h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Gif,

so Shannon Entropy isn't really a valid measure to use then? Is this just creationists distorting things again?

Bouncy,

"However, if you put some spaghetti in a box and shake it, the spaghetti will line up parallel."

Do you mean like this?:

http://www.fred.net/tds/noodles/noodle.html



F

Hi Pedro,

No, it's not really a sensible measure. None the less, it is occasionally used by Cdesign proponentsists. So my question is: what measure *are* Creationists using? Total storage capacity (analogy: capacity of a hard drive)? Used storage (amount of data on a hard drive)? Minimum data required (compressed hard drive)? Something else?

Until they specify what measure they are using, they can simpy respond to any example by picking a definition of 'information' to suit.

Gif

Hi Fathom,



Gif

I obviously wasn't referring to a modern fish but to the swimming organism(s) that crawl up in the land in so many Discovery Channel documentaries about evolution. They swim and generally fit into the linguistic category of "tadpole / fish like things"

"Humans are not descended from any contemporary, living species, but share a common ancestor, as does all life on the planet. Such common ancestors are now either extinct, or have evolved.

No contemporary species is evolving into any other extant species, which is why fish do not evolve into monkeys, nor do monkeys evolve into men."
For the sake of argument, let's assume universal common descent. How do you know that every single most recent common ancestor is extinct? Surely some of them would still be around ... in places like Madagascar?

As in living fossils? Something like a Coelacanth perhaps?

Hi NPF,

>How do you know that every single most recent common ancestor is extinct?

Well that's pretty easy. They're *ancestors*. I think it's fair to say that fish and humans don't share a common ancestor within the last 4 or 5 generations. I also think it's fair to say that no more than 4 or 5 generations (of humans, maybe a few more for some fish) are currently alive. Ergo, any common ancestor they had is long dead.

If you're talking about whole species, rather than individuals, then that's a harder question, and would depend on your definition of 'species'. There are certainly many modern species that are very similar to ancient species (though there are usually small differences, so the experts assure me).

Not sure where you're going with this...?

Gif

I wonder if it was going to be a variety of the 'where are the transitional forms?', 'Flying squirrel, gliding lizards, flightless birds, all of us.' argument?

Since we seem to be getting a bit desultory in the dialogue here, I'll give a very personal answer to the question asked in the thread's title (What have I got against religion?)

...My five year old niece was visiting here yesterday and up the street came what is locally known as a "topeng monyet". Literally, that means "monkey masque". It's a traditional form of street entertainment which involves a couple of people with a monkey who, for a small contribution, will have the monkey perform tricks in your front garden or driveway. These usually involve silly hats, pushing a miniature wheelbarrow, doing backflips, wearing a mask, riding a little bicycle, etc.

The monkeys are not always treated kindly by their owners, sometimes even cruelly. Nevertheless, I paid a few Rupiah to have theirs perform. The little girl enjoyed giving the little monkey peanuts and bits of mango and was excited and thrilled by a fairly pedestrian show.

I had a degree of ambivalence regarding the morality of contributing to the perpetuation of the tradition.

On the one hand, the tradition has included distinct cruelty to and exploitation of a lovely animal.

On the other hand, the tradition is venerable, forms a part of the Javanese cultural legacy, and this particular topeng family was very kind to its star performer. As well, the owners barely survive in a business that is all they know in a country where people literally starve to death if they have no income. In addition, it made my niece happy and gave me an opportunity to talk to her about cruelty to animals.

Back to the first hand, that monkey did suffer thirst while looking for an audience, while the second hand suggests that the monkey would probably have died an orphan if not taken in by the topeng people.

There are countless arguments available on either side.

> the monkey got food and a drink

> supporting the tradition encourages or at least perpetuates exploitation of animals

etc. etc. The vacillation was part of my ethical consideration of an action I had to take.

My problem with religion is that it would offer a shortcut to the right answer and relieve a moral agent of any responsibility for making a moral choice. Religion would offer a rule. And each religion, each sect, would offer a different rule with a different rationalisation.

I don't believe that ANY human being has the right to abdicate responsibility for a moral decision...even a minor one such as that offered above.

I submit that there is no substitute for consideration of the alternatives and that religion pretends to offer just that substitute.

It is morally objectionable on those grounds.

Not too long ago to be an officer of the church you would have to be intelligent. sensible, dedicated and a fairly well educated person. Nowadays such people have better things to do than peddle religion and the church has to take just about anyone.

A friend recently attended the funeral of a young woman who had been badly burned in a house fire and died in hospital a few weeks later. The vicar - who knew the family and had performed the young woman's marriage ceremony a few years earlier - got her name wrong, gave the wrong date for her wedding and read out a poem about 'burning in flames'. Such is the calibre of our modern day spiritual and moral guides.

F

CofE priest gets c. 15k a year. No council tax and allowances for a car (if needed) and a few other bits and bobs. Pension too but not overly generous. Not really that attractive unless you really feel you want to do the job.

btw 15k figure may be a few years out of date.

Do they still get a house?

Gif

yep. Well, y'know, get somewhere to live. They still have to maintain it and they ain;t the large country houses they used to be - they've all been sold off to retired stockbrokers who want somewhere nice to live in the country. Or ex judges as in the village where my parents lived for a bit.

That makes it a bit more manageable. Still not exactly competitive with lawyers or accountants though, is it?

Gif

Giford (

You are not wrong about the avoidance of talking about a god. Though not totally due to legal reasons.

Michael Behe wrote 'Darwins Black Box' within which he wrote about irreducible complexity and for which he got totally stuffed during the Dover Trial. A friend who has a PhD in Biomedicine started reading the book and only realised about half way through that it was an Intelligent Design book at which point he stopped reading as although he is happy to take on board new scientific proposals he know full well the ID is a pile of creationist crock.

Behe didn't mention religion so soon in the book as he knew it would get panned totally. He tried to make it into a proper science book but the drubbing he got during the Dover Trial showed his 'theories' were ill researched and totally wrong.

I wasn`t going anywhere in particular with that question . I just said that becuase you seemed to be leaving something out. It wasn`t the basis of any argument. It does seem awfully convenient that we can`t actually see these common ancestors though. My main objection to the story is still abiogenesis

Fortunately, many of the common ancestors are preserved as fossils. Not a complete record, for sure, but enough that the remaining gaps (at least among the vertebrates) are what Creationists would call 'micro-evolution'.

So what's your objection to abiogenesis?

Gif

NeoPathFinder never did answer, did he/she? Do you suppose this is a case of forgetting one's password and then creating a new account under a new moniker in order to carry on the torture?