Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

BA77’s Off Topic Thread, Volume 5 — Aerobatic Ballet, what ID has done for me, Cyd Charisse, Tango jealousy, Butterfly

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

This is a thread for UD commenters to speak their mind. Please keep it civil.

Off topic #1
If I could be a ballet dancer, I’d be this man:

[youtube VQKfvwoKc6w]

Off topic #2
It’s no secret I’m rather chummy with agnostics, atheists, free-thinkers and academics, and even some of the less reputable elements of society (professional gamblers). My love of the arts and drama often touches on realms the church sometimes frowns on. The irony is I’m a right wing conservative young earth creationist. Why is this so?

First I wasn’t always a YEC. I was raised in a Roman Catholic home, my lifestyle was worldly and I found church often boring and suffocating, and this persisted to some extent even after I became a Protestant.

I found more solace in music, the performing arts, drama and science than I did from the majority of sermons (often more like nagging and bullying sessions). There are very few pastors I can say that I look forward to listening to on Sunday morning…

Many of my mentors were Darwinists (the physicists, engineers, mathematicians, chemists) in academia and to this day I look at their intellectual accomplishments with awe.

For a season in my life, the home TV would be tuned into a mix of NFL Football, figure skating and classical music concerts. More recently, I’ve watched the history channel and all the retelling of great battles of the past.

I used to enjoy the thrill of flying airplanes. Flying upside down and going weightless and then getting squashed into my seat in a high G maneuver. I loved hang gliding until I broke my arm in a crash in Carolina and was hauled off in an ambulance. But even then, to me, that was living life….and I often confess these things were often more enjoyable than much of the church service experience.

Added to that, I’ve often been utterly disappointed in behavior of the clergy and laity. I’ve endured seeing pastor after pastor fall from grace — adulterous affairs, theft and abuse of donations, lies, family abuse, outright charlatanry, etc.

Some years ago Bill Gothard used to be widely praised in evangelical circles. I always suspected he was a rat. Now it turns out, he used to send his young staff to his brother Steve at an expensive resort built on charitable donations. The resort had an airport and was used for a Leer jet paid by for by charitable donations as well. Steve Gothard basically made sex slaves of the girls that his brother Bill sent his way. Bill didn’t stop the abuse of women despite knowing about it, and by all measures looked like a willing accomplice. Bill was noted for promoting the notion of obedience to leaders. He and brother Steve obviously used their teachings for their own ends. See what has been swept under the carpet by the Evangelical Community:
Gotherd 1980’s Scandal

I’ve hung around atheist circles because vicariously they express my frustrations with my own church family — the bad behavior, lack of critical thinking, often blind uninformed obedience…

What has kept me believing, and why have I stayed in the church? 2 reasons. Number 1: atheism and agnosticism offers no genuine hope of eternal life or an eternally better world. My favorite Agnostic/Atheist Bertrand Russell ironically gave me reason to search for answers outside of agnosticism and atheism:

Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins — all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.

No matter how much science and technology there is, it will be destroyed as the universe dies out….

Sometimes in the midst of anxiety over the world’s troubles, I find it natural to call out for God’s help in prayer, and when there are moments that I feel I’ve caught a break in life I didn’t deserve, I can’t help but offer thanks. I think I have indeed seen miracles.

Number 2, the circumstantial evidence points to the historical claims of the Bible as more authentic than it is given credit for — the major points: creation of life, Noah’s flood, resurrection of Jesus. And if these things are historically true, it is reasonable they are also theologically true.

For sure, there are formal uncertainties in the proof of beliefs we hold dear. Could there be no God and is the multiverse the answer to problem of OOL? My reply — is it rational to wager one’s soul on the idea of multiverse? In light of what little evidences we have in hand for certain beliefs but in view of the potential payoffs, Pascal was most certainly right in his wager.

Despite my frustration with the church and despite my obviously being enamored with the compelling beauty and drama in a world that is passing away, it seems obvious there is design in the universe by some Intelligence far beyond human comprehension, and Intelligence capable of observing and knowing details of every molecule in the universe….

I’ve embraced Christianity reluctantly after nearly leaving it many years ago. Darwinists have actually strengthened my convictions after many years of debating them. In a strange sort of way, I thank God for them because they have helped me critically examine the case for ID and creation, and as a result, I’m more convinced now of God’s design and miraculous work than ever.

I still have attachment to the material world and all its passing beauty and drama and the illusion that all is well and will evolve to a better state. I’ve always been tempted to leave the church and just try to live it up, but I know utopia cannot be found in this life, and the longing to return to the Garden of Eden through human means cannot be met…

The evil in the world is sobering, but ID has been a source of hope that the can be ultimate meaning after all.

What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

Apostle Paul

=========
Off Topic #3

Cyd Charisse is a miracle. She was crippled by polio when young, but you can see for yourself how she turned out. As far as I can tell, relative to Hollywood culture, she lived a clean life and was a life-long practicing Methodist (she probably couldn’t have been a Baptist given the prohibitions against dancing). She is a work of art!

[youtube wDHwJrbrp0Y]

=======
Off topic #4

I normally don’t like Tango music, but here is the best Tango, “Tango Tzigane” aka “Tango Jealousy”. It is an incredible mix of Argentine Tango form composed by Danish violinist Jacob Gade during the roaring 1920’s for virtuoso classical violin. The composition conveys so well the mood of the roaring 20’s almost utopian view of the world. He became rich on that one composition and retired.

[youtube KXObdWBr7os]
========
Off Topic #5 rated PG-13, maybe R.

The winner of supposedly family friendly “Ukraine’s got talent” was pole dancer Anastasia Sokolova. 😯 You can google here “Ukraine’s got talent” performance. I found Sokolova’s performance while googling “acrobatic dance”.

Pole dancing is generally lewd, Jenyne Butterfly (who performed on the Ellen DeGeneres show) and Anastasia Sokolova (performed on “Ukraine’s got talent”) added some class to this dance form (still a tad lewd, but wow,the athletic ability of Sokolova and Butterfly is incredible). Most of the screaming cheers for Jenyne Buttefly were coming from women! Jenyne almost defies gravity!

I won’t link to their performances (it’s probably PG-13 or R rated), but I will link to this acrobatic dance routine from “Ukraine’s got Talent”:
[youtube l9ihPrEbI8Y]

Off Topic #6
And not to be out done, the 5 most shocking from Britain’s Got Talent:
[youtube iNGS9lF1a54]

Comments
Axel@121, am I the only one who thinks that it is strange to respond to a four + year old comment, by someone who has been long banned from UD? Or is this a blog bug?Brother Brian
January 17, 2019
January
01
Jan
17
17
2019
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT
Sal @ #5 Strange that, Sal : your feelings about praying to the Virgin Mary, as I once read on another blog that Mary was the main thing former Catholics missed about their former faith. There seem to me to be excellent reasons for honouring her as ALMOST more divinely divine than humanly divine. Think of the billions of trillions of planets in just our known universe, which beside God would still be infinitely small, and that this mortal woman, albeit spared the effects of the Fall, gave birth to God as a fully human and fully divine person. But most significantly of all, think since like most mothers only more so, she would have felt so much of the extreme pain, agony and anguish Jesus had undergone simply during his passion and crucifixion - which must have seemed like an eternity : three times the maximum whip-lashes, always in the knowledge that it was but the beginning, and it could only get worse and worse - which it must have with each new torment and agony. And all the while the extreme hatred his love inpsired in his evil tormentors would have added that personal extra-painful dimension. Satre had it right : 'Hell is other people' (which, of course, includes ourselves to the infernally-tormented!). Of course, 'a miss is as good as a mile', and Mary herself was reported by a visionary to have told her that (in herself) she was nothing, a mere creature, a creation of God, (like all of us). And failure to understand that was one of the things that disappointed her the most.Axel
January 17, 2019
January
01
Jan
17
17
2019
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
BA77, old chap, would think you could dig up for me that article on the luminescence of the human body, caught on a kind of camera/imaging apparatus ? I mentioned it on Christian Forums, in the context of the recent findings of the zinc flashes of light when a human sperm enters an ovum, and the usual arrogant young atheist deadheads are blethering their usual agenda-driven scoffing. If you could find the time - though a tall order, I expect - perhaps you might like to shoot them down in flames. One chap is equation gamma rays with photons, Aah hae ma doots aboot that, but you'd ken ! If not convenient, I'll copy the link to the article for them, if you can find it.Axel
May 2, 2016
May
05
May
2
02
2016
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
'But they had many alters with statues and people kneeling and praying to the dead saints associated with the statues. I’m not so sure even the saints would be approving of such veneration: Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.” For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Revelation 19:10 That was the point I left, not because at the time I had much theological objection, but something in my heart said I won’t be necessarily closer to God by following such practices, and had this horrid frightened feeling I would actually be farther from Jesus by doing this. It was a feeling that I had so strongly then, and still do now. The theology came later (which I laid out with the scriptures listed in this comment).' Strange you should say that, Salvatore, as I have a quite different 'take' on those statues. As a revert fifty- four, arguably 59 years, ago, (though under the latter calculation, only in intention), I just feel kneeling in the pew is fine, but I do tend to envy cradle Catholics, who manage to feel comfortable making the effort to kneel in front of the statues, in the full knowledge that they are made of plaster. It probably helps them personalize their communications with their saints, and since the persons of the Most Holy Trinity are the ultimate reality in God, maybe their theology is the tops. Just my £ 00.2 On the other hand, I do believe that reference you cited concerning the angel (Rev 19:10) has immense implications for the clericalism, papal ring-kissing, bowing, the whole imperial court schtick, the angel having displayed the same attitude as Peter had, when a man fell on his knees before him, and Peter hauled him to his feet, assuring him that he was just a man like him. He evidently forgot nothing of the lessons on humility given them all by the Master.Axel
May 2, 2016
May
05
May
2
02
2016
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
'But they had many alters with statues and people kneeling and praying to the dead saints associated with the statues. I’m not so sure even the saints would be approving of such veneration: Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.” For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Revelation 19:10 That was the point I left, not because at the time I had much theological objection, but something in my heart said I won’t be necessarily closer to God by following such practices, and had this horrid frightened feeling I would actually be farther from Jesus by doing this. It was a feeling that I had so strongly then, and still do now. The theology came later (which I laid out with the scriptures listed in this comment).' Strange you should say that, Salvatore, as I have a quite different 'take' on those statues. As a revert fifty- four, arguably 59 years, ago, (though under the latter calculation, only in intention), I just feel kneeling in the pew is fine, but I do tend to envy cradle Catholics, who manage to feel comfortable making the effort to kneel in front of the statues, in the full knowledge that they are made of plaster. It probably helps them personalize their communications with their saints, and since the persons of the Most Holy Trinity are the ultimate reality in God, maybe their theology is the tops. Just my £ 00.2Axel
May 2, 2016
May
05
May
2
02
2016
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
Further to #115: http://www.beliefnet.com/Inspiration/Home-Page-News-and-Views/Wild-Elephants-Mourn-Death-of-famed-Elephant-Whisperer.aspx?p=1 https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/good-news/in-mexico-stray-dogs-crash-animal-lovers-funeral-153209047.htmlAxel
April 14, 2015
April
04
Apr
14
14
2015
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Since you seem to be a typical Catholic tear-away - at least of an academic persuasion - Salvatore, your preferred interpretation of a less obsessively family-oriented God than the Catholic one (who with all due respect, seems more like Old Mother Hubbard than say, Virginia Woolfe - mutatis mutandis genderwise, puzzles me somewhat), though in truth God doesn't have a gender. Here is an interesting article on the wilder side of Christianity that might make you chuckle : http://www.aleteia.org/en/religion/article/those-catholic-kids-could-swear-and-fight-5838171262681088?page=2Axel
April 14, 2015
April
04
Apr
14
14
2015
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
A little dog, stolen and dumped 100 miles from home, very purposefully flagged down an RSPCA van as it approached, jumped onto the passenger seat, and looked up at the RSPCA woman when she opened the door for him, as if, for all the world, he knew finally things were all right, and he'd be taken home. To my naive and primitive way of thinking, only God, the Holy Spirit, could have prompted our pretty unreflective little friend to hail his cab cum 'private detective', with such impressive confidence, indeed, authority. Definitely a 'ya ya' Sandhurst type. Then it occurred to me: What would our materialist friends make of the little dog's apparent savvy? Does every Yorkie have a field marshal's baton in his sack? Or was it just dumb luck, like the universe and everything, that it was an RSPCA vehicle. Where does survival of the fittest come into all this? http://www.care2.com/causes/stolen-yorkie-hails-animal-rescue-van-to-take-him-home.htmlAxel
April 14, 2015
April
04
Apr
14
14
2015
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
This is 'bajki' in Russian Cyrillic alphabet сказкиDionisio
October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
сказкиDionisio
October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT
Querius As a follow-up to your good post here: https://uncommondescent.com/origin-of-life/if-you-dont-believe-that-all-complex-life-on-earth-depends-on-a-single-freakish-accidental-event/#comment-514318 I wanted to add this, but thought better in this repository for OT posts, though references to the Scripture shouldn't be considered OT anywhere:
For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified. [Romans 8:29-30 (ESV)]
foreknew . . . predestined. It is a plan of sovereign saving grace, entitling all who now believe to trace their faith and salvation back to an eternal decision by God to bring them to glory, and to look forward to that glory as a guaranteed certainty. The destiny appointed for believers (conformity to Christ and glorification with Him) flows from divine foreknowledge. Here it is persons, not facts or events, that God is said to foreknow. God does foresee events, but Paul’s point is that God has of His own initiative chosen the objects of His active, saving love. “Know” implies intimate personal relationship, not merely awareness of facts and circumstances (Gen. 4:1; Amos 3:2; Matt. 1:25); it is virtually the equivalent of “elect.” Those predestined are, in due time, “called,” or effectively summoned through the gospel into saving fellowship with Christ (1:6; cf. 1 Cor. 1:9). We note that all of those “called” are also “justified.” The call cannot refer to the outward call of the gospel that many reject. It is an inward call of God that performs what He intends. All who are predestined are called in this way. Predestination includes God’s determination that a person will receive such an effective call (that is, the “effectual call”). Predestination is not based on God’s knowing beforehand how people will respond to the gospel. Just as the predestined are called, so the called are both justified and certain to be finally glorified. The past tense of “glorified” indicates that from God’s standpoint the work is as good as done. He will complete it as planned. [Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries]
Dionisio
September 12, 2014
September
09
Sep
12
12
2014
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT
After posting #110 I feel like a zookeeper feeding the voracious lions who quickly jump on the food and devour it in seconds ;-)Dionisio
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT
Oh, really? how? Where's the beef? show me the money! "...novel phenotypes can arise by reorganizing an existing gene-expression pattern. The reshuffling of functional behaviors to create new ones has now been well established through molecular biology studies and comparative research on behavior,..." http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/40583/title/Connecting-the-Dots/Dionisio
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
Prolific imagination? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/11046608/Ecosystem-found-under-Antarctic-ice-sheet-raises-hopes-for-alien-life.htmlDionisio
August 20, 2014
August
08
Aug
20
20
2014
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT
Box, I may partially agree with the article you asked me to comment on. For example, I see the author's raised issues about the mechanistic approach to biology and in a way understand his arguments. However, since I don't have a laboratory to run experiments in, I depend on the information coming from other researchers. Hence it's easier for me stick to their mechanistic explanations, and try to understand the biological systems using the available information. By trying to get the full picture of the given biological story I'm studying, considering different scenarios and their associated choreographies, I have to explore all the interacting mechanisms that operate in the particular area that I'm trying to understand. This is bringing me close to a holistic understanding of the subject being studied. Many factors have to be in the right place at the right time, for these systems to work well. Yes, many cases of regulated regulators and so on. Answer some outstanding questions, but new questions arise. Unending revelation of the ultimate reality. By looking at mechanisms, I'm using their own medicine, which is gradually leading me to a point where biological semiotics (described in some papers I've read out there) as well as gpuccio's procedures concept make more sense. However, what exactly are they, and where are they hidden? What do you think about this? Why do you like the holistic concept?Dionisio
August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
OT Genomic-scale exchange of mRNA between a parasitic plant and its hosts Science 15 August 2014: Vol. 345 no. 6198 pp. 808-811 DOI: 10.1126/science.1253122 Movement of RNAs between cells of a single plant is well documented, but cross-species RNA transfer is largely unexplored. Cuscuta pentagona (dodder) is a parasitic plant that forms symplastic connections with its hosts and takes up host messenger RNAs (mRNAs). We sequenced transcriptomes of Cuscuta growing on Arabidopsis and tomato hosts to characterize mRNA transfer between species and found that mRNAs move in high numbers and in a bidirectional manner. The mobile transcripts represented thousands of different genes, and nearly half the expressed transcriptome of Arabidopsis was identified in Cuscuta. These findings demonstrate that parasitic plants can exchange large proportions of their transcriptomes with hosts, providing potential mechanisms for RNA-based interactions between species and horizontal gene transfer. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6198/808.abstractDionisio
August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
Coffee or tea? Check the mind-boggling effect the caffeine contained in coffee or tea can have on our cells: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/a-third-way-of-evolution/#comment-510654Dionisio
August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
Box, I find the article very interesting and worth careful reading. Actually, it added support to the conclusions derived from my current studies. The only thing I don't understand in that approach is the OOL part of it. I can't find it. Anyway, at this stage of my studies, I'm most concerned about the way things work in the biological systems, specially focused in on the information processing aspects. Hence, the holistic view you pointed to seems to match some of the conclusions I'm getting at while reading the reports coming out of research associated with the elaborate choreographic cell fate determination mechanisms. Therefore, yes, I want to understand the article you provided and comment more on it, and perhaps even get some feedback from you and others on the same subject? Thank you.Dionisio
August 14, 2014
August
08
Aug
14
14
2014
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
Dionisio #103, Thank you for your reply. Further explanation is most welcome. However, only if you feel like it and find the article of interest.Box
August 14, 2014
August
08
Aug
14
14
2014
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT
Box, I didn't find enough spare time to look carefully into this today. In my recent studies I've noticed that the deeper I dig into the cell fate determination mechanisms, the more complicated and interconnected things appear to be. That seems to match some of the conclusions derived from the holistic views. However, I don't think I share all the views written in the document you provided. I could explain more later if you want to.Dionisio
August 13, 2014
August
08
Aug
13
13
2014
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT
Anyone whose pet dog has died knows the difference between a living animal and a dead one. Biologists surely know this, too, although (strangely enough!) the difference between life and death does not often figure explicitly in the technical literature presuming to characterize living creatures.
I was hoping that there would be some attempt to describe the difference between living and dead. At one moment, a body shows all the processes, responses, behavior, stimuli all functioning. Then in another moment, they all stop. But science, so far, has not been able to identify or observe the missing element between the two.Silver Asiatic
August 13, 2014
August
08
Aug
13
13
2014
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
Dionisio #100, Thank you very much. On occasion I draw attention to S.L.Talbott, who is IMHO onto a fundamental truth about life.Box
August 13, 2014
August
08
Aug
13
13
2014
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
Box,
would you care to comment on S.Talbott’s holistic views?
Sure, I will. My pleasure. I don't recall seeing that name or reading about those views before. Will read the text to comment on it as per your request. I have a meeting in a couple of hours and should get ready for it. Will try to respond after I'm back from the meeting. However, keep in mind that my credentials are poor and my knowledge is very limited, hence my opinion is irrelevant.Dionisio
August 13, 2014
August
08
Aug
13
13
2014
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic Thank you for the supportive words. God is good. Encouraging messages from friends are always welcome :)
It’s interesting that biologists are so specialized that they can’t understand each other, but we’re still supposed to believe that Darwin binds all of this together somehow.
That incident I mentioned, which occurred at my recent visit to a research center in a university, might confirm that biology is so large and growing in its information content, that one hardly can keep track of a small part of it. The Big Data is not an imaginary bluff, but a real issue to deal with. Science research requires large amounts of computing resources. One difficulty I've encountered during this radical career switch I've made, is that I can't find anyone to discuss the questions I have, even though I have several good friends who are biology science researchers. First, they don't have time for my questions, second, they don't know some of the specific stuff I've been studying lately, even though they know the terminology better than I do, because they have the background of many years of biology studies and research. My professional background is software development (information technology). In a way I'm an ignorant trying to learn. It's not easy at all. I'm struggling at every step. But I like it. :) BTW, the new Third Way shows that some atheist or agnostic scientists out there aren't willing to swallow the Darwinian pill. In any case, we should approach things with the humility of a child who ask all kinds of questions that pop up to their minds.Dionisio
August 13, 2014
August
08
Aug
13
13
2014
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
Mr. Cheese:
Allow me to refine my story posted above. Suppose I told you that I have foreknowledge that you will be having tea 1 week from now. Would you be able to change the outcome of that moment?
Suppose I told you that I had past-knowledge that you had tea 1 week ago. Would you be able to change the outcome of that moment? Thus, free will is disproved? We think that knowledge of the future is completely different, but must it be? We think we can change the future, but we really cannot. We can really only change the present. We think that we cannot change the past because it is the past, but perhaps we cannot change the past only because it is not the present. We live in the present. Therefore, we can only change the outcome of this moment. We only make a choice in this moment. We do not make choices in either the past or the future. Free will does not exist either in the past or the future, only in the now. Imagine that you have knowledge of the future, but that it works exactly like your knowledge of the past. Your knowledge of the past doesn't preclude choice in the past, it only means that if different choices were made, your knowledge of those choices would be different. In the same way, your knowledge of the future doesn't preclude choice in the future, it only means that if different choices are to be made, your knowledge of those choices would be different. The fact that a particular choice will be made is no more a restriction on free will than the fact that a particular choice was made. Again, choice can only happen in the present. What was was, and what will be will be, but when the past was present, there was choice, and when the future becomes present, there will be choice. What was is immutable and what will be is immutable, but the mutability of the present is grand indeed! At least that's how I look at it.Phinehas
August 12, 2014
August
08
Aug
12
12
2014
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
Dionisio, would you care to comment on S.Talbott's holistic views? Excerpt from article:
"I can hardly begin to describe the stunning complexity surrounding and supporting the strikingly diverse performances of the p53 protein. But by now every biologist knows how such “regulatory” processes extend outward without limit, connecting in one way or another with virtually every aspect of the cell. The article on p53 makes an admirable effort to acknowledge and summarize the almost endless intricacy and contextuality of p53 functioning and, with its language of mechanism and control, it does not differ from thousands of other papers. But that only underscores the undisciplined terminological confusion continuing to corrupt molecular biological description today. When regulators are in turn regulated, what do we mean by “regulate” — and where within the web of regulation can we single out a master controller capable of dictating cellular fates? And if we can’t, what are reputable scientists doing when they claim to have identified such a controller, or, rather, various such controllers? If they really mean something like “influencers,” then that’s fine. But influence is not about mechanism and control; the things at issue just don’t have controlling powers. What we see, rather, is a continual mutual adaptation, interaction, and coordination that occurs from above. What we see, that is — once we start following out all the interactions at a molecular level — is not some mechanism dictating the fate or controlling an activity of the organism, but simply an organism-wide coherence — a living, metamorphosing form of activity — within which the more or less distinct partial activities find their proper place. The misrepresentation of this organic coherence in favor of supposed controlling mechanisms is not an innocent inattention to language; it’s a fundamental misrepresentation of reality at the central point where we are challenged to understand the character of living things."
Box
August 12, 2014
August
08
Aug
12
12
2014
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT
That is challenging and fascinating, Dionisio. I wish you a lot of success in your university studies also -- it sounds like you've got a great start already. It's interesting that biologists are so specialized that they can't understand each other, but we're still supposed to believe that Darwin binds all of this together somehow. LOLSilver Asiatic
August 12, 2014
August
08
Aug
12
12
2014
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic Some of the materials I've read are PDF documents, but many are online, though some of them are behind paywalls. I plan to formalize my studies at a university, so I have access to the information behind paywalls and also can talk to biology scientists involved in academics and discuss the tough questions, while avoiding the potential philosophical implications, unless they want to discuss it too. At this stage my goal is to gather as many pieces of this puzzle as I can get. Last week I talked to scientists working on proteomics research, and when I tried to explain my interest in the mechanisms behind the precise timing of the centrosome segregation and the cell fate determinants segregation during the asymmetric mitosis and all what goes with that, they looked at me and confessed they didn't understand that stuff. I was shocked. That reaction was unexpected to me. A friend who is a biology scientist explained that the level of specialization in this growing biology science is so high that scientists can't barely communicate unless they are in the same exact area. This is challenging but fascinating. :)Dionisio
August 12, 2014
August
08
Aug
12
12
2014
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic I like that idea. Thanks.Dionisio
August 12, 2014
August
08
Aug
12
12
2014
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
Thanks, Dionisio. If you'd like - maybe after you read a paper, post your comments about what it means for ID here on this thread. Just a thought.Silver Asiatic
August 12, 2014
August
08
Aug
12
12
2014
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply