Hoover Institute video on Mathematical Challenges to Darwin's Theory

[Revoltingest]

The article says that they had them.

It says something different....
They are the only known living animals that have a skull but no vertebral column, although hagfish do have rudimentary vertebrae.[3] Along with lampreys, hagfish are jawless; the two form the sister group to jawed vertebrates, and living hagfish remain similar to hagfish from around 300 million years ago.[4]

The classification of hagfish had been controversial. The issue was whether the hagfish was a degenerate type of vertebrate-fish that through evolution had lost its vertebrae (the original scheme) and was most closely related to lampreys, or whether hagfish represent a stage that precedes the evolution of the vertebral column (the alternative scheme) as is the case with lancelets. Recent DNA evidence has supported the original scheme.[5]

 

[Subduction Zone]

It says something different....
They are the only known living animals that have a skull but no vertebral column, although hagfish do have rudimentary vertebrae.[3] Along with lampreys, hagfish are jawless; the two form the sister group to jawed vertebrates, and living hagfish remain similar to hagfish from around 300 million years ago.[4]

The classification of hagfish had been controversial. The issue was whether the hagfish was a degenerate type of vertebrate-fish that through evolution had lost its vertebrae (the original scheme) and was most closely related to lampreys, or whether hagfish represent a stage that precedes the evolution of the vertebral column (the alternative scheme) as is the case with lancelets. Recent DNA evidence has supported the original scheme.[5]

Okay, probably had them. It is not a slam dunk yet. The problem is that some species, such as sharks would not be "fish" with various definitions. The problem with "fish" is that it is almost never used as a monophyletic term.

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay, probably had them. It is not a slam dunk yet. The problem is that some species, such as sharks would not be "fish" with various definitions. The problem with "fish" is that it is almost never used as a monophyletic term.

I like fried fish.
Although I prefer salmon broiled.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I like fried fish.
Although I prefer salmon broiled.

Or baked at a high temperature, but for a short period of time. Salmon should be cooked medium rare. And I have even pan fried it successfully. If all the fat oozes out and turns white you ruined it.

 

[gnostic]

Taxonomy is always "under review".

Yes, I knoiw.

There are some species that defy the known classification of animals.

For instances, there are few instances where the birds were wingless, eg the elephant birds and the maos. They are now both extinct now.

Then there is the platypuses. It is classified as mammals, and yet, they lay their eggs like birds or reptiles, and have duck-like mouths.

Then there are their leg placement, they stick out from body from sides, like lizards, not underneath, and their gaits are sprawling motion. Plus their toes are webbed, suitable for swimming.

Platypuses are marvelous oddities of nature.

 

[Audie]

Yes, I knoiw.

There are some species that defy the known classification of animals.

For instances, there are few instances where the birds were wingless, eg the elephant birds and the maos. They are now both extinct now.

Then there is the platypuses. It is classified as mammals, and yet, they lay their eggs like birds or reptiles, and have duck-like mouths.

Then there are their leg placement, they stick out from body from sides, like lizards, not underneath, and their gaits are sprawling motion. Plus their toes are webbed, suitable for swimming.

Platypuses are marvelous oddities of nature.

I'll have you know there was only one Mao,
and his memory, his deeds, shall not go extinct.

Taxonomy never interested me much, I was working for my masters in aquatic entomology
but " life intervened ".

 

[Heyo]

Or baked at a high temperature, but for a short period of time. Salmon should be cooked medium rare. And I have even pan fried it successfully. If all the fat oozes out and turns white you ruined it.

Just nail it to a piece of wood and put it near the fire:

 

[Subduction Zone]

What kind is that? It looks quite a bit like sockeye to me. But I have nothing for scale to know the size of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Definitely sockeye. But I do not see any rockets in the salad. Only arugula instead:

Flammlachs vom Brett - Burger mit Lachs, Rucola Salat, Gurke und Knoblauch Chili Mayo – HerdmitHerz

EDIT: Of course I do know that the leafy salad green that the British call "rocket" we call arugula. And it looks like Google could not make up its mind in the translation that it did for me. It translated Rucola in the title to Rocket but further down the page it translated the same word as arugula.

 

[Heyo]

Definitely sockeye. But I do not see any rockets in the salad. Only arugula instead:

Flammlachs vom Brett - Burger mit Lachs, Rucola Salat, Gurke und Knoblauch Chili Mayo – HerdmitHerz

Receipts are not rules, more like suggestions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Receipts are not rules, more like suggestions.

It was a joke since rocket is the British word for rucola nd arugula is the same product here. As I said in my edit, it was a bit weird because Google translate used one translation for the title and another in the article. It might be confusing to those that did not know both words.

But I agree in principle. It used to be the first time that I made something I would follow the recipe religiously at least the first time. The second time I would begin to alter it to fit my taste. Now when I am cooking something new I tend to read a bunch of recipes and craft one of my own on the spot. I will take some ideas from one and other ideas from another. Recipes are there to give my approximate amounts, techniques, and cooking times. Unless it is baking. Then one better have a good reason to switch. Baking is often applied chemistry. Alter the amounts and it can fail. Regular cooking is art.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

DNA is a good example of existential design. It's literally the physical embodiment of design. As is gravity, and the micro forces that generate it. Design is embodied existentially all around us, and in us. Existence is quite literally design fulfillment.

This reads like metaphorical poetic mumbo jumbo.

It doesn't really "mean" anything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Until you can let go of the idea that "design" means "was designed" this conversation can go nowhere.

The problem is that on forums such as these, terms with double meaning will oftenly be abused to "sneak in" gods and designers and whatnot.

So in contexts such as this one, it is best to be extra clear about terms that have different meanings in different contexts.

Case in point: PLENTY of creationists on this forum WILL say that the applicability of the word "design" in fact DOES imply a "designer" with intention and purpose.

This has been brought to your attention before, in the whole "function vs purpose" discussion fiasco, where you insisted on using "purpose" when you really meant "function"... the reason we insisted on using strict definitions of those words is precisely for the reason mentioned above: vague ambiguity WILL be abused on this forum to make it seem as if certain people agreed to X by implication while they never did in reality.

That is all.

You atheists are so freaked out by even the slightest inference of a "designer" that you can't accept the idea of design by Itself.

Again, it has nothing to do with that and rather everything with the tendency of creationist to be dishonest about these words and sneak in their religious beliefs.

It's the result of us atheists having experience with conversing with such people about these topics over the years.

DNA is literally the physical embodiment of life form design. It exists to design the structure of living things. Just as gravity exists to design the way physical matter gets arranged in space. But you can't recognize such examples of design by itself when you insist that it isn't design without a designer. So unless you are willing to let go of that insistence, there is no point in my trying to discuss design as a stand alone phenomenon with you.

I'm perfectly fine with the idea of "natural design". So are all people who accept the science of evolution etc. When I say "the design of the eye" - they understand very well what I mean. That being the blue-print of the eye that evolved over eons through natural processes without a need for outside intervention.

Once more: the ONLY reason we are careful with such ambiguous words and will insist on being clear about it, is because we have the experience of how creationists will happily abuse such ambiguity to create strawmen and engage in dishonest debate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can you imagine a trillion Lego bricks in one big heap, and you had to assemble them in the shape of a fish, complete with its skeleton.

No.

Not that it matters, because that's not a proper analogy to evolutionary processes.
And I think you know that.

Guess what we call it when you say something false while knowing it is false?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry, Eric.

You didn’t specify which species of fish, because as I have given you examples, the adult of the ember tetra would only grow 2cm in length and won’t weigh much, while a whale shark on the other hand, have average length of 9 metres for male shark, and female of around 14 m and weigh 35 tonne for that length.

It is obvious ember tetra and whale shark won’t have the same number of masses, which also means they won’t have the same numbers of cells.

Furthermore, if you are going to talk of fossils that are 300 or 400 million years old, you would estimate the numbers of cells of only the fossilized skeletal remains. It would be guessing games as to how many cells it would have when they were alive that include all the living tissues and organs existed.

But you still haven’t given me any clue as to which species of fishes you talking about, all you are doing throwing some numbers around about the number of cells, so your numbers have no context.

So try again.which fish are you talking about?

He's just throwing out big numbers because he finds that impressive.
It's nothing but an argument from awe.

 

[Audie]

This reads like metaphorical poetic mumbo jumbo.

It doesn't really "mean" anything.

If you want some serious mum- jum,
look up the definition of "existential design".

For bonus mumjum try to connect it to
what our would- be philosopher friend claims
for it.

 

[Audie]

The problem is that on forums such as these, terms with double meaning will oftenly be abused to "sneak in" gods and designers and whatnot.

So in contexts such as this one, it is best to be extra clear about terms that have different meanings in different contexts.

Case in point: PLENTY of creationists on this forum WILL say that the applicability of the word "design" in fact DOES imply a "designer" with intention and purpose.

This has been brought to your attention before, in the whole "function vs purpose" discussion fiasco, where you insisted on using "purpose" when you really meant "function"... the reason we insisted on using strict definitions of those words is precisely for the reason mentioned above: vague ambiguity WILL be abused on this forum to make it seem as if certain people agreed to X by implication while they never did in reality.

That is all.





Again, it has nothing to do with that and rather everything with the tendency of creationist to be dishonest about these words and sneak in their religious beliefs.

It's the result of us atheists having experience with conversing with such people about these topics over the years.



I'm perfectly fine with the idea of "natural design". So are all people who accept the science of evolution etc. When I say "the design of the eye" - they understand very well what I mean. That being the blue-print of the eye that evolved over eons through natural processes without a need for outside intervention.

Once more: the ONLY reason we are careful with such ambiguous words and will insist on being clear about it, is because we have the experience of how creationists will happily abuse such ambiguity to create strawmen and engage in dishonest debate.

Now now, denying a creationist his equivocation and misrepresentation is like denying a philosipher his obscurantist jargon.

 

[PureX]

The problem is that on forums such as these, terms with double meaning will oftenly be abused to "sneak in" gods and designers and whatnot.

Again, it has nothing to do with that and rather everything with the tendency of creationist to be dishonest about these words and sneak in their religious beliefs.

I'm perfectly fine with the idea of "natural design". So are all people who accept the science of evolution etc.

Creationists are quite right to claim that the order and complexity of existential design implies an intelligent 'designer' of some kind. Unfortunately for them, that's all it does, is imply.

And unfortunately for you, you have no argument to pose against that implication. None at all.

However, this particular brand of creationist doesn't want to settle for just the implication of a supra-natural creative force, they want to assert their religious myths as being the historical fact of existential creation, so that the God of their myths will become the creator of all our reality. And that's insanely presumptuous. And clearly illogical.

So really, all you need to do is reject their assertion of 'biblical history' without rejecting their claim to the implication of a supra-natural creative intelligence. Because you have no basis on which to reject it. But, you can accept the implication, only. As there is nothing more to it than the implication. There is no proof of any such supra-natural phenomenon.

 

[Audie]

Creationists are quite right to claim that the order and complexity of existential design implies an intelligent 'designer' of some kind. Unfortunately for them, that's all it does, is imply.

And unfortunately for you, you have no argument to pose against that implication. None at all.

However, this particular brand of creationist doesn't want to settle for just the implication of a supra-natural creative force, they want to assert their religious myths as being the historical fact of existential creation, so that the God of their myths will become the creator of all our reality. And that's insanely presumptuous. And clearly illogical.

So really, all you need to do is reject their assertion of 'biblical history' without rejecting their claim to the implication of a supra-natural creative intelligence. Because you have no basis on which to reject it. But, you can accept the implication, only. As there is nothing more to it than the implication. There is no proof of any such supra-natural phenomenon.

Existential Design

"The aim of the existentialist designer is to not dominate the user experience, but rather to design for a controlled accident in which the
medium itself is explored and one's self through the medium, where the overarching purpose is the exploration itself."

Now that we've learned this about "existential design" we have subnitted an inquiry to the League of Nations in the hopes of eliciting
clarification unavailable from Google concerning the actual
existencecof this conjectural chimera.

Unfortunately, we received only a curt note
to wit:

"We are unable to confirm any evidence for
the existence of 'existential design', no more than
we can for the so called 'South African Gold
Fields', still less yet for that of 'existential creation', also
so much lately in the news".

 

[PureX]

We can see for ourselves that design exists, and does so both by our own hand and by the order of nature.

Hence: existential design. The design observed in both nature and through human articulation of nature. That which scientists seek to understand in nature, and that humans then use to bend nature to their own purposes.

Why was this so difficult for some of you to understand and accept?