Dale Coparanis posted a long comment on my article 'Evolving' and I have responded as follows:

(Dale's lines are in italics, mine are not. ( I hope) )

As you know, Dan, I'm not a believer in the Faith of Evolution. Those that do believe it, however, want everyone else to accept that from nothing came the present day. Now I would call that a fairly big change.

I can't see any reason to believe it a big change. The present day did not come from nothing, it came from yesterday. I was here yesterday and it wasn't all that different in anyway that I can see. And as for the “Faith of Evolutuion” Well, I can tell you that I have directed evolution and seen the results of that evolution and I have seen the results of many other peoples work in evolution also. So while I do not insist that evolution is the only possible explanation of the present day ecology I can tell you that there is evidence I have observed for the existence of evolution and absolutely none that I have observed for any other explanation. 'Faith' is when you choose to believe something for which there is no evidence. Personally I find 'faith' to be a weakness that I hope we may someday overcome.

To bring it down to a more manageable level, it is believed that we evolved from apes (which evolved from smaller mammels, which evolved from reptiles, which evolved from fish, which evolved from single celled creatures, which evolved from the primordial soup, which evolved from rain falling on rocks, which came about from the earth forming out of space dust, which formed from material left over from the big bang, which came from??? I really like to think that one of my ancestors was a rock.). Therefore, it is quite reasonable to ask what the next step is. Certainly the differences that there are between the apes, "Lucy", pre-cro magnon man, and us are significant. Since evolution, in theory, doesn't stop, what's next? What do we look like? Are we bigger, smaller, fatter, thinner, have more arms, more eyes, fewer fingers?

One thing you should note is that the differences between us and a chimpanzee are in fact very small, when expressed as a percentage of our genome. Another thing to note is that whether you are supporter of the Biblical creationist approach, or tend away from the 'faith' side things, it would appear that you and I are descended from something in a mud pie.

To say that we have reached our evolutionary peak is kind of presumptuous, don't you think? I know that you haven't said that, per se, but you imply that with: "but the 'next step' will become the norm when it needs to or not at all."

Why would you think I suggest that we have reached our evolutionary peak (whatever that is)? And how could you find it presumptuous when you don't even believe we have an evolution to have a peak of? No 'change' in one or more members of a species is likely to become the new 'norm' for the species unless it imparts a significant advantage over those that do not have the 'change'. For example the ability to withstand the HIV virus, which is a possible 'next step' that we already knows exists, is not currently a significant advantage, evolutionarily, for those that have it, because currently only a very small percentage of the species dies from the result of the HIV virus. It will not become the 'norm' for the species. unless some virus shows up that is a lot more contagious and deadly than HIV and these people are also immune to that and everybody else dies off. Then an evolutionary step will have taken place. The 'next step' will becomes the 'norm' when it needs to or not at all

Since we are messing with evolutionary theory by doing work with DNA, one of the logical questions to ask is: "should we?" And, yes, I am serious. Can we be trusted to do what's right? Given the amount of evil in this world I would say no. In addition, given the willingness of many people to do whatever simply for immediate gratification (money, etc.), how can something as important as evolution be tinkered with in the right way?

I share your concern over the potential problems we could get ourselves into tinkering with evolution. True we have done it for centuries and are still here but we have made some fairly serious errors before an now we have the potential to really spoil the soup. But as they say “you can't put the genie back in the bottle.' If you honestly think that any amount of outlawing DNA manipulation can stop it from being done then I believe you are deluded. I would be very surprised if there were not a clone baby or six running around a nursery or six somewhere. And if you think it hasn't even been attempted then I have a nice Caribbean island which I am sure you would enjoy and I think I could make it yours for a very nominal sum if you could just be the first to send me $10,000 in small unmarked bills......

All I can see coming from outlawing research into the field is that good honest people will have no say in what is developed from it.

Your statement: "Every species evolves as needed or it dies out. is interesting. This explains why there are so many "living fossils" that have been discovered and why there is so much diversity in nature. It's really amazing how, accidentally, we have such an abundance of flora and fauna and why there are so many overlaps with them. I mean, just how many different types and colors of flowers does a meadow need?

Certainly there are a number of 'living fossils' . Alligators, crocodiles and many species of sharks to name a few. They haven't needed to change much at all. Or maybe you are talking about those rare finds of things that we know from fossils were once relatively common but had never been seen in recorded history until we started fishing miles down or some such. Well so what! If they still exist un-evolved from millions of years ago then all it shows is that, for at least some part of their habitat, evolutionary change was not required for survival. And, of course there is diversity in nature. Why would you think that evolution would require uniformity? Change happens! But not all change is 'evolutionary.' There are dozens of colors of pansies. Why? Because change happens. But all pansies are not one color because there is no particular advantage of one color over another.

Evolving

Dale Coparanis posted the following as a comment on my article Creationist Truth

Dan - what are we going to evolve into? Since evolution is always happening, what's the next step for humans?

When does that happen?

Do we risk upsetting the process of evolution by messing with DNA, cloning and other related scientific work?

If so, then should we stop all that work?

Dale, Evolution doses not happen in particularly large steps. For example we may evolve into being able to defeat all viruses naturally. Some people have been shown to be essentially unaffected by HIV for example, so if a virus were to evolve that killed anything that did not have this inborn defense mechanism then the species would eventually come to consist only of those that do. The next step is whatever is necessary to survive a changing environment. We either make it or die. The universe does not care which.
When will it happen? In one sense it almost certainly already has, but the 'next step' will become the norm when it needs to or not at all.
Do we risk upsetting the process of evolution by messing with DNA.cloning and other scientific work? Well in one sense the answer is "of course!" But in another sense "how could we?". We may kill ourselves off completely with an atomic holocaust, for example, but then again that may just be the assist the species needs to bring the trait of 'extreme radiation tolerance' into the 'norm'. We may also become the first(?) species to direct its own evolution consciously and go branching off deliberately and purposefully to occupy every environment possible and thus to exist for as long as there is a universe to house us.
Should we stop all that work? Get serious Dale! Are you going into the middle east without your cholera vaccine? Would you be pleased if some luddite decided that steel was 'unnatural' so when you took a bullet they had to cut it out with a flint blade?
Evolution is not some sort of weird and unusual thing. It has happened and continues to happen all the time and the rule is simple. Every species evolves as needed or it dies out. And as Baretta used to say, "That's all there is to that tune."

Creationist Truth

A comment by Ruth MacGill on Bert B's article entitled “About Faith and Doubt“ put me in mind of another common place 'creationist' argument. The one that says “Clearly, God made this world for us. Look how beautiful it is and how well it provides for us !” The first thing that comes to mind when I hear that argument is “What colossal hubris!” The world is a fine place for fish and fowl and bear and elk, etc. But of course it was made for us, not them? On what ridiculous basis do we assume that it was made for us?

The real problem is that the argument is ridiculous. We evolved here. How could we not find the world beautiful and supportive. Would anything evolve into a situation it found ugly and non-supportive? Of course not! Whatever, if anything, evolved in the interior of the sun would surely find it a beautiful and hospitable place. And, quite possibly, thank its God for being so kind as to create it such a fine place to live.

Good Old 'Trickle Down'

"Trickle down economics stems from the early 1950's when we were the only Western country whose industrial infrastructure had not been smashed and it was accurate to say that whatever was good for General Motors was good for the United States. That was no longer true by the time Reagan came to power, money was being left in the hands of America's economic elite which was investing it overseas -- not in America."

The above is from a comment by George McNaughton on an article by Dan (open minded conservative) K called Dear Mr. President .

It illustrates a problem with the Republican approach to the 'cut taxes to stimulate the economy' idea. It never was accurate to say that 'whatever was good for General Motors was good for the United States." In the 1950's and now the accurate phrasing of the statement is "whatever is good for the United States is good for General Motors." ( though General Motors may have already been demollished by the decades of abuse of the real 'United States')

To put it in terms more in line with what most people think of as the 'trickle down' concept; "what's good for the rich is good for the rest" is, was, and always has been false! the proper statement is, was, and always has been "what's good for the rest is good for the rich!" You do not stimulate an economy by stimulating rich people. any more than you water a tree by spritzing its top leaves. Rich people get rich when a whole lot of 'not so rich' people have money to pay them for what they supply.

'Rich people' don't consume much more that poor people and whatever they can consume they already are consuming so giving them more money does nothing for the economy.

And an economy is not made more vigorous by upping the available funds to create things, it is made more vigorous by upping the available funds to consume things.

The ability to create a product will never make you rich, it is the ability (and willingness) of customers to buy your product that makes you rich. Stimulating an economy is all about stimulating the consumers not the producers. A ready and able consumer is all the stimulus any producer needs!

What Do You Know?

What Do You Know?

What a loaded question. It leads, however to some pretty profound insights. (Maybe!)

David Hume in his Treatise On Human Nature put forward a proposal that I find compelling because of its usefulness in illuminating human behavior. He postulated a three tier hierarchy of information in the human mind. Stage 1 is perception, Stage 2 is belief, Stage 3 is knowledge.

He then defined 'knowledge' as that information which is so deeply ingrained that we act upon it without any conscious awareness of it. An example of 'knowledge': How do you walk? How do you talk? You can not tell me because you are not conscious of what it takes. You 'know' how to do it.

By now you see the problem with the title question. Under Hume's theory, any answer to that question is bound to be false. If you are conscious of it you do not 'know' it and if you are unconscious of it you would not be putting it in your list.

So how do we get to be what we are? Hume postulates that we perceive things and that when perceptions are consistent, persistent, and vivid enough they become beliefs and should they reach even higher levels of consistency, persistence, and vividness the information content of those perceptions becomes 'knowledge'.

Now according to the theory, we are born with a bunch of methods of perception and one basic piece of knowledge. For the most part, we can hear, see, feel, taste, smell and perceive our own thoughts. And what we 'know' is “I AM”. Everything else we learn over time.

How do we learn? We perceive! And if the perceptions reach a certain level of “persistence, consistency, and vividness” the perceived information is established as belief and if they are even more “persistent, consistent, and vivid” it becomes established as “knowledge” and is acted upon without any conscious awareness.

Two very important things should now be obvious.

One: If this theory is more or less accurate, we cannot possibly believe in our own non-existence. One might theorize that at some point one's self did not exist and at some point in the future one's self will not exist. One might even hold that idea as 'likely', however; since 'non-existence' cannot possibly be perceived, the concept cannot even reach the stage of 'belief', much less 'knowledge'. Therefore , by our very nature, we are bound to try to 'rationalize' this conflict between what we eventually come to perceive about everybody else, ie. They end, and what we 'know' about ourselves, ie. We have always been and will always be. Hence Heaven, Hell, Karma, Reincarnation, Valhalla, you name it. A million and one attempts to rationalize a dichotomy forced upon us by our very nature. To be human is to be tempted to religion. And to live without that crutch will ever be the hard road.

Two: Much of what we 'know' must be false! Why? Because our tools for perceptions are extremely limited and not very reliable. We can only see a very limited range of the electro-magnetic spectrum. We are so blind we 'knew' it was dark at night! We can only hear a small spectrum of sound waves so we 'knew' that giraffes make no sounds and bats fly silently trough the night. We knew that most things don't have a smell. We knew that the sun and moon were just a little further away than the top of a high tree or hill or tree on a hill. We 'knew' it for thousands of years and we were wrong for thousands of years. And there is a source of perceptions even less reliable than our eyes, or ears or nose. And if we don't learn to watch it closely at all times and question it constantly, our load of 'false knowledge' can actually threaten to overwhelm us entirely. That is our mind. Remember that a major source of our 'perceptions' is our mind. Our memories, of perceptions real or imagined, produce information we perceive almost constantly. Our conscious minds and our unconscious minds constantly serve us up thoughts. Our perceptions of these thoughts are as 'good' as any other perceptions, in that, if they are 'consistent, persistent and vivid' enough, their information will become knowledge! The problem arises from the fact that memories of perceptions are often inaccurate, either as the result of inaccurate perceptions from the physical world or from the fact that they are completely imaginary to begin with. But our mind does not care about truth! It only cares about 'consistent, persistent, vivid'. Meet that criteria and 'knowledge' is born. Serve a mind the 'consistent, persistent, and vivid' perception that Brits are cold and aloof sort of people and that mind will 'know' this even though its owner never met an Englishman. In fact, isolation from Englishmen will enhance the 'knowledge' as the consistency of the perceptions will be secure. Only constant questioning of perceptions and beliefs can possibly keep our 'beliefs' and 'knowledge' near the truth.

What do you know? Not all that much I hope!

China Leads the Way Again

Finally someone has recognized the hazard! China, that bastion of progressive correct think, is leading the way again. There can be no doubt that internet addiction is a major human problem. Communication and curiosity are diseases. We are so blessed to have the land of the Little Red Book and the estimable Red Guard to show us the way.