Taxon Cycles

Posted on by

Taxon cycles refer to a biogeographical theory of how species evolve through range expansions and contractions over time associated with adaptive shifts in the ecology and morphology of species. The taxon cycle concept was explicitly formulated by biologist E. O. Wilson in 1961[1] after he surveyed the distributions, habitats, behavior and morphology of ant species in the Melanesian archipelago.[2]

Stages of the taxon cycle

Wilson categorized species into evolutionary “stages”, which today are commonly described in the outline by Ricklefs & Cox (1972).[3] However, with the advent of molecular techniques to construct time-calibrated phylogenetic relationships between species, the taxon cycle concept was further developed to include well-defined temporal scales[4] and combined with concepts from ecological succession and speciation cycle theories.[5] Taxon cycles have mainly been described in island settings (archipelagos), where the distributions and movements of species are readily recognized,[6] but may also occur in continental biota.

  • Stage I: Young, rapidly expanding, undifferentiated, widely and continuously distributed species in the initial colonization stage inhabiting small island, coastal or disturbed (marginal) habitat. Such species are hypothesized to include very good dispersers, ephemeral species and ecological “supertramps“.
  • Stage II: Species that are generally widespread across many islands, but where geographical expansion has slowed, population differentiation has generated subspecies or incipient species, and local extinction on small islands may have created gaps in the distribution. This stage includes species that have maintained a relatively good dispersal ability such as “great speciators“.[7] Early-stage “species complexes” may consist of stage II species.
  • Stage III: Older, well-differentiated and well-defined species that have moved to habitats inland (and uphill) and where reduced dispersal ability and extinctions have fragmented the distribution to fewer and larger islands. These species may be niche specialists, but novel adaptations or accidental dispersal may restart the taxon cycle.
  • Stage IV: Old, relictual, endemic species in the “final” stage are restricted to island interiors (mountains) on a few, large islands. This stage includes sedentary high‐elevation specialists with limited dispersal abilities and small range sizes. These species are evolutionary distinctive, as closely related species (and subspecies) have gone extinct.


The ecology and evolution of the Melanesian ants that originally inspired Wilson’s hypothesis have since been shown to be consistent with the taxon cycle predictions using modern methods.[8] Ricklefs & Bermingham (2002)[6] estimated that taxon cycles take place over periods of 0.1-10 million years in different bird groups of the Lesser Antilles islands. Pepke et al. (2019)[5] used the difference in mean age of late- and early-stage species as a lower estimate (4.7 million years) of the tempo of taxon cycling in an Indo-Pacific bird family.

References

 Economo, Evan P.; Sarnat, Eli M. (July 2012). “Revisiting the Ants of Melanesia and the Taxon Cycle: Historical and Human-Mediated Invasions of a Tropical Archipelago”. The American Naturalist. 180 (1): E1 – E16. doi:10.1086/665996. ISSN 0003-0147. PMID 22673659. S2CID 9729804.

 Wilson, Edward O. (1961). “The Nature of the Taxon Cycle in the Melanesian Ant Fauna”. The American Naturalist. 95 (882): 169–193. doi:10.1086/282174. ISSN 0003-0147. JSTOR 2458389. S2CID 83701216.

 Wilson, Edward O. (1959). “Adaptive Shift and Dispersal in a Tropical Ant Fauna”. Evolution. 13 (1): 122–144. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1959.tb02996.x. ISSN 1558-5646. S2CID 87203686.

 Ricklefs, Robert E.; Cox, George W. (1972-03-01). “Taxon Cycles in the West Indian Avifauna”. The American Naturalist. 106 (948): 195–219. doi:10.1086/282762. ISSN 0003-0147. S2CID 84412686.

 Jønsson, Knud Andreas; Irestedt, Martin; Christidis, Les; Clegg, Sonya M.; Holt, Ben G.; Fjeldså, Jon (2014-02-22). “Evidence of taxon cycles in an Indo-Pacific passerine bird radiation (Aves: Pachycephala)”. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 281 (1777) 20131727. doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.1727. PMC 3896003. PMID 24403319.

 Pepke, Michael Le; Irestedt, Martin; Fjeldså, Jon; Rahbek, Carsten; Jønsson, Knud Andreas (2019). “Reconciling supertramps, great speciators and relict species with the taxon cycle stages of a large island radiation (Aves: Campephagidae)”. Journal of Biogeography. 46 (6): 1214–1225. doi:10.1111/jbi.13577. ISSN 1365-2699. S2CID 164517439.

 Ricklefs, Robert E.; Bermingham, Eldredge (2002). “The concept of the taxon cycle in biogeography”. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 11 (5): 353–361. doi:10.1046/j.1466-822x.2002.00300.x. ISSN 1466-8238.

 Pedersen, Michael Pepke; Irestedt, Martin; Joseph, Leo; Rahbek, Carsten; Jønsson, Knud Andreas (April 2018). “Phylogeography of a ‘great speciator’ (Aves: Edolisoma tenuirostre ) reveals complex dispersal and diversification dynamics across the Indo-Pacific”. Journal of Biogeography. 45 (4): 826–837. doi:10.1111/jbi.13182. hdl:11250/2593769. S2CID 46029743.

SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxon_cycle

Reasons I added the post: I am interested in the work of Edward O Wilson.

Currently blogging about Virtual LAN for HOMELAB.

Posted on by

December always sees service interruption on wordpress and I will be back soon.


WINDOWS STUPIDITY ONCE AGAIN STRIKES.

Turns out Windows 11 has a bug where certain websites are blocked because of an ethernet/wireless chip driver problem in the lastest update but only for Gigabyte 650 motherboards which use a certain RealTek chipset. ARGGGHHHH! My main desktop. All other devices can get packets back from wordpress sites but W11 cannot. This update happened in late November/Early December whle I was traveling for thanksgiving holiday.

Extrapolation and Poor Assumptions

Posted on by

I am forming some thoughts here based on discussion with Riley Barton and Jeff Reichman. I stole this first paragraph from Jeff Reichman. Jeff describes the situation very well.

[BEGIN]

Science, Assumptions, and the YEC Double Standard

Young Earth Creationists often argue that radiometric dating cannot be trusted because it rests on “unprovable assumptions.” At first glance, this sounds like a serious critique, but the reality is that all of science rests on assumptions. The difference is that these assumptions are tested, confirmed, and relied upon every day in ways that even YECs accept without question.

Every airplane that takes off depends on the assumption that the laws of aerodynamics apply universally and consistently. Every bridge that stands depends on the assumption that material strength behaves predictably under stress. Every car, phone, and GPS device depends on the assumption that electromagnetic laws, atomic behavior, and relativity are stable and reliable. These assumptions cannot be proved in a final metaphysical sense, but they are confirmed through repeated observation and practical success. Without them, modern technology would collapse.

And yet, occasionally those assumptions appear to be violated: a bridge collapses, a plane crashes, a car malfunctions. But even in the face of these failures, no one concludes that the underlying assumptions of physics or engineering are invalid. We recognize that accidents happen due to design flaws, human error, or unforeseen variables, not because the laws of aerodynamics or material strength suddenly ceased to exist. YECs themselves continue to fly, cross bridges, and ride in cars without hesitation, despite these occasional breakdowns. The inconsistency is outstanding: they accept the reliability of scientific assumptions in every area of daily life, but reject them only when those same assumptions support radiometric dating and an ancient earth.

Radiometric dating makes the same kind of assumptions as engineering and medicine: that decay rates are constant, that isotopes behave in predictable ways, and that contamination can be detected and accounted for. These assumptions are no different in kind from those underlying the technologies YECs rely on every day. If they dismiss radiometric dating because of its assumptions, they must also dismiss the airplanes they fly in, the bridges they drive across, and the phones they use daily. Since they do not, their critique collapses under its own weight.

The real issue is not whether science uses assumptions, it always does. The issue is whether we apply those assumptions consistently. YECs accept them when they support everyday life but reject them when they challenge their interpretation of Genesis. That double standard reveals that the objection is not scientific but theological. Science rests on assumptions, but those assumptions are the bedrock of every technology we trust. If we reject them selectively, we undermine not just radiometric dating but the very foundations of modern life.

[END]

A few days previously, on November 29th, I had mused the following.

Old earthers believe in

1) the doppler shift is real

2) the red shift is real

3) the universe is expanding

4) the laws of physics are constant over the life of the universe.

5) singularities exist and the universe may have been designed before the big bang (and maybe during?)

Young earthers believe all the above violates their definition of scripture and are wrong.

I wonder:
What does the evidence say?

Can we extrapolate truth from what we see, or is it all deception?

Today, on Dec 3, 2025, I am thinking the issue is EXTRAPOLATION. On a known set of data in current time where the data is bounded this subject is called INTERPOLATION. In other words, predicting a value y=f(x) where x is an independent but unmeasured value and we are looking to guess (or interpolate) a value for the dependent variable y.

If we are looking for values outside our observational purview, for example the distant past or the distant future this becomes EXTRAPOLATION. So what young earthers are saying is “we cannot validly extrapolate laws based on physics. But why not? Theology! That is the reason. They essentially say “theology trumps physics because we say it does.” This is not based on inductive logic. Science itself is based (at least in part) on inductive logic – making observations within the purview of humans. That has to do with epistemology, ie, our purview, which is an observable domain of knowledge.

Christianity is also based on our human purview, an observable domain of knowledge, because of eyewitness testimony provided by history. Please note history here is defined as records of events observed by humans. But ORIGINS is an extrapolation because no humans were present to observe the alleged events.

Science offers an extrapolation of origins known as the Big Bang based on the idea that we can assume physical constants are constant across all time. This is temporal invariance. This is an extrapolation of our purview which old-earthers accept.

Another such extrapolation is evolution. Young earthers reject both extrapolations.


Gift, Office, Titles, Part 5.

Posted on by

The Difference Between the Gift, the Office, and Titles. (Part 5)

By Kevin Baird

*This is a series of posts which might be of benefit for the first time reader to begin at the “Introduction” for continuity sake.

Obviously, for a prophet to be a prophet, there has to be some disposition to prophesy. That appears to be a simplistic statement, but apparently it needs to be stated. Titles abound in modern Christianity and many of those titles are self-conveyed. People declare themselves to be established in a certain office (Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor, Elder, Deacon, Minister, etc.) without any fruit of such establishment or endorsement from a local church body. I believe these offices exist, but how it is appropriated as a title might need further evaluation. The Bible certainly presents these offices as a reality, but tends to present them as job descriptions more than titles. Nowhere in Scripture does Paul refer to himself as “The Apostle Paul”, but rather, “Paul, an apostle”. A strong case can be made that these offices are descriptors more than titles.

That said, I don’t think titles to necessarily be bad, but I do think they can be used for silly and self-aggrandizing purposes. I also believe there is an appropriate respect one might bestow upon another as a display of honor. My son is my pastor and I have called him by his first name for years. I still do at family functions and get-togethers. However, I find it important to refer to him as “Pastor” when I am amongst the people of the church and especially the children. If children are required in school to refer to their teachers as “Mr. or Mrs.”, rather than their first names, I would hope our church kids would do no less for their Pastor. Now, no one is required to do that. I am not required to do that, but I choose to do that to demonstrate that he has embraced an important role in corporate life and in my life. I need to break my familiarity and recognize the demonstrable call God has placed on his life. It is simply being respectful. In much the same way I have called my physician, Doctor; or my overseer as Bishop. Sure, I know their first names, but I simply demonstrate my respect because “I am to give honor to whom honor is due” (Romans 13:7).

I am also willing to convey that respect and honor upon other spiritual offices as they are established and endorsed credibly. But here is where some important parsing needs to take place. Not all who say they are a prophet, really are a prophet. In much the same way, not all who say they are an Apostle, Evangelist, Pastor, or Teacher, may actually be one. Before we bestow titles, we may need to distinguish between gifts and offices.

Everyone can potentially prophesy (Numbers 11:29; Romans 12:6; I Corinthians 12:10, 14:1-5, 14:31), but not all are prophets (I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 4:11). Granted, it might look and operate the same by outward appearance, but apparently there are distinctions to be made. I would suggest the following for consideration:

  1. The “gift” of prophecy can be released to anyone at any time subject to the will of the Spirit. (See I Corinthians 12:11) The office of prophet does not appear to be subject to certain arbitrary releases of the Spirit, but instead can function prophetically out of the resident gift and calling. (See 2 Timothy 4:2) None of the offices of Ephesians 4:11 are subject to certain heightened times of God’s presence, but rather are a part of the resident, internal equipment imparted by the Lord through His calling to function “in season or out of season” as required. Therefore, prophets can move into arenas not normally conducive to the moving of God’s Spirit, yet have a word from the Lord. (Example: government, education, businesses, etc. See I Kings 22 or Jeremiah 1:5)
  2. The gift of prophecy has more of an encouragement, exhortative, and edification aspect to it when released to individuals or the church at large. The office of prophet has more of an assignment attached to it (I will discuss this in next post). The office prophet carries impartation, instruction, and potentially activation. (See Romans 1:11 and 2 Timothy 1:6)
  3. There may also be certain “levels” of leadership and anointing within the expression of prophets, in much the same way we see it with evangelists and pastors. There are many called “evangelists”, yet few with the scope and influence of a Billy Graham or Ray Comfort. Yet, no matter the scope, one can be a legitimately called and equipped evangelist. The same could be said of pastors. Some pastors oversee works of 10’s, 100’s, 1000’s or even 10,000’s, yet all are legitimately called pastors. I don’t think every apostle has to arise to the stature of Paul. Biblically there were apostles relatively unknown, so we know this to be true. The same could be said of prophets. There were scores, if not hundreds of biblical prophets which are obscure to us. Yet, they were legitimate prophets. So not every prophet need look like Elijah.
  4. This may be somewhat controversial, but I am convinced the gift of prophecy almost exclusively confirms what God has already put in the believer’s heart, but the office prophet carries a “creative” or maybe ineptly stated a “conceptual implanting” of God’s Will into a person’s imagination. Isaiah appears to acknowledge such a possibility when he writes:

“You have heard; See all this. And will you not declare it? I have made you hear new things from this time, Even hidden things, and you did not know them.
They are created now and not from the beginning; And before this day you have not heard them, Lest you should say, ‘Of course I knew them.’”

  • Isaiah 48:6-7 NKJV

Again, every word from the Lord which arrives this way to us is to be tested by the Scriptures. The reason simply put is that the Lord is able to speak to all His people and any potential decision made from a prophetic word is still subject to each individual’s consideration, faith, and responsibility. (Hebrews 4:2)

As I conclude this post, the prophetic ministry is recognized, not self-declared. No apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, or teacher should have to blow their own horn for recognition. It becomes self-evident by their fruit.

Hope that offers some clarity.

Until next time.

Avoiding Health Cliffs

Posted on by

Dr Peter Attia shares guidance on exercise, nutrition, relationships and more
Longevity expert Dr. Peter Attia says most people experience a steep decline in their 70s — but it doesn’t have to be that way. 

“At 75, both men and women fall off a cliff,” the Stanford-trained physician, who runs a medical practice in Austin, Texas, said in a recent interview with “60 Minutes.”

During the interview, Attia shared some of his top strategies for not only living longer, but also remaining strong, healthy and engaged, so the last decade is as enjoyable and independent as possible.

This is what experts refer to as “healthspan” — the period of life when one is free from “age-associated maladies,” according to Douglas E. Vaughan, M.D., director of the Potocsnak Longevity Institute at Northwestern University in Chicago.

“There are certainly things that people can stop doing to extend healthspan,” he told Fox News Digital. Some examples include stopping smoking, drinking less, maintaining a healthy weight, getting regular exercise, avoiding processed foods and having good sleep habits.

Below are the five strategies that Attia shared with “60 Minutes.”

No. 1: Train like life is a sport

Attia recommends approaching life — particularly in advanced age — like an athlete would approach a sport.

As people age, their level of fitness, strength and mobility matters more than many traditional markers, he noted.

The longevity expert said he logs about 10 hours per week of exercise — a mix of fat-burning cardio, high-intensity intervals (to boost VO₂ max), and strength training to maintain muscle.

Attia said he alternates between “zone two” exercise, which entails steady cardio activity that allows you to maintain a conversation, and higher-intensity “zone four” training.

No. 2: Use meaningful tests — not just standard bloodwork

Attia recommends closely tracking VO₂ max, which measures the maximum amount of oxygen the body uses during strenuous exercise. 

VO₂ max is usually measured in milliliters of oxygen per kilogram of body weight per minute (ml/kg/min).

“Your VO2 max is more strongly correlated with your lifespan than any other metric I can measure,” Attia said. “It predicts your risk of death from any cause, even more than your blood pressure, cholesterol or smoking status.”

“I think this is the neglected part of medical testing, is how fit are you, how strong are you, how well do you move?” he said. “And in many ways, these tests are even more predictive of how long you’re going to live than what I might get out of your bloodwork.”

Attia also uses scans like DEXA (short for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry), which measures bone density, muscle mass and body fat.

“When you look at things like cardiorespiratory fitness, when you look at muscle mass, when you look at strength, they have a much higher association than things like even cholesterol and blood pressure,” he added.

Attia also is a proponent of full-body MRI scans, which can detect cancers and other conditions earlier for better outcomes, although he warns of the potential for false positives. 

He also recommends getting tested for APOE, the gene that indicates an elevated risk for Alzheimer’s disease. Having one copy of the gene roughly doubles or triples the chances of developing the common dementia, while two copies raises the risk by 10 times and lowers the average age of onset by five to 10 years, data shows.

No. 3: Eat more protein than standard guidelines suggest

Boosting protein intake has been linked to increased muscle mass and strength, stronger immune function and reduced disease burden, studies show.

Attia recommends consuming more than twice the protein recommended in current nutritional guidelines.

The recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for protein is 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day, which would be 55 grams for a 150-pound person or 73 grams for a 200-pound person.

No. 4: Prioritize emotional, mental and relational health

Emotional and mental health are just as important as physical health, according to Attia.

“It’s as much a practice as what I put into exercise, blood work and cancer screening,” he said.

“By working hard on our physical health, we can reduce the rate of decline,” Attia went on. “But if we’re being deliberate and active on our emotional health, it can actually improve.”
The expert credits his wife of more than two decades for enabling his progress.

“Just like the exercise data, I don’t think this is just a correlation,” Attia said in the interview. “I really think that there is also some causality that flows from the end of having great relationships to living a longer life.” 

Vaughan echoed that the common denominator in “super agers” involves a supportive community, a healthy social environment and regular contact with people who care for one another.  

No. 5: Optimize the ‘marginal decade’

While decline is inevitable, Attia said his goal is to make what he calls the “marginal decade” as enjoyable as possible.

“The marginal decade’s not going anywhere. We will all have a final decade of life,” he said. 

CLICK HERE FOR MORE HEALTH STORIES

“The way I explain it to my patients is, that last 10 to 15 of your years — if you don’t do anything about it, you will fall to a level of about 50% of your total capacity, cognitively [and] physically.”



Sean Carroll and Materialism

Posted on by

I saw an interesting discussion written by Michael Egnor in 2023 about Sean Carroll’s view of the immaterial mind here: https://mindmatters.ai

Who is Michael Egnor?

Michael Egnor

Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics, State University of New York, Stony BrookMichael R. Egnor, MD, is a Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook, has served as the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery, and is an award-winning brain surgeon. He was named one of New York’s best doctors by the New York Magazine in 2005. His book, The Immortal Mind: A neurosurgeon’s case for the existence of the soul, co-authored by Denyse O’Leary, was published by Worthy on June 3, 2025.

Now this article is talking about the human mind and and effects on the physical world or physical body:

Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist at Johns Hopkins University who takes an atheist and materialist philosophical perspective on nature and on science. I have disagreed with him often — I’m in no position to judge his scientific acumen, but his philosophical acumen leaves a lot to be desired. An example of this is a question he asks in a recent documentary about free will (which I haven’t watched yet). In the trailer for the movie, Carroll asks, How in the world does the immaterial mind affect the physical body? Carroll’s denial of libertarian free will is based on this question, and of course, he believes that the immaterial mind does not exist and, if it did exist, could not affect the physical body. Thus, he believes that libertarian free will is nonsense.

Well that is an interesting comment about Carroll’s philosophical acumen. My interest is on the immaterial mind of a transcendent being such as God. Can that mind affect the human mind? Or matter? If miracles are possible then the answer would be yes.

Carroll, however, seems to be a reductionist. Lets leave that until a bit later. Meanwhile, let’s learn some aspects of causation theory. Egnor uses a statue as an example.

1. Material cause is the matter (marble) that the statue is made of. The matter of what something is made is one of the causes of the thing – without the marble, the statue could not exist.

2. Efficient cause is the agent that gives rise to the effect – in the case of the sculpture, the efficient cause is a sculptor.

3. Formal cause is the design principle that underlies the effect – in the case of the sculpture, the formal cause is the idea in the mind of the sculptor of what the sculpture will look like. The formal cause is quite real and is indispensable to an understanding of causation – after all if the form of the sculpture did not exist in the mind of the sculptor as he was working, there would be no sculpture.

4. Final cause is the ultimate goal, purpose, or final state of the causal chain. The final cause for the sculpture might be the sculptor’s desire to express himself artistically or it might be the sculptor’s desire to be paid for his work.

Egnor comments, “In the Aristotelian paradigm, a complete understanding of cause must entail an understanding of all four causes in nature. In causation without a visible efficient agent, formal and final causes are often the same. The formal cause of an acorn growing into an oak tree is the design principle of the oak tree, which is also (in the Aristotelian perspective) the final cause of the acorn growing into the oak tree. The ultimate final cause, according to Aristotle, is God.”

PATTERNS AND PURPOSES IN NATURE

Egnor argues, “Aristotle was right – material and efficient causes alone are inadequate to understand nature because there are patterns and purposes built into nature that we can’t deny.”

He goes on to criticise Carroll, “So, Carroll’s implicit assertion that the immaterial mind could not affect the physical body is predicated on his belief that the only kinds of causes that exist in the physical world are material and efficient causes.“

To me this assumption of Carroll’s is Philosophical Naturalism, which itself is an a priori metaphysical assumption and is not part of science. So I think Egnor is right. My observation is Egnor is Augustinian and Neo-Platonist in his thinking here, whereas Carroll is neither.

MATHEMATICS?

 Egnor says, “Ironically, Carroll’s own scientific discipline – quantum mechanics – is a prime example of the importance of formal causes in nature. The scientific description of quantum processes is entirely mathematical, which is a description of formal causes. Matter and individuation disappear at the quantum level. What remains are the mathematical descriptions of quantum particles and dynamics. Contrary to Carroll’s implicit insistence that only material and efficient causes act in nature, quantum mechanics shows that formal (immaterial) causes are fundamental to nature.”

Hmmm.

BIOCHEMISTRY

Egnor makes a point about drugs and biochemistry, “Thus a mental (formal) state can cause a physical state in a way that is currently understood in physics. A particularly striking example of the importance of formal causes in science is the phenomenon of chirality. Chirality is a property of mirror image molecules in which the molecules contain exactly the same number and kinds of atoms connected in exactly the same kind of way except that one is a mirror image of the other. In other words, the matter comprising chiral molecules is exactly the same although the form of the molecules can be radically different. For example, all biological amino acids that make up proteins are L enantiomers (one mirror image). Amino acids that are identical materially but are R enantiomers (mirror images) play no role in protein manufacture. The difference between L and R enantiomers can be a matter of great medical importance and even life and death – Darvon is an analgesic but its enantiomer Novrad is an anti-cough agent. Penicillamine is used in the treatment of arthritis, but its enantiomer is very toxic.“

PHILOSOPHICALLY VACUOUS?


Egnor’s conclusion: “Formal causation is ubiquitous in biology and Carroll’s argument that we cannot have libertarian free will because the immaterial (formal) mind cannot affect matter is philosophically vacuous.”

Fascinating!

I knew Carroll and one other person debated Dinesh D’Souza in 2014, and his debate partner (whose name I do not recall) was a reductionist. It seems Carroll is as well. Now, what does this mean for quantum mechanics? To me there are two questions and they may be the same question.

1. Who is the observer?
2. What is measurement?

As you know, when you take a measurement in the quantum world you perturb the wave function and cause quantum collapse. So a wave suddenly localizes into a particle-like phenomenon. Can a mind function as the observer? How would we ever know?

If God is in the universe (ie, immanent) can his mind perform a measurement (or observation?). What kind of observations are possible? We do not know. But ignorance is not proof of non-existence. So, I am still pondering these questions. I am looking for input on these subjects from a variety of sources. This includes Sean Carroll’s lectures on quantum mechanics. I really enjoy listening to him. I think one just has to be aware of his presuppositions.

If you want to be more aware of issues related to the soul you might check out his new book The Immortal Mind .

Now, it may be worth considering the following definition: Naturalistic evolution, or evolutionary naturalism, is the philosophical concept that all of life, including the human condition and morality, arose through natural processes, rather than supernatural or intentional design.  (This is an AI summary.)

I am not happy with AI summaries. The problem is the definitions are taken from websites that are reactions to chatter, are not real propositions, and are mere hyped up opinion. There is no substance underneath. The concepts are fabricated and imaginary.

Note, I can only find one book written on the subject in 1922. Everything else I have found is propaganda from creationist websites where the terms are re-defined to support the war between science and God. ( a political viewpoint, not a scientific one). The book itself is a philosopher’s response to other philosophers in order to find a better naturalism. This is because naturalism was considered to be broken or inadequate.

BTW, this linkage with natural processes would fit neatly with Sean Carroll’s view that there is no free will. It also is congruent with nihilism – the view that human values and maybe even human minds themselves are mere illusions – all in the imagination and not real at all.

I will contend that what scientists do is based on methodological naturalism (MN), not philosophical naturalism (PN). MN produces science. PN produces scientism. PN, being metaphysical, is not a statement about either science or reality. MN is a statement about science, is not metaphysical, and is a statement about an approximation of reality, or a part of reality, but not all of reality. Just the physical part of reality in which humans live.


What I have noticed is the biologos people are adamantly against PN. The young earthers totally ignore PN as if it does not exist. Old earthers and ID people are somewhere in between.

DISTORTIONS – WHY I DONT TRUST MANY CHRISTIANS

Speaking of which … another interesting article: https://www.str.org/w/if-naturalistic-evolution-is-true-people-are-not-equal. I disagree with this person’s definitions of naturalism. The STR people are concordists and distort both philosophy and science.

Then there is another voice: Masters U. These are horrible statements about naturalism at Masters University, which seems to be associated with John MacArthur. https://www.masters.edu/thinking_blog/creation-believe-it-or-not-part-1/. Masters miscontrues and distorts the meaning of almost all of these concepts.

I have come to think that Christians are either terribly dumb or they are terrible liars.

TRANSCENDENCE

The real problem I see in Christianity is somebody in history philosophized that God is “transcendent only.” Yes, God is transcendent. But He is also immanent. I.E., In the world. Affecting the world. Affecting physical reality. He is not entirely outside the physical reality. This is difficult to understand – indeed, no human really grasps it just like no human really grasps the trinity. But the bible and Christianity do not teach that God is purely transcendant (purely supernatural). That is a lie held to by atheists.


Young earth creationists (and concordists?) teach that God can only “create” from outside the physical universe by overturning the physical laws of the universe. To me that is *not* a Christian belief. It is not what the bible teaches. I think the bible teaches that the laws of the physical universe are held fixed by God, and God often creates by using these laws. Can create by using these laws. That is not, BTW, naturalism.

These two cases of Masters and of STR may be the subject of future posts just on them.

Summing Up

So we started with Sean Carroll’s issues with free will. But the real issue is far larger. Free will is really just a side topic.











Indesign Images.

Posted on by

Putting everything in Creative Cloud raises issues. I found the following article that may affect design approaches.



InDesign Secrets: Embedding your images so they don’t go missing

Anne-Marie Concepcion

Authored byAnne-Marie Concepcion

Digital publishing workflow trainer, consultant, and therapist for InDesign-using designers and the editors who love them. LinkedIn Learning instructor 25+ courses. amarie@senecadesign.com Ask me anything!

October 5, 2012

This article addresses the dreaded lost image phenomenon, which occurs when Adobe InDesign can’t find your linked images and lets you know with glaring red question marks.

The presence of glaring red question marks in your actual layout (and not just your Links panel) is courtesy of InDesign CS6, but the lost images phenomenon is familiar to users of earlier versions of InDesign as well.

Anne-Marie’s solution is simple: embed your images. That way they can’t get lost if you move the image folder or send the document off to a client without a separate file full of graphics. An embedded Photoshop file even retains its layers.

The first step is to find the original image and relink it (you’ll have to solve that challenge on your own). Then right-click on the image in the Links panel and choose Embed Link.

Your image is now permanently part of your file.

As easy as this is, you should be aware of two potential disadvantages to embedding your file. First, when you embed your images you no longer have the benefit of automatically updating links, but if your graphic is stable and not going to change (like a logo), then it’s really not a an issue. Second, embedding images makes your InDesign file significantly larger. But as Anne-Marie notes, it’s not 1993, and while you may not want to embed hundreds of images, the increased file size you’ll see from embedding a handful of images for an in-house document is not the obstacle it used to be.

One other note: you can’t embed a video file or another InDesign file.

What I find particularly fascinating is if you embed a graphic file within your InDesign document, the encompassing InDesign file behaves in some ways like a zipped archive. If you wish to unembed the graphic later, you can create a new “original” right from InDesign. For certain scenarios, this is an elegantly simple solution to the lost image syndrome.

Weak Hebrew

Posted on by

Someone writes:


“Genesis 7:20 says the floodwaters were 15 cubits high, and they covered the mountains. To me, that says the whole eretz (earth or land) which is in the scope of the narrative is an extremely flat place where the mountains are less than about 22-25 feet. This describes Sumer very well. Eden, Noah, and Babel all have overt Sumerian contexts, and versions of each story exist in Sumerian literature as well.

Every modern translation makes an interpretationally driven edit to the syntax of that verse to turn it into “the flood waters rose fifteen cubits [above the tops of the] mountains” and I have never run into anyone who can suggest a Hebrew rule or a parallel passage that might suggest that this is a possible reading. It’s just Second Temple and post-Second Temple doctrine being injected back into the text.”

OK, I do not know Hebrew. But some YEC’s have told me after the flood the mountains rose over 7000 feet in some places, including the Rockies and including Flagstaff Arizona and the western north american continent. According to this hypothesis humungous geological upheaval was required to preserve the global flood myth. Based on weak Hebrew interpretation.


My sarcastic conclusion might be: “Sure it is. Next they will be telling me I get to have 70 wives if I decide to become a martyr.” In other words, I think the credibility of the global flood story is incredibly low.

I am more concerned about these ideas being based on weak arguments, weak evidences, and weak interpretations of ancient languages. I fail to understand the headlong plunge into premature commitment to poorly supported ideas. And the demand that all of humanity must join in that headlong plunge. I would very much prefer a very solid case be made for biblical ideas. Why do people insist on making a weak case instead of a strong case?

Book Review of Believing Is Seeing

Posted on by

Book Review of Believing is Seeing

or

https://medium.com/@pkajjohnson/book-review-believing-is-seeing-a-physicist-explains-how-science-shattered-his-atheism-and-4b5f5a60d812

My thoughts: If Seeing isn’t believing and believing isn’t seeing then what you get is a sort of a form of voodoo like what the Catholic Church adhered to in the time of Copernicus. If that is Christian then I am a monkey’s uncle. Seems to me it is anti-Christian. It is toxic to Christian faith. But there are organizations that tell humanity that science and bible are at war with each other.

View at Medium.com