Rusty Nails 5/12/05...

New Camera Update I recently purchased a Canon Rebel XT dSLR. I've posted some new images at Imago Articulus that I've taken with this camera. First impressions are that the camera is very versatile and opens up vast new vistas for serious amateurs. It's been a while since I've shot seriously with my SLR. So now I'm finding that I need to tune up my SLR techniques once again. I'm also finding that I need to learn the ins and outs of the digital medium of RAW format. Many fun days lie ahead. ******** Genetically determined In the comments to my Transcendant Naturalism post there seemed to be a bit of confusion over how I view the role of genes and evolution, and of genes and behavior. I am aware of how gene expression can vary physical features on an organism and how said features may give said organism a survival advantage. One need only look at the beak of the finch and how a variation in seasonal rainfall effects its survivability by means of beak size. Yet, the finches remain finches nonetheless, and it is only through unwarranted extrapolation do we hear of the ability for these minor variations to produce completely new and different species. Genes and their effect on behavior is something of a quandary. The naturalist will tell you, with a straight face no less, that an abstract concept, such as love, is derived from gene expression. The love gene, I suppose. The implication being that virtually all our behavior is due to the mechanics involved within our genes. While I would argue that behavior is not entirely determined by genetics, we can certainly find behavior that is altered by genetic rearrangement. But, and here is the catch, does the fact that a behavior is potentially caused by genetic structure alter how we should view the behavior itself? If a person’s behavior is determined by the same physical interactions that determine their hair color, then by what authority can we declare p_dophilia immoral and altruism moral? Inasmuch as we see no moral difference between two different hair colors, we should not see a difference between p_dophile and altruistic behavior. Or, one could turn the tables around and logically conclude that it is permissible to declare people with blue eyes inherently immoral, worthy of imprisonment or death. Of course we would need to address the concept of logic itself and, if it too is genetically determined, the logical conclusion that it is, therefore, not a binding concept. Hence, one would use logic to dismiss logic. Naturalists cannot consistently live out the implications of their worldview without sneaking abstract concepts in the back door. They know that love exists in the abstract sense, and attempt to tie this abstract concept to physical behavior, whose existence they continue to attribute to genetic combinations – the same type of genetic combinations that produce one’s hair color. If they cannot, or will not, declare that love is morally good; there is no reason not to consider it to actually be vile and immoral. If they do declare that love is a moral good, they have no transcendant authority with which to base their claim. The bottom-line is that it makes no difference whether or not behavior is determined by genetic combinations, for it is the abstract concepts, that we know exist, with which we must deal with. ******** Gotta get the shot After seeing this photo of Bonnie, from Off the Top, getting that perfect shot, I decided to post this pic I took of two photogs, going that extra mile, to frame their shot just so. Of course, being in the right place, at the right time, sometimes helps - hence, my shot. ******** No ACLUnacy here You're walking through an open-air market and spy a rug for sale that has an image of Jesus on it. Close by you notice another rug with an image of the Virgin Mary. While public displays of anything religious may eventually be forbidden here in the United States (despite our First Amendment), it seems that such displays are permissible in the city of Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. (HT: a friend of mine living in Abu Dhabi) ******** Search engines: no thinking required Do an advanced search on Google with all of the words:

qualities required in a candidate for a dermatologist post

and you'll get this blog on the return. ******** Cambrian Explosion? What Cambrian Explosion? From a FoxNews interview of Stephen Meyer, of the Discovery Institute, and Eugenie Scott, of the National Center for Science Education, we get the following:

GIBSON: Ms. Scott, I, for instance, have read several pieces written by scientists who question the Cambrian explosion, in a relatively certain period of time, a sudden profusion of a gazillion different life forms, for which evolution doesn't seem to have enough time. What is wrong with raising that question with students? SCOTT: The so-called problem of the Cambrian explosion and it being a problem for evolution is nonsense. If you talk to paleontologists who actually study the Cambrian explosion and the Cambrian evolution of invertebrate body forms, they will tell you it's a fascinating puzzle, but it has no problem for evolution, even evolution through natural selection.

One wonders if it started snowing in the studio. Before Ms. Scott tries to pull a fast one like that she'd better do a bit more general research. She could start with On the Origin of Phyla, by James Valentine, an interview with Simon Conway Morris, from Reasons to Believe, and The Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang, by Meyer, Ross, Nelson, and Chien (or, even the wimpy explanation from PBS' Evolution series). HT: The ID Update