once again, DaveScot quotes a wikipedia article which he obviously hasn’t read all the way throught and directly contradicts him:

“How to sling

For a conventional throw, one does not make multiple rotations of the sling, a proper slinging action requires just one rapid rotation. The more times you swing it, the less likely you’ll hit anything.

(Some slingers will rotate the sling slowly once or twice to seat the projectile in the cradle.)
“

And again regulating development is not the same as determining it.

trrll:
This is how a genuine scientific theory expands knowledge–not by explaining everything all at once, but by providing a basis for discovery.

Have you read “The Privileged Planet”? It provides a basis for future discoveries.

and even though he can’t respond:

Zachriel:
As far as vision, there are ample precursers to indicate why an eye might form by modification of simple photoactive chemistry and a simple focusing mechanism.

Reality demonstrates that we have no idea how or why an eye might form. However it is very telling that you use the very typical MO of trying to simplify the issue. Too bad we know that vision systems are not simple at all…

Even though I found this argument over arms and slings to be rediculous I let the relevant comments through (whether other mods did the same I have no idea). And I\’m not surprised Dave is giving up…

Although it died here we are still kicking it around on that thread.

An ice sculpture is certainly physically possible, and it is certainly dependent upon the laws of physics, but without begging the question of mind reduced to physics how can you possibly say that the ice sculpture was coded for by the laws of physics?

It think the original topic of Blyth has been explored well, and the subsequent discussion of other topics has been interesting. I’m giving the giving the green light now for you all to take the conversation wherever you all would like it to go within bounds of civil discourse.

Thank you all for your participation.

One last reply trrll. According to your logic EVERYTHING physically possible is encoded in the laws of physics. Therefore this encoding explains everything. And thus explains nothing.

Of course, by definition, everything physically possible is encoded in the laws of physics. It is the ultimate front-loading.

IOW we have NO idea. We also don’t have any idea whether any process can afford the changes required to get from Urbilateria to flies & mice. Nothing but speculation under the assumption such changes did occur.

Speculation that results in testable hypotheses that have already led to major discoveries about genes that regulate development. This is how a genuine scientific theory expands knowledge–not by explaining everything all at once, but by providing a basis for discovery. The best criterion whether an idea constitutes a scientific theory is that scientists using the theory to guide their work produce a continuing stream of discoveries.

You’re banned here. I’m sure by me a long time ago. I unspammed a couple of your comments because they were interesting. Most of them are stupid which is of course why you were banned. I’m allowing one last stupid one through for an example.

You said: “People sling mud. You must be using a special, private definition.”

No Zach. I’m using a sling as a weapon and I already provided a link to it which I’ll do again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sling_(weapon)

Anyone who doesn’t recognize that an arm isn’t a sling after I was kind enough to provide an encyclopedia article describing a sling quite frankly shouldn’t be cluttering up our blog and wasting our time arguing with you. There are smarter foes to engage. Don’t expect any more of your comments to appear so stop wasting your time. I see there’s about a dozen of them in the sandbox.