Who dares sent me SPAM?: 25 new messages in 13 topics

talk.origins
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins?hl=en

talk.origins@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Deity/Human Interaction = Special Babies
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/efa51a8faf57f639?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 8:12 am
From: Libertarius

Perplexed in Peoria wrote:

> "JQ" <jacqui@writeme.com> wrote in message news:1177134104.886976.265880@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>On Apr 21, 2:16 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"SJAB1958" <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1177130935.498364.147830@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>I find it odd that Christians can be perfectly happy with a
>>>>manifestation of God, the Holy Spirit joining with Mary to producing
>>>>Jesus (God made flesh).
>>>
>>>>Yet those same Christians dismiss as mere mythology any account of a
>>>>god joining with a woman and children being born of such unions.
>>>
>>>>Can anyone explain this apparently contradictory thinking, or should I
>>>>chalk it up to Orwellian DoubleThink?
>>>
>>>What is to explain? Those other gods are myth. Yahweh is real. No
>>>contradiction.
>>>HTH.
>>
>>
>>How figure? I mean, what evidence suggests that your god is more real
>>than all the other gods?
>
>
> You are changing the question from whether there is a contradiction in
> Christian belief to whether there is evidence. Personally, I don't know
> of any evidence, hence I am not a Christian. But that doesn't mean that
> I think Christianity is self-contradictory.

===>The history of Christianity and its constant production of newer
sects, seen by others as "heresies", is living proof of the internal
contradictions in it.
THE LAW OF SECTS:
"FOR EVERY SECTARIAN DOCTRINE THERE IS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE
SECTARIAN DOCTRINE -- EACH CLAIMED TO BE BASED ON THE BIBLE." -- L.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 10:17 am
From: Free Lunch

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 08:07:34 -0700, in talk.origins
Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in
<qJadnZdYO_AltbfbnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@comcast.com>:
>Radix2 wrote:
>
>> On Apr 21, 2:48 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>>Can anyone explain this apparently contradictory thinking, or should I
>>>chalk it up to Orwellian DoubleThink?
>>
>>
>> "God works in mysterious ways"?
>>
>> Oh - and impregnates young women without their prior consent...
>>
>===>According to the story Mary was seduced into consenting to the
>impregnation by being promised her baby would be the next king. -- L.

Do stories never change?

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 10:19 am
From: Free Lunch

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 08:09:20 -0700, in talk.origins
Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in
<qJadnZZYO_C8tLfbnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@comcast.com>:
>Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>
>> "SJAB1958" <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1177130935.498364.147830@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>I find it odd that Christians can be perfectly happy with a
>>>manifestation of God, the Holy Spirit joining with Mary to producing
>>>Jesus (God made flesh).
>>>
>>>Yet those same Christians dismiss as mere mythology any account of a
>>>god joining with a woman and children being born of such unions.
>>>
>>>Can anyone explain this apparently contradictory thinking, or should I
>>>chalk it up to Orwellian DoubleThink?
>>
>>
>> What is to explain? Those other gods are myth. Yahweh is real. No
>> contradiction.
>> HTH.
>>
>===>Those "other gods" are as "real" to others as "Yahweh" is to you.
>All gods exist only in the minds of believers, where they are created
>by human imagination. -- L.

You may say that, Perplexed may know that, but that isn't the
explanation that believers give.

The most important god to many Christians is the Devil, yet the are so
obsessed with their religious doctrines that they refuse to even admit
that Satan is a god.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 8:45 am
From: "Melchizedek"

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message news:joak23tdkuv3n9v2e1jben69c9do3opcnt@4ax.com...
> The most important god to many Christians is the Devil, yet the are so
> obsessed with their religious doctrines that they refuse to even admit
> that Satan is a god.
>

Nope!

Satan is a created being, was an archangel, but lost his authority,
he has been defeated at the Cross, and his time is very short.

Maranatha!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Philosophy specifies: organisms process information
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/ec81cd7cd51f6293?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 11:15 am
From: r norman

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 15:10:50 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf@tele2.no> wrote:

>
>"r norman" <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> skrev i melding
>news:prvj23hirtpptjvd5i5qio2ab91tj6tud1@4ax.com...

<snip>

>> ...... And if
>> you don't like that example, I can get started on Deleuze and the
>> notion of emergence!!
>>
>Why not do it anyway?
>

Because the only purpose of doing so would be to bait Wilkins into
producing an explosive response and he seems unwilling to get caught
in .... er, I mean ... play that game.

Deleuze, with Guattari, tries to use concepts of advanced mathematics
and complex system theory to support their arguments which, include
demonstrations that capitalism is a schizophrenic system. See, for
example,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_Deleuze

or http://130.179.92.25/Arnason_DE/Deleuze.html

or http://generation-online.org/p/pdeleuzeguattari.htm

They have very specialized vocabulary with concepts like "desiring
machine", and "rhizomes" and "body without organs" which have very
elaborate technical meanings. If you travel from Marx and Freud
through Lacan and Foucault, you can get into Deleuze

You should also look up Wilkins' reference to Sokal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 11:37 am
From: r norman

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 08:46:07 -0600, dkomo <dkomo871@comcast.net>
wrote:

>r norman wrote:
>> Yes, John W., I am trying to catch your attention.
>>
>> I was recently engaged in a study of that eminent French philosopher
>> of science, Michel Serres. (OK, I was browsing through my son-in-laws
>> bookshelves). And what he has to say is this:
>>
>> " [living organisms] can be described as apparatuses which produce
>> language from noise and information"
>>
>> and
>>
>> "... the living organism... Most often conceived of according to the
>> models we have already considered, the organism has been seen as a
>> machine ... It is evidently a thermodynamic system... It is a
>> hypercomplex system, reducible only with difficulty to known models
>> that we have now mastered. What can we precisely say about this
>> system? First, that it is an information and thermodynamic system.
>> Indeed, it receives, stores, exchanges, and gives off both energy and
>> information -- in all forms, from the light of the sun to the flow of
>> matter which passes through it (food, oxygen, heat, signals)..."
>>
>> and
>>
>> "Formerly, when a given system was analyzed it was a standard -- and
>> justifiable -- practice to write two distinct accounts of it: the
>> energy account and the information account.... The two accounts had no
>> proportion in common; they were not even on the same scale... The same
>> thing is not true for the organism: its extreme complication, the
>> great miniaturization of its elements, and their number bring these
>> two accounts closer and make them comparable. Hence the difference
>> between a machine and a living organism is that, for the former, the
>> information account is negligible in relationship to the energy
>> account, whereas, for the latter, both accounts are on the same
>> scale."
>>
>
>Comment: a computer is a machine, but its information account is not
>negligible in relationship to the energy account even though some of the
>Intel Pentium IV processors dissipate the same amount of heat as an iron
>on the "cotton" setting.

>> This from chapter 7, The Origin of Languge: Biology, Information
>> Theory, & Thermodynamics in "Hermes: Literature, Science, Philosophy",
>> Ed. Josue Harari & David Bell, Johns Hopkins U Press 1982. The
>> Serres original is "Hermes Vol IV: La Distribution: 1977 - Origine du
>> Langage.
>>
>> Certainly you must agree that Serres is the very model of lucidity,
>> clarity, and well reasoned argument epitomizing post-modern French
>> philosophy of science. How can you argue with someone who
>> demonstrates the clear and close affinities between science, painting,
>> and religion?
>>
>> So you MUST accept the informational nature of the organism! And if
>> you don't like that example, I can get started on Deleuze and the
>> notion of emergence!!
>>
>
>In order to round out the notion of information (pseudoinformation?) you
>must supply some quotes and references to Derrida and Baudrillard.

According to physicists who talk about the energetics of information
processing, the heat dissipation of modern CPU's is totally out of
line with the theoretical values involved in twiddling bits. That is
what Serres really means, although he was thinking more in terms of
the original vacuum tube based main frame computers which had enormous
power requirements and very low processing power. In another ten or
twenty years, as transistor size drops to the molecular dimension and
quantum computers might become a reality, the situation may change so
that the energetics of computation become much more of a factor.

My impression is that Serres was sort of referring, in an oblique way,
to what the physicist, Laughlin, calls "the middle way", where
biological machinery (subcellular organelles and macromolecules) are
neither big enough to obey classical and statistical mechanics nor
small enough to be entirely quantum mechanical and so occupy a third
domain of existence. This middle way, (NB, John) is the way towards
emergence!

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/97/1/32.pdf

Still, it was exceptionally difficult to pore through Serres' writing
to find a few scraps of juicy quotes that made some sense. Trying to
do the same with Derrida and Baudrillard would be a fool's errand
which, no doubt, is why you mention them.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 22 2007 3:40 am
From: cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter)

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 08:26:20 -0400, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net>
wrote:

>Yes, John W., I am trying to catch your attention.
>
>I was recently engaged in a study of that eminent French philosopher
>of science, Michel Serres. (OK, I was browsing through my son-in-laws
>bookshelves). And what he has to say is this:
>
>" [living organisms] can be described as apparatuses which produce
>language from noise and information"
>
>and
>
>"... the living organism... Most often conceived of according to the
>models we have already considered, the organism has been seen as a
>machine ... It is evidently a thermodynamic system... It is a
>hypercomplex system, reducible only with difficulty to known models
>that we have now mastered. What can we precisely say about this
>system? First, that it is an information and thermodynamic system.
>Indeed, it receives, stores, exchanges, and gives off both energy and
>information -- in all forms, from the light of the sun to the flow of
>matter which passes through it (food, oxygen, heat, signals)..."
>
>and
>
>"Formerly, when a given system was analyzed it was a standard -- and
>justifiable -- practice to write two distinct accounts of it: the
>energy account and the information account.... The two accounts had no
>proportion in common; they were not even on the same scale... The same
>thing is not true for the organism: its extreme complication, the
>great miniaturization of its elements, and their number bring these
>two accounts closer and make them comparable. Hence the difference
>between a machine and a living organism is that, for the former, the
>information account is negligible in relationship to the energy
>account, whereas, for the latter, both accounts are on the same
>scale."
>
>This from chapter 7, The Origin of Languge: Biology, Information
>Theory, & Thermodynamics in "Hermes: Literature, Science, Philosophy",
>Ed. Josue Harari & David Bell, Johns Hopkins U Press 1982. The
>Serres original is "Hermes Vol IV: La Distribution: 1977 - Origine du
>Langage.
>
>Certainly you must agree that Serres is the very model of lucidity,
>clarity, and well reasoned argument epitomizing post-modern French
>philosophy of science. How can you argue with someone who
>demonstrates the clear and close affinities between science, painting,
>and religion?

I don't know that I must agree to any such thing, but the passages you
quote make sense. Are you doing the dance of the non sequiturs?
>
>So you MUST accept the informational nature of the organism! And if
>you don't like that example, I can get started on Deleuze and the
>notion of emergence!!

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 8:53 am
From: eerok

r norman wrote:

[...]

> If you travel from Marx and Freud through Lacan and
> Foucault, you can get into Deleuze

Though there's an interesting day trip if you turn left at
Camus and spend the afternoon at Roland Barthes.

--
"The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
- George Bernard Shaw

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Did someone2 ever get around to making a point or asking a question?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/389fa23d3fc03fc3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 8:17 am
From: Throwback

On Apr 21, 10:00 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2:25 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 4:33 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 20, 7:10 pm, Terry <kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > > > I think he sets a record for the biggest nothing thread on Usenet.
>
> > > Oh, he asked questions. Mostly, he asked if we agreed that we were
> > > wrong. He seemed disinclined to debate until we got the preliminaries
> > > out of the way...
>
> > > Kermit
>
> > His current debating mode is to propose an hypothetical machine whose
> > behaviour can be explained by "node interactions" and ask if it's
> > behaviour can be explained by "node interactions".
>
> > I can't see the point of this myself, but perhaps he will reveal the
> > great hidden truth which can be obtained by stating the bleedin'
> > obvious.
>
> > Perhaps the answer is that his intellectual capacity is so far beyond
> > ours that we can never understand him.
>
> > Somehow I doubt it.
>
> If you haven't been following any of his other threads, his point is
> as follows*
>
> Assume the unstated assumption that "experience" is a ghostly
> otherworld entity hovering over the brain in a metaphysical fashion
>
> If "nodes" act the way that you would "expect" them to act given the
> laws of nature and the input to the node, this means that this ghostly
> "experience" entity is not effecting them, thus experiences don't
> effect behavior. This is clearly absurd (in his view) so you are
> supposed to have an epiphany and realize that behavior must be
> effected by this ghostly magic experience world and that brains must
> not follow "the laws of physics" and therefore the God of the Bible
> exists, evolution is wrong, and the moon is made of green cheese.
>
> If you say that you don't believe that experience is a ghostly
> otherworld entity but rather an actual factual physical entity, his
> face scrunches up like that of a mole staring into the sun and he says
> something like "what does that mean? That you believe that experience
> doesn't effect behavior?"
>
> -------
> *If he were to reply to this post he would deny my explanation without
> correction or comment past calling me a
> nitwit.

I haven't read the entire thread, but it looked like someone
wanted to debate the writers of some website related
to the group on an issue, and a bunch of people came
in and hijacked the thread.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 8:19 am
From: "chris.linthompson@gmail.com"

On Apr 21, 11:12 pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2007 20:33:03 -0700, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 20, 7:10 pm, Terry <kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> I think he sets a record for the biggest nothing thread on Usenet.
>
> >Oh, he asked questions. Mostly, he asked if we agreed that we were
> >wrong. He seemed disinclined to debate until we got the preliminaries
> >out of the way...
>
> I was so disappointed. I think he really wanted to debate me, but just
> couldn't bring himself to do it. Do you suppose it was something I
> said?

I think it was the pink tutu. He hadn't worn it in ages, and he
thought it made him look fat.

Chris

==============================================================================
TOPIC: In the News: Class Questioned (Letter to the Editor)
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f9a5d64b2e6e3e8c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 10:21 am
From: Free Lunch

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 08:06:18 -0700, in talk.origins
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in
<874pn97onp.fsf@drizzle.com>:
>From the article:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Friday, April 20, 2007
>
>Furthermore, the writer's assertion that Creation Science is not a
>serious scientific alternative to the theory of evolution is again
>faulty. Creation Science is an independent theory of its own that can
>compete favorably with evolution and even help explain its
>gaps. Creation Science has much to offer to science and
>scientists. Actually, many of the things evolution claims it knows and
>discovers are found to be faulty and baseless. The recent Newsweek of
>March 19, 2007 The Evolution Revolution writes,
>
>"If you had asked paleoanthropologists a generation ago what lice
>(human hair lice) DNA might reveal about how we became human, they
>would have laughed you out of the room. But research into our origins
>and evolution has come a long way. Starting with the first discovery
>of a fossil suggesting that a different sort of human once lived on
>this planet.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Read it at:
>http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1199865.html
>
>Elf M. Sternberg

Father Lawrence Ejiofo of St. Patrick Catholic Church, McCook should
know better and stop misrepresenting both science and his own religion.
--

"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should
take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in
which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Some evolution questions
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/3bd7fa7ccefbe492?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 10:19 am
From: Tom McDonald

Steven J. wrote:
> On Apr 21, 1:49 am, Chris <chris...@notalotofunwanted.aol.com> wrote:
>> Can someone in the evolution camp explain why the nearest living
>> relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
>>
> Darwin's explanation (and it seems a good one) is that closer
> relatives were competing with us for the same ecological niche
> (originally, savanna hunter-gatherer; later, hunter-gatherer in other
> relatively open environments), and we out-competed them for food and
> space (also, we probably killed and ate them).
>> What about the nearest extinct relative? How close are we to it?
>>
> Richard Forrest has suggested _Homo neanderthalensis_. I was thinking
> of going for _H. heidelbergensis_.

I'm for H. heidelbergensis as our closest ancestor:

http://tinyurl.com/2kazrv

Would have been nice if we'd kept some of the leaves. I'd like a
Mohawk of the pinkish ones, and arm- and leg-bands of the spiky
green ones.

<snip>

>> Doesn't it seem odd that every single human
>> like creature that is not 100% human is gone?

Odd? No, not if you understand how evolution works with
generalists like humans.

I do find it sad, however. Personally, I'd love to have some
other human species about.

But again, since we'd more than likely compete for the same
resources, and since we are wired to survive, we'd probably just
kill the others off. Perhaps 'again.'

<snip>

>> Chris
>> If life seems jolly rotten
>> There's spmething you've forgotten
>> and thats to laugh and smile and dance and sing!

Life of Brian! OK, you can post here.

Know any Pratchett? Adams?

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 8:34 am
From: ayers_39@hotmail.com

On Apr 21, 10:05 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> > Can someone in the evolution camp explain why the nearest living
> > relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
> > What about the nearest extinct relative? How close are we to it?
>
> That would be, more or less, H. neanderthalensis. Judging by the DNA
> fragments we have so far, it's much closer than chimps and only
> moderately farther than two randomly selected members of H. sapiens are
> from each other.
>
> > Shouldn't we see slightly less evolved humans still living or even not
> > living for that matter? Doesn't it seem odd that every single human
> > like creature that is not 100% human is gone? If evolution is a slow
> > process shouldln't there be humans that are just slightly not human?
>
> No. The evolutionary tree is constantly being pruned by chance and by
> competition. Species that are too similar to each other compete,
> resulting either in selection causing them to become less similar or in
> the extinction of one of them. We (and our various precursor species)
> undoubtedly caused the extinction of other hominids, more so since our
> niche became as broad as it is -- now we're competing with most other
> species on the planet.
>
> > If it's faster than that than who does the biological adam (or eve)
> > mate with?
>
> You are experiencing a confusion of time scales. Evolution is neither
> instant nor glacially slow. Significant change to a population can take
> many generations, but on a geological scale that's the blink of an eye.

Geological scale is a lie made up by evolutionist, Bacteria is on the
bottom of geological scale. Problem is that bacteria lives off from
somthing that was once living (FACT). It (geological scale) can not
be found on the planet ANYWHERE, it exsist in the evolutionist head (a
lie) to make it look like we came from slime,out of the ocean. If we
where fish that breath water? whey did we not drowned developing lungs
in the water? Can't work we would either drowned or suphacate. We are
what we are because GOD made all that was made that was made, and
science can't prove there is no GOD. I have to prove nothing, Science
proves there is a GOD by not being able to explain the origin of the
way things are. By those thing that just can;t happen by them selfs.
Like the big bang, science says that if rewind the expantion of the
universe it comes back to a single point in time.(A BEGINING) science
says there is no reason for it to just happen. Science fact that
everything has a begining, and for every action is a
reaction.Sciencetist say there is no reason for it to of happened.
they say our begining came from bora (NOTHING) Sounds like GENESIS.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 8:47 am
From: Throwback

On Apr 21, 11:34 am, ayers...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 21, 10:05 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Chris wrote:
> > > Can someone in the evolution camp explain why the nearest living
> > > relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
> > > What about the nearest extinct relative? How close are we to it?
>
> > That would be, more or less, H. neanderthalensis. Judging by the DNA
> > fragments we have so far, it's much closer than chimps and only
> > moderately farther than two randomly selected members of H. sapiens are
> > from each other.
>
> > > Shouldn't we see slightly less evolved humans still living or even not
> > > living for that matter? Doesn't it seem odd that every single human
> > > like creature that is not 100% human is gone? If evolution is a slow
> > > process shouldln't there be humans that are just slightly not human?
>
> > No. The evolutionary tree is constantly being pruned by chance and by
> > competition. Species that are too similar to each other compete,
> > resulting either in selection causing them to become less similar or in
> > the extinction of one of them. We (and our various precursor species)
> > undoubtedly caused the extinction of other hominids, more so since our
> > niche became as broad as it is -- now we're competing with most other
> > species on the planet.
>
> > > If it's faster than that than who does the biological adam (or eve)
> > > mate with?
>
> > You are experiencing a confusion of time scales. Evolution is neither
> > instant nor glacially slow. Significant change to a population can take
> > many generations, but on a geological scale that's the blink of an eye.
>
> Geological scale is a lie made up by evolutionist, Bacteria is on the
> bottom of geological scale. Problem is that bacteria lives off from
> somthing that was once living (FACT). It (geological scale) can not
> be found on the planet ANYWHERE, it exsist in the evolutionist head (a
> lie) to make it look like we came from slime,out of the ocean. If we
> where fish that breath water? whey did we not drowned developing lungs
> in the water? Can't work we would either drowned or suphacate. We are
> what we are because GOD made all that was made that was made, and
> science can't prove there is no GOD. I have to prove nothing, Science
> proves there is a GOD by not being able to explain the origin of the
> way things are.

I know they can't adequately explain how abiogenesis occurred.

They then revert to darwin's cult belief #3 :

"We believe at some distant time, someone smarter than
us will come along and adequately explain this."

So they put it out of mind.

But this belief isn't taught right away in introductory
courses, as they proclaim miller's experiment produced
some of the building blocks of what became life, and conveniently
leave out the cult belief until they have moved up in the
initiation process from entered apprentice to ascended
master of the great secret.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How Best To Explain "Why Are There STILL Monkeys" ?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/3b43e05863014ed6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 10:28 am
From: CreateThis

On 20 Apr 2007 21:31:38 -0700, ayers_39@hotmail.com wrote:

>... If evolution where a fact there would be no monkeys/
>apes left.

Can you describe the evolutionary answer to this (the one you disagree
with)? I'll bet you can't.

You're disagreeing with something you don't even understand.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 8:38 am
From: "Von R. Smith"

On Apr 20, 1:15 pm, lumin...@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote:
> Has anyone come across a method that explains why there are
> still monkeys/apes today instead of them all becoming humans ?
> Yes, it's possible to explain, but every way I've ever tried
> to do it winds up being 'clunky' - takes too long or relies
> on mathematical or math-like examples. All THEY have to say
> is "I Believe !". My approach, well, if it takes more than
> ten seconds you can see their eyes glaze over and their
> attention wander.
>
> So, I suppose the question is really "Is there a GOOD way
> to explain it ?". Many have addressed this issue but I can't
> read them all. Maybe some wordsmith managed to condense the
> issue into a couple of pithy sentences or perfect examples ?
>
> The creationist-minded like to believe that every little
> mutation somehow got transferred to EVERY individual and
> they all lived in identical conditions and faced exactly
> the same challenges. If that were true then there indeed
> would be no more monkeys, every proto-monkey/hominid would
> have evolved in lockstep.

One tactic that I've used that is both enlightening to those who are
actually interested in discussion, and frustrating to those who just
want to argue, is to play dumb and put the question back to them:
"Why *wouldn't* there still be monkeys?" Well, if all the monkeys
turned into- "*All* of them?! Who said anything about *all* of them?
etc."

If your interlocutor actually wants to learn something, (s)he will
think about the question, and might see that perhaps it isn't really
an obvious thing to expect at all. If vancomycin-resistant bacteria
evolved from susecptible ones, how come there's still susceptible
bacteria. If Faroese is descended from Icelandic, if penguins evolved
from flying birds, etc.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 8:49 am
From: Frank J

On Apr 20, 3:15 pm, lumin...@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote:
> Has anyone come across a method that explains why there are
> still monkeys/apes today instead of them all becoming humans ?
> Yes, it's possible to explain, but every way I've ever tried
> to do it winds up being 'clunky' - takes too long or relies
> on mathematical or math-like examples. All THEY have to say
> is "I Believe !". My approach, well, if it takes more than
> ten seconds you can see their eyes glaze over and their
> attention wander.
>
> So, I suppose the question is really "Is there a GOOD way
> to explain it ?". Many have addressed this issue but I can't
> read them all. Maybe some wordsmith managed to condense the
> issue into a couple of pithy sentences or perfect examples ?
>
> The creationist-minded like to believe that every little
> mutation somehow got transferred to EVERY individual and
> they all lived in identical conditions and faced exactly
> the same challenges. If that were true then there indeed
> would be no more monkeys, every proto-monkey/hominid would
> have evolved in lockstep.

I see enough replies that you probably heard this already, but before
you even get into mutations and selection, the person - who does not
need to be a creationist to fall for the "monkey" sound bite - is
probably thinking "ladder" not "tree." So the 1st pithy sound bit they
need to hear is "it's a tree, not a ladder." Then make sure they are
clear that *today's* "monkeys" (10 to 1 they are thinking "chimp" not
"monkey") are just as far evolved from the common ancestor as we are;
the only diffrerence being that their lineages did not acquire the
same mutations (& possibly not the selective pressure, though without
the mutations that's moot) as ours did.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Question: How to recognize mutations
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/bea03d8e3f8a17b5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 8:28 am
From: Bloopenblopper@juno.com

On Apr 20, 3:21 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:05:01 GMT, lumin...@everywhere.net (Luminoso)
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 20 Apr 2007 06:48:53 -0700, Bloopenblop...@juno.com wrote:
>
> >>Okay, suppose we find an organism with a noticeable phenotypic
> >>variation from most of its pals in its population. Is there a way that
> >>we can tell that this variation is the result of mutation and not
> >>recombination of existing genetic material, transposons, or gene
> >>transference?
>> >>So for example, there's the famous story about peppered moths adapting
> >>to the industrial revolution. Was this really the result of mutations,
> >>or could it have been recombination of existing alleles? And how do we
> >>know?
>
> > In that particular case you could do a genome analysis or
> > even something cruder like breed the black & white moths
> > and do some math on their progeny.
>
> > Full or partial genome sequencing can reveal much, although
> > it's a bit slow and expensive right now. The dif between
> > black & white moths, or dark or light people for that
> > matter, CAN be a matter of alleles, outright mutations or
> > processes that affect gene expression such as methylation.
> > Regardless though, it's POSSIBLE to find out. Whether you
> > can AFFORD to find out is another issue ...
>
> The more important issue is whether anybody would be interested in
> finding out. If the question is important enough, someone will
> eventually persuade the funding agencies to loosen some dollars. If
> the issue is Parkinson's or Alzheimer's or diabetes or some other
> such, then you can be sure people are hard at work looking. If the
> issue is moths turning dark, then you can pretty sure that nobody
> would even bother setting a grad student on it (unless either the
> major professor or the grad student was particularly obnoxious).

Okay, thanks for your answers everyone. So would I be correct in
saying that any process that results in the creation of a new allele
is by definition a mutation?

There is no ulterior motive to my question, i.e., I am not a troll who
is going to come blazing in here thinking he knows it all better than
99% of scientists. I manifestly don't. What got me thinking about it
is, as r norman pointed out, a new phenotypic characteristic could
develop because of a different combination of pre-existing alleles
that get shuffled around in sexual reproduction (right?). That's a
factor we need to account for whenever we point to modern-day examples
of adaptation.

A related question: I have a popular science book on genetics and
evolution. It contradicts itself, saying in one place that all genetic
variation is the result of mutations at some point, and in another
that's it's mostly due to recombination during meiosis, with rare
mutations. So which is it?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Condolences to VA Tech
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/b77c8ba365341d64?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 3:28 pm
From: eerok

John Wilkins wrote:
> eerok <eerok@addr.invalid> wrote:
>> John Wilkins wrote:
>> > eerok <eerok@addr.invalid> wrote:

>> >> The US (by typical Canadian perception) is a land of extremes,
>> >> but since I'm not interested in writing an essay, I'll leave
>> >> it at that. If you're interested in more points of cultural
>> >> differences, you needn't look far; a good place to start would
>> >> be the American roots in Puritanism.

>> > Dietrich Bonhoeffer, when he visited the US int he 30s,
>> > stated that there were two defining features of America -
>> > the Puritan roots and the open frontier. This made for the
>> > individualism that defined it today. I don't think he was
>> > that far from the truth.

>> That paints an interesting picture: a gun in one hand, a bible
>> in the other, the settler faces a hostile world.
>>
>> The settlement of Canada had its share of drama, too ... but
>> it was never drawn so broadly with so bold a stroke. We
>> didn't do the larger-than-life mythmaking.

> Everyone does mythmaking - the American one happens to
> include guns more than most. The rest of the British Empire
> also had a gun fetish in the 19thC, but they ended up having
> an administration fetish once they had acquired all that
> territory. It sort of tamed them...

Yes, everyone does mythmaking, but it's possible for a larger,
more dominant culture to be overpowering in this respect.
Canada has nothing quite like Paul Bunyan, Daniel Boone, Jesse
James, Bonnie and Clyde, Billy the Kid, et al., but these are as
familiar to us as if they were our own.

Canadians of my generation were saturated by American books,
music, movies, TV shows ... to the extent that you could say
that we are enculturated as Americans, but with some of the
buttons disconnected, and of course other influences added.
As a child I used to "plead the fifth" when my parents asked
me pointed questions about my behavior, and this seemed
completely natural to me.

Canadians are said to have "an identity crisis," though I
think this is evaluated comparatively and is thus suspect.
Overall I'd say we're more laid-back, less prone to brash
certainty, more willing to compromise, and quicker to laugh at
ourselves ... not a lack of identity, just a quieter one.

With respect to the topic, you can find mental illness
anywhere, and so you can find nutbar killers anywhere. I
think it's likely that American cultural effects contribute to
a higher incidence of violence in cases of mental meltdown,
and so I wouldn't say with any confidence that gun control
would amount to a cure in this case. But it would cut down on
the accidental and impulse shootings, which probably amount to
the majority of shootings in the US.

So I think gun control in the US would save lives, though I
don't see it happening any time soon. It's too volatile as a
political issue to attempt to implement in any but a very
gradual way.

--
"The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
- George Bernard Shaw

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 8:45 am
From: eerok

Ernest Major wrote:
> In message <58r58cF2h58nqU1@mid.individual.net>, eerok
> <eerok@addr.invalid> writes

[...]

>>The settlement of Canada had its share of drama, too ... but
>>it was never drawn so broadly with so bold a stroke. We
>>didn't do the larger-than-life mythmaking.

> One riot. One Mountie. ?

... and an Acadian's daughter, walk into a bar ...

Actually, we had our Rasputin, sort of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Scott_%28Orangeman%29

--
"The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
- George Bernard Shaw

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Creationist: Teaching 'evolution-only' dampens respect for human
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/3cd08d56b3fa83f9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 3:33 pm
From: "Pete G."

"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177143740.252594.213860@
>

> Why don't you compare to the UK.
> We have a population about 15/th the size of the USA. We have had one
> school shooting, 17 people died. So in the USA, 11 times as many
> people died, yet the population is only five times the size. Then one
> can look at the overall firearms murder rates...

Does anyone know what is the smallest number of variables that need to be
combined to show a comprehensible pattern for gun killings? Number of
weapons in circulation; type of weapons in circulation; population number;
population density; and so on..? Surely *someone* has some kind of a handle
on this...?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: In the News: The universe has a designer, speakers say
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/10c843d438f9419c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 10:38 am
From: CreateThis

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 02:59:28 -0400, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:

>... "It seems logical and rational that, if there is a God, that He
>would leave evidence behind for us to find Him."

If it's "logical and rational" that He wants us to find Him, why the
fuck doesn't He just introduce Himself? What's the logical rationale
for all the games?

"It seems logical and rational" to me that these people are all
dimwits.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Arkansas: Panel to consider evolution critique
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/10e81a61b7c5e2f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 10:41 am
From: CreateThis

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 04:25:12 -0400, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:

>... the School Board approved 21 science
>textbooks that a member of the textbook selection committee painted as
>slanted toward evolutionary theory.

Yeah, I bet they're "slanted" toward roundearth theory too.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: hi everybody
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/57d093eb5e09d1db?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 8:49 am
From: "Pip R. Lagenta"

On 21 Apr 2007 07:08:19 -0700, Inez <savagemouse123@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Apr 21, 5:39 am, mjune...@gmail.com wrote:
>> hi myself juned
>> iwanna know
>> about the universe
>> my mail ID is
>> mjune...@gmail.com
>
>My advice is that if you visit you should dress in layers. Most of it
>is very cold, but some of it is really quite warm.

All Universes are thin at one end, much thicker in the middle and then
thin again at the far end. That is my theory, it is mine, and belongs
to me and I own it, and what it is too.
--A.E.

>
--
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°

-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: what is science and what is NOT science
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/6d81c27907da89cf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 8:53 am
From: CreateThis

On 21 Apr 2007 07:31:04 -0700, Throwback <throwback8@gmail.com> wrote:

>... based on the comparison of human dna and chimp
>dna, the pseudoscientific claim of evolutionary descent
>between the two doesn't fit.

Moron. What does "evolutionary descent between the two" mean? What
claim has been made about it?

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "talk.origins"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to talk.origins-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en

Who dares sent me SPAM?

Saturday, April 21, 2007

25 new messages in 13 topics - digest

No comments:

Links

About Me

Blog Archive