Romulox

The next event was just posted for the Facebook group; April 17th at Gus's Cafe again. No need to be a big drinker; we have a few members that don't drink at all and still show up most of the time. You can call me Steve in the real world; I'm usually there at or shortly after 7:30 and we typically hang out until 11 or so. Hope to see you there!!

Thanks everyone for the info; it has certainly given me some new roads to explore as I don't have a huge background in evolutionary biology. I just wanted to clear up a few points that I may not have communicated as well as I thought I did, as I certainly don't want to misrepresent Meyer's books. - Meyer does not imply that life jumped immediately from single celled organisms to animals during the Cambrian explosion. He has an entire chapter devoted to the Ediacran Fauna that existed before the Cambrian period (though he concludes that they are not related to the phyla that emerged during the Cambrian differences in major characteristics such as body symmetry). The presence or absence of fossils is not required for his main argument against Darwinian evolution, but he does devote a few chapters to the discussion to note that there is still debate on the issue. - Anyone reading the book is given a basic understanding of the purpose of DNA. To be clear, I understand that DNA does not specifically code for body parts; it directs the synthesis of individual proteins within cells, and determines the timing for when these proteins are generated. Many of these proteins transmit signals that influence the development of different cell types, how these cells are organized, and how they interact with each other; they do not act individually, but as a complex, integrated whole, similar to the components of a circuit board. Meyer argues that any changes to the genes that create these protein systems which determine the early development of an animal (when the overall body plan is formed) always results in catastrophic consequences for the animal; thus development of a new body plan from an existing plan or from scratch is highly unlikely. - There was also some confusion on the argument from epigenetics in included in my original post. Meyer argues that while there are genes for the building blocks of many structures in the cell, there is no genetic information that determines how these structures are assembled. One of many examples he gives is the microtubules that form the skeleton and protein transport system of a cell. There are genes that generate the proteins that compose these tubes, but where the information is stored that determines their structure and location is unknown. Since these microtubules are essential for transporting specific proteins to precise locations within the cell, their structure and location are critical to the overall development of the organism. He concludes that since this information is not thought to reside within the DNA, genetic changes alone are not sufficient to result in a new animal body plan; concurrent changes to these epigenetic factors are required as well. The ultimate point of all of this is that the science of evolution seems to me to be far from settled. While I may not agree with Meyer's ultimate conclusion (nor do I understand how he makes the leap from Cambrian explosion to a Judeo-Christian god), his books do provide one of the least biased set of arguments against the standard Darwinian model that I have found. Thanks again for all the info and counterarguments; my next trip to Amazon will include some Dawkins for sure.

I have not actually read any of Dawkins' books, but since nearly every other argument Meyer raises typically involves a Dawkins quote, he is definitely on my list. Which of his books do you recommend that are most relevant to this issue? Does he have any articles, videos, or podcasts that focus on non-mutational selection or the problems of the Cambrian explosion and the origin of DNA and life? How does the evolutionary process create these genes in the first place if they have never been expressed? With regards to the Cambrian explosion, why would there be genes for jointed limbs, compound eyes, and 50+ new cell types in a single celled organism or even a simple animal like a sponge, whose ancestors have never had these features? Again, you would be counting on random mutations to create these genes, this time without selective pressure to promote them (since they were never expressed in the past), which would take far longer than even the 3 billion years that life has existed prior to that (see 1077 discussion in the first post). Also, since many of these genes form complex integrated systems, if one of these dormant genes were mutated or did not activate in concert with the others, the organism would almost certainly be disadvantaged. I completely agree that these types of changes in an existing animal population can result from the mutation/selection process. The problem I see is equivalent to changing that existing wing code in a way that will produce a fully functional human arm. It's not that natural selection isn't capable of creating new features or species, it's that it can't account for the astronomical increase in complexity and information needed to create 20+ new animal phyla in a few million years. I'll need to re-read the section on epigenetics and get back to you later, as that section gets quite technical and I don't quite understand it as much as I would like.

Thanks Leevan for posting this topic, as I have also read a few books that have caused me to question our understanding of the evolutionary process. Two of these books are by Stephen C Meyer, and provide the most scientific and rational arguments against the currently accepted evolutionary theory that I have found so far, with absolutely no religious agenda. While these books do mention some of the standard arguments such as gaps in the fossil record, the major theme of both books deals with the creation of large amounts of "functionally specified information"; that is, information that is arranged in a specific sequence that produces a specific effect, such as the specific arrangement of letters to form words that convey thoughts to other human beings, or the arrangement of bits on a DVD that will result in a specific output when run by a computer. Here is a relatively brief summary of the arguments proposed in his latest book, Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, as it is most relevant to this post. - Improbability of the creation of new genes and proteins by random mutation: The probability of creating a new functional protein from an existing functional protein through random mutation is astronomically small. The studies that are referenced in the book give the ratio of functional to nonfunctional proteins as 1 in 1063 and 1 in 1077 for a relatively small protein containing 150 amino acids. Given that only about 1040 organisms have existed in all of Earth's history, it seems rather improbable that the multitude of functional proteins required to generate multiple phyla of animal life could be created in a few million years. - Complex Adaptations: Many features of animals require an integrated system of body parts to confer some selective advantage. For example, fruit flies have been mutated in the lab to have an extra set of wings; however, for this mutation to be advantageous, it would have to simultaneously evolve the muscles and nerves to use the new wings, otherwise it is a selective disadvantage. Evolution of many new animal body plans over a few million years would require numerous simultaneous mutations to numerous systems of integrated parts; systems that would become useless or disadvantageous should one of the parts be missing or changed. This argument also applies to what are known as developmental gene regulatory networks, which control how individual cells develop, are organized, and interact with each other during embryonic development. Small changes to these networks always result in catastrophic consequences for the organism, and the simultaneous creation of a new gene network would be required to evolve a new phylum or class of animals. - Epigenetic Information: Additional information crucial to animal development is stored outside of the DNA. Examples include the skeletal structure of the cell, the pattern of proteins in the cell membrane, arrangement of channels through which charged particles can pass through, and arrangement of sugar molecules on the exterior of the cell membrane. Creation of a new animal body plan will require simultaneous changes in these factors as well as in the DNA. His other book is Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, which deals with more with the origin of life or the creation of information in DNA. As this post is getting quite long, I’ll leave this one for another time. He concludes that the only reasonable explanation for these changes is a conscious mind, since this is the only known cause of a drastic increase in functionally specified information, of which an incomprehensible amount is required to create an animal from a single celled organism. Regardless of whether you agree with this conclusion, I encourage anyone who thinks that evolution is a settled science to read these books. My first exposure to Stephen Meyer was on the Coast to Coast AM show; I attached the episode where he discusses this book (June 19, 2013). The books are over 400 pages each, so this show is a good intro if you don't want to commit the time to reading the books. Coast to Coast - Jun 19 2013 - Hour 2.mp3 Coast to Coast - Jun 19 2013 - Hour 3.mp3 Coast to Coast - Jun 19 2013 - Hour 4.mp3 This is my biggest obstacle on the road to strong atheism, so refutation of these arguments may get you a new convert, though I don’t really believe in a god in the traditional sense. These are only brief summaries of the arguments made in the book, so I will be more than happy to elaborate on any of these points.

The problem is absolutely in the semantics. The commonly accepted definition of monopoly today is essentially sole production of a class of goods or services; however, the classes of goods and services are completely artificial (as stated in the McDonalds example above). The only logically consistent conclusion you can make from that definition is that every individual person has a monopoly on whatever goods and services they are able to produce. I find it interesting that the state intervention was specifically included in the common law definition of monopoly. As Rothbard points out, the 17th century common law definition of monopoly is generally summarized as "a grant of special privilege by the State, reserving a certain area of production to one particular individual or group". In the free market, the fact that there is a monopoly at any given time is a result of consumer demand and the costs of production. The fact that they are selling a product that people want at a price that is low enough to discourage anyone from competing should be praised, if anything. If there is no state violence restricting entry, the threat of additional competition and availability of alternatives will always put downward pressure on prices. The terms "monopoly price" and "competitive price" are completely meaningless in a free market; there are only "prices".

Shape them into rods and drop them into a big pot of water. A whole city, powered....for 2 years...

These studies that use ridiculously broad food categories always crack me up (until I remember that people are taking them seriously). Let's group McDonalds chicken nuggets with grass fed steak and pastured free range eggs into some category called "animal products". Lets take traditionally prepared rice and beans, whose preparation methods have evolved over thousands of years to maximize vitamin content and minimize anti-nutrients, and group them with wheat flour doused in Roundup into another category called "grains". Replacing traditionally prepared rice and beans with chicken nuggets results in an increase in Alzheimer's. Therefore, wheat flour is healthier than pastured meat and eggs. You might as well classify Mountain Dew, Red Bull, and water into a group called "beverages". Drinking 2 liters of Mountain Dew a day is linked to an increased risk of diabetes, therefore consumption of water should be minimized for optimal health.

Hi Queecho, I live out near the airport and joined the boards about 2 weeks ago. I just found the Meet 'n Greet page today and was quite thrilled to find someone from Pittsburgh near the top of the list (your persistence in bumping it up the list is admirable!). There was a Pittsburgh AnCap Meetup started a few months ago; I found it just after their first meeting in October, but they haven't met since. They do have 22 members, so that is at least promising. http://www.meetup.com/Pittsburgh-Ancap-Meetup/ The one libertarian group that I do thoroughly enjoy is Liberty on the Rocks Pittsburgh. Basically just a bunch of libertarians meet at a bar downtown about once a month and bullshit for a few hours. Like the other few liberty groups I frequent in the area, it's dominated by minarchists, but the head of the group is an anarchist, and we all generally get along quite well. The next event hasn't been posted yet, but we would love to have you; just search Facebook for "Liberty on the Rocks Pittsburgh". Otherwise, I love the idea of an FDR meetup and would be more than willing to help get one started up here in the 'burgh.

Look who finally showed up to the party... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/10/feds-poised-to-withdraw-longstanding-warnings-about-dietary-cholesterol/ Though I wish I would have stopped at the headline. The article goes on to point out that, with regards to heart disease, the "greatest danger" is still "fatty meats, whole milk, and butter". So go ahead and drink all the soda pop you want! I was certainly pleased to see the original link to the primal body - primal mind website; I very highly recommend the book. About 3-4 years ago I had been beginning to shift my diet in the primal/paleo direction (having read the occasional Mercola/Mark Sisson article on Lewrockwell.com), and Primal Body Primal Mind was the first real book I read on the subject. It has a greater focus on the mental health benefits of the diet compared to your typical paleo book or website, which is why I think I was sold after reading it. It seems that a good number of common mental disorders can be effectively cured by eliminating sugar and grains, and replacing them with healthy fats (with an emphasis on omega-3s for optimal brain health).

The mathematics that describe the effects of gravity have been proven through observation/experimentation; measuring the rate of a dropped bowling ball, the amount of time for the moon to orbit the earth, etc.... If I want to predict the rate at which a bowling ball falls on Pluto, I simply change the inputs to the equation (the mass and radius of the planet) and get a different result. If I predict that ball will behave differently on Pluto, thereby claiming that the established theory of gravity is false and that we need to launch a mission to Pluto to confirm this, I better have a rational argument to justify why the experimentally observed effects of gravity do not apply elsewhere in the universe. Similarly, the mathematics that describe the effects of nuclear fission have been proven through observation/experimentation; the predictions of nuclear physics have been experimentally confirmed through precise measurments of the power outputs of nuclear reactors, given the mass and density of uranium in the reactor. If I want to predict the effects of smashing two pieces of uranium together, as in the Little Boy bomb, I simply change the mass and density inputs in the governing equation. If the predicted energy output was equivalent to that of a firecracker, or enough to vaporize the earth, the burden of proof would then be on me to explain why. However, the result is an energy output about equal to 20,000 tons of TNT, about what you would need to level a city. The burden of proof is therefore on YOU to prove that the equations that govern nuclear fission, the effects of which have been repeatedly observed in nuclear reactors and other countless experiments, are false. An argument based on whether or not some youtube movies are fake or not is completely irrelevant.

I recommend the episode of the Tom Woods Show (appropriately titled "But....Somalia!) where he interviews someone who has done extensive research on the topic of the Somalian anarchy of the 1990's and 2000's. http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-30-but-somalia/ The Somalia argument fails to ask that essential question "Compared to what?". Is comparing a war-torn country that has little to no capital base to a fully industrialized western country appropriate? Obviously not. The guest in this interview compares the standard of living in the stateless Somalia to: - Its neighbors through the 90's and 2000's. - Statist Somalia in the 80's. The general standard of living increases from near the lowest in Africa to higher than average in this time period, and the near the top in some industries such as telecommunications (no restrictions on who can build a cell tower). He also talks about the legal system that has arisen between the various clans in the rural areas; it has quite a few similarities to a private Dispute Resolution Organization model, at least compared to any other existing legal system that I have heard of.

The existance of nuclear fission and its use in nuclear reactors to generate electricity does not seem to be in question, at least not by the original link that was posted. A typical commercial reactor that produces about 3000 MW (or 3 billion Joules/sec) of heat will produce the same amount of energy released by the Fat Man bomb (88 trillion Joules) in a little over 8 hours. If it is known that nuclear fission can produce these quantities of energy in a reactor by moving some metal rods into close proximity, why is it extraordinary to claim that a similar amount of energy can be created using the same physical mechanism but in a slightly different manner? Why does this require extraordinary evidence? The evidence is inherent in the physical laws and equations that govern nuclear reactions; applying these laws allow for the controlled operation of a nuclear reactor. Since I can see that my local nuclear plant is generating electricity but has not yet melted into a puddle of lava, I can reasonably claim that these laws are not made up. These same laws also conclude that nuclear bombs are very possible and accurately predict the destructive consequences (21,000 tons of TNT = levelled city). It seems to me that extraordinary evidence is required to prove that nuclear bombs are not possible.

If you are looking for contradictions in his rant you need not go further than "blaming statists or statism for the sole reason for "crony capitalism" is false". Though the definition of crony capitalism may vary depending on who you ask, most people would agree with the Wikipedia definition: "Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, or other forms of state interventionism. I would be very curious to hear your friend describe how an economy that depends on close relationships between business people and government officials can function without government officials.