Magic Microbes-to-Microbiologists Mix

Magic Microbes-to-Microbiologists Mix

click on image to enlarge

Carelessly and aimlessly mixed by the cold, withered hand of Mother Nature herself. Just add water and wait a few billion years. Those microbes will magically become microbiologists! No information or other external input needed.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Magic Microbes-to-Microbiologists Mix

  1. No one is touching this one, eh? I figured there would be an objection somewhere. Through careless and aimless nature, we care and aim. It’s a magical story.

    Like

  2. I’ve mostly given up interacting here as no matter what point I make – even correcting straightforward factual errors – they’re very seldom addressed and instead I just get a bunch of different questions thrown at me, and then get told I’m avoiding them.

    But if you’re desperate for a response, I’d point out that the phrase ‘no external input’ is false as it ignores that absolutely crucial role the energy from the sun plays in ‘increasing complexity’ on the earth. In short: our planet is not a ‘closed system’.

    All best.

    Like

    • Where I’m from we call that “having a pity party”. Feel better now?

      Let’s get back to the topic (which isn’t me FYI)…

      External energy from the Sun or elsewhere is useless if you don’t have mechanisms in place to harness and use it. For example, plants.

      1) What naturalistic explanation can you give us for the simultaneous “appearance” of such a system? 2) Where has it been observed?

      Please refrain from changing the subject or not answering these questions.

      Like

      • “External energy from the Sun or elsewhere is useless if you don’t have mechanisms in place to harness and use it. For example, plants.”

        Exactly. In fact you need a whole ecological system already in place for any one organism to survive. For example, bacteria could not survive in even the most ideal environments (temperature, humidity, amount of light, etc.) unless there were organisms to provide them with decaying matter to feed on AND unless there were other organisms that fed on the bacteria to cull the population insuring that proliferation does not exceed available resources–which would lead to extinction.

        Like

  3. And your reply perfectly illustrates what I was talking about. 1) Not acknowledging the (on topic) point I was making – that it’s false to say there’s no external input; 2) Posing me more questions and implying that unless I answer them it’s me who’s avoiding things.

    “External energy from the Sun or elsewhere is useless …”

    Sure, but that’s not the assertion I was responding to, which was that there is NO external input. You’ve changed the subject, not me.

    Finally, you say you want to stay on topic and away from personal stuff directly after accusing me of “having a pity party”! The disconnect there aside, there was no pity in my post at all – just an explanation of why you’re turning off people from engaging with you. Whether you take it on board is up to you.

    Like

    • Not acknowledging the (on topic) point I was making – that it’s false to say there’s no external input

      Before calling something “false”, you should probably first correctly understand it (maybe I’m partially to blame for not making it more explicit). In the context of the sentence and the cartoon, part of the idea was “intelligence” or “intelligent agency”. I thought that was clear enough with the reference to “Mother Nature” and “information”. It could stand to be made clearer (hence my original response to Dan above).

      By the way, “intelligence” is the very thing materialism lacks in explaining systems which depend on other things, like plants converting the energy of the Sun into something usable. Surely the Sun is not sentient and information is not a by-product of matter? Of course not. Besides, there’s a whole industry built around the deleterious effects of the Sun.

      Finally, you say you want to stay on topic and away from personal stuff directly after accusing me of “having a pity party”! The disconnect there aside, there was no pity in my post at all – just an explanation of why you’re turning off people from engaging with you. Whether you take it on board is up to you.

      As I told you before, sometimes you are overly (and disproportionately) sensitive. I sarcastically remark in a single sentence that you’re having a pity party and you respond by writing two paragraphs in addition to the previous one?! So you continue painting a false picture me on my blog and think I’ll say nothing? Given that you’ve shown keen insights and given some good responses in the past, I refuse to believe you would be so stupid as to think I would say nothing. As a matter of fact, my brief sarcasm was intended to get us back to the subject(s). Instead, here I am having to respond again to silly, personal comments.

      And your opinion of me “turning off people from engaging with you” is evidenced by what? I may be turning you off from engaging, but given that you continue to make me the topic of your comments, I don’t see that as necessarily a bad thing. For what it’s worth, my new comment policy took a lot of the hot air and personal attacks out of the threads. It doesn’t mean I stopped interacting with anyone.

      Joshua

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s