Who dares sent me SPAM?: 25 new messages in 17 topics

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

talk.origins@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

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

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 7:27 am
From: Scooter the Mighty

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 exists.

> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> intermediary of God, not the subconscious

I really care deeply about what you suggest, I assure you.

> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks

No.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 7:37 am
From: Dale Kelly

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:32:47 +0200, Jim Willemin wrote:

> Are you sure you want to go here? Since many sins, even unpardonable
> ones, involve the will causing the body to act, this means that God is
> complicit in any and all activity that damns you to hell - since if you
> are right, clearly God could mess up the transmission of truly damning
> messages-to- act, giving you a chance to reflect and possibly not do
> evil. It seems to me that the theological implications of involving God
> directly with any and all acts of volition are really not worth whatever
> mechanistic points you might get from the exercise.--

I do not believe in a devil, I believe God orchestrates all experience,
good and bad, for his purposes

--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 2:36 pm
From: John Harshman

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?

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 9:38 am
From: Dale Kelly

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:27:59 -0700, Scooter the Mighty wrote:

> No.

Yes

--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 7:56 am
From: Kermit

On Apr 24, 1:03 am, "Ross Langerak" <rlange...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Dale Kelly" <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2007.04.24.02.28.15@comcast.net...
>
>
>
> > 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
>
> > more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> > intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
> > provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
> Invisible robot fish.

Visible robot fish!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1007_051007_robot_fish.html

Kermit

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 7:28 am
From: Throwback

On Apr 23, 2:23 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <1177351674.940167.56...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> writes
>
>
>
> >On Apr 23, 11:08 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In message <1177339854.702381.287...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >> >On Apr 22, 3:53 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> "Throwback" <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> >>messagenews:1177269511.030370.305750@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> > On Apr 21, 8:36 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> > > "Throwback" <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> > >messagenews:1177180772.880821.299320@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> > > > From the apostle of abiogenesis in darwin's cult:
>
> >> >> > > >http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html
>
> >> >> > > > "My opinion or working hypothesis is
> >> >> > > > that the first replicated molecule had effectively no asymmetric
> >> >> > > > carbon "
>
> >> >> > > > Here he is claiming darwin's cult belief #7 :
>
> >> >> > > > "We believe that despite the science of chemistry, carbon
> >> >> > > > in the past was not tetrahedral, thus there was no dextro
> >> >> > > > or levorotary forms of the amino acids used to form proteins."
>
> >> >> > > Er. I am not a fan of Stanley Miller, but I think you are
> >> >> > >misinterpreting
> >> >> > > him here. He is definitely not claiming that carbon was not
> >> >> > >tetrahedral
> >> >> > > in the past. He is suggesting that each carbon in the replicated
> >> >> > >molecule
> >> >> > > either had two hydrogens or had a double bond (to oxygen, say).
>
> >> >> > He is refering to the fact that amino acids being dextro or
> >> >> > levorotary, and his hypothesis is that the symmetrical carbon
> >> >> > in amino acids that makes dextro and levorotary forms
> >> >> > wasn't symmetrical (or tetrahedral) in the past.
>
> >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tryptophan#Function
>
> >> >> > Notice the structural representation of tryptophan.
> >> >> > It has a carbon bonded to 4 different groups. This
> >> >> > is the carbon that gives rise to the dextro and
> >> >> > levorotary foms. The carbon is bonded to four
> >> >> > different groups. H, NH2, CH2, and COOH.
> >> >> > His claim is that this carbon, in the past, must
> >> >> > not have been tetrahedral, and thus there would have
> >> >> > been no dextro or levorotary forms.
>
> >> >> I understand how chirality works. Since he has a PhD in organic
> >> >>chemistry,
> >> >> I assume that Miller also understands how chirality works. The point is
> >> >> that you are (deliberately?) misinterpreting Miller. When he says
> >> >>'the first
> >> >> replicated molecule had effectively no asymmetric carbon', he is
> >> >>saying that
> >> >> amino acids and sugars were not part of the first replicated molecule.
>
> >> >No, he is claiming the first amino acid was not chiral,
> >> >thus there would be no dextro or levorotary forms of the
> >> >amino acids.
>
> >> Your claim is implausible. Please provide a citation.
>
> >> (Note for clarity. The simplest amino acid, glycine, NH2.CH2.COOH, is
> >> not chiral, and it is possible that someone would refer to this as the
> >> first amino acid. This would not translate into a claim that carbon, in
> >> the past, was not tetrahedral, and that there were not d- and l-isomers
> >> of organic compounds.)
>
> >How many amino acids are chiral?
>
> Thousands. Of the 20 commonly found in proteins 19 are chiral.

So that accounts for one out of 20.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acids#General_structure

If you notice the other 19 amino acids all contain the
glycine moiety, and depending on which hydrogen they replace
in the H2 in glycine, make a dextro or levorotary forms.
So glycine is simply the excess unreacted reagent in
amino acid formation.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 7:52 am
From: John Harshman

Throwback wrote:

> On Apr 23, 3:09 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Ernest Major wrote:
>>
>>>In message <1177351951.726986.227...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>>>Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> writes
>>
>>>>On Apr 23, 11:43 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>Throwback wrote:
>>
>>>>>>On Apr 22, 6:12 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>In message <1177268905.076856.211...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> writes
>>
>>>>>>>>On Apr 21, 10:29 am, ayers...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>On Apr 21, 9:33 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> 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)?
>>>>>>>>>>>What about the nearest extinct relative? How close are we to it?
>>>>>>>>>>>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?
>>>>>>>>>>>If it's faster than that than who does the biological adam (or eve)
>>>>>>>>>>>mate with?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Chris
>>>>>>>>>>>If life seems jolly rotten
>>>>>>>>>>>There's spmething you've forgotten
>>>>>>>>>>>and thats to laugh and smile and dance and sing!
>>
>>>>>>>>>>Well, for one thing over 99% of the species that have ever existed are
>>>>>>>>>>extinct, so I don't know why anyone would expect our human ancestors
>>>>>>>>>>to have faired any better than the average, especially when most of
>>>>>>>>>>them were competing against what became us. We aren't very kind to
>>>>>>>>>>each other let alone to closely related species.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>As for distance between us and our closest living relatives, distance
>>>>>>>>>>is, well, relative. Would it surprise you to find out that for our
>>>>>>>>>>nuclear encoded DNA chimps and humans are more closely related to each
>>>>>>>>>>other than horses and donkeys? When humans are doing the comparison
>>>>>>>>>>horses and donkeys get placed in the same genus, but humans and chimps
>>>>>>>>>>get placed separately. This isn't a placement based on genetic
>>>>>>>>>>distance. It is a designation based on perception, or some people
>>>>>>>>>>might claim it is what we would like to believe.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>There are a lot of extant wild ass species, but only two extant horse
>>>>>>>>>>species left. Some lineages are luckier than others.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>When the first large insert BAC sequences of the Chimp genome were
>>>>>>>>>>getting placed in GenBank years ago I did an alignment of around
>>>>>>>>>>50,000 base-pairs with the human sequence. It was spooky. Even the
>>>>>>>>>>Alu transposable element repeats lined up. There were some small
>>>>>>>>>>insertion/deletions, but the two sequences were only 0.7% different.
>>>>>>>>>>The same sequence of any two unrelated humans would be around 0.1%
>>>>>>>>>>different. It was like looking at two human sequences that just were
>>>>>>>>>>poorly done and had a lot of sequencing errors.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>Not surprisingly they are the same sequence, but the difference is in
>>>>>>>>>>errors of replication that have occurred over the past 5 million years
>>>>>>>>>>or so.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>Ron Okimoto
>>
>>>>>>>>>humans and chimps
>>>>>>>>>get placed separately,because we are not even close to being the same.
>>>>>>>>>Monkey DNA are 10% larger, and 10% longer than humans.They are not
>>>>>>>>>even close.
>>
>>>>>>>>Chimp DNA is definitely longer than human DNA.
>>
>>>>>>>While I wouldn't a priori reject a claim that chimpanzee DNA was 10%
>>>>>>>larger than human DNA
>>
>>>>>>I don't know what the percentage difference is in length,
>>>>>>but if it were 10%, that means human and chimp DNA
>>>>>>are only 90% similar at the gate, and then any
>>>>>>direct comparisons would place the similarity
>>>>>>in the 80% range ...
>>
>>>>>A string of non sequiturs, I'm afraid. If the chimp genome is 10% larger
>>>>>than the human one,
>>
>>>>You mean longer assuredly.
>>
>>>Not according to the results of the human and chimpanzee genome
>>>projects. I'm not convinced that the results are sufficient to exclude
>>>the chimpanzee genome being longer, but it's definitely not assured that
>>>it is.
>>
>>I think Throwback was trying to "correct" my use of the word "larger",
>>not make a claim for certainty here. And of course uncertainty is why I
>>used the word "if". The take-home message is that it doesn't really
>>matter how much difference there is in genome length. The relevant
>>question is how many mutations it would take to turn a human genome into
>>a chimp genome, or vice versa.
>
> No, the relevant question is what evolutionary mechanism accounts for
> the observed differences in human and chimp dna.

Nonsense. You're not going to answer that question by using any measure
of difference. You have to look at the individual differences. But of
course to do so you're going to have to decide what an individual
difference is, and so your statement has this loose connection to the
topic: one indel is one difference, by any useful definition, and so the
distance measure I suggested makes a lot more sense than the one you
suggested.

And the obvious evolutionary mechanism here is mutation, mediated by
drift, selection, and perhaps other factors. But the sorts of
differences we see are all the same sort regularly produced by known
types of mutations, and in the relative frequencies observed in those
mutations.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 7:58 am
From: Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>

In message <1177424926.287665.133680@r35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Throwback <throwback8@gmail.com> writes
>On Apr 23, 2:23 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <1177351674.940167.56...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>> Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> writes
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 23, 11:08 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> In message <1177339854.702381.287...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> writes
>>
>> >> >On Apr 22, 3:53 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> "Throwback" <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> >>messagenews:1177269511.030370.305750@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> > On Apr 21, 8:36 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> > > "Throwback" <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> > >messagenews:1177180772.880821.299320@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> > > > From the apostle of abiogenesis in darwin's cult:
>>
>> >> >> > > >http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html
>>
>> >> >> > > > "My opinion or working hypothesis is
>> >> >> > > > that the first replicated molecule had effectively no asymmetric
>> >> >> > > > carbon "
>>
>> >> >> > > > Here he is claiming darwin's cult belief #7 :
>>
>> >> >> > > > "We believe that despite the science of chemistry, carbon
>> >> >> > > > in the past was not tetrahedral, thus there was no dextro
>> >> >> > > > or levorotary forms of the amino acids used to form proteins."
>>
>> >> >> > > Er. I am not a fan of Stanley Miller, but I think you are
>> >> >> > >misinterpreting
>> >> >> > > him here. He is definitely not claiming that carbon was not
>> >> >> > >tetrahedral
>> >> >> > > in the past. He is suggesting that each carbon in the replicated
>> >> >> > >molecule
>> >> >> > > either had two hydrogens or had a double bond (to oxygen, say).
>>
>> >> >> > He is refering to the fact that amino acids being dextro or
>> >> >> > levorotary, and his hypothesis is that the symmetrical carbon
>> >> >> > in amino acids that makes dextro and levorotary forms
>> >> >> > wasn't symmetrical (or tetrahedral) in the past.
>>
>> >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tryptophan#Function
>>
>> >> >> > Notice the structural representation of tryptophan.
>> >> >> > It has a carbon bonded to 4 different groups. This
>> >> >> > is the carbon that gives rise to the dextro and
>> >> >> > levorotary foms. The carbon is bonded to four
>> >> >> > different groups. H, NH2, CH2, and COOH.
>> >> >> > His claim is that this carbon, in the past, must
>> >> >> > not have been tetrahedral, and thus there would have
>> >> >> > been no dextro or levorotary forms.
>>
>> >> >> I understand how chirality works. Since he has a PhD in organic
>> >> >>chemistry,
>> >> >> I assume that Miller also understands how chirality works. The
>> >> >>point is
>> >> >> that you are (deliberately?) misinterpreting Miller. When he says
>> >> >>'the first
>> >> >> replicated molecule had effectively no asymmetric carbon', he is
>> >> >>saying that
>> >> >> amino acids and sugars were not part of the first replicated molecule.
>>
>> >> >No, he is claiming the first amino acid was not chiral,
>> >> >thus there would be no dextro or levorotary forms of the
>> >> >amino acids.
>>
>> >> Your claim is implausible. Please provide a citation.
>>
>> >> (Note for clarity. The simplest amino acid, glycine, NH2.CH2.COOH, is
>> >> not chiral, and it is possible that someone would refer to this as the
>> >> first amino acid. This would not translate into a claim that carbon, in
>> >> the past, was not tetrahedral, and that there were not d- and l-isomers
>> >> of organic compounds.)
>>
>> >How many amino acids are chiral?
>>
>> Thousands. Of the 20 commonly found in proteins 19 are chiral.
>
>So that accounts for one out of 20.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acids#General_structure
>
>If you notice the other 19 amino acids all contain the
>glycine moiety, and depending on which hydrogen they replace
>in the H2 in glycine, make a dextro or levorotary forms.

Yes. This is not in dispute.

>So glycine is simply the excess unreacted reagent in
>amino acid formation.
>
This doesn't follow; I rather doubt the substitution of one hydrogen of
glycine is the only reaction path to other amino acids.

But all this is irrelevant. Will you kindly stop evading the issue and
provide a citation for your implausible claim as to the position Miller
holds.
--
alias Ernest Major

==============================================================================
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 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 7:30 am
From: Harvest Dancer

On Apr 23, 9:38 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> <ayers...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177387563.563778.162660@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> snip ignored posting
>
>
>
> > BET is racism
>
> Who is "BET"?
>
> DJT

I'll hazzard a guess and say it may refer to a television network that
blatantly targets one race as audience.

Jason Harvestdancer

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 7:33 am
From: Harvest Dancer

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.

WHY is it gutter racism?

WHY?

Jason Harvestdancer

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Search for life
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/ca29e4eb039fda1b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 7:31 am
From: "Von R. Smith"

On Apr 23, 10:39 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 7:19 pm, "Von R. Smith" <trakl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 6:47 pm,Glenn<GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 23, 3:43 pm, "Von R. Smith" <trakl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 23, 9:45 am,Glenn<GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 23, 6:24 am, "Von R. Smith" <trakl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 23, 6:22 am,Glenn<GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 22, 11:07 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:> On Apr 23, 12:01 am,Glenn<GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > -- [snip]
>
> > > > > > > > > Did it occur to you to actually respond to the OPs question?
>
> > > > > > > > I thought that, by implication and analogy, I was replying to the OP's
> > > > > > > > question. Or, at least (since others had offered more direct answers)
> > > > > > > > attempting to demonstrate why it was implicitly based on an
> > > > > > > > implausible assumption. I fear I had not properly taken into account
> > > > > > > > the danger of my reply being read and construed by obnoxious dullards.
>
> > > > > > > Or written by one who manages to write with flair yet can't read for
> > > > > > > comprehension.
>
> > > > > > What would you know about reading for comprehension,Glenn? I thought
> > > > > > it was a skill you held in contempt.
>
> > > > > I thought you were a floating turd. Prove me wrong.
>
> > > > Juvenile and non-responsive.
>
> > > Just as your little comment was, Von. Do you intend to continue this
> > > little flame war?
>
> > Sure, until I get bored. It's mildly amusing, like shaking a jar with
> > ants in it to see if they'll fight.
>
> > > I thought by implication and analogy that I had
> > > responded in kind to you.
>
> > You were the one who jumped into this thread with snide comments.
> > What sort of responses were you looking for?
>
> > > > > > But you can prove me wrong by explaining in your own words what you
> > > > > > thought Steven's point was, and how it fails to answer the OP's
> > > > > > question.
>
> > > > > So all I have to do is explain what I thought to prove you wrong, eh.
>
> > > > > >Or you can confirm my impression of you by making a non-
> > > > > > responsive smart-ass comment. Up to you.
>
> > > > > I don't give a hoot about what "thoughts" of yours you "confirm",
> > > > > Von.
> > > > > Apparently you liked Steven's comments but not mine, and frankly
> > > > > it doesn't matter to me, but in my book telling someone (by
> > > > > implication) they didn't respond to a question isn't quite as smart-
> > > > > assed a comment as saying "uh-huh" and calling the person a dullard.
>
> > > > Did somebody say "uh-huh" or call you a dullard,Glenn? I didn't.
>
> > > Are you dense or just playing troll?
>
> > No,Glenn, I'm asking you if somebody said "uh-huh" or called you a
> > dullard. For somebody who started this exchange by demanding whether
> > Steven was going to answer a question, you don't seem too keen to
> > answer questions yourself.
>
> > > > > Why don't you tell me why explaining in your own words what you
> > > > > thought Steven's point was and how it answered or failed to answer the
> > > > > OP's question,
>
> > > > I asked you first, and moreover I'm not the one suggesting that Steven
> > > > didn't answer the OP's question. So tell me what you thought the OP's
> > > > original question was, and how Steven's response failed to answer it.
>
> > > Actually you made some comment about reading comprehension first,
>
> > In this thread? No,Glenn, I did not. Perhaps you are thinking about
> > an earlier exchange?
>
> "What would you know about reading for comprehension,Glenn? I
> thought
> it was a skill you held in contempt."
>
> Perhaps you should take a hint.

snex has already pointed out the remark to which the above is a
response, a response *you* had made to Steven J. But you already knew
that. What was the point of telling such a transparent lie, Glenn?

In the meantime, you still haven't told me:

1) who, if anybody, said "uh-huh" or called you a dullard in this
thread;
2) what you think Steven J.'s response to Terry meant, and why you
think it fails to answer the OP's question.

==============================================================================
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 2:39 pm
From: John Harshman

Christian Pecaut wrote:

[snip]
> Outline for Annotation Regarding Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" and
> Sociobiology in General
> I.Introduction.
>
> A. USES A FAULTY AND DISPROVEN STRUCTURAL SYSTEM.
>
> 1. This Book Presumes That The Mathematical Discoveries Of
> Bertrand Russell And Alfred North Whitehead Were Never Made.
>
> 2. This "Selfish Gene" Idea Does Not Include The Gene's Effect
> On The Surrounding BioEcoSystem, Which Is Absolutely Decisive Factor
> In Nature's Natural Selection Process.
>
> 3. Dawkins Posits A "Selfish-Or-Altruism" "Framework" For Human
> And Biological Operations, Which I Understand Be An Absolute Fraud.
>

OK, stop it right there. This "outline" is useless by itself. If you
intend any sort of critique, you will have to explain your objections,
because so far I don't understand what you're trying to get at in any
single case. A critique must contain arguments that explain *why* the
author is wrong.

==============================================================================
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 9:40 am
From: Dale Kelly

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

--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 'Junk' DNA reveals vital role II
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/fe70c8937acf953c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 7:42 am
From: John Harshman

Pooua wrote:

> Following up on a post I made on 11 May 2004, the same researcher I
> mentioned the last time is about to present new results of his
> studies:
>
> "Gill Bejerano, PhD, assistant professor of developmental biology and
> of computer science at Stanford, found more than 10,000 nearly
> identical genetic snippets dotting the human chromosomes. Many of
> those snippets were located in gene-free chromosomal expanses once
> described by geneticists as 'gene deserts.' These sections are, in
> fact, so clogged with useful DNA bits - including the ones Bejerano
> and his colleagues describe - that they've been renamed 'regulatory
> jungles.'
>
> "'It's funny how quickly the field is now evolving,' Bejerano said.
> His work picking out these snippets and describing why they might
> exist will be published in the April 23 advance online issue of the
> Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
>
> "It turns out that most of the segments described in the research
> paper cluster near genes that play a carefully orchestrated role
> during an animal's first few weeks after conception. Bejerano and his
> colleagues think that these sequences help in the intricate
> choreography of when and where those genes flip on as the animal lays
> out its body plan.

I will be most interested to find out about these snippets that
simultaneously occur in gene deserts and cluster near genes. Quite a trick.

Tell me: are these snippets conserved among species? If so, they
wouldn't have been considered junk to begin with.

> "In particular, the group found the sequences to be especially
> abundant near genes that help cells stick together. These genes play a
> crucial role early in an animal's life, helping cells migrate to the
> correct location or form into organs and tissues of the correct
> shape."
>
> (Full article at link)
>
> http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Junk_DNA_Now_Looks_Like_Powerful_Regulator_999.html
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: In the News: Tenn. AG: No constitutional concerns with
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/22627a85d41a8e14?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:37 am
From: Desertphile

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:29:40 -0500, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 05:59:04 GMT, in talk.origins
> George Evans <georgee3@earthlink.net> wrote in
> <C25131B4.9C56%georgee3@earthlink.net>:
> >in article q48k231rrolp77qetv0osqqdpcvvr8dq98@4ax.com, Free Lunch at
> >lunch@nofreelunch.us wrote on 4/21/07 7:34 AM:
> >
> >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:47:49 GMT, in talk.origins
> >> George Evans <georgee3@earthlink.net> wrote in
> >> <C24EC3AC.9863%georgee3@earthlink.net>:
> >>> in article 1177047249.704377.112910@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, snex at
> >>> snex@comcast.net wrote on 4/19/07 10:34 PM:
> >>>
> >>>> On Apr 20, 12:12 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> in article teag231u97sgo7lsiu20q5ig79c17pe...@4ax.com, Free Lunch at
> >>>>> l...@nofreelunch.us wrote on 4/19/07 7:48 PM:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>>>> It's not evidence just because you say so. Learn to use words properly.
> >>>>>> Learn not to lie.

> >>>>> It is evidence to me. Learn what "subjective" means.

> >>>> we didnt ask you for "evidence to you." we asked for evidence that your
> >>>> claims are true.

> >>> You can take it as evidence for you or not. It's your choice. It's not a
> >>> claim I am trying to prove. It's my testimony about what happened to me.

> >> That doesn't make it evidence in science. It doesn't even make it
> >> evidence that would necessarily be accepted in court. You've made your
> >> claims, but you cannot back them up. There is no reason for anyone to
> >> accept them.

> >Of course it would be accepted in court. It is eyewitness testimony. If a
> >witness says, "I saw that person run out of the shop," the defense can't
> >object on the grounds that it isn't evidence. It doesn't even have to be
> >corroborated before it is entered into evidence.

That is stupid, even for mister Evans. His analogy is not
analogous. Rather, the witness would have to testify "I saw that
person pop into existance out of nothing, levitate up to the
fifth-story, open a magic portal into the brick wall, and made the
jewlery march out of the hole in single file and jump into his
pockets; then he floated away into the heavens."

> Sorry, but 'eyewitness' claims about supernatural events don't make it
> into court.

They some times do--- as hostile witnesses. No lawyer will ever
produce such a witness except to destroy the witness.

Note that mister Evans cowered in terror and fear (well, "ignored"
actually) my query, posted three times:

How about we change the falling piano scenario.

A moving company is hired to hoist a piano up to the ninth floor
of a building by hauling it up the outside of the building and
onto the balcony. They rig their hoists above the target balcony
and haul the piano up to the eighth floor.... when the ropes
break.

The piano plunges ten feet and then a miracle occurs: the piano is
deflected 40 degrees and squashes a baby human on the sidewalk
that would *NOT* have been squashed if the miracle had *NOT*
occured.

How are the witnesses going to sway the judge and jury that a
miracle occured?

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 8:39 am
From: Desertphile

On 23 Apr 2007 15:58:06 -0700, snex <xens@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Apr 23, 5:29 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 05:59:04 GMT, in talk.origins
> > George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> > <C25131B4.9C56%georg...@earthlink.net>:
> >
> >
> >
> > >in article q48k231rrolp77qetv0osqqdpcvvr8d...@4ax.com, Free Lunch at
> > >l...@nofreelunch.us wrote on 4/21/07 7:34 AM:
> >
> > >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:47:49 GMT, in talk.origins
> > >> George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> > >> <C24EC3AC.9863%georg...@earthlink.net>:
> > >>> in article 1177047249.704377.112...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, snex at
> > >>> s...@comcast.net wrote on 4/19/07 10:34 PM:
> >
> > >>>> On Apr 20, 12:12 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> in article teag231u97sgo7lsiu20q5ig79c17pe...@4ax.com, Free Lunch at
> > >>>>> l...@nofreelunch.us wrote on 4/19/07 7:48 PM:
> >
> > >>> <snip>
> >
> > >>>>>> It's not evidence just because you say so. Learn to use words properly.
> > >>>>>> Learn not to lie.
> >
> > >>>>> It is evidence to me. Learn what "subjective" means.
> >
> > >>>> we didnt ask you for "evidence to you." we asked for evidence that your
> > >>>> claims are true.
> >
> > >>> You can take it as evidence for you or not. It's your choice. It's not a
> > >>> claim I am trying to prove. It's my testimony about what happened to me.
> >
> > >> That doesn't make it evidence in science. It doesn't even make it
> > >> evidence that would necessarily be accepted in court. You've made your
> > >> claims, but you cannot back them up. There is no reason for anyone to
> > >> accept them.
> >
> > >Of course it would be accepted in court. It is eyewitness testimony. If a
> > >witness says, "I saw that person run out of the shop," the defense can't
> > >object on the grounds that it isn't evidence. It doesn't even have to be
> > >corroborated before it is entered into evidence.
> >
> > Sorry, but 'eyewitness' claims about supernatural events don't make it
> > into court.

> Mr. Evans, if I were on trial for murder, and I claimed that the devil
> planted my DNA, my fingerprints, and all other evidence against me at
> the scene of the crime in order to frame me, would you as a juror feel
> this was a valid defense and vote Not Guilty?

The jury would find you Not Guilty if you are Orenthal J. Simpson.

> EVANS: Errrr.. yes? no wait, no. wait, yes.
>
> No more questions, Your Honor.

Mister Evans will never answer such a question honestly.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Was the Garden of Eden actually in the Sunni Triangle?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/c8e7237f4f58fcdb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:42 am
From: Desertphile

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 08:50:09 +1000, j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au (John
Wilkins) wrote:

> Desertphile <desertphile@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> > On 22 Apr 2007 16:01:53 -0700, Lorentz <drosen0000@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I have problems discussing the literal interpretation of Genesis
> > > as I am not clear where the action is supposed to be taking place.
> >
> > Sunnydale was built on top of a Hellmouth. Many scientists want to
> > find the city so that they can study vampires, demons, and
> > assorted Hell monsters but so far they have been unable to locate
> > the city, though it is of course known to be somewhere in
> > California USA.

> "In" being the operative word. I gather it was swallowed up at the end
> there...

Much of Califonia would be greatly improved if that were a common
occurance. The problem is how to first get all the people out and
moved to the eastern side of the USA where they belong.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Future Evolution Of the Human Race
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/49ac1aeadb402723?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:45 am
From: Desertphile

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 08:50:10 +1000, j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au (John
Wilkins) wrote:

> Desertphile <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 21, 12:05 pm, Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
> > > Desertphilewrote:
> > > > On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 22:11:44 GMT, Richard Clayton
> > > > <pockZIGetnZIG...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Therion Ware wrote:
> > > >>> On 19 Apr 2007 16:04:14 -0700, Ian Chua wrote in message
> > > >>> <1177023854.902677.291...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
> > >
> > > >>>> If you think thehumanrace have evolved to the extent that it can
> > > >>>> engineer its future, what aspects of improvement would be desirable?
> > > >>> The capacity for vitamin production would be nice, along with some
> > > >>> form of photosynthetic effect, so that people could live on sunlight!
> > >
> > > >> I read a science fiction book series with a similar premise.
> > > >> Unfortunately it more or less caused the collapse ofhumancivilization,
> > > >> since autotrophs don't really *need* each other.
> > >
> > > > "Unfortunately?" The collapse ofhumancivilizaion would be a GOOD
> > > > thing.
> >
> > > By what metric?
> >
> > The number of species that have gone extinct and will go extinct
> > because of Humanity.

> So, species have a moral value intrinsically? All of them, or just the
> cute and cuddly ones?

Mostly the cute and cuddly ones: I don't like the parasites.
However, most species deserve to exist, and humans have a moral
and ethical responsibility to let them exist: which, out of
ignorance and greed we have failed to do. Best that humanity got
out of the way and let everyone else exist.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Do we have all the steps between fish and bears?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/5de0ca7f01a333d1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 7:50 am
From: kalnas@gmail.com

Any pictures of fossils?

==============================================================================
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: Tues, Apr 24 2007 7:56 am
From: John Harshman

Throwback wrote:

> On Apr 23, 2:13 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>>["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>>On 2007-04-23, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Apr 23, 12:45 pm, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 21 Apr 2007 11:25:16 -0700,
>>
>>>>Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Apr 21, 1:34 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 20 Apr 2007 07:01:18 -0700, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>On Apr 19, 10:03 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 19 Apr 2007 11:02:48 -0700, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>>talk.origins, posted by Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Wait! The scientists were frustrated, as they couldn't put what they
>>>>>>>>>observed into an evolutionary context (meaning the atheistic
>>>>>>>>>philosophy of darwin's cult of pseudoscience).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I think I've detected your basic problem. You think all
>>>>>>>>scientists are atheists, which is incorrect, but that's not
>>>>>>>>your basic problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Strawman. I never said that.
>>
>>>>>>What you wrote (above) certainly means the same thing.
>>
>>>>>Look, claiming something is an atheistic philosophy is
>>>>>not the same as saying "all scientists are atheists".
>>>>>It is totally and completely retarded to assert otherwise.
>>
>>>>What's more retarded is claiming that evolution is an atheistic
>>>>philosophy.
>>
>>>If the outlook or philosophy of darwinism is not
>>>atheistic, please tell me what the god of darwinism is?
>>
>>There is no god of Darwinism. Neither is there a god of meteorology, nor
>>of paleontology, nor cosmology, nor...chemistry
>>
>> Mark
>
>
> But chemistry doesn't venture into philosophy.
>
> Evolution is simply the branch of science that attempts
> to explain philosophy scientifically.
>
It does? Either you are misinformed or I have never encountered that
particular area of evolutionary biology. What evolution seeks to explain
is not philosophy, but the transformation of life through time. That
doesn't seem any more like philosophy to me than the adventures of
valence electrons do.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 2:59 pm
From: bdbryant@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant)

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.

--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada

Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Chez Watt
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/1f1385c6ba52bfb0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 7:58 am
From: Stile4aly

On Apr 24, 1:18 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <1177387812.244132.179...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> ayers...@hotmail.com writes
>
> >On Apr 23, 11:49 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> In the "Department of Dubious Statistics" category. Or
>
> >> the "Not taking one's own advice" category.
>
> >> > 80% ARE ID, AND GROWING BY 8% A YEAR. RESEARCH BEFORE YOU SPOUT OUT.
> >> > YOU SOUND LIKE YOUR 13 OR YOUNGER.
>
> >IT'S HARD TO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD WHEN YOUR ON YOUR DEATH BED,YOU WILL
> >SEE, CAN YOU AFORD TO BE WRONG? GOOD NIGHT I'LL PRAY FOR YOU.
>
> Satan's Wager is a dreadful argument for Christianity. (So bad that from
> a Christian viewpoint it would make sense to consider it the work of the
> Devil.)

So, Pascal is Satan now? You Bernoulli-ists are deluding yourselves.
There's no such thing as an ideal fluid, it's just a theory. If there
is lift, why is there still drag?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: God as a Christian appropriation of pagan Sun worship
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/e723cb0d119c1e57?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 7:55 am
From: Desertphile

On 23 Apr 2007 17:30:40 -0700, Custard Creme <sweep1019@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> God is a Christian appropriation of the Sun.

Which god? There must be hundreds of thousands of them, most of
which are not sun gods. There are a great many Christian gods: it
would help if you specified which one or ones you are writing
about.

> Christmas is an
> appropriation of the Winter Solstice.

Yes, we know. Who cares?

> Both live in the heavens, God

Which god?

> spreads light, looks down on all of us and believers "See the light",
> he rises to heaven and comes back down to earth.

Do you mean Helios? Or Apollo? Or Aton? Or Shamash? Or Ra? Or
Phoebus? Phaëthon also drove the sun around, as the son of Helios:
do you mean Phaëthon when you write "god?" Or do you mean Mithras?
Or maybe Horus?

When you write about gods, it would certainly help to specify
which ones you are writing about.

> Pagan worship of the moon and sun was rewritten by the Christian
> victors who replaced pagan stories with Christian ones but kept the
> days the pagans worshipped on. Easter, the time when flowers bloom,
> leaves reappear on the trees and rabbits have bunnies is the time
> Jesus "Came back to life".

Yes, we know. Why should anyone care?

> The pagans were forced to worship a man rather than natural
> phenomenon, no wonder they had to be slaughtered in the process.
>
> Stained glass windows in churches bear images of the various
> characters of the bible story through which the sun is supposed to
> shine through into the church - between the Sun and the people is the
> filter of the ruling elite.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Black gods For Sale
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/06ead78e52c57a3f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 7:36 am
From: Martin Kaletsch

olivethomes2007@yahoo.com wrote:

> With mass penetration of christianity into rural Africa today,juju
> priests are selling off their god images dating 200 years and above.In
> rural Africa today thousands of these images exist for sale, for free
> info send email to olivethomes2007@yahoo.com or call +2348033554417.

"Have you seen my new mask? It raises the dead! - Americans!"

--
Martin Kaletsch

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Define:Religion
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/b783700e59ad49bb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:01 am
From: Nick Keighley

On 22 Apr, 16:56, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
> SJAB1958 wrote:

> > I Googled this "define: religion" and took a good look at all the
> > definitions that came up.
>
> > And one can conclude that at the most basic level a religion requires
> > a belief in spiritual or supernatural beings.
>
> > So I have a question for everyone, "How can certain members of a given
> > minority even suggest that atheism and 'evolutionism' (aka
> > 'Darwinism') are religions?"
>
> ===>They do that because secretly they are embarrassed by being
> religious and wish to claim that everyone else is. -- L.

I don't think most genuinely religious people (and probably most
peer-pressure religious people) are embarrrassed by their religion.

I think it's more a failure of imagination, or empathy, a lot
religious
people really cannot conceive that someone really doesn't, deep down
inside, actually believe in God, spirit, higher power etc. An atheist
is just being awkward and doesn't genuinely hold the beliefs he
professes to.

--
Nick Keighley

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

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 17 topics - digest

No comments:

Links

About Me

Blog Archive