (who will discuss how what they know of evolutionary science can be meshed with what they believe of biblical revelation). I've had both kinds of these talks and they both go wonderfully well and are quite rewarding. I've also had the sort I first referred to higher above and it was pointless and frustrating.

There is one more major problem that theists and atheists will always run into in science, that is "data." Science is dependent on NEW data to adapt hypotheses. When you have new data, you wire it into what you already knew and come up with the best explanation you can, then you go after more data. In religion (or at least in Christianity), the primary data set is complete and is considered to be concrete; the canon is closed. What remains to be done is to interpret it. Now you can add new data "sets" through scientific means but none will be as authoritative as the primary set by any means.

The theist chooses a primary data set that is special revelation (the bible). What we sense and what logic we think we can muster is limited to our perception and intelligence.
The atheist chooses a primary data set that is sense and logic driven... that is, up is up, hot is hot, white is white, we must trust our senses, and the Mets will never win the world series. ...ok that last one goes with both groups.

The root of the problem is epistemological. Atheists have essentially one source of knowledge, logic. Theists have two, faith and logic. The thought that any knowledge can be gained by faith is so foreign to a pure atheist that they just discount theists as either lunatics, brainwashed drones, idiots, or all of the above and then some. The assumption that your discussion partner is any of these things is a conversation ender every time. That goes both ways.

As for my personal beliefs: It's no secret I'm a Christian. I'm also a creationist at its root definition. However, I acknowledge the profoundly large load of evidence supporting evolution and therefore support it, though not so randomly as an atheist will. I have trouble directly meshing this with Genesis, but I am convinced the bible is true at this point, so I imagine that one day, the synthesis will be found and I will understand it better. In the mean time, I'm patient, and neither story is mutually exclusive given what is known today. Outside of that simple issue, I have never seen a problem between religion and science.

I will admit however, that there are a lot of theists out there that need to brush up on their science if they wanna talk and teach about it. They just don't know their stuff most of the time. Honestly though, how often does a Christian... banker let's say... need to think about evolution? Not much. The whole discussion is academic to someone who doesn't use it.
< /wall of text>

ahh another upvote for simplicity.
I love the lack of synthesis. Except for the subheading, everything is just stated as it is, ...and it is simply interesting.

A few things:
Abiotic synthesis leading to abiogenesis is not evolutionary biology, don't conflate the issues. And humans aren't descended from monkeys, get your facts straight.

When it comes to the mathematical chances of evolution, the consistent flaw in calculations created by IDers and co. is that they fail to account for the fact that evolution is specifically NON-random. Basic evolutionary principles are based around the fact that cells and all other standard units of life are inherently order-creating mechanisms, and that increasing complexity is a result, not a mistake. Anybody who thinks they can apply a simple statistical calculation to this problem without accounting for this fact is gravely mistaken.

And to your second point, Ted...you do see how that argument you just made completely flies in the face of reason? In philosophy terms, the argument you presented is neither valid nor sound - not only are your premises incorrect, it does not follow that in the absence of a completely random chance of evolution (which isn't provable, you can never say it's IMPOSSIBLE, so even assuming your calculations were correct, which they aren't seeing as how evolution is an order-creating system, you'll never be able to prove that since it's unlikely for an event to occur, it did not - this is simply impossible to do) we must simply accept that some magical being must therefore have created it. I mean...what exactly is the statistical probability that God created all life on earth? Oh wait, we can't calculate that, ever. And that's barely touching on the fact that that entire argument can't be empirically studied or negated. The entire ID argument flies in the face of basic scientific principles.

Anyhow, no offense, but let's acknowledge that this video will never be allowed to remain in the Science channel so long as I have say, so this and anything like this will follow Qruel down the well.

"That's what the governments are work for, a one world government, with no elections.

I don't think it is the various governments working toward that, rather the corporate interests which are in turn controlled by extremely wealthy individuals, families, and groups.

(Thesis - a poorly run and poorly planned world economy)
(Antithesis - a well run and wisely planned world economy)
(Synthesis - ????)

(Thesis - USA) (Antithesis - USSR) (Synthesis - UN). That's what the governments are work for, a one world government, with no elections.

This isn't my kind of music, but I hope somebody out there likes it.

The Soros quote came from this article.

Hegel is probably best known for his "thesis/antithesis/synthesis" reckoning of how progress is made in the universe.

This isn't as silly as you think. An important precursor for the synthesis of the explosive RDX is found in mayonnaise. During the cold war the government was stockpiling RDX based plastic explosives, so to keep their costs down they needed to reduce the demand for mayonnaise. Of course, they couldn't come right out and say this (or the communists would start doing the same, sparking yet another arms race), so they slyly discouraged consumption of mayonnaise through these PSAs. The more you know.

ShakaUVM- i think the principle you're reaching for, the one you've almost but not quite grasped hold of, is what is referred to as natural selection. Not ID. Once you have genes that replicate, the "goal" is to have genes that replicate better.

Fortunately for us, one of the best ways for genes is to encode information about their surroundings. The better an organism fits in its surroundings, the better its chances of passing on its genes. The god, or designer you're looking for is simulacra, or information-encoding. Starting with the beginning of life, the story of this planet has been the accumulation of information- the creation of more and more specific models of the "real world". A polar bear is white because he lives in a white landscape and can hunt better, giraffes have long necks to reach tall leaves, etc etc etc.

The rate of acceleration has increased even further as one species has learned how to encode information in non-dna form- by building tools, and eventually specifically through spoken and written language, religions, etc- and finally the scientific method.

We are witnessing the end of the era of dna dominated information encoding. So far our technology has a better QUALITY of information about the universe than is encoded in the DNA of the species of the earth, but a much lower quantity. This will change dramatically in our lifetimes.

So yes, there is a "force". The force is natural, not supernatural. And it drives the processes that we think of as human endeavor, but are really just continuation of the progress that began when the first strand of RNA drove the synthesis of the first enzymes that made the first protein in the first lifeform on our planet.

Maybe Apple has a program out that does speech synthesis AND doesn't get confused by morons?

I can't tell if this presumably showing how bad this speech recognition is (note: It's great), or how dumb this guy is for saying "Thank you" like 30 times into the microphone, then still wondering why it's typing what he's saying.

"HRRRR!!!! I'm so frustrated with how retarded I am!!! GRRRARRR!"

edit note: P.S.-It's HILARIOUS to watch this guy screwup over and over.