Brick-colored eyes
I’ve wished to
take in
and wet it self
To mine, reflecting—
to measure
what I do not wish
alone
to measure
When I share
my voice
echoing back
It is only
these four
slick,
egg-shelled,
plastered
boards
that know,
what it is
impossible
for them to know.
Reverberating
what it cannot
Understand…
me.
-Susie E.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
'Tis the Sum
The day and her spotting rain
Turning dry embankments
and clear rivers to mud
'Tis the drizzle’s sum of one year
As the night's crickets moan
For the hunter’s meat that clung to my bones
Lay dead of thirst
Untouched nor pursued
beneath this hungry flood
With its cracked lips and blistered tongue
-Susie Edging
3/13/2010
Turning dry embankments
and clear rivers to mud
'Tis the drizzle’s sum of one year
As the night's crickets moan
For the hunter’s meat that clung to my bones
Lay dead of thirst
Untouched nor pursued
beneath this hungry flood
With its cracked lips and blistered tongue
-Susie Edging
3/13/2010
Friday, November 20, 2009
Gray
There,
right here
This
smooth spot
in the wind
Between
wilting magnolias
and sad proverbs
I find
myself
Senses
coolly swept
as Autumn
Hung
gray
in paradox
-Susie E.
right here
This
smooth spot
in the wind
Between
wilting magnolias
and sad proverbs
I find
myself
Senses
coolly swept
as Autumn
Hung
gray
in paradox
-Susie E.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Photography and Life
Here's just a few things I've been up to since I haven't taken the time to write or comment much. I hope you all enjoy. You are most welcome to critique anything you wish. It is always helpful to get suggestions and to also know what's liked. Hope everyone enjoys and my favorite bloggers are doing well! - Susie
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Macro-Redherring
So called “macroevolution” seems to be an elusive term. I have found myself chasing a circle of articles refuting macroevolution, especially ones referring to Michael Behe’s book, “Darwin’s Black Box,” and even Michael Behe himself. On the opposite side of the spectrum, I found myself reading evolutionary articles implying that macroevolution is the large-scale changes in various species over time--which I had long since thought was evolution. Still, I have religious and nonreligious articles referring to macroevolution as a switch from one animal to a completely different animal without the benefit of time. I can only conclude I am crazy or conclude that everyone is as confused on what macroevolution is exactly.
Fortunately, on Nova’s website I found a question and answer article with Dr. Kenneth Miller (a professor at Brown University and author of the textbook Biology), “In Defense of Evolution,” in reference to, “Intelligent Design on Trial.” Contained within his answers he states:
“The people who say that macroevolution, by which they mean really big evolution, has never been observed, inevitably cannot give you a strict and rigorous definition of what macroevolution is. They'll simply say it's the formation of new categories or evolutionary novelties. They're loath to put specifics on that idea, to tell you what percentage of the genes or how many base pairs of DNA have to change, because I think they know very well that once they make specific what they mean by macroevolution, some darn biologist is going to go out into the field or into the lab and follow exactly that rate of change and show that macroevolution really does occur.”
For me to come to a conclusion of whether macroevolution is true or not, I would need a confirmed definition. Can anyone possibly provide this?
In terms of Intelligent Design, the whole concept leaves a lot to be desired to be proclaimed a workable scientific theory. ID appears only a mere objection to evolution, not a testable and/or workable scientific theory. Nothing about it has withstood miniscule scientific testing much less rigorous ones. As a matter of fact, Michael Behe’s infamous prototype to his notion of irreducible complexity, the bacterial flagellum, has long since been proven impossible…and of all things proven impossible in a courtroom.
To be sure (and for time’s sake), I suggest watching, “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.” You can find this for free online on the PBS/Nova website.
I mention my objection to Intelligent Design above because the term, “Macroevolution,” appears to be tossed around a lot among its advocators and appears to leave evolutionary biologists guessing as to what it is or what Behe means.
If Behe implies that macroevolution is evolution and microevolution is random mutation, then why doesn’t he just say so? My thought is that speaking real science might make his already disproven hypothesis of irreducible complexity clearly shown to everyone (I also have wondered what Behe is paid by his employer).
Frustratingly, I just cannot logically grasp how Behe can lecture for 20 minutes about a mousetrap, an analogy for irreducible complexity. If Behe can make sense of what irreducible complexity is by demonstrating that any one part of a mousetrap that goes missing loses its mousetrapness then fine. However, continuously defending his analogy as a good one will never prove irreducible complexity. Behe either misses the point of random mutation and natural selection (and therefore obviously doesn’t understand evolution) or purposefully is inserting a red herring. What I mean to say, his point is mute and irrelevant.
In conclusion, could Behe disprove evolution by disproving Darwin when he said:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely breakdown.”
he is still faced with proving ID. All he has presented is a false dichotomy, not a scientific theory.
Here are the discussions:
Question for me:
Where do you land? It seems that you do not answer the question that the assignment is asking.
Where do I land? The question is a trick question. The whole point of the question, “Is macroevolution true,” is to shine a light on the word, macroevolution.
Macroevolution is a term that is not used by any biologist to describe anything about evolution though Intelligent Design proponents use it as if they are critiquing a real scientific claim. Further more, macroevolution in and of itself is not a scientific claim or theory. It’s not even a term that describes any part or parts that characterizes any scientific claim or theory. Even Intelligent Design’s own researchers use the term inconsistently that its meaning cannot be deduced to anything consistent. Intelligent Design proponents don’t even have an established definition of its meaning. Using the term gives way to confusion for scientists and laymen alike trying to understand the ID argument.
Philosophically, it is a fallacious argument of ambiguity: equivocation. All this really means is that it is an informal argument that bases a position on ambiguous evidence and the meaning of a term or phrase changes in the course of an argument making it a big ol’ fat red herring.
Perhaps now you see why you were confused on where I land on the assignments question. If I “land” on a definite answer of yes or no to this question, I cannot possibly give a logical response because the term, “Macroevolution,” has no true consistent definition. Many unqualitfied person’s or laymen have postulated on what it means. Indeed, every student has landed on one side or the other but no one can give a consistent definition and there papers inevitably fall short of anything sufficient. Why do you think that is?
Asking this question is like asking someone to lace up and tie a Velcro shoe. They think it is a direct question. If the person assumes that it can be done they’ll just keep at it until infinity. Holding to this assumption, the person will have to hold that their logic is confused and not the assumption’s—their assumption which claims that a Velcro shoe can be tied.
In the case of a student who never chooses to abandon their assumption that macroevolution is a real term., they will inevitably be lead to have to make a yes or no stance. After all, X either is true or is not true. No matter how many hours one spends researching macroevolution, I’ll bet they’ll never come to a clear understanding of what macroevolution is exactly and have to rely and base their argument on unqualified authorities to create their argument for them (and to note, sense there is no established definition for macroevolution there is no qualified authority). It’s like chasing a rabbit down a rabbit hole.
In answering your question, I think it is illogical for me to take on stand on the truth of so-called macroevolution.
I go on to refute ID (we had to read and watch a bunch of debates on ID vs evolution to answer the macroevolution question) because ID proponents are the ones that keep using the word to refute evolution in which evolution make no macroevolutionary claims. It is true that IDers could just be using the word macroevolution synonymously with something else that is a scientific claim but the IDers never specify which claim…even when asked.
My theory is that if Behe cleared up the muddle here he wouldn’t have a salary anymore…that’s where I rest =P
On your alternative theory notion: If Behe is, like you suggest, not arguing for the "theory" of intelligent design, then I am confused. Or am I?
Michael Behe is stating: 1) irreducible complexity is fact 2) the bacteria flagellum rotor is too complex to be irreducible 3) therefore evolution is false. If he just stopped there I might buy that he is just desperately trying to disprove evolution on what he thinks is a good argument. Unfortunately, he doesn't stop there.
Michael Behe goes on to state that the evidence from his “hypothesis” not only necessitates the theory of evolution wrong but also a designer! You cannot say that Behe is not suggesting an alternative theory to evolution with that statement. Even Behe will tell you that his theory would win by sheer default to evolution.
I might add, that all the evidence Behe has, has already been rendered emphatically and resoundingly false. The bacteria flagellum HAS been reduced to the bacteria blamed for the Bubonic plaque, and even the reference Behe uses (which he only used one) to back up his claim that the flagellum’s rotor is irreducible, was a guy who has studied the flagellum’s rotor for years and was interviewed in a scientific journal and on contemplation on the motors remarkable nature the scientist remarked, “It looks design.” The scientist himself said he did not literally mean it was designed.
So what about the other “facts” Behe suggests? There are no more facts. That’s it for Behe’s supposed workable refutation of evolution and replacement theory of ID.
I would show the other discussions but only the questions are authored by me and I do not have permission, as of yet, to post them. Hope all of you out in inter-space are doing well. Ta-ta for now
Fortunately, on Nova’s website I found a question and answer article with Dr. Kenneth Miller (a professor at Brown University and author of the textbook Biology), “In Defense of Evolution,” in reference to, “Intelligent Design on Trial.” Contained within his answers he states:
“The people who say that macroevolution, by which they mean really big evolution, has never been observed, inevitably cannot give you a strict and rigorous definition of what macroevolution is. They'll simply say it's the formation of new categories or evolutionary novelties. They're loath to put specifics on that idea, to tell you what percentage of the genes or how many base pairs of DNA have to change, because I think they know very well that once they make specific what they mean by macroevolution, some darn biologist is going to go out into the field or into the lab and follow exactly that rate of change and show that macroevolution really does occur.”
For me to come to a conclusion of whether macroevolution is true or not, I would need a confirmed definition. Can anyone possibly provide this?
In terms of Intelligent Design, the whole concept leaves a lot to be desired to be proclaimed a workable scientific theory. ID appears only a mere objection to evolution, not a testable and/or workable scientific theory. Nothing about it has withstood miniscule scientific testing much less rigorous ones. As a matter of fact, Michael Behe’s infamous prototype to his notion of irreducible complexity, the bacterial flagellum, has long since been proven impossible…and of all things proven impossible in a courtroom.
To be sure (and for time’s sake), I suggest watching, “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.” You can find this for free online on the PBS/Nova website.
I mention my objection to Intelligent Design above because the term, “Macroevolution,” appears to be tossed around a lot among its advocators and appears to leave evolutionary biologists guessing as to what it is or what Behe means.
If Behe implies that macroevolution is evolution and microevolution is random mutation, then why doesn’t he just say so? My thought is that speaking real science might make his already disproven hypothesis of irreducible complexity clearly shown to everyone (I also have wondered what Behe is paid by his employer).
Frustratingly, I just cannot logically grasp how Behe can lecture for 20 minutes about a mousetrap, an analogy for irreducible complexity. If Behe can make sense of what irreducible complexity is by demonstrating that any one part of a mousetrap that goes missing loses its mousetrapness then fine. However, continuously defending his analogy as a good one will never prove irreducible complexity. Behe either misses the point of random mutation and natural selection (and therefore obviously doesn’t understand evolution) or purposefully is inserting a red herring. What I mean to say, his point is mute and irrelevant.
In conclusion, could Behe disprove evolution by disproving Darwin when he said:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely breakdown.”
he is still faced with proving ID. All he has presented is a false dichotomy, not a scientific theory.
Here are the discussions:
Question for me:
Where do you land? It seems that you do not answer the question that the assignment is asking.
Where do I land? The question is a trick question. The whole point of the question, “Is macroevolution true,” is to shine a light on the word, macroevolution.
Macroevolution is a term that is not used by any biologist to describe anything about evolution though Intelligent Design proponents use it as if they are critiquing a real scientific claim. Further more, macroevolution in and of itself is not a scientific claim or theory. It’s not even a term that describes any part or parts that characterizes any scientific claim or theory. Even Intelligent Design’s own researchers use the term inconsistently that its meaning cannot be deduced to anything consistent. Intelligent Design proponents don’t even have an established definition of its meaning. Using the term gives way to confusion for scientists and laymen alike trying to understand the ID argument.
Philosophically, it is a fallacious argument of ambiguity: equivocation. All this really means is that it is an informal argument that bases a position on ambiguous evidence and the meaning of a term or phrase changes in the course of an argument making it a big ol’ fat red herring.
Perhaps now you see why you were confused on where I land on the assignments question. If I “land” on a definite answer of yes or no to this question, I cannot possibly give a logical response because the term, “Macroevolution,” has no true consistent definition. Many unqualitfied person’s or laymen have postulated on what it means. Indeed, every student has landed on one side or the other but no one can give a consistent definition and there papers inevitably fall short of anything sufficient. Why do you think that is?
Asking this question is like asking someone to lace up and tie a Velcro shoe. They think it is a direct question. If the person assumes that it can be done they’ll just keep at it until infinity. Holding to this assumption, the person will have to hold that their logic is confused and not the assumption’s—their assumption which claims that a Velcro shoe can be tied.
In the case of a student who never chooses to abandon their assumption that macroevolution is a real term., they will inevitably be lead to have to make a yes or no stance. After all, X either is true or is not true. No matter how many hours one spends researching macroevolution, I’ll bet they’ll never come to a clear understanding of what macroevolution is exactly and have to rely and base their argument on unqualified authorities to create their argument for them (and to note, sense there is no established definition for macroevolution there is no qualified authority). It’s like chasing a rabbit down a rabbit hole.
In answering your question, I think it is illogical for me to take on stand on the truth of so-called macroevolution.
I go on to refute ID (we had to read and watch a bunch of debates on ID vs evolution to answer the macroevolution question) because ID proponents are the ones that keep using the word to refute evolution in which evolution make no macroevolutionary claims. It is true that IDers could just be using the word macroevolution synonymously with something else that is a scientific claim but the IDers never specify which claim…even when asked.
My theory is that if Behe cleared up the muddle here he wouldn’t have a salary anymore…that’s where I rest =P
On your alternative theory notion: If Behe is, like you suggest, not arguing for the "theory" of intelligent design, then I am confused. Or am I?
Michael Behe is stating: 1) irreducible complexity is fact 2) the bacteria flagellum rotor is too complex to be irreducible 3) therefore evolution is false. If he just stopped there I might buy that he is just desperately trying to disprove evolution on what he thinks is a good argument. Unfortunately, he doesn't stop there.
Michael Behe goes on to state that the evidence from his “hypothesis” not only necessitates the theory of evolution wrong but also a designer! You cannot say that Behe is not suggesting an alternative theory to evolution with that statement. Even Behe will tell you that his theory would win by sheer default to evolution.
I might add, that all the evidence Behe has, has already been rendered emphatically and resoundingly false. The bacteria flagellum HAS been reduced to the bacteria blamed for the Bubonic plaque, and even the reference Behe uses (which he only used one) to back up his claim that the flagellum’s rotor is irreducible, was a guy who has studied the flagellum’s rotor for years and was interviewed in a scientific journal and on contemplation on the motors remarkable nature the scientist remarked, “It looks design.” The scientist himself said he did not literally mean it was designed.
So what about the other “facts” Behe suggests? There are no more facts. That’s it for Behe’s supposed workable refutation of evolution and replacement theory of ID.
I would show the other discussions but only the questions are authored by me and I do not have permission, as of yet, to post them. Hope all of you out in inter-space are doing well. Ta-ta for now
Friday, February 27, 2009
Free Speech...or is that just too offensive for you?
(found on Richarddawkins.net)
This is our First Amendment and inherent in it lies the consequences of offending persons. To stamp out open questioning and criticism of absolutely anything not only teeters the practice of tolerance, it blatantly begs for a nation full of intolerant people because they are pregnant with ignorance.
Religion is already treated with an air of taboo because people are too afraid to say or question practices that they do not understand or do not agree with. If anything, religion should be the most important concepts to critically question. Women rights, homosexual rights, eating rights, and your right to practice your own religion (and to share it) without fear of reprobation is all dependant on being able to question and disagree with the very ideas and ideals of any religion which would confine, stifle, and imprison your own beautiful voice, your way of sacred worship or the lack of it.
Free speech gives us the very right to take a stand against intolerant acts that take away a women’s right to work, an African American to vote, a Christian to witness, atheists the right not to pretend, and it even gives Free Speech’s attackers the ground to suggest its removal from our mouth’s, inked hands, and printed words at the foot of our door.
Do you remember the Swedish Islamic Cartoons? What about the terrorist attack on 911, the bombings on London’s Underground, the vile murder of Theo van Gogh, and the endless list of intolerant actions? Think about your own questions or the conversations you have had with friends, do you believe those conversation should never again exist? Please take a few moments to read and learn about a country who does not believe in Free Speech, Turkey. Ask yourself, “Is this the way I want me, my family, and my friends to live?
It all sounds sweet to spare someone’s feelings until one’s feelings control a nation or a world. There are natural consequences to Free Speech and heinous consequences of its absence.
Cheers to the right of being offend and to offend! Now, lets talk about it.
This is our First Amendment and inherent in it lies the consequences of offending persons. To stamp out open questioning and criticism of absolutely anything not only teeters the practice of tolerance, it blatantly begs for a nation full of intolerant people because they are pregnant with ignorance.
Religion is already treated with an air of taboo because people are too afraid to say or question practices that they do not understand or do not agree with. If anything, religion should be the most important concepts to critically question. Women rights, homosexual rights, eating rights, and your right to practice your own religion (and to share it) without fear of reprobation is all dependant on being able to question and disagree with the very ideas and ideals of any religion which would confine, stifle, and imprison your own beautiful voice, your way of sacred worship or the lack of it.
Free speech gives us the very right to take a stand against intolerant acts that take away a women’s right to work, an African American to vote, a Christian to witness, atheists the right not to pretend, and it even gives Free Speech’s attackers the ground to suggest its removal from our mouth’s, inked hands, and printed words at the foot of our door.
Do you remember the Swedish Islamic Cartoons? What about the terrorist attack on 911, the bombings on London’s Underground, the vile murder of Theo van Gogh, and the endless list of intolerant actions? Think about your own questions or the conversations you have had with friends, do you believe those conversation should never again exist? Please take a few moments to read and learn about a country who does not believe in Free Speech, Turkey. Ask yourself, “Is this the way I want me, my family, and my friends to live?
It all sounds sweet to spare someone’s feelings until one’s feelings control a nation or a world. There are natural consequences to Free Speech and heinous consequences of its absence.
Cheers to the right of being offend and to offend! Now, lets talk about it.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Of Montreal: Gronlandic Edit - Great
This is great stuff: "I guess it would be nice to give my heart to a god
But which one, which one do I choose?
All the churches fill with losers, psycho or confused
I just want to hold the divine in mind
And forget all of the beauty's wasted
Let's fall back to earth and do something pleasant
We fell back to earth like gravity's bitches
(Physics makes us all its bitches)"
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Candy From Stragers
Braids and pigtails woven by the wind
Framed a glossy crease
Chewing pink cotton candy bubble gum
And two smiling eyes blazed inside-out
Skin rouge and nurtured
I was told then, “Never talk to strangers.”
And so I never did,
But when I was 14,
and scrawny bones fashioned to brawny flesh
sweating pebbles and curvy streams from the yellow sun—
And proudly adorned with two new unbuoyant risings,
They offered their sweets instead,
Fingers still playing in the dirt, I slowly peered up
“Little girl so pretty,” they whispered
Calloused hands loosening my hair and skidding my cheek
“Let me teach you about love,”
Just long enough to hear the hum of unfolding metal
As the nook of my neck’s spine hung on the ridged end of a naked crib
And so, there I lay
Encapsulated in love and prickly cracked leather
Like sandpaper, scratching my tummy raw, red, and numb
My irises flickering back and forth, blue and white, turning outside-in
Tracing faces and shapes with the white drips in the ceiling
In-between the opaque and transparent whizzing of wood
15, 16, 17, 18…
Standing in front of a mirror
A used painting of camouflage and idealistic dreams
Dressed in crooked saline and fears
Scared to love, scared of lies
And haunted by the smacking echo of dry liquorish, so tearingly bitter
Susie E.
Framed a glossy crease
Chewing pink cotton candy bubble gum
And two smiling eyes blazed inside-out
Skin rouge and nurtured
I was told then, “Never talk to strangers.”
And so I never did,
But when I was 14,
and scrawny bones fashioned to brawny flesh
sweating pebbles and curvy streams from the yellow sun—
And proudly adorned with two new unbuoyant risings,
They offered their sweets instead,
Fingers still playing in the dirt, I slowly peered up
“Little girl so pretty,” they whispered
Calloused hands loosening my hair and skidding my cheek
“Let me teach you about love,”
Just long enough to hear the hum of unfolding metal
As the nook of my neck’s spine hung on the ridged end of a naked crib
And so, there I lay
Encapsulated in love and prickly cracked leather
Like sandpaper, scratching my tummy raw, red, and numb
My irises flickering back and forth, blue and white, turning outside-in
Tracing faces and shapes with the white drips in the ceiling
In-between the opaque and transparent whizzing of wood
15, 16, 17, 18…
Standing in front of a mirror
A used painting of camouflage and idealistic dreams
Dressed in crooked saline and fears
Scared to love, scared of lies
And haunted by the smacking echo of dry liquorish, so tearingly bitter
Susie E.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Moral Relativity
Alright all you Philosophy buffs, I need your help! I am currently taking my first philosophy class, my first two philosophy classes: Intro and Logic. I have a paper due on Tuesday asking the question, “Is morality Relative?” My first reaction was, “Of course it is relative!” Though, after some contemplation it came to me that I didn’t believe ‘morals’ existed, rather, no universally binding ones anyway (which is what Dr. was truly asking). So if that is true, then morality wouldn’t be relative because it wouldn’t exist. However, I talked with my professor to examine my own logic and my conclusion is that while this thought would be an acceptable paper, he hounded on my logic pretty hard (though constructively, of course). Honestly, I have no idea what the hell he was talking about…I think he thinks I’m more hip to the lingo than I really am. Consequently, I politely told him, “Thank you for confusing the hell out of me. I shall have to go contemplate. You must be a good professor. Damn you.” Seriously though, Mark, Jonathan, Billy, Lee, Phillip…get my brain going, I have a philosophers block.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Thine Journey
I watched a leaf hang steady to its tig
Until one day it flew
Back and forth, weaving the air in crisp blood red
Life from limb, what a miraculous fall
Mine, a bittersweet death
Susie Edging
Until one day it flew
Back and forth, weaving the air in crisp blood red
Life from limb, what a miraculous fall
Mine, a bittersweet death
Susie Edging
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
