Who dares sent me SPAM?: 25 new messages in 15 topics

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

talk.origins@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: how to reply to this fool?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/78a289522f236128?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 11:54 am
From: Desertphile

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:59:06 GMT, bdbryant@wherever.ur (Bobby
Bryant) wrote:

> In article <2d4s2393r10ng80ujntciva1n29ai7qjo4@4ax.com>,
> Desertphile <desertphile@nospam.org> writes:
>
> > Nor is it possible to enlighten Creationists and educate them.

> Strictly speaking, that only applies to creationist demagogues.
>
> Ordinary creationists can be and sometimes are educated. It's the
> Hams, Hovinds, Dembskis, Paganos, Pitmans, and McCoys of the world
> that are beyond both education and reason.

That's fair enough. Perhaps I should have used "Fundamentalist
religionist" instead of "Creationist." Cult indoctrination
includes techniques that prevent or inhibit thoughts considered
evil by the victims, which implanted phobias to punish the victims
if their thoughts stray into information their cult masters do not
allow them to have. Ray Martizez, "Bimms," McCoy, etc., are
excellent examples of the process.

http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 12:10 pm
From: bdbryant@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant)

In article <gsgs231b3eqr4tc3dugqhg4if8l6pdi1fe@4ax.com>,
Desertphile <desertphile@nospam.org> writes:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:59:06 GMT, bdbryant@wherever.ur (Bobby
> Bryant) wrote:
>
>> In article <2d4s2393r10ng80ujntciva1n29ai7qjo4@4ax.com>,
>> Desertphile <desertphile@nospam.org> writes:
>>
>> > Nor is it possible to enlighten Creationists and educate them.
>
>> Strictly speaking, that only applies to creationist demagogues.
>>
>> Ordinary creationists can be and sometimes are educated. It's the
>> Hams, Hovinds, Dembskis, Paganos, Pitmans, and McCoys of the world
>> that are beyond both education and reason.
>
> That's fair enough. Perhaps I should have used "Fundamentalist
> religionist" instead of "Creationist."

I think we all tend to say "creationist" when we're really talking
about a narrower class.

--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada

Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Taliban before the Taliban
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/1f1385c6ba52bfb0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 10:53 am
From: Kermit

On Apr 23, 4:52 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 5:55 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 23, 12:42 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > if religious statements contain truths, then they have a legitimate
> > > purpose in public schools. if they do not contain truths, then they
> > > have no legitimate purpose there.
>
> > Um, in case you didn't notice, Snex, I've spent the past 25 years
> > fighting to keep religious statements out of public school biology
> > classrooms.
>
> why?
>

Because they're not science. I first heard adult level evolutionary
science from a friend - my workout partner - who was a devout
Christian. He got his PhD in plant virology and we went our separate
ways. But he knew the difference between faith and science, and did
not want religion in science classes, and disdained those theists who
thought they should use bad science to justify their religion.

He and I had some vigorous discussions on religion, philosophy, and
ethics, but I listened to him when he talked about biology.

>
>
> > (sigh)
>
> > ================================================
> > Lenny Flank
> > "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> > Author:
> > "Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html
>
> > Creation "Science" Debunked:http://www.geocities.com/lflank

Kermit

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 6:40 pm
From: eerok

snex wrote:

[...]

> if you can point out any of these unfounded assumptions, please do so.

That unfounded assumptions are in all cases bad.

That unfounded assumptions are in the larger sense avoidable.

That attacking others for the sake of a general idea,
irrespective of their particular actions, offers anything
better than the kind of harm an unfounded assumption might do.

That the subjectivity of human experience is dispensable.

That life enforced by a strict, objective standard is either
possible or desirable.

...

If I got some of these wrong, it wasn't on purpose. Several
more were possible, but I ran out of time for now.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: VT massacre, Creationists, apology?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/833cb8101482318?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 5:55 pm
From: nmp

Op Tue, 24 Apr 2007 08:56:05 -0700, schreef WuzYoungOnceToo:

> The level of intellect conveyed via your arguments is truly impressive.

You accuse others of having no rational arguments, while all you do
yourself is resort to these kind of ad hominem tactics. Constantly. What
do you think an objective observer would make of that?

Are you not interested in trying to understand the point of view of those
who oppose you?

Never mind, I think I know the answer.

Just remember the old Chinese saying: Yuck Fou.

I only hope you won't kill too many people with all the guns you have.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 5:59 pm
From: nmp

Op Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:35:52 +0000, schreef Bobby Bryant:

> In article <1177369494.778353.189920@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> WuzYoungOnceToo <wuzyoungoncetoo@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> I guess the idea of the assailant aiming his weapon at someone with the
>> clear intent to shoot, with another individual retreiving his weapon
>> and firing first never occured to you.
>
> I wonder what's going to happen when you hear gunfire elsewhere in the
> building, and you plus a dozen other people from around the building
> jump up and march toward the sound of gunfire, intent on shooting
> someone that's holding a gun.

I can picture that in my mind. The picture involves a couple of those
famous "law-abiding citizens" lying dead, having shot each other, while
the original killer looks on astounded, saying to himself, "fuck, these
people are actually crazier than I am".

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 11:31 am
From: puros

On Apr 23, 9:09 am, Daoud <ustadb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What, to me, is probably the most bizarre position to come from this
> shooting, is the belief that students/teachers should be *armed* "just
> in case". I can't see how anyone would feel *safer* walking onto a
> campus, or out on a street, knowing that everyone is carrying
> concealed firearms.

I feel quite safe here in Indiana. People don't do the kind of random
violent crime you'll get in other states, because everyone here has a
gun. You don't even get the punk kids trying to intimidate store
owners here like in Illinois (home for me). I don't own one, but I
feel a great deal safer knowing that most of the people here do. The
vast majority of the gun owners are responsible.

There's a point where you have to trust other people to act maturely.
Most of them do. A few random, senseless killings will happen, but
it's worth it to live in a free society.

Besides, if Cho didn't have a gun, he'd have used a bomb or
something.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 11:37 am
From: puros

> You should learn to read. I'm talking about professors who have spent
> a lifetime in academia. That most professors are liberal and most
> professors are not too hands-on does not imply that most liberals are
> not hands on, just those that happen to be professors.
>
> Lee Jay

You might want to hang around a biology or environmental science
department more often. Those guys get out an awful lot, and most of
them know their way around a gun.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:56 pm
From: Martin Andersen

nmp wrote:
> Op Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:35:52 +0000, schreef Bobby Bryant:
>
>> In article <1177369494.778353.189920@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>> WuzYoungOnceToo <wuzyoungoncetoo@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> I guess the idea of the assailant aiming his weapon at someone with the
>>> clear intent to shoot, with another individual retreiving his weapon
>>> and firing first never occured to you.
>> I wonder what's going to happen when you hear gunfire elsewhere in the
>> building, and you plus a dozen other people from around the building
>> jump up and march toward the sound of gunfire, intent on shooting
>> someone that's holding a gun.
>
> I can picture that in my mind. The picture involves a couple of those
> famous "law-abiding citizens" lying dead, having shot each other, while
> the original killer looks on astounded, saying to himself, "fuck, these
> people are actually crazier than I am".
>
>
>
or: "I just got a great idea for an alibi".

==============================================================================
TOPIC: True to his form, Charles Darwin married his first cousin... Emma
Wedgwood... Atheists and Incestuous ' science '...
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/4568d065a0db317e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 10:55 am
From: Seamus

On Apr 22, 4:53 am, Sammy <s...@home.com> wrote:
> so incapable of finding a woman who would want the
> likes of him...
Ms. Wedgewood most likely had many suitors, if for the only reason she
was an heiress to one of the great fortunes of Victorian Britain; also
from her portraits I can say, though she was no raving beauty, she
definitely was not bad looking.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: a challenge to evolution punks
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/cf1ee2f7a2c72bef?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 11:56 am
From: Desertphile

On 24 Apr 2007 07:27:59 -0700, Scooter the Mighty
<Greyguy3@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 23, 7:26 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
> >
> > even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> > because they have emergent behavior
> >
> > emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> > called the subconscious
> >
> > we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> > supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
> >
> > I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> > a mysterious subconscious

> I suggest that there is more proof that you're a drug addled junkie
> then there is that God [sic] exists.

From: Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net>
Subject: too low of doses
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.psychedelics
Message-ID: <_sSdnV3yQ6yBGQXYnZ2dnUVZ_rDinZ2d@comcast.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 21:46:36 -0600

if people think cough syrup and weak cacti are the same thing as
LSD, they have never really done LSD or they have done too small
of a dose, you really need to do around $50 worth of acid to trip
as opposed to $5, that would be around 5-10 blotters or microdots
(500mcg or better)

http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 11:03 am
From: "Pip R. Lagenta"

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:36:05 GMT, John Harshman
<jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote:

>Pete G. wrote:
>
>> "John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:deeXh.532$RX.326@newssvr11.news.
>>
>>
>>>The subconscious is a term
>>>used in Freudian psychiatry
>>
>>
>> It most certainly bloody *is not*! The term 'subconscious' has nothing to do
>> with Freudian psychoanalysis, and is never used in properly psychoanalytic
>> writings. English-speaking Freudians have 'conscious', 'pre-conscious' and
>> 'unconscious' -- and *that's it*.
>>
>> [Handy reference: Charles Rycroft, Penguin Dictionary of Psychoanalysis]
>
>OK. So where does "subconscious" come from? Who uses it?

From <http://www.answers.com/subconscious&r=67>:
"The subconscious was most clearly delineated in the work of Pierre
Janet. In Automatisme psychologique (1889), he posited two contrasting
forms of mental activity, automatism and synthesis. The former
corresponded to the primal and archaic; the latter, to creativity and
higher levels of consciousness. On the basis of experimental work with
hysterics, Janet demonstrated that in morbid states, due to a
diminished field of consciousness, automatism took precedence over the
activity of synthesis.

Janet essentially identified the subconscious with psychic automatism
and, in hysteria, he hypothesized profound dissociation and splitting
of the personality. He was influenced by the work of Frederick Myers,
the British psychical researcher, and the work of American physician
Morton Prince on dual and multiple personalities; he also took into
account earlier investigations by Jean-Jacques Moreau de Tours on
hashish intoxication."

Mmmmmm... hashish...

>
--
¤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: not enough intermediate species
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/14427384260ff06a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 10:55 am
From: Kelsey Bjarnason

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:30:03 -0500, Dale Kelly wrote:

> there is no cat-dog
> no man-pig
> no elephant-bird
> etc.

And no reason for such to exist.

> also not enough time for all mutations to add up

Yes, I see, your equations and the figures they apply to are most
compelling.

--
Do not contact me at kbjarnason@ncoldns.com

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 11:25 am
From: John Harshman

Dale Kelly wrote:

> there is no cat-dog
> no man-pig
> no elephant-bird
> etc.

Why should any of these exist? Cats didn't evolve from dogs, or vice
versa. Nor humans from pigs, nor birds from elephants.

Now if you're looking for intermediate fossils, those do exist, but most
of them bear no particular resemblance to either of the modern groups,
since both lineages have continued evolving. The closest to a cat-dog
intermediate would be an early carnivore, say Vulpavus. The pig-human
ancestor would be an early placental, far back in the Cretaceous, and
these are poorly known, but try Zambdalestes. The elephant-bird ancestor
would be a primitive amniote, say Hylonomus.

> also not enough time for all mutations to add up

Not that I can see. In fact mutation rates from phylogenetic inference
and from observations of extant populations are about the same, within
the accuracy of measurement.

Do you get tired of making ridiculous pronouncements?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: In the News: Darwin Only Had A Theology Degree
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/38dc4b7e007af971?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 12:05 pm
From: Desertphile

On 24 Apr 2007 07:33:44 -0700, Harvest Dancer
<harvestdancer@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 23, 8:46 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Placing Africans and transitional in the same sentence and
> > context is gutter racism.

But Africans *ARE* transitional, Ray. How is stating a fact
"racism?"

> WHY is it gutter racism?
>
> WHY?
>
> WHY?
>
> WHY?
>
> WHY?
>
> WHY?

"Oooo! Look at the cute bunnies over there!" --- Ray, evading the
painful question.

> Jason Harvestdancer

http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike

==============================================================================
TOPIC: implications of cause and effect
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/b302395e5c051640?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 2:14 pm
From: Rich Townsend

Dale Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:03:51 +0200, Jim Willemin wrote:
>
>> Why, specifically? Rich is talking about observations, presumably oft-
>> repeated observations. Why are the observers wrong in what they see?
>
> the standard model of particle phsyics explains all interactions and is
> non-relatitivistic
>

How, then, do you explain the detection of pions from air showers? The classical
decay time of these particles, which are produced in the upper atmosphere, is
far too short for them to reach the earth's surface. Only when time dilation is
taken into consideration, can we explain the detection of these particles at sea
level.

I've just showed your comment to my friend Levent, who is a particle physicist.
I haven't seen him laugh this much in months. Thanks!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: To the writers of the Talk.Origins website
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/83a7ea3085fa6ee1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 25 2007 6:19 am
From: cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter)

On 22 Apr 2007 10:25:55 -0700, someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com>
wrote:

>On 20 Apr, 21:23, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:

>> However the word "explained" is weasel word carrying big red flags.
>> What counts as an explanation. Certainly there is no such thing as a
>> full explanation. We don't know the full details of how individual
>> cells work, let alone entire bodies. We don't necessarily know all of
>> the relevant laws of physics. Even if we did, computing their
>> application in detail would be impossible. Do you disagree? If so, we
>> could debate that. Brush up on your complexity theory and quantum
>> electrodynamics first; the going might get heavy.
>>
>> What it comes down to is that any explanation is going to be partial,
>> restricted to some frame of interpretation, and incomplete in any
>> absolute sense. Moreover it is not simply a matter of getting all of
>> the p's and q's in line. There are major features of human experience
>> that simply do not have any well established and agreed upon
>> satisfactory explanation. The experience of consciousness will do as an
>> example.
>>
>> In short, "explain" is mush until it's clarified. Perhaps you could
>> explain what you mean by explain.
>>
>
>Sry about the delay in replying.
>
>I mean explain in terms of what is pointed to by rules of physics.

I see that you never actually read what I said about explanations nor
thought about it. This seems to be a problem with you; you don't bother
to think about what the other person is saying.

>
>I've put the thrust of the argument below, and as an experiment you
>might want to print it out, and as you read through, tick each
>paragraph as you go, as to whether you understand it and agree with it
>or not. Then when you get to a paragraph you don't agree with or
>understand, then if it is that you don't agree with it, respond as to
>why and we can go through with it. Otherwise look and check whether
>there is a sentance in the paragraph you don't understand, if so, post
>back to me. If not, it is then that you don't understand how the
>implications could be right if your personal perspective were correct,
>as the implications would make your perspective implausible to someone
>like yourself. If the latter, look back and see the ticks you had
>placed, and realise that you did understand and agree with the
>reasoning up until the implication that you are having problems with,
>and realise that you have just qualified for being in a state of
>denial. The obsticle in your path to understanding would be your own
>ego.

Ah, I see. You don't actually want to debate anything. What you want
is for people to read your essay and accept it as is. It is quite
presumptious and arrogant on your part to presume that any one having
problems with your, ah, reasoning is in a state of denial and the
problem in the path to understanding is their ego. It could just as
well be that you, yourself, are in denial about your own failings in
reasoning and that your difficulty is coming to terms with this is your
own ego. A more modest, more honest, and more humble approach would be
to say, "Here is my argument; look at it and tell me what you think.
If I've gone wrong somewhere, tell me, and I'll listen." You might
think about that.

A number of people have pointed out some difficulties that, seemingly,
you have been in denial about. Be all of that as it may, I will go
through your opus point by point, paragraph by paragraph, and critique
it in detail. I only have one condition: That I have permission to
reprint your original on my web site along with the critique. Is that
agreeable?

[snip essay]

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Margaret Beckett "Wars will start due to climate change"
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/3ffa08d9dfe32481?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 11:30 am
From: Kermit

On Apr 19, 12:14 pm, Faustino Núñez Hernández <faus...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I don't think wars will start due to climate change .
>
> I think that it will happen just the opposite : wars will end due to
> climate change . To create a new global strong , functional and
> working economy will be the only chance for human kind to face the new
> environmental threats .

That's right. After all, we humans are known for getting rational and
cooperative when the pressures increase and the resources diminish...

Faustino, I sincerely hope you're right, but I am not overly
optimistic. I don't expect real improvement until genetic engineering
starts producing smarter people in significant numbers. Of course my
wife thinks that this will simply produce intelligent, war-mongering
lunatics. <shrug>

Kermit

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 6:58 pm
From: bobg@radix.net (Robert Grumbine)

Other groups deleted and shift of topic per subject line change:

In article <1177439439.580528.270020@r30g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Kermit <unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 19, 12:14 pm, Faustino Núñez Hernández <faus...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> I don't think wars will start due to climate change .
>>
>> I think that it will happen just the opposite : wars will end due to
>> climate change . To create a new global strong , functional and
>> working economy will be the only chance for human kind to face the new
>> environmental threats .
>
>That's right. After all, we humans are known for getting rational and
>cooperative when the pressures increase and the resources diminish...
>
>Faustino, I sincerely hope you're right, but I am not overly
>optimistic. I don't expect real improvement until genetic engineering
>starts producing smarter people in significant numbers. Of course my
>wife thinks that this will simply produce intelligent, war-mongering
>lunatics. <shrug>

Intelligence is merely a tool. Having more tools doesn't change
character, or how we'd decide to use the tools. To the extent that
we're a species of war-mongering lunatics, more intelligence wouldn't
change that; I agree with your wife.

So, then, what would we wave our magic engineering wand to try to
change, if not intelligence itself.

One thing that seems maladaptive is the degree to which we react to
extremely rare but spectacular events. (Plus the degree to which things
are perceived as spectacular simply because people _say_ they are -- the
Alar scare, for instance.) Having a more reasonable risk analysis
'module' would be a big improvement.

Related, perhaps, but comes to mind from a different direction would
be for humans to be more comfortable thinking at longer time scales
(than days-weeks). We do (planting, for instance) think longer than
that, but not for much, and not often. So when it comes to, say,
business planning, 3 months are considered plenty long, and a year is
a very long time. Likewise our electing officials for a mere 2-6 years.
If we thought as a matter of course on decadal time scales, a number
of current problems wouldn't be such. (Or course, then other things would
become problems ...)

It also would be a good idea to lower that 'love sugar, salt, and fat'
setting in our pleasure centers or wherever.

Others ...?
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Duesberg in SciAm
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/d5597f6919259ef9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 11:43 am
From: Glenn

On Apr 23, 4:30 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Recently, there was an exchange that questioned the peer review
> process with respect to Peter Duesberg. In the May 2007 edition of
> Scientific American is an article by Peter Duesberg. An editor's note
> is included nest to the author information disclaiming that SciAm
> endorses Duesberg's claims about HIV and AIDS. The article discusses a
> controversial theory about cancer being caused by chromsomal damage
> rather than a series of gene mutations.
>
> I have reconstructed the discussion as Bloopenblopper trimmed a post
> including the first paragraph included here.
>
> Pagano:
>
> >>>> This is laughable. Everyone who depends on the secular scientific
> >>>> community for their livelihood and who disputes the sacrosanct
> >>>> theories is crushed. The easiest way to destroy someone who bucks the
> >>>> orthodoxy is through peer review. I suspect the fear of being
> >>>> squeezed out of the ability to publish has stifled many new ideas that
> >>>> contradict the current sacrosanct theories consistent with atheism.
>
> Bloopenblopper:
>
> >> >Give an example.
>
> Pagano:
>
> >> Dr Peter Duesberg, a National Academy of Sciences member was
> >> ostracized and isolated for disputing the truthlikeness of the
> >> sacrosanct HIV-causes-AIDS theory.
>
> Bloopenblopper:
>
> >Yeah, but he was still able to get peer-reviewed articles published.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg
>
> Pagano:
> I never said that he was summarily drummed out. I simply noted that
> his daring to buck the sacrosanct and secular dogma of HIV-causes-
> AIDS
> caused him considerable difficulty. The fact that he was a National
> Academy of Sciences member is probably the only thing that saved him.
> Had some post doc dared to do the same thing his career in his field
> would have been destroyed.
>
> Tony backtracked after being asked for an example of somebody who was
> "crushed", he claimed that Duesberg had been caused "considerable
> difficulty". The article in the magazine is evidence that Peter
> Duesberg is busy publishing controversial cancer research and
> apparently obtaining funds.
>
That he "backtracked" is not the only way to read what Tony said.
"Give an example" is what Tony was asked to do, and his understanding
of "crushed" is not as it were, written in stone by you to the
exclusion of Tony's clarification.
His answer *is* true; "Dr Peter Duesberg, a National Academy of
Sciences member was ostracized and isolated for disputing the
truthlikeness of the sacrosanct HIV-causes-AIDS theory." You might not
regard that as "crushed" but it would be your personal opinion of a
word Tony had chosen to mean experienced "considerable difficulty".
And Tony never said that a "crushed" researcher could or would never
publish anything ever again. He said the *fear* of being squeezed out
of the ability to publish has stifled many new ideas. Duesberg's
research on HIV/AIDS *was* "squeezed out", and he did suffer ostracism
and loss of funding. Bloopenblopper provides reference to that effect
elsewhere in the thread. Bloopenblopper as well should note here that
Tony didn't claim that Duesberg was "destroyed", or that he would
never publish ever again, but that a post doc who did something
similar would have been.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 12:13 pm
From: bdbryant@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant)

In article <1177428435.846848.192860@t38g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Bloopenblopper@juno.com writes:

> See his website, http://www.duesberg.com. Duesberg does complain of
> discrimination and blackballing in the scientific community, and at
> least one instance of censorship ( http://www.duesberg.com/papers/ch12.html
> ).

Frankly, I don't consider a journal's refusal to publish someone's
letter as censorship.

--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada

Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How do body parts evolve?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/02b6bc830768793f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 11:42 am
From: "OlOlOl01"

"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177354326.281248.291870@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Well, thanks to everyone who took time to write a sensible reply. I'm
> sorry my example of tail-less monkeys was not historically valid
> although some of you seem to have understood the crux of my questions
> which is this:
> Is the process (evolution) which generates new features of survival/
> reproductive benefit smooth or jagged. I think this is referred to as
> the question of micro- or macro-evolution.
>
> I had not considered that a single mutation could produce such
> startling results. Would it be correct to say that a single mutation
> could produce a whole new nipple on a pig thus allowing a mother to
> feed an extra piglet thus producing comparatively more offspring thus
> increasing the chances that this "extra nipple mutation" is passed on
> and eventually "fixed"?
>
> But how does this apply to entirely new appendages and organs? In the
> case of a pig the "data" for building a nipple is already there
> however, this data itself could not have arrived in one go. I suppose
> this approaches the "but you can't have half an eye" debate but I
> really do fail to see how an organism without say, an anus, could
> evolve one. Either you have a miraculous jump of some sort
> (macroevolution) or you have a smooth progression which, as I've
> described, seems improbable in the extreme because of the *zero*
> benefit of each supposed intermediate stage thus rendering it
> improbable that these (non)benefits accumulate. I really am talking
> about *zero benefit* steps not just small benefit steps.
>
> So which model is correct: Macro- or Micro- evolution?
>
>
Maybe neither. The biochemical processes involved possess
labyrinthine complexities and the science is yet infant and dimly
grasped.

I play around with Genetic Alhgorithms (a lot easier to grasp,
but using the same principles as biosystems) and might point the
following out (as patterned metaphors of the biochemistry):

1) speciation, in the form of building heritable, predominant patterns
(or elite chromosomes) occurs principally through crossover (biologically=
breeding or part chromosomic replication) and once in place _in a
stable ecology_ rapidly assumes strong dominance

2) to 'shift' a dominant pattern out of a stable population takes one
hell
of an effort in terms of mutation in that mutation has to be either:
a) extensive enough to disrupt the species stabilty and make new
groupings (and even a 5% mutation in every generation is often insufficient)
OR
b) sufficiently specific and powerful as to provide immediate superiority
beyond
the extant dominant chromosomes
Either of these could provide your miraculous jump...

3) the more replications of a given schema (=short pattern or 'gene')
that exist in the chromosomes of a population then the more likely
that chromosomic feature will occur (repeatedly) in subsequent
generations (this in part answers your number of nipples question:
nipples, as a biologicaly useful feature, (= a repeating
gene subset) will increase _in the given ecology_ until they reach
a useful maximum. They will then increase no more (and the optimum
wll vary synergetically as the ecology varies).
(as a corollory of this, consider the repeating pattern TTAGGG /number
of
telomeres on the tail end of a chromosome and 'useful' lifespan. I
speculate that repeats, and possibly palindromic repeats, in sequences are
markers of 'number' and temporality in 'number of repeats' (=duration))

4) it's interesting to run various sets of algorithms alongside each other
as an 'ecology' and to observe their ultimate stable forms (which like most
systems have various stable similar yet non-equal 'quantum' levels).
If you consider an individual organ of a body of any individual macro
'species' as itself being a species existing in the
ecology of that body (with certain genes in certain chromosomes
turned 'on'), and then look at the 'whole' of the planet/species/
organs/suborgans/chemical compounds etc. as a recursive,
synergystic set, it gives you a whole new view of things...

5) in Genetic Algorithms, you can play around with haploid, diploid,
tripolid,
indeed 'nploid' chromosomes as well as binary, quatenary, denary and even
grammatical encoding (the latter area is remarkably fruitful in terms of
innovation and relatively simple to handle in that language comes quite
naturally to human beings).
Biogeneticists should of course be playing around with diploid quatenary
sets of multiple chromosomes - but I, as a mathematician/engineer prefer
to mess about with the other stuff.

I heartily recommend study of these mathematical models since I feel it
can give insight to microbiology (and many other things evolutionary).

As an example, I have used the notion I express in 1) above to model
the behaviour of a rat chasing cheese in a maze.
A simple, haploid, six chromosome, 100 locus population
will usually track down the cheese in a 20 by 20 maze (with NSEW
possible movements and random start points for rat/cheese) with ten
or so generations (and you can very simply oprtimize the algorithm
such that it performs far better than that).

One then takes this beyond, lets the rat get part way to the
cheese & then randomly changes the location of the latter
(and/or the maze obstacles) whilst leaving the rat where it is &
letting the problem run on.
Ratty gets very ratty and very confused - indeed his 'genetic
learning' has been entirely disrupted by varying the ecology more
rapidly than he can adapt ( a fate that awaits us all if global
warning really gets hold)...

Now, this might seem a trivial problem - but when one
writes the following rough metaphor:
maze - building
maze obstacles - antibiotics
cheese - patients biosystems
rat - MRSA
rat learning - MRSA breeding

Then it takes on a whole new significance...

"A stable ecology in a hospital building provides ideal conditions for
a bacterial or viral disease to evolve and overcome the antibiotics in use
and attack the patients biosystems."

The beauty of metaphor.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scientific Models Are Usually Wrong Though Helpful
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/2218488a3cc44ea7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 11:53 am
From: richardalanforrest@googlemail.com

On Apr 24, 12:41 pm, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 3:06 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 3:47 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 23, 3:58 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 23, 7:02 pm, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> >> > > > On Apr 23, 12:57 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 23, 4:02 pm, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 23, 10:42 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 3:09 pm, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 9:16 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 11:27 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 6:15 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 10:21 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
> > > > > > > > > > > > > successfully.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > So what?
> > > > > > > > > > > > They work, and what's more they work far better than other models of
> > > > > > > > > > > > how the universe behaves.
> > > > > > > > > > > > If I am ill, I think that antibiotics work better than prayer. And if
> > > > > > > > > > > > I am ill, I don't think I am being punished for my sins.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Is this some sort of attempt to argue that because evolutionary theory
> > > > > > > > > > > > is only a model it may be wrong?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course it might be wrong - that's the nature of science.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Excellent - I completely agree with this point.
>
> > > > > > > > > > "But to suggest that because evolutionary theory may be wrong some
> > > > > > > > > > other "theory", such as one of the many esposed by creationists, can
> > > > > > > > > > be correct is downright silly. Those other "theories" were falsified
> > > > > > > > > > centuries ago. In science a falsified theory does not make a comeback,
> > > > > > > > > > and those who persist in supporting falsified theories lose any
> > > > > > > > > > credibilty."
>
> > > > > > > > > > Am I to understand that you do not agree with this point?
>
> > > > > > > > > > If not, perhaps you can give an example of a completely and utterly
> > > > > > > > > > falsified scientific theory which *has* made a comeback?
>
> > > > > > > > > > I'm sure that you will also agree that scientific theory is based on
> > > > > > > > > > the interpretation of the evidence as objectively as possible, and
> > > > > > > > > > that personal conviction carries no weight in science no matter how
> > > > > > > > > > strongly that personal conviction is held.
>
> > > > > > > > > Scientific models used to be influenced by religious beliefs.
>
> > > > > > > > They aren't today.
>
> > > > > > > > > The efficacy of the model only depends on whether it can be validated
> > > > > > > > > and useful.
>
> > > > > > > > The problem you have if you want to push religious conviction into
> > > > > > > > science is that it cannot be validated.
>
> > > > > > > > > Yet one cannot deny that the model is not reality itself.
>
> > > > > > > > So what? It works. I don't care if it is any ultimate reality or not.
>
> > > > > > > Correct - that's my understanding too.
>
> > > > > > This partial agreement is somewhat disingenuous.
> > > > > > Why not confirm whether or not you agree with the point my post was
> > > > > > making?
>
> > > > > > Just to remind you:
>
> > > > > > It doesn't affect the nature of science or the validity of its
> > > > > > findings.
>
> > > > > It does not affect Nature as Nature is reality. But it does affect
> > > > > the nature of science if
> > > > > the scientific models and theories are taken as absolute realities.
>
> > > > Which is something no scientist does.
>
> > > > The idea of an "absolute reality" is an philosophical concept which
> > > > has little relevance to science. All theories in all branches of all
> > > > science are treated as provisional. That alone denies the possibility
> > > > that science can every reach any absolute reality.
>
> > > > Why waste your time over something which scientists don't do?
>
> > > > > > If you want to claim some superior reality based on your personal
> > > > > > convictions, fine. Just don't call it science.
>
> > > > > > And by the way: if you want others to change their beliefs so that
> > > > > > they line up with yours - i.e. by wanting to call your beliefs
> > > > > > science" and have them taught as science in science classroom - then
> > > > > > you need to offer rather more than the strength of your personal
> > > > > > conviction in support of your argument. The world is filled with
> > > > > > people whose convictions are different from yours. Many are
> > > > > > diametrically opposed to yours. Unless you can provide some objective
> > > > > > way of judging the validity of all those personal convictions, why
> > > > > > should anyone accept yours rather than anyone else's?
>
> > > > > Nope - I'm not making other claims in this context.
>
> > > > You have in other contexts. If you are not leading up to some
> > > > assertion about the validity of evolutionary theory as science, and
> > > > suggesting that someones personal conviction has as much validity, I
> > > > wonder what is the point of all this posting.
>
> > > The point is very simple - a scientific theory or model is not reality
> > > but only a product of human imagination and innovation.
>
> > Quite sp.
>
> > > Personal convictions about a theory or usefulness of the model may
> > > help the scientist develop a more robust model or theory.
>
> > Nonsense.
> > It's evidence which leads to the development of a more robust model.
> > Personal conviction of the validity of a model may lead a scientist to
> > further testing, but so can the conviction that the model is false.
> > The scientist may have no conviction one way or another. What matters
> > is how well the model or theory stands up to testing against the
> > evidence.
>
> > > The issue is not the validity of the scientist's personal convictions
>
> > but rather the model's validity.
>
> > The validity of the model is built on the evidence. The personal
> > convictions of the scientist don't enter into it.
>
> > > But ultimately, the model or theory is still a product of human
> > > imagination.
>
> > It's tested against the evidence, and reflects a portion of what you
> > may want to call "absolute reality".
>
> Can you quote any scientist who said that their model or theory
> is the absolute reality?
>

Which part of "reflects a portion of what *you( may want to call
"absolute reality" (note the emphasis on "you") do you not understand.

And which part of this do you not understand?

"The idea of an "absolute reality" is an philosophical concept which
has little relevance to science. All theories in all branches of all
science are treated as provisional. That alone denies the possibility
that science can every reach any absolute reality."

> >It represents real phenomena.
>
> Correct - it is only a representation, but not the absolute relaity.

So what? Science is still the most useful tool for investigating and
understanding the nature of the universe mankiind has ever developed.

>
> > It's not just a bit of fantasy, or a game with words and numbers.
>
> > So, to repeat my question: Why are you wasting time building a fanatsy
> > about what scientists do and how science works which is simply wrong?
>
> It is a fantasy to belief that a scientific model or theory is
> absolute reality.

Which is a fantasy no scientist holds, so why bring the matter up?

You may believe that your religious convictions represent an absolute
reality. Fine. That's your problem, especially when you encounter
someone whose equally strongly held religious convictions are
diametrically opposed to yours, and who believes just as strongly as
you do that their convictions represent absolute reality.

But this has nothing to do with science, and nothing to do with the
validity of any theory in any branch of science. In science, what
matters is the evidence. And just for the record, the claim by some
creationists that the evidence supports a young earth, or a biblical
flood, or any other aspect of their religious convictions is a
falsehood. This does not mean that anyone who believes it to be true
is a liar, but it does mean that they have been persuaded to believe
falsehoods to be true.

>
> > RF
>
> > > > RF
>
> > > > > > RF
>
> > > > > > > > > > Or do you think that personal conviction is evidence?
>
> > > > > > > > > > RF
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > RF

==============================================================================
TOPIC: From soc.history.what-if A World Without Grass
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/e9c80daf3d122b45?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 12:02 pm
From: "Greg G."

On Apr 24, 7:19 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 7:56 am, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 19 Apr 2007 04:41:36 -0700, JennyB <jennybr...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote in <1176982896.259075.116...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> :
>
> > >I think maybe someof the folks here might have thoughts on this:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/browse_frm/thread/...
>
> > >POD: Around 75 million years ago if this article is correct (http://
> > >www.livescience.com/animalworld/051117_old_grass.html) the plant that
> > >in OTL developed into grass (hereby defined as monocotyledonous green
> > >plants in the family Poaceae) is eaten and grass as we know never
> > >evolves up to the present day.
>
> > >How goes the age of mamals without grass?
>
> > Things that come to mind: No horses or agriculture.
>
> No wheat, barley, rye, oats, sorgum, maize, sugar cane, etc.
>
> Just think what the world would be without angiosperms in general.
> "Have you ever eaten a pine tree? Many parts are edible."

Euell be sorry for that one.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Critique of Richard Dawkin's, "Selfish Gene"
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/624687acfdb6cca1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 12:07 pm
From: dkomo

Nick Keighley wrote:

>
> ah yes. His ideas on religion are a bit batty. I thought Selfish Gene
> was pretty well clear of anti-religious ranting.
>

Clear of religious ranting as well, which may bother the OP.

--dkomo@cris.com

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

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?

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

25 new messages in 15 topics - digest

No comments:

Links

About Me

Blog Archive