cypress

If you'd like, I can reduce the processes that store and retrieve information in a NAND flash system down to the constituent electrons trapped in each NAND cell.

The instruction sets used to execute and manage the process is integral to the process and exists independent of, not deterministically set by, and thus not reducible to material hardware, therefore the process is not reducible to material. Likewise the process that causes the NAND gates to be loaded rely on instruction sets that are not determined by the hardware.

How exactly do you propose that these common information-storing systems do not store the information via a configuration of mechanical or physical parts? NAND cells store information by the storage of electrons; hard disks store information as a result of magnetic field orientation, which is a result of the orientation of various structures inside the metal platter; DNA stores information in the material of its base pairs. Are you proposing that, despite information-retrieval mechanisms using these material properties to read out information, the information is somewhere else?

You are focusing on the configuration once the process of translating and storing information is complete, and you are neglecting the role of instruction sets in the process. Please note that I specifically mentioned the process. Retrieval of this information raises the same issue.

That goes without saying but, within the freedom of a democratic society is the facet of individual freedom, and people who can practise the Shariah within the parameters of the law are free to do so if their rights are respected. From my limited reading of the Shariah, it seems to be reasonably able to operate in a 'normal' Muslim state. As a former member of the Labour Party in Britain (a 'Socialist-leaning Party). I should make my position clear so that rigney can label me as a pinko Commie Liberal...

I suspect you have a point to make here but I don't see what it is you are saying. If a free democracy is superior to shari'a law then what significance is it that a free society is able to accommodate individuals who wish to practice and admitted inferior system? I fail to see the value of retaining an inferior practice at all. Why should we encourage anyone to be mediocre?

Agreed but in a system where big business is limited from its interference in the Government of the people by the people. IMHO, I have seen the Government of the UK led by the nose in political policy by a host of unelected 'advisers' who had links with big business. From 2000

It would appear that the fault lies with the politicians who allow their influence to be bought and the voters who enable them.

Before you answer back, please research and tell me how many of your Congressmen and Senators have sent sons and daughters into Iraq during the campaign to secure oil supplies? If the answer is less than 10, then those intelligent people who you admire so much for their 'protection' of the USA have not bothered putting their children into the firing line but choose to sacrifice the lives of the children of others instead.

Our armed forces are voluntary and the decision to join is made by the individual not by our politicians so I don't see the relevance. Do you have information that our politicians actively prevented their sons and daughters from entering the voluntary forces?

It is pretty well established that there is a material basis for memory.

In a computer system, processes that store and retrieve information into memory holding material is not reducible to material nor is the stored information reducible to material. Likewise the processes and systems that store and retrieve our memories are not reducible to material, nor are the memories themselves.

The other terms are less well defined and thus would depend on the context whether data is available. That being said, it is not clear how in detail specific memories are recreated (they are not simply stored and recalled, but exhibit large plasticity). Thus, the available knowledge is limited to which brain areas are involved, to a more limited amount which cellular processes occur, but the detail on how this has to interact with the rest of the brain to recreate a specific memory is still unknown.

Indeed it is unknown.

can this be achievable? i mean i we copy our memory from the brain and somehow from the subconscience and put them on a super computer and then we clone ourself and paste the information into the clone brain then we can come back to life as who we are is there something that doesnt allow this theorie supposing we have the technological advancement to do it ???

Nobody here has any idea if this is achievable. There is no demonstrable process by which memories, ideas, thoughts or information is reducible to material so any belief that this were possible is purely metaphysical based on a prior commitment to materialism.

When criticizing other countries, it is important to look at yourself, and think: "Are we really that much better?"

If you can confidently say "Yes, I am certain that our culture is superior", then feel free to explain this.

It seems rather easy to argue that a free democratic society founded on principles of inalienable rights is superior to a society based on Shari'a law.

As far as I'm concerned, the "free world" is forcing freedom onto some other coutries... which means it's not free, and therefore it failed before it started.

One can establish the basis for a free society but the society must reach out and grasp freedom. Freedom can only be forced on those who would otherwise force tyranny on others.

At the same time, the "free world" reduces the freedom for its own citizens in order to be able to protect them. Our governments are more concerned with our life expectancy than our actual freedom.

In a functioning democracy the government is accountable to society and society freely chooses limits to prevent some from gaming the system.

Profit trumps freedom already for several decades... It is also the capitalist world, not the free world that defeated communism... and it is the capitalist world that needed a new enemy.

Capitalism relies on a free market and a free society. They go hand in hand. Capitalism is its own worst enemy. It needs no others.

You ignore a billion Muslims that are "moderate" (stupid word - they're just "normal"). Your argumentation is based on emotions, and is in many cases flawed.

Surveys indicate that nearly half globally do not disapprove of suicide attacks. I don't see that as a "normal" viewpoint.

But worse, your ideas are a direct threat against the freedom we hold so dear, because you distinguish between peoples. It is this type of thinking (us and they) that will destroy the freedom we enjoy. You cannot live in freedom, and have your borders closed. The only way to defeat oppression is to actually live in freedom! We cannot reduce our freedom in order to fight for freedom in order to keep our freedom.

I don't understand this viewpoint. History indicates that societies that assimilate are successful while those that attempt to coexist within the same borders continue to have conflicts. A closed border does not restrict freedom of legal citizens. A free society must fight against those who would try to end it. Often that society must temporarily limit rights in order to prevent the enemy from exploiting them. This concept has been in place from the beginning.

A wise person came up with the saying: Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity. You cannot fight for peace, and you cannot force freedom upon someone.

I don't find it particularly wise. I value and will fight to establish and maintain freedom. Peace is achieved through strength so that a potential enemy perceives it would be folly to attack.

So, I must conclude that the "free world" isn't much better... only less violent... and even that can be debated.

On the contrary, I would conclude you are mistaken for the reasons I described above.

I would not go as far as to say that the Muslim world is a better place. I like my own culture too much. But I do not think that the course taken by Western governments against the Muslim world is the right one... and I am fairly certain that it will not achieve any of the goals.

I think ending terrorist attacks against the West a worthy goal that is achievable.

I believe that the story goes that Jesus himself said that "You should love your neighbor like you love yourself". In this modern world, your neighbor can come from up to 200 countries. And the world isn't gonna change because you dislike a minority of a particular branch of a religious group in a number of those countries.

The premise behind this statement seems flawed. It is entirely possible to love the person and still disapprove of what they support and do.

... And I always wonder why we fight the Taliban, and at the same time support a similar situation in Saudi-Arabia with hundreds of billions on oil money...

One generally goes after the greatest threat and one that can more easily be defeated and leaves the other and lessor challenges for a better opportunity or different tact. Are you suggesting that the Saudi Kingdom currently actively supports terrorism?

Can someone please explain in simple language and in step by step terms how to tackle a problem like this?

 

 

 

 

I have to answer a question that is very similar to this. (Only the numbers have been changed). But I haven't got a clue where to start.

 

At a guess my instinct is to find a way to convert these numbers into the same or similar units?

 

I have of course used different numbers here and I am not trying to cheat or anything (it's just a practice question anyway), as I really would like to understand how to do this. But my maths isn't strong (I'm an adult learner BTW), so I would appreciate as simple and clear a breakdown of this problem as possible.

 

With thanks!

Step 1) find the definition for density.

Step 2) Understand the definition and the calculation for density.

Step 3) Write out the formula for density

Step 4) Apply the formula using the inputs offered in the problem statement

Step 5) Complete the calculation and round the answer to the requested precision.

Can someone please explain in simple language and in step by step terms how to tackle a problem like this?

 

 

 

 

I have to answer a question that is very similar to this. (Only the numbers have been changed). But I haven't got a clue where to start.

 

At a guess my instinct is to find a way to convert these numbers into the same or similar units?

No not exactly. kilograms is a measure of mass while cubic meters is a measure of volume so they don't readily convert. The properties (mass and volume) are however contained in the definition of density.

I have of course used different numbers here and I am not trying to cheat or anything (it's just a practice question anyway), as I really would like to understand how to do this. But my maths isn't strong (I'm an adult learner BTW), so I would appreciate as simple and clear a breakdown of this problem as possible.

 

With thanks!

I'm not sure, but it does not seem like math is your issue here, instead you need to start at the beginning by finding and understanding the definition of the physical property known as density.

As to the gradualism vs PE thing. Darwin never said that things have to evolve at the same rate. We now know that great morphological changes can occur though very small modifications of Hox gene expressions with gene regulatory networks. So variable environments can lead to more evolutionary change than stable ones...no surprise there.

 

See these two papers by Emlen on Dung beetle horns:-

 

EMLEN, D. J. (2000). "Integrating Development with Evolution:A Case Study with Beetle Horns." BioScience 50(5): 403-418.

 

Emlen, D. J., L. Corley Lavine, et al. (2007). "On the origin and evolutionary diversification of beetle horns." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(Suppl 1): 8661-8668.

I see from these papers and a host of others that modifications to Hox developmental controls leads to deformation of an established form and degradation of corresponding function but I don't see any case where new functional configuration is derived. You are implying that changes to developmental controls drives functional morphological configurations but you offer only deformities as your evidence. From the evidence, we should conclude that modifying hox gene expressions leads to lost and degraded form and function as opposed to new form and function.

Hox and related gene clusters are highly conserved in evolution. They go back at least 500+million years to before the Cambrian Burgess Shale fauna. And yet they are flexible enough for great change and innovation to occur, via gene duplication, function gain, function loss, and subfunctionalization. For a detailed view, read:-

 

Carroll, S. B. (2005). "FROM DNA TO DIVERSITY: Molecular Genetics and The Evolution Of Animal Design". Oxford, Blackwell.

 

for a less technical account read:-

 

Carroll, S. B. (2005). Endless Forms Most Beautiful:The New Science Of Evo-Devo and the Making Of The Animal Kingdom. London, Phoenix.

Once again I don't see from these articles where great innovation is a result of hox and related developmental control changes. Molecular biology investigations instead seem to indicate that a coordinated package of differences are required to enable new form and function including new protein tertiary structures, new protein binding sites, new gene expression controls, new developmental controls, new regulation controls, new transport and assembly subsystems and others as well. A mechanism that explains derivation of novel form and function must explain coordinated and coherent derivation of of all of these subsystems. Coordinated derivation of these subsystems collectively implies a massive infusion of functional information to the organism. Any process that derives novel form and function must explain the source of this coordinated and coherent information infusion. Your model describes how randomly changing one of the subsystems can and does damage the outcome.

Evolutionary developmental biology is now in a state of crisis. Despite the initial promise of large functional change from few key mutations acting early in the developmental process, it has not worked out so well. William Jeffery, an evolutionary developmental biologist at University of Maryland concedes that evo-devo is "at a dead-end". A major problem is that conserved genes cannot explain how, in the end organisms with the same genes are so different.

Pennisi, Elizabeth, "Evo-Devo Enthusiasts Get Down to details", Science 298, Nov. 1 2002: 953

 

What is happening in this thread (rather disappointingly) is that certain people are conflating the point at which "life begins" with the point where potential person-hood emerges. The very fact that these two things are different is exactly why abortion can be allowed anywhere in Western civilisations despite the existence of legislation that prohibits unlawful killing.

 

Because of this, it is important in these discussions to keep in mind that "human" and "person" and "life" are not interchangeable terms.

It is actually becoming clear that the distinction between the three (when "life" is preceded by the adjective "human" to identify a particular species) is arbitrary and not scientifically derived. They seem to be terms of convenience constructed allow people to rationalize behaviors that would otherwise raise questions differing of ethics. It is a fact that some people choose to define them differently, to rationalize killing while others choose to define them as the equals to support a different viewpoint.

Many people claim science is dispassionate and is capable of providing objective distinctions as to what something is or is not, unencumbered by metaphysical viewpoint. It seems this is not as straightforward as some would like to believe. From this thread it appears that science can generally identify when the life of an organism begins, but it seems impotent at defining human or person-hood with any objective clarity once these terms are given definitions different from the organism.

If your belief were central to a relevant argument regarding the topic of when life begins, then by debate rules, I would have an obligation to rebut. But since you as much admit that it does not follow from your claim that all complex organisms are connected in a sense, and thus my life began billions of years ago, then your claim is a straw man and it does not matter whether or not it is an established fact (it is not). Since it does not matter to this topic, I believe I am obligated by rules to move on without responding to it any further. If you wish to tie it the the central question, then I would respond. I am not preventing you from debating your claim on its own merit in a post with your claim as the topic.

I am sorry this upsets you.

I was correcting you on my motivation for writing the post you quoted. I was not attempting to answer your question, which I took as rhetorical. Your screed only confirms what I guessed.

Ok, then it is not your claim and it is irrelevant that you are mistaken.

 

So if biblical writing suggest something you are uncomfortable about it's because you are interpreting it wrong? That's nothing but hilarious... but typical of religion...

No, I don't have any more stake in the correct interpretations as I do in the false ones you and the others clown around with. I just find it reprehensible that some people chose to try to trip others up by intentionally denigrating their beliefs without cause. I feel sorry for all of you that you feel you must do this.

Well then if you can't be honest then I guess discussion is not possible. But I'll try to make it clearer, it is demonstrable that all complex life is descended from single celled Eukaryotes, yours, mine, all complex life forms are Eukaryotes....

You were clear about your commitment to evolution earlier, but you did not answer my question that you claim this belief is true and by extension, it is also a fact that my life and every other complex life did not begin as individual organisms but rather our lives are an inseparable extension of the first eukaryote cell. Is this your claim?

I don't understand your response in context to the question asked.

I am curious, why is the exact method of abiogeneisis so important? We have more than enough data to show that Divine intervention is not required and we know that extant complex life is indeed derived from one type of single celled life form called a Eukaryote. Does it really matter if the remaining two basic life forms were formed from the merger of several other life forms or that they were derived completely independent of each other? The idea that the "tree" of life has a complex root system that had many different single celled life forms sharing DNA has been long suspected. Current single celled life forms also share DNA big time, often resulting in life forms that are not closely related acquiring DNA from each other is an established fact. But the fact remains that all complex life forms including humans share a common ancestor in eukarotes...

I hesitate to tread old ground after AzurePhenoix, who originally postulated this, has dropped the argument in favor of a more supportable one. Are you taking up the argument that your and my life are actually connected and began billions of years ago as a Eukaryote? If so, I will provide a similar example of how your conjecture (the one you incorrectly describe as a fact) is equally problematic, is not a demonstrable fact, and it also fails to adequately provide evidence to support a causal process.

If you would please confirm your argument with regard to when my and your life began.

First of all, who claims that evolution is step-wise? The only true steps are generations. Second, the papers themselves discuss models under which the existence and evolutionary relationship of these systems can be explained.

Do uninvestigated conjectures, cleverly inserted to cover a failed prediction, represent an adequate explanation?

In fact Woese already stated in the 70s that this was to be expected. Why? Because they promoted the view of an RNA world and the common ancestor of archaea and bacteria are assumed to have originated then.

 

Edit: actually that was also in the paper. In the introduction section. Sometimes it pays off to read a paper.

As far as I can see, Woese did not "predict" there should be differences in DNA replication processes until after the differences were known. I don't call that a prediction, I call it an after the fact explanation.

Years ago, it seemed obvious that eukaryotes evolved from the simpler prokaryote cells. This would nicely fit into the evolutionary expectation of a simple-to-complex lineage, but it does not fit the evidence. The assumption that archaea and bacteria originated from a self replicating RNA based organism also lacks an adequate explanation. It is not empirically derived, rather it is motivated by the conviction of a common ancestor, and it is carefully fitted to that conjecture.

A significant issue with this assumption is that it drops the old prediction and instead presupposes a new evolutionary model that is far more complex and requires that some fundamental molecular processes, performing functions common to all life, may not originate from a common ancestor, and instead evolved independently. This paper concluded, “the modern-type system for double-stranded DNA replication likely evolved independently in the bacterial and archaeal/eukaryotic lineages"[1]. Some evolutionary biologists are reconsidering the assumption that all life on Earth shares the same basic molecular architecture and biochemistry, and instead consider the possibility of multiple origins of fundamentally different life forms.[2]

1. D. Leipe, L. Aravind, E. V. Koonin, “Did DNA replication evolve twice independently?", Nucleic Acids Research 27 (1999): 3389-3401.

2. Carol E. Cleland, “Epistemological issues in the study of microbial life: alternative terran biospheres?", Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 38 (2007): 847-861.

The model of common ancestry is not "perfectly adequate". It relies on conjecture motivated by factors other than empirical evidence.

The relevance to this thread is that the idea of common ancestry cannot be used to support a particular interpretation of when a unique human life begins.

In my studies of ancient historical texts one of the first principles I learned when multiple interpretations were possible was that proper interpretation required knowledge of the writer's traditions and careful analyses of the native text in context with that historical period. Failure to adhere to this principle often resulted in erroneous inferences similar the one you imply.

Sure we can help. What do you have so far?

Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew, but that's not particularly relevant.

 

A simpler, consistent meaning for "all" would take into account the phrase "until heaven and earth pass away" in the passage, which indicates that perhaps Jesus means "until the end of time;" i.e. everything that will ever be accomplished will be accomplished.

 

We can get some context on this phrasing with Luke 16:17, when Jesus sates "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped."

The primary difficulty of this interpretation is that it necessarily ignores that Jesus clearly states he came to fulfill the covenant or promise that was made when Jewish law was established and then he relates his task to the all that is to be accomplished. Once a covenant or promise is fulfilled the obligation is removed. The relationship to his task and what is to be accomplished is more clear prior to the translation into english.

Well, the difference is that Paul denies the importance of works entirely, whereas Jesus believes they are essential.

The majority of Christian tradition disagrees. There are several passages from Paul that illustrate a correspondence between Jesus' teachings and those repeated by James and Peter.

Romans 3:31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law....

Corinthians 9

For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward, but if not of my own will, I am still entrusted with a stewardship. What then is my reward? That in my preaching I may present the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but nunder the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that qby all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives sthe prize? So trun that you may obtain it. Every uathlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we van imperishable. So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

and in Galatians 5:

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love rserve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

the particular quote i disagreed with was You did not say moral (truth), you said morality. You said there can be no morality (unspecified,)

OK , fair enough I could have been more clear and would have had I realized that the term morality was confusing.

I pointed out that evolution adequately accounts for morality (relative/subjective/variable).

Can you validate that this is true? I have not seen any valid demonstration that behavior is a product of evolutionary processes nor have I seen any demonstration the intuition or thought or any other aspect of what may make up our intuitive sense of right and wrong is either.

If by redefine you mean use valid variations on the word that may differ from your own, I'll have to disagree. I find that more accurate and intellectually honest than just inventing fantasy definitions or pretending that real, alternative definitions don't exist when they conflict with the one I'm blindly biased towards, or are wrong just because I wish they weren't valid.

In your initial response to my post you said, "Morals can be and are derived from the interpersonal interactions between the individuals that make up any social group." What you are describing are social norms as opposed to a sense of right and wrong derived from introspection. Others in this thread also speak of morals as if they were social norms and my comments address the spectrum of alternative viewpoints including your original description. If this is not what you meant when you said the quoted words than I misunderstood you just as you did misunderstand my words.

Then how are they meaningfully, applicably different than variable, subjective morals? Or does their origin just make them honorarily special for no practical reason?

While I agree there are social norms and those can and do change over time, I don't see anywhere that it has been established that our sense of right and wrong obtained through introspection is variable or subjective. It is meaningful because if they are fixed, that implies one thing. If they are variable that implies another.

And that standard is survival value. Surely you understand that the requirements for the overall long-term success of such a complex association as a population of organisms in an ever-changing ecosystem requires the behaviors of those organisms to shift and adapt to better overcome the protean circumstances that can negatively impact the group's success. Fixedness in the face of out-competitive change is a maladaption and direct route to extinction.

I can see that some behaviors would shift but I don't see that survival necessarily requires shifting of ones sense of right and wrong. I doubt you claim that moral beliefs deterministically fix behaviors.

Any moral can be arbitrarily believed to be an absolute if you presuppose the existence of moral absolutes, whether murder is wrong or that making guacamole without liberal amounts of cayenne pepper and lime is wrong. The nigh-ubiquitous negative regard for murder and rape held by humans are adequately explained by the practical negative impact they have on a group, and as a result, the success of the individuals within the group. The empathy many or most humans show for one another can be explained in part as an adaptation to help us maintain this advantageous group structure, as you are less likely to harm another if you can empathize with them.

Your explanation is a stawman that adds no more to the discussion than if I were to proclaim that a creator adequately explains our full set of moral beliefs. I offered these as two possible examples of moral beliefs unchanged over time and your response does nothing to demonstrate they are actually variable or subjective.

Game theory even accounts for sociopaths who aren't bound by empathy for one another, and do not follow moral norms, as part of a behavioral arms race. It's expected, inevitable actually, that some individuals will adapt within a group to exploit the general social norms to their own advantage and increase their success. However, their success is kept in check by the fact that the wider, cooperative social behaviors adapt to counter them (this is why most sociopaths are more subtle than the serial killing psychopaths they're portrayed as popularly; it wouldn't do to draw attention, and retribution, upon yourself). If the "moralists" failed however, the amoralists would rapidly dominate the population until everyone was amoral. However, if everyone is exploiting everyone else, it rapidly becomes advantageous to be able to depend on a group of others you can trust, and moral behaviors re-establish themselves. If a social group was entirely moral however, in its naivete, it'd be ripe for the picking by the first amoral mutant.

Another strawman argument. This one by virtue of the assumptions, constructs a tautology that guarantees your desired outcome, but this time in a way that supports my proposal that morality seems fixed over time.

When you say that I argue that morals exist but believe they shouldn't, you are implying the consistent use of term "morals" when you know full well to make the distinction that I recognize the existence of variable, subjective morals with demonstrable practical value, and deny the existence of absolute, metaphysical ones.

Good then we understand each other.

Actually, when I introspect I tend to realize that it'd be very easy to slip into nihilism in response to the ultimate purposeless of the material, uncreated universe, if I were too stupid to simply accept and appreciate the cards we've been dealt by that very same universe.

I'll try to avoid meeting up with you in a dark alley.

done

Failed.

(Absolute) morals cannot exist, even with a god. (Practical, variable, subjective) morals do exist regardless of whether or not there is a god,

I must be having a slow night. Where have you established that either of these statements is factually correct?

the scientifically derived explanation for the evolutionary diversification from a common ancestor is perfectly adequate, and repeatedly shown to be consistent with observable reality.

It is inadequate because at the molecular level new discoveries have shown that functional proteins greater than 150 units are approximately 1 in 10^78 of the total possible. Douglas Axe, "Estimating the Prevalence of Proton Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds", Journal of Molecular Biology, 2004. A unique protein in a functional system generally requires multiple binding sites of generally 3-10 consecutive amino acid pairs. In addition corresponding gene expression controls and developmental controls are required along with a host of specialty proteins to aid in storage, transportation, assembly and repair. These systems are all required for most protein systems and must all be in place for the system to function. Evolution by random stepwise processes along with selection once a useful function can be selected for does not adequately explain how such systems might arise. In the lab attempts to observe derivation of sub-steps have thus far failed to demonstrate that mutation even with strong selection pressure derives systems requiring 3 or more steps. Novel functions seem to require several times that many steps. Axe's work seems to explain why we don't observe multiple step pathways leading to new function. There is the rare case of a stand-alone enzyme requiring no protein protein binding sites having been derived in a single step mutation. There are also cases of single mutations damaging current function to prevent introduced chemicals from exploiting a protein system to defeat bacteria. There are no known cases of these single mutations forming a portion of a larger pathway to novel function.

The mechanisms that allow for this have been factually observed,

Stepwise mutation and natural selection has not generated the required multi-step pathways. What mechanism do you refer to and what novel protein function was formed? Mutations allowing for adaptation of an existing function has been factually observed, but your claim is that known evolutionary processes are factually observed to generate the new systems that lead to new species. These novel systems require multi-protein systems that in turn give rise to new form and function. Can you please factually establish these observations you claim exist?

and, lets say in the case of an eye, the evolution of all of the little intermediary steps necessary to form an eye like our own have been shown to be individually possible.

No, I've seem a bit of hand waving and citation of a handful if plausible intermediates separated by an unknown number of specific steps with no pathways from one intermediate to another. Please describe even five contiguous steps in the presumably thousands of steps involved in an presumed evolutionary pathway involving an eye. Don't skip and of the "little intermediary steps".

It would require some unknown mechanism to working to actively prevent these processes from occurring to limit the possibility of the evolution of a complex eye via observed mechanisms.

References supporting this statement please.

Ultimately, there are no coherent arguments against the relatedness and common descent of observed life on earth, only evidence for.

Here is one:

There exists different DNA replication processes, used for viral and plasmid DNA. This is counter to what is expected of common descent and stepwise evolutionary processes. Here are some quotes

It is therefore surprising that the protein sequences of several central components of the DNA replication machinery, above all the principal replicative polymerases, show very little or no sequence similarity between bacteria and archaea/eukaryotes.

In particular, and counter-intuitively, given the central role of DNA in all cells and the mechanistic uniformity of replication, the core enzymes of the replication systems of bacteria and archaea (as well as eukaryotes) are unrelated or extremely distantly related. Viruses and plasmids, in addition, possess at least two unique DNA replication systems, namely, the protein-primed and rolling circle modalities of replication. This unexpected diversity makes the origin and evolution of DNA replication systems a particularly challenging and intriguing problem in evolutionary biology.

D. Leipe, L. Aravind, E. V. Koonin, “Did DNA replication evolve twice independently?", Nucleic Acids Research 27 (1999): 3389-3401.

E. V. Koonin, “Temporal order of evolution of DNA replication systems inferred by comparison of cellular and viral DNA polymerases", Biology Direct 18 (2006): 1-39.

For DNA replication, the prediction that these molecular process should be conserved across all life has been empirically falsified. Not only are specific important molecular parts not conserved, but there are several types of DNA replication processes.

Anyway, do you believe that genetic testing can be used to determine the relatedness of individual humans within a population? Or is that metaphysics too?

Of course it can because one can empirically validate the results of genetic testing by comparison to birth records. Once validated by direct comparison on known subjects, one can se the same test to infer relatedness of unknown subjects.

Since the use of genetics to evaluate the relatedness between more distinct groups of organisms in phylogenetics is the same principle.

The principle is not the problem. the problem arises when one attempts to extend a valid concept further and further from the limits to which it has been validated. It quickly reaches a point where the uncertainty of the conclusion exceeds the range of observed similarity and differences. At that point to claim that the results are empirically meaningful is without merit.

But even if none of that were true, how does the relatedness or lack thereof between groups of organisms impact the issue? It seems that the conception/life/person issue is a matter of "what is" regardless of what came before.

It matters a great deal because you seem to have used the relatedness conjecture to claim that life is continuous; that an individual organism is simply an extension of the first life 3.8 billion years ago. Relatedness is a conjecture and your argument that we are all an extension of life as a whole is as well.

I certainly agree more with your current statement that indicates "what is" are individuals unique and separate from the parents.

Don't make up a new problem to solve. Work with the task at hand. The problem statement does not require you to figure out how current reaches the inner surface. Focus on Swansont's question and derive a formula based on the relationship and geometry.

The conflict is undisputed. Peter was the rock upon which Jesus said the Church was to be built. Paul was a Christian Persecutor. Peter was present for Jesus's teachings. Paul wasn't. Who do you think was right?

Right about what? If you mean the conflict over whether or not the law was fulfilled, and the authorship of the biblical content is correct, then it seems quite obvious that Paul was correct.

By the way, Jesus's teaching support Peter's view that works are required rather than Paul's view that they aren't.

Jesus and Paul both teach that both are required.

Oh, and you REALLY don't want to play the authorship game.

I don't mind this game I have no stake in the outcome.

It's not really relevant HOW Jesus will fulfill the Law, since He EXPLICITLY told us when He will Fulfill the Law.

 

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until ALL is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."-Matthew 5:17-20

 

It's abundantly clear that either, according to Jesus, the Law still stands or the Second Coming has already occurred. In fact, Jesus quite explicitly teaches several times that works are absolutely necessary to enter the Kingdom.

He teaches that "ALL" is to be accomplished in order for the law to be fulfilled and that nothing will pass from the law until it is accomplished. These words were originally written in Greek not english and Jesus likely said them in Hebrew. Please demonstrate the "All" means what you claim it means because your interpretation that All means what you term as the "second coming" is nowhere to be found in the passage. A simpler meaning for "all" is the tasks that Jesus claims he was sent to accomplish at that time.

"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."-Matthew 7:17-20

 

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as [one] having authority, and not as the scribes."-Matthew 7:24-29

 

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."-Matthew 16:24-28

 

"And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions."-Matthew 19:16-22

 

"Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered. And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away."-Matthew 21:18-19

 

"For [the kingdom of heaven is] as a man travelling into a far country, [who] called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made [them] other five talents. And likewise he that [had received] two, he also gained other two. But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money. After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. His lord said unto him, Well done, [thou] good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them. His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, [there] thou hast [that is] thine. His lord answered and said unto him, [Thou] wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and [then] at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. Take therefore the talent from him, and give [it] unto him which hath ten talents. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."-Matthew 25:14-30

 

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed [thee]? or thirsty, and gave [thee] drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took [thee] in? or naked, and clothed [thee]? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."-Matthew 25:31-46

 

It's not solely based on Matthew, but even if it were, that shouldn't matter. Is there any reason to doubt the validity of the words ascribed to Jesus in Matthew?

I don't know of any reason to doubt them. What I do have reason to question is how these saying demonstrate your claim that "all" should be taken to mean the supposed "second coming"? Where have you shown that Jesus' original hebrew saying translated to greek and then to english meant the "second coming"?

"And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."-Luke 3:9

 

"And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like: He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock. But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great."-Luke 6:46-49

 

"He spake also this parable; A certain [man] had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung [it]: And if it bear fruit, [well]: and if not, [then] after that thou shalt cut it down."-Luke 13:6

 

"And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works."-Revelation 2:23

 

"Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double."-Revelation 18:6

 

"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works."-Revelation 20:12-13

 

And of course, we have Paul saying:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God--not the result of works, so that no one may boast."-Ephesians 2:8-9

 

We have two incredibly different views. Disagreement on such a vital theological point alone should be enough to cast Paul away as a heretic.

Do you claim that Paul did not make similar statements about those who would not be saved?

Do you claim that Jesus and the old testament writing never indicated that faith is a component, that ones own works alone could not save and that God must intervene to save?

Here we have Jesus speaking of the need for faith.

Matthew 9:2 Some people brought to him a paralyzed man on a mat. Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralyzed man, "Take heart, son! Your sins are forgiven."

Matthew 9:18 As Jesus was saying this, the leader of a synagogue came and knelt down before him. "My daughter has just died," he said, "but you can bring her back to life again if you just come and lay your hand upon her."

Matthew 14:31 Instantly Jesus reached out his hand and grabbed him. "You don't have much faith," Jesus said. "Why did you doubt me?"

Matthew 17:20 "You didn't have enough faith," Jesus told them. "I assure you, even if you had faith as small as a mustard seed you could say to this mountain, `Move from here to there,' and it would move. Nothing would be impossible."

Matthew 21:21 Then Jesus told them, "I assure you, if you have faith and don't doubt, you can do things like this and much more. You can even say to this mountain, `May God lift you up and throw you into the sea,' and it will happen.

Matthew 23:23 "How terrible it will be for you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are careful to tithe even the tiniest part of your income, [ Greek to tithe the mint, the dill, and the cumin.] but you ignore the important things of the law--justice, mercy, and faith. You should tithe, yes, but you should not leave undone the more important things.

Mark 2:5 Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralyzed man, "My son, your sins are forgiven."

Mark 10:15 I assure you, anyone who doesn't have their kind of faith will never get into the Kingdom of God."

Luke 18:8 I tell you, he will grant justice to them quickly! But when I, the Son of Man, return, how many will I find who have faith?"

And here we have him commenting on the relative value of works and the things Paul emphasized.

Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone.

Truly, truly, I say to you, He who believes in me will also do the works that I do;and Greater Works than These will he do.

Blessed are the Pure in Heart, for they shall see GOD.

Verily say unto you, none will be saved unless they believe in my cross. But those who have believed in my cross, theirs is the kingdom of God.

Become earnest about the word! For as to the word, its first part is faith; the second, love; the third, works; for from these comes life.

Hearken to the word; understand knowledge; love life, and no one will persecute you, nor will anyone oppress you, other than you yourselves.

Ask, and it will be given you;Seek, and you will find;Knock, and it will be opened to you.

Invoke the Father, implore God often, and he will give to you. Blessed is he who has seen you with Him when He was proclaimed among the angels, and glorified among the saints; yours is life.

I don't se any substantive difference when you take the full writing in context and refrain from quote mining / cherry picking as you have attempted to do.

Now, the paper in the OP presents what appears to be a completely plausible explanation of Paul's embarrassing illness AND the disparity between his teaching and those of Jesus. The paper sure gets points for explanatory elegance.

The paper has the same problem that you have in that you have not demonstrated your point.

That seems to be the limit of the discussion, since we're talking about abortion.

If the discussion topic dictates the limits of what should be cited, then your citation of the saying that "human life is a gift from God" is also out of bounds.

If there is no intervention, how can God have authority over who lives or dies?

Is it necessary that authority must intervene?

It is necessarily true that God has no morals if what you said was true (and also if there is no higher authority than God). It is really a simple deduction of the form,

If A then B

Not A.

Therefore not B.

 

So unless one of those assertions is false, then you have claimed that either God has no morals or there is an authority higher than God. So which is it, or do you wish to retract your claim that there can be no morality without a higher authority?

A third possibility is that the assertions apply to the created but don't necessarily apply to a moral God. Additionally in my base assertion I don't make any characterizations of this higher authority so you seem to be assuming that this higher authority is not accountable. I don't make that assumption.

And with a god there also cannot be intrinsic morals. There aren't intrinsic morals, and neither believing in nor actually having a god can change that. Invariant morals can be made without a god -- all that needs be done is not change them, eg base them off a book.

And yet still nobody here has even attempted to demonstrate that what you say is factually correct.

Natural selection would then have a tenancy to spread this adaptation. For most people that would be good enough, but for actual proof you'd have to study the evolution of anger which happened a really long time ago, and how it switches to the more long-term vengeance in species able to understand long-term effects.

Do you have evidence for this truth claim, or is it similar to the previous conjectures?

It doesn't even matter who has the right definition, that would just make it that we are saying different things. I am saying there is no logically necessary way to choose morality, such that morality must be arbitrarily chosen, where by morality I mean "a system for telling right from wrong". What are you saying? That there can be no eternal things god said are right and wrong without an eternal god to say they are?

If that were what I said then those who took exception to my original statement would be silly to have claimed it is false.

Ok, but our society/legal system is a higher authority than an individual, so are you saying that we can have morals without god (who doesn't have any anyways) by having our higher authority be society? And like god, our society (our highest authority) can make their own morals?

I don't see how society could insert an intrinsic (what you call biologically based) sense of right and wrong into my being so I would have to disagree.

What we have are some biologically based morals. However, logically that does not make them any better. If we had different biology we would have different biologically intrinsic morals, but could still choose any other moral system.

I'm pretty sure this is not an establish fact either.

Well, we know that Paul, in Romans and the other epistles, advocated that Gentile converts should not be required to keep the Jewish Law. Peter apparently objected, as Galatians 2:11-16 shows:

Now, some context. Cephas is, of course, Peter (Cephas is Aramaic). The "people... from James" were likely more strict Jews who interpreted the Law to rule that Gentiles and Jews should not eat together, and Paul clearly objects that following Jewish Law is not required of a believer in Christ. (Particularly Gentile believers.) Acts, of course, documents that Paul's view eventually became dominant, but Galatians shows significant internal disagreement in the churches.

Thus far I don't see anything that addresses my questions.

Well, I've shown Paul's view of the disagreement above, and you can see more of the conflict in Acts.

Perhaps you have illustrated a disagreement (it is not uncommon for even wise people to have disagreements) from the authors Paul and Luke's viewpoint, but you have not demonstrated that the Apostle Peter wrote the letter, you have not established who the writer regards as his enemy and you have not established to what the writer objected.

But as for what Jesus taught, here's a sample in Matthew 5:17-20:

Indeed, the author Paul did not advocate that the law was abolished, rather he claimed it was fulfilled just as Jesus claimed was his task. This is one of the common misinterpretations those who claim Paul is at odds with Jesus' teaching stumble all over. If one is under the law, and it is not yet accomplished, then it would stand to reason that it should be difficult to enter the kingdom. However, once the law is fulfilled, the law is no longer a barrier to entering the kingdom. Seems straightforward. All that is left is to understand how Jesus intended to fulfill the requirements of the law.

Of course, scribes are interpreters of the law, and the Pharisees were a group known for their particularly strict interpretation of Jewish law.

 

Another famous parable serves to illustrate this further. Matthew 19:16-22:

 

We see in Matthew a strong emphasis on the commandments and the Jewish Law. Jesus certainly disagrees on some points of interpretation of the Law, such as in the famous incident when he healed a man on the Sabbath. However, his emphasis on the Law and good works is quite clear.

And again Jesus spoke in present tense when the law was not fulfilled. In Jesus' demonstration on the Sabbath my understanding is that its purpose was to demonstrate that the Jewish leaders had been misusing the commandment. The fact that he was not arrested on the spot seems to confirm that understanding.

In the Galatians passage, however, Paul emphasizes faith, and denigrates the Jewish Law and works. As he does in Ephesians 2:8-9:

He indicates that the law has been fulfilled. In speaking of the value of attempting to follow the law he even confirms the meaning of the parable you quoted from Jesus where those who scrupulously follow the law even still will not be able to enter the Kingdom. I don't see how you can describe his words as denigrating. They seem to confirm Jesus' thoughts on the matter. In other writings of his he speaks of himself during the times when he was under the law and the importance at that point of following the law.

It appears that this is a problem with interpretation and as of now a problem that the author of quoted writings remain unverified and the meaning of the writing is uncertain.