Comments on Thacker's Proposal

@Thacker, you clearly have a scenario of world history and prehistory that you have worked out in some detail. Could you please present that scenario explicitly and clearly, in detail, along with the evidence that led you to it? I may be wrong, but I don’t think anyone here has so far understood just what it is.

Sure, but to have any continuity of perspective, which is essential (imo) for conversation, we’d need to be using the same boundaries for potential resolutions, which I’m not sure we are. Do you agree with the 10 tenets I posted? if not why not? If we agree then this creates limits to what a plausible model might be, and not be.

No. First, I don’t think angels, devils, or gods exist at all. If we limit ourselves not to whether what you say is true but to whether it fits a biblical scenario, then you are going to have to support your tenets with some kind of biblical evidence, well explained, before I can agree even in that limited sense.

I also don’t see why I have to agree with you before you can present your scenario.


LOL! :slight_smile: Of course you don’t, my bad… I confused John with Jon. :slight_smile:

So I’m not a paleontologists, or geneticist, however, given the known information tech of bio-machines; storage, data management, error correction, transmission, and of course, self-replication of both the hardware and software sets, it seems to me to be a pretty heavy lift; translated absurd, to claim such a system, particularly one which has been running for 450 million years, was just a happy accident of the primordial soup. And even if protein could have been a product of mere chance, the existence of an OS?!.. come on.

Where I think its statistically possible (stupidly improbable of course) that a fully formed HD, replete with all the labeling, could have formed “naturally”, its absurd to think, on its platters, would be a functional OS capable of its operation; preloaded with preferential boundaries which drives its function; autonomic internal function, fuel identification, consumption, and use, and on the more sophisticated models, highly specific sub-routines enabling unlearned, by the machine, hardware function; a calf stands up, seeks the teat, and fuels itself.

That said, I have no doubt that Intelligence was involved in the series of planetary ecosystem’s evolution. I mean, noise in the signal; random mutation, degrades FAR more than it enhances… one would expect that a calculated entropic decline in such a transmission, even with error correction, would be, should be enough to debunk neo-darwinism.

Imo, the only question left is, who wound the watch? Who created these mechanical systems?

In my model, I accept that supernatural intelligence is at work here in this Universe, that the Universe is digital and a form of an Artificial reality which is occupied by users, which I’m calling Spiritual Agents. That their activity, as can yours, be differentiated from natural productions; Mount St Hellens vs Mount Rushmore, Monument Vally spires from Easter Island statues. We intuitively can identify, differentiate, natural productions; bottom up, rule based, productions from Intelligent creations; top down, preference/goal based productions and we unquestionably have both exampled here on this planet.

With this, we’re faced, imo, with the existence of real and knowable “evil”, and that reality has no basis or corollary in the rules or properties of this Universe, its an external imposition into this world by Spiritual agents. That is, the very fact that one realizes “evil” exists, is prima facia evidence of a transcendent spiritual agent.

Now, within that context, modeling God, particularly the Christian God, the creator of the universe, the moral law giver, the reason or purpose of this universe and your place in it, becomes rather easy.

Any of those aforementioned claims, I’d be happy to defend.

I’m sure you would, but they’re all way off-topic. I do have a suggestion: if you stop with the force metaphors (bio-machines, OS, HD, etc.), your writing might be easier to understand with no loss of meaning.

This seems to have nothing to do with what we were talking about, and we are no closer to knowing what *you are talking about.

1 Like

Well, my response to your question might have been off the thread topic, but well within the context of your question.

re OS - Operating System, and HD - Hard Drive, I will expand them if it suits you, no problem.

However, regarding bio-machines, I think its an important distinction, removing them from a quasi-religious notion of some sort of mystical phenomenon into a materialistically measurable, testable, and definable construct. Animals are machines, pure and simple, they are super sophisticated, self replicating, computational machines, with programmed AI, but machines nonetheless. And the more we know about them, the more the mechanisms by which they function become evident.

I think the vestigial remnants of the religious perspective re… er… regarding animals in modern science is sometimes ironic. So lets be honest, about the topic and call a spade a spade :slight_smile:

It was not, if the question is considered in thread context.

No, I have asked for the exact opposite: abandon them. I have to question whether you’re reading carefully. Clearly you aren’t willing to abandon them; I merely point out that they impede communication. No communication appears to have happened so far, in either direction.

John, so are animals machines in your opinion?

It was not, if the question is considered in thread context.

Now, imo, which could be totally mistaken, the topic is referencing the progeny of an interaction of “sons of god” with the “daughters of men”, if we’re dealing with a mechanical system; man, and the resulting progeny is distinctly different than the human parent, which, in the Biblical narrative it is, then the proposition of informational alteration re genetics, seems to be germane.

As I pointed out to jongarvey, other texts allowed for modifications to “animals” by the “gods” which resulted in desired functionality, this seems to me to be the case regarding the thread topic.

It appears to be impossible to talk to you. That’s unfortunate.

I agree, however, I would (gratuitously) point out, I’m found to be worth the effort, at least by some. :slight_smile:

Cool, now its literally impossible for me to be “off topic”, prob solved :slight_smile: Lets be friends Mr Harshman

1 Like

Mr Harshman,

Re Hard Drive:
Now, researchers report that they’ve come up with a new way to encode digital data in DNA to create the highest-density large-scale data storage scheme ever invented. Capable of storing 215 petabytes (215 million gigabytes) in a single gram of DNA, the system could, in principle, store every bit of datum ever recorded by humans in a container about the size and weight of a couple of pickup trucks.

The evolution of worms, insects, vertebrates and other “bilateral” animals—those with distinct left and right sides—from less complex creatures like jellyfish and sea anemones with “radial” symmetry may have been facilitated by the emergence of a completely new “operating system” for controlling genetic instructions in the cell.

That’s the hypothesis of molecular biologists at UC San Diego. They report in the October 1 issue of the journal Genes & Development that this new system of controlling gene networks, analogous to a new computer operating system, paved the way for new animal body plans, just as different operating systems allow the development of new kinds of computer apps.

Of course, this might be an example of the Scientists using poetic license or a euphemism, but it strikes me that, where the terms appear to fit seamlessly, they also connote a designer and programmer, and that connotes God and of course God persona non grata for many biologists; like 95%, mol.

I thought you might be interested, Mr Harshman.

Exactly. All languages are constantly using metaphor. It doesn’t mean what you think. And I think you should start calling me “Dr. Harshman”.

1 Like

Indeed it does. Is anyone claiming that?

Protein in general or a specific protein?

It’s generally a very, very bad idea to read university press releases instead of the actual papers.

1 Like

Right but SOMETIMES the cigar represents… a cigar, moreover, you can call the chicken that quacks and swims whatever you like, but I got news for you, it ain’t no chicken, Dr. Harshman :slight_smile:

Yes, the seeds, ostensibly, of the information existent today is drawn from that happy accident then… just imagine the informational storage system that could copy and transmit trillions upon trillions upon trillions of copies over 450 million years and still the copies are functional…, now THAT’S a miracle. And, just for fun, lets add the “randomness” element into the mix…

Take your pick, lets put them all in a hopper and tumble them around and see what happens. I promise you, if anything interesting happened, you’d declare someone was punking you. :slight_smile:

In this context, “Yes,…” should be followed by a quotation from a real person, not a dramatic revision of the words you were trying to put in others’ mouths.

So, is anyone claiming that? Not your revision, the original.

Oh, super! alright, so its your opinion that cell formation happened more than once? Well, I must be honest I’ve not heard that theory argued before, my understanding of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism was a blind (watchmaker’s) devotion to “common descent”, I had thought they traced it back to the immaculate conception of the original cell via the happy accident of the primordial soup… do you have a link for this alternate theory?