cypress

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. 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.

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

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. Indeed it is unknown.

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.

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. 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. In a functioning democracy the government is accountable to society and society freely chooses limits to prevent some from gaming the system. 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. Surveys indicate that nearly half globally do not disapprove of suicide attacks. I don't see that as a "normal" viewpoint. 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. 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. On the contrary, I would conclude you are mistaken for the reasons I described above. I think ending terrorist attacks against the West a worthy goal that is achievable. The premise behind this statement seems flawed. It is entirely possible to love the person and still disapprove of what they support and do. 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?

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. 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'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.

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. 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

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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. 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.”

OK , fair enough I could have been more clear and would have had I realized that the term morality was confusing. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Good then we understand each other. I'll try to avoid meeting up with you in a dark alley. Failed. I must be having a slow night. Where have you established that either of these statements is factually correct?

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. 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? 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". References supporting this statement please. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. Jesus and Paul both teach that both are required. I don't mind this game I have no stake in the outcome. 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. 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"? 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. The paper has the same problem that you have in that you have not demonstrated your point.

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. Is it necessary that authority must intervene? 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 yet still nobody here has even attempted to demonstrate that what you say is factually correct. Do you have evidence for this truth claim, or is it similar to the previous conjectures? If that were what I said then those who took exception to my original statement would be silly to have claimed it is false. 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. I'm pretty sure this is not an establish fact either.

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