AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: Henry J

form_srcid: Henry J

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.205.221.22

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Henry J

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Henry J%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2005/03/31 22:49:32, Link
Author: Henry J
My take on that is that different forms wouldn't have to be "radically dissimilar" in order to be enough different to conflict with what one would expect from descent from common ancestry.

I also think the artist analogy is too loose to consider an inference from it to be reliable.

Henry

Date: 2005/04/14 14:43:11, Link
Author: Henry J
My two cents:

Before determining probabilities for members of a group, does not one has to first establish that said group exists in the first place? And that it has multiple members, and have information on the nature of those members relevant to the probablilities one hopes to determine?

In the case of designers outside of humans (and maybe a few kinds of animals), I don't think any of those are possible.

Henry

Date: 2005/04/19 11:32:43, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Evolutionists routinely claim that since evolution can't be proven not to have occurred, then it must be true."

Correction: the theory is accepted because it hasn't been proven false, not because it can't be, and there's plenty of places in which contrary evidence might be (or have been) found.

Henry

Date: 2005/04/25 11:46:09, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "416 people have viewed this thread but I've not gotten one single answer to my query. I wonder what that means?"

Well, if you want my two cents worth, maybe people get tired of repeating the point that unanswered questions are not in themselves evidence of any particular model.

Henry

Date: 2005/04/29 11:38:42, Link
Author: Henry J
The term "Darwinism" seems to mean whatever aspect of evolution theory a particular speaker happens to disagree with. With that shifting of meaning from one speaker to another, it might be better to avoid using that term.

As for the idea of increased mutation rate on population drop, it sounds plausible to me (though I'm not a biologist).

But as to whether or not it's inconsistant with current theory (inconsistency with Darwin's original theory is irrelevant), I don't see any reason to think it's contrary to the currently accepted theory.

About the notion that evolution theory claims only gradual changes over an entire species - that wasn't even what Darwin said; it was the scientists that followed later that added that bit, and scientists today certainly don't think all evolution was gradual (some of it, but not all, maybe not even most).

Henry

Date: 2005/05/20 13:39:11, Link
Author: Henry J
That, among other things like some people getting eaten, and other such trivial details.  :p

Henry

Date: 2005/07/12 16:09:59, Link
Author: Henry J
normdoering,

Re "Does ID depend on intelligence being something supernatural? If  not, then there is not necessarily a fight between evolution and ID"

Well, the gene pool of a species has at least two of the attributes we associate with intelligence (the abilities to experiment and to "remember" previous results). So without a clear definition of "intelligence", regular evolution theory logically has as much claim to the label "I.D." as does the deliberately engineered model of life that the I.D. people are implying.

Henry

Date: 2005/07/12 17:45:04, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "doesn't evolution only remember it's successes and forget its dead failures"

Yup, so I gather from what I've read on the subject.

Re "I don't think the DNA/RNA system with ribosomes and all is a system that has other  human attributes, like emotion, pre-visualizing, intension..."

Agreed. But I don't know of any evidence that the "design" of living things shows signs of those things having been used by the "designer". So where's that leave us?

Henry

Date: 2005/08/12 14:48:16, Link
Author: Henry J
My understanding of the term "singularity" is that it refers to a place or condition in which our known laws of physics don't work reliably. Taking just relativity by itself, when the density of energy approaches infinity I wouldn't assume that the results (of physics equations) were realistic.

But that aside, at the density implied by stuffing galaxies into the volume of a subatomic particle, quantum effects become as important as the relativistic effects, and the unification of relativity and quantum is still a work in progress (or was the last I heard).

As for what Mr. Bush might believe or not believe, I can only guess.

Henry

Date: 2005/08/15 14:48:17, Link
Author: Henry J
Try An Index to Creationist Claims on the TalkOrigins archive site.

Henry

Date: 2005/08/19 13:50:22, Link
Author: Henry J
A list of unanswered questions will not by itself discredit a theory. ;)

Date: 2005/08/22 10:52:30, Link
Author: Henry J
Did any of those letters answer Lenny's questions?

Date: 2005/08/30 05:49:29, Link
Author: Henry J
How come the "mark forum as read" and "mark board as read" buttons aren't working for me anymore? The "unread" indicators are getting left on.

Henry

Date: 2005/09/16 08:22:18, Link
Author: Henry J
PIzza!

Date: 2005/09/16 19:03:54, Link
Author: Henry J
The closest thing to a "law of evolution" that I can think of offhand is simply that a complex organism is descended from previous nearby organisms functionally very similar to itself.

There's also the principle that extensive similarity in nonadaptive features (such as DNA sequences) implies copying from a common source, which would be presumed to be an earlier organism (i.e., an ancestor).

That's my 2 cents on the question; but of course a trained biologist might have other ideas.

Henry

Date: 2005/09/16 19:06:37, Link
Author: Henry J
Doesn't the question of "what's a subsystem" sort of depend on what aspect is being analyzed at the time?

Henry

Date: 2005/09/21 16:47:07, Link
Author: Henry J
Why helium, anyway? The human brain (or any other part for that matter) doesn't use it for anything.

Henry

Date: 2005/09/23 08:26:05, Link
Author: Henry J
Shouldn't that be hydrogen gas to the human?
Life doesn't use helium directly, and hydrogen is the simplest and most abundant chemical element.

Then again, why start with a chemical element? Why not go from subatomic particles (electrons and quarks) to the human?

Henry

Date: 2005/09/28 08:42:07, Link
Author: Henry J
Biology narrow? Let's see, biologists have millions of species to deal with. Chemists have 116 elements (last I heard) and their compounds. Particle physicists have quarks and leptons and their combinations. Which one is "narrow"? :)

Henry

Date: 2005/09/28 09:56:50, Link
Author: Henry J
Oh, just apply that "weasel" algorithm that gets discussed every now and then... ;)

Date: 2005/10/05 17:16:55, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "the proposition that helium gas over billions of years transformed itself"

Life as we know it requires hydrogen. Hydrogen can't be made from helium. Ergo, living things can't be made out of helium gas. Btw, who exactly is it that allegedly claimed helium to life forms?

Besides, akaik no life on Earth uses helium (gas or otherwise) in its metabolism. How could it when the stuff doesn't react chemically with anything? (It's the most inert element known.)

Also, astrophysics* is NOT part of biology, so how much sense does it make to demand that a biological theory explain it?
(*The fusion of lighter elements such as H or He to form heavier elements happens in stars.)

Henry

Date: 2005/10/06 05:47:31, Link
Author: Henry J
Hydrogen is way more abundant than helium.

From Hydrogen -
Quote
Hydrogen is the lightest element. It is by far the most abundant element in the universe and makes up about about 90% of the universe by weight.

Date: 2005/10/06 05:55:08, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "What about mutations in bacteria that allow them to become resistant to chemicals/drugs that we produce?  Are those mostly harmful?"

Well, the result is harmful to us - does that count?

Date: 2005/10/07 06:26:18, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "This is a forum for debate about evolution and alternative theories of life etc."

Then why are you the one dragging astrophysics into it?

Date: 2005/10/07 14:03:55, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "During the first second or so of the universe, protons, neutrons, and electrons?the building blocks of atoms?formed"

Proton = nucleus of hydrogen atom. Helium is made by fusing these, so there's no way it could come first.

Henry

Date: 2005/10/07 14:06:42, Link
Author: Henry J
We exist, therefore Goddidit.

Does that help? :)

Date: 2005/10/07 14:10:13, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Seems like something that is not provable could not have evidence that disproves it either...am I wrong?"

A generalization that talks about the whole universe can't be totally proven for all time. But I'd think that any such generalization could be proven wrong by a verified counterexample.

Henry

Date: 2005/10/07 16:06:14, Link
Author: Henry J
What if there are 8*10**67 events of equal probability, exactly one of which is certain to occur? In that case it is certain that an event of probability 8*10**-67 will occur. That sort of undercuts the notion that a 10**-50 probability event can't occur. (Note- 8*10**67 is 52 factorial rounded to 1 digit.)

Henry

Date: 2005/10/07 17:07:55, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "If it could be proved that the rate varies, it would disprove the assumption [...]"

I suppose if somebody actually proved that the rate varies by a significant amount in the environment present on or near Earth's surface, perhaps. But of course, if the rate went way up, Earth's core would put out more heat than it does now, and if it went down the core would put out less heat. I'd think that would affect environment if the change was enough to matter. Also, being unsure what exactly would have to change to vary decay rates, I don't know if something could affect that without also varying chemical reactions.

Side note- astronomers have spectra from stars from a few light years away to billions of light years away. If nuclear reactions varied with time, one would think some effects of it would have shown up in those spectra.

Henry

Date: 2005/10/08 13:56:07, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Henry the moron speaks,"

This from the clown who insists that helium - which is formed from the fusion of hydrogen nuclei - could appear before the particles from which it is formed?

A point that btw isn't even critical to his supposed argument - what he presented as if it were an argument would work just as well (or as badly) had he said "hydrogen to..." instead of "helium to...", and wouldn't distract from the intended argument by causing people to talk about the choice of element instead.

Henry

Date: 2005/10/13 05:23:43, Link
Author: Henry J
Even if a few people pick some terminology they like better than what a million scientists are using, what fraction of that million might be persuaded to use the proposed terms? ;)

Henry

Date: 2005/10/13 16:22:16, Link
Author: Henry J
I wonder if it's worth mentioning that the validity of the ToE doesn't depend on convincing one creationist that it works. It doesn't even depend on convincing several creationists, let along one who appears to be firmly convinced that most of ~100,000 biologists are stupid.

Henry

Date: 2005/10/15 10:09:42, Link
Author: Henry J
I wonder why Creationists sometimes assume that "evolutionists" want the ToE to be true. Accepting the conclusions of a theory and actually liking those conclusions are two different things.

Henry

Date: 2005/10/17 06:03:50, Link
Author: Henry J
Alan,
That link didn't work for me.

Henry

Date: 2005/10/17 06:40:18, Link
Author: Henry J
Yeah, that worked. The first one had a %00 after the .nl for some reason. (Though a lot of it is over my head, but that aside.)

Re "Anyway, what are you doing slumming with the likes of Paley and Evo?"
I'm not really sure. Partly wondering if Evopeach is really serious in what he says, given that he's basically accusing tens of thousands of biologists of sharing a common delusion. That would strike me as extremely unlikely even if I didn't follow the gist of the argument.

Henry

Date: 2005/10/17 16:12:43, Link
Author: Henry J
To put in my two cents here, I would think that either law or principle would be a concise statement about something that happens under the described circumstances. A Theory is a body of knowledge for which the main principle(s) have been confirmed by testing, i.e., a confirmed hypothesis. A hypothesis is a proposal for a new law or principle that hasn't yet been confirmed.

I'm unsure if there's a technical distinction between "law" and "principle"? Would "law" be more general while "principle" could also refer to something that applies in more limited circumstances?

Unfortunately, several of the terms do get misused. String "theory" as I understand it is still unconfirmed, so it should be called "hypothesis", but it's been called "theory" for so long now that this misuse seems very unlikely to get corrected. Not to mention that those unfamiliar with scientific usage think "theory" means hypothesis or even just a guess.

Unfortunately, given all that, if talking to people who wouldn't be sure of the status of the theory under discussion, I'd say to clarify the term, as in "theory confirmed by repeated testing" or "hypothesis that hasn't yet been confirmed", or something along one of those lines.

Henry

Date: 2005/10/17 16:16:11, Link
Author: Henry J
Can somebody perhaps tell me why it's amoral to think (1) that complex organisms had ancestors or (2) that an organism will be very similar to some of its recent ancestors, or (3) that organisms with extensive similarity of some part of its DNA probably inherited that from a common ancestor? (and the greater the similarity, the greater the probability thereof.)

Henry

Date: 2005/10/18 17:07:05, Link
Author: Henry J
Julie,

Re "Against my better judgment, I'll join this thread."

Answer #1: And aren't you glad you did? ;)

Answer #2: Why, was it falling apart? :)

Henry

Date: 2005/10/18 17:12:05, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "easily demonstrated examples of evolution in everyday life."

But demonstrated examples would have to be microevolution. Demonstrating macroevolution is a bit like demonstrating movement of glaciers, or continental drift - worse even than watching grass grow. The annual component of each can be measured and pointed out. The result of each over a 100 million years is another kettle of trilobytes, though.

Imo the simple fact that a coherent "tree of life" can be constructed for known species, resulting in a nested hierarchy for species living at the same time, is the primary evidence for descent with change and common ancestry.

Henry

Date: 2005/10/18 17:15:08, Link
Author: Henry J
At the risk of asking a silly question, what is the distinction between intellectual honesty and nonintellectual honesty?

Henry

Date: 2005/10/19 11:34:28, Link
Author: Henry J
Whoops, I said "amoral" in my previous post when I meant to say "immoral", but Ghost appears to have used what I meant rather than what I said.

Henry

Date: 2005/10/19 13:48:37, Link
Author: Henry J
:D

Date: 2005/10/20 05:57:05, Link
Author: Henry J
Funny, I thought SLOT described the movement of heat within a system. What's that got to do with decay?

Henry

Date: 2005/10/20 11:14:43, Link
Author: Henry J
Helium - the Alpha of the periodic table.

It's a gas.

Date: 2005/10/21 15:54:18, Link
Author: Henry J
What on Earth (so to speak) does the amount of dust on the moon have to do with evolution of life on Earth? And why on Earth would opinions about that have anything to do with one's opinion about evolution?

Henry

Date: 2005/10/21 19:16:27, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "wouldn't the probability of two events occurring with a probability of 70% each only be 35%?"

I'd think it'd be 70% * 70% = 49%.

--

Re "Two protons, two neutrons combine to make a Helium nuicleus."

Or sometimes two protons and one neutron, but that's only a little over one part per million.
I sometimes wonder why neutrons are necessary in a multi-particle nucleus - they don't neutralize the electrical repulsion, the strong force (aka quark color force) counteracts it. I wonder if there has to be some balance between the number of up quarks and down quarks as a whole.
(Oh, and sorry to be taking this, um, "discussion" off topic. :) )

Henry

Date: 2005/10/23 10:13:27, Link
Author: Henry J
I think if somebody's gonna design something, they should use intelligence while doing so! ;)

Henry

Date: 2005/10/25 08:03:40, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "K, F or C?"

Kentucky Fried Chicken? ;)  :p

Date: 2005/10/27 04:03:19, Link
Author: Henry J
Could somebody get a copy of "Eliza" to fill in for him? ;)

(Did I say that?) :0

Date: 2005/10/27 04:07:03, Link
Author: Henry J
Or at least the cost of attempting to do so would way exceed the alleged benefits of doing so, huh?

Henry

Date: 2005/10/27 04:59:36, Link
Author: Henry J
New Classification of Eukaryotes has implications for AIDS treatment, agriculture and beyond.
Quote
The first major higher level classification of all organisms (with the exception of bacteria), coordinated by the International Society of Protistologists, overturns previously held scientific assumptions.

Quote
The new classification recognizes 6 major clusters of organisms, rather than the 4 traditional Kingdoms.


What were the 4 traditional kingdoms? Plants, Animal, and Fungi, I suppose - were all the other Eukaryotes lumped into one "kingdom" for convenience of classification?

Looks like this might indicate some revisions to Eukaryotes on tree-of-life site as it lists 6 major groups (but not the same groups listed here), then links to a page listing several dozen other protists groups.

Henry

Date: 2005/10/28 06:33:51, Link
Author: Henry J
My guess: if somebody found actual evidence that life was in some way deliberately engineered (other than human biotech), it'd produce conclusions that they'd like even less than they like the current ToE.

Henry

Date: 2005/10/28 14:49:43, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "any characters that form a tree will do?"

Eh? I thought the point was to construct it from as many sources of data as are available, so that the results can be cross checked against each other. (Keeping in mind that methods with more data are more reliable than those with less.)

Henry

Date: 2005/10/31 07:00:40, Link
Author: Henry J
Funny, I thought the "evolutionary tree" was the signature of common ancestry.

I'm not a biologist myself, but I'd think the signature of "100% HGT" would be a single species (i.e., no genetically isolated taxa at all) with lots of varieties that sort of blur into each other. Sort of like what we see in currently living sexual species (since that is basically a form of HGT).

Okay, now I'll just wait for a real biologist to comment on the posted article.

Henry

Date: 2005/10/31 10:38:14, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "how far away is the closest star?"

That was a question (er, answer?) on Jeopardy not long ago. I fell for it. :(

Henry

Date: 2005/10/31 12:31:50, Link
Author: Henry J
I don't have any goats, so he'll have a hard time getting any from me. :)

Date: 2005/11/01 08:09:06, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Just out of curiosity: what do you do for a living?"

Software engineer.

Henry

Date: 2005/11/03 16:43:44, Link
Author: Henry J
I'd think that extensive HGT would show up in comparisons of genetic sequences, since such would result in lots of genes that aren't directly related to genes in the close relatives of the species that got them via HGT.

As for the not enough time for new genes to form, I don't think so. As I recall, humans have around 4 billion base pairs, we seperated from chimps around 6 million years ago, and we have about 1% difference in base pairs in DNA that's common to both species (the other 2% difference is from DNA that isn't in common). 4 billion * 0.01 / 6 million gives about 7 base pair differences per year. Half of that due to changes in each species, so about 4 base pairs per year, or between 40 and 80 depending on average generation span. If I'm not mistaken that's fairly close to the expected mutation rate (over the entire genome) from a common ancestor 6 million years ago.

Henry

Date: 2005/11/04 06:17:18, Link
Author: Henry J
One thought on mutation rate going up under stress- cells generally have repair mechanisms to fix damage to DNA. I expect that probably reduces the mutation rate quite a bit from what it would be without those mechanisms. So if the repair mechanisms slow down or stop, the mutation rate goes up. And under stress, that repair mechanism might be one of the things impacted by the stress.

Henry

Date: 2005/11/04 14:34:22, Link
Author: Henry J
Here's a couple of threads on Panda's Thumb that talk about HGT, from July and August:

Quote
Carl Zimmer on "The Loom" describes recent work on the phylogenetic tree. Researchers have looked at vertical and horizontal transmission of genetic information in various bacteria.

Continued at Carl Zimmer: Tangling the tree

Quote
It has been over 30 years since the suggestion that horizontal gene transfer (HGT) may have been a factor in the evolution of life entered the literature. [...] Speculations that HGT may have been a bigger factor in the evolution of life was inviting because it offered broad explanations for a variety of biological phenomena that have interested and puzzled biologist for over the last century and a half.

Continued at The Last Universal Common Ancestor

Henry

Date: 2005/11/04 17:03:22, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "There has to be sufficient genetic change to account for not only the actual change which did occur but also all the equally probable changes which did not occur."

Say what? Why does there have to be time for things that didn't happen?

Re "Unless you can think of some good reason why only the changes which did occur should occur you need to include other possible changes in your calculation and then the rate is (spectacularly) too low."

How so? Each section of DNA would have been passed down (with occasional mutations) from some ancestor 6 million years (or whatever time period) to the descendants living today. That section of DNA would accumulate only the changes that happened to it; it wouldn't have to take the time to not accumulate the changes that didn't happen to it.

The genetic changes that stayed in the species were undoubtedly a tiny fraction of the changes that occurred - most mutations would have simply disappeared along the way. A few would presumably spread due to selection, and a few due to genetic drift.

Henry

Date: 2005/11/15 05:02:43, Link
Author: Henry J
There's a test? But I haven't studied! :D

Date: 2005/11/17 15:53:29, Link
Author: Henry J
I'd think that anybody who thinks something guided all of evolution, also thinks that this something chose to make all the pests that bother us and our food sources. Such a person can't have a very high opinion of this "Designer".

Henry

Date: 2005/11/19 18:08:53, Link
Author: Henry J
More indirectly? Isn't the link to this forum right next to the link to the plumbing?

Henry

Date: 2005/11/23 08:22:09, Link
Author: Henry J
Click "Image" button, paste URI of image in box.

Date: 2005/12/02 16:31:48, Link
Author: Henry J
I'm another amateur in this subject as well, and I'll second the appreciation for the material here (and on talkorigins.org). I'll also guess that this is a good place for your post, at least until somebody ever gets the plumbing fixed over on the Thumb (that's a hint to TPTB).

Henry

Date: 2005/12/12 06:19:40, Link
Author: Henry J
Re Lemma 1: the conclusion doesn't  follow from the premise. Variation is a prerequisite for speciation, in that without it speciation can't occur. Certainly variation is not sufficient for speciation (as you pointed out), because there are other factors (such as isolation of one of the varieties).

Re Lemma 2: the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. A species that's recovered form a recent population bottleneck will have much less variety than a species that's had a large population continuously for a long time, so variety is not proportional to population size.

Re Lemma 3: I doubt that said probability is completely independent of population, but there's too many variables to expect much of a correlation between them. Besides which, even if Lemma 3 were true it wouldn't be an argument against evolution having happened.

Re Lemma 4: Maybe but so what? Sure there may be some species with lots of variety that don't speciate. But there also may be some with relatively little variety that do.

Conclusion: your conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Henry

Date: 2006/01/04 10:31:02, Link
Author: Henry J
Temporal mechanicalism?

Date: 2006/01/11 05:05:49, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "(Vowels added back in, some errors may have occurred)"
Oh, like a certain proper name being misspelled two different ways? ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/01/11 17:50:30, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "ID supporters who happen to disagree about the details. "

What details? I didn't think they had any of those... ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/01/13 17:10:12, Link
Author: Henry J
Even if the original faith was without empircal evidence, I'd guess it could be affected by encountering contradictory evidence. (Take for example the ex-Creationists whose stories have shown up as posts of the month over on TalkOrigins.)

Henry

Date: 2006/01/14 18:04:50, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "What determines the upper limit of 'micro'evolution?"

A creature's descendants will always be in the same clade(s) as that creature! Now that's a boundary evolution can't cross...

Henry

Date: 2006/01/18 09:16:41, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Is a "design theorist" someone who simply buys the proposition that there is any substance to "intelligent design theory", or someone who is an active player in developing said theory?"
I don't see how it could be either one. For it to be an "active player" there'd have to be something being developed (which seems unlikely). For a "theorist" to be somebody who "buys into it", they'd have to have knowledge of the subject, but the subject doesn't contain any knowledge for them to have, so that's out.

Well, unless I missed something...

Henry

Date: 2006/01/18 10:45:09, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "And according to Star Trek, space aliens look more like iguanas on a real bad hair day."

Well, there we have it! The intelligent designer was a lizard. :p

That'd explain why the dinosaurs were on top for so long, and if the "designer" was standing at the wrong place when that big rock came down, why they then went extinct. :0

Henry

Date: 2006/01/18 16:05:41, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "do you know what sea cucumbers do when frightened?"

They get pickled?

(Yeah, I know I should've resisted, but that was too good a straight line to pass up... )

Henry

Date: 2006/01/18 16:09:32, Link
Author: Henry J
If this thread is now the official successor to The Bathroom Wall (which was left read-only since Aug. 18), maybe the link in the "Information" box of the http://www.pandasthumb.org/ page should be updated to point here?

Oh, and And the parent note of this thread could have a secondary link to its predecessor thread.

Henry

Date: 2006/01/20 05:13:13, Link
Author: Henry J
Sorry, I missed what you were saying - I must've been breathing at the time. ;)

Date: 2006/01/20 11:43:08, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "he believes Methuselah literally lived for 969 years."
Well, he certainly didn't reach 970, cause if he didn't drown he didn't miss it by much. (Well, for those who believe the relevant reports.  ;) )

Henry

Date: 2006/01/23 08:20:20, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "he pronounced it "utterly false" to think that evolution is incompatible with faith in God."
Yep. That's just straightforward logic. To one who believes God can do anything, to claim that evolution is impossible directly contradicts that belief. So it baffles me that some people apparently manage to think both of these at once.

Henry

Date: 2006/01/23 09:54:24, Link
Author: Henry J
Either way, their viewpoint still puzzles me. Oh well.

Date: 2006/01/23 14:36:28, Link
Author: Henry J
Now if only a : immediately followed by 0 didn't translate into :0

Date: 2006/01/23 16:45:05, Link
Author: Henry J
Flint,
Re "If Noah was young when Methuselah died,"

According to the year numbers given in the story, Methuselah died within a year of the start of the flood. It doesn't say if he drowned or died of something else shortly before he would have drowned, though.

Henry

Date: 2006/01/23 16:47:52, Link
Author: Henry J
Why do I get the impression that the UD site is not intelligently designed?

Henry

Date: 2006/01/23 16:52:25, Link
Author: Henry J
Oh yeah. The Flying Spaghetti Monster was all over the http://www.pandasthumb.org/ website when it first came out.

Pasta la vista!

Henry

Date: 2006/01/24 17:22:37, Link
Author: Henry J
If Ruffles have ridges, do truffles have tridges?

Date: 2006/01/25 04:49:51, Link
Author: Henry J
Maybe they forgot that old saying - "the closed mouth gathers no foot"?

Date: 2006/01/25 15:03:44, Link
Author: Henry J
Well, Eutheria (placental mammals) says it was last updated 1995, so I've no idea if data has changed since then, and that chart shows cetacia as an offshoot of hooved mammals - about as far from primates as something can get without being an anteater or pangolin.

Otoh, bats aren't too far from primates on the tree... :)

Henry

Date: 2006/01/25 16:42:55, Link
Author: Henry J
Yeah, to paraphrase what several have already said, "crank" = "somebody who's firmly convinced that 80,000 experts are unreliable sources of info in their own subject". Ergo, a few paragraphs (esp. from an amateur like myself) aren't gonna go anywhere.

I first encountered these arguments 10-11 years ago, after getting on the internet and discovering online bulletin boards. The Prodigy Science BB had an ongoing evolution/creation "debate" at that time. Didn't take long to figure out which side had logic and evidence on its side and which didn't.

Henry

Date: 2006/01/26 09:16:50, Link
Author: Henry J
What's a poofta?

Date: 2006/01/26 09:29:06, Link
Author: Henry J
I'm not a biologist either, but "IC" strikes me as a case of "jumping to confusions". Really, what it says is that if one removes a critical part of a system from that system, said system will then cease doing its job? Both obvious and irrelevant to the argument.

After all (imnsho), evolution will tend to drop redundant parts, since their manufacture uses energy and materials that could be used for other things. And if one drops redundant parts, what's left? Critical parts, that's what.

Therefore, as near as I can tell, both models predicts that "IC" will occur in at least some cases. Therefore the concept is useless in distinguishing between them.

If I missed something in the above, could one of the resident biologists point it out?

Henry

Date: 2006/01/26 09:44:32, Link
Author: Henry J
Oh. :rolleyes:

Date: 2006/01/26 10:31:47, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Why do you think ID predicts IC?"

Hmm. That's a good question. I guess it'd be more accurate to say that the pushers of ID claim it predicts IC. But on thinking about it, ID is just as consistent with not-IC as it is with IC, isn't it? Huh.

Henry

Date: 2006/01/27 11:54:06, Link
Author: Henry J
The talkorigins site just added an article about the the Big Bang to its FAQ list.

Henry

Date: 2006/01/29 11:24:48, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by a designing intelligence."

At the risk of sounding like Lenny, why do they never get around to telling us what that "best explanation" actually is, rather than merely claiming to have it??

Re "we know of only one type of cause that produces irreducibly complex systems: intelligence. "

The term "Avida" comes to mind here (unless I misspelled it).

Re "Abiogenesis is an intractable problem, and may remain so for a very long time, [...] "

Perhaps the details of abiogenesis are unresolved, but if there was a time when there wasn't life, and later a time when there was (and is) life, then abiogenesis happened some some means. Er, what was their point again?

Henry

Date: 2006/01/30 05:19:53, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "where does the blueshift come from?"

Maybe it got washed with the jeans in hot water?

Date: 2006/01/30 05:30:18, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "The Discovery Institute recently produced a list of over 400 scientists of varying faith and non-faith"

Funny they didn't mention the hundreds of thousands that didn't sign their form letter...

Henry

Date: 2006/01/30 17:15:42, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "estimate the age of the earth varied over an enormous range of dates, from ~100 years to about 260 million years."

Wonder if one of their "estimates" came from the gravitational-collapse theory of solar power that was around before nuclear fusion was understood.

Henry

Date: 2006/02/01 06:37:30, Link
Author: Henry J
Arden,
You forgot "ET phone home". ;)

Henry

No wait, a better one - "Live long and prosper".
:D

Date: 2006/02/02 04:58:22, Link
Author: Henry J
But is the percentage of engineers (software or otherwise) really higher than the percentage of non-biologists in general?

Henry

Date: 2006/02/02 16:48:03, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Cucumber sandwich anyone?"

Those don't involve raw cucumbers, do they? If so then ew. (Those things aren't palatable until they've been pickled. :) )

Henry

Date: 2006/02/02 16:51:47, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Any chance that could be translated as.... awkward arguments?"

Such as asking what set of observations shows a repeating pattern such that it could actually be explained by a hypothesis of deliberate design of life forms?

Or more concisely - is there a big tent repairman in the house? :)

Henry

Date: 2006/02/06 16:56:31, Link
Author: Henry J
The final question on Jeopardy! tonight was what famous ship sailed from Plymouth, England in 1831 to survey the coast of South America. Two of the three contestants got it.

Henry

Date: 2006/02/06 17:01:11, Link
Author: Henry J
keiths,
Re "Don't these guys ever learn from each other's mistakes?"

Wouldn't they need to start by learning from their own mistakes, first? ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/02/07 11:33:12, Link
Author: Henry J
Methinks that's confusing two different meanings of the term "timeless". But I've never heard of the "entity" being called massless before; not sure what that means.

Henry

Date: 2006/02/07 15:10:51, Link
Author: Henry J
Question on tonight's Jeopardy!: "You're genome is over 95% identical with this animal".
(The contestant missed it, in spite of knowing that "imp" would be somewhere in the response.)

Henry

Date: 2006/02/07 16:38:18, Link
Author: Henry J
Re ""If your worldview starts with a problematic origin story, everything else is going to be infected," he said..."

I reckon either side could use that line. ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/02/08 08:51:06, Link
Author: Henry J
If flashlights were created by god, oops, I mean, a Designer, why do we have to change their batteries (and bulbs) every now and then? ;)

Date: 2006/02/08 08:57:02, Link
Author: Henry J
Another point on particle masses - for the "massless" particles, there's not a lower limit on the amount of energy that kind of particle can possess. The regular particles though (electron, neutrino, quark) have a minumum amount of energy that they can't go below (referred to as their "rest mass"). (Also, apparently it's this possession of rest mass that drags their speed down below that of light. Or something like that.)

Henry

Date: 2006/02/08 10:41:35, Link
Author: Henry J
The Fermilab website's Inquiring Minds page is one source of physics info.

The Particle Adventure website has a Particle chart has tables of the various particles (fundamental and composite) and their interactions.

Date: 2006/02/08 10:45:28, Link
Author: Henry J
Interestingly, the particle chart I linked to seems to be the same thing as the chart that's included in Dan's standard model link. Maybe a slightly different format, but I'm assuming it's the same info.

Date: 2006/02/09 07:16:57, Link
Author: Henry J
DISCOVERS SKELETONS OF THE OLDEST TYRANNOSAUR
Quote
A team of scientists led by James M. Clark, Ronald B. Weintraub Associate Professor of Biology at The George Washington University, and Xu Xing of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP) in Beijing, have discovered a new genus and species of dinosaur that is the oldest known and most primitive tyrannosauroid.


Henry

Date: 2006/02/09 07:20:41, Link
Author: Henry J
Personally, I think Creationism and I.D. promote atheism by pushing people away from religion. But that's just my opinion.

Henry

Date: 2006/02/09 16:27:31, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Some people can indeed say that life unfolded according to evolution without a plan, others can also say that life unfolded by evolutionary means, and that was according to gods plan."

Yup. Even if there is a plan, one would kind of have to know the goal of the plan in order to say whether evolution by natural processes is or isn't sufficient to accomplish that plan. Personally, I don't see how any cosmic purpose (if there is one) could depend on the biological details of how our bodies are constructed. (Or for that matter, at what location in the universe we appeared.)

Henry

Date: 2006/02/10 07:33:37, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "It appears from the vantage of biology that the purpose is to get different working bodies."

That appears to be a result.

Re "The bit about our location in the universe bugs me. I haven't seen the movie or book, but I smell a rat"

What movie / book is that? I don't know of any reason to think this galaxy to be unique compared to however many galaxies are out there (or even to just the ones we know about).

Henry

Date: 2006/02/10 07:43:56, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "If you do believe that ID is an alternative theory, in what ways does it deviate from our current theory of Evolution?"

I sometimes wonder about that as well. It does seem to depend on which ID supporter one talks to. Near as I can tell, usng just the basic notion that life was in some way deliberately engineered, I don't see that it necessarily contradicts the conclusions of the current theory - that would require adding some details to the model. But if it doesn't contradict anything in, or add anything to, current theory, what's the point of it?

Henry

Date: 2006/02/10 08:32:33, Link
Author: Henry J
Re ""There are no really good causes for a rational person to doubt Darwinism""

At the risk of stating what should be obvious, there's a huge difference between simply doubting something, and otoh claiming that there's specific evidence against it.

Henry

Date: 2006/02/10 08:39:30, Link
Author: Henry J
This is interesting:
Researchers Assemble Second Non-Human Primate Genome
Quote
[...]A multi-center team has deposited the draft genome sequence of the rhesus macaque monkey into free public databases for use by the worldwide research community, [...]
Overall, the rhesus genome shares about 92 to 95 percent of its sequence with the human (Homo sapiens) and more than 98 percent with the chimpanzee.


Henry

Date: 2006/02/10 16:40:54, Link
Author: Henry J
I thought the term "gradualism" generally referred to the notion that a whole species would typically evolve slowly over a large part of its existence - gradually turning into something else. Otoh, descent with change by incremental small changes is simply a basic principle of the current theory. (Not over the lifetime of the species, though - a successful established species won't change much on the outside - no pressure to make it do so. And it's probably already accumulated most of the little changes that would aid it in the current environment anyway - or at least that's my guess.)

Re "I don't think animals can evolve into different [genera] by small mutational steps."
I don't get why some people think there's less likelihood of a species being a modified descendant of another species, than for it to be the product of a separate abiogenesis event (that being the alternative to being not a descendant of something else). From an engineering perspective, modifying an existing something is way simpler than building something else from scratch.

Not to mention the question of what exactly is supposed to prevent small changes from occasionally adding up to a larger net change.

And also not to mention that if species (or genera) were found to be unrelated by ancestry, that would make the nested hierarchy thing totally inexplicable. Well, unless one presumed the bioengineer(s) would (most of the time at least) develop each new "product" by slightly modifying the form of an existing (or recent former) nearby species.

Henry

Date: 2006/02/13 04:51:27, Link
Author: Henry J
What happened to half of the bathroom wall? It used to have 8 pages (and the index still claims it does), but now only four of those pages contain notes?

Henry

Date: 2006/02/13 05:11:42, Link
Author: Henry J
Those pesky bugs will evolve, won't they?

Date: 2006/02/13 07:20:53, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "very long text message"

Ah - that would have been that long article that somebody posted in German. Least I think it was German. No clue what it said, though.  :D

Henry

Date: 2006/02/13 08:59:07, Link
Author: Henry J
But what if the rock is only recently deceased? ;)

Date: 2006/02/13 09:36:05, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "DaveScot is claiming [...] that the mind is just what the brain does."

What?!?!? But that's just materialism in as many words, isn't it? Aka the arch enemy of I.D.? Did I miss something somewhere?

Henry

Date: 2006/02/13 09:40:20, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Why do fundamentalists read the KJV bible?"

Maybe they haven't yet got the word on the, um, social preferences of the guy what wrote it?

Date: 2006/02/13 10:06:36, Link
Author: Henry J
Not that Rock... :rolleyes:

Date: 2006/02/15 05:07:02, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Also, it appears that Methuselah lived through the flood. How?"
According to the year spans in my copy of those stories, he died the same year the flood started. Though I've no clue how specific BCE dates can get attached since the later books stopped giving all those year spans between begats.

Henry

Date: 2006/02/15 11:12:45, Link
Author: Henry J
Roughly, "singularity" means the math fails when some variable gets too close to zero (or whatever the limit value is). Example: As the distance between two charged particles approaches zero, the force between them approaches infinity. (String theory would solve that by spreading the "charge" out along each string rather than stuffing it all into one point.)

Henry

Date: 2006/02/15 11:22:25, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "All I'm saying is that in my opinion the power of mutation is limited"

Mutations are what keep billions of people from all being clones of each other. ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/02/15 16:25:54, Link
Author: Henry J
I got my first internet connection 11 years ago with the Prodigy ISP, which at that time had a very good set of online bulletin boards. On the science BB the ev vs. cr argument was already going full steam when I got there. Didn't take long to figure out which side had logic and evidence and which didn't.

Henry

Date: 2006/02/16 05:29:34, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I think Darwinists have put all their hopes in the mutation basket because there are more mechanisms they don't know about and they lack the patience to wait it out."

And here I figured that scientists had reached their conclusions from the evidence, and that their "hopes" were to gain a more accurate understanding of nature. Putting hopes in a basket would seem to be counterproductive toward that goal.

Henry

Date: 2006/02/16 07:48:50, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "materialist massless particleism?"

Is a massless particle one that's not Catholic? :)

Date: 2006/02/16 09:49:08, Link
Author: Henry J
Of course, what massless particles actually lack is rest mass. And since they're restless, they travel at the highest possible speed (that of light).

Henry

Date: 2006/02/16 14:56:24, Link
Author: Henry J
Minor question here, but was somebody trying to move stuff to the bathroom wall, and punched in the wrong topic number or something?

Henry

Date: 2006/02/17 05:24:14, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "It seems like the erosion of the identity in unused genetic material (e.g. pseudogenes) argues pretty strongly against it."

That's been pointed out to him, by more than one person, back when he was on PT.

Henry

Date: 2006/02/17 08:45:28, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Might I suggest "front-loaded orthogenetic precursor", or FLOP?"

Yeah, people should "flip" over that suggestion. :)

Date: 2006/02/17 08:54:47, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Finally, we're simply not equipped to appreciate "deep time.""

Personally, I just treat it as simple arithmetic. If something can move a millimeter in a year, then in a few billion years it could cross a middle sized continent.

Henry

Date: 2006/02/17 09:03:00, Link
Author: Henry J
Well, it'd probably depend on the whether. If it rained, some of the CSI would get washed out of the watch, into the ground, where the grass might soak it up via osmosis.

Date: 2006/02/17 11:39:26, Link
Author: Henry J
Is this a contest for the most rhetorical questions in one post? ;)

Date: 2006/02/19 13:22:55, Link
Author: Henry J
Not to mention that any specified hand is just as unlikely as any other - but every deal manages to produce some of them anyway, in spite of the fact that any given one of them is unlikely in the extreme.

Henry

Date: 2006/02/19 13:54:24, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Essentially, DaveScot had to delete Dembski's own words, in order to preserve his ideas."

ROFL
:D

Date: 2006/02/19 18:55:47, Link
Author: Henry J
Russell,
Re "Dawkins calculates the odds of the perfect deal are [...] "

Those values appear to agree to about 24 digits, or about 80 significant bits. Wonder if that's the limit of precision on either his or your computer (or both)?

Henry

Date: 2006/02/20 12:36:23, Link
Author: Henry J
Re JAD's "David Springer IS RIGHT NOW William Dembski's very well trained mongrel cur."

Well trained? That's not the impression I'm getting from the excerpts quoted around here.

Henry

Date: 2006/02/21 05:50:33, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Miller and Behe have developed what seems to me to be a bit of a symbiosis as well."

But did it evolve, or was it intelligently designed that way? :p

Date: 2006/02/21 05:57:02, Link
Author: Henry J
I'm wondering if the attempted movement of off-topic posts to here is sending them to the wrong place - to here instead.

Henry

Date: 2006/02/23 09:16:55, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Stephen Cheesman, a geophysics PhD and software developer who compares genetic systems to languages created by humans."

As a software engineer, I can say that genetic code has no real resemblance to computer machine code (at least not the types I've studied). Computer code is basically sequential, with the occasional jump to a different place. Genes seem to me much more analogous to recipes than computer code.

Henry

Date: 2006/02/23 10:15:25, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "For my money, biology is at least as complex as particle physics."

Especially if one compares the number of fundamental types dealt with in each field. :)

Henry

Date: 2006/02/23 17:06:45, Link
Author: Henry J
I played with the math once for things like this. The impression I was left with was that for something about the length of the Bible, most short words would appear in it someplace, and likely quite a few short phrases. So if one doesn't decide ahead of time exactly what phrases are wanted, there's probably some in there that would be close enough to the wanted meaning.

Henry

Date: 2006/02/24 09:49:39, Link
Author: Henry J
Sounds like somebody was dis-oriented? :p

Date: 2006/02/24 16:56:29, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.) "

Ya mean I could earn 20 points just for sending an email that says "Einstein" not "Einstien"? Would I get a prize? :D

Henry

Date: 2006/02/24 17:02:44, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "evidence points away from gradualism."

But "gradual" is relative. What's very gradual relative to recorded history can be very sudden relative to geologic eras.

Henry

Date: 2006/02/27 07:23:24, Link
Author: Henry J
Or just a plot to collect political power, with scientists just being a convenient group to use as the "common enemy". :(

Henry

Date: 2006/02/27 08:21:28, Link
Author: Henry J
I see the January feedback has been posted on T.O.

Date: 2006/02/27 16:17:22, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "But I think even on a strange planet we would be able to recognize the hallmarks of design."

I'm not sure what a hallmark is, outside of greeting cards, but I think what people recognize (when they do) is signs of manufacturing - markings on the object of study, debris left from tool use, or shapes that we've come to expect to see in things we already know to have been manufactured by somebody.

Biological entities, on the other hand, are "manufactured" to start with by their ancestors, and later by their own cells.

Re "The whole time, it was a seeing organ."

Methinks that was exactly the point. A very limited seeing "organ" was incrementally improved.

Re "Natural selection is another way of saying that only what works will work."

I think that omits a critical aspect of the process - mutations increase the number of heritable varieties present in the species (producing new varieties that weren't there before), and occasionally some of those work better than others at producing offspring. (On a side note, I sometimes wonder if focusing the discussion on individual mutations doesn't somewhat miss the point.)

Henry

Date: 2006/02/28 15:42:42, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "is there any reason why a Martian Linnaeus, say, would assign us to two different genera?"

I read someplace that an objective observer would have put chimp and human in the same genus to start with, but the decision was affected by politics (or do I mean ego?), or something to that effect.

Henry

Date: 2006/02/28 15:46:03, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I dont advocate for the teaching for or against "dark matter"..."

And that one really is a controversy. (Well, unless they resolved it while I wasn't looking... )

Re "while telling us all the things that ID isn't - they never get around to telling us what it is"

Or as others have put it before - "there's no there, there".

Re "Some say ID does not have to predict the little details, others can "

Never mind the little details, what about any details at all... ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/03/01 09:07:02, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "But when evolution as a whole relies on a large number of very fortuitious events, but insists on retaining the random and unplanned explanation,"

Fortuitious for the survivors. Not so much for the much larger number of species that have gone extinct.

Re "the bible says we are made of dust and somehow that is better than being made of chimp?"

Good point.

Date: 2006/03/02 04:25:16, Link
Author: Henry J
Comments from one of the PT threads re inaccessibility of AtBC (and the whole Antievolution BB, actually) last night. I couldn't get on from home; won't know til tonight if that's still the case. I can get on from work today (obviously).

Henry

==========
Comment #83041

Posted by BWE on March 1, 2006 10:12 PM (e)

Although I cant log in right now for some reason, I started a thread over at After the Bar Closes called “How much fun is too much fun” aimed at finding the balance, the fine line between acceptable laughing at the fundies expense and doing what you are describing here.

Realizing that there is no way we are going to exercise restraint when so much good sport is on the table, I was attempting to ascertain what kinds of comments were “over the top” and which were, in the interest of good fun, marginally acceptable.

BTW, why can’t I log in to AtBC?

==========
Comment #83079

Posted by Henry J on March 2, 2006 12:09 AM (e)

Re “BTW, why can’t I log in to AtBC?”

Oh, good, then it isn’t just me.

Henry

==========
Comment #83105

Posted by CJ O'Brien on March 2, 2006 02:37 AM (e)

Re “BTW, why can’t I log in to AtBC?”
Oh, good, then it isn’t just me.
Henry
BWE, Henry,
I couldn’t either from work.
I have since and Wesley, well, he did something.
his msg. box was full, so I’m guessing there’s a few who can’t get on.

==========
Comment #83193

Posted by Henry J on March 2, 2006 10:09 AM (e)

Re “Re “BTW, why can’t I log in to AtBC?”
Oh, good, then it isn’t just me.
Henry
BWE, Henry,
I couldn’t either from work.
I have since and Wesley, well, he did something.
his msg. box was full, so I’m guessing there’s a few who can’t get on.”

It was from home that I couldn’t get on AtBC last night. Won’t know till tonight if that’s changed or not. The screen that came up said I did’t have permission to use this board, and the “logon” button just led back to the same screen. The “register” button did bring up the registration screen, but it just wound up telling me my ID was already in use. (Duh.)

Henry

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

Date: 2006/03/02 06:10:44, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "wait.....when did i say that domestic dogs evolved?"

Didn't their average genetic content change over time? ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/03/02 15:11:07, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Where is the spaghetti monster when you need him?"

Well, if'n he got too close to an Italian restaurant, he might've got mixed up with the menu.

Henry

Date: 2006/03/02 15:14:40, Link
Author: Henry J
It's working tonight.

Henry

Date: 2006/03/02 16:35:32, Link
Author: Henry J
Most of those items are changes in proportion of something that's present in both species, or a slight change in position of something. I wouldn't either of those to necessarily require much genetic change.

Re "Primates have 48 chromosomes. [...] yet somehow we have only 46 chromosomes!"

That's been mentioned around here someplace quite recently, I think. Somewhere along the way two chromosomes fused, and the remnants of the fused ends can be seen in the middle of the resulting chromosome in humans.

Re "any reason why a Martian Linnaeus, say, would assign us to two different genera?"

I gather the answer is no. From what I understand, the amount of difference between human and chimp is typical of pairs of species that are placed in the same genus (i.e., less than the amount of difference generally expected of two genera in the same family).

Henry

Date: 2006/03/02 17:01:21, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "increasing melanin (its dark pigment) at its surface, which only the black race has achieved."

My understanding was that they came first (humans started in Africa, after all), and the loss of coloration was an adaptation to colder climates.

Henry

Date: 2006/03/03 06:48:56, Link
Author: Henry J
Re " I simply meant that a universe with God is a very different one than without."
Re "But the universe itself, would be totally different. "

But, how would a person know what the differences are, unless that person had seen at least one universe of each type?

Re "Yeah, but I was talking more about the fortuitious events leading to life and to the cellular systems being improbable without intelligence."

An evolving gene pool can try various things that are within its "reach", and it can "remember" previous results. Those are two of the properties we associate with intelligence. So that one form of intelligence is already presumed by the current theory. So even if intelligence is required, why would that form of it be insufficient?

Re "I guess all I can say is that I think the evidence and the reasonings of ID have more merit than you think they do. And I don't think the case is as tight by the other side."

Scientific evidence consists of consistent repeatable patterns in observations, such that those patterns logically follow from the premise (or hypothesis) being tested. Descriptions of evidence for evolution refer to lots of observed patterns that are explained by the theory. I haven't yet seen where anybody actually gets around to describing the patterns that would serve as evidence for I.D. or some form of it.

Henry

Date: 2006/03/03 10:54:02, Link
Author: Henry J
Well, if everything is totally impossible, does that mean I'm not really sitting here reading this thread?

Re "...the existence of the material universe is a violation of the 2nd Law..."

Can anybody be that dumb? The laws of T.D. are about stuff happening inside the universe.

Henry

Date: 2006/03/03 11:44:20, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "There is only one Intelligent Designer. He is the alpha the omega..."

The Designer was Greek?

Re "Apparently DaveScot has allowed William Demski"

Huh? Am I confused as to the chain of command over there? :p

Date: 2006/03/03 11:48:36, Link
Author: Henry J
Wonder if ftrp11 realizes that the formulas for 2nd law are more complicated for open systems, since it then needs terms to accound for incoming and outgoing? That would kind of interfere with "but it can't decrease" arguments.

Date: 2006/03/06 05:26:30, Link
Author: Henry J
I'm glad somebody answered the question that started this thread, since I didn't know if the prediction was (1) a prediction that wasn't actually predicted by the current theory, (2) already confirmed by researchers, or (3) not yet investigated.

Apparently it was case 2.

Henry

Date: 2006/03/06 09:33:34, Link
Author: Henry J
Just wondering, but does a cake necessarily have less entropy than the raw ingredients did before the baking?

Henry

Date: 2006/03/06 09:49:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Why would anybody think that living systems or intelligence can decrease entropy?"

Or break any other laws, for that matter. Human technology doesn't break the laws, it works with them to get the wanted effect. And life, afaik, works with the laws to get the observed effects.

Henry

Date: 2006/03/06 12:07:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Yeah, the deck of cards analogy has at least two problems. One is that some cards "stick" together, which was already mentioned. Also that nobody knows how many of those 52 factoral sequences would still produce a highly diverse ecosystem, even if not identical to the one we've got.

Henry

Date: 2006/03/06 15:59:27, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "There are so many holes with the theory that the only reason it still dominates is the present lack of a better theory."

If by "holes" you mean that there are questions that haven't been answered, well of course there are - that's what keeps biology researchers employed.

But the existence of unanswered questions is not by itself an argument against the accuracy of the conclusions that have been reached by scientists.

Henry

Date: 2006/03/07 04:28:20, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Dembski's bog has had some publicity in The Guardian:"

He has a bog? No wonder the movement is getting mired down! ;)
:p

Date: 2006/03/07 08:20:03, Link
Author: Henry J
And here I thought the usual measure of energy for photons (or subatomic particles) was electron volts (ev).

Re "A single photon does not really have a temperature"

Or a single any atomic or subatomic particle, for that matter (pun intended). For either heat or temperature to be meaningful, there's got to be a lot of particles in a region of space, with velocities relative to each other.

Henry

Date: 2006/03/07 09:38:15, Link
Author: Henry J
It's a Gut Science because it's trying to gut science?

(So to speak.)

Date: 2006/03/07 10:05:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "without a greater **information** input."

Have these people not heard of the **environment**?
(That's where the **information** comes from.)

Date: 2006/03/07 10:20:38, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (hehe @ Mar. 07 2006,16:13)
Quote
Have these people not heard of the **environment**?


"Environment"? What are you, some pinko commie liberal treehugger?

I meant as a source of information, not as a source of affection.  :p

Date: 2006/03/07 17:16:07, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Since they appeared in order of time posted, they were 'buried' by all the other posts that were made after mine but came up first.
It was difficult even for me to find them; some regular visitor in the thread who would have casually scrolled down to the end would certainly have missed them."

Now that's interesting. I gather they display in chronological order by time of submission? So by the time they appear at their appointed spot, most readers of the thread think they've already read past that point? Sneaky, huh.

---

Re
physicist: "If you can give me a clear and precisely worded example of an `intelligent agency causing a violation of the second law, please do.
Davescot: "Me writing this sentence. -ds"

Huh. Is Dave saying that while he was typing that, his body wasn't burning carbohydrates in oxygen in order to produce the energy to move his fingers? Did he, uh, just will the keys to push down, or what?

Henry

Date: 2006/03/08 15:38:54, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "A theory based on common descent should show a lack of descent in certain biological entities due to the inevitability of mutations radically altering those same entities over time to the point that a commonality in descent can no longer be established."

That doesn't appear to make sense. For the relationship to become totally unrecognizable, all the most fundamental functions would have to be replaced by entirely new but equivalent functions. Seems highly unlikely that anything in the current theory actually implies that this would be expected in 4 billion years of evolution. (And a prediction of what might happen in 5 to 8 billion years doesn't seem overly relevant in understanding the current evidence.)

Henry

Date: 2006/03/09 08:15:44, Link
Author: Henry J
"design"? design?? :0

Date: 2006/03/09 08:20:03, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "While you're at it, Stuart, command pigs to fly."

Trying to resist the obvious punch line... resist... resist...

Date: 2006/03/09 08:46:47, Link
Author: Henry J
Was Charybdis (sp?) intelligently designed?

Date: 2006/03/09 09:18:28, Link
Author: Henry J
Who would commit that fowl crime? Only a bird brain! :0

Date: 2006/03/09 10:01:59, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "If this fundamental function is unrecognizable in some biological entity then it is merely an assumption that it is a product of common descent."

Yeah, if a species is found to not share the stuff that's fundamental to eukaryotes , it might then be logical to think it might be of a separate origin. But as I understand it even bacteria and archaea share the same fundamentals as eukaryotes. So finding an apparently unrelated species wouldn't affect the relationships among the previously known ones.

Henry

Date: 2006/03/10 07:25:03, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Here in lies the problem.  If these three share the same fundamental then this fundamental has either not evolved (remained exactly the same and therefore indentifiable in all three)"

Critical parts of the DNA are going to be way more conserved than less critical DNA. They might eventually change some, but I see no reason to expect all the critical functions to change in any particular amount of time (like say 4 billion years).

Of course, some important functions probably have evolved. Whether any of those have done so to an extent to make them appear non-homologous (is that the right word?), maybe a biologist can jump in to answer.

Henry

Date: 2006/03/10 07:49:55, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "And, I think, popular evolution theory can also be accused of waxing philosophical."

Some scientists give philosophical opinions, yes. The theory itself doesn't.

Re " Anyone who believes in God is an IDist. "

I don't think so.

Re "I think the variables in actual evolution are so complex that we cannot create a computer program to simulate it."

Yeah, any computer simulation is going to have to leave out a huge amount of detail, so there is a risk of this messing up a conclusion.

Henry

Date: 2006/03/10 08:43:49, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "but anyone responding to him gets bounced here. Am I the only one who finds this incomprehensible?"

Nope. I've expressed pretty much the same thought when the idea came up once before.

Henry

Date: 2006/03/10 10:13:33, Link
Author: Henry J
Do I recall correctly that the color of the user id's in this thread indicates if it was posted here directly, or got moved here after being posted someplace that's else?

Henry

Date: 2006/03/10 11:19:26, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "It is only with this fundamental function common to all biological entities that one could claim common descent.  Either this fundamental function remains unchanged or changes exactly the same in all biological entities.  How else could one claim common descent?"

What? The more critical a function is, the more likely a change is to break it. Therefore changes to the more critical parts of the DNA don't get passed to later generations as often as do changes to less critical parts of the DNA.

afaik, common descent can be claimed based on various types of evidence: (1) when a large enough portion of the DNA shows more similarities than would be expected if the two types had separate origins, (2) mostly similar anatomy (and/or biochemistry) with only minor differences, or (3) where fossils of predecessors of the two types converge (as one goes from more recent to older) on a single predecessor for both. (And there might be other ways I haven't thought of.)

(Note that chimp-human relationship can be claimed based on all three of those.)

Henry

Date: 2006/03/11 10:05:40, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I thought he said PT was a sham of a forum with no real free speech anyway? "

Well, what'd you expect from the guy - consistency?

Henry

Date: 2006/03/12 13:25:03, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Yeah, I really should write up a list of say Top Ten Uncommonly Dense basic science errors."

And see if they're someplace in An Index to Creationist Claims ?

Henry

Date: 2006/03/13 04:38:57, Link
Author: Henry J
And, it's not just the base pair changes that still put the same amino acid in that position. As I understand it, some positions in the protein aren't directly involved in either the function or the folding of the thing into the right shape. Also,
some amino acids are fairly similar to each other.

Date: 2006/03/14 16:52:19, Link
Author: Henry J
A question here - in what way would 7% of a wing differ from simply an arm? ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/03/15 08:26:35, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "explain why human, plant, insects, and fish all show equal identity (equal distance) to yeast in cytoC. "

Plant? Insects and vertebrates have had the same amount of time since divergence from fungi, but plants have had somewhat longer than that.

Henry

Date: 2006/03/15 09:37:14, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "The impression given here is that if you question evolution you MUST be a creationist. "

That would depend on what one means by "question evolution". Does it mean asking how a particular conclusion was reached? Or does it mean claiming there's no evidence for something for which plenty of evidence has been described?

Henry

Date: 2006/03/15 09:46:15, Link
Author: Henry J
Well, I can think of a couple of things that could throw off the "clock": (1) a different average mutation rate per copy per base pair, or (2) a different average number of generations per year.

Date: 2006/03/15 16:44:54, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Do you think they come to their conclusion by first hand research like Darwin did?  Of course not."

Certainly amateurs aren't likely to take a voyage to the Galapagos. My acceptance of the theory comes largely from the lack of convincing arguments presented against it, even from the people who claim that such arguments exist.

For one thing, a counter argument needs to be aimed at a particular premise of the theory, not at something vaguely called "Darwinism". Does the proposed argument try to show that some species don't have ancestors? That two species with lots of common features came from lines that had separate abiogenesis events? Or does it just question details about some specific lineages?

Exactly which premise of evolution theory is supposed to be impacted by this molecular clock argument? (Btw, isn't the molecular clock concept intended for neutral dna anyway? A critical gene is hardly neutral territory.)

Re "A theory is not won by popular votes."

Course not - its "won" by whether the experts in the relevant fields regard it as supported by the evidence, not by whether or not they like it or its conclusions, which is generally what a popularity contest would try to measure.

Re "All you need is one dishonest textbook author to make millions of people looking like dishonest liars or honest fools."

Wow - could somebody use that as a straight line if they wanted to...

Henry

Date: 2006/03/16 09:49:54, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "The second presentation of the same data set is the molecular equidistance phenomenon: human, rat, frogs, and fish are all equally related to yeast. "

What about that point that somebody made upthread - vertebrates diverged from yeast long before they diverged from each other. So most of that "distance" may have come from a time when "vertebrate" was one evolving species.

Henry

Date: 2006/03/16 12:26:35, Link
Author: Henry J
thordaddy,

Quote
Henry J opines,

Re "The impression given here is that if you question evolution you MUST be a creationist. "

Does it mean asking how a particular conclusion was reached? Or does it mean claiming there's no evidence for something for which plenty of evidence has been described?

You're not referencing me, are you?  If so, please provide the appropriate quotes where I state "no evidence" for evolution?


I was asking for clarification as to what you meant by "question evolution".

henry

Date: 2006/03/16 17:36:16, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I guess the short answer to the link between quantum mechanics and evolution is the same link as chemistry, just at a lower level."

Or chemistry is sort of between the other two. (Sort of like an intermediate?)

Re "Why is conciousness necessary?
Because without it, the universe would suck."

Ah, a new theory of gravity! ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/03/16 17:38:45, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Well, since you have no evidence for "no evidence" then it leaves only one possible answer, doesn't it?"

I don't know, since you jumped on one of the two examples in my question and didn't address the question of what you meant by "question evolution".

Henry

Date: 2006/03/17 08:13:36, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote

À propos, vous êtes de quel coin, d'origine?

Annecy, haute-savoie.
Je fais ma thèse à Rennes (Bretagne).

C'est presque Suisse! Moi, je me suis installé en Aude depuis  quelques années, mais toujours, je massacre la langue  française.


Somebody(s) really needs to use a spellcheck before posting... ;)

Date: 2006/03/19 11:36:02, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "How does a chromosome know how to fuse itself with another and come out with a beautiful and coherent result?"

My take on it: Not seeing descendants from fusion events that produced incoherent results doesn't mean they didn't happen - it means if it happened, they died without leaving descendants.

Henry

Date: 2006/03/19 14:03:01, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Soren Lovtrup, professional biologist in Sweden, said "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous.""

Well, if series of small steps is ruled out, that leaves only one huge step, which seems to me to be enormously less likely. And since complex life forms exist, that means picking the less unlikely of two very unlikelies. Besides, how does one know that the intermediate stages don't work? You'd have to rule out every possible sequence to know that.

Re "when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?""

But, an arm is already a partially evolved wing. An arm with a large surface area is moreso. Besides which "that's inconceivable" isn't a valid argument - otherwise much of physics would have been thrown out before it got started.

Re "Feuccia and Martin believe birds evolved from reptiles but not dinosaurs (I didn't know there was a difference):"

Interesting. Sure there's a difference; dinosaur is one branch of reptile. The articles I've read on that indicate that birds are closer to some dinosaurs than others, and if so then dino to bird is the more likely.

Re "It's biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails,""

Well yeah, if one starts with the large two legged dinosaurs. So I'd infer that birds evolved from the small species of whichever group they evolved from.

As for feathers, I gather that feathers were found on species that aren't birds, which implies they originated earlier than birds. So my take on that is that flight feathers evolved from feathers that had been in use for something else, rather than directly from scales (which seems to be the scenario being considered in your quoted article).

Henry

Date: 2006/03/20 15:15:59, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "This is not controversial and this is why people invoked the neutral theory in order to explain the data."

Except that accumulation of neutral changes to DNA can be deduced from the way DNA works. Absense of neutral differences would be far harder to explain than their presence.

Re "The data cannot be explained by the present theory, which simply means that the data has falsified the present theory."

Data has to be contradictory to a theory to falsify it - simply being unexplained won't do that.

Henry

Date: 2006/03/20 15:19:20, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "There is an interesting theorem about random walks that says that if you draw a circle round your starting point you will eventually return to within the circle, eventually being longer as the size of the circle decreases. "

Isn't that for moving around in only two dimensions, though? A typical genome can change in any of millions of directions, so for more than a handful of changes the odds of an exact reversal is negligible.

Re "Any organism that happens to have a tendency under catastrophic conditions to incorporate foreign DNA, rather than eat it, will have a chance of bridging the gap to a survivable configuration and will therefore, on average, leave more descendants. Multiple catastrophic events over geological time reinforce and refine this tendency so that it eventually becomes the dominant species-producing evolutionary mechanism."

Well, I'm not a biologist, but I think they call that sexual reproduction.

Henry

Date: 2006/03/21 05:10:15, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "but why on Earth they don't evolve faster."

Something analogous to inertia, maybe?

Date: 2006/03/21 08:44:49, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "To find human and fish are equally related to another fish in genotypes is unexpected for Darwin, for Mayr, for me, and for 99% of casual believers of the theory."

Wouldn't it depend first on which fish is the closer relative to terrestrial vertebrates?

Re "But if that were true, how can human, mouse, birds, frogs, and fish all are equally related to yeast?"

I don't know, but one factor in that is that vertebrates were a single species for a large fraction of the time since their split from fungi.

Henry

Date: 2006/03/21 11:39:15, Link
Author: Henry J
What is the % difference in cyto C between human and chimpanzee? (Which btw diverged 6 mya iirc., with their common divergence from monkey somewhat before that.)

Date: 2006/03/21 12:27:18, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "you could invoke another absurdity that human and monkey have, within less than 1 myr, mutated to saturation at 96% identity with rat A."

I'm wondering where the "less than 1 myr" came from? If they diverged 80 myr then they've had 80 myr to accumulate whatever differences they have today.

Henry

Date: 2006/03/22 07:06:42, Link
Author: Henry J
Old-World Primates Evolved Color Vision to Better See Each Other Blush, Study Reveals
Quote
PASADENA, Calif.--Your emotions can easily be read by others when you blush--at least by others familiar with your skin color. What's more, the blood rushing out of your face when you're terrified is just as telling. And when it comes to our evolutionary cousins the chimpanzees, they not only can see color changes in each other's faces, but in each other's rumps as well.
(Hair today, gone tomorrow? Butt at least the chimps can get to the bottom of things. :)  )

Henry

Date: 2006/03/22 07:11:40, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "My understanding of it is that it's because evolution reverses direction rather often."

That's interesting. What I was thinking was that in a stable environment, a species that had been there a while would have already "tested" the vast majority of the changes easily reachable from its current genome. Of course, an environment that changes in repeating cycles would make that more interesting, huh? :)

Henry

Date: 2006/03/22 07:28:32, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "at what point might a design inference become rational? What would it take?"

My guess would be describe a verifiable repeatedly observed pattern in the data that's actually explained by a conjecture that something deliberately engineered something - i.e., a pattern that's way more likely if deliberate engineering is true, than it is if evolutionary processes are what did it.

Re "As for me, I don't have a problem with a low probability event from time to time. I have a problem with evolution seeming to require a steady diet of them."

Hmm. My guess is that any particular evolutionary event probably is improbable to some degree. But the important question isn't the improbability of a particular solution - rather it's the probability of some solution being reached.

Re "Wouldn't it be funny to see what humans looked like when they were anatomically awkward, between true upright walkers and knuckle walkers."

Isn't that what chimpanzees are now?

Henry

Date: 2006/03/22 09:35:17, Link
Author: Henry J
Especially if there's a treehouse somewhere in its branches... ;)

Date: 2006/03/23 07:08:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Looks like talkorigins is back up again. I was about to post mentioning that it was down since last night, but it's back now. Was it server problems?

Henry

Date: 2006/03/23 08:41:46, Link
Author: Henry J
Do ya suppose the manufacturers of irony meters might be behind the "controversy", in order to boost their sales? ;)

Date: 2006/03/23 12:16:55, Link
Author: Henry J
Perhaps somebody should look at the title of this bullitin board? ;)

It says: "Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution"

At a guess, people discussing those other things are probably doing it on BB's that were set up for those subjects?

Sheesh.

Henry

Date: 2006/03/25 10:03:39, Link
Author: Henry J
Ah, but you didn't say if there was an image of the Virgin Mary in that cheese!!! ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/03/25 16:47:23, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "because ID gives up hope for freedom. "

Wondering who put the typo in that? :p

Henry

Date: 2006/03/28 05:57:30, Link
Author: Henry J
Converts RNA Enzyme to DNA Enzyme In Vitro
Quote
Scientists at The Scripps Research Institute have successfully converted an RNA enzyme (ribozyme) into a DNA enzyme (deoxyribozyme) through a process of accelerated in vitro evolution. The molecular conversion or transfer of both genetic information and catalytic function between these two different genetic systems, which are both based on nucleic acid-like molecules, is exactly what many scientists believe occurred during the very earliest period of earth's existence.


Henry

Date: 2006/03/28 08:23:22, Link
Author: Henry J
Taking a bite out of a fellow worker helps wasps recruit new foragers
Quote
If you think you've got a bad boss, one who loves to chew people out, or if you work with backstabbing co-workers, be thankful you are not a wasp.

If you were, chances are your nestmates might bite you to communicate that it is time to leave the nest and forage for the colony, [...]
(OUCH!!;)

Date: 2006/03/29 08:42:58, Link
Author: Henry J
My socks don't disappear so much as they get religion, then have to be replaced.

Henry

Date: 2006/03/29 09:18:04, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "As for religious socks, that has only been a problem since the Fall."

Ah yes, that "darn"ed fall.

Date: 2006/03/29 10:29:20, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Then slowly he realized that I was subtly backing him into a corner of accepting natural selection as extremely likely. [...] I didn't even need to point it out to him. He figured it out within the day. Then, Boom, instantly banned and all posts on that line of thought erased."

:D  :D  :p

Date: 2006/03/31 05:30:57, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "How do you make umlauts?"

By copy/paste from a page that already has the one ya want. ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/03/31 05:44:37, Link
Author: Henry J
guthrie,

Re "[...] to describe an ID luminary,"

An ID what ? ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/04/03 16:51:48, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "When you see things in nature that is more complex than these machineries, isnt it reasonable to say that there is intelligence behind it (as opposed to pure chance)?"

If the more complex thing were something that had yet to be studied in detail by anybody, that would be a reasonable conjecture. But if the complex thing is something that has been thoroughly studied by tens of thousands of researchers for over a century...

Henry

Date: 2006/04/03 16:55:21, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "How about this...can God create a stone so heavy even he cannot lift it?"

Relative to which source of gravity? Lifting on Earth would be a bunch easier than lifting off a neutron star.

One consideration that comes to mind here, though, is that there is an upper limit to the mass that a stone could possess - if it's own mass is strong enough to collapse it's molecules, then it ain't a stone anymore. :)

Henry

Date: 2006/04/03 16:58:22, Link
Author: Henry J
Hmm - didn't ID have a "five year plan", or something like that, one to two decades ago? What happened with that?

Henry

Date: 2006/04/03 17:50:23, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "There is information on a blank CD. The arrangement of atoms, their position in time and space, IS information."

Uh, doesn't he realize that kills one of the more popular antievolution "arguments"? (I.e., the one about mutations not being able to increase the amount of information present.)

Re "The question is whether theres any new information required for speciation "

I wouldn't expect a speciation event to necessarily require an increase in information. (Unless of course one is describing both resulting species instead of just the one previous species.)

Henry

Date: 2006/04/04 04:18:24, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "If one million rabbits can produce one new species in one million years then one hundred populations of a hundred rabbits should produce one hundred new species in the same time."

When did evolution theory predict that the number of new species would be directly related to the population of existing species? As I understand it speciation requires isolation of some subset of a population from the rest of that species, for long enough for them to accumulate significant differences. No matter the current population, if none of it is reproductively isolated from the rest, it won't speciate.

Henry

Date: 2006/04/04 04:35:45, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Also, could he draw a triangle where the internal angles don't add up to 180 degrees.

Edit: and no he can't use spherical geometry."

Hyperbolic geometry, instead! ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/04/04 17:21:35, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "My understanding was that you also have to account for recombination, which I thought was quite common in viruses."

Is it? Eek. But wouldn't that require getting two viruses in the same host (victim) cell at the same time, if gene swapping is to occur within that viral species?

Henry

Date: 2006/04/05 09:39:15, Link
Author: Henry J
Well, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... ;)

Date: 2006/04/05 10:00:22, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "They put a bunch of religious appologists on the stand for ID"

Um - who is the "they" in the context of that sentence, I wonder? Didn't the ID side pick its own witnesses?

Henry

Date: 2006/04/05 16:44:44, Link
Author: Henry J
DaveRAFinn,
Re "The word "random" does appear in evolutionary theory and therefore probability theory does apply. If the chances of getting a six on a throw of a dice is one in 6 then, on average if you throw the dice six times you will get one six, if you throw it six hundred times you will on average get 100 sixes, not as you believe only one. "

If that was addressing what I said, you missed a critical part of it: Speciation requires reproductive isolation of part of the species from the rest of it, before it can even start. One can't simply assume that the probability of isolation is evenly distributed across the species.

Re "It also states, as you note, that the fewer the number of chance events the greater the change of a random beneficial outcome. "

Say what? I mentioned an isolated population accumulating differences; I didn't mention the relative size of that population. Nor does speciation necessarily require beneficial changes; all it requires is enough change to make successful interbreeding rare.

Re "This illogical conclusion is sufficient to get evolutionary theory classified where it belongs, with astrology, iridology etc."

Well, since you were the one who came up with that conclusion in the first place, I'm not going to worry about that.

Re "Until such time as someone can explain evolutionary theory in a way that is not incompatible with mathematics I am not going to believe it."

If the model is oversimplified, the conclusions won't be reliable, and what you seem to be seeing as incompatability is caused by trying to apply an oversimplified model.

Henry

Date: 2006/04/06 10:20:54, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "ID avocates ask for us to demonstrate thousands of years of evolution in the lab. Therefore the only way to refute it is to speed up time. I have asked my physicist friends to get on it."

But, that would make the result intelligently designed, since the speed up wouldn't have happened without your input, which would make a success evidence for I.D. ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/04/06 10:27:09, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Homosexuals are worried scientists are trying to prove a gay gene for political purposes in order to "cure" homosexuality."

But wouldn't proving it to be environmental also have a chance of being used that way?

Henry

Date: 2006/04/07 17:48:22, Link
Author: Henry J
Maybe the physical aspects of gender are produced by one set of genes, and the behavoral by a different (perhaps overlapping?) set of genes? Then some regulatory mechanism would usually correlate those two sets, so evolving gayness out of a species would mean strengthening that regulation. Maybe there aren't minor changes that would do that without breaking something else?

Just thought I'd throw that idea out there, to go with somebody else's suggestion that maybe clans with a small percent of homosexuals do better than clans with fewer (or none).

Re "IIRC, the idea is that a fetus is exposed to different hormones in the womb, and exposure to the "wrong" amount of some of them at the "wrong" time will lead to the parts of the brain concerned with sexual attraction being altered to a different way."

Now that's interesing - the idea that older siblings might leave something behind in the womb that affects any later siblings? Huh.

Henry

Date: 2006/04/09 17:31:55, Link
Author: Henry J
Is that DS or JAD?

Or is it -ds channeling JAD?

(Can we change the channel?)

Henry

Date: 2006/04/10 16:30:04, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "What I find hilarious about these analogies is that they don't realise that their ideas are the equivalent of saying Galileo was wrong."

Hey, that sounds like you're trying to confuse the issue with facts. ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/04/11 09:53:04, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "but sperm....they are active, thinking, conscious little fellas....."

Maybe, but my impression is that they've got reeeeally single tracked "minds"... ;)

Date: 2006/04/11 10:14:44, Link
Author: Henry J
"fang" club?

Date: 2006/04/11 17:00:54, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Is that an example of metafudging? "

Methinks ya mean macrofudging. ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/04/12 05:38:43, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Has anyone ever claimed there is a universal evolution law?"

Well, wasn't too long ago that somebody claimed that water had to have evolved - that comes kind of close. :D

Henry

Date: 2006/04/12 08:08:40, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Let alone the fact that 8 protons have to come together with 8 neutrons to make the oxygen nucleus in the first place - a process that has never been observed, in nature or the laboratory!"

Well, I sure hope a supernova is never observed in a laboratory...  :0  ;)  :D

Date: 2006/04/12 09:50:05, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "But that's only part of it, and doesn't explain the African heterosexual rate."

Didn't the disease start in Africa?

Date: 2006/04/12 16:11:04, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "No one would argue that the best competing theory to the God theory is Darwinism evolution."

The "God theory" and evolutionary biology don't address the same questions, and they aren't mutually exclusive. It's only the extremists on both sides that claim they have to be in competition or that they contradict each other.

Henry

Date: 2006/04/12 16:13:41, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "a zygote is still just a clump of cells"

I though a zygote was one cell, and once it turns into a clump its called an embryo.

Henry

Date: 2006/04/13 16:49:32, Link
Author: Henry J
Ah, but who designed the goalposts? Or did they evolve?

Henry

Date: 2006/04/14 08:44:29, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "This is why Im sticking to the time-traveller theory."

So, you think the Time Lords of Gallifrey did it? ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/04/14 10:16:20, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "That coudn't be anything to do with the fact that they keep changing the definition does it?"

Naahhhhhh...

How could one suggest such a thing? ;)

Date: 2006/04/17 17:48:36, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "what YOUR theory is and WHY you believe it in 5 simple statements"

I don't have a theory that could be called mine.

But as to why I accept the core conclusions of the current theory-

Theory predicts several places in which unexplained contrary evidence could be found*; any such find would put limits on usefulness of the theory. Lots of such finds together would eventually lead to rewrite of theory.

Antievolutionists aren't publishing lists of verifiable contrary evidence.

*Fossils of a taxonomic group way earlier than expected for that taxa; extensive similarity of DNA between one species and a distant taxa, that doesn't show up in closer relatives of that species; close relatives far outside geographic range of their presumed ancestors; a member of a species giving birth to something in a distant taxa.

Henry

Date: 2006/04/18 07:32:35, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Care to guess where they transported them to while we were still a set of British colonies"

Georgia, wasn't it? (iirc)

Henry

Date: 2006/04/18 16:21:35, Link
Author: Henry J
To add to my previous comments, one thing evolution explains even more directly than it explains origins, is the interrelatedness of species, anatomically, genetically, and geographically. (The only thing Creationism or I.D. even address is why there's life at all.)

Henry

Date: 2006/04/25 16:30:23, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "fine-tuning arguments"
Yeah, I don't see how anybody can think "find-tuning" more than a conjecture, since it's basically an extrapolation from a single data point - a handful of physical constants describing the space-time that we (probably midleadingly) call the "universe".

That's in contrast to evolution theory, that is an interpolation among millions of known species.

Henry

Date: 2006/04/25 16:34:28, Link
Author: Henry J
Wouldn't a viable refutation of evolution (or at least its universality) require evidence of species of complex life arising without having recent nearby predecessors very similar to themselves?

To me the lack of evidence of anything of that sort is a major part of the evidence for the current theory.

Henry

Date: 2006/04/25 16:37:15, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause [...]"

At the risk of repeating myself, when is one of them going to publish what that explanation IS rather than merely claiming to have it?

Henry

Date: 2006/04/26 05:17:48, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "If so, then would the living being also have to have been assembled by some already living being?"

They are, aren't they? At least the "starting kit" (so to speak) for a new organism is "assembled" internally by its parent or parents, then self assembles from there using available raw materials.

Henry

Date: 2006/04/28 07:30:09, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "for instance, Davison seems to use it as an abbreviation for 'the theory of evolution as believed in by people I hate'."

But I thought that's what just "Darwinism" by itself meant; what does the "Neo-" on the front do besides make it look fancier somehow?

Henry

Date: 2006/04/28 16:25:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Any two adults who can give consent, can enter into a contract, and can pass the blood test get to marry."

Would a blood test apply to a gay marriage?

Henry

Date: 2006/05/01 17:16:53, Link
Author: Henry J
Should somebody mention that time dilation is expected for the objects that are moving, not the object that is allegedly sitting still in the center of it all? On second thought, never mind.

Henry

Date: 2006/05/01 17:22:27, Link
Author: Henry J
normdoering,

Re "It's about Danny Hillis who built the first massively parallel processing computer, the Connection Machine, and used it as a "proof" for a concept in Darwinian evolution. [...]"

I dunno whether afdave appreciates that story or not, but I found it fascinating.

Henry

Date: 2006/05/02 07:22:22, Link
Author: Henry J
2+2=3 for very small values of 2. :)

Date: 2006/05/03 09:29:28, Link
Author: Henry J
Nonsense. It was turtles all the way down.

Date: 2006/05/04 12:36:03, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "In fact, not only do chromosomes not have polarity, but double-stranded DNA does not either. It's composed of two complementary antiparallel strands: one goes 5'->3', the other goes 3'->5'. Flip it around and you'll get the same thing."

Hey, a thread with an interesting discussion in it! What happened? :p

Henry

Date: 2006/05/05 11:13:17, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "So...advanced degrees only count when the person in question is on their side?"

Of course - things are simpler that way. ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/05/06 17:30:46, Link
Author: Henry J
Biology and Evolution theory involves the development of life and relationships among species. The development of planets, stars, or the whole universe belong to whole other subjects like astronomy, cosmology, and/or astrophysics.

As for string theory, last I heard it was really a hypothesis (i.e., not yet directly supported by evidence) rather than a theory that is supported by enough evidence to give it widespread acceptance. (Then of course there's the question of which string theory, unless they succeed in consolodating them into one.)

Besides which, there will always be something that can be only observed and described by science, rather than being explained in terms of something more basic. That's because explaining something sort of requires that we know of something more basic than the thing being explained. Right now the most basic thing (described in widely accepted theory) seems to be quantum theory (plus relativity theory), but if string theory (or one of them) is successful it would become the described (but not really explained) basis for the rest.

Henry

Date: 2006/05/08 11:17:49, Link
Author: Henry J
[quote=Russell,May 08 2006,15:11]
Quote
by what possible criterion could humans not be fully certified, card-carrying, dues-paid-up members of the Ape Club?

I haven't paid any dues for that there club. ;)

Date: 2006/05/08 17:12:30, Link
Author: Henry J
Russell,
Re "but I don't think Darwin was particularly unusual in contemplating an earth much, much older than Bishop Ussher's."

Hmm. Darwin's work was in the mid 1800's. What century was Ussher in? And when did geologists reach consensus about the Earth being old? I'm just wondering if Darwin had the geologists' conclusion as part of his background or not.

Henry

Answer to one of my questions: "James Ussher (1581-1656), an Irish theologian and scholar,"

Date: 2006/05/08 17:19:27, Link
Author: Henry J
Why would somebody be offended by having been taught something that was believed by scientists at the time, but that found out later to be incorrect? I can see being annoyed by that, but offended? Consider some theories that were believed to at least some extent in the last 2 centuries, like ether or phlogisten (sp?). Should somebody be offended to have "learned" one or both of those while they were accepted only to have to "unlearn" them later? I wouldn't think so.

In my case, I "learned" in elementary school in the sixties that fungi are plants that happen to not have chlorophyl, that protozoans are animals that happen to be single celled, that bacteria are plants because they aren't animals and have to be one or the other, and that the periodic table of elements had 103 +/- 2 elements on it*. All of those things I've had to "unlearn", but I wasn't offended by any of them.

*Not biology related, but scienctific assertion that wasn't correct even at the time, since printed periodic charts hadn't caught up with even with the then current research. Today there's 116 elements that have been reported as observed, and it changes a few times a decade on average, usually upward although once it went down (in 1999 iirc).

Henry

Date: 2006/05/08 17:22:41, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "the Catholic church maintained a list of movies that were banned by the church and which no good Catholic should see. This list was eagerly read by my mom and her friends as a reliable guide to the best movies that would be out there,"



Henry

Date: 2006/05/08 18:05:00, Link
Author: Henry J
normdoering,

Re "If you put a human infant in with a chimp troop, the chimps would probably think the baby was a moron by chimp standards and understanding."

That's if they don't think of it as lunch.

Henry

Date: 2006/05/09 05:26:37, Link
Author: Henry J
Not to mention the difference between disagreeing with one expert, versus disagreeing with basic principles on which 99% of the experts have agreed for several decades.

Henry

Date: 2006/05/09 09:17:19, Link
Author: Henry J
Re " OMG! We're going toward our Waterloo ? (gasp!"

Darwin was English. ;)

Date: 2006/05/09 10:17:10, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I don't know any famous British defeat."
The one after Washington crossed the Delaware?
(The Battle of Trenton. )

Henry

Date: 2006/05/09 10:32:12, Link
Author: Henry J
"Dunkirk" is the English spelling, "Dunkerque" is the French spelling.

Date: 2006/05/09 10:38:21, Link
Author: Henry J
Then there was the Alamo, but it wasn't (yet) part of the U.S. at the time.

Date: 2006/05/09 10:51:58, Link
Author: Henry J
What did the guinea pigs do to merit that punishment of having their vit-C thing broken? Did they pick the wrong side in the Garden, or something? :)

Date: 2006/05/09 11:05:48, Link
Author: Henry J
I suppose that if the "designer" produced new species by modifying earlier species, and if an earlier species with a broken gene were picked as the "template" (so to speak) for both human and chimpanzee, then the broken gene thing could be construed as consistent with "design".

Say, what's the point in sticking the word "common" in front of "design", anyway?

Come to think of it, why do people use the phrase "common descent" to mean "common ancestry"? That phrasing puzzles me.

Henry

Date: 2006/05/09 11:12:23, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I'm preparing my defeat, that's why I'm doing some history. You should too, while there's still time "

Uh oh - in that case I'm in trouble; history wasn't my best subject.

Henry

Date: 2006/05/09 11:21:02, Link
Author: Henry J
And anyway, I thought that was Bill Murray and groundhogs?

(Uh - on second thought, never mind. :) )

Date: 2006/05/09 11:29:41, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "The predictions that quantum theory makes are vastly more absurd, incomprehensible, and counterintuitive than anything in the Theory of Evolution."

Yep. Quantum tunneling, particle entanglement, discrete possible "orbits", wave-particle duality, etc.

Otoh, evolution "predicts" that new species will be slight modifications of a previous nearby species, and that developments that are indedendent of each other will for the most part differ from each other in areas not constained by environment. And both of those sound like common sense to me.

Henry

Date: 2006/05/11 09:12:03, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "And, just like other DNA that's not under strong selection, you generate a nested hierarchy of mutations that pretty much overlaps the nested hierarchy of mutations in any other representative sample of the genome. Now, how does the "common designer hypothesis" explain that?"

Maybe the engineer who implemented the design just used a prior existing life form as a starting point, and the one he/she/it picked just happened to have that gene broke?

Henry

Date: 2006/05/12 06:03:23, Link
Author: Henry J
I suppose a work around for the nested quote thing would be split the nest up into separate quotes. More work, but it might even make it easier to read. I.e., instead of (A said (B said (C said ...) ... ) ... )
put
(C said ... )
(B said ... )
(A said ... )

Henry

Date: 2006/05/12 10:11:20, Link
Author: Henry J
So inner quotes aren't allowed to say who said whatever it is? That seems like a strange limitation to have.

Henry

Date: 2006/05/13 17:35:30, Link
Author: Henry J
This should work for the page link generation, if Perl follows rules similar to the languages I've used. It lists the page if page# is 1 or within 3 of the number of pages, and excludes any page#'s between those two ranges.

Quote

   my $Pages = ($topic->{'TOPIC_POSTS'} + 1) / $iB::INFO->{'DISPLAY_MAX_POSTS'};
   my ($Int, $Dec) = split /\./,$Pages;
   $Dec > 0 ? ($Pages = $Int + 1) : ($Pages = $Int);
   $Pages = 1 if $Pages < 1;
   if ($Pages > 1) {
       $topic->{'PAGES'} = qq[<span id="small">($Forum::lang->{topic_sp_pages} ];
       my $i = 0;
       for(0 .. $Pages-1) {
           my $RealNo = $i * $iB::INFO->{'DISPLAY_MAX_POSTS'}; my $PageNo = $i + 1;
           if ($PageNo == 1) { $topic->{'PAGES'} .= qq[<ahref='$iB::INFO->{'BOARD_URL'}/ikonboard.$iB::INFO->{'CG\
I_EXT'}?s=$iB::SESSION;act=ST;f=$iB::IN{'f'};t=$topic->{'TOPIC_ID'};st=$RealNo'>$PageNo </a>]; }
           else if ($PageNo > $Pages-3)
                             { $topic->{'PAGES'} .= qq[<ahref='$iB::INFO->{'BOARD_URL'}/ikonboard.$iB::INFO->{'CG\
I_EXT'}?s=$iB::SESSION;act=ST;f=$iB::IN{'f'};t=$topic->{'TOPIC_ID'};st=$RealNo'>$PageNo </a>]; }
           ++$i;
       }
       $topic->{'PAGES'} .= qq[)</span>];
   }



Henry

Date: 2006/05/15 06:13:19, Link
Author: Henry J
What if gayness is caused, not by a gene, but by the lack of a gene? If anatomy is guided by one set of genes, and behavior by another, then there would presumably be a set of genes that normally associates male anatomy with liking of females - what if that gene (or set of genes) is simply inoperative in 5 to 10% of the population?

Henry

Date: 2006/05/15 08:49:02, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Quote
What if gayness is caused, not by a gene, but by the lack of a gene?

Im sorry...my genetic biology is a lil rusty...but wouldnt that be exactly the same thing?"

My guess is that there's genes (or regulatory DNA) to do various things:
1) Make male parts
2) Make female parts
3) Cause attraction to females
4) Cause attraction to males
5) Activate 3 and suppress 4 when organism is male.
6) Activate 4 and suppress 3 when organism is female.
(Note- there may be overlap among the various sets.)

So if 5 and/or 6 stop working for whatever reason, gayness would be one possible result. And even if caused by a mutation that eventually gets weeded out of the gene pool, additional mutations could occur in those areas. So I figure it's sort of a balancing act between effects that increase the % of gay and effects that decrease it.

Now, I'm an amateur and just guessing here, but that sounds to me more plausible than there being a set of genes (or alleles) that cause gayness directly.

Henry

Date: 2006/05/15 12:30:38, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I dunno, but I liked that one episode where Mohammed gave Peter a salmon helmet."

That sounds fishy.

Date: 2006/05/15 12:44:07, Link
Author: Henry J
The Newsbot seems to have gone away around the middle of last month.

Henry

Date: 2006/05/15 15:57:43, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Also given the fact that God is all-powerful he would be able to create a rock so heavy he couldnt lift it and at the same time be able to lift it."

Relative though to what source of gravity? ;)

After all, presumably said rock would exceed the size of stars and such. Then again, wouldn't said rock just collapse immediately into a black hole? Oh well.

Henry

Date: 2006/05/15 16:08:51, Link
Author: Henry J
Massive Duplication of Genes May Solve Darwin's "Abominable Mystery" about Flowering Plants  
Quote
Researchers from the Floral Genome Project at Penn State University, with an international team of collaborators, have proposed an answer to Charles Darwin's "abominable mystery:" the inexplicably rapid evolution of flowering plants immediately after their first appearance some 140 million years ago. [...] a previously hidden "paleopolyploidy" event


Henry

Date: 2006/05/15 17:01:42, Link
Author: Henry J
I noticed it now gives links to the first three, then an ellipsis (...), then links to the last three (for topics that have 7 or more pages, I guess). If I'd known those were the specs I could'a done it that way to start with. :)

Not to mention if I'd known that Perl spells "else if" as one word (or if I'd simply put braces around the second "if" statement, as in { if (condition) { ... } else { if (condition2) { ... } else { ... } } }, but I didn't think of it at the time. [Don Adams]Sorry about that, chief [/Don Adams] ).

Henry

Date: 2006/05/15 17:06:28, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Why do all of a bat's genes seem to indicate a close relationship with rodents,"

According to Tree of Life , bats are closer to primates than they are to rodents. Doesn't affect the argument here, but I thought it was interesting anyway.

Henry

Date: 2006/05/15 17:09:39, Link
Author: Henry J
Ah, I see the bot is back. Why does it sometimes make two entries for the same story?

Henry

Date: 2006/05/16 09:28:44, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Dont' forget the fact that they are fighting over some small bridge that's about two feet long and over a small ditch that is about half a foot deep."

Like that scene in the movie "Men in Tights" where Robin Hood was fighting Little John?

Henry

Date: 2006/05/16 09:33:12, Link
Author: Henry J
Well, it contributed to my knowledge, even if professional biologists knew everything in it already. :)

Henry

Date: 2006/05/17 06:41:56, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Fish, on the other hand, are missing more than just GULO (as shown in that study I pointed out). "

Is that all fish, or just some of them?

Henry

Date: 2006/05/17 11:35:59, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (incorygible @ May 17 2006,12:02)
Good question.  Only stuff I've seen on ascorbate in fish pertains to transgenic salmon, and suggests that an inability to synthesize vitamin C endogenously is common to all teleost fish (their dietary requirements are also far lower than mammals, and deficiency is not as severe). [...]

I had another thought on my question. Since tetrapods are (cladistically speaking) an offshoot of one type of fish, it likely couldn't be all fish that had this gene broken (else no tetrapod would make its own vitamin C). So I predict that the fish that are the closest relatives to tetrapods will most likely have the gene intact.

Henry

P.S. I see from http://tolweb.org/Gnathostomata/14843 that teleosts are a separate branch from the group that includes tetrapods.

Date: 2006/05/17 16:36:43, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "All primates (that we know of), as well as some flying mammals, going back about 40 million years, as far as I can tell."

Are the bats broken in the same place as in primates?

Henry

Date: 2006/05/18 16:02:39, Link
Author: Henry J
Maybe "omnipotence" doesn't include actions that are self-referential? (I.e., actions described in terms of the entity being described.)

(Just my two cents worth on that.)

Henry

Date: 2006/05/19 18:38:20, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
      10. You don’t know who provided the money to purchase 60 copies of Of Pandas And People for your school district, even though you stood up in church, asked for the money, took up a collection, and used it to buy the books.

     9. You don’t need to read any of the published peer-reviewed studies of the evolution of the blood-clotting cascade, because you know it’s irreducibly complex, and therefore there could never be any valid evidence that it could have evolved.

     8. You know that, whatever else Judge Jones may have done during his judicial career, ruling against ID is enough to “out” him as an “activist judge.”

     7. You deny that Judge Jones’s years of experience in evaluating the evidence qualifies him to assess the true significance of days of testimony by experts both pro- and anti-ID.

     6. You believe that you yourself are qualified to assess the true significance of the evidence, based on your study of the pro-ID literature and the arguments you’ve learned for disputing evolution.

     5. You reject evolution because you claim there’s not enough detailed evidence to support it.

     4. You resent it when people ask for detailed explanations consistent with ID, because it’s not ID’s job to provide the same level of detail that evolutionary theory does. ID should still be regarded as being equal or superior to evolutionary explanations, though.

     3. You think that ID is “testable” because Behe predicted that nobody would ever find a way that natural processes could produce IC. You do not think that ID was falsified when natural processes were found that did produce IC.

     2. You blame ID critics for the fact that none of the millions of dollars donated to pro-ID organizations has ever resulted in any tangible research program.

And the number one sign you may be an ID Supporter:

     1. You believe the question “Duh, isn’t it obvious?” carries as much scientific weight as any amount of objective, quantifiable, verifiable scientific evidence.

:D

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 16th, 2006 at 12:19 pm and is filed under Humor. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.  


Those are the top ten. The  Heaven Is Not the Sky blog has 35 more.

Date: 2006/05/20 17:58:26, Link
Author: Henry J
*****
Moses was preparing to write down the history of creation that God had just revealed to him.

Aaron (his accountant) says to Moses, what ARE you doing?? Don't you know the price of papyrus? We can't afford the amount of that stuff we'd need if you include every little thing!

Moses to Aaron: But God told me all this, we have to share it, don't we?

Aaron: We can't afford the papyrus for 16 billion years of prehistory.

Moses: Well, what can we afford?

Aaron: One week.

Moses: A week???? (sigh) Well, if that's all we can manage, I guess I'll have to leave out a few things. Trilobites. Dinosaurs. Continental drift. (sigh).

*****

Henry

Date: 2006/05/21 09:48:18, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Your jewish stereotype is a little off."

Yeah well, I never kept up with the standards for that. Got this joke off an online BB several years ago, and with all the discuss around here about interpretations of Genesis, it seemed to fit. :)

(The point being that something intended to be a technical description would include a bunch more detail than what we have there. )

Henry

Date: 2006/05/22 11:44:38, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "That's why machines are poor analogs to living things, then, right?"

Doesn't that conflict with one of I.D.er's favorite arguments? ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/05/22 16:49:15, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Does anyone know where I can find an awesome short story by Connie Willis I once read, Why the World Didn't End Last Tuesday?"

Nope, but the reason it didn't end is because Buffy saved the world. Now if had been any weeknight besides Tuesday, we'd have been in trouble...

Henry

Date: 2006/05/22 17:25:55, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "For example, if our minds are purely material, how is it that we can both think of the same number, 2" for instance? [...]"

If there was anything to that, communication would be impossible. For example, if an evolutionist and a ID supporter were to try to talk to each other, their ideas just wouldn't be followed by the other person...

Oh.

Henry

Date: 2006/05/23 12:19:01, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I don't know.  I mean they're still just bacteria."

Well, yeah!

Now that that's settled...

:)

Date: 2006/05/23 12:22:34, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Do you think we could explode Dave's brain with this dated bit of trivia?"

Might need Harry Mudd's help on that one... ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/05/23 17:27:13, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "ID just says that anything complex was made by god.  Now we know what the theory of ID is. "

So complex numbers like a + bi had to be made by god? Reckon that's good to know. :)

Henry

Date: 2006/05/26 15:55:17, Link
Author: Henry J
Do Fundamentalist writers have lots of stock in companies that make irony meters, I wonder? ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/05/28 12:57:48, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "isnt a law somthing that can be proven though? somthing you can see?  "

No, in science a law is a concise statement of a basic principle of some sort. They're often in the form of equations (e.g., g = G M1 M2 / r**2), or sometimes inequalities (e.g., entropy(after) >= entropy(before)).

Henry

Date: 2006/05/28 12:59:56, Link
Author: Henry J
Theories don't depend on proof, they depend on supporting evidence. Proof as such applies only to formal mathematics, and is relative to some set of axioms even then (unless one is talking about alcohol).

Henry

Date: 2006/05/28 13:03:02, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "And I wonder why we didn't sort out all mathmatics as the same time we sorted out all writing"

That had to wait until somebody invented the concept of zero. :)

Henry

Date: 2006/05/28 13:05:05, Link
Author: Henry J
Too air is human, but two really screw up won needs a computer. :)

Henry

testing edit function

Date: 2006/05/28 18:23:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "then do you suport my statement? "

I don't think I did. You asked if a law could be proven. It can be tested against observation; if it's wrong enough observations ought to spot someplace where the "law" doesn't hold. For example, Newton's law of gravity is shown incorrect by the movements of planet Mercury (which moves fast enough for relativity to affect it's position to a measurable extent). If by "proof" one means "prove beyond reasonable doubt", then a scientific law might be said to be proven within the areas in which it's been tested. But that's not usually what's meant by "proof".

Henry

Date: 2006/05/28 18:26:07, Link
Author: Henry J
acriticaleye,
Why do you think God is obliged to share some people's personal aversion to the idea of biological evolution?

Henry

Date: 2006/05/29 08:16:31, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "were you for or agenst the "law" of evolution then? "

What are you proposing as a "law" of evolution?

Closest things to a law I can think of off-hand would be (1) that complex life has recent ancestor(s) very much like itself, and (2) features not constrained by environment will vary independently of each other.

Henry

Date: 2006/05/29 08:20:15, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "shouldnt i have a say in what is tought?"

In fields in which you are a recognized expert, yes. In other fields, not really.

Re "was that fair?"

IMO, yes.

Henry

Date: 2006/05/29 11:24:36, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "maybe sticky it?"

Where's that duct tape...

Henry

Date: 2006/05/29 11:26:37, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "There's a 11,700 year old "King Clone" creosote bush in the Mojave Desert:"

Maybe the accelerated decay rates back then caused things to age faster than they do now? :)

Henry

Date: 2006/05/29 14:21:26, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "most of the light received from the sun is in the blue region too"

Hmm. So what color does the sun have to an observer in orbit above the atmosphere?
(Assuming appropriate gear to dim it enough to allow observation.)

Henry

Date: 2006/05/29 14:25:27, Link
Author: Henry J
Accelerated decay rates?

Claim CF210: Radiometric dating assumes that radioisotope decay rates are constant (Morris, 1985)

Henry

Date: 2006/05/29 14:46:03, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "and the surface was cool enough for Adam to be trotting around in his skivvies on a Saturday.  "

That would be his fig leaves, not his skivvies. ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/05/29 17:49:27, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "off the origonal message."

Oh. Had to go reread the parent message to see what it said. Calling a major theory a law makes no sense, IMO. A law in this context is a concise statement of some principle or other, and theory in this case includes a large body of knowledge. Calling a whole body of knowledge a "law" would not make sense.

Henry

Date: 2006/05/30 16:59:47, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Of course none of these things are actually predictions"

Except the ones that are also predictions of the current theory. They sometimes seem to miss that an "alternative" should have different predictions than the thing for which it's supposed to be an alternative. (Yeah, I know I'm just reiterating the obvious here, but I just felt like throwing in my two cents anyhoo.)

Henry

Date: 2006/06/01 12:04:42, Link
Author: Henry J
That does sound like a rather high-pressure job, at that. ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/06/01 17:29:46, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Darwinian physics claims no such thing exists,"

Darwinian physics??!??

Henry

Date: 2006/06/04 12:12:59, Link
Author: Henry J
Maybe it's because it's a technical field that doesn't necessarily require a science background?

I'm a software engineer with no biology, but when I first noticed creationist type arguments 11 years or so ago it didn't take too long to figure out they didn't have anything. (Second law of thermodynamics indeedy )

Henry

Date: 2006/06/05 17:46:42, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "People like Dembski don't have that excuse - they know full well that they're using a false argument. They just don't care."

Iow, they think their argument will be effective politically.

Henry

Date: 2006/06/06 05:50:25, Link
Author: Henry J
And if there is an "I.D.er", where did it come from?

There's always gonna be something such that we don't know where it came from, so the "where did X come from" question doesn't actually have the implication that some seem to think it has.

Henry

Date: 2006/06/06 06:24:28, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Seen any half-apes walking down the street?"

Like those cave people in the ad on TV? After all, they wouldn't put them in ads if they didn't exist, right? (heh heh)

Date: 2006/06/06 06:29:19, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Umm are those two fishes doing reprehensible things?"

Worse - it's three fish. ;)

Date: 2006/06/06 06:41:55, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "he doesn't just approve of Dembski - he worships Dembski."

Isn't that idolatry, or something? :p

Henry

Date: 2006/06/06 09:13:27, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "We have met our Waterloo."

But, which side were we on? ;)

Date: 2006/06/08 09:04:15, Link
Author: Henry J
Nah, those dinos are probably from the town of Bedrock, where the Flintstones and friends bred them for smaller size, to make it easier to make pets of them.

Does that help?

Henry

Date: 2006/06/08 12:53:56, Link
Author: Henry J
How many cases are known of a chromosome fusion spreading throughout the species? Any besides the human case that's been discussed here?

Henry

Date: 2006/06/09 16:27:29, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Captain... they're scanning us with zero wavelength energy. Our shields are useless. Logic dictates... GOD DID IT."

Nah. If that situation occurred on Star Trek they'd blame Q, not G. ;)

---

Re "If you want to hide under an assumed name, you can't tell everyone about it."

Yet one also can't do politics (or at least not effectively) while hiding. :)

Henry

Date: 2006/06/09 16:30:19, Link
Author: Henry J
Me speak only the English. (Er, the American version of it.) What few words of Spanish (from high school) and German (from college) that are still stuck in my memory aren't nearly enough to translate anything.

I do though recall reading a BB post from a lady from Portugal who moved to N.J. She decided to bring up her kids speaking English, and not teach them Portugese unless/until they got old enough to decide such things.

Then one day she noticed that they had somehow learned how to swear in Portugese. And apparently quite well, too. :p

Henry

Date: 2006/06/10 14:00:25, Link
Author: Henry J
Re excerpt from UD "Results suggest that ID was largely portrayed as a religious as opposed to a scientific movement."

Hmm. I'm wondering what a scientific movement might be. Somehow acceptance of experts of something that's supported by evidence, doesn't strike me as what I'd call a "movement".

Henry

Date: 2006/06/15 10:59:06, Link
Author: Henry J
Oh, if computer languages are being included here, then add C and C++ under VMS to my previous list (which was just {English}).

Henry

Date: 2006/06/15 17:51:50, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Transporter Malfunctions: Speculative Correlation between Inclusion Body Formation and Dopamine Transporter Reversal"
Re "with a title like that, no one can possibly tell what it's about!"

Sounds like something from Star Trek! ;)

Henry

(Rats, somebody beat me to that comment... :D )

Date: 2006/06/16 09:38:05, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "That sort of orbit is very weird to imagine."
Not to mention that the background stars would have to move up and down at the same time...

Date: 2006/06/19 11:35:19, Link
Author: Henry J
How could Africans be missing links if we knew where they are?

Date: 2006/06/19 12:03:28, Link
Author: Henry J
Haven't these people seen Planet of the Apes?? ;)

Date: 2006/06/19 17:31:05, Link
Author: Henry J
But are you on a first name basis with Him? Does he let you call him "Art"?

Henry

Date: 2006/06/19 17:35:02, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "he can't compose a single post without fundamentally confusing himself."

fundamentally confusing himself, hmm?

Was that on purpose? :)

---------------------------

Minor thought about the demonstration of relativity via the GPS system - while that's obviously not "in a lab", it is an experiment with observable results, which is imnsho a more important point that whether or not said experiment is contained within a building.


Henry

Date: 2006/06/21 06:55:15, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "with a certified IQ north of 150 (MGCT and SAT tests)"

Is that in the northern or the southern hemisphere? ;)

Date: 2006/06/21 11:35:31, Link
Author: Henry J
I'm guessing here, but maybe the date on the topic index gets updated when somebody votes in the poll? So for a poll, the date/time last reply doesn't necessarily apply to the "last post by" id given right under that date.

Henry

Date: 2006/06/21 11:45:39, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "2 + 2 - GOD = 5."

God is a negative 1? I didn't know that!

Wait, how about this instead:

2 + 2 - G**2 = 5.

Date: 2006/06/21 12:30:55, Link
Author: Henry J
I'm tempted to say something about weight vs. mass here, but on second though never mind. :p

Henry

Date: 2006/06/22 11:57:54, Link
Author: Henry J
Comments in one of the PT threads suggests a possible explanation for "junk" dna in eukaryotes (and its absence in prokaryotes) - when a chromosome gets broken into pieces for recombination, it's safer if the breaks are between genes - i.e., in "junk" dna, and that's easier to do if there's a lot of junk dna in which to put the breaks.

Henry

Date: 2006/06/22 12:03:23, Link
Author: Henry J
"Somewhere over the rainbow..."

Date: 2006/06/22 16:27:45, Link
Author: Henry J
Must be the size of the datafile (or files?) containing the thread. Since UD has a way larger post count than AF so far I'm guessing it isn't just (or mainly?) the page count.

UD - 4107 posts in 137 pages over a period of 5+ months since 1-16. (Approx. 26 posts per day.)
AF - 2491 posts in 84 pages over a period of 2- months since 5-1. (Approx. 49 posts per day.)

Wonder if somebody wants to start a continuation thread for each of them, post a link to the continuation thread at the bottom of each old thread, and then close the old thread to new replies?

Henry

Date: 2006/06/22 16:30:30, Link
Author: Henry J
WD40?

Oiled again?

Henry

Date: 2006/06/22 16:33:40, Link
Author: Henry J
Yeah, but a light bulb is still just a light bulb...

Henry

Date: 2006/06/22 16:36:30, Link
Author: Henry J
Besides, if gravity were the strongest force, solids would simply collapse rather than holding their shape.

Henry

Date: 2006/06/23 18:05:38, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "It seems to me that you can observe an effect without knowing the causes and be doing science by trying to reproduce the effect yourself, or generating a hypothesis as to the mechanism that created the effect."

Like Newton did with gravity, or Darwin with evolution, or Bohr with atoms, or Einstein with relativity and photoelectric.

Henry

Date: 2006/06/26 17:09:56, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "If you think scientists have formed some sort of cabal to spread materialism"

Wonder if the people who "think" that have a hypothesis as to who's paying the bills for those scientists? Now scientists who are doing science get paid by somebody who wants the results of that research, but those spending their time "spreading materialism" wouldn't be doing much research, so who's paying them? ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/06/28 08:57:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "they eat while the prey is still alive "

The velociraptor of Arthropods?

Date: 2006/06/28 11:26:03, Link
Author: Henry J
spaghetti

Date: 2006/06/29 06:26:21, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "there seems to be a lot of intellectual arrogance in ID arguments."

Yeah. They routinely claim that most evolutionary biologists are repeatedly or deliberately ignoring crucial evidence or logic or something. Never mind that actually overturning a theory is what scientists would typically consider a major success of their career.

Henry

Date: 2006/06/29 06:38:45, Link
Author: Henry J
I wish the moving of a post wouldn't turn quote marks and apostrophes into weird characters.

Henry

“ ”
n’t

Edit:
Huh. So the non-ascii characters do work here, but the moving process loses something in the translation. I'm guessing the material gets copied to a plain-ascii type file at some point, which misinterprets expanded characters as a string of separate ascii characters. If that intermediate file were saved as "UTF-8" it might avoid this form of character assasination.

Date: 2006/06/29 17:12:43, Link
Author: Henry J
Just wondering, but is an "evobot" anybody that accepts the notion that complex life forms have/had recent nearby ancestors very much like themselves?

Henry

Date: 2006/06/30 06:57:37, Link
Author: Henry J
On the forum topic index page line:
Quote
Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread (Pages 1 2 3 ..144 145 146 )

the 146 is linking to page 146,
the 145 is linking to page 145,
but the 144 is linking to page 145 instead of 144.

The other threads with 7 or more pages show similar symptoms.

Henry

Date: 2006/06/30 09:08:48, Link
Author: Henry J
(duplicate)

Date: 2006/06/30 09:28:03, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "(Don't even get me started on Battlestar Galactica and the twelve tribes...)"

They found Kobol - now all they gotta do is find Fortran.

Date: 2006/07/03 06:02:55, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "considering that they think they have no burden of proof in showing that goddidit."

What about showing that "goddidit" conflicts with the theory in the first place? ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/07/03 09:00:23, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Yeah, what can you say about a supposed science that literally has no opinion whether the earth is 6,000 years old or 4.5 billion years old?"

Do quantum physics or inorganic chemistry assign an age to the Earth? ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/07/05 04:03:06, Link
Author: Henry J
Was it just me or were AE and PT down most of yesterday afternoon?

Henry

Date: 2006/07/05 04:20:31, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "And, of course, one more point: Where did all that water come from, how much water was there, and where did it all go?"

Not just the water - if large amounts of sediment got laid down worldwide at the same time, where did all that sediment come from? ;)

Say, has anybody yet brought up continuity of fossils with current life in each geographic region? (Esp. with life forms that can't travel much.)

Henry

Date: 2006/07/07 18:32:48, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "There is, by definition, one universe. It seems that what little I understand of the MUT (multiple universe theory)"

That's a semantic point. The word "universe" can (and I guess did used to ) mean "all that exists", which would include all space-time continuums that exist (with or without causal connection to the one in which we live).

Personally, I wish people woulnd't use the word "universe" to mean a space-time continuum when they're talking about hypotheses involving multiple such space-times. (But then again, I quite often don't get what I wish, and don't really expect to this time, either - but I'm still gonna gripe about it! :) )

Henry

Date: 2006/07/07 19:26:38, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "answer" to 15: "What happened to question 14?"
Re "answer" to 17: "This is really just a rephrasing of question 15.  Already answered."

:D  :p  :D

Date: 2006/07/08 13:23:25, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "The problem with Anns Flatulent Raccoon Theory is, of course, Where did the raccoon come from?"

Raccoons? They should've gone with the bombadier beetle for that. ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/07/08 15:49:31, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "and he says that believing the Universe has some purpose is the SAME as believing in ID."

Seem to me like somebody would have to know what the purpose is in order to figure out if direct management of details would be necessarily to satisfy said purpose.

For instance, if the purpose were to give souls a way to have meaningful experiences and interact with each other, then the details (timing, location, anatomy, biochemistry) could be left up to mother nature (so to speak) without impacting fulfillment of the purpose. (Hope I'm not getting too philosophical here.)

Henry

Date: 2006/07/08 18:54:49, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "If it is the first one, and I'm inclined to agree with you, what does that say about the way we currently define species?"

My take on it is that "sameness of species" is just not a simple yes or no question. If two apparent species recently split from a single species, there's apt to be a period in which the likelihood of successful interbreeding (given opportunity, that is) is slowly dropping, and a line has to be drawn somewhere to decide if it's one species or two.

Re "I would hope that as technology proceeds our classification system changes to genome based species definition."

Maybe a biologist might know what "genome based species definition" means, but I don't.

Henry

Date: 2006/07/09 15:16:12, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Sort of like objecting to the distinction between green and blue, just because there are some hues that are in between."

Ah, a colorful analogy. :)

Henry

Date: 2006/07/10 07:16:38, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "but some specialists (Drès & Mallet) suggest that two populations should be considered true species if the level of gene flow between them is below 1%."

What if the lack of gene flow is caused solely by geographic separation, and the two groups would happily merge otherwise?

Henry

Date: 2006/07/10 09:03:10, Link
Author: Henry J
But dogs and wolves do have some noticable differences, so that's not solely a geographic separation.

Henry

Date: 2006/07/10 12:26:57, Link
Author: Henry J
Well, I was referring to a case in which geographic separation has occurred between two groups that would be classified as one species if not separated - i.e., they'd interbreed freely. But if separated then there's no gene flow between the groups, so a definition based on amount of gene flow could cause "speciation" if a river appears in the middle of the territory even if no divergence has yet occurred, simply by preventing any further gene flow.

Re "shoehorn a necessarily unclear an messy state of affairs into a nice, neat little definition"

Yep, that I'll agree with - to put it in mathematical language, sameness of species is not a transitive relation. (or iow, a species is not necessarily a well defined set.)

Henry

Date: 2006/07/12 07:01:54, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "That's getting awfully close to "it happened in the past so you cant prove it"."

Is there anything that's happened that didn't happen in the past? ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/07/12 10:25:35, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "The tension builds as we find that there is a clash between 'bad' Precursors that want to destroy their little experiment, and 'good' ones that try to preserve it..."

Babylon 5? :)

Date: 2006/07/12 17:22:09, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Darwinists like to brag about science and how the imaginations of Star Trek has been brought into reality through science."

Given the rather bad representations of evolution* that have occurred on the various Star Treks, I rather doubt that "Darwinists" (to the extent that label means anything) do what teleologist said there.

(*Deevolution of people into spiders? Routine interbreeding of different species of humanoids? Front loading of DNA across the galaxy in order to produce those humanoids? Don't think so.)

Henry

Date: 2006/07/14 07:31:52, Link
Author: Henry J
Ah so.

Date: 2006/07/14 10:55:13, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "sharks seem to have stayed very sharky"

That might be largely the streamlining for fast swimming - i.e., a change of shape would slow them down.

Henry

Date: 2006/07/14 17:23:07, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "in his natural environment . . . . ."

An internet blog? ;)

Date: 2006/07/16 16:25:37, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Junk Science???

A freshman at Eagle Rock Junior High won first prize at the Greater Idaho Falls Science Fair on January 26.

In his project he urged people to sign a petition demanding strict control or total elimination of the chemical
"dihydrogen monoxide."

And for plenty of good reasons, since it can:

1. cause excessive sweating and vomiting
2. it is a major component in acid rain
3. it can cause severe burns in its gaseous state
4. accidental inhalation can kill you
5. it contributes to erosion
6. it decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes
7. it has been found in tumors of terminal cancer patients.

He asked 150 people if they supported a ban of the chemical.

One hundred forty-three said yes

Six were undecided

Only one knew that the chemical was...

Water!

The title of his prize winning project was, "How Gullible Are We?"

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
He was attempting to show how conditioned we have become to the alarmists practicing junk science and spreading fear of everything in our environment.

The conclusion is obvious.


Wonder if this "logic" reminds anybody of anything? :)

Henry

Date: 2006/07/17 07:49:48, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "on what day God created fossils?"

Wasn't that last Thursday? :p

Date: 2006/07/17 08:30:09, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "####, vision is very similar to modern digital compression in TV."

How long til somebody takes that statement to mean "it was designed"? ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/07/18 06:06:22, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Sounds like I've got a fencepost error in my code. I'll probably get to it after the holiday. "

Which holiday? ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/07/18 11:46:34, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Massive comet, asteroid, and meteor strikes within historical times;"

Wasn't there a big meteor strike in Siberia in early 1900's?

Henry

Date: 2006/07/18 17:07:48, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Noah must have [pooped] when he saw all the mass of Asia coming towards him at 100 MPH "

What? No no, he was in Asia at the time. Or rather, over it, floating, on an unspecified depth of water.

Re where did all that dirt go?

Obviously, it was sucked up by that great vacuum cleaner in the sky.

Next question? :)

Henry

Date: 2006/07/20 05:18:28, Link
Author: Henry J
Seeing the Serpent  
Quote
The ability to spot venomous snakes may have played a major role in the evolution of monkeys, apes and humans, according to a new hypothesis by Lynne Isbell, professor of anthropology at UC Davis.


Interesting.

Date: 2006/07/20 10:08:35, Link
Author: Henry J
Today's Thursday.

Date: 2006/07/20 13:35:54, Link
Author: Henry J
Hey, I beat the Newsbot by all of 15 minutes on this one! :D

Yay? Oh well.  :p

Date: 2006/07/21 08:49:02, Link
Author: Henry J
Keep in mind that atoms don't stay put in living things - they get recycled all the time, replaced by the atoms in incoming food sources.

Henry

Date: 2006/07/21 08:58:19, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "We need to know how such a huge mass could cool below the temperature at which komatiite forms within a few thousand years."

Obviously, all that water flowing over everything in the flood, cooled everything off.

Next question? :)

Date: 2006/07/21 16:58:47, Link
Author: Henry J
Canada isn't overseas. ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/07/22 12:45:25, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "4. Some people still think talking snakes are real."

Harry Potter? ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/07/22 17:11:34, Link
Author: Henry J
Just wondering, why was the error called a "fencepost error"?

Henry

Date: 2006/07/22 17:14:19, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "a hypothetical 'design detector' would never stop beeping."

Maybe that's why they don't hear the scientific explanations - too much noise in their ears? ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/07/24 05:52:09, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Expect some confusion"
Course, for antievolutionists, that's situation normal... ;)

Looks like PT's reply entry thing is down for now - last reply listed was from 12:07 yesterday. When I tried a reply preview a minute ago it timed out. Is that from the DNS thing?

Henry

Date: 2006/07/24 08:16:47, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "practicing ‘bad science’ simply for critiquing the supernatural powers of almighty evolution in support of ID."

The who whatting how with huh?

Date: 2006/07/25 17:04:30, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "TANSTAAFL usually means "There aint no such thing as a free lunch"."

Yeah, iirc, that's from Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".

Henry

Date: 2006/07/27 11:59:17, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Shouldn't an omnipotent god be able to act at any time?"

Depends whether His agent can get good roles for Him...

Date: 2006/08/01 07:12:33, Link
Author: Henry J
Re 9.  We basically have to take two views of this whole “religion” debate. If we define religion as “belief that an active higher power has given up morals to follow, a belief system, and an afterlife”

Given up morals to follow?? :p

Henry

Date: 2006/08/06 12:37:16, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "does this mean that they exercise some control over the type or frequency of mutation, or only over the degree to which mutations are permitted to 'take' rather than be error-corrected out?"

So the phenomena is (or may be?) affecting the net copying error rate, rather than the gross copying error rate?

Henry

Date: 2006/08/07 09:26:21, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "2. How were catfish able to leave so many coprolites on the layers if this is a rapidly deposited formation?"

Too much fiber in their diet? Or do I mean too little?


:p

Date: 2006/08/08 08:30:06, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "would you expect to see a lot of organisms out there which are profoundly maladapted to their environment?"

Only when they're being propped up by human technology.
(Just my two cents here.)

Henry

Date: 2006/08/08 09:56:05, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "It’s the gratuitousness of such beaty that leads me to rebel against materialism."

Ah, the something in nature impresses me quite a lot, therefore it was designed argument.

Uh, yeah.

We need a rolling eyes smiley here, except it'd probably get overworked.

Henry

Date: 2006/08/08 10:09:19, Link
Author: Henry J
testing

Date: 2006/08/09 15:16:42, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "For about a week now, it's very unreliable.  "

I've noticed that too. Sometimes I'll load the index page, then nothing else will load from there until quite a while later.

Henry

Date: 2006/08/10 05:55:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "“Evolution” [...] assumes (either consciously or unconsciously) a specific view of abiogenesis."

And here I thought all 'Darwinism" assumed about abiogenesis was that it happened at least once. That's in contrast to Creationists, who claim that abiogenesis happens once for each "kind" but it's too improbable to have happened only once.

Henry

Date: 2006/08/13 12:40:53, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "listen to what some anti-evolutionist has to say will be whether they claim natural selection is a tautology."

Funny thing about that "argument" is that "tautology" means "always true regardless of evidence" - and somehow I thought they wanted it to be false. Oh well.

Henry

Date: 2006/08/18 16:40:15, Link
Author: Henry J
One funny (not haha funny) thing that might (or might not) be a clue - frequently in a session I'll get the first attempt to connect to PT or ATBC, then nada for a period of several minutes following that. (Esp. for the first session of the evening from home.)

Henry

Date: 2006/08/21 10:42:56, Link
Author: Henry J
It was on PT a week and a half ago:

Well, at least we beat Turkey

Date: 2006/08/23 17:10:55, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "But heres the key point: There was no fitness function. Instead, each strategy played games against randomly selected opponents in the population. For each game, both players were awarded points at the end. The payoff was 3 points for a win, -2 points for a loss, and 0 points for a draw."

How is awarding points for win, lose or draw not a fitness function? It sure looks like one to me.

Henry

Date: 2006/08/28 09:00:18, Link
Author: Henry J
If beneficial mutations are directed, what causes all those neutral and even deterimental mutations that also happen, apparently much more often than the beneficial ones?

Date: 2006/08/28 10:19:01, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "It's far too coherent for it to be someone clueless. Bet on 'closet evilutionist who will soon find himself banned'.  "

Does that mean his post was intelligently designed?  :p

Date: 2006/08/29 08:16:06, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "it's up to almost 400 posts now."

Flame wars do drive up the number of replies, don't they? :(

Date: 2006/08/29 08:28:42, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Next the CC will be saying the ark was real."

Well of course it was real - else how could Indiana Jones have found it? ;)

Date: 2006/08/31 12:21:48, Link
Author: Henry J
Ya'll forgot to subtract off the regularity and chance. ;)

Date: 2006/09/05 12:48:19, Link
Author: Henry J
Maybe the bananas were riper on the other side? :)

Date: 2006/09/05 17:31:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Yesterday one of the clues on Jeopardy! was what creature uses a modified wristbone as a thumb to help it eat bamboo.

(Of course, that's a gimme to most anybody on PT or AtBC. :) )

Henry

Date: 2006/09/07 17:45:48, Link
Author: Henry J
Just remember this: Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out t'get ya! ;)

Date: 2006/09/08 09:58:07, Link
Author: Henry J
"To read makes our speaking English good." - Xander Harris.

Date: 2006/09/08 11:40:52, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "HOW DID 5,000 FEET OF WATER LAY DOWN 5,000 FEET OF SEDIMENT,"

Just wondering, has anybody mentioned "water cycle" in relation to that argument in the thread so far?

Henry

Date: 2006/09/08 15:29:22, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "What is your definition of macroevolution? "

Obliviously, macro- is what's needed for ToE to work, and micro- is what's needed for Creation to work.

And that's regardless of how fast or slow either of them has to be. :)

Henry

Date: 2006/09/09 12:48:16, Link
Author: Henry J
Not to mention, there's also the amount of genetic variety within each of those millions of species. That too takes time to build up again after a population crash (aka genetic bottleneck event).

Henry

Date: 2006/09/09 18:43:35, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Lest anyone object to this part and say the universe is ~32 billion light years wide, because the age is 15.8 billion years, let me go ahead and caution you. The present width of the universe is indeed ~150 billion lightyears."

Wouldn't that just be the lower limit? (I presume that's the span occupied now by galaxies that we've observed as they were billions of years ago.)

Henry

Date: 2006/09/11 08:32:31, Link
Author: Henry J
Genetic Surprise Confirms Neglected 70-Year-Old Evolutionary Theory
Quote
University of Rochester have discovered that an old and relatively unpopular theory about how a single species can split in two turns out to be accurate after all, and acting in nature.
[...]
The beginnings of speciation, suggests the paper, can be triggered by genes that change their locations in a genome. [...]


Henry

Date: 2006/09/11 08:54:39, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Been there.  I actually took a not-available-to-the-public tour of the Supreme Court. Hammurabi can be found recieving his code from the Babylonian Sun God on the south freize of the Courtroom.  Furthermore, Mohammed can be found holding the Koran on the north frieze."

Which frieze shows the FSM? ;)

Date: 2006/09/11 12:51:16, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "so this is about the effects of translocation?"

Looks like an occasional side-effect of that to me (though I'm not a biologist, so I hope somebody'll correct that if I'm wrong).

Re "I don't think it's common."

So I gathered, since they've found evidence of other causes of speciation and hadn't really verified a case like this until now.

Henry

Date: 2006/09/15 08:21:22, Link
Author: Henry J
Is the iridium layer pre-flood or post-flood? :p

Date: 2006/09/17 11:23:12, Link
Author: Henry J
They're doing another day of Crocodile Hunter episodes.

In one of them, the contestants of Miss World visited the zoo. They put Steve and Terri on the judge panel for the swimsuit competition. Eh? A guy who thinks crocodiles are beautiful? What's wrong with this picture - he'd likely pick the one who looks most like a crocodile! ;)

Oh, and one of Steve's remarks caught my attention - "When you look at a crocodile, you're looking at a hundred million years of evolution."

Henry

Date: 2006/09/18 09:17:14, Link
Author: Henry J

Date: 2006/09/18 09:20:48, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Why dont they get off their sorry butts and do some research?"

Maybe because that would bring reality into it, and they know at some level that would conflict with what they think they're trying to say? Nah.

Date: 2006/09/19 05:30:10, Link
Author: Henry J
The latest TO post of the month talks about constancy of radioactive decay.

The Constancy of Constants, Part 2

Date: 2006/09/19 08:12:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I wish I could forget these things... "

Tabula Rasa...
Tabula Rasa...
Tabula Rasa...

Date: 2006/09/19 08:15:57, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Davie ignored it, of course;"

So, what else is gnu? :p

Date: 2006/09/20 16:47:14, Link
Author: Henry J
So, how long til the number of posts on this thread passes the number of posts on that UDder thread?

(In what, about half the time? Ack! )

Henry

Date: 2006/09/21 05:54:10, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "If you don't believe in ID you will go to h3ll.  Isn't that proof enough?"

Not if the "proof" doesn't occur until after it's too late to do anything about it. ;)  :p

Date: 2006/09/21 09:02:11, Link
Author: Henry J
Wondering when a picture of the monolith from 2001 will show up on this thread... ;)

Date: 2006/09/21 09:05:35, Link
Author: Henry J
Somebody mentioned the periodic table above, so thought I'd put in this link:

WebElements™

Date: 2006/09/21 09:23:34, Link
Author: Henry J
Oops! :(

Date: 2006/09/21 09:29:24, Link
Author: Henry J
Try this.

Date: 2006/09/21 09:41:27, Link
Author: Henry J
I wonder something. -

Since a link like [...];act=ST;f=14;t=1958;st=6000
shows replies 6001 through 6030,

and a link like [...];act=SA;f=14;t=1958
shows all replies,

could we have [...];act=SA;f=14;t=1958;st=6000
to show all replies from 6001 to the end of the thread?

If the act=SA and st=6000 parameters could be used together, then the link on the highest page number on a multipage thread could use that, and show the rest of the thread even if the last page number given on the index page is out of date.

Henry

Date: 2006/09/21 09:46:11, Link
Author: Henry J
Yes, but which and or whose message doth it spreadeth?  :p

Date: 2006/09/22 08:48:02, Link
Author: Henry J
Resistance is futile! You will be assimilated!

(to borrow a phrase  :p )

Date: 2006/09/22 10:32:43, Link
Author: Henry J
The bad link had http://www.antievolution.org/ stuck in front of the intended address. I think the BB does that if a url doesn't have the http:// in front of it, or something like that.

Henry

Date: 2006/09/22 11:07:57, Link
Author: Henry J
De plane! De plane!

Date: 2006/09/23 13:04:00, Link
Author: Henry J
Also lots of discontinuities between fossils just below the flood level, compared to what lives/lived after the flood - on each island, continent, body of water, or other isolated region.

Ice caps should be no deeper than expected from < 4500 yr. accumulation.

Henry

Date: 2006/09/25 08:58:35, Link
Author: Henry J
Ancient birds flew on all-fours
Quote
Bird flight evolved from using front and hind limbs as wings, new fossil study argues

The earliest known ancestor of modern-day birds took to the skies by gliding from trees using primitive feathered wings on their arms and legs, according to new research by a University of Calgary paleontologist.

In a paper published in the journal Paleobiology, Department of Biological Sciences PhD student Nick Longrich challenges the idea that birds began flying by taking off from the ground while running and shows that the dinosaur-like bird Archaeopteryx soared using wing-like feathers on all of its limbs.


Teach the contraversy! :)

Henry

Date: 2006/09/25 12:12:37, Link
Author: Henry J
Half the width of the Atlantic in 40 days?

Date: 2006/09/26 18:12:56, Link
Author: Henry J
I didn't even make the list? Hmm - guess I'd better get busy or somethin'.

Henry

Date: 2006/09/27 10:08:12, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "and yet NOT understand that "massive quantities of water-laid sedimentary rock got laid down by massive quantities of water,""

Wonder if the phrase "water cycle" would ring any bells here...

Date: 2006/09/27 10:29:23, Link
Author: Henry J
The U.D. and the Bathroom Wall threads have occasionally shown that same symptom (a delayed update of the page numbers on the forum index page).

Henry

Date: 2006/09/27 17:52:12, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I'm going to start holding AFDave's evidence to the same level of expectation. :D"

You'll have to find it, first. ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/09/30 18:54:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Is pond scum (or something like it) thought to be a precursor to animals? (I wouldn't have thought so, but I'm not a biologist.)

Ah, I see Eric already answered the question.

Henry

Date: 2006/10/02 11:17:16, Link
Author: Henry J
String Theory = the connection between physics and the FSM. ;)

But don't forget the garlic bread!

Date: 2006/10/07 11:13:50, Link
Author: Henry J
Something I'm wondering about - average mutation rates are typically given as per number of generations. But with multicelled critters, doesn't the DNA typically get copied several times between one generation and the next, as the organism matures enough to produce offspring? Could that be a factor in why the short generation and long generation species seem to match up on the amount of accumulative mutation?

(Sorry if this question was already brought up, but this thread moves too fast for me to read all of it.)

Henry

Date: 2006/10/09 08:47:29, Link
Author: Henry J
I notice that the Britney thread seems to have disappeared - maybe it didn't have enough CSI or something? :p

Date: 2006/10/09 09:12:42, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Second Law of Thermodynamics"

That "argument" has so many different ways of refuting it that I have to write them down to count 'em.  :p

Date: 2006/10/09 15:37:48, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "how did Noah feed his humming birds?"

And why couldn't he manage to teach them the lyrics so they wouldn't have to hum? :)

Henry

Date: 2006/10/10 06:36:01, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "If anybody here doesn't understand how stupid the boldfaced part is I will smack the bejesus out of you."

You mean, just because burning the ethanol as fuel would put the carbon right back where it came from (the air)? Picky, picky! :p

Date: 2006/10/10 08:57:17, Link
Author: Henry J
Reckon it's a good thing these guys didn't sell stock shares in their, uh, business, huh? :p

Henry

Date: 2006/10/10 09:48:14, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "ID is...but..."

One more: they believe in an all-powerful designer/God/being who is unable to get natural processes to produce the wanted results. (I suspect that one's kind of at the root of things.)

Henry

Date: 2006/10/10 10:19:00, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "If something is well designed, God, erm, I mean the Disembodied Designer obviously did that. I mean, it's just obvious."

Does that also apply to well designed parasites? ;)

Date: 2006/10/10 12:11:53, Link
Author: Henry J
To say the least, yeah.

Date: 2006/10/10 17:00:16, Link
Author: Henry J
Lou FCD,
"Y'know if I wanted to know something about biology, the first place I'd go is to the experts in the field...  the graphic artists."

Don't forget the mathematicians, lawyers, politicians, journalists, engineers, biochemists, software engineers, etc.

Henry

Date: 2006/10/11 09:51:23, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "The "You've never been to Portugal, so how do you know Portugal exists?" argument."

Well, another BB I frequent used to have a regular poster who was from Portugal - therefore the place exists.

Also, if it didn't exist, then Spanish and French couldn't have been mixed to form Portugese but Portugese does exist, so by reducto ad absurdity, it exists.

Henry

Date: 2006/10/11 10:01:01, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "But just you wait, in 15 years we'll OUTBREED you, then victory will be ours!!! "

Thus proving the theory they're trying to refute! Yeah, that'll show us! Er, on second thought...

Date: 2006/10/12 08:44:31, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
In other news, I used the design inference to pick my microwave lunch out from the freezer. Later, I'm going to use a design inference to catch a cab. How do I know its a cab and not a rock? Huh? HUH?


So it's not rock science after all?

Date: 2006/10/12 09:06:20, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "But..But.. scissors and paper just can't explain it all! "

Well of course not - aren't scissors irreducibly complex, or something? :p

Date: 2006/10/15 14:27:51, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Must. Stop. Reading. UD. It. Hurts. "

Patient: "Doctor! It hurts when I do this!"

Doctor: "Then don't do that!"

:D

Henry

Date: 2006/10/17 09:44:06, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Sorry...my head just exploded."

Like at the ending of Mars Attacks!? Eek!

Date: 2006/10/17 14:48:17, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote

a) There are gaps in the fossil record.
b) There are no transitional fossils.


Of course, if it were true that there weren't any transitional fossils, there'd be no gaps, since a gap has to be between something and something else.

Quote
How do you get from a handful of beetles to 350,000 species of beetles in less than 5,000 years?


Not to mention getting the present genetic variety in each of those species.

Also not to mention that a large fraction of those species are the only food source for a quite a few others, so many (maybe most?) of them would go extinct soon as their neighbors have dinner... ;)

Quote
when Egyptians didn't die out, seen in their own WRITTEN records, which are already conceded to be valid.


Well, denial floods regularly, so maybe they got really good at treading water? Or maybe the pyramids were a lot taller in those days?

Quote
Any fish on the ark would have been cooked, too, along with the rest of Noah's floating menagerie.


Well, so much for the ark's sushi bar.

Quote
Does the mutt have more alleles for a given gene, less, or the same number as a purebred?


That's an interesting question. If I were to guess I'd guess the purebred would have fewer alleles, since maintaining a lineage would presumably involve some degree of inbreeding.

Quote
Eric, you have no evidence whatsoever that [...]


:lol:

Quote
No doubt money was exchanging hands between the "evolutionists" and the astronomers to gull the rest of us into thinking the universe is older than God.


Oh, the shame of it all!!! :)

Henry

Date: 2006/10/18 07:33:52, Link
Author: Henry J
Re Dembski's "and some active research projects with them which I expect will in the next year to bear fruit. "

He planted a grapevine? Or maybe strawberries?

Date: 2006/10/18 09:15:20, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
10. William Dembski // Oct 14th 2006 at 11:48 pm
[...]
this holds little water with me, especially since most attempted refutations of ID look to the power of natural selection


Funny, I thought the refutations of ID looked mostly to the absence if ID actually saying anything. Or is that just me?

Date: 2006/10/18 09:30:51, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "You've got eight individuals, which means for any gene you've got a maximum of sixteen alleles."

And several of them are close relatives of each other, which cuts down on that maximum somewhat.

Date: 2006/10/18 11:13:00, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "There simply is no single mating pair of human beings from which all subsequent humans are descended."

Maybe it was a married mating pair instead of a single one? ;)

Date: 2006/10/18 11:59:33, Link
Author: Henry J
Could the extra alleles have been hiding in that rib that got removed? :p

Date: 2006/10/18 17:57:25, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "How come we don't see no man or woman livin' to be no 700 years old no more?"

Cause Lazarus Long and his kinfolk tend to stay undercover?

Henry

Date: 2006/10/18 18:40:18, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "how come we don't see any people lving to be, oh, 700 or 900 years old anymore?"

Cause Lazarus Long and his kinfolk try to avoid being noticed by us shorter lived folk. ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/10/21 11:01:41, Link
Author: Henry J
Who's counting? :)

Waterloo! Waterloo! Wat... Oh never mind, Darwin was English, not French. :)

Henry

Date: 2006/10/22 11:40:01, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Why did god need to rest on the 7th day?"

Cause after nearly a week of work he felt weak?

Re "and we could get back to the real issue- which is the history of the portuguese language."

Wait - that was the main issue here? Huh.

Re "This thread is a mine of knowledge. "

Only if one has lots of time to wade through the other stuff and the frequent repetitions* of previous info to find it. :lol:

*(things repeated because ignored by intended recipient.)

Re "it's not just me who thinks Noah's ark was a bottleneck;"

Ah, but bottles probably hadn't been invented yet at the time, so it couldn't have been the neck of one! ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/10/23 09:06:19, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "POPULATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA, AUSTRALIA, NEW GUINEA, AND MADAGASCAR MIGRATED DURING THE ICE AGE BECAUSE OF AVAILABLE LAND BRIDGES (OR SHALLOW SEAS)."

To continents that didn't then have any local wildlife to serve as food for the migrants? ;) :D  :p  :O

Date: 2006/10/23 10:19:53, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "One contains more pure information and the other is more informitive to circa 1942 Britons. "

Yeah, maybe he's confusing "information" with "useful information" (which is a subjective judgment).

Henry

Date: 2006/10/23 16:06:22, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I wish I'd been there to watch the sloths galloping across the Sahara Desert to get to South America before it broke off from Africa."

As I understand it, northern Africa wasn't desert 4500 years ago.

Henry

Date: 2006/10/23 16:11:25, Link
Author: Henry J
Has there been discussion of the geographic correlation between fossil (pre-Flood?) species and living species?

I don't recall seeing this discussed, but then I've been forced to skip something like half this thread since it's onset.

Henry

Date: 2006/10/23 16:30:28, Link
Author: Henry J
Steviepinhead,
Re "I 've never had a similar situation develop with any other internet site, even ones on which I am a more frequent visitor than here"

Do any of those have forums that approach the level of traffic that this one gets? (Esp. with that several hundred page thread that started less than a year ago... )

I figure a website that isn't a forum of some sort would be unlikely to present that type of problem, since its pages wouldn't generally change that much on a daily basis.

Henry

Date: 2006/10/24 10:12:10, Link
Author: Henry J
Wahl, gah-ah-ahhhhh-lee! Shazam.

Date: 2006/10/24 17:56:09, Link
Author: Henry J

Date: 2006/10/25 05:29:34, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "frivolous extras, like correcting glaring errors that have been up for years."

Heck, if they took down all the errors, what would they have left to say? ;)

Date: 2006/10/26 08:48:00, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "What?  No LAWYERS?  No ENGINEERS?  No Ex-Dell putter-togetherers?"

Ya forgot mathematicians. ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/10/26 14:07:53, Link
Author: Henry J
This reminds me of the TV show "Alf" where Alf and somebody were arguing over how to pronounce "Uranus" - they disagreed about whether to accent the first syllable or the second. (Guess which position Alf favored. :) )

Henry

Date: 2006/10/26 17:26:02, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
[...]while Darwinists like Dawkins are still acting like atoms are solid things bumping around aimlessly in space. [...]


I have to wonder, why do they think evolutionary biologists should worry overmuch about how atoms work? Oh well.

Henry

Date: 2006/10/27 11:46:06, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I recall though, at one point Davetard announced that anyone from PT is automatically banned."

IOW, he noticed that people who regularly read PT are more apt than most to recognize the errors in his posts.  :p

Date: 2006/10/27 17:02:33, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Well, if Dave and his ilk are going to be in heaven, I want no part of the place.  Can you imagine an eternity of him and Ken Ham and the rest of the nutters?  It would make an angel rebel...
oh, wait..."



Henry

Date: 2006/10/27 17:46:02, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Many ID supporters are much more welcome here than at UD."

Put that in your irony meters...

Henry

Date: 2006/10/27 17:48:33, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "(Example: some infinities are bigger than others. Strange but true.)"

Yeah, but are there any intermediates between the set of integers and the set of reals? Or is that a bit GAP in your theory? ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/10/27 18:08:44, Link
Author: Henry J
stevestory,
Re "I vaguely remember some SciFi book I read as a teenager which was based on the premise that Satan actually was a decent guy, but [...]"

Would that be Robert A. Heinlein's "JOB: A Comedy of Justice"?

Henry

Date: 2006/10/27 18:28:36, Link
Author: Henry J
stevestory,
Re "I know I read that book, and I know it had some of those elements, but it's been about 13 years now and I'm probably mixing memories. There might have been some other book kinda like that too."

Maybe Inferno by Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle? (A sequel of sorts to Dante's book of that name.) Though the sort of Satan but sort of nice guy character in that story wasn't Satan per se.

Henry

Date: 2006/10/28 16:33:04, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Have we finished with that information stuff yet? It becomes increasingly boring."

I have insufficient data to answer that question. :)

Henry

Date: 2006/10/29 15:54:49, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "If there's no answer to that then it doesn't look designed to an engineer unless it's obviously artificial in nature."

If I might ask a possibly silly question here - what's the difference between "designed" and "artificial"?

Henry

Date: 2006/10/30 08:01:30, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "When was the last ice age?"

Around where I live it was Thursday of last week. :(

Henry

Date: 2006/10/30 10:32:36, Link
Author: Henry J
Are all living bacteria genetically equidistant from eukaryotes?

(The chart on the tree-of-life website indicates that, but it also describes a couple of alternate versions of the tree that apparently hadn't been ruled out at that time.)

Date: 2006/10/30 16:42:28, Link
Author: Henry J
argystokes,
Re "OK, but don't forget that having different HLA alleles than the rest of the population is advantageous to the individual with the less common variant.  Just a fair warning."

Oh, is that why some genes manage to keep a large number of alleles in circulation despite the effects of drift. Interesting.

Henry

Date: 2006/10/31 05:53:07, Link
Author: Henry J
What about (after identifying which thread), downloading the whole thread using the "All" link (as text file if you don't want to mess with the html code), load that into a word processor or text editor, then use the search function in that?

Henry

Date: 2006/10/31 05:56:56, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "the world will end in a pool of fiery marshmallowy goodness."

I thought the Ghostbusters took care of that guy? :p

Date: 2006/10/31 07:44:35, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Dave, which of the contradictory geneologies of Christ is correct, Matthew 1 or Luke 3? "

According to a poster on another BB, one of them is through Joseph, and one is through Mary. I forget which is which. :p

Date: 2006/10/31 09:53:15, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 31 2006,12:55)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 31 2006,13:44)
Re "Dave, which of the contradictory geneologies of Christ is correct, Matthew 1 or Luke 3? "

According to a poster on another BB, one of them is through Joseph, and one is through Mary. I forget which is which. :p

Why would one look at a geneology for Christ through Joseph? Joseph isn't even really related to Christ. He's like a stepdad, or something, right?

Hmm. I'm probably not the best one to ask to explain that since I pretty much agree with your objection. :lol:

Plus, if the "prophecy" was for paternal lineage from David, then Mary's lineage wouldn't be relevant either - ergo there's records of two lineages, neither of which applies to the prophecy? Okay, now I'm confused.

Henry

Date: 2006/10/31 10:11:04, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Server Issues

Reed A. Cartwright posted Entry 2679 on October 31, 2006 03:33 PM.
Trackback URL:

When we switched to our new server software, it appears to have screwed up how some browser’s manage their cache. This means that some browsers are stuck on an out dated front page.

To fix this issue, you need to clean out your cache (or temporary internet files).

I also recommend that you upgrade to a modern browser like Firefox if possible.


Iow, each time we see one of these discrepencies, clear the disk cache right then, and then reload the page(s)?

Henry

Date: 2006/10/31 16:37:57, Link
Author: Henry J
What if the different dates come from different frames of reference? :D

Date: 2006/11/01 05:44:31, Link
Author: Henry J
On the T.O. website, the page http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/2006.html
needs updating with links to the  August and September feedback pages.

Date: 2006/11/01 10:32:21, Link
Author: Henry J
Maybe it was smarter than the average bear? :p

Date: 2006/11/01 10:39:12, Link
Author: Henry J
Could that hyperevolution since the Flood have included insects going from four legs to six? :p  :O

Date: 2006/11/01 10:43:17, Link
Author: Henry J
Hmm. Sounds like ya might've made a Boo-Boo in trying to recruit that thar Bear... :p

Date: 2006/11/02 10:15:31, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "If you were an upright religious man, instead of a dirty heathen, you would have read the old testament, and you would know that animal sacrifice is pleasing to the lord. So think of Noah's flood as the greatest animal sacrifice of all time."

No no no; God likes the smell of burnt sacrifices, not the smell of soggy fur. ;)

Date: 2006/11/05 14:23:21, Link
Author: Henry J
Couldn't adaptations for swimming have come about from occasional swimming, without needing the near continuous swimming implied by the aquatic ape theory?

Henry

Date: 2006/11/05 16:07:34, Link
Author: Henry J
Bricks in the belfry, maybe?

Henry

Date: 2006/11/06 07:27:16, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Science doesn't deal in absolute, immutable "truths". Math does. Ethanol deals with proof, too."

Of course, in math the proofs are relative to some set of axioms, which themselves were obtained by trial and error - i.e., experimentation (even if not physical experiment).

Re Ethanol "proof" - :p

Date: 2006/11/06 16:57:01, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
scordova // Nov 6th 2006 at 2:06 pm
I think it is possible, whales and dolphins and snakes may have once had something like legs. That does not mean however, they were once cows once upon a time as some have argued.


What, snakes weren't once cows after all? One more thing I'll have to unlearn... :p

Henry

Date: 2006/11/08 16:01:53, Link
Author: Henry J
I was about to ask how come some of the threads on PT are coming up as blank pages, but decided to clear cache first. All the threads opened after that. Coincidence, or not? :p

Henry

Date: 2006/11/10 13:38:11, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "And another thing, why isn't this place cleaned up yet? [...] "

Not to mention the, uh, "advertisement fliers" cluttering up the "Intelligent Design News" forum... ;)

Date: 2006/11/10 14:23:42, Link
Author: Henry J
Since these multiple alleles (however many there are) would be arising in separate lineages, wouldn't the limiting factor be the number of individuals born during the period, rather than the number of generations and/or years?

Henry

Date: 2006/11/10 22:38:48, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "woman who LISTENED TO A TALKING SNAKE?"

Why not, Harry Potter does. ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/11/11 01:06:22, Link
Author: Henry J
Spending time doing research can't help unless their conjectures actually match reality - and if that were the case actual scientists probably would have discovered it by now.

Henry

Date: 2006/11/11 19:06:23, Link
Author: Henry J
Re ""miracle" after "miracle""

It's not just a sandwich spread, huh?

Re "CONTINENTS ZIPPING ALONG AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS."

Where's the cops when ya need 'em?

Re "weren't capable of fixing CO2"

Why would they need to fix it, was it broken? :)

Re "The fact that we can no longer photosynthesize is just more evidence for the biblical theory!  "

So that's how carnivores got by without eating other animals before the "fall" - they wuz half plant! :p
(Or wait, wouldn't that be evidence for evolution if it was the case?)

Henry

Date: 2006/11/12 18:08:18, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Back to your regularly scheduled programme...  "

Er - WHY? ;)

Henry

Date: 2006/11/13 14:57:50, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "HOW CAN WE TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIMORDIAL COAL DEPOSITS AND FLOOD DERIVED COAL DEPOSITS?"

OOH! OOH! I know this one - it's that one of them exists and the other doesn't - right? ;) :p

Date: 2006/11/14 15:56:50, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "So how did some of our mutant HLA-A alleles end up in chimps? "

No doubt it involved monkey business. :p

Date: 2006/11/14 16:14:17, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "[Recall 30-inch wingspan of fossil dragonflies,"

My understanding is that larger insects were a result of more oxygen in the atmosphere than we have at present. Right now the largest insects are pushing the limits of their breathing apparatus given current conditions.

Henry

Date: 2006/11/14 16:29:53, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I thought the apocalypse was supposed to come from heavens,"

Like when the sun runs low on H in a few billion years, and then puffs up into a red giant?

Date: 2006/11/14 21:42:36, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "It's not "millions of dead things." It's "hundreds of billions if not trillions of dead things."  "

Maybe the "millions" refers to the number of documented fossil finds?

Henry

Date: 2006/11/14 22:55:24, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "but, uh, anyway, those scavengers must've then croaked from, uh, overindulging,"

The scavengers were frogs? Guess it's not easy being green...

Henry

Date: 2006/11/16 16:51:37, Link
Author: Henry J
Looks like the PT thread chapter 3 has been targetted by pest(s).

Date: 2006/11/16 21:43:05, Link
Author: Henry J
Glen,
Re "I've not kept up on this thread very well, "

Which could be taken as a sign of intelligence. ;)

------

Occam's,

Re "and where the animals in Missouri ran to?"

Wouldn't matter - the pre-Flood critters all died out anyway, and the area was later repopulated by diversified versions of the boatloaded survivors. So, what Dave actually needs to do is go find lots of places with discontinuities between fossilized species and currently living species.

Henry

Date: 2006/11/17 21:59:01, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Most people I know want to AVOID inheriting mutations."

And here I thought most people had a few coding-gene mutations and a few hundred non-coding DNA mutations, on average. Hmm.

Henry

Date: 2006/11/19 19:41:24, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
"Darwin was right about so many things," said Jonathan Losos, a former Washington University biologist who led the study. "In this case he was wrong. He thought that evolution must occur slowly and gradually."


That disagrees with what I recall from reading Darwin's book. In one chapter he suspected that evolution might occur sporadically rather than continuously, and much of it could be in isolated small populations rather than across large populations.

Henry

Date: 2006/11/29 14:09:40, Link
Author: Henry J
Good grief, is this still going on?

Henry

Date: 2006/12/03 19:51:54, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "twenty million years old? "

Isn't that about how long somebody (before discovery of radioactivity) calculated that it would take Earth to cool to its current temperature after forming?

Henry

Date: 2006/12/05 10:57:53, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "So, does U-Denyse think that the water in a waterfall occupies a different dimension than the action of "falling" committed by the waterfall?"

Only if it's intelligent falling.

;)

Date: 2006/12/06 16:58:01, Link
Author: Henry J
re "Dave, you're still going to have to explain how you have shown the "primary axiom" is impossible, because I guarantee you haven't done it yet. I've read every post you've written on this thread, and nowhere have you ever demonstrated that "RM + NS" cannot drive evolution."

Ah - is "RM + NS" what's being referred to here as the "primary axiom"? I was starting to wonder. Or wander, whichever.

Date: 2006/12/06 20:45:49, Link
Author: Henry J
Kristine,

Quote
Mine too!

Got that? Love it down.

I write it so!

(Someone help me.)  :D


Er, help you do what, exactly? :)

Henry

Date: 2006/12/07 22:00:09, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
You be the judge. I must say, I'm tired of the MF snakes on this MF plane(t)...


Better watch out for Perseus...

Henry

Date: 2006/12/08 10:28:51, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "To really nail this thing down, we need opinions from [...]"

That reminds me of when Archie Bunker was discussing the composition of a jury that Edith was on - "[various professions] and a dingbat".

Date: 2006/12/08 13:30:17, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "when humans have not radiated into any additional species over the past 4,500 years,"

Hey, maybe the other species of primates are the radiated humans? ;) :p

Date: 2006/12/08 16:30:42, Link
Author: Henry J
penguins

Scleractinia (Stony star corals)

Date: 2006/12/08 20:41:53, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "One of the most important questions to be answered before we can answer that question is what I've been asking you for months: were the "floodwaters" freshwater, or seawater? What could have survived the "flood" not being on the ark is critically dependent on this one parameter,"

I'm not so sure that the salinity parameter would matter to all that many species in the long run - looks to me like most of them would be cut off from their food supply, or would depend on a food chain containing something else that would be cut off from its food supply.

Also anything that can't procreate in open water wouldn't have a next generation, food or no food, salt or no salt.

Btw, would a massive flood cause any change in the O2 or CO2 content of the water?
(This question is of course ignoring the temperature changes that I gather would most likely make chemical changes irrelevant anyway, but never mind that.)

Henry

Date: 2006/12/09 15:42:32, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "do you know that only prokaryotes use frame shifts?"

Really? If that means what I think it means, that's just... weird. Does that really mean that in bacteria the reading of the gene might start at any base pair, even if two genes start at positions that aren't separated by a multiple of three?

Henry

Date: 2006/12/09 20:43:53, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "You think it was a preexisting ability?  What species/kind/whatever do you think had the ability to digest nylon? And why would this be a good thing for the organism? "

Maybe it was preparing to invest in the stocking market?

Henry

Date: 2007/01/02 14:19:00, Link
Author: Henry J
Ergo, hippos are horses of the river, and whales are horses of a different (and deeper) river. :)

Date: 2007/01/02 14:43:54, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "This is truly an historic document. "

You misspelled hysteric. ;)

Date: 2007/01/03 11:44:12, Link
Author: Henry J
I think filler posts shouldn't count toward that 5000 limit.

Date: 2007/01/03 21:03:24, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "image of an evolutionary chicken crossing the road"

That'd be poultry in motion.

Re "Must be some sort of glitch in the software."

The software probably had a detrimental mutation. Is there any other kind? ;)

Henry

Date: 2007/01/03 21:06:22, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I can't find that list of pseudoscience points. [...]"

This? The Crackpot Index

Henry

Date: 2007/01/04 22:09:16, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "(2) when people learn about evolution and subsequently give up their fundamentalist religion, that is largely because THE FUNDIES HAVE TOLD THEM TO DO SO."

Yup. Convince people that they have to choose one thing or the other, it's then likely that each of them will then choose... one thing, or the other.

Now, if the convinced person chooses religion, that's a person who would have been religious anyway.

So as far as I can tell, if a theist wants people to be theists, and uses that argument, they're undermining their own goal.

Henry

Date: 2007/01/06 17:13:06, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "There either is or there isn't something outside of the universe. "

I wish people would state which definition of "universe" they're using when making statements like that one.

The literal meaning of "universe" is simply all that is, in which case anything that is, is part of it, by definition, including any Gods.

But most sentences about "universe" seem to use it to mean "the space (or space-time) in which we live", but quite often appear to confuse that meaning with the previously mentioned literal meaning, which makes it hard for me to figure out what the person is saying.

Henry

Date: 2007/01/06 17:16:03, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "The whole, 'sequester the carbon in x, and btw then also use x for fuel' idiocy? Man that's dumb."

Well, pulling carbon out of the air and using it for fuel might be better than pulling carbon out of the ground and using that carbon for fuel. At least, if it came out of the air and goes back, it's not a net increase in airborn CO2.

Henry

Date: 2007/01/07 18:00:10, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "atheistofacistevilushunistcomminemuthafukka "

The who whatting how with huh?



Henry

Date: 2007/01/08 14:19:17, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 08 2007,12:04)
EDIT: No idea why my second quote (from Rusell) didn't block.


Apparently, when a quote tag includes the name of the author, it also has to have a time stamp of the post, like so:

quote=Stephen Elliott,Jan. 08 2007,12:04

Henry

Date: 2007/01/08 14:45:59, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "that the Greek word for "soul" 'psuche' is only used in the gospels and no where else in the bible."

Aren't the gospels most of the New Testament? (And the O.T. wasn't written in Greek at all, iirc.)

Henry

Date: 2007/01/08 20:35:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "will someone teach me how to put quotes in the cute little boxes?"

Just go to a post where somebody's done that, click on the quote button, then look in the quoted stuff box to see how that person did it.

Henry

Date: 2007/01/09 14:57:54, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "As for $1000 per hour, does that sound realistic to any fellow programmers in the US?"

No. At the least, it'd have to be a very specialized type of programming to rate that. I've heard of people getting maybe 50 or 60 per hour, so I'd expect that 20 times that would be extremely rare if it exists.

Henry

Date: 2007/01/09 21:54:01, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "If it makes a mistake, it doesn’t repeat the mistake."
(That's from passage quoted by guthrie above.)

I have to disagree with whomever said that - gene pools don't remember the changes that don't work at all, so if one of those is a short "distance" from a typical genome of the species it probably does get repeated occasionally, just not reproduced.

------------------------

Re "A LOSER CLUB FOR LOSERS WHO LOSE AT NOT BEING A LOSER. "

After rereading that a few times, I still haven't figured out what it's saying.

Re "PHH. IT ONLY TAKES ME ABOUT 7 SECONDS TO OPEN MY PAYCHECK. THAT MEANS I EARN..OH NEVER MIND. "

Hmmm. Mine gets deposited automatically, so that's zero seconds to open the check. Which means... ;)

Re "IT IS CUSTOMARY WHEN NO-MARK POOCHES LIKE YOURSELF MEET THE ALPHA DOG FOR YOU TO URINATE IN FEAR / RESPECT."

Unless Altabin was marking his territory...

-------------------------

Febble,

Re "My point, over at UD, was simply that replication with modification + natural selection is a model of cognition - specifically, of learning.  So it's an intelligent system, which is why it's products look like the products of an intelligence - they are."

Ergo, if I.D. is taken as the literal meaning of the phrase, it's already a part of the theory to which they claim it to be an "alternative". But it just doesn't say what they want it to say, does it?

Re "Jeez, second post, and I screw up the punctuation..."

You should be able to edit your posts.

Henry

Date: 2007/01/10 15:08:07, Link
Author: Henry J
Re " "The average mutation rate was estimated to be approximately 2.5 x 10^-8 mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation." In a population 10^9, that means every mutation probably occurs in every human generation. "

That's for alleles that are widespread in the population. For less than widespread alleles it'd depend on the number of individuals with that allele.

Date: 2007/01/11 15:52:31, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Wow, IDers sure do hate biology, don't they? "

Is that why they tend to major in other things, like mathematics, biochemistry, lawyering, engineering, or theology?

Date: 2007/01/12 23:24:55, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "How did clams outrun the trilobites,"

Maybe it's something to do with intelligent falling?

Henry

Date: 2007/01/15 13:17:26, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "sex is sinful and your body should be flagellated at every opportunity"

Does that have something to do with flagella being "designed"? ;)

Date: 2007/01/15 13:37:23, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Did Darwin "predict" information processing systems in living cells? Did he "predict" that cells would contain tiny little machines… rotary engines, universal joints, etc.? Did Darwin "predict" that these tiny nano-machines would be irreducibly complex?


Did physicists in the late 1800's "predict" quarks? Does them not having done so invalidate particle physics? Somehow I doubt it. ;)

Henry

Date: 2007/01/15 13:44:15, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Scientists now believe that the universe did have a beginning and is finite. "

Do scientists think that the space in which we live is finite? (or might be?)

As I recall, relativity implies that if a space-time is going to eventually collapse on itself, then that space would be finite, but if a space-time isn't going to collapse then it would be infinite. Do those two conclusions still hold when all the dark matter and dark energy theories are added to the picture?

Henry

Date: 2007/01/15 14:30:59, Link
Author: Henry J
Yeah, reeeeeally long threads seem to do that. That's the reason the earlier afdave thread got closed and a new one started.

Henry

Date: 2007/01/15 21:44:18, Link
Author: Henry J
Anybody who wants to check out another conspiracy "theorist" can waste their time reading this thread on another BB . :)

Henry

Date: 2007/01/15 21:48:34, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Even biblical scholars acknowledge that Moses was not swallowed by a big fish!"

That line would work better with Noah. ;)

Henry

Date: 2007/01/18 13:30:55, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I've had the opposite problem of late. When the 30th comment appears on a page, by clicking the last page, I get a page with nothing on it, and need to go back a page to see the comment. "

I've seen that a few times, too.

Date: 2007/01/18 14:00:15, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Addendum: When I shoot Craps, there seems to an inordinate number of sevens rolled — more than any other number. Are my dice loaded? "

I don't know - how much did they drink? ;)

Date: 2007/01/18 14:13:30, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "We get that you missed the fact that ALL standard models of mutation+natural selection posit that benficial mutations are relatively rare."

I wonder if beneficial mutations are rare because in a stable environment, most of them would have already been found?

Henry

Date: 2007/01/19 10:37:30, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 18 2007,20:16)
DaveScot does ID research, and comes up with the following:


Re "The universe began with a huge explosion."

That one's false - the big bang was not an explosion as such.

Henry

Date: 2007/01/19 16:14:35, Link
Author: Henry J
bombadeer (sp?) beetle.

Date: 2007/01/20 19:58:55, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
In the study...

With a candlestick...


Why, does somebody need a "Clue"? ;)

Henry

Date: 2007/01/20 20:03:31, Link
Author: Henry J


Steviepinhead,
Well, it worked in the preview screen for me. Now I'll see if it posts.

I do notice that in the above post it has a trailing period that it thinks is part of the url, and that prevents linking directly from the link in that post. (I had to copy/paste the address and chop off the period to see the thing.)

Btw, that looks rather too large for an avatar.

Henry

Date: 2007/01/22 16:35:37, Link
Author: Henry J
Maybe trolls are territorial, or maybe they don't like to get in each other's way? :p

Date: 2007/01/22 22:10:59, Link
Author: Henry J
Platypuses? Those guys are cute - at a safe distance.

Henry

Date: 2007/01/23 11:09:35, Link
Author: Henry J
What happened with the "recent comment" box on the main PT page? Did somebody get tired of it being swamped by the "nothing's word doing" spam pests?

Henry

Date: 2007/01/23 12:11:26, Link
Author: Henry J
Probably something to do with those %20 things in the file directory path in place of blanks in the name of a subdirectory. What bright person sticks blanks in subdirectory name, anyway. Sure it's allowed nowadays, but it's still a dumb thing to do.

Date: 2007/01/23 13:52:33, Link
Author: Henry J
Update: the "recent comment" box on PT is working now.

Date: 2007/01/23 13:56:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "and actually do some f--king research"

You want him to do research on sexual activity? ;)

Date: 2007/01/23 17:04:43, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
The ban was because the quoted paragraph, from a few years ago, stood in utter contradiction to the words in Dembski's post I was commenting on.  


Well certainly - really, how dare ya use the guy's own words that way! :p

Date: 2007/01/24 11:02:21, Link
Author: Henry J
Yes, but does RM + NS fully account for the complexity of, uh, on second thought, never mind.

Date: 2007/01/24 11:27:26, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "This latest revelation of [...]. Film at 11."

Remind me to unplug my TV well before 11...

Date: 2007/01/24 11:33:11, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "just look at the evidence for ID!"

Got an electron microscope I could borrow for that project? ;)

Date: 2007/01/24 11:54:09, Link
Author: Henry J
Serendipity,

Re "If an intelligent designer does exist it is possibility within the best interest of humanity to have this substantiated. It is in the best interest of humanity because it allows for a sense of immortality, death merely become a transitional process as opposed to a conclusion of a process."

I don't see how the second sentence there follows, since an intelligent designer wouldn't necessarily care if we had an afterlife or not.

Henry

Date: 2007/01/24 12:10:53, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I was simply making the point that subsystems that are not in thermal equilibrium can experience a decrease in entropy."

Like in recharging a battery.

Date: 2007/01/24 13:40:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Because, Avo, you're not just disliking it, you're trying to convince others they should dislike it too."

Besides which, disliking a conclusion and thinking it to be wrong, are two different things. For all I know, some evolutionary biologists might personally dislike some of conclusions of the ToE, but that doesn't mean they think they're wrong.

Henry

Date: 2007/01/24 16:04:22, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "discovering a centaur or a unicorn,"

Course, that by itself wouldn't be evidence that anything else was deliberately engineered - something with bioengineering tech and a sense of humor might have read some human mythology and decided to pull a prank (i.e., it might have nothing to do with how anything else originated).

Date: 2007/01/24 23:12:12, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "In any case if you want to do research 700 scientists is more than enough to be getting on with I would have thought."

Well sure, if you want a pathetic level of detail.

Henry

Date: 2007/01/24 23:14:13, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "[...] a species barrier [...]"
Re "Firstly I keep quite up to date with the literature and currently there is absolutely no evidence of this barrier,"

Plus, doesn't the alleged barrier imply a sudden jump, in contrast to the expected accumulation of small changes over many generations. The barrier between species is between species that separated a long time ago, and have been accumulating separate changes for all that time.

Henry

Date: 2007/01/25 09:48:50, Link
Author: Henry J
On the T.O. page "What's New",
the link to " October 2006 Post of the Month: Skepticism of Piltdown Man." doesn't work.

It says "The requested URL /origins/postmonth/oct06.html was not found on this server."

(Also the link was never added to the page "Posts of the Month for 2006")

Henry

Date: 2007/01/25 11:16:31, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Do you remember those mice that had 100,000 highly conserved basepairs removed with no mesurable deleterious effects?"

So, uh, is this guy telling us that the Designer put in 100,000 basepairs that had no relevance to the function of the organism? I thought they'd established that the Designer wouldn't put in DNA that wasn't used for anything? Did I miss something somewhere or is the who whatting how with huh?

Date: 2007/01/25 13:36:24, Link
Author: Henry J
Oh that poor traumatized goat... ;)

Date: 2007/01/25 14:21:13, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
A prediction:

Front-loading predicts that all of the so-called junk DNA is being used in a subtle way, or was used by an ancestor in the past, or could be used by a descendant in the future, or could be present because it could one day be used in a different branch of the tree of life by a totally different hypothetical creature, in some hypothetical situation beyond our understanding, or could just be accumulated junk.


Gee, ya think? ;)

Date: 2007/01/25 14:24:35, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "See, a theist can go either way as regards Darwinism, but an atheist, what choice do they have?"

An atheist might conclude that there are processes at work that haven't been discovered yet - so they do have a choice regarding acceptance of the current theory.

Date: 2007/01/25 14:48:16, Link
Author: Henry J
Wonder if that Sten31846 guy and his/her/its/their relatives could be banned from PT, or do he/she/it/they change IP addresses too often to make that practical?

Date: 2007/01/25 22:11:16, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "They can see exactly as far as the factoid that both animals get called "wolf", and no farther."

And sometimes some humans get called "wolf", too - where do they put those? ;)

------------

Re "I know, you’re thinking that the frontal noodlepacks and the mesobrainstalk danglingbasil also grow echoing motorplants through more massive bundles of sparky angelhair."

The who whatting how with huh? :)

------------

Re "Sorry to nitpick but the noodlepack-mesobrainstalk interface is known to be IC and can never be transversed unless the sparky angelhair is "in knip". Other than that, I think you've nailed it."

I'm not so sure about that there...

Henry

Date: 2007/01/26 18:58:54, Link
Author: Henry J
The claimed analogy of biological forms with human technology reminds me of the novel "Code of the Lifemaker" by James. P. Hogan. In the story, some alien technology that was self maintaining (and reproducing) got separated from its owners, wound up on an outer moon of our solar system, but its reproductive functionality lost some of its quality control. Ergo, it evolved - into a machine analog of an ecosystem. An interesting twist on the concept of evolution.

Henry

Date: 2007/01/27 23:33:17, Link
Author: Henry J
Now that's the opponent the hare should've picked instead of that tortoise...  :p

Date: 2007/01/29 13:56:37, Link
Author: Henry J
Satu reminds me of Harry in the movie "Harry and the Hendersons" - I suppose the costume designers for that movie may have used orangutan faces as a starting point when designing Harry.

Henry

Date: 2007/01/29 14:29:22, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "they do not think that amoebas became fish became reptiles, etc."

Do scientists think a kind of amoeba was predecessor to animals?

Henry

Date: 2007/01/29 16:37:28, Link
Author: Henry J
Hmm. Quantum physicists also put a bunch of stuff in other dimensions too. Wonder how that fits in with the natural/supernatural distinction?

Date: 2007/01/29 16:48:46, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Henry, you are so pedestrian."

Well, foot!  :p

Date: 2007/01/29 17:08:53, Link
Author: Henry J
breathe, GCT, breathe... ;)

Date: 2007/01/29 22:22:35, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Once you've caught the rabbit, you simply don't NEED the trap any longer."

Well, that lets Elmer Fudd out...

Henry

Date: 2007/01/30 12:06:57, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Waskly wabbits wuv having their tummies wubbed."

Not the wuns what live around my apartment - they scamper off if a person gets too close.  :p

Date: 2007/01/30 13:50:01, Link
Author: Henry J
Oh well, hare today, gone tomorrow, huh?

Date: 2007/01/30 16:09:14, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "So Mike Gene admits that the entire fossil record of change from fish to man is due to evolutionary change, but is "trivial", "irrelevant" and not "deep"."

Well, it was deep while it was fish, since they're underwater, but after they came out on land, it wasn't deep anymore.

Now that I've got that all cleared up... :p

Date: 2007/01/30 17:01:55, Link
Author: Henry J
That Sten#### guy is at it again on several older PT threads.

Date: 2007/01/31 20:38:06, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I think Richard does DT BETTER than DT himself."

I'm trying to figure out if Richard was just complimented, insulted, or simply given another line for his signature...

---

Re "can't grow musrhrooms... whats left?"

Yeah, hard to be fun gi's if'n ya can't grow mushrooms, huh?

---

Henry

Date: 2007/01/31 20:40:37, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Oh yes, power cord nibbling is a big problem with rabbits."

Shocking! ;)

Henry

Date: 2007/02/03 16:50:06, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote

Quote
Abiogenesis occurred through a Divine Act. Life forms have changed over the many years, but only within narrow confined limits.


The evidence indicates otherwise. We know that entire ecosystems have come and gone. We can observe a fossil succession forming a nested hierarchy of descent.


Oh, I dunno. The descendants of a species are, afaik, always in the same clade as that species - sounds pretty narrow and confined to me. :)

Henry

Date: 2007/02/03 16:57:09, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "since the last common ancestor dates for the y-chromosome tend to be less than that for mtDNA"

Yep. 100,000 years is certainly less than 200,000 years. Wonder why the quoted material omitted the actual dates being compared? ;)

Henry

Date: 2007/02/03 18:45:27, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "science is not making new discoveries,"

Well, it has been a few years since they added element 118 to the periodic table... ;)

Henry

Date: 2007/02/03 19:04:25, Link
Author: Henry J
I don't know, but how can an element be temporary?

Well, aside from that retraction of a discovery of #118 that somebody made eight (or nine?) years ago. It was interesting to watch the number of known elements go down. (Though likely embarassing to those in the laboratory in question.)

Henry

Date: 2007/02/03 19:34:20, Link
Author: Henry J
Re Henry "Yep. 100,000 years is certainly less than 200,000 years. Wonder why the quoted material omitted the actual dates being compared?"

Re acocationist "So do the evolutionists have a theory to account for this oddity? And please don't let this comment be mistaken for my subscribing to a Noah's ark history of the human race. I'm just wonderin'. "

I don't see an oddity there. Afaik there's no particular reason why the last dad-only parental line last common ancestor, and the last mom-only parental line last common ancestor, should have similar time spans.

Henry

Date: 2007/02/03 19:39:53, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "As long as you remember that people are fish (in the fish clade)."

Well, yeah. :)

http://www.tolweb.org/Gnathostomata/14843

Henry

Date: 2007/02/03 21:37:51, Link
Author: Henry J
Ichthyic,

Re "well, meaning that it lasts fractions of a second."

Oh. In that case I guess there's quite a few temporary ones in that beyond-100 crowd.

Henry

Date: 2007/02/04 19:27:55, Link
Author: Henry J
Re [...] a Rodin or Rodins originated a complex Think-Structure that gave rise to both simultaneous and sequential Poofs that created the first biological Thing, detonating life on earth."

Detonating? Ah ha, an explanation for the Cambrian explosion! :)

Henry

Date: 2007/02/04 20:59:05, Link
Author: Henry J
oops

Date: 2007/02/05 11:55:48, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "With his usual brevity Henry sums up the new status of Darwinism. "

Is that what I did? And here I thought all I'd done was accidently post a repeat of my previous reply, and then edit it down to the "oops". But hey, if in the process I managed to instill a whole bunch of meaning that I didn't even know was there, then yay me! Or something.

Henry

Date: 2007/02/05 14:00:16, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Error, sorry :("

That doesn't have as much brevity as my "oops"! ;)

However, I don't know which one has more CSI.

Date: 2007/02/05 15:45:31, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA"


Does the T.O.'s Index of Creationist Claims have an entry for that set of predictions?

Henry

Date: 2007/02/05 16:11:06, Link
Author: Henry J
I see a couple of points that could be made here:

1) The string hypothesis does offer a rather detailed explanation for the data it addresses.
2) It does not claim that current theory is wrong in areas in which the current theory has already been tested.

Henry

Date: 2007/02/05 16:34:42, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA"


My impression here is that
1) and 2) don't disagree with current theory, so can't be used to distinguish the proposed "model".
4) is not a logical consequence of the premise, so refuting it wouldn't refute the premise. (Assuming here that the premise is that life or some aspect of it was deliberately engineered.)
3) is a positive claim contradicted by the presently available evidence.

However, I'm not sure that #3 is actually implied by the premise any more than #4 is, since without knowledge of the engineer(s) involved, we can't really be sure they'd do things the way human engineers probably would (i.e., freely borrowing technology from one technology for use in another). In one case it's contradicted by current evidence, and in the other it doesn't distinguish the proposed model from the current theory. Far as I can tell neither way produces anything scientifically useful.

Henry

Date: 2007/02/05 22:47:01, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
the question that's really been on my mind tonight is, if you're comfortable with pointers, comfortable with inheritance, and comfortable with templates, are you able to start coding C++ professionally? Or are there yet-unknown levels of difficulty or abstraction which demand more study before turning pro?


Just make sure your deallocations exactly match your allocations. ;)
If a class destructor is missing a deallocation, the machine can quickly run out of available memory.
If something deallocates something twice, it can make a real mess of things.

Also, I'm not sure that "comfort" is the right criteria there.

Henry

Date: 2007/02/05 22:58:31, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "in ID theory it is possible to model a complex long-term feedback system by [b]multiplying the terms by 1."

Sort of a multiplicative identity crisis?

Henry

Date: 2007/02/06 13:37:29, Link
Author: Henry J
I thing therefore I yam.

Date: 2007/02/06 13:40:12, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "The Pacific Science Center is showing A Flock Of Dodos this week.  I wonder if any IDiots are going to show up."

Aren't they the title characters?

(Did I say that? :p )

Date: 2007/02/06 13:44:06, Link
Author: Henry J
Richard - don't give up your day job. ;)

Date: 2007/02/06 14:03:34, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "What good is this theory if we don’t know who/what caused it?"

Well, what good was the inverse square law of gravity before we knew what causes gravity? (Wait, we still don't really know what causes gravity, do we? So what good is general relativity? Well, except for being presumably better than major relativity or colonel relativity.)

Re "What drives NS?"

The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Re "Who programmed the organism?"

And was it done in Fortran, Cobol, C or C++, Prolog, Pascal, Assembler, or something else?

Re "I say, give them their own country and let them rot."

But their own country would still be on this planet. ;)

Henry

Date: 2007/02/06 17:19:41, Link
Author: Henry J
Re " HenryJ is no longer with is - DT "

Rats!

(Say, does that mean I'm the only one who can see this reply? ;) )

Date: 2007/02/06 21:13:08, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Wouldn’t Intelligent Design theory predict that [...] "

Not to be picky, but doesn't a prediction from a model have to be a logical consequence of the premise of that model? Now "I.D." as I understand it only claims that something or somebody arranged things to his/her/their/its liking. To me that doesn't imply a whole lot about what happens if conditions here change, even if the claimed model were true.

Henry

Date: 2007/02/06 21:16:03, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Gravity - it's just a theory"

Technically though, isn't it general relativity that's "just" a theory, with gravity being the thing it attempts to explain?

Henry

Date: 2007/02/07 14:27:39, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Now how is all that going to fit on my bumper sticker?"

Either small print or a big bumper? ;)

Date: 2007/02/07 17:06:36, Link
Author: Henry J
:p

Date: 2007/02/08 19:51:26, Link
Author: Henry J
The proper question is not "what is designed" - the proper question is "was it engineered". (Imnsho.)

Besides, we do know who/what built any given living cell - its parent cell, that's who/what, and that should be apparent to anybody. (pun fully intended.)

Henry

Date: 2007/02/08 19:54:41, Link
Author: Henry J
May the Schwartz (sp?) be with ya'll.

Henry

Date: 2007/02/10 18:25:05, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "OK, now that does sound scary."

Which one of the four things mentioned? Or some combination of them? :)

Henry

Date: 2007/02/13 18:56:11, Link
Author: Henry J
Ancient chimp-made ‘hammers’ fuel evolutionary debate  
Quote
A University of Calgary archaeologist has found the first prehistoric evidence of chimpanzee technology, adding credence to the theory that some of humanity’s behavioural hallmarks were actually inherited by both humans and great apes from a common ancestor.


---------

Henry

Date: 2007/02/13 22:29:00, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I was interested (and a little surprised - though I probably shouldn't be) to learn there is an entire field of endeavor that has sprung up around the paleo-history of tool usage in primates."

I think that's what caught my attention too. I didn't know that other kinds of apes had made the sort of tools that would sit around that long.

Henry

Date: 2007/02/14 12:19:26, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Where did all those numbers come from, huh?"

0 = {}
1 = {0}
2 = {0,1}
...
n+1 = n + {n}
...

That's where nonnegative integers come from, anyway. :)

Henry

Date: 2007/02/14 14:40:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (stephenWells @ Feb. 14 2007,11:57)
Should we read n+{n} as union of n and {n}?- I'm blanking  a little on whether + is OK in set notation.

Yep. I used "+" to mean union of sets.

Henry

Date: 2007/02/14 14:43:51, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 14 2007,11:40)
That's too hard for my poor little female brain. Besides, the integers came from God. Stephen Hawking says so. So there, poopy smarty-pants. *flips hair* :p Gee, I think I have a budding career at the Disco Institute.

I'm unsure how flipping of hair can be an answer to anything. :p

Henry

Date: 2007/02/27 15:49:18, Link
Author: Henry J
Unless your dogma gets runned over by somebody else's karma... ;)

Date: 2007/02/27 15:52:05, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "So, is it possible, that afdave and DaveScot are Twin Sons of Different Mothers?  "

Wouldn't that violate the SLoT?

Date: 2007/02/27 15:56:23, Link
Author: Henry J
What would prevent a supreme being from using evolution as the method, I wonder? It appears that ID pushers think something does so.

Henry

Date: 2007/03/04 18:41:36, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Intelligent design is an unverified scientific hypothesis."

And that is still not technically correct. To qualify as scientific, it has to actually explain something about the subject matter, i.e., there have to be some observable details that are expected if the hypothesis is correct (or at least a reasonable approximation), but not expected if it's wrong.

Henry

Date: 2007/03/04 18:44:00, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "then why wouldn't white be the most likely development? That would stand out to even colour blind frugivores would it not?  "

I wonder if there aren't a whole lot of other things in jungles that might appear white to eyes that don't see in color?

Another thought, since birds were mentioned, maybe the colorful fruits attracted them first, and monkeys later took advantage of that when their color vision evolved?

Henry

Date: 2007/03/04 18:46:34, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I would note that an elephant is 'just' a modified mouse in terms of overall morphology."

Then why are elephants so afraid of thier little cousins, huh? Huh? HUH?

-------

Re "It is no accident that so many of the ID guys are in math, information sciences, and biochemistry, bioinformatics, etc."

Anything but biology itself, I gather? Well, at least some of those have a "bio-" prefix...

Henry

Date: 2007/03/04 19:38:15, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "[...] well-grounded benthic sharks."

Wouldn't a grounded shark be in a lot of trouble? ;)

Henry

Date: 2007/03/04 23:52:59, Link
Author: Henry J
Scott,

All I did was point out that a proposal for a new hypothesis has to offer an actual explanation for something. How is that impolite?

Re "I was persuaded that the creation of the universe by a supernatural agent can be regarded as a scientific hypothesis."

The concept "creation of the universe by a supernatural agent" doesn't conflict with biological evolution as presently understood, as far as I can tell.

Re "However, this treatment of ID depends on exactly how "hypothesis" and "scientific method" are defined. "

I have to disagree with that. The way to make I.D. scientific isn't by redefining terms, it's finding some verifiable set of observations that is expected if I.D. is true, but not expected if it's false. Without that, its a conjecture in search of something to explain.

Henry

Date: 2007/03/05 22:23:25, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "The conservative view of scientific issues? Even though this entry correctly summarizes the, uh, quality of the evolution article, it's nonetheless a bit saddening.  The fact that there is an expectation that our best method of understanding our world is subject to view through the lens of political ideology is unsurprising, but still saddening."

Well, there's a guy on another BB who labels everything he dislikes as "liberal", and everything he likes as "conservative", regardless of whether doing so makes any sense or not.

Henry

Date: 2007/03/05 22:26:18, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Do we need to develop a new field - culinary evolution?"

Wouldn't that have something to do with why so many land vertebrates taste like chicken? ;)

Re "Primordial soup?"

Which would of course use the proverbial warm pond to maintain its temperature. :)

Henry

Date: 2007/03/05 22:29:03, Link
Author: Henry J
Re " I think someone in the past called it "pant loading" (all puns intended)."

Re "yeah, we had a very annoying front-loader (they're not actually that common - the true front loaders, that is) named "blast-from-the-past", and it seemed appropriate terminology for for the load he tried to dump on us."

I thought it was JAD who inspired that terminology?

----

Fross,

Re "ID predicts that there will always be gaps in scientific knowledge. "

Funny, I thought plain common sense would predict that. :)

----

Henry

Date: 2007/03/06 14:42:42, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "weren't we just talking about Coulter on another thread?"

Undoubtedly, since that name seems to come up on a lot of threads. :p

Date: 2007/03/06 14:46:41, Link
Author: Henry J
So, what happens to Civics classes if this passes?

Date: 2007/03/07 14:58:49, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "15) "There is no good. There is no bad. There is only pleasure and pain" - check"

"It's not about good. It's not about evil. It's about power" - Buffy.

"Its not about right. It's not about wrong. It's about power" - The First Evil.

Date: 2007/03/07 16:21:03, Link
Author: Henry J
If our being has fabric, why do we have to buy clothing? :p

Date: 2007/03/08 16:35:57, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Read it here."

No thanks - the part you quoted was more than enough.

Date: 2007/03/08 16:39:13, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "If my caveman sisterns looked like those two, you modern types wouln't be here, cuz nobody I know would do them... we have our standards. "

And you wouldn't wanna Welch on those standards, huh?

Date: 2007/03/08 17:06:29, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 08 2007,08:41)
[...]
         
Quote
[...] Inferring that something is designed does not require knowing how it was manufactured. You clearly can’t accept that so there’s really no reason for you to continue here.


I reckon that to infer that something was designed could result from knowing either (1) how it was manufactured, (2) who or what did the designing, or (3) for what the object was to be used. So yeah, such inference could be made without knowing the engineering details, if some other details are known. (Or am I just being picky?)

Henry

Date: 2007/03/09 15:42:38, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Thank God It's Wife of Wóden Day!!! "

Took me a few seconds to figure that one out.  :p

Date: 2007/03/10 16:32:42, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Wow, how wrong could he be? A molecule is incapable of decay, generation, or destruction? Wrong-o.

Maybe what he meant was atoms? And even then he's still wrong.


Destruction maybe, but what would "decay" or "generation" even mean with regard to molecules? Or was "generation" being used to mean the formation of a molecule from other molecules or atoms?

And I certainly don't know what "growth" might mean in regard to a molecule. Sure it might combine with other atoms to make a larger molecule, but it'd be a different molecule (i.e., different chemical substance), not a larger version of the same one.

(Otoh, why am I asking what something from over there might mean?)

--------------------

Quote
when the sun burned chemically


Or collapsed gravitationally. Though I don't know which of those hypotheses came or went first. Though either of them puts a rather limited time frame (relative to billions of years, that is) on the sun's operational timespan.

Henry

Date: 2007/03/12 17:13:16, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Not all mountains are designed.  Only the pretty ones."

Huh. So Pike's Peak is designed when its snow capped, but not designed when its just brown rock?  :p

Date: 2007/03/20 21:13:31, Link
Author: Henry J
Elongated ribs - that's a new (er, old?) twist. And, it leaves the critter's feet available for use as feet, not like bats and birds where the co-opting of the forelimbs makes it harder to use them as arms or legs.

Henry

Date: 2007/03/26 20:11:34, Link
Author: Henry J
AtBC record:
Quote
Most users ever online was 101 on Mar. 26 2007,15:25

Date: 2007/03/27 10:23:51, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 26 2007,11:52)
So, if animals are designed, are germs not also designed?

What about their flagellums? (or is it flagella?)

Date: 2007/03/28 20:07:19, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Bah.  Birds are just glorified reptiles."

Well, so are we. :)

Henry

Date: 2007/03/29 22:28:44, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "The comment you keep going back to that is utter nonsense is that there is no empirical basis for a belief in God."

Re "Your belief is based upon the false premise that if there were a God we should be able to detect him in some way.  How?"

Those two statements (taken from the same paragraph) contradict each other.

Henry

Date: 2007/03/29 22:31:46, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "We tolerate all kinds of myths - urban legends, chupacabras, astrology..."

Chupacabras were documented in a movie, and one of the characters in that movie was a scientist (until he got eaten, anyway). Therefore...

Henry

Date: 2007/03/29 22:34:45, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
ftk: We are discovering things all the time that evolution can't begin to explain...

Yet the rest of the paragraph -- and indeed, the comment -- seem to contain exactly zero examples of these discoveries.  Frustrating.


Examples of things evolution can't explain: Quarks. Neutrinos. Volcanoes. Ringed planets. Gamma rays. Astronomical red-shift. Retrograde moons. Relativity. Quantum mechanics. Supernovae. Trans-finite set theory. The periodic table of the elements.

Does that help? :)

Henry

Date: 2007/03/30 16:58:11, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I don't like "trail and error" because the interpretation is ambiguous."

Well, how do you feel about trial and error, then? ;)

-------

Re "Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?"

Probably not, given that there is an upper limit on how large a rock can be and still be a rock, rather than say, a black hole. :)

Date: 2007/03/31 01:07:23, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Therefore, I have just proven the nonexistence of God."

But, your proof is only as good as the postulate(s) used therein. ;)

Henry

Date: 2007/03/31 17:27:00, Link
Author: Henry J
Re somebody's "I cannot walk one mile, or dig one foot deep in my back yard without seeing “obvious” evidence of a great prehistoric flood"

My thought on that is that evidence of a world-wide event would have to be, well, world-wide: a pattern that could be seen all around the world. (Example: traces of a particular element such as iridium, at depths of the same age, whereever stuff of that age didn't get eroded away in the meantime.)

Observations made within a backyard, or even over a distance of only one mile, just would not suffice for that.

(I guess my problem is that I'm trying to apply logic to the question, huh?)

Henry

Date: 2007/03/31 20:01:47, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "The reason nobody's "refuting" ID is that you cant play ball with somebody who's not turned up to the game! ID publishes books, not papers."

Ah, but what are books made out of? PAPER!! So there! :)

Henry

Date: 2007/04/01 21:34:46, Link
Author: Henry J
Could this be the work of The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Ten of the best April Fool's Day hoaxes: US museum

NEW YORK (AFP) - From television revealing that spaghetti grows on trees to advertisements for the left-handed burger, the tradition of April Fool's Day stories in the media has a weird and wonderful history.

Here are 10 of the top April Fool's Day pranks ever pulled off, as judged by the San Diego-based Museum of Hoaxes for their notoriety, absurdity, and number of people duped.

-- In 1957, a BBC television show announced that thanks to a mild winter and the virtual elimination of the spaghetti weevil, Swiss farmers were enjoying a bumper spaghetti crop. Footage of Swiss farmers pulling strands of spaghetti from trees...

Yahoo

Henry

Date: 2007/04/04 22:48:13, Link
Author: Henry J
How can biology be easier than other sciences, anyway? Biologists have millions of species to deal with, where chemists have only 117 elements (last I heard), and physicists have 4 basic types of particles that seem to not be composites (or higher energy states or antimatter equivalent), of other particles.

Henry

Date: 2007/04/12 15:24:04, Link
Author: Henry J
Was there a change in the DNA sequence, or did it just activate and/or deactivate certain genes before passing them on to the offspring?

Henry

Date: 2007/04/17 15:29:11, Link
Author: Henry J
Would a BS in computer science count as "hard science"?

Date: 2007/04/17 16:16:53, Link
Author: Henry J
"Brain? Brain? What is brain?"

Date: 2007/04/17 17:16:15, Link
Author: Henry J
Interestingly, the AtBC forum index shows a later timestamp than the topic or the A.E. BB index - I suppose that reflects when a vote was last submitted?

(Of course, the timestamps will change when I submit this. :) )

Henry

Date: 2007/04/17 17:20:05, Link
Author: Henry J
The sequel to the movie "Hot Shots" was called "Hot Shots Part Deaux".

Date: 2007/04/17 23:04:40, Link
Author: Henry J
I nailed something? And I'm not even a carpenter! :)

Henry

Date: 2007/04/19 16:21:04, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Why no speaky? Come on, we won't bite."

Well, most of the time anything I'd know to say has already been said, sometimes by several people, and often in more detail than I'd have available.

Henry

Date: 2007/04/19 16:54:27, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Moi is definitely pretentious. "

Miss Piggy resembles that remark!  :p

Date: 2007/04/19 22:03:05, Link
Author: Henry J
Random professors? Shouldn't professors be non-random? ;)

Henry

Date: 2007/04/23 14:02:31, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I actually started a topic here once asking why so many engineers were IDC."

Is it that lots of engineers lean toward IDC, or is it that engineers who happen to be IDC are more vocal than most IDC people?

Henry

Date: 2007/04/23 14:07:28, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "citing [stuff] written on coins."

Well, sometimes people just have to put in their two cents... :p

Date: 2007/04/24 20:58:19, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I BET YOU TALK FOR HOURS ON THE PHONE ABOUT AMERICAN IDOL WITH YOUR OTHER BIRD-BRIAN FRIENDS. "

Now that's a fowl accusation.

Henry

Date: 2007/04/24 21:00:30, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
And, surprise surprise, I appear to be entirely correct . . .

I am shocked.

Shocked, I say.  


Well, next time make sure you're properly grounded before turning on the current. ;)

Henry

Date: 2007/04/25 17:03:50, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Of course the discarded unworkable theories are what i'm interested in most of all."

Well, they had a theory that the 2nd law of thermo somehow prevented evolution, but later they discarded that particular theory.

Or at least some of them did. Maybe too many people kept asking them to go outside on a clear day and notice that bright yellow thing in the sky, I dunno.

Henry

Date: 2007/04/26 09:14:55, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "What the #### is a "negative mutation rate" . . . . . ?????"

Obviously, that's from mutations that negate earlier positive mutations. Of course, if a negative mutation negates a previous negative mutation, then the net result might be positive. Or it might be negative; I'm not really positive about that.

:p

Date: 2007/04/27 14:02:56, Link
Author: Henry J
Well, what did they think the dirt was made of, quarks and leptons? Oh wait...

Date: 2007/04/27 16:21:00, Link
Author: Henry J
Well woodn't you know it...

Date: 2007/04/27 17:50:32, Link
Author: Henry J
All bark and no bite.  :p

Date: 2007/04/29 16:16:16, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Fir gods sake all these bad tree puns have got to stop!"

Hmm, so how to stem the flow of puns, and nip this thing in the bud? Wood that help? Somebody needs to take the elm in this situation.

Henry

Date: 2007/04/29 18:14:56, Link
Author: Henry J
Glad the server is back up today! :)

Henry

Date: 2007/04/29 22:46:11, Link
Author: Henry J
That can't be me; I don't know how to play a Fife.

Date: 2007/04/30 13:51:18, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "That would really go against the grain."

Yew should've said "That wood really go against the grain."

;)

Date: 2007/04/30 13:55:17, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "but nothing makes me spurt coffee out of my nose,"

Hey, do ya s'pose they have stock in coffee companies? :p

Date: 2007/04/30 22:36:38, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Therefore only the salmon survived."

And during that year, they ate what? And bred where? ;)

Btw, is a salmon's ability to live in either fresh or salt a year round ability, or does it come and go with their breeding season?

Or am I supposed to avoid asking that kind of question? :p

Henry

Date: 2007/05/01 18:11:55, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
It's also warming on Triton, but that's because Neptune is heading toward it's perihelion (closest point to the sun) so. It's also warming on Pluto for the same reason.


Pluto is presently leaving its "warm" season. It was closer to the sun than Neptune from 1979 to 1999, and is on its outward journey now. NASA hopes to get a probe there before the "atmosphere" of the object formerly known as a planet freezes out for the cold "season" of its 248 Earth-year long trip around the sun.

Henry

Date: 2007/05/02 17:25:21, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "so voting moves the thread up and doesn't change the attribution,"

I've noticed that behavior on more than one BB.

Henry

Date: 2007/05/02 22:40:56, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "dats. (Or cogs?) "

Would it say "me-oof", or "wo-eow"?

Henry

Date: 2007/05/04 16:07:53, Link
Author: Henry J
Maybe it was in a no parking zone? :p

Date: 2007/05/11 22:36:47, Link
Author: Henry J
How would a group blog differ from simply starting threads here on AtBC or the other forums on the AE BB?

Henry

Date: 2007/05/11 22:37:42, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "bacteria (106-108), actinomycetes (106-107), protozoa (105-106), fungi (104-106), and algae (104-5x104).'

I'm wondering if there's supposed to be exponential operators inside those numbers? i.e., 10^6-10^8, etc.

Henry

Date: 2007/05/12 13:05:51, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "even the who"

Or at least the species to which the who belongs.

Henry

Date: 2007/05/14 15:28:51, Link
Author: Henry J
The solution to that would seem to be start a new thread and lock the old one (after making sure that all replies already posted on the old one have actually shown up).

Henry

Date: 2007/05/14 21:50:03, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "The reasons it [TE] doesn't pose a threat are political/theological as opposed to scientific."

And of course, the reasons ID (and its relatives) do pose a threat, are also political/theological as opposed to scientific.

Henry

Date: 2007/05/14 23:11:01, Link
Author: Henry J
Jkrebs,

I wonder what fraction of TE's believe that particular version of it?

Henry

Date: 2007/05/15 15:49:56, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "to know Peter Parker's middle name."

Well, what is Peter Parker's middle name? ;)

Date: 2007/05/15 21:26:56, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Why no Cave-GIRLS"

Yeah, where's Darryl Hannah?

Henry

Date: 2007/05/16 21:34:43, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."

Well, at least we got that ironed out before the mixture of elements bonded to compound the problem.

Henry

Date: 2007/05/16 21:34:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
“I think if looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it likely is a duck,” said John West, [...]


Seems like DI people should avoid using lines like that, since it could so easily be used against the guy he's defending.

Henry

Date: 2007/05/16 21:35:45, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "AND HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING ABOUT A BORED MECHANIC."

What, you missed the conversation about the Maytag repairman?

Henry

Date: 2007/05/16 21:36:16, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Yes, don't send your kids to university.  They'll do well as Sanitation Engineers.  "

And if that doesn't work, maybe they could find work as janitors. That way at least they'd be cleaning up. :p

Henry

Date: 2007/05/17 14:33:28, Link
Author: Henry J
Uh - I'm not sure what distinuishes shocking from non-shocking.

cascade
boron
burners (Bunsun?)
he, Lee....um
I owe Dean
wolf, rum
lead
cobalt

What with all those, I probably missed some.

Henry

Date: 2007/05/17 14:38:21, Link
Author: Henry J
But if you darryl to take both, wouldn't that be sort of welching on the one you would've taken over the other one?

Date: 2007/05/17 15:18:39, Link
Author: Henry J
Quarks aren't molecules, but their various "flavors" might be worth a mention anyway: up, down, charmed, strange, top (formerly "truth"), bottom (formerly "beauty"). (if I remember them correctly.)

Date: 2007/05/18 12:57:33, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I guess it happened by mistake or for speed but then again it might have happened cause it revealed instances and practices of antisemitic materialistic darwinian eugenic paederasty in beaver communities :)"

Why those dam beavers! They might as well be rodents or something.

:p

Date: 2007/05/18 21:38:13, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "No wonder they're rodents,"

Yeah, what else wood they be.

Henry

Date: 2007/05/18 21:39:25, Link
Author: Henry J
Well, I'd ask 'er, but I'm pretty sure she's not talkin'.

Henry

Date: 2007/05/18 21:42:18, Link
Author: Henry J
Well, foot.

Date: 2007/05/18 23:31:50, Link
Author: Henry J
One who calls something foolproof is underestimating the ingenuity of fools.

Henry

Date: 2007/05/20 15:23:40, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Tho of course, this is impossible since the earth is only 6,000 years old... "

Nonsense. Obviously, this happened around 4 or 5 thousand years ago. (No doubt somebody'll say that, so I might as well jump in first. :D ) ;)

Or maybe it was a side effect of a snowball fight between G and S?

(unsigned, so that nobody'll know it was me saying this.)

Date: 2007/05/20 21:54:43, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "exactly the reason I ask ID supporters to differentiate between something that has CSI and something that is cute."

But... but... but...

"Cute" is more a description of the viewer's reaction to the object, than it is of the properties of the object itself. :)

Henry

Date: 2007/05/21 10:55:24, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Attempts are being made to determine how Administratum can be controlled to prevent irreversible damage, but results to date are not promising. "

I vaguely recall something called the Peter Principle, that might be relevant here. ;)

Henry

Date: 2007/05/21 15:25:18, Link
Author: Henry J
Yep. I figure that's likely to be the process that produces this Administratium in the first place.

Henry

Date: 2007/05/21 21:54:35, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "So diamonds are not a caveman's best friend I guess.  "

And they're not even stable. Let one of them sit around in this environment for a few million years, and see what you're left with. ;)

Henry

Date: 2007/05/21 21:56:03, Link
Author: Henry J
Lenny,
Are you really serious about wanting the changes you're talking about? The proposed system looks to me like it would be a disaster waiting to happen.

Businesses get build and stay running because the people who run them have something to gain from doing so. Take that away, how do you propose that businesses be kept running? Voters can't force it to keep running if nobody's there to do the job, and you'd remove any motivation that anybody might have to run anything larger than they need for their own household.

What about power plants, water utilities, sewers, communication utilities, roads, etc.?

How, under your proposed changes, would voters (those people in whom you seem to have little confidence) be kept from screwing up the utilities on which you (and I) depend for power, water, telephone, internet, transportation, etc.?

Henry

Date: 2007/05/22 14:11:12, Link
Author: Henry J
Well if you don't know, I'm certainly not going to tell you. So there! :p

Date: 2007/05/25 11:56:16, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "That's intriguing, the researchers say, because the marsupial immune system is supposed to be primitive."

Wonder if anybody had a good reason for supposing that in the first place?

Henry

Date: 2007/05/25 11:57:51, Link
Author: Henry J
So babies should learn to watch their language? :)

Date: 2007/05/25 14:25:10, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Did the Greeks have tardness geometry?"

That'd be pointless.  :p

Date: 2007/05/25 14:27:30, Link
Author: Henry J
In the beginning was the null set.

From that the set of the null set was (created? evolved? engineered? intelligently designed? integrally designed? Whatever.).

Date: 2007/05/27 00:15:12, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
(J-Dog @ 5/25/07 1:33 PM)
Quote
(Henry J @ May 25 2007,14:27)
In the beginning was the null set.


OMFSM Henry,
There is a tardness candidate I read a few years ago who wrote just that.  Give me a minute and I will try to find him.

PS By the way 'pointless' was just so Dot On.  :;):


Course, it is an obvious joke to anybody who has read Genesis and is also familiar with axiomatic set theory. A mathematician can "create" the integers, rational numbers (and maybe even some insane numbers), and real numbers, starting with the null set and the operators defined by the axioms. There's even multiple ways of doing that (i.e., no one "right" way), which I suspect produce differing behavior in areas not controlled by the axioms of the real number system. (Makes me wonder if any mathematicians have uncovered anomolies of  that sort.)

Henry

Date: 2007/05/27 22:06:51, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "What I want to know is, who did Eve's hair, and was/is he one of those folks in the Bible who lived for hundreds of years? Maybe he's still around?"

He drowned. (Think about it! ;) )

Henry

Date: 2007/05/27 22:07:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "[...] a garden variety, T-Rex-ate-coconuts Creationist [...]"

Ah ha - that explains the teeth, then. They needed them to crack open the coconuts!!!!!!

Glad we got that straightened out. (Just had to milk that coconut remark for what ah could get out of it.)

Henry

Date: 2007/05/28 17:13:44, Link
Author: Henry J
Not to mention that if it were discovered that the flagellum (or one or some of them) were "designed" (a.k.a. deliberately engineered by some agency), an obvious question to ask then would be whether the designer/engineer was a friend, or an enemy, of humanity. From what I've read (here and on PT) about flagella and how they're used, the more likely conclusion is enemy. That strikes me as the opposite of what the ID pushers seem to be wanting people to think.

Henry

Date: 2007/05/28 20:18:54, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Davey, if you'll open comments, I promise not to make a single comment on your blog.

How's that?


But otoh, if he doesn't open comments, you still won't make a single comment on his blog. ;)

Henry

Date: 2007/05/28 23:06:03, Link
Author: Henry J
Since the Bible never mentions dinosaurs at all, you'll need to ask the people who are trying to rewrite it to include them.

Henry

Date: 2007/05/29 15:53:43, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Perhaps the rain prevented the fire to spread, since the wood was presumably water-logged."

Wouldn't a water-logged ship sink?

Date: 2007/05/29 21:32:14, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Kids, do you want to use silly "Human Reason" or God's word,"

The problem of course with "God's word", is deciding what person or persons get the privilege of deciding what God's word is.

Henry

Date: 2007/05/30 15:19:35, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Why not just throw the whole book out the window"

Cause that'd be littering? :p

Re "Tinfoil hats will not effect the outcome of science. "

Unless the science involves chemicals that react to tin...
:p

Date: 2007/05/30 19:01:47, Link
Author: Henry J
On an internet singles website?

Date: 2007/05/30 21:56:07, Link
Author: Henry J
I just thought of something that might save a bit of bandwidth around here - maybe the "reply with quote" option could automatically omit images (especially large ones, if it could tell that) from the post being quotes, perhaps replacing with some text that says the image was omitted.

Henry

Date: 2007/05/30 22:58:43, Link
Author: Henry J
Lenny,
Where did the producer(s) of that porn find models? ;)

Henry

Date: 2007/05/31 15:12:13, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "the only bandwidth that will save is each user's."

Exactly! Some of those image-heavy threads can take a long time to load, and when they have several copies of each image, it takes that much longer.

Henry

Date: 2007/06/07 19:01:40, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "configuring the new server"

But it's still a server! It hasn't evolved into a new species!!!!!!!

:p

Henry

Date: 2007/06/07 21:17:42, Link
Author: Henry J
What Did Dinosaurs Hear?
Quote
What did dinosaurs hear? Probably [...]
Yabba Dabba Doo!!!!

Date: 2007/06/07 21:18:39, Link
Author: Henry J
Origins of Nervous System Found in Genes of Sea Sponge, Report Scientists at UC Santa Barbara
Quote
Scientists at the University of California, Santa Barbara have discovered significant clues to the evolutionary origins of the nervous system by studying the genome of a sea sponge, a member of a group considered to be among the most ancient of all animals.


Henry

Date: 2007/06/08 14:14:45, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "but b) do not seem willing to think in mechanistic terms, i.e. design terms."

What does that mean?

Henry

Date: 2007/06/08 16:51:05, Link
Author: Henry J
Modularity is something human type engineers (both hardware and software) use to make it easier to swap parts from one place to another. From what I've read on PT and this BB, biological systems have a conspicuous lack of modularity in their systems.

Re "and when you try to understand how a machine works, you study its design."

Yes, and I rather expect that to be exactly what biologist do - study how the parts are arranged and how they interact with each other and their surroundings, and how all this affects the species. Is there some reason to think that's not what they do?

Henry

Date: 2007/06/08 23:46:54, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "just one designer"

I think there've been hundreds of millions of "designers" - the gene pool of each species that ever lived, each "responsible" for that species. Of course, most of those have lost out along the way.

Henry

Date: 2007/06/09 12:24:10, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Jesus was neither pirate nor ninja. Jesus was a zombie. Who else would rise from the dead?"

A vampire?

Henry

Date: 2007/06/09 16:40:02, Link
Author: Henry J
The problem (one of them, anyway) is that the word "design" has been overused by scam artists who do use it to imply the presence of a designer (while occasionally denying that they're implying this), and this has attached a whole lot of baggage to the word that gets in the way when somebody else tries to use it to mean simply what parts, how they're arranged, how they interact, and how this affects the future of the "designed" object (or its species).

Henry

Date: 2007/06/09 23:50:31, Link
Author: Henry J
If we came from early mammals, why are there still other mammals?

If we came from early vertebrates, why are there still other vertebrates?

If birds came from early dinosaurs, why are there still other... Oh wait. Never mind that one.

Henry

Date: 2007/06/10 19:20:43, Link
Author: Henry J
Here's my 2 cents:

Nested hierarchy.

Henry

Date: 2007/06/10 23:01:45, Link
Author: Henry J
Waterloo? Didn't England win there? Wasn't Darwin English? Am I confused?

Henry

Date: 2007/06/11 16:30:43, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "What I'm saying is that the 'Intelligent Design-Creationism' vs 'Evolution' debate is ridiculous."

Yes it is. But you're talking to the wrong side; the people on the science side (most of them anyway) know that already - now try to explain it to the ID leaders and followers; they're the ones equating evolution with atheism.

Henry

Date: 2007/06/11 16:34:33, Link
Author: Henry J
Except that my broken watch doesn't even do that - it just has a blank display screen.  :p

Date: 2007/06/11 23:16:13, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Thank you. Do you have any idea where?"

Heh. Nope. Oh, you could try the U.D. blog - good luck.

Henry

Date: 2007/06/12 10:22:28, Link
Author: Henry J
Keeping our evolved fins crossed!

Date: 2007/06/12 21:40:41, Link
Author: Henry J
Get those shields up! Bad space weather ahead!

Henry

Date: 2007/06/13 15:06:29, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Far worse is clinging to a wrong idea"

Maybe they should go to a store and get some of that Cling-Free stuff...

Date: 2007/06/13 17:29:59, Link
Author: Henry J
Yowza. Wouldn't wanna meet that guy in an alley... (Or anywhere else, for that matter.)

Date: 2007/06/15 16:07:24, Link
Author: Henry J
Maybe humor uses some of the same brain circuitry that objective thinking uses, so when one suppresses that circuitry in order to prevent objective thinking, as a side effect it also suppresses the humor function as well?

Henry

Date: 2007/06/15 23:46:10, Link
Author: Henry J
Plants recognize their siblings, biologists discover
Quote
The next time you venture into your garden armed with plants, consider who you place next to whom. It turns out that the docile garden plant isn't as passive as widely assumed, at least not with strangers.

The botanical theory of relativity?

Henry

Date: 2007/06/16 22:39:32, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "seem to get so personally offended by being evolved from apes."

Yeah, I also wonder why and how somebody can think being offensive makes it wrong somehow.

Heck, if they're offended by relationship with apes, what about the (more distant) relationships with some other things, like bats, mice, lizards, frogs, fish, starfish, worms, sponges, fungi, or amoeba. (Listed in order of increasing "distance", unless I goofed.)

Course, being related can be a disadvantage when something else's disease manages to adapt to a new host. (Well, nobody said the conclusions of the ToE were necessarily pleasant.)

Henry

Date: 2007/06/17 00:26:47, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Are we closer to bats than to mice? "

That's what Tree of Life says. Primates, tree shrews, bats, and flying lemurs are in one of the major divisions. Rabbits, rodents and elephant shrews are in another. (Regular shrews in a third.)

Henry

Date: 2007/06/17 17:41:46, Link
Author: Henry J
Teach ID? How does one teach something that doesn't say anything? I don't get it.

Henry

Date: 2007/06/17 18:49:32, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I think this paper (Bininda-Emonds ORP, Cardillo M, Jones KE, MacPhee RDE, Beck RMD, Grenyer R, Price SA, Vos RA, Gittleman JL, Purvis A (2007) The delayed rise of present-day mammals. Nature 446:507-511.) recently revised all that."

Oh rats. I guess the Tree of Life site was based on best knowledge when it was written, and I reckon keeping a thing that large up to date is likely to be a major (and continuous) effort, but it is annoying to say something based on it and then find out otherwise. So bats and/or primates are shown in the wrong place there? And some months back, Lenny said they had turtles in the wrong place relative to the other orders of reptile (and reptiles are his specialty, iirc).

Henry

Date: 2007/06/18 12:56:20, Link
Author: Henry J
I thought that species were assigned to an order because of the comparatively large amount of difference between them and those put into other orders. That large amount of difference would be expected to take a large amount of time to evolve from their common ancestor.

Henry

Date: 2007/06/18 12:59:26, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Hey, pal, I got your flagellum right here. "

Put that thing away when out in public! ;)

:p

Date: 2007/06/18 15:49:14, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Why no new mammalian order appear in the last 50 Myears? No one knows.


My guess would be that any split occurring since then wouldn't have had time to develop the amount of difference that we associate with orders.

Henry

Date: 2007/06/18 15:49:52, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Also, how did front loading know about the suggested meteorite strike 251 million years ago? Was the meteorite intelligently thrown?


Is this evidence for intelligent falling? :p

Date: 2007/06/18 22:41:25, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "You can hard pushed to find a native one in some places."

Crikey.

Henry

Date: 2007/06/18 22:41:40, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Why shouldn't we all believe in Wotan and Thor instead?"

If Xena didn't kill them off too while she was doing in most of the Greek Gods...

Henry

Date: 2007/06/18 22:42:22, Link
Author: Henry J
Of course, atomic theory is elementary when compared to biology.

Henry

Date: 2007/06/19 21:21:21, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Too true. Although I reckon Hercules and Iolaus might have stopped her."

But hadn't his show already ceased making new episodes by then? ;)

Henry

Date: 2007/06/20 11:18:57, Link
Author: Henry J
UI Anthropologist, Colleagues Discover Remains Of Earliest Giant Panda
Quote
Although it may sound like an oxymoron, a University of Iowa anthropologist and his colleagues report the first discovery of a skull from a "pygmy-sized" giant panda -- the earliest known ancestor of the giant panda -- that lived in south China some two million years ago.


Hey, who ate all the bamboo around here?

Henry

Date: 2007/06/20 11:20:38, Link
Author: Henry J
Neanderthal Man was an Innovator Says New University of Leicester Study
Quote
Neanderthal man was not as stupid as has been made out says a new study published by a University of Leicester archaeologist.

In fact Neanderthals were far removed from their stereotypical image and were innovators, says Dr Terry Hopkinson of the School of Archaeology and Ancient History in a paper published in Antiquity.

(Well, that's one insurance company that'll need a new theme for their advertisements...)

Henry

Date: 2007/06/20 14:03:40, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Rather, certain religious leaders disparage evolution so strongly that when you actually follow evidence it is aparent that said particular evangelicist lied. I think that the religious motivated lies cause more people to break away than the science itself.


That same thought has occurred to me, too.

Henry

Date: 2007/06/20 17:55:11, Link
Author: Henry J
Didn't sound like it from the way the article was worded - they had to estimate the length of the critter, which to me implies way less than a full skeleton was available, anyway.

Henry

Date: 2007/06/20 17:59:03, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
What stopped it?


Well, obviously, goddidit! ;)

Date: 2007/06/20 21:26:36, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I have given you examples where saltationism is the only explanation that make a sense. It's the butterfly mimicry, e.g. polymorphic mimetism of P. dardanus. "

Given the huge number of species in the insect order, why is it all that unlikely that there'd be a few that happen to somewhat resemble an unpalatable species?

Henry

Date: 2007/06/20 23:04:39, Link
Author: Henry J
Oh - no point mimicking an old thread here, huh?

Henry

Date: 2007/06/20 23:04:46, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "By the time you've adapted to selection pressure from the ectothermic predator,"

Unless the ectothermic predators are a lot more numerous than the endothermic ones. ;)

Henry

Date: 2007/06/20 23:05:31, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
But I would say that some information required to make an human is not in his/her genome. The egg cell has the information required to decode the genome (the genetic code), and it cannot be in the genome itself.
I'm also suprised that this paradox have not been raised by IC advocates.  


I don't see why that info couldn't be in the genome. Certainly a copy(s) of the transcription machinery has to be already present, but would that mean the genome doesn't contain stuff for building the next replacement of that machinery? (Or to duplicate it prior to cell division, or to make spare parts before the old one wears out or breaks.)

Henry

Date: 2007/06/21 16:59:09, Link
Author: Henry J
I didn't know panda's had wazoos...
:p

Date: 2007/06/21 21:49:03, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Do you think that the following case of polymorphic case of butterfly mimicry also "happen" in accordance with statistics and probability? I would like to notice you that on the right sight are females of the same species:


My understanding is that the resemblance would most likely be very superficial initially, and would be fine tuned later due to selection effects (i.e., the ones least resembling the toxic critter would get eaten first, repeatedly over many generations). It's the superficial resemblances that I'd think wouldn't be all that unlikely given a large number of species in the same class.

Henry

Date: 2007/06/22 16:25:10, Link
Author: Henry J
Hmm. The bathroom wall seems to be constipated again - page 80 isn't yet showing up on the forum index, yet there are 6+ replies on it that are reachable by fiddling with the url.

Henry

Okay, posting this note apparently pushed it through. :p

Date: 2007/06/23 15:48:04, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "unless you are talking about small changes within certain body types."

Funny, I thought that's what the word "transitional" meant.

Also: of course the transitional status of any given sample should be questioned, and they have been. (to the extent that some claimed transitionals have been thrown out.)

--------

Ian,
Re "or even how the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians and various others somehow didnt have their civilisations damaged by being totally wiped out"

Picky, picky, picky... :p

--------

oldman...,
How many of those PREDICTIONs would be inconsistent with current understanding of the relevant subjects?

(And should I ask whether they presented actual logic about how their "model" implied that those things should be found?)

Henry

Date: 2007/06/23 22:33:45, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
The funniest example I've encountered, by the way, was, the guy who taught my thermo class told the physics department secretary office to stop forwarding him every moronic free-energy or anti-relativity manifesto mailed to them. "We don't," the secretary office told him. "We distribute them evenly among the whole faculty."


ACK!



Henry

Date: 2007/06/24 18:50:09, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "If it's only about the way it happened, would *you* explain how man originated from fish?"

I'll take a stab at that: one lineage of fish evolved some new stuff which allowed it to scale to new heights on land.

Also, another lineage evolved into a square shape, which explains the fish sandwiches that get served at some fast food places. :p

Henry

Date: 2007/06/24 18:52:11, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "If one thing goes wrong, all the earlier marvelous steps that worked flawlessly were in vain."

Doesn't that pretty much just describe what happens when a species goes extinct?

---

Re "That critter will not have been "half dog/half cat"."

Right - and it might also have to be half bear, half weasel, and half a few other things. Course, with all those halves, the critter might be pretty large.

---

Re "The mitochondrial method of studying evolution, however, supports the Marsupionta hypothesis, which places the platypus and kangaroo together."

Would that imply that live birth evolved separately in marsupials and eutherians?

Henry

Date: 2007/06/24 22:37:01, Link
Author: Henry J
That "how many fingers am I holding up" skit in "Bruce" was pretty funny.

"How many fingers now?"

"Seven."

"Wrong! AAAHHHHHHHH!" (as he puts out his hands and now has seven fingers on the hand with fingers extented.)

Henry

Date: 2007/06/25 17:25:55, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
condo owned by his elderly parents,

I thought the guy was in his seventies or thereabouts?

Date: 2007/06/25 23:13:11, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Awesome. I had no idea T-Rex could breathe fire. "

Probably the gas from all those coconuts.

Henry

Date: 2007/06/26 15:44:36, Link
Author: Henry J
Maybe the coloration is caused by chemical(s) that serve some other purpose for the organism? In that case the color could be merely a side-effect.

Henry

Date: 2007/06/26 16:58:13, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,16:10)
I used the word [conversation] because there wasnt anything else that seemed to fit.

Maybe "exchange of comments"?

Date: 2007/06/26 21:17:17, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "He once told me the giant gas planets in our solar system were placed there to protect earth from asteroid bombardment."

Non cents. They're porpoise is too stabilize hour planets orbit.

(At least with that claim, one would be referring to an effect the other planet(s) might actually have.)

Henry

Date: 2007/06/26 21:24:58, Link
Author: Henry J
I vaguely recall something with "lagomorph" in the title. (Wascally Wabbits indeed!)

Or about about "Attack of the Killer Tomatos" - wasn't there something called that?

No forget those - "Killer Clowns from Outer Space".

Date: 2007/06/27 13:28:23, Link
Author: Henry J
If only witches would use spell checkers...  :p

Date: 2007/06/27 13:42:37, Link
Author: Henry J
Not even with a ten foot flagellum? ;)

Date: 2007/06/27 13:46:12, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 27 2007,10:21)
It isn't as bad as the Hercules I picked. Trust me. Even a very basic knowledge of greek myths will mean this film will shock you with just how bad they mess it up.

Worse than what the Hercules and Xena TV series did to Greek mythology, Bible chronology, not to mention actual history?

Henry

Date: 2007/06/27 13:51:40, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Yes.  Those roaming charges will kill you.


Not to mention the cost of all those tuxedos. :p

Date: 2007/06/27 14:22:18, Link
Author: Henry J
Oh. Yeah, that might be worse than putting the Trojan war after the rise to power of Julius Ceasar. (The fall of Troy was a long time before Rome, plus according to Roman myths, Rome was founded by descendants of survivors from Troy.)

Henry

Date: 2007/06/27 20:47:44, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "ALL the facts that exist",

Not all the facts, just the ones that contradict the claim(s) being made.

Henry

Date: 2007/06/27 20:51:17, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I would agree that toxicity of mushrooms are probably detected by wild animals by smell, by odor."

Re "I said that origin of mushroom's coloration is not caused by natural selection, because there is not known selective pressure for their coloration."

Uh - don't look now, but you just agreed with a probable cause of that natural selection.

Henry

Date: 2007/06/30 16:35:20, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Animal Jokes

A family of skunks was trapped in a thicket, surrounded by a pack of hungry wolves that were edging even closer. The Mother skunk calmly instructed her young: "Quickly children, let's put our heads together!" After they obeyed, forming a circle, she continued, "Now — Let us spray!"


Henry

Date: 2007/06/30 17:34:38, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
It's time to go anyway because I've scanned through some of the threads here where other people from my "side" have tried to reason with you folks, and it's futile.


Yeah, arguing without having an actual argument can have that effect.

Henry

Date: 2007/07/02 22:32:48, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs....1=10150
      Report this post to a moderator
stevestory



Posts: 4237
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2007,20:33 ?  
I was hoping somebody would be interested in the science of this article. I give up.


The answer in the article isn't one that I would have guessed.

(Note- 6 hours isn't enough time to conclude that nobody will be interested.)

Henry

Date: 2007/07/02 22:35:18, Link
Author: Henry J
Re 'homologous frogs with vastly different DNA'

I thought the word "homologous" referred to features or traits. Applying it to whole organisms doesn't make sense to me.

With frogs having different DNA, the question would be is that consistent with the length of time since those frog species separated from their last common ancestor. That would (I think) be shortly after the first appearance of amphibians (i.e., it would probably precede the first appearance if anything close to reptilian, let along mammalian or avian).

On marsupial vs. placentals, I recall some discussion of that fairly recently, I think either in one of the threads on the AtBC forum or on the Panda's Thumb blog; the time of that split might still be an actual controversy.

Henry

Date: 2007/07/04 17:37:09, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Name: Chris Torvik
Comments:

I mean to get worms from sugar.


Personally, I'd try to avoid getting worms from sugar.

:p

Quote
It would be really ignorant of us to believe in evolution, and to believe that we are the FIRST creatures to evolve to our extent,


I don't see any particular connection between those two statements - knowledge of evolution on Earth doesn't imply one way or the other whether something similar may have happened before elsewhere.

Henry

Date: 2007/07/04 19:54:54, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Many evolutionists I talk to seem to have no idea what creation science really entails."

I figured it has two main claims: (1) God is behind it all, and (2) evolution science is somehow wrong.

They try to imply that (1) somehow implies (2), without ever noticing that those two statements are logically independent of each other.

Henry

Date: 2007/07/04 19:58:57, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "the vast majority of species does nothing of the sort and, in fact, cannot do so"

Given that most species that have ever lived are now extinct, does that statement necessarily contradict the current theory?

Otoh, is there any actual reason to think current species aren't accumulating genetic changes over multigeneration time frames? And if so, what is supposedly preventing that from happening? (I.e., that conflicts with my understanding of the subject.)

Henry

Date: 2007/07/05 12:32:16, Link
Author: Henry J
I don't get why undomesticability would imply frozen. As far as I can see, inability to be domesticated only implies a lack of a pathway from where they are to where the domesticators would want them to be.

Henry

Date: 2007/07/05 12:43:43, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 05 2007,11:01)
Some people apparently cannot admit to being anything less than modern prophets, whose every word must be considered as absolutely and unwaveringly true. Even when they are false, or exaggerations.

You mean like the one here ?
:p

Henry

Date: 2007/07/05 13:51:33, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
So we are to believe that DNA degenerate only in living cells where also repairing mechanisms are present, but somehow DNA is stable in dead tissues.


Hint: dead tissue is not actively making new copies of its DNA.

Date: 2007/07/05 22:18:27, Link
Author: Henry J
Wonder if "Tremors" fits the criteria?

Henry

Date: 2007/07/06 18:43:16, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "When are these idiots going to learn that humans are not "descended" from apes; they are apes? "

Isn't it both? After all, we're apes because we're descended from apes. ;)

Henry

Date: 2007/07/07 00:13:20, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Well, yeah, in the sense that I'm a Murphy and I'm descended from Murphys. But we aren't descended from any apes currently in existence. "

Well, technically, if any of your ancestors are alive, then... ;)

Henry

Date: 2007/07/07 00:13:48, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I can't find any primary source in the literature, where anyone has been successful in extracting DNA from dinosaur fossils. "

Ah, but have they thought to look in the amber for ancient mosquitos...

Wait, forget I said that.

Henry

Date: 2007/07/07 17:42:08, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Jesus as a man, or son of god? "

I've wondered for a long time what exactly the phrase "son of god" means in that context.

I'm unable to come up with a coherent definition that fits the way the phrase gets used by those who take it seriously.

Henry

Date: 2007/07/08 21:22:38, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "A person who will not defend his convictions in a neutral arena is of no value to scientific progress."

Only neutral? What about hostile? ;)

(Well, come to think of it, we know Davison didn't really defend his ideas on PT - it was always "go read my paper" or some such.)

Henry

Date: 2007/07/10 16:20:09, Link
Author: Henry J
So, who's gonna drive Arden home tonight? ;)

Date: 2007/07/12 15:07:56, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Apparently, since real people are mentioned in the bible, it is certifiably, literally, super-duper, %100 accurate. "

Yep! It mentions Egyptians, and they're known to have existed continuously for what, 5 or 6 thousand years at least? Oops, that won't work... :p

Date: 2007/07/12 15:10:07, Link
Author: Henry J
That cartoon is somewhat dredful.
:)

Date: 2007/07/13 23:32:45, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "The origin of oxygen. It turns out to be more complicated than evolutionists have thought."

Do they explain what astrophysics has to do with evolution, or why it would be "evolutionists" who think about it?

Re "Jurassic animals. Latest findings show they were more diverse than previously believed."

Last I heard, it was previously believed that there were way too many exitinct species for all of them to have lived on one planet within a time frame of a few millinia. Ergo, more diverse undercuts their claims, not those of science. :p

Henry

Date: 2007/07/14 19:12:56, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "flying saucers come from the Devil . . . . ?  "

Nonsense. Flying saucers come from the FSM - what do ya think she sits on while flying? ;) :p

Henry

Date: 2007/07/15 14:53:58, Link
Author: Henry J
The Sci-Fi channel thing "Crocodile" has special effects that are anything but "special". They might even be called atrocious.

Henry

Date: 2007/07/15 18:06:50, Link
Author: Henry J
Abracadabra!

Henry

Date: 2007/07/16 13:30:12, Link
Author: Henry J
What if "kind" actually means "clade"? :p

Henry

Date: 2007/07/16 14:07:00, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Our prayers are the most powerful asset we have."

Then why haven't I won the lottery yet?

God: "At least meet me halfway - buy a dang ticket!"

------

Re "Our prayers are the most powerful asset we have."

Then why hasn't my ship come in yet?

What do you mean Colorado doesn't have a seaport?

------

Date: 2007/07/16 17:48:02, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Many species we can't domesticate - they simply die"

The obvious conclusion there would be that the environment that people stick them in is too different from the one for which they were adapted.

Henry

Date: 2007/07/19 22:52:13, Link
Author: Henry J
Example of random: In a species with 4 billion base pairs in each cell, and a population of a several billion, the next several billion mutations will be widely scattered over most of those 4 billion base pairs.

Of course, sections critical to functionality would have fewer persistent mutations. (Not that they wouldn't happen, but that they wouldn't persist in the gene pool.)

The result is that genetic variety will increase until other processes remove it as fast as it gets added. (Or decrease if it's already above that point.)

imo, there's often too much attention given to single mutations. That's sort of like focusing on one raindrop when its raining.

Henry

Date: 2007/07/22 18:50:25, Link
Author: Henry J
Re ""Entelechie" of human is present from the beginning of the evolution and consequently human have no ancestors."

So he thinks what, that some bio-engineer(s) deliberately manufactured humans to be a slightly modified copy of the predecessors of chimpanzees? And that's supposed to somehow be a route to perfection?

Henry

Date: 2007/07/22 22:00:31, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "and the DI is foolish enough to think that they can get away with it this time, despite a long string of abject failures. "

Does DI think they can get away with it, or does DI think somebody besides themselves will wind up having to pay for it? (Or does that constitute "getting away with it" in their minds?)

Henry

Date: 2007/07/23 22:40:22, Link
Author: Henry J
VMartin,

Re "Human pre-existed before evolution started as a "Typus", "Archetype"."

What's the evidence for that made-up claim?

Henry

Date: 2007/07/25 21:31:52, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "stephen, ask questions. It's more fun that way."

Phrase the answer in the form of a question? Sounds like Jeopardy!...

Re "Ozone is heavier than nitrogen and oxygen. So, what [...] is it doing up there in the ozone layer?"

Maybe its going on vacation?

Re "How did amino acids get inside the carbonaceous chondrite meteorites like the Murchison? Did a scientist put them there? "

Maybe the meteorites were intelligently designed that way?

Re "[...] Which leads to dancing. "

Say it ain't so!

Re "The result is the knowledge that microbes studied in pure cultures behave differently than those in the real world, the human body for example. This information has great use in the medical community, and incidentally, flies in the face of Darwin's hypothesis."

Er, when exactly did Darwin claim that a species would never show different behaviors in different environments?

Henry

Date: 2007/07/27 13:54:26, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I hereby cast a vote against the sidebar."

Me too. It scrunches up the display of the BB contents.

Henry

Date: 2007/07/27 22:46:17, Link
Author: Henry J
Even if coloration in fungi is an unanswered question at this point, how on earth is that an argument against the overall theory? All current theories have unanswered questions about details (otherwise scientists would be unemployed).

If I'm following this, the color itself doesn't appear to be the controlling factor. But, it's caused by chemicals that the organism produces and concentrates in its outer layers? The chemicals in question happen to be colorful, but has anybody checked on whether those chemicals produce some other benefit that maybe has nothing to do with their reaction to light?

That would after all seem to be the next question if mimicry and/or camoulflage have been determined to be unlikely.

Henry

Date: 2007/07/28 19:52:27, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
We have mentioned already mushrooms genera Amanitta. There are very different coloration in it - red, green, white etc... It is hardly believable that such pigments are byproduct of some process and that they concetrate at the cap of the mushroom where they are most visible.````  


Why is that unbelievable?

Why should all colorations have to be explained, anyway? If an organism reflects light, it's going to be some color or other. If the color itself isn't relevant to reproductive success, then it's a byproduct of whatever chemicals are near the surface of the organism. If that isn't an appropriate starting point from which to investigate the question, then what is?

Henry

Uh - on second thought, I reckon the coloration is a byproduct of the chemicals near the surface even if it is relevant to reproductive success. But in that case the presenece of those chemicals would be explained by that.

Date: 2007/07/30 14:28:46, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "She would take her kids to that place? Good lord. "

Not really a surprise at this point, though.

Henry

Date: 2007/07/30 17:51:26, Link
Author: Henry J
Fossils older than dinosaurs reveal pattern of early animal evolution on Earth
Quote
The abundant diversity of characteristics within species likely helped fuel the proliferation and evolution of an odd-looking creature that emerged from an unprecedented explosion of life on Earth more than 500 million years ago.

Of course, "explosion" isn't really the right terminology for something that took place over several millions of years.
Quote
But during the Cambrian Period, more complex creatures with skeletons, eyes and limbs emerged with amazing suddenness.

Methinks it was likely the equivalent of what we call an "arms race" - lots of factions developing various strategies to cope with each other. All at once because once a few started developing more advanced strategies, anybody that didn't cope quickly enough went extinct. Leastwise that's my take on it.

Henry

Date: 2007/07/31 11:05:13, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "In the words of Princess Leia:"

Course, that was after she told him to get the big walking carpet out of her way. :p

Date: 2007/07/31 11:15:53, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Off topic, I know, but I am curious how a young-earth 'geologist' would explain this."

God was saving up water for the Flood?

:p

Date: 2007/07/31 17:13:00, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "God was making a god-sized margarita and needed salt. "

In that case, the Mediterranean should be less salty, not more.  :p

Date: 2007/07/31 17:20:33, Link
Author: Henry J
Maybe that's where the water went after the Flood? :p

Date: 2007/07/31 22:04:25, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Fundy SloT = "all particles in the unverse must rush away from each other until there is nothing of interest at all.""

Maybe, but as I understood that article I read a few months ago, that process needs a timeframe that's huge compared to the current age of the universe. Trillions of years, iirc. That's if they're right about dark energy eventually overpowering all the attractive forces.

---

Re "Those bridges were DESIGNED.  Gahhh. "

Over troubled waters?

---

Re "What Craig is saying is that transfinite numbers have properties that Craig considers weird, therefore nothing infinite can exist in actuality."

I had an argument about that some years ago, with a guy who said (iirc) that an actual infinity couldn't exist because taking away part of it wouldn't make it smaller.

Uh - that's basically the definition of infinite: having a proper subset with the same cardinality (set theory term for size of the set) as itself. Finite sets can't do that.

---

Re "Those chips and marks are both complex and specific, the combination of which tends to rule out blind unguided forces as the cause."

I wonder - if "specific" refers to the intent of the person (or being or whatever) that did it, I'd think the overall shape and sharpness of the thing would be what was "specified". The chips and markings would be an incidental byproduct. Unless I'm missing something. Excluding perhaps a notch that may have been used in attaching the thing to a shaft or handle.

---

Re "Big deal, a stake through the heart of Darwinism. Ho hum. If we believe UD, that happens four or five times a day. Yawn."

Does "Darwinism" have a heart? If so, did it evolve or was it designed?

---

Re "Extra credit: If zero is nothing then how can it be something (a number)?"

A number is typically a description of something else, either a measurement or the size of a set. That includes zero. Also negative number, and imaginary and complex numbers.

How many points do I get for that answer? :)

Say, if complex means improbable, does that mean that numbers with real and imaginary parts are unlikely?

Henry

Date: 2007/07/31 22:38:18, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped."

That idea could have a peel...

Date: 2007/08/04 22:26:47, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "If Universal Common Descent is true, it must have a mechanism that can produce macroevolutionary change -- that can transform one type of animal into a fundamentally different type of animal."

I wonder about that "argument". Don't most of the features of reptiles and mammals have homologs (is that the right word?) in amphibians, and even in fish? If that's the case, where is the "fundamental difference" that evolution "requires"? (And is that too many quote marks?)

Henry

Date: 2007/08/05 19:09:30, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
(RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,15:03)
Finish the rest of the Bible, especially the New Testament.  In it you will read that Christ came to fulfill and complete the law.  

------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for your opinion.

Jesus's opinion, apparently, was different:


Matthew 5:17-18  " Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.



Wait, wait, let me guess --------->  that's a mis-translation, right?


(snicker)  (giggle)


Besides, when did "fulfill" acquire the same meaning as "repeal"?

------------

Quote
I do know that mediums exist


In any department store, between the section for small sizes and the section for large sizes.

(If a short psychic is on the run from police, is that a small medium at large?)

Henry

Date: 2007/08/05 19:10:36, Link
Author: Henry J
I liked the "It is also easy for me to express my idea in a way that confuses the issue rather than clarifies it" line.

Henry

Date: 2007/08/05 23:26:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Well it was Velociraptors that were outrun by the oak trees.  ;)  But my question never got answered, I notice . . ."

Well obviously, those trees leafed, and the velocity raptures didn't manage to leaf.

Henry

Date: 2007/08/05 23:27:21, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "We're trying to find some educated creationists to argue with."

The problem with that is that educated creationists are former creationists. :p

Henry

Date: 2007/08/06 16:23:22, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 06 2007,12:59)
But humans lived in the New World for at least 8,000 years before that. Why didn't they all drown?

Aquatic Ape Theory. :p

Date: 2007/08/06 16:32:27, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 06 2007,14:02)
[...] and as you claim the flood water was salty (presumably) space would need to be devoted to their drinking water also? [...]

It was raining. ;)

Date: 2007/08/06 17:29:01, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
ref 1). How can "God dit it" ever be science? I am assuming here that science needs to provide naturalistic explanations that can be tested repeatedly


I'd say the "tested repeatedly" part is what's important in that. Whether it's "naturalistic" would depend on figuring out what the heck that word means. ;)

Quote
Earth that revolved upon it's axis in 24 hours whilst light from the sun was shining upon it?


Minor detail here, but Earth's day was a lot shorter billions of years ago.

Henry

Date: 2007/08/06 20:34:56, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "When did witches, uh, stop having supernatural powers."

Does Samantha Stevens know about this? Or Tabitha? Or Sabrina? Or Willow Rosenberg? Or the Halliwell sisters?

Henry

Date: 2007/08/06 22:12:25, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "For example, look at astronomy and particle physics."

Just wondering, but did you mean general relativity and quantum mechanics?

Henry

Date: 2007/08/07 14:02:37, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Darth Robo @ Aug. 07 2007,07:29)
"Or the Halliwell sisters?"

Geri Halliwell has a sister?  NNOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

:(

Must be a different Halliwell - I was referring to Prue, Piper, Phoebe, and Paige Halliwell. No Geri (whoever that is) in there.

Henry

Date: 2007/08/07 14:09:37, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Regarding "naturalistic": I am fair happy with this description/meaning...
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/naturalistic


Quote
naturalistic, realistic
representing what is real; not abstract or ideal;


I don't know about that definition. It looks like it would include anything that really exists, even things usually thought of as supernatural. That would seem to defeat the purpose of using the word "natural".

Quote
Whaddaya mean by shorter days billions of years ago?


Well, I read that someplace. :p
It might be in the Index to Creationist Claims in the section about recession of the moon.

Henry

Date: 2007/08/07 14:32:54, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "but the shell can appear only in one saltation, because it only makes sense as a whole."

It doesn't have to make sense to you, it only has to reduce the amount of predation on the species. A partial shell would most likely do that.

Henry

Date: 2007/08/07 14:34:42, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "So where do mollusk shells come from"

Most of them come from the ocean.  :p

Date: 2007/08/09 22:48:24, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Just because someone says something that sounds increadible doesn't mean they don't have evidence, and just because it's increadible doesn't mean the evidence is somehow more suspect. "

That reminds me of something I heard a while back: Fiction has to make sense (well, more or less, anyway, at least to its intended audience). Reality is under no such constraint.

-----------

Re "Ian, Yesterday I listened to a radio report that a large part of the American population does not even know that New Mexico is a state of the union. I'll try to find it."

Wonder what score they'd get on this ?

Henry

Date: 2007/08/09 22:49:36, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
(stevestory @ Aug. 07, 20:00)
Quote
("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 07 2007,18:34)

Quote
(Henry J @ Aug. 07 2007,14:09)

Quote

Whaddaya mean by shorter days billions of years ago?



Well, I read that someplace. :p
It might be in the Index to Creationist Claims in the section about recession of the moon.


IIRC, it was determined by examining ancient coral reef fossils for evidence of daily cycles and their length . . .


Coral growth is also one of the dozens of lines of evidence indicating the earth is much older than YEC claims.  


Yep, that was under the section on recession of the moon. The evidence from corals apparently gives the number of days per year, instead of directly indicating hours per day.

Say, could that lead to claims that the length of the year has changed significantly over time? ;) :p

Henry

Date: 2007/08/09 23:56:56, Link
Author: Henry J
Does the 2nd law even apply to the entirety of an expanding space? Esp. if it does happen to be infinite?

I'm supposing it does, at least in some sense, but I could be wrong. Or maybe it only applies to fixed regions?

Anyway, they do think useful energy will continuosly decline, so eventually there won't be stars, or much of any chemical reactions. But afaik that's expected to take several times the current age of our space.

As for something holding back the 2nd law "before" (if "before" means anything in this context), something just occurred to me - at zero (or nearly zero) volume, the number of possible states of everything in this space would be very low, for an entropy near zero, I would think. But with expanding volume, the number of possible states would go up quite rapidly.

Another thought is that the laws of thermodynamics do refer to behavior expected under current conditions in this space-time, in which particles can generally travel some distance before hitting another particle. Conditions would have been extremely different from those within a few Planck times (10 ^ -43 seconds or so?) of the "big bang"; at that time it may not have even been possible for distinct particles to exist, except perhaps momentarily. I'm not sure if the laws of T.D. would even apply in that situation, since those laws are based on statistical properties of particles interacting with each other.

Henry

Date: 2007/08/10 12:49:13, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 10 2007,02:26)
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 09 2007,22:48)
...
Wonder what score they'd get on this ?

Henry

100%  0 miles  280 seconds.
Strangely fun but very easy as it seemed to make corrections for my errors. Fun though.

Whether it corrects an error depends on the size of the error, and sometimes on what browser or browser settings are being used. On my machine at home it doesn't penalize for errors - apparently that part of the program either doesn't work on my system or my settings block it from operating. At the office it allows a slight margin of error; more than that it redlines where the state should be, and updates the error score.

Henry

Date: 2007/08/10 12:50:17, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 10 2007,08:28)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 10 2007,08:14)
I added a "Pariah" group that cannot post, but can PM, and changed FtK's membership to it.

Ahem... Shouldn't you have created a "Piranha" group?

That was my thought, too.  :p

Date: 2007/08/10 14:24:26, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Slugs can be find often at same places as snails."

Conclusion: the two groups found two different ways of surviving and propagating. Nothing in the ToE implies that everything would develop identical strategies, even if they happen to be in similar environments. (Side question - were snails and slugs in a similar environement when they developed their current strategies?)

Henry

Date: 2007/08/10 14:28:38, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Does he mean saltationism (unorthodox adherence to sudden change as a primary evolutionary mechanism)? "

He can't mean that, since "sudden change" isn't a mechanism - it's a description of the speed of whatever the relevant mechanism might be. :p

Henry

Date: 2007/08/10 14:36:51, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Depends how you look at the question doesn't it? Surely an argument could be made that you can't see anything except photons.


Ah ha! I hath see the light!

:p

Date: 2007/08/11 00:10:16, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
At a much more basic level, your friend's options are incomplete.  He states that one of three things happened:

1. Something supernatural created everything, and the universe is not infinite.

2. Something supernatural created everything and the universe is infinite.

3. The universe was held still, away from those pesky thermodynamic laws by something supernatural, while in the pre big bang state.


But 3 in that list is not mutually exclusive from 1 or 2.

Quote
6. The universe was held still, away from those pesky thermodynamic laws by natural processes unknown to us.


Alternate 6a: The laws of thermodynamics don't apply to whatever the heck it was that initiated the big bang, whether it was collisions of a couple of four dimensional branes or something else. (Or would the branes need more than 4 dimensions for that?)

Quote
8. These questions are no better formed than the question, "what is north of the north pole?"


Guesses: Santa Claus? Flying reindeer? Flying spaghetti monsters?

Henry

Date: 2007/08/11 17:18:53, Link
Author: Henry J
What the heck does "accumulation of stresses" have to do with biological evolution, which is accumulation of hereditable changes?

Henry

Date: 2007/08/11 22:34:45, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "They think Adam was the most brilliant human ever, and it has all been downhill from there [...]"

They think the guy that bit into that fruit when he shouldn't have, was the most brilliant human ever?

Re "And how do you justify this statement without knowing how many mutations are needed for speciation?"

Why would somebody think a particular number of mutations is a requirement for ceasing to interbreed?

Henry

Date: 2007/08/12 16:26:56, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Mirages and bubbles are other examples of you seeing air."

To air is human, after all.

Date: 2007/08/12 20:55:45, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "What if the probabilities, once known, say "design"? Well, then, the Oklo reactors must really be designed."

Ah, but did they meet all the safety regulations? ;)

Henry

Date: 2007/08/13 16:30:33, Link
Author: Henry J
Up and down? Nonsense - flagella go in circles, just like any outboard motor propeller! :p

Date: 2007/08/13 16:46:13, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 13 2007,15:33)
You can't observe them, only their effects, if you get my drift.

Would that be continental drift? :p

Date: 2007/08/13 16:49:32, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (hooligans @ Aug. 13 2007,15:20)
Haven't black holes been observed? Am I crazy, or am I missing something here? Is Davetard just stupid or did I read his post wrong.

They've been identified at the centers of some galaxies (maybe most galaxies?). (By their effects rather than direct observation, as another poster already mentioned.) So unless there's something else that produces effects indistinguishable from those of black holes, they're existance is confirmed.

Henry

Date: 2007/08/13 22:17:42, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
It can be seen then, as time goes on, light from a given source becomes increasingly blue shifted when observed nearby. Howevr, from a distance it will appear red shifted since the observer will be in a relatively higher blue shift state at his observation post.


What does the author of that think he's saying? Sounds like he's mixing up red shift from expansion with red or blue shift due to relative motion - none of which applies to the sun since its distance from the Earth is relatively constant, and far too small for universe expansion to be relevant.

Henry

Date: 2007/08/13 22:18:13, Link
Author: Henry J
heddle,
Quote
While I think black holes exist, your logic is incorrect.

Before Newtonian gravitation, nothing explained planetary motion as well as epicycles. However, the lack of an alternative explanation, at that time, did not confirm the existence of epicycles.

The best you can say is that the (indirect) evidence is so strong, that most physicists accept that black holes exist.


No, my logic was okay. Epicycles were based on math that seemed to work at the time, but which had no underlying theory to explain it. Black holes were predicted by a theory that was already verified by other evidence. That's a big difference.

Granted, the "confirmed" is of course subject being overturned by future discoveries. That's why I added the condition "unless there's something else that produces effects indistinguishable from those of black holes".

Henry

Date: 2007/08/16 12:17:22, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
and Xians actually changed the Bible in order to try and counter them.


Wouldn't that be a form of blasphemy?  :p

Date: 2007/08/16 12:41:18, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
of course I can prove that there isn't any non materialistic evidence that Skeptic isn't a stupid bastard, I shall now do so:


What's the marital status of his parents got to do with it? ;)

Date: 2007/08/16 15:29:04, Link
Author: Henry J
Before light was created, all matter was dark matter... ;)

Date: 2007/08/16 15:32:20, Link
Author: Henry J
If anybody wants a guess from an amateur, I'd guess that slugs rely more on shelter (i.e., being under things), whereas snails carry a partial shelter around with them. But that's at a cost; building that shell, and putting out the energy needed to carry it while moving around - slugs aren't paying that cost; their way works for them (yucky as it is), else they'd be extinct by now.

Just my two cents.

Henry

Date: 2007/08/16 16:31:36, Link
Author: Henry J
Probably, but the hard part is getting hold of him/them to ask what it is.

Date: 2007/08/16 17:48:09, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "The question then arises: Where did the information about the theorem come from?"

A parallel universe? I figure that "paradoxes" like that either don't happen, or actually involve shift(s) between parallel universes, even though the people involved might not notice that.

(Though my guess would be that time travel doesn't happen, at least not for anything bigger than a quantum particle - but it's still an interesting concept to think about.)

Henry

Date: 2007/08/16 20:26:38, Link
Author: Henry J
Re ""Intelligent Design: For People Who Don't Like Any Surprises." "

Really?

I'd think ID would generate even more surprises than evolution, since everything that's surprising to a scientist would also be surprising to an IDer, plus most of the stuff that's explained by evolution theory would also be a surprise to one who doesn't accept that explanation.

Or am I confused?

Henry

Date: 2007/08/17 11:11:47, Link
Author: Henry J
Meow?

Date: 2007/08/17 13:55:25, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (djmullen @ Aug. 17 2007,03:33)
Is anybody else getting a lot of extraneous question marks and other trash when quoting from UD?

That happens when quoting from a website that uses the utf-8 character set (with thousands of character codes), onto a site that uses a more limited character set (with 255 character codes), like this one.

Henry

Date: 2007/08/18 17:33:06, Link
Author: Henry J
It's not the typing that's at issue, since those question marks are showing up in posts that displayed without them before.

Henry

Date: 2007/08/20 16:56:49, Link
Author: Henry J
I wonder if maybe writers of pep talks also need to understand their market...  :p

Date: 2007/08/20 17:03:31, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "intelligently designed":

They keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what they think it means.

Date: 2007/08/20 19:29:36, Link
Author: Henry J
Of course, if it were that easy to break the 2nd LOT, it wouldn't be called a law in the first place.

Also if it were that easy to break, there'd be no point in ID/C pushers bothering to exclaim evilution contradicts the 2nd LOT, since it that case the "argument" wouldn't mean anything. (Then again, it doesn't really mean anything anyway, given that there's at least a dozen different ways of refuting it, but never mind that.)

Henry

Date: 2007/08/20 19:31:24, Link
Author: Henry J
Was PT's reply mechanism hung today? There was about 12 hours of no replies added. Or was it just me? (Not too likely since I checked on two different machines.)

Henry

Date: 2007/08/21 11:33:46, Link
Author: Henry J
I didn't try replying anywhere, it's just that no new replies got added between 6 or 7 in the morning through about 6 that afternoon. It's unusual for it to go that long between comments or replies.

Henry

Date: 2007/08/21 12:03:31, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "you have no way of knowing if they fell at the same speed because of gravity or because of design."

Those aren't mutually exclusive categories - an engineer might use gravity to accomplish whatever the purpose was.

Date: 2007/08/21 16:23:52, Link
Author: Henry J
Maybe the lack of replies yesterday was just that nobody had much they wanted to say at the time? I dunno. It's just unusual for PT to be that slow.

Date: 2007/08/21 16:30:45, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
People who believe we are made in the imago Dei will treat others with respect.


While history isn't my strong suit, I strongly suspect that lots of exceptions can be found for that "rule" by anybody that bothers to look.

Henry

Date: 2007/08/21 16:36:28, Link
Author: Henry J
I don't get referring to faith as a means of acquiring knowledge. Doesn't a person have to have already heard about something before developing faith in it?

Henry

Date: 2007/08/21 16:59:34, Link
Author: Henry J
Well, maybe cultural studies aren't my strong suit either? :p

But regarding
Quote
People who believe we are made in the imago Dei will treat others with respect.
Those who believe we are made in the imago animalia however have no reason to treat others with respect (other than pragmatic reasons).


I see no reason to expect either "imago Dei" or "imago animalia" to determine whether the person respects another person or not.

After all, lots of the ID/C people who've posted here and PT routinely ignore the explanations that people here give them - and that ain't respect.

Or is this a case of "[They] keep using that word. I do not think it means what [they] think it means"?

Henry

Date: 2007/08/21 21:13:04, Link
Author: Henry J
If we came from earlier mammals, why are there still other mammals?
If we came from ampibians, why are there still frogs?
If we came from fish, why are there still trout?
If we came from ... oh never mind.

Oh, and if birds came from dinosaurs, why are there still... oh wait, never mind that, too.

Henry

Date: 2007/08/21 21:13:14, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Whatever mechanisms one assumes for natural individual variation it is obvious that however many genetic variants arise within a thousand individuals in a year the number will be a thousand times greater for a population of a million and a million times as great for a population of a billion.


Which implies nothing about which of those groups will produce more descendant species than the others. A high population species is apt to be already quite well adapted to its current environment; if that doesn't change, there's no adaptation to be made. A low population species, in contrast, can easily change simply due to genetic drift.

Henry

Date: 2007/08/22 20:40:38, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
(JAM @ Aug. 22 2007,15:55)
[...]
Quote

Did Dembski employ the phrase because he coopted it from an obscure glossary?


Given the answer, Bradford responds:  
Quote

It matters not at all where Dembski took the phrase intelligent design from.



I don't attach too much importance to the source of the phrase either. If Dembski had actually wanted to say something, he would have used a phrase that actually made sense in the first place. If the intended meaning is that life or some aspect of it was deliberately engineered by some agency, then he should say that instead of using phrasing that only confuses the issue. (Or am I being picky?)

Henry

Date: 2007/08/22 20:41:01, Link
Author: Henry J
Ah, so shortly the only questionable characters here will be the ones posting in favor of ID and/or C! :p

Henry

Date: 2007/08/23 14:10:59, Link
Author: Henry J
To find out which group is hotter:

Collect a sample population of each.

Insert thermometers in their mouths (or other openings).

Wait appropriate amount of time.

Read off and compare results.

Then you'll know which is hotter!

(Of course, it's possible I might be missing the point - nah.)

Henry

Date: 2007/08/23 15:55:46, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "20  Lenny points out the semantic form of the question is parameterless."

They both pointed that out. Then Louis went on and explained how to fix the question so as to make it answerable.

Or as somebody once put it: "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

IOW - calling somebody or something beautiful, or cute, is really describing the reaction of the one doing the describing, rather than a quality inherent to the object being described.

Henry

Date: 2007/08/23 20:04:31, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Jehu's Second Law, equally important and informative, states that Olympic Record times (e.g., the 100-metre dash) will tend to decrease, whereas Guinness Records (e.g., # bees on face) will tend to increase with time."

Is there a law that the number of known chemical elements can only increase if it changes?

Well, maybe not - there was that time (about 7 or 8 years ago?) that it went down by 1.

Henry

Date: 2007/08/23 20:04:49, Link
Author: Henry J
Being "hairy" is a correctable condition. :p

Henry

Date: 2007/08/23 20:05:46, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Looks like diamonds are NOT Sal's best friend. "

Why should they be - they're unstable in this environment. :p

Henry

Date: 2007/08/24 14:14:54, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 24 2007,08:01)
But we all would really be interested if they could get around to inferring the "minimal capabilities of the designer from the properties of the designed object". They could start with the human spinal column...

That could take some backbone...

Date: 2007/08/24 14:42:24, Link
Author: Henry J
Lenny and Louis ... two posters separated by a common language...

Date: 2007/08/25 01:06:48, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "the pros and cons of Marxism?"

Once while on safari in Africa, I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How it got in my pajamas, I'll never know.

Oops, wrong Marx.

Never mind.

Henry

Date: 2007/08/25 01:30:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
They kept doing things like demanding proof of intermediate fossils, and I did such unfair things as providing them.


Tsk, tsk! Trying to confuse them with facts like that!

Henry

Date: 2007/08/25 15:17:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Without a beholder, or group of them, what the heck would the term "beauty" (or "cute" or "hot") even mean?

As for Lenny's complaint from a while back that defining all the terms of the question would answer it - well yes, understanding the meaning of a question is a large part of answering it. Maybe even the most important part. (Remember "word problems" in elementary school math?)

Henry

Date: 2007/08/25 17:01:12, Link
Author: Henry J
As for the question of whether there's a rift between science and religion - imnsho without adding a bunch more detail, that's way too vague for a yes or no answer.

There's no logical contradiction between the ToE (for example) and a generic theism.

But believers in specific theisms do sometimes make claims and attach them to their theologies.

Henry

Date: 2007/08/25 17:02:44, Link
Author: Henry J
While ID and C arguments are illogical, this exchange (the one involving gerbils) doth have an extremely high illogic quotient... :p

Henry

Date: 2007/08/26 18:28:52, Link
Author: Henry J
So is Davison like a parahna to both current science and the ID/C movement?

Henry

Date: 2007/08/27 11:47:32, Link
Author: Henry J
Giant panda can survive
Quote
The giant panda is not at an ?evolutionary dead end? and could have a long term viable future, according to new research involving scientists from Cardiff University.

Previous studies have found that the giant panda?s isolation, unusual dietary requirements and slow reproductive rates have led to a lack of genetic diversity that will inevitably lead the species to extinction.

And they're cute, too!

Henry

Date: 2007/08/27 11:48:37, Link
Author: Henry J
How Snakes Survive Starvation
Quote
Starving snakes employ novel survival strategies not seen before in vertebrates, according to research conducted by a University of Arkansas biologist. These findings could be used in conservation strategies to determine the health of snake populations.


Henry

Date: 2007/08/27 14:19:14, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
That dovetails with a theory I heard that the great frequency of religious/mystical visions in medieval Europe and the Middle East was due to people's brains shorting out due to malnutrition.


Hmmm. Didn't some prophets reportedly do periods of fasting before prophetizing?

Henry

Date: 2007/08/27 14:21:54, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
c) The endless merry-go-round this thread has become is more than a little annoying due to the fact that those people who are actually willing to read for basic comprehension seem to be in agreement [...]


Well, that's your own fault, for winning the argument several pages ago.  :)

Henry

Date: 2007/08/27 21:06:21, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Quote
You Know a while back I would of said you had a shot at convincing, or at least raising some suspicion, in some evolutionists but now I realize that the brainwashing in truly deep in some of these people and no amount of clear reasoning can get through to them.


Conclusion: brainwashing isn't contagious.

Henry

Date: 2007/08/27 22:48:59, Link
Author: Henry J
Weren't phlogiston theory (chemistry) and ether theory (physics) mistakes due to insufficient data, rather than hoaxes?

Henry

Date: 2007/08/28 11:04:16, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 28 2007,08:01)
If so then do cows have faith?

Yes, and it's very MOOOOOOOO-ving.

Date: 2007/08/28 11:09:03, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 28 2007,10:03)
Quote
You put something in mathematical form and then someone else can check it.

Haven't there been threads on PT where somebody did in fact check Dembski's "mathematical form"? What were the results of that check, again? :p

Date: 2007/08/28 14:31:07, Link
Author: Henry J
That post was from almost two years ago.

Date: 2007/08/28 21:52:28, Link
Author: Henry J
Maybe if we think of it this way:

Science aids in understanding what is, or in estimating the likely results of doing something.

It does not make decisions, set aesthetic opinions, or set priorities, it only provides information that may be helpful in doing or understanding those activities or their results.

Plus, this Lenny vs. Louis thing seems to me to be more about semantics rather than content, which may be part of why it's dragged on like this.

Well, that plus the point I've tried to make before - defining the terms in an unclear question is a necessary first step toward answering it. Ergo, objecting to a request for definitions of terms just does not make sense.

As for what "beauty" is, I'll just quote Reciprocating Bill, since he said it quite well:
Quote
What appears to be "objectively" beautiful, when we step back and take in both the object AND our view of it (and the history of the factors that deteremine the characteristics of that view), is seen not to be so. Rather, the sense of beauty reflects the characteristics of the observer as well as, perhaps more than, the observed.


Reciprocating:
Quote
But the fact is that we reason over our subjective experiences, and subjectivity (and the non-propositional forms of processing we call "feelings") plays a huge role in motivating and organizing reasoning.


Yep. Reason is a tool for planning how to acheive a goal, or perhaps in deciding which goals are actually practical; motivation comes from feelings (as might be guessed from the word "motivation").

Henry

Date: 2007/08/28 23:17:01, Link
Author: Henry J
Lenny,

Re "But that is precisely the problem:"

It looks to me like the real problem seems to be that you're saying that like somebody's disagreeing with you, when your point here isn't what Louis is disagreeing with, as far as I can tell.

I think what Louis is saying is that the answers from a group of people, once obtained, can be analyzed statistically, and maybe that a persons answer could be detected by using an instrument to measure the person's reaction to something.

As far as I can tell, he isn't saying that science can decide the answer for a given person, which is what it looks like what you appear to think he's saying.

Regarding asking somebody on the street "are blondes cuter than brunettes?" - if you ask a specific person that question, then you've provided the context that Louis keeps saying is needed. Which makes me wonder why you keep objecting to his suggestion that context (i.e., who is being asked) is needed for that kind of question? For that particular question, the term that typically needs defining is simply the "to whom" part of the question - without that the question is meaningless (Or at least unanswerable as is), as everybody who's commented here (excepting perhaps Skeptic) appears to agree.

Henry

Date: 2007/08/29 16:01:27, Link
Author: Henry J
Or figure out how tall that there tower of Babel was when it got knocked down...  :p

Date: 2007/08/29 20:52:25, Link
Author: Henry J
Lenny,

In other words, science does not make decisions or establish opinions.

But nobody was arguing against that point; as far as I can tell Louis' point doesn't conflict with that. Is there a disagreement on that point that I'm not seeing?

As for that list of questions that you've accused Louis of saying are without meaning: unless I've misunderstood him, he's been saying questions of opinion have to be directed at a particular person(s) in order to have an answer. As far as I can tell you're in agreement on that point. So here too: Is there a disagreement on this point that I'm not seeing?

Henry

Date: 2007/08/29 20:52:41, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Louis - Why do you make the Baby Zeus cry? "

Yeah, don't upset a deity what might throw a thunderbolt or two your way if he gets reeeeeeally miffed! ;)

Henry

Date: 2007/08/29 22:00:07, Link
Author: Henry J
skeptic,

Quote
Take two questions,

What is the speed of sound?

Is murder wrong?


I agree that there's no necessity of a conflict (i.e., there's no logical contradiction between scientific conclusions and a generic theism), and some religions don't object to science.

But you're not going to establish your point by picking questions that avoid the areas of disagreement that some religious groups do have with science.

The problem is that those religious groups apparently want our 99% similarity with chimpanzees to be a deliberate design decision on the part of somebody or something, rather than a consequence of the methods used to produce both. How that is supposed to establish a greater distance between us and chimps I have no idea; to me it looks like it does just the opposite. Oh well.

Henry

Date: 2007/08/30 12:42:44, Link
Author: Henry J
Louis,
Maybe you're not putting enough emphasis on things they consider important? Or putting too much emphasis on ideas they don't like?

I'm seeing disagreement on how to phrase what's being said between you and Lenny, but if there's disagreement about the concepts (rather than just the words used to describe them), I'm not seeing it.

Henry

Date: 2007/08/30 14:01:32, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
How would keeping such a secret be possible? ?For what reason? ?Wouldn't someone in the media want to expose just such a thing...think the fame and fortune!


And that by itself kills their whole "argument", without even having to look at technical details of what the ToE says. :D

Henry

Date: 2007/08/30 14:20:32, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Hence why the very phrases "are blondes hotter than brunettes" or "is murder wrong" are utterly and totally devoid of meaning.


They're each like a sentence fragment in the absence of the rest of the sentence - they need a "to whom" and maybe a "which one" added before an answer can be made.

(Otoh, on average, blondes are cuter. ;) )

Henry

Oh, and come to think of it, there might need to be a "when" added to each of those partial questions as well, since a person's preferences can change over time.

Date: 2007/08/31 12:24:15, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 31 2007,09:05)
[...] but it apears that you are deliberately setting out to anoy/upset/piss-off Louis.

Well, Lenny has in the past stated that he enjoys "yanking" somebody's "chain". I'm left with the very strong impression that that's all he's doing here, and it's all he's trying to do here.

Henry

Date: 2007/08/31 19:20:47, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
And in fact, a universe of a few hundred million years would adequately refute Darwinian evolution and favor some form of special creation.


How does he figure that? The only reason we think evolution took 4+ billion years is because geological dating indicates that, not because the theory implied it.

Henry

Date: 2007/09/01 19:42:35, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Salvadore Cordova: "Don't worry, I've got your back!"


Robin of Locksley: "Watch my back!"

Achoo: "You're back just got punched twice."

Robin: "Thank you."

Henry

Date: 2007/09/01 19:42:52, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Another issue that people avoid like the plague is why all the special pleading for religion? Why is no one here defending unicorns in the same way?


Cause unicorns can defend themselves. They have that horn, after all.

That aside, it occurs to me that if/when a religion "chooses" something or makes a decision, that really just means that the leaders (or perhaps the originator(s) of the religion) of that religion made a choice. What method(s) they used in making that choice is another question.

Quote
I've gone to some lengths to show how one can dissect a question, and under what circumstances it can be answered by any means. ALL of this has been ignored.


Not by me, but then I haven't been disagreeing with it. One thought I have though, is that one of those unanswerable-as-is questions (aka non-questions aka incompletely-specified questions) does have a meaning in the sense of suggesting a set of questions that then can be answered. So for something like "which hair color is prettier", I wouldn't call it meaningless, though granted it isn't an answerable question until a subject is attached or the terms defined in some way to make it objective. If that makes sense.

----------

Quote
(RB commits a sin for demonstration purposes only)


Details! Confess! Uh - and then repent!

Henry

Date: 2007/09/01 19:44:49, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
All,

I've asked a few questions here and have yet to receive anything approaching an answer (or even in some cases a response). I think I should restate those questions because it seems it is being forgotten that they are still hanging. I might forget a few, so chime in with ones I've forgotten.

a) Demonstrate that faith/revelation provide knowledge about the universe. I.e. that they are valid mechanisms of acquiring knowledge, be it physical or "spiritual" (whatever that means, we'd need a definition, and some evidence it even exists, because saying that reason cannot examine love [for example] is merely yet another reassertion of the original claim).

b) Demonstrate a method for distinguishing between two faith based claims.

c) Demonstrate that reason etc cannot penetrate the areas you claim faith/revelation can, because at the moment all of your examples have been either i) mere reassertions of your original point or ii) derived solely from your personal ignorance of the topics at hand.

d) Demonstrate that questions such as "what is the meaning of life?" are valid questions or valid universally, and that faith/revelation can answer them.

e) Demonstrate that a "religion" that has absolutely no areas of conflict with science at all is distinguishable from a secular, non-religious philosophy or ethical system.

f) Demonstrate that something that is undetectable by any means at all is distinguishable from something that doesn't actually exist.

That's all I can think of for now.

Louis


I don't know how to demonstrate those things. A few comments though:

a) I don't think that faith itself is a way of acquiring knowledge (as somebody else already mentioned somewhere up thread); rather it's acceptance (or confidence in) of something the person heard or thought already.

b) Depends on whether either/both claims imply a physically detectable difference between what we'd see or detect according to whether they're true or false.

d) 42. (Sorry, but somebody had to say that. :) )

Henry

Date: 2007/09/01 21:34:34, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Where does the triangle exist?  Or the circle for that matter?  Are they real?


I'd say no more so than a fictional character or object from a novel.

Henry

Date: 2007/09/01 22:27:13, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
faith can be used as a means to acquire knowledge if tenets for the faith are extrapolated to address new questions.  Abortion is not addressed as such in the Bible but an understanding of the murder concept allows abortion to be addressed.  New knowledge is thus gained using faith alone.  


That's not using faith, that's using inference. Plus, somebody else might infer a different conclusion - which makes it doubtful that the conclusion should be regarded as knowledge.

Henry

Date: 2007/09/02 20:12:06, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Any suggestions?"

Talk.Origins Archive

29 evidences for evolution

An Index to Creationist Claims

Henry

Date: 2007/09/02 22:36:07, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Oh, but what if the Universe is a closed system fralscroblem framastat!  Then what. "

At a guess: at some point several hundred billion years from now, after all the stars have burned the available fuel and there's nothing left from which more stars might form, everything will approach thermodynamic equilibrium. That will of course be long after our sun has expanded into a red giant, absorbed its inner planets, and subsequently used up the rest of its fuel.

Henry

Date: 2007/09/03 15:29:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "As I asked earlier.  Does a triangle exist?  Is a triangle meaningful?  "

What does it mean to ask if a triangle exists? I'm assuming here that this refers to the mathematical concept rather than to a particular physical representation of one. In terms of physical existence, how would a mathematical concept differ from a fictional character in a novel or film? If triangles exist, would equations, sets (finite and infinite), and real numbers exist as well?

Henry

Date: 2007/09/03 15:31:00, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "What where the "minor infractions"? Damned if I managed to see any. My POV was ERV got banned for being correct."

A mortal sin if ever there was one!! :p

Henry

Date: 2007/09/03 15:31:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote

Matt, could you pull up pages 99 to 100 and highlight our favorite passage? That was the passage we spent some time on yesterday, " 5intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact, fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." You said a few things about this passage. One is you don't like it so much.


I wonder, has any reason ever been given as to why an intelligent designer would be limited to "abrupt"?

-----------

Quote
What's more, its [HIV] mutation rate is 10,000 times greater than that of most other organisms.


Is that number accurate? And is it per unit time or per generation? How does it compare to other viruses?

Also, does it include mutations that didn't work out (i.e., a lineage that died), or just the ones that were retained?

Henry

Date: 2007/09/03 19:03:10, Link
Author: Henry J
Mathematics is basically an extension of logic; mathematical knowledge comes from reason (i.e., thinking). That doesn't require faith in the religious sense of the word. That has nothing to do with answering moral type questions.

Henry

Date: 2007/09/03 21:52:51, Link
Author: Henry J
Skeptic,
I was talking specifically about formal mathematics in that comment. I didn't mean the kind of thinking as in imagination or art; that'd be a different subject.

I'm not sure what rationality of geometry would mean.

Henry

Date: 2007/09/04 13:28:21, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 04 2007,09:34)
God of ALL gaps:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-135618

Quote
God?s Uncaused Immaterial Nature is the only way to make sense of any type of infinity.


How can mullerpr know this, unless HE's god?

Funny, I could swear that mathematicians have been working on things like the set of all integers, the set of all real numbers, transfinite set theory (with associated cardinal and ordinal numbers), with sets of axioms for each of them. Maybe I just imagined reading books that discuss each of those things? Huh? :p

Henry

Date: 2007/09/04 16:46:14, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Rob @ Sep. 04 2007,15:16)
The fact that imaginary numbers were vindicated does not mean that my theory about unicorns hiding under my bed will meet the same success.

Imaginary numbers were vindicated? Of what were they accused?  ;)  :p

Date: 2007/09/04 21:14:20, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Wesley R. Elsberry, posted 9/03/07 12:09 PM
Have they given up on blaming their technical difficulties on me yet?


Well, it certainly can't be their fault, what with them being on the side of the DesiGodner and all.

Henry

Date: 2007/09/04 21:14:57, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "fear of losing"

But, but, but, isn't the DesiGodner on their side?

Henry

Date: 2007/09/05 10:56:33, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 05 2007,05:18)
If I ask 2+2=?

3.99999999999999999999999999

Date: 2007/09/05 13:01:48, Link
Author: Henry J
Shirley not!

Date: 2007/09/05 13:26:04, Link
Author: Henry J
[ s]strike[ /s] without the spaces after the opening brackets:
strike

Note- to see how somebody did something, just click the "quote" button on their post and check the relevant line in that.

Henry

Date: 2007/09/05 14:19:40, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 05 2007,11:03)
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 05 2007,16:56)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 05 2007,05:18)
If I ask 2+2=?

3.99999999999999999999999999

Wrong! It's 5, + or - 1.

I haven't fully enumerated the sign and magnitude of the errors yet.

Louis

I changed my mind.

2 + 2 = {{},{{}},{{},{{}},{{},{{}},{{},{{}}}

Date: 2007/09/05 14:22:38, Link
Author: Henry J
Do complex numbers have CSI?

Date: 2007/09/05 14:56:18, Link
Author: Henry J
"Flintstones, meet the Flintstones, they're a modern stone age family..."

Date: 2007/09/05 15:31:42, Link
Author: Henry J
Does Louis believe there must be a conflict, or is he simply acknowledging that it exists?

Date: 2007/09/05 15:33:17, Link
Author: Henry J
"From the town of Bedrock, they're a page right out of history..."

Date: 2007/09/05 22:37:47, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
1) Epistemiology: Very briefly and roughly speaking science at its core is the acquisition of knowledge by the application of reason and observation. Religion at its core claims to garner knowledge by faith and relevation. These mechanisms (faith/revelation and reason/observation) are diametrically opposed.


Ah, back to the month old parent note. Well, first, faith is confidence in something one already knows or thinks; it isn't  a way of getting new information.

Second, revelation, if it worked, would produce similar answers whenever different people asked the same questions. (If anybody thinks otherwise - WHY?)

Since revelations from different people are known to have produced widely different answers, that pretty much proves that it is not reliable as a way of getting accurate knowledge. (which I presume is Louis' main point, or one of them.)

Reason by itself can generate principles of logic or pure mathematics, such as set theory, geometry, real numbers.

Then there's science, which is basically a way of inferring general principles from consistent repeatable patterns across some category of observations and measurements. That's been shown to be very reliable as long as (1) there's enough data and (2) the relevant patterns are consistent and repeatable across all the relevant observations.

Henry

Date: 2007/09/06 10:13:44, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 06 2007,04:55)
I have just found this on Pharyngula. Comment number 11 by Denis Loubet. The relevant quote:

Quote
Just because I agree with the theory of gravity doesn't mean I want to fall down.


The best refutation of the Is/Ought fallacy I've ever seen. Hilarious.

Louis

Or rephrase it using the ToE: Just because I agree with evolution theory doesn't mean I want to catch a disease that evolved in birds or chimpanzees.

Date: 2007/09/06 10:17:26, Link
Author: Henry J
Mainstream ID? Which of the ID pushers gets to decide what that is?

Date: 2007/09/06 10:49:14, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 06 2007,10:23)
If that means being a Young Earth Creationist and citing Davison to support your ideas, that's cool too.

Hmm. Well, if they do that, ask them to explain that semi-meiotic whatever it is. :p

Date: 2007/09/06 11:00:27, Link
Author: Henry J
At that rate Louis could lose his non-prophet status...

Date: 2007/09/06 11:10:53, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Altabin @ Sep. 06 2007,11:04)
I want to know how it's going to deal with the "condom culture."

With an appropriate combination of antibiotics?

Date: 2007/09/06 15:16:21, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "He has never heard about red-green perception canals and so he ?invented ad hoc brand new theory after 5 minutes of thinking: green = white - red."

That agrees with what I remember learning in school on that subject. Which means it isn't ad hoc.

Date: 2007/09/06 22:14:16, Link
Author: Henry J
V,
Re "Check the basic rules about adding and subtraction of colors. These rules are very important in printing plants. Or ask some artist."

Ah. You're talking about mixing pigments. I was thinking about mixing frequencies of light.

Henry

Date: 2007/09/06 22:15:02, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
The square root of negative one always gets them. Larry IAAIL Fartooman just could not get past the literal meaning of imaginary, try as he might those imaginary numbers just didn't exist.


A major irony there is that "real" numbers don't exist either - they're mental constructs just as much as imaginary numbers are, and both can be modeled using concepts from axiomatic set theory.

Henry

Date: 2007/09/06 22:52:15, Link
Author: Henry J
The who whatting how with huh? :p

Date: 2007/09/07 16:05:56, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 07 2007,10:47)
Do you mean that removing red frequency from the light spectrum will cause that the light entering the eye should be perceived as green?

Yes. When talking about mixing of light frequencies:

White light = red + yellow + blue.

Green = yellow + blue.

Remove red from white, what's left?

Oh, and to avoid being totally off topic - how old is the Earth?

Date: 2007/09/07 16:40:55, Link
Author: Henry J
Well, what I recall from school was primary = blue, yellow, red. So which three colors correspond to having only one of our three types of color sense cells reacting to it at one time?

Date: 2007/09/07 17:19:34, Link
Author: Henry J
If the falling is relative, does that mean it's not intelligent after all? :O

Date: 2007/09/07 17:20:47, Link
Author: Henry J
Does the new setting affect already posted posts, or just new posts entered after the new setting was set?

And is this covered by set theory? :)

Henry

Date: 2007/09/08 15:11:50, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "And when's its birthday?"

Just imagine all the complications that'd be involved in trying to actually answer that... :p

Henry

Date: 2007/09/08 15:15:14, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "To me it's astonishing that anyone who had left under such circumstances would imagine that they could return even to use the cafeteria, let alone take up a post-doc in a broom closet."

Maybe he just wants to make a clean sweep? Nah, probably not.

Henry

Date: 2007/09/09 16:20:25, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Can anybody remember that thing that comes before a fall? I don't think Salvador Cordorva (or whatever is his real name) knows either


A banana peel?

Quote
Who funded the funder?


Maybe it has something to do with fund-amentalism?

Henry

Date: 2007/09/09 22:44:53, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "The hypothesis might be true if modern organisms had recoverable front loading DNA, but even then it could have been caused by horizontal gene flow."

I'd think that with front loading, one would expect a much higher quantity of apparent horizontal transfer than would be expected without it.

Henry

Date: 2007/09/10 11:10:04, Link
Author: Henry J
Hmmm. Piranha come from a country where the people speak Portugese - could there be a connection?

Date: 2007/09/10 22:03:04, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote

Do you think the younger races have more information for skin color than the younger races?


I wonder, is the "information" to which this refers simply the amount of melanin being produced in the skin?

If so, then even if that quantity is larger or smaller in one races than in another, how is that more or less "information"?

It's not like the lighter races don't have melanin at all; doesn't everybody (except albinos) have some of it?

Henry

Date: 2007/09/11 23:28:13, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Actually, no. The SETI folks have even issued a FAQ-type statement that they are looking for a narrowband signal, and that they are not looking at "content" at all.


Until they find a signal, anyway - if/when that happens I'd expect then they'd start looking for content. :)

Henry

Date: 2007/09/12 14:58:33, Link
Author: Henry J
"It was a dark and stormy night..."

Date: 2007/09/12 15:07:41, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 12 2007,10:40)
Uncommon Descent posting trend:

Brag about upcoming "X"
Wah Wah Wah "X"
Brag about upcoming "Y"
Wah Wah Wah "Y"
Brag about upcoming "Z"
Wah Wah Wah "Z"

They can spot design, but not trends and patterns.

But science is in a sense all about spotting patterns.

Where does that leave them? :p

Date: 2007/09/12 22:24:53, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Is there ayone there who isn't a complete moron?"

What would an incomplete moron look like?

Henry

Date: 2007/09/13 21:45:04, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
I mean, there really never was an academic precise word for things like bitches and ho's, or gay, or dis or most words that change meaning.


Words like "Darwinism"? :p

Henry

Date: 2007/09/14 17:01:00, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 14 2007,09:13)
Quote
Show me a real science paper that confirms the real age of any of these items claimed to be older than Methuselah and we'll talk.


I find it amusing that Dave accepts the results of science with no problem when scientists say that there's a 4,800 year old tree, but rejects the findings of scientists outright when they say that a mesquite bush is 11,700 years old or that a tree is 80,000 years old. I wonder what the difference could be?

6900 years and 75,200 years?

Date: 2007/09/14 17:45:11, Link
Author: Henry J
I didn't descent from no beetle!
:p

Date: 2007/09/17 22:33:00, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "6-10 people have published more peer reviewed articles by themselves than the whole of the ID movement since 1991"

I.D.: A movement without peer.

Henry

Date: 2007/09/18 10:44:30, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 18 2007,00:54)
Maybe Dembski just had a moment like that.

Sort of a Portugese parahna moment? :p

Date: 2007/09/18 16:14:04, Link
Author: Henry J
I thought what got passed down was the DNA and the other chemicals present in the egg and sperm cells.

Date: 2007/09/18 16:58:26, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "So when people say I have my mother's eyes, I should give them back?"

That sounds like something out of the Addam's Family.

Date: 2007/09/18 22:39:14, Link
Author: Henry J
Evolution? The fossils say neigh!

:p

Henry

Date: 2007/09/18 22:41:57, Link
Author: Henry J
About this notion that organisms somehow generate beneficial changes when needed, it occurs to me that under that model changes to functional DNA should be a lot faster than it is. In times of rapid evolution, it could be expected to outpace genetic drift. That sounds to me like a testable prediction.

Also it seems like in that model evolution should have been a lot faster than it was, and should still be faster than is expected from current theory.

Btw, how the heck is that proposed model supported by pointing out that some fish make use of a mechanism that is already present in the species? That has nothing to do with the notion of a species generating a heritable change in its traits.

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

Quote
Energy = Mass X constant (speed of light) squared.


Quote
It describes the energy you get when you convert mass to energy. (Or energy to mass, if you can find a way to do that).

It has nothing to do with the speed things can travel. Its completely unrelated.


As I recall, E=mc^2 derives from the equations of relativity, so there is that connection.

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

Quote
In 1738: 303,320 +/- 310 km/second
In 1861: 300,050 +/- 60 km/second
In 1877: 299,921 +/- 13 km/second
In 2004: 299,792 km/second (accepted constant)

Setterfield teamed with statistician Dr. Trevor Norman and demonstrated that, even allowing for the clumsiness of early experiments, and correcting for the multiple lenses of early telescopes and other factors related to technology, the speed of light was discernibly higher 100 years ago, and as much as 7 percent higher in the 1700s.


First, check your math. 303/299 is only a little over 1 percent.

Second, why would it be surprising that people three centuries ago could get a result that's off by a few percent?

Henry

Date: 2007/09/19 10:03:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Jesus doesn't except sin? Except it from what, I wonder?  :p

Date: 2007/09/19 10:21:26, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 19 2007,05:29)
I pointed out bacteria can thrive on so called "toxic waste" and you've yet to comment on that fact.

Let's just hope they don't turn into teenage mutant ninja bacteria...

Date: 2007/09/19 10:31:12, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,09:05)
The idea that acquired traits can or cannot be inherited is so easily testable that there is simply no reason no one in science would have done so by now.  If nothing else -- just to end the debate.

If inhertitance of acquired traits was a normal occurrence like you propose, the effects would have been noticed during testing of genetic theory. Separate tests specifically for it aren't necessary.

Date: 2007/09/19 15:04:32, Link
Author: Henry J
So what that article is saying is that genes have what amounts to on/off switches that can also be passed on to descendants, sometimes with the setting left intact? And those switches can sometimes be flipped by environmental factors?

Is that involved in species that alternate between two or three forms over a number of generations?

Sounds like researchers might have to sequence the DNA before and after to be sure if a non-transitory change occurred.

Henry

Date: 2007/09/20 10:21:42, Link
Author: Henry J
I thought parody and strawman were two different things...

Date: 2007/09/20 23:06:54, Link
Author: Henry J
In other words, they're being attacked by the educated segment of society!

Henry

Date: 2007/09/20 23:07:10, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Because, obviously, its not possible that different animals could have evolved coloration differently or for different reasons.


Right - it wouldn't be efficient for the chemical(s) that cause the color to also be doing other things at the same time.

Henry

Date: 2007/09/20 23:08:11, Link
Author: Henry J
I read on another thread that any field with "science" as part of its name, isn't. ;)

Henry

Date: 2007/09/21 10:58:46, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (JAM @ Sep. 20 2007,17:43)
Didja happen to notice that the latter book walks back from the position taken in the former book?

What, somebody went and changed their mind about something? Who'd have thunk it! :p

Date: 2007/09/21 11:24:23, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 21 2007,09:27)
That would explain why the ancient Egyptians were wiped out at the same time as the dinosaurs.

Yeah, but they're in de Nile about it.

Date: 2007/09/21 12:08:03, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Why do fleas eat only breakfast and dinner?

Because there's no such thing as a flea lunch.

Date: 2007/09/21 12:12:09, Link
Author: Henry J
It's not as though the chemical that causes the coloration might have other effects of some benefit to the organism, or that the genes responsible might be linked to other genes, or that the impact of the pigment on number of descentdants might be small enough that genetic drift could produce variety.

After all, anybody claiming that coloration is a problem for current theory would have already been thorough about ruling out those hypotheses, right?

Henry

Date: 2007/09/21 12:14:44, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 21 2007,12:03)
Your post-flood ice age should have been a pretty big story, too, given that it exterminated an entire major clade, the dinosaurs. But strangely enough, no one reported that, either.

Velociraptors hadn't learned how to write, so how could they report it? :p

Date: 2007/09/21 14:06:17, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "If ID was a computer manual"

If your network goes down, send an email to ask for help.

If keyboard stops working, press F1 for help.

Date: 2007/09/21 17:07:48, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote

Antievolution.org Discussion Board has a total of 75162 posts (70144 replies to 5018 Topics)
Most users ever online was 188 on Sep. 21 2007,15:00

Date: 2007/09/21 17:09:52, Link
Author: Henry J
I'm surprised there hasn't been an assertion of the asteroid causing the alleged Flood. :p

Date: 2007/09/21 17:11:09, Link
Author: Henry J
Page 113, wherefore art thou?

Date: 2007/09/21 18:05:14, Link
Author: Henry J
Page 113 is still not showing on the index.

Edit: I take that back - after this post it is showing up.

Date: 2007/09/22 00:27:03, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Where did the heat generated dissipate to?


Maybe it was converted into the kinetic energy that sent all those rocks into the asteroid belt? :p

Henry

Date: 2007/09/22 14:37:22, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote


    In this Darwinian perspective, paleontology formulated its picture for the origin of new taxa. This picture, though rarely articulated, is familiar to all of us. We refer to it here as ?phyletic gradualism? and identify the following as its tenets:

   (1) New species arise by the transformation of an ancestral population into its modified descendants.

   (2) The transformation is even and slow.

   (3) The transformation involves large numbers, usually the entire ancestral population.

   (4) The transformation occurs over all or a large part of the ancestral species? geographic range.



Darwinian? If I recall correctly, Darwin suggested that evolution is apt to occur in a minority of a species, on the fringe of its territory. That stuff about it being the whole species at once was tacked on later by other scientists.

Afaik, only point 1 of those is part of the current theory as phrased above. Number 2 needs a qualifying phrase saying slow relative to the generational span of the species - i.e., that could still be fast relative to geologic eras.

Henry

Date: 2007/09/22 15:38:15, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
No mainstream scientist that I know of has found evidence of a 6-10,000 year old Earth/Universe. I always wonder why those who question science in favour of YECism don't think about that.


My guess: Those who do think about that realize that they don't have an evidence based argument, so they don't go around claiming to have one. So the only ones we here from are the ones who didn't think.

Henry

Date: 2007/09/23 14:13:04, Link
Author: Henry J
(duplicate reply deleted)

Date: 2007/09/23 17:02:42, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
someotherguy, posted 9/20/07 1:27 PM
Quote
(dheddle @ Sep. 20 2007,11:08)


But oddly enough, as Buffy has shown us, it's magics, not magic.


You're suggesting getting grammar advice from someone who once said "the who whatting how with huh?"? ;) :p

Henry

Date: 2007/09/23 17:02:59, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Daniel Smith
Is there some difference that makes the transitional forms more resistant to fossilization than their non-transitional counterparts?


One problem with trying to answer that is that there is no sharp dividing line between "transitional" and "non-transitional". A species is "transitional" if it (or a close relative) produces descendants significantly different than itself; that isn't even a property of the species itself at the time of fossilization, it's a historical occurance afterward.

Quote
oldmanintheskydidntdoit, posted 9/23/07 3:12 AM
Daniel,
Just to get a feel for your position, if we say that 100% is every living creature that ever existed then what % would you say are represented in the fossil record?

I.E what % of all living creatures fossilize?


I recall reading a few years ago that the number of fossil finds that had been studied was around 250 to 500 million. Since quite a few species have multiple finds, the number of species represented would be a good bit less than that.

I wonder how many species have lived in the last 500 million years - would that be more or less than 500 million?

Henry

Date: 2007/09/23 17:04:30, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Are they more "resistant"? How would the concept of "resistance" work anyway, since the issue is one of sampling?


Resistance is futile. :p

Henry

Date: 2007/09/23 17:05:03, Link
Author: Henry J
But would "pariah" status be better or worse than "parahna" or "paranha" status? :p

Henry

Date: 2007/09/23 17:05:30, Link
Author: Henry J
[quote]oldmanintheskydidntdoit, posted 9/23/07 5:10 AM
Quote

[...]
He ignores the fact that human beings share a lot of DNA with creatures that no one suggests are evolutionarily closely related to us.


The who whatting how with huh? :p

Or to put that another way, do they really think that the ToE claims that more distant relatives wouldn't share some DNA? (Just less of it than between human and chimpanzee.)

Henry

Date: 2007/09/24 13:32:20, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (creeky belly @ Sep. 24 2007,12:44)
Buckminster fullerines don't behave like normal soccer balls because their quantum wavelength is proportional to their size (deBroglie's equation).

Proportional, or inversely proportional? (And perhaps to mass rather than size?)

Henry

Date: 2007/09/24 13:37:50, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ Sep. 24 2007,13:19)
I didn't see anyone post this  from super-clown.

I'll take portable goalposts for 1000 Alex.

Here on page 654

Date: 2007/09/24 13:56:45, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 24 2007,13:46)
So Dave things that quantization means that the entire universe is ticking along, lock step, at Planck intervals, and that space, similarly, is a single matrix of quantized slots?

It's got to be more complicated than that, since the model has to account for the rotational symmetry of space.

Henry

Date: 2007/09/24 15:23:00, Link
Author: Henry J
To me it seems at least possible that dog breeders were primarily interesting in getting particular features in their breeds. Obtaining a speciation event was probably not their goal. I wonder if speciation would even be consistent with the usual goals of breeders, since it would limit the possibility of crossing their breed with another in order to import different genes.

Henry

Date: 2007/09/24 15:47:47, Link
Author: Henry J
That's kind of analogous to ring species, but without the geographic aspect of it.

Henry

Date: 2007/09/24 17:43:23, Link
Author: Henry J
Should we assume that these written eyewitness accounts were carried aboard the big boat by Noah and company? :p

Oh, and that the snake wrote its account before it got disarmed for its fruitful suggestion to Eve.

Date: 2007/09/26 16:54:28, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Rob @ Sep. 26 2007,15:11)
Does this mean that chaotic systems are intelligent?

Or that intelligent systems are chaotic? :p

Date: 2007/09/26 22:53:36, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "That's an average speed of over 100 mph."

Aw right, Europe, you're doing 45 over the speed limit - pull over!

Henry

Date: 2007/09/26 23:22:46, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
DaveScot: ID does not dispute common descent. Neither does ID confirm common descent. It just doesn?t speak to that subject. As one might expect since there is actually nothing ID says about common descent [...]


All righty then. Now that Dave has publically admitted that ID doesn't actually say anything, we can all go home, right? :p

Henry

Date: 2007/09/27 12:04:17, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 27 2007,09:06)
From above..

Quote
[...] — he said there was a “very high likelihood” that Darwin was on to something — but because he does not accept that evolution alone can explain life on earth.
[...]

Well, a complete explanation of life of Earth would have to also include geology, astronomy physics, astrophysics, cosmology, climatology, etc., so in that sense evolution alone doesn't explain everything about life. Though that might not be what he meant?

Henry

Date: 2007/09/27 23:10:37, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
How many gods are you suggesting?


Sounds to me like one per gene pool. :p

Henry

Date: 2007/09/29 16:30:04, Link
Author: Henry J
Where does ID belong?

Maybe in a political science course describing strategies used in political movements, especially those trying for support from people who aren't knowledgable about the subject matter.

After all, if "ID" were science, it would have been given a label that says something about the underlying science. Consider the names given to actual science theories - relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution - each of those labels actually says something about the underlying subject matter.

If there were evidence of life or some part of it being deliberately engineered by some agency, the theory describing that would be labelled in a way that explicitly refers to deliberate engineering, or to the type of engineering involved. In contrast to that, the label "intelligent design" was picked because it sounds good to the target audience.

Henry

Date: 2007/09/29 17:12:27, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
stevestory: I wish my Philosophy of Science courses had been post-Dover. I'd like to know what the philosopher who taught the class thinks of Jones's decision. He thought Ruse's demarcation in McLean vs Arkansas was absolute junk, btw.


Write him/her a letter and ask.

Henry

Date: 2007/09/30 22:02:37, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Mass extinctions will have been preceded by the introduction of new types that would dominate the next phase in earth?s cycle."

If the previously dominant types became extinct, where else would the dominant types of the next era come from besides those that were non-dominant in the previous era?

Henry

Date: 2007/10/01 22:01:12, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
6.66e3 = Floating point Beast


Shouldn't that be 6.66e2? Or perhaps 0.666e3?

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

Quote
BWAHAHAHA... ALL YOUR SOULS ARE BELONG TO US, 4 WE R MANY.


Resistance is futile? Nah, I've got a chant that'll help the resistance: Ohm... Ohm... Ohm...

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

Henry

Date: 2007/10/02 11:11:02, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 01 2007,15:22)
Given that Dembski's last large-scale flub was 65 orders of magnitude off, one might find IDC cheerleaders rejoicing over him getting about 45 orders of magnitude or more closer to reality when engaged in pulling numbers out of his posterior.

Well, at least he's getting to the bottom of things...

Date: 2007/10/02 21:58:09, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Scientists say: that's because they look like wasps, which happen to be less predated."

I'm guessing it depends on the kind of bird. A predator with the ability to get around the wasp's defences will probably not be put off by its appearance. A predator that is more vulnerable to that stinger, probably would be.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/02 21:59:06, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Genetics will form the same nested hierarchy."

There is the exception when horizontal transfers occur, but I gather that's quite rare in animals.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/03 13:54:16, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
I was also astounded that he testified at the Dover trial that he did not himself engage in ID research because he was already convinced.


And do biologists stop researching because they're convinced that animals came from ancestors? Somehow I don't think so... :p

Henry

Date: 2007/10/03 14:15:34, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 03 2007,02:06)
Don't those individuals within a species that live longer, reproduce more?  Isn't this exactly what NS is supposed to select for?

Depends on the species. But no, that's not what NS selects for - NS selects for a larger number of descendants for the species (or a subset of it), not a maximum number of offspring per individual.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/03 14:16:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 03 2007,06:49)
Please show me where any reputable biologist alleges that living things "cheat" the second law of thermodynamics.

Maybe it's analogous to how a battery recharger "cheats" the second law when it recharges a battery?

Henry

Date: 2007/10/03 14:38:00, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,10:20)
Where things came from has nothing to do with how they work.

It does however have something to do with where one might look for more information about how a thing works.

Quote
What we see as the source of an object does not affect our ability to study it.


On the contrary - the presumed source of an object tells us where to look for other similar objects that can then be used as study aids. Without knowing the source (or a possible source), that approach isn't available.

Quote
It is the origin of the beetle type which is not a science question.  That belongs to philiosophy or religion in my book.


WHAT?!?!?!? Looking for ancient beetle fossils is something you'd regard as philosophy? Huh?

Henry

Date: 2007/10/03 14:42:24, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (JonF @ Oct. 03 2007,12:14)
The only hope for significant error in radiometric dating is humongous coordinated changes in the rates of several independent radioactive decay mechanisms, and that has a few minor problems such as parboiling the planet.

:O

Date: 2007/10/03 14:47:10, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,14:16)
And by the way, which evolution speed do you guys say is true punctuated equalib. or gradualism?

Who will cop out and say it is both?

Depends on what you mean by "gradualism" in that question. For at least one meaning of "gradualism", it is both.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/03 16:48:40, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 03 2007,14:31)

[...]
NS maximizes the reproductive rate of an allele during a given time span, even if this allele reduces the fitness of its bearers (this can be possible).


Yeah, I guess I did oversimplify things too much there.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/03 16:50:44, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 03 2007,16:17)
but by itself, I don't think that the SLoT makes senescence and death inevitable.

Not over short time frames, anyway. When the universe is gets old enough for all the stars to have burned out, maybe.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/03 22:27:16, Link
Author: Henry J
One question is what would prevent variance + natural selection from occasionally producing cases of mimicry, when lots of species (many of them with lots of varieties) are thrown together in one ecosystem

Henry

Date: 2007/10/04 14:01:01, Link
Author: Henry J
Beyond A 'Speed Limit' On Mutations, Species Risk Extinction
Quote
Cambridge, Mass. - October 1, 2007 - Harvard University scientists have identified a virtual "speed limit" on the rate of molecular evolution in organisms, and the magic number appears to be 6 mutations per genome per generation -- a level beyond which species run the strong risk of extinction as their genomes lose stability.

iirc, the average mutation rate for the coding section in humans is what, 1 or 2 per generation?

Henry

Date: 2007/10/04 17:45:21, Link
Author: Henry J
Er, wasn't Tinkerbell a fairy, not an angel? ;)

Date: 2007/10/04 17:47:49, Link
Author: Henry J
If'n he wants to "retrain" people's imaginations, wouldn't the way to do that be show people the relevant verifiable evidence of whatever it is? Or am I missing the point?

Henry

Date: 2007/10/04 17:51:31, Link
Author: Henry J
Maybe dendrochronology's bark is worse than it's bite?
Oh okay, I'll leaf now.

Date: 2007/10/04 22:36:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
2) Their model assumes organisms reproduce independently. In other words, the calculated speed limit is only applicable to asexually reproducing organisms. Indeed, the authors compare their models only to empirical data from viruses and prokaryotes.


Then an analogous limit for sexual species hasn't been determined? I noticed that their 6 value is only a few times greater than what I recall for the average generation mutation rate of the coding DNA part of the human genome.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/04 22:38:57, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Angels have been seen in the middle of peer reviewed texts."

Or on various TV shows... :p

Henry

Date: 2007/10/04 22:39:45, Link
Author: Henry J
Sounds like a honey of a situation, and they'd better comb the surrounding area for loose bees...

Henry

Date: 2007/10/05 17:03:18, Link
Author: Henry J
Whether a wasp is palatable or not might depend on the kind of bird trying to eat it. Just a thought.

Date: 2007/10/05 22:33:39, Link
Author: Henry J
Maybe in cases like that somebody should ask the parents if they want their kids to be taught that God deliberately created typhoid, malaria, HIV, mosquitos, digger wasps, boll weevils, slime mold, athlete's foot, etc.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/05 22:34:02, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
keiths, posted 10/04/07 10:15 PM
You can find it here.


I like that explanation better than the one I recall learning first - it involved the traveler converting all coordinates from the previous inertial frame into the new inertial frame, which resulted in an apparent sudden jump of the time coordinate of the people who stayed home. The math worked, but in a confusing round about way. Focusing instead on what each person observes at the time they observe it, seems a much better way of explaining it.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/05 22:34:33, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
"10^150 minus 10^9 equals 10^141"


Divide (instead of subtract) and conquer! :p

Henry

Date: 2007/10/05 22:34:59, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "11A.  Added.  Do you understand what sequence evidence is?"

It's stuff that's arranged in a definite sequence!

Re "24. If everyone died in the Flood, who wrote all the different stories down?"

Goddidit!

Re "26. What year was the height of the Egyptian Empire?"

The height of the tallest pyramid.

Re "28. How did 8 people (6 really) make that many people?"

They were really busy for a few years.

Re "31. How did Koalas get from Ararat to Australia?"

They took Qantas.

Re "36. Given that HIV cannot have evolved (Behe), which of the 8 (6 really) people on the ark were carrying HIV?"

One of the chimpanzees.

Does that help? :p

Henry

Date: 2007/10/05 23:37:26, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote

Quote
(Henry J @ Oct. 05 2007,17:03)
Whether a wasp is palatable or not might depend on the kind of bird trying to eat it. Just a thought.


Palatability or unpalatability of an insect should not be generalised by our human perception. It is very often pure antropomorphism.


How the heck do you get "human perception" out of "depend on kind of bird"?

Henry

Date: 2007/10/05 23:37:55, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
She's been at this for a few years. I'm inclined to think she hasn't learned anything about how science works because she doesn't actually care to, she's just here to feed a martyr complex or something. But I'm not certain of that. Another possibility is that the scientific enterprise only looks so clear to us because we've been immersed in it for years. We've spent years getting science degrees, we've read hundreds of research papers, we've published a few ourselves, we've been in the lab on christmas day, we've met hundreds of scientists and are loose acquaintances of hundreds more.

What's obvious to the people in-the-know is not necessarily obvious to others. Maybe it's actually pretty hard for people with no scientific experience, like FtK, to know how science actually works. Maybe we're taking our own experience for granted.


Well, I'm a lay person in this field, and it didn't take much reading of creation vs evolution arguments on on-line forums 12 years ago, for me to notice that the antievolution arguments kept falling apart whenever somebody who knew the subject matter looked at them.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/06 15:26:06, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
IanBrown_101, posted 10/05/07 10:31 PM
Incedetally, my n key doesn't work properly on my keyboard, so my spelling mistakes you picked up on were due to that.


I was about to ask if you had a flaky n key, but saw that note before I got a round tuit.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/06 15:26:23, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Ah, Henry J.  You mean 10^150 minus 10^9 equals 10^16.67!  I knew I'd been making a mistake somewhere all there years.

Bob


Are you sure you want to be an exponent of that theory? :p

Henry

Date: 2007/10/06 15:27:29, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Quote

Also, the worm-shaped organ outgrowth acts like a bacteria factory, cultivating the good germs, Parker said.

That use is not needed in a modern industrialized society, Parker said. If a person's gut flora dies, they can usually repopulate it easily with germs they pick up from other people, he said. But before dense populations in modern times and during epidemics of cholera that affected a whole region, it wasn't as easy to grow back that bacteria and the appendix came in handy.


Did they get that from some actual research, or make it up?
(I don't know enough to rule it out, since it sounds like something that could happen.)

Henry

Date: 2007/10/06 16:14:47, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Are you open to Scientology, in that you are willing to spend considerable time and money to remove your body thetans?"

Would that be sort of like removing the nuggets from a chicken?

Henry

Date: 2007/10/06 18:41:53, Link
Author: Henry J
If the universe was an accident, is it covered by insurance? :p

Henry

Date: 2007/10/07 23:05:09, Link
Author: Henry J
Did this Jesse Moreno think Darwin's trip was last month or something, so that scientists haven't had time to check it out yet? Also, he forgot the finches and iguanas.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/08 22:23:03, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Quote
They look at the same evidence that I do and come to different conclusions.


At the risk of sounding cynical: bullfeathers. There's just way too many things known that would take way longer than any 6000 years to form by any known process. (Plus many of those things would be damaged or even destroyed by the alleged flood.)

Henry

Date: 2007/10/08 22:23:20, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "I still can't help succumbing to JAD addiction, and have been posting at ISCID..."

Try to find a support group for that... ;)

Henry

Date: 2007/10/08 23:28:42, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "And porn spam. Don't forget the porn spam."

How could we; the AE board used to get a lot of that.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/09 15:59:12, Link
Author: Henry J
Is there a limit on nesting of quotes? I don't see any apparent syntax errors in that last note, but some of the quotes didn't take for some reason.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/09 21:37:55, Link
Author: Henry J
If "quantum entanglement speeds up conscious decisions", how come it takes me so long to make up my mind about stuff? ;)

Henry

Date: 2007/10/09 21:38:28, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
1.  That we won't find other planets with life on them.

and (to cover my butt),

2.  If we do find life elsewhere it will be remarkably similar to life on earth.  


Seems like either of those would be consistent with current theory. If the density of life-bearing planets is such that no others are within telescope range, it could be a really long time before humans find any.

It seems at least possible that amino acid chains might be the most effective (or at least most reachable) form of organic molecule, and DNA (or something much like it) might be most likely form of hereditary trait "memory". Otoh there might be other chains that work, but could be a while before we discover them.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/09 21:38:50, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
This is the V-one's "answer" to the question of mimicry -- there's Shitloads'O'Beetles, so a few are bound to look like ants by pure chance?


That pretty much sums up my understanding of how mimicry arises in the first place: with a huge number of species, the odds of not getting a few that look somewhat alike would be quite low. If it happens that the resemblance reduces risk of attack, or makes food more accessible, then that leads to a conclusion that VMartin won't like.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/10 15:00:19, Link
Author: Henry J
What's makes a site synonymous?

Date: 2007/10/10 15:21:40, Link
Author: Henry J
The definition of "mimicry" should not say anything about how that mimicry arose.

Date: 2007/10/10 16:15:23, Link
Author: Henry J
Those octopi are mimicking all right, but not by being already similar to something else, but by being smart, flexible, and colorful, and using all of those traits.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/10 22:07:49, Link
Author: Henry J
I recall reading someplace that an objective classifier would have put humans and chimpanzees in the same genus in the first place. But they let either ego or politics override that.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/11 10:27:27, Link
Author: Henry J
In that case, you should change the channel...

Date: 2007/10/11 14:23:31, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
He's there beside you.  That's what I'm telling you; that's what he's telling you!


The guy that looks like George Burns? :p

Date: 2007/10/11 14:24:36, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Or you could ignore it and hope that everyone forgets that you said it.


Tabula Rasa...
Tabula Rasa...
Tabula Rasa...
Tab...

Uh, what was I saying?

Date: 2007/10/11 15:07:20, Link
Author: Henry J
Are we there yet? :O

Date: 2007/10/12 22:40:49, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
"It is true that biology accepts evolutionary theory as its conceptual framework. That is because 1) it is well supported by mountains of consilient data, 2) there are no viable alternatives, and 3) it has proven and continues to prove to be a very powerful fuel for the above described research engine. Given that there is no other productive game in town, this is likely to continue to be the case for the foreseeable future."


And 4) Plenty of ways in which contrary evidence should have been found all over the place a long time ago if the basics of the theory were wrong.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/15 22:23:09, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Suppose I set up a vat with a bazillion Acromobacter guttatus and nylon as the primary source of carbon.


I dunno - there might be too many things that could hose that experiment, so I wouldn't put too much stocking into it.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/15 22:44:06, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Interesting article there on Venus ... you knew that it's surface got a total makeover all at one shot right?"

Like the one Earth got shortly before the moon condensed from the resulting debris?

Henry

Date: 2007/10/16 16:10:19, Link
Author: Henry J
According to http://www.tolweb.org/Arthropoda , insects and spiders are about as far from each other as its possible to get and still be in the same phylum. That suggests that they separated before developing any of the features particularly associated with the spider or insect taxa. Ergo, neither of them evolved from anything resembling the other.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/17 21:49:32, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
I'm just amazed at people who think 'common sense' applies to things like the origin of universes.


You mean just because common sense would have us think matter is continuous, light can't be both wavelike and particle-like, the sun circles the Earth, space and time are independent of each other (not relative to each other), continents don't move, and species are both immutable and had to come from ancestors of that same species?

(And never mind that the two parts of that last one more or less contradict each other, even though both are "common sense". :p )

Henry

Date: 2007/10/18 22:05:21, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
"... You are human; only humans can explain! Illogical!"


"I am not programmed to respond in that area."

Henry

Date: 2007/10/18 22:05:50, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
C. Data?  What's that?


The android on Star Trek: TNG.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/18 22:42:55, Link
Author: Henry J
Anything by Mel Brooks. :)

Henry

Date: 2007/10/19 22:06:48, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
but I find it extremely hard to believe that you can take a working genome, cut it into pieces, shuffle it around, and come up with another working genome.  It defies credulity.


Why? Ours is already cut up into forty something pieces.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/19 22:10:20, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Why

.

.

.

do fleas

.

.

.

eat only

.

.

.

breakfast

.

.

.
and dinner?

.

.

.

Because there's no such thing as a flea lunch.

Date: 2007/10/20 12:30:54, Link
Author: Henry J
That fits with something I've read somewhere, than humans had a genetic bottleneck on the order of a hundred thousand or so years ago. If chimpanzees didn't suffer a similar population crash, it would explain what you read.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/22 16:57:40, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 22 2007,16:43)
Quote
Using Henry Morris's numbers:
His number of 2.5 children per family, assuming 2 girls and .5 boys, the population in the year 2030BC would be ~ 30,000.  This is 3 orders of magnitude fewer people than actually existed.  Do you think this is a problem?

I think that half a boy would be a problem - how the heck to you get half a boy by accumulating random incremental genetic changes from an ancestor? :p

Date: 2007/10/22 22:16:13, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
They then go on to postulate that these sea turtles probably interbred with other populations; this despite the fact that sea turtles have never been observed to do so.


Maybe the turtles are better at doing their mating activities in private than some people think they are?

Quote
My prediction is that the coding and non-coding sequences (basically all sequences) will show an equal amount of evolutionary constraint.


Is that when the groups are in equivalent environments, or different environments? I'm no biologist, but I'd think that in similar environments the current theory would predict similar amount of constraints as well, and that in different environments both current theory and your hypothesis would imply some differences due to the differences in needs in different surroundings.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/22 23:04:46, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Without all the parts, it ceases to function."

And if a system had a part that could be removed without impairing function, what happens when the DNA behind that part mutates?

Henry

Date: 2007/10/23 12:12:15, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
What is true is that Hitler had evolution as his basis for exterminating Jews.


Only if he misunderstood what the theory says. One of the conclusions of evolution is that a species with lots of variety has a better chance of surviving some kinds of calamities than does a species with limited variety. So killing off part of the existing variety engangers the species in the long run.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/23 14:31:50, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 23 2007,13:02)
1. What year was the Flood?

Near as I can tell, it was in the same year as the death of that Methusalah (sp?) guy. :p

Hope that helps.

Date: 2007/10/23 17:25:08, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Jkrebs @ Oct. 23 2007,17:09)
to ftk: my hope is that you stick with the serious discussion and ignore the rest.  You might even go back and print out the posts that were on-topic so they don't get lost in all the distractions.

What, you mean there was something here that wasn't entirely on topic? :O

Date: 2007/10/24 22:10:29, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
He still doesn't get it, does he?


He seems to think that "Darwinists" tend to scream "MICICRY" whenever anything alive resembles anything else that's alive, without checking other factors prior to forming a conclusion.

It's getting monotonous.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/25 13:46:57, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Finally, if you can point us to some self-reproducing lawnmowers,


They probably evolved from Behe's mousetraps. :p

Date: 2007/10/26 11:17:17, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 26 2007,02:50)
What has Natural Theology revealed so far about the mind and qualities of God?

A fondness for beetles? :p

Date: 2007/10/26 11:24:36, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (BWE @ Oct. 26 2007,01:52)
And who's going to play the bugle?

Cpl. Radar O'reilly?

Date: 2007/10/26 11:47:11, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 26 2007,06:19)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 26 2007,00:59)
 
Quote
I do not have any means of describing how I write well.

Ow, ow, ow, ow, ow, ow!

Consciousness, mechanism, design. Materialism Dawkins. Darwinoids mechanism instantiation spiritual. Probability materialism Dawkins consciousness mechanism design design. Mechanism design Dawkins. Hitler Dawkins designer mechanism instantiation. Eugenics Hitler Dawkins. Instantiation mechanism eugenics Darwinism materialism. Random materialism Darwin Hitler. Canadian journalist. Consciousness mechanisms morality mechanism design. But conscious mechanism instantiation design complexity morality complexity materialism consciousness design.

My book The Spatula Brain is available now. I said NOW.

The who whatting how with huh?

Date: 2007/10/26 13:16:44, Link
Author: Henry J
Test? There was a test? But I haven't studied! :p

Date: 2007/10/29 16:20:19, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "SaveScot at ISCID"

Save him for what? Or from what? :p

Date: 2007/10/29 17:28:15, Link
Author: Henry J
Or maybe somebody fed Gizmo (or his relatives) after midnight again...

Date: 2007/10/29 22:55:14, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
It could be that inadvertently I was brainwashed or misunderstood the following passage from Wikipedia about adaptation:  

?Although the vast majority of genetic variants arising from errors of DNA replication or recombination do not confer any advantage to an individual organism, the multitude of variation contained within the collective genomes of a species provides much material for natural selection to work upon allowing many adaptations to be manifest.?

If ?errors of DNA replication or recombination? are not random, the only option remains is that mutation of DNA is directed by some mechanisms that I am not aware of. Do you know anything about these mechanisms?


The anwswer to that question was right there in what you quoted: "provides much material for natural selection to work upon allowing many adaptations to be manifest".

Henry

Date: 2007/10/29 22:55:30, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Is language technology? It certainly augments cognition..


That's an interesting question. Offhand I'd say yes. If technology = study of techniques = study of ways of doing things then language would fit.

Using my dictionary: technology = applied science, or technical method of achieving a practical purpose.

Imnsho, language fits that definition, too. At least the second part of it, and maybe the first.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/30 22:43:13, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
(skeptic @ Oct. 29 2007,22:09)
Quote
(Henry J @ Oct. 29 2007,22:55)

Quote

Is language technology? It certainly augments cognition..



That's an interesting question. Offhand I'd say yes. If technology = study of techniques = study of ways of doing things then language would fit.

Using my dictionary: technology = applied science, or technical method of achieving a practical purpose.

Imnsho, language fits that definition, too. At least the second part of it, and maybe the first.

Henry


But doesn't language have to precede science else there would be no science?  


Science? I was considering whether language is technology, not whether it's science. Okay, maybe it wasn't originally applied science*, but it is a technique for achieving a purpose.

* Nore likely it was try various things, and keep using what worked.

Quote
(Reciprocating Bill @ Oct 30 2007,05:36)
Is bipedal walking a technology?

Human speech likely has a significant evolutionary basis, so has components that aren't analogous to acquired/learned/culturally invented techniques.


Hmmm. Good point. Maybe the definition of "technology" should include something about having been invented by the user of it, rather than being an inherent ability evolved from ones ancestry. The later part of the definition I quoted isn't clear on that point.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/31 17:17:47, Link
Author: Henry J
"But he's so damn ugly!"

Date: 2007/10/31 22:08:01, Link
Author: Henry J
I'd think having a specific goal would probably produce less diversity than what we see on this planet. As it is, the effective goal of the members of a population is to out produce their relatives in their current environment - and the environment is different for every species, since every species is part of the environment of all their neighbors.

I'd also think that much of the complexity is a result of dealing with the neighbors (i.e., predators, prey, competitors, or pests that arne't in those other categories), and needing lots of different strategies to do that.

Henry

Date: 2007/10/31 22:08:42, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
I think what she may be getting at is that "jellyfish can't possibly have survived relatively unchanged for 500 million years,


Sure they could. That was before bread and peanut butter had been invented, so they weren't in much danger of being sandwiched.

Henry

Date: 2007/11/01 22:26:05, Link
Author: Henry J
Diapsida (Lizards, Sphenodon, crocodylians, birds, and their extinct relatives)

Dinosauria

Coelurosauria ( Birds, tyrannosaurs, velociraptors, etc.)

Date: 2007/11/02 21:56:31, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
*silence*



*silence*




*silence*








*silence*



I'm thinking!



Something about that reminds me of Jack Benny. :p

Henry

Date: 2007/11/02 21:57:57, Link
Author: Henry J
But, to get back on "topic", obliviously the reason that incest was allowed back in those olden times was that bad recessives hadn't yet showed up in the gene pool. When that happened the rules had to be changed. :p

Henry

Date: 2007/11/03 18:41:23, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
* Editted to add, I suppose it would make more sense to start with basic chemistry. I'm happy to do that too.


Here's some elementary reference material for that: http://www.webelements.com/

Henry

Date: 2007/11/03 18:42:20, Link
Author: Henry J
I wonder, has anybody mentioned that an aversion to incest might arise simply because populations having such an aversion are apt to produce more descendants on average than those without it?

There's also I guess the possibility that once people became herders they might be observant enough to notice a correlation between inbreeding of stock and the results, and might extrapolate from that to themselves.

Henry

Date: 2007/11/04 17:47:19, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "If natural selection didn't exist... how the hell would vacination work anyway??"

Seems to me wouldn't it work a lot better if the bugs didn't have a tendency to develop ways to get around it?

Henry

Date: 2007/11/04 22:34:23, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Then I went on to say that from an evolutionary perspective, incest would have also occurred as well, so whether you believe that nutty story in Genesis or you believe in an evolutionary perspective, incest was bound to have occured in either.


Why, and why?

In Biblical perspective, what would keep God from making more people later?

In evolutionary perspective, that would be required only if a major population crash left less than a few dozen individuals in the population. Evolution theory doesn't require that. Also I wonder if it's even plausible for a species could even recover from that level of crash at all.

Henry

Date: 2007/11/05 13:26:53, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 05 2007,08:53)
Oh, and btw, kids pick up on how to read and write quite easily.  It certainly doesn't take them millions of years to figure it out.  If language existed, I really see no reason why early man wouldn't have put down their thoughts in writing much, much earlier than they did.

Er, written down their thoughts on what, and with what?

Date: 2007/11/05 15:01:57, Link
Author: Henry J
What's that old saying - to heir is human. :p

Date: 2007/11/06 14:22:02, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
ps.  PLEASE FOLKS DO NOT ATTEMPT TO ANSWER FOR SKEPTIC, FtK OR VMARTIN.  Thank you.


Rats! :)

Date: 2007/11/06 14:26:17, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Quote
as well as from Phillip Johnson, who is often credited as "the father of intelligent design."


I wonder who it's monther was? :O

Date: 2007/11/06 14:28:53, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 06 2007,13:26)
Quote

LOL...one word - NOVA.  


you say that like it means something. Explain? Is that your entire comment on that matter?

In Spanish "nova" means "it doesn't go". (And there's a car manufacturer that wondered why their model wasn't selling well in Mexico...  :p  )

Date: 2007/11/06 16:03:15, Link
Author: Henry J
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Why would God need to attend a science class anyway, doesn't She already know everything? ;)

Date: 2007/11/08 16:55:42, Link
Author: Henry J
Best 14 books for ID? Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Numbers, etc. :p

Date: 2007/11/09 09:19:49, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 08 2007,21:06)
Guys like hereoisreal should tell their story of being banned by intelligent design blog UD because they were open about their belief in God and Christ.

Dave tard censors anything religious at UD.  Why does UD censor faithful, honest christians I ask you?

"It's not about right.

It's not about wrong.

It's about power."

Date: 2007/11/11 20:36:50, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "birds sometimes eat aposematic prey"

Something occurs to me about that. A prey species that develops a defense mechaniam (whether mimicry or something else) might cut down on average predation rate over the whole species, but then again it might not. Presumably the ones that a bit easier to see get eaten first, but that doesn't necessarily mean the predator can't see (or otherwise sense) those with the more effective camouflage, just that it takes it a bit longer to do so. (Also of course the predator species may have been counter-evolving over the same time period that the prey species was evolving its defense mechanism.)

Henry

Date: 2007/11/15 16:57:59, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
A particularly interesting example concerns those genes acquired by humans since they diverged from the other ape families.


Genes acquired? I thought our genes are modified copies of those of our ancestors, just as those of other apes are also modified copies of those of our common ancestry.

Henry

Date: 2007/11/16 10:32:39, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
but that remains to be seen.


Not if the thread was obliviated it doesn't! ;)

Date: 2007/11/16 10:41:57, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 16 2007,01:13)
But because some mammals eat wasps as well [...]

Maybe you should look at what's implied by your own statement there? I.e., birds are not the only predators relevant to the question.

Date: 2007/11/16 21:42:51, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Leftfield:

From the PBS forum (emphasis added by me):

Also, if humans are simply genetic mutations of some simpler life form, then why are we the only species that wears clothes? why then the timidity?


Was that a rhetorical question from whoever asked it? The obvious answer is that we don't have fur, or the layers of insulating material that some other mammals have. I suspect that the timidity is simply a side effect of having worn clothing most of our lives.

Henry

Date: 2007/11/16 21:43:26, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Which prompts me to replace the periodic table with a continuous table,


It's elementary!

Quote
and introduce overdraft protection


To avoid compound interest? :p

Henry

Date: 2007/11/17 16:20:00, Link
Author: Henry J
Something seems to have reminded me of the movie "Harry and the Hendersons". That one had some funny scenes in it.

"You ate my corsage? I was SAVING that!" :p

Henry

Date: 2007/11/18 18:14:50, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Wouldn't be it more simple to assume that such repeated sequences are for each new species created de novo by saltus?


Wouldn't the simplest assumption be that a series of repeats was caused by a duplication type mutation? If so, that could occur independently in closely related species. (In which case it would presumably be repetitions of a different sequence, in a different location of the genome.)

Henry

Date: 2007/11/18 22:37:32, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
VMartin has also stated that "if a reptile hatched a bird there is no ancestor in common view." Is that astute, too?


Of course, cladistically speaking, birds are reptiles. ;)

Henry

Date: 2007/11/20 11:26:20, Link
Author: Henry J
If saltation doesn't work, try pepper-ation...  :p

Date: 2007/11/20 20:29:24, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "so long as they each have some remote (even imagined) bearing upon overvalued ideas such as "Noah's flood.""

[not me]

Well, if slight movements per year of contintents implies platter tectonics, and slight movements of glaciers per month means there flowing, then why wouldn't signs of a small flood imply the past occurence of a large flood? Sew their!

[/not me]

Re "She has a case?  I've never seen it."

Is that like a brief case? Or an attache case, maybe?

Henry

Date: 2007/11/21 11:02:19, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Nov. 20 2007,22:03)
Seems the DIs understanding of Law is as bad as their understanding of science. I guess that's why they've been beaten both in a court room and in the laboratory :)

Which I guess is why they tend to avoid both of those basic kinds of places? :p

Henry

Date: 2007/11/21 12:39:01, Link
Author: Henry J
Yeah, when somebody routinely judges arguments by their like or dislike of the conclusion, rather than by the logic and/or evidence, it does interfere with communicating with them.

Date: 2007/11/21 20:36:47, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
If there's one thing I know from movies, it's that radiation makes things big.


Especially gamma radiation - that can turn Bill Bixby into Lou Fouregno (sp?) with green paint.

Henry

Date: 2007/11/21 21:50:36, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
1) If Denyse had any familiarity with the history of the issue and/or of the current literature, she would know how it is proposed that ?nature? ?selects? ?societies.?


Heck, a multicellular organism is a society - of cells. Many of them specialized for particular jobs.

Henry

Date: 2007/11/22 18:10:38, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
By arguing the deniers' views, however ugly, must be given a fair hearing, they take a positive Western value to an extremist end.


Only until their claims have been refuted. Once refuted, that should be that.

Or am I being too optimistic there?

Henry

Date: 2007/11/23 13:20:27, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "The problem of annulation of "genetic drift" due gene flow (or migration) hasn't been answered either."

What problem?

Of course interbreeding populations are going to eventually drift the same way. Isn't that what the current theory says?

Re "The problem of homologization of repeated sequences in new species hasn't been addressed yet."

Is that referring to a chromosome containing several identical copies of some sequence? I thought a single duplication type mutation event could cause that. Unless you're referring to something else.

Henry

Date: 2007/11/23 13:21:10, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "One should have to ask why honeybees having their venom more effective than the venom of wasps are not protected by "warning coloration" either."

Maybe because traits don't appear just because they'd be useful to that species?

As for that warning coloration, maybe it discourages some of the predators but not all of them?

Henry

Date: 2007/11/23 15:22:28, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Pot, Kettle; Shoe, Other foot; Eye, Beam; Ass, Both hands.


How about also: Mouth, meet foot.

Henry

Date: 2007/11/23 18:27:52, Link
Author: Henry J
I liked this comment:

"I think of myself as being a sort of living disproof of evolution, because my great great grandfather was Charles Darwin. And I'm a screenwriter. This is not evolution in the right direction."

Henry

Date: 2007/11/23 20:22:57, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "* Won for his study on the contents of belly button lint."

Well now that puts a new meaning on the phrase "navel gazing"...

Henry

Date: 2007/11/24 15:45:46, Link
Author: Henry J
Are those frogs any dumber than a dog trying to mate with a person's leg?

For some reason this line of thought brings to mind Pepe Le Pew...

Henry

Date: 2007/11/24 16:44:29, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "What predators do you have in your mind? Eagles, hawks or owls?"

Insect eaters. Given the subject matter here, I thought that would be obvious.

Henry

Date: 2007/11/24 20:14:26, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Quote
getawitness,

Nearly all experiments in evolutionary biology are based on the Darwinian model. That sounds a little bit like barking in unison. It is also a model that has no empirical underpinning.


Hmmm. If an experiment based on a model isn't an empirical underpinning of that model, and if it fails to contradict the model when it could have had the model been wrong, then what is that if it isn't an empirical underpinning?

(Yeah, I know, I shouldn't really expect the posters over there to think about what they're saying... )

Henry

Date: 2007/11/24 22:58:16, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Could you be more specific? Swallows perhaps? But I am afraid even swallows have been observed to prey upon wasps. So be rather as general as possible so no one could check your neodarwinian claims.  


I didn't make a claim, I asked a question.

Besides which, you seem to have answered the question, more or less:

Quote
It's not my fault that every "poisonous aposematic" have dozens predators that do not care about their venoms.


Henry

Date: 2007/11/26 15:58:59, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 26 2007,12:01)
Alrighty,
[...]
Again, if I've missed the boat, feel free to throw me a life preserver anyone.

That's the generally idea, near as I can tell. There's also the point that the coloration or mimicry (or any other defensive mechanism, for that matter) might be effective against only one or a few predators - i.e., the critter still gets eaten by the others. Another point is that most defenses are not 100%, in which case it only reduces the damage by that predator, it doesn't elimiate it entirely.

A third point that might or might not have been mentioned as yet (I don't recall seeing it), is that selection of a defense doesn't necessarily even mean that fewer of the species get eaten, just that those with less of the defense get eaten more, and those with more of it get eaten less. So it's more or less a case of less is more. (heh heh)

Henry

Date: 2007/11/30 12:02:47, Link
Author: Henry J
I thought he just got out-flanked...

Date: 2007/11/30 16:27:25, Link
Author: Henry J
"Tell me... do I come here often?"

Well, they say memory is the second thing to go. :O

Date: 2007/11/30 23:13:03, Link
Author: Henry J
Or a variant of it that's spelled something like "v|i_a.g+r-a".

For some reason, the email spammers stuck various punctuation marks between the letters of the word in the email subject line. Huh.

Henry

Date: 2007/12/01 17:04:14, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
If they share 100,0% genes then it back ups frontloading very well I would say.


Having corresponding genes doesn't mean having the same alleles for those genes.

Henry

Date: 2007/12/03 13:44:14, Link
Author: Henry J
But people who do have edit privlege get the question mark to the left of the "edit" button. Or at least that's what I see from here, so the question mark isn't replacing the button.

Henry

Date: 2007/12/04 17:20:37, Link
Author: Henry J
Or maybe it were a mutation that got selected for... think?  :p

Date: 2007/12/04 23:09:27, Link
Author: Henry J
Yeah, but it's still just code! :p

Henry

Date: 2007/12/05 09:42:52, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Ridiculative Selection"

For some reason, those various mutated phrases remind me of the "ludicrous speed" thing in Spaceballs.

Henry

Date: 2007/12/05 21:49:41, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
often remain capable of performing manual tasks with considerable precision, even as they remain utterly incapable of reporting, on the basis of vision alone, the size, shape, orientation, identity or function of the objects they successfully manipulate.


Weird!

Makes me wonder if those internal calculations might be analog rather than digital - using some sort of signal strength or chemical concentration instead of any sort of symbols for the variables in the "calculation".

Henry

Date: 2007/12/06 21:03:20, Link
Author: Henry J
Hope all these over-editors avoid shopping at Amazon, since that's the river where pirahnas live.

Henry

Date: 2007/12/07 10:09:29, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 07 2007,06:52)
This is going to be interesting.  Morton is going to have AFDavey for lunch.

That sounds a bit cannibalistic? :p

Date: 2007/12/10 14:00:59, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 10 2007,12:10)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 10 2007,13:48)
Wooooooooooo-Woooooooooooo!!!! Born^AGain gets Sciencey!
 
Quote
I have stated before that quantum non-locality is at a advanced enough stage, technologically, to allow many major breakthroughs in eradicating many pathogenic diseases by targeting specific “entangled” complex molecules of pathogens in the entire body of the victim at one time and thus destroying them all non-locally in one fell swoop.



That's Teh Hawt

complete gibberish.

Well of course. After all, what good is half a gibberish?

:p

Date: 2007/12/11 12:23:09, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Is there perhaps some kind of boundary between pre and post flood soil you could point me to AFDave?


Could it have something to do with a layer of iridium? :)

Date: 2007/12/11 18:20:58, Link
Author: Henry J
An inch of snow on the ground Monday morning.

More flurries Monday and Monday night, another inch or so.

More flurries Tuesday.

Can't this stuff wait at least until astronomers would agree that it's winter? ;)

Course, people in Minnesota, Montana, Alaska or other places colder than here would probably laugh at me, but I are not designed (so to speak) for temps in the mid twenties (that's where it was on my way home from work).

Henry

Date: 2007/12/11 22:50:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Try the Smallville area; it's known to have lots of meteorites. :)

Date: 2007/12/12 10:17:26, Link
Author: Henry J
Half a kudo? isn't that a little like half an eye or half a wing? :p

Date: 2007/12/12 14:46:10, Link
Author: Henry J
Even if some "elegant" features are there, evolution theory doesn't imply the complete absence of such; it just implies that there will also be lots of kludges and inefficiencies along with it.

Henry

Date: 2007/12/12 14:54:16, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 12 2007,12:05)
I'm just sad that we aren't hearing about Dave's theories of Portuguese and French anymore.  :(

Was that this Dave? I thought it was somebody else. (Unless I'm confused - and they do say memory's the second thing to go.)

Henry

Date: 2007/12/12 14:59:10, Link
Author: Henry J
I think finding a mermaid or a centaur would be evidence that something made them. It wouldn't by itself be evidence about the ancestry of fish, horses, or humans.

Henry

Date: 2007/12/12 15:03:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 12 2007,14:00)
Quote (BWE @ Dec. 12 2007,15:37)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 11 2007,17:13)
 
Quote

Did the post-Flood scavengers eat it?


Langoliers?

I got a chuckle out that. Wasn't that in one of his short story books? I can't remember the story, just the plane. :)

It was in Four Past Midnight, IIRC.

Yeah, don't feed those guys after midnight! (Or am I mixing it up with another movie? Ah well.)

Date: 2007/12/12 15:23:45, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 12 2007,14:04)
I thought that was Goonies...

Gremlins. (Nothing to do with the Langoliers except that both of them involve some reference to midnight.) Goonies, iirc, was yet another movie, but I don't think I've seen it.

Date: 2007/12/12 16:54:04, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
More holier.


Like donuts or swiss cheese?

Date: 2007/12/12 16:55:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
His challenge the parallels consequences of presuppositions


The who whatting how with huh? :p

Date: 2007/12/12 21:52:35, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
I'd just like to point out that since we've reached the Blessed Page 777


And the Bathroom Wall just passed page 144, which was gross.

Henry

Date: 2007/12/13 10:46:09, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
{Louis faints}

BOOOM!


MEDIC!

This guy just fainted!

:O

Date: 2007/12/13 11:17:55, Link
Author: Henry J
Maybe day of science class, or science seminar?

Date: 2007/12/14 15:56:13, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "D&M's terminology simply doesn't mean what it seems to mean."

Like that line from the movie "The Princess Bride": "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Henry

Date: 2007/12/14 21:22:54, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Unless I'm quite mistaken, that troll shimmies.


Just so long as that doesn't lead to dancing...

:p

Henry

Date: 2007/12/14 22:05:50, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Well, you knew that the SLoT was going to be violated somewhere in this slush, right?


Only when somebody types on a keyboard... :p

Henry

Date: 2007/12/15 12:56:11, Link
Author: Henry J
Seems to me that before trying to figure out of somebody is "son of God", the first step is to figure out what the heck that phrase even means. Maybe somebody else can, but I can't think of an objective meaning that fits the common usage of the phrase.

------------

Is there a way of gaining knowledge other than reason? I'd think that observation using the senses is a way of gaining information (i.e., useful data), which is a form of knowledge, and I wouldn't offhand classify observation as a form of reason.

------------

Re "[edit] But in the LoTR their are walking trees. "

But as one Hobbit said (more or less; I'm unsure of exact phrasing and too lazy to look it up), "Nonsense. Elm trees can't walk. So you can't have seen one do so."

Henry

Date: 2007/12/15 12:56:25, Link
Author: Henry J
About the issue of hind leg genes in whales, I'm wondering if there might be genes specifically for suppressing the hind legs. Not completely, apparently, but reducing them from what they'd be without a supression mechanism.

As I figure it (and not being a biologist I could have this wrong), there are genes that affect (1) all legs, both fore and aft, (2) genes that add distinct features to forelegs (in the case of whales, this would be flippers), and (3) genes that add distinct features to hindlegs (in the case of whales, this would be to reduce the size of the limbs to get them out of the way). Obviously (1) and (2) are needed, since flippers are used in swimming. So if hind limbs can't be removed without interfering with flipper development, that leaves adding genes to suppress hind limb development if those limbs have a detrimental effect.

Henry

Date: 2007/12/17 17:50:45, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
(P.S. I think I just channeled Lenny Flank.)


I didn't see anything about them shooting themselves in the foot on this thread. ;)

Henry

Date: 2007/12/31 23:52:52, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Why would humans undertake dairy farming if they couldn?t actually eat/drink dairy products?


If I were to take a guess, I'd guess that humans undertook cattle farming. Initially for the meat.

Henry

Date: 2008/01/03 16:15:19, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Batten down the hatches, man!  It's turtles down, ALL the way!


"Cowabunga!" (as Splinter would say :p )

Date: 2008/01/03 16:23:39, Link
Author: Henry J
Whar's Peter Parker when ya need 'em, huh? :)

Date: 2008/01/03 16:29:24, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 02 2008,19:18)
Dudes, we broke our record today:

Well, somebody find some duct tape and fix the thing! :p

Date: 2008/01/03 16:31:27, Link
Author: Henry J
Lions and spiders and bears, oh my...

Date: 2008/01/05 18:05:37, Link
Author: Henry J
A thought on the off-topic topic of this thread- having the sperm stored outside would presumably reduce the distance they have to travel during mating. That might be a factor.

(Although, I don't know what any of that has to do with cosomology. :p )

Henry

Date: 2008/01/08 13:37:53, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
- Five million, four hundred thousand centuries: the interval since the Cambrian explosion.


How many centuries did it take for the Cambrian to have that "explosion"? :p

Henry

Date: 2008/01/08 16:02:32, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Is that so? 0 comments, eh? Maybe that's her way of saying "no comment" to my comment?


Mebbe those comments flew too near the sun and evaporated or something? Oh wait, that's comets that do that. Never mind. :p

Date: 2008/01/08 21:39:26, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Do you see no reason not to believe in Zeus either?


He got killed by either Hercules or Xena (I'm not sure which at this point); that was documented on TV.

Ergo, it would be illogical to believe in Zeus at this point. :p

Henry

Date: 2008/01/08 21:40:27, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
He says that countless of experiments say that the theory of Universal Common Descent contains boundaries wich evolution can't cross.


Does it say if any observed life forms are on opposite sides of any of those boundaries? After all, afaik the current theory doesn't imply that there aren't uncrossable boundaries, just that existing life forms would all be on one side of such. (Excepting perhaps species that have been tampered with by humans.)

Henry

Date: 2008/01/09 10:07:57, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
2) Evil hardens hearts. Good cracks them open.


Oh, as in what God did to Pharoah while Moses and Aaron were trying to talk him into letting the people go? Oh wait.

Oops.

Date: 2008/01/10 22:41:49, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
I believe in the flood, but only because I haven't seen the evidence against it.


Ice caps, one with more than 100,000 annual layers.

Over a million species presently living (a handful of survivors would take a long time to diversify that much).

Lots of genetic diversity within those living species (i.e., lots of species that don't show signs of recent extreme inbreeding, including our own).

Lots of unique ecosystems on continents and islands and other geographically isolated regions (those don't form overnight).

At least two civilizations that were keeping records through the period in question (unless the usual estimates for the date are way wrong).

Continuity in geological record from before the presumed dates of the event and after (i.e., no sudden world wide change in what lived where).

Absence of identifiable layer of debris in geological record around the estimated time.

Henry

Date: 2008/01/10 22:43:12, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
The environment can cause mutations is somehow perceived as scary?

I don?t understand.


Certainly the possibility can be scary. Some mutations cause medical problems, after all. Of course, being scary doesn't make a hypothesis inaccurate.

Anyhow, I would think that the fact that mutations occur fairly regularly is in itself evidence of randomness. Planned mutations would seem to me to be more likely to occur in batches when needed, with long stretches in between of nothing much happening in that regard.

Another thing to check would be how evenly the mutations get distributed over the genome, when a large number of reproductive events are checked. Random would mean the events would be spread out over a large portion of the genome, and probably that more or less the same distribution would be observed regardless of what environment the sample population happens to be in. (And as pointed out above, this refers to occurance of the mutation, not its likelihood of spreading across the population once present in the gene pool.) Planned mutations, on the other hand, I would expect to occur at need, and in specific areas of the genome, without lots of irrelevant mutations also occurring all over the place as well.

Henry

Date: 2008/01/10 22:43:39, Link
Author: Henry J
If I were to guess, I'd guess that the travel time of the sperm (during mating, that is) would be a likely suspect as to why the storage location became external in the first place. That the sperm wound up (sometimes) adapted to lower temperaturs may have simply a result of that. (In birds, I'd expect that streamlining would be likely to be more important than it is in mammals.)

Henry

Date: 2008/01/11 13:16:44, Link
Author: Henry J
Mebbe they designed it that way on porpoise?  :p

Date: 2008/01/11 13:24:00, Link
Author: Henry J
So some species have been in both lighted and dark environments enough that they've evolved for both, including mechanisms for making the switch? As Mr. Spock would say, "fascinating!"

Henry

Date: 2008/01/11 13:30:03, Link
Author: Henry J
Maybe the problem is that V seems to be asking for one factor that would explain the question for all species. I really doubt that reality is anywhere near that simple - there's bound to be lots of factors that affect whether or not "descent" is advantageous to any one species, and the result would then be some kind of balance among those factors. Factors would include temperature, travel distance of the sperm, vulnerability to injury, compatability with other anatomical features of the particular species, streamlining in the case of flying or swimming creatures, mating practices of the species, and probably others that a biologist would think of.

Henry

Date: 2008/01/12 12:31:52, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Furthermore, evolution obviously must have started off with asexual reproduction, so even if it were possible to evolve the incomprehensible complexity of sexual reproduction, why would life go that route?  Asexual reproduction is much more efficient.


A species that can recombine DNA from multiple individuals is much more adaptable to a changing environment than is a species that can't do that. For one thing, if all individuals of a species were clones of each other, a parasite or disease that adapted to that species would then have a field day (i.e., an all it can eat buffet without any need to re-adapt for the next host or victim).

Henry

Date: 2008/01/12 15:35:51, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
I am saying that I believe if you follow evolutionary logic to its conclusion, then there is no basis for morals.


Nope. The conclusion of evolution theory is that if a species is such that cooperation of neighbors is advantageous for that species, then DNA that encourages that behavior will accumulate in the species. That in a nutshell is the evolutionary basis for morals. (Biologists can put more detail into that than I can, of course.)

Henry

Date: 2008/01/12 21:58:31, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Then what's your problem with the chronological order?


There's not enough time to be chronological!!!111!!

:p

Henry

Date: 2008/01/12 21:58:47, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Recent findings that suggest protein folds are more a product of natural law than selection would seem to vindicate these long neglected scientists:            
[...]


That's quite interesting. But near as I can tell, it's not talking about evolution of the DNA for that protein, it's talking about what the protein does after it's been synthesized.

Henry

Date: 2008/01/12 21:59:01, Link
Author: Henry J
Um. If I might ask, which side was the author of that quote on? Is it possible that he or she looked up and saw the light, so to speak? :p

Henry

Date: 2008/01/12 23:01:43, Link
Author: Henry J
So evidence is subject to quantum superposition? And here I thought that was just subatomic particles...

Henry

Date: 2008/01/13 18:01:59, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Gil's airplanes are probably being selected out. :D


De plane! De plane!

Henry

Date: 2008/01/13 18:54:08, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Responses such as these...


I based my comment on the section that you quoted, which usually implies that the quoter thinks it supports something he said. It didn't appear to me to even address what you've been saying, hence my comment.

Henry

Date: 2008/01/16 15:47:14, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Was it something I said?


Well, next time watch thy tongue! (Even if it is inside thy mouth.) :p

Date: 2008/01/17 20:32:19, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
When the cold loses its energy


I wish the cold around where I live would lose some of it's energy... :p

(Metaphorically speaking, that is. :) )

Henry

Date: 2008/01/17 20:33:08, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
No more spiders anywhere!


Sounds like they might have been afraid of the tangled webs those octopods might weave... :p

Henry

Date: 2008/01/18 21:52:59, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
I read that as "evolutionary origin of chips, etc."


Fish and chips?

Henry

Date: 2008/01/18 21:53:17, Link
Author: Henry J
Just wondering, but does "Teh Fall" conflict with Intelligent Falling Theory? :p

Henry

Date: 2008/01/18 21:53:48, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote

Quote

Science should always be in the business of attempting to disprove itself.



Wonder if that guy's heard of the following hypotheses:

Phlogiston.

Lamarckism.

Steady State.

Newton's Laws (motion and gravity).

Bohr model of the atom.

Geocentrism.

Cold fusion.

Ether, and absolute motion relative to it.

Epicycles.

Blending inheritance.

Light regarded as strictly wave-like.

Light regarded as strictly particle-like.

(And those are just the ones that came to mind in a few minutes of thought.)

Quote

Quote

Ben Stein: But I think if you say we are going to study everything, and we are not going to let anyone close down our rights of inquiry, then I think we are getting somewhere.



Maybe if they'd take half the money they're pouring into P.R. and propaganda and put it into actually doing those inquiries they're talking about... Wait, what am I saying?

Henry

Edit: Add Aquatic Ape to the above list.

Date: 2008/01/19 13:47:38, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
My problem with the TSP -- and indeed any GA -- is that the selection mechanism always selects the best solution.  


Who claimed that GA's always hit the best solution? That's not consistent with my understanding of how GA's work.

Quote
GAs, at best, simulate artificial selection -- and even then unrealistically -- since even artificial selection (in real life),


Meaning that simulations are simpler than the thing being simulated, and always leave out some details.

Yeah, artificial selection tends to focus on one (or maybe a few) specific traits, whereas I'd expect natural selection to be less constrained in what traits get selected.

Henry

Date: 2008/01/19 18:05:45, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote

Quote

83. Why do people believe in Evolution?



In my case, the other side's "arguments" had a lot to do with it. :p

Henry

Date: 2008/01/20 16:51:19, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Steve quotes McLeroy as saying "should not be associated with the viscous, un-Christian acts of the crusaders".

I like the idea of viscous crusaders.


They flow only very slowly? Or is that their arguments flow poorly? :p

Henry

Date: 2008/01/20 16:51:38, Link
Author: Henry J
Daniel,
Quote
I said "select", you said "hit".  Do we mean the same thing?


Yeah. Select/hit the variety that outproduces the other variety. That's on average, of course, and in the absence of major disasters taking out some fraction of the population all at once. A disaster that would kill the individual regardless of its DNA isn't really a factor in natural selection, since such doesn't give any advantage to one variety over another.

Henry

Date: 2008/01/20 17:18:20, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
My knotheaded dogs never caught on.


Which way was the wind blowing at the time?

Might also depend on what the coyote had been doing that might affect how it smells.

Oh, and were there any roadrunners in the area? :p

Henry

Date: 2008/01/20 21:16:51, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Methinks he means "slimey"


Oh, like that stuff in the Ghostbuster movie?

Henry

Date: 2008/01/22 11:10:28, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
It is too easy to think of evolution in terms of single, isolated traits, but many traits are changing all at the same time.


And so's the environment in which those traits act.

Date: 2008/01/22 21:15:46, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
shocked.  shocked, i tell you.


Well, just be more careful next time ya work on the wiring... :p

Henry

Date: 2008/01/22 21:16:06, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "groupthink"

Funny, I had the notion that "groupthink" involved ideas held by members of a group because of social pressure of that group on its members. If the ideas are held because of supporting evidence, the "groupthink" concept doesn't apply.

Henry

Date: 2008/01/22 22:19:52, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
What does the "supporting evidence" of quantum experiments that demonstate Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger quantum states tell you?


That quantum mechanics is weird. Or it would have told me that if I hadn't already known it.

Henry

Date: 2008/01/23 17:50:48, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
how fast would you have to walk through a 3-foot wide doorway to diffract?


Doesn't the wavelength of the object have to be comparable to the width of the opening for diffraction to happen?

Henry

Date: 2008/01/24 11:41:04, Link
Author: Henry J
Of course, the alleged paradox is caused by failure to account for the traveler changing from one inertial frame of reference to another at the far end of the trip. Time dilation is a relationship between inertial frames, so moving from one frame to another changes the amount of time dilation that the traveler observes in the stay-at-home. Account for that and the paradox goes away, whether the accounting is done using S.R. formulas, G.R. formulas, computing when each twin receives radio signals sent by the other, or by slapping a label of "short cut" on it.

Henry

Date: 2008/01/24 21:33:02, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Now if the ship was orbiting a gravity well, the Captain and his ship wouldn't experience acceleration.


That was a rewrite of the whole story of the twin "paradox". If you want to argue that the question in the original version of the twin "paradox" isn't answered by referring to the change of reference frame, you'll have to do it in the context of the original story.

Henry

Date: 2008/01/28 20:46:25, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Argument by Analogy (or why the details don't matter): Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed so that they can make other robots just like themselves from raw materials.


That reminds me of the novel "Code of the Life Maker" by James P. Hogan (1983). In the story, an alien automated self-maintaining factory crashlands on an outer moon in our system a few billion years ago, and its products evolve, via accumulated minor changes to the blueprints (iirc, the thing's computers had some intermittent faults in their memory systems, or some such thing).

Henry

Date: 2008/01/28 21:28:59, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Quote
In the evolutionary theory, humans were vegan long before we turned to an unnatural diet of dead animals. Before tools, weapons and fire there was no meat-eating.


Methinks that claim should be reviewd by an expert in nutrition. Unless I've misunderstood what I've read on that subject, without meat humans need either a carefully planned diet (that most likely involves some non-local food items), or else manufactured supplements to fill in for what they don't get in the diet (and for kids the planning and/or supplements would be even more critical than for adults). I don't see either of those as being possible prior to modern technology.

Henry

Date: 2008/01/28 22:51:16, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Don't primates eat a lot of insects, insect grubs, larvae, and other small critters, as well as bird eggs?


So I've heard, depending on which primates you mean. Chimpanzees certainly do that; they even make tools (out of branches) to collect insects and/or grubs from their hiding places.

Henry

Date: 2008/01/29 20:32:30, Link
Author: Henry J
That sounds like sometimes a type will develop in relatively small numbers, or in areas in which fossilization is less likely than elsewhere, and then become successful and spread. But then I'm no expert, so my guess could be wrong.

Henry

Date: 2008/01/30 10:29:54, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
I notice that you printed a taxonomy of cow-like kinds in a nested heirarchy,


Where's the beef? :p

Quote
I dunno, I think some of those farty noise videos might have just managed to get to me!


America needs the gas!

:O

Date: 2008/01/30 14:39:05, Link
Author: Henry J
Beware! it's the attack of the sound bites!

Date: 2008/01/30 14:41:15, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
The universe was thought to be fairly static,


Ah, but that was before the invention of Cling-Free!!!11! :p

Date: 2008/01/31 22:38:14, Link
Author: Henry J
Huh. I can only guess, but I'll guess the writer of that "thinks" that making cells and larger structures would require additional information beyond that needed to make the required proteins.

AFAIK, DNA directly provides formulas for RNA, and indirectly (via the RNA) for proteins. It's also a template for making copies of itself.

Structures made out of the proteins are, afaik, simply a natural consequence of how those chemicals interact with each other and whatever else is present in the cell.

Henry

Date: 2008/01/31 22:38:23, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
I thought they ran out of coconuts.


What? No no - see, the moon is receding from the Earth. 70 Mya it was only a few feet off the ground. That's what killed off the dinosaurs. Well, the taller ones, anyway.

Henry

Date: 2008/02/01 11:38:51, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Antievolution.org Discussion Board welcomes our newest member hidlidahimi making a total of 2903 registered members.
Antievolution.org Discussion Board has a total of 94157 posts (88988 replies to 5169 Topics)
Most users ever online was 197 on Feb. 01 2008,10:16

Date: 2008/02/03 18:26:46, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
why BuckyBalls exhibit coherence and baseballs don't?


My guess would be the difference in relative size of the object as compared to its wavelength.

A baseball is so much larger than its wavelength (except possibly when its momentum is zero to a huge number of digits precision?) that its wavelike properties (including uncertainties such as position vs. momentum or energy vs. time) get swamped.

Henry

Date: 2008/02/03 18:27:18, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Ask him to explain the second law of thermodynamics in his own words because he does not understand it and has probably forgotten the crucial 'in a closed system' part.


Yeah, find out if he's noticed that bright yellow thing that can be seen in the sky on clear days. :p

Henry

Date: 2008/02/03 22:56:44, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
And I am still trying to get my arms around why the calculation for decoherence time is proportional to square-root of temperature.


It's bound to have a relationship to temperature, since the faster nearby molecules are moving, the more often one of them whacks the entangled particle(s).

Henry

Date: 2008/02/06 10:35:56, Link
Author: Henry J
Hmm. When the comments were disabled on the PT thread for this, the form for entering a comment didn't disappear - it just mutated into a now nonfunctional vestigial organ. :p

Date: 2008/02/06 10:54:06, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
First person to quote Douglass Adams has to go and sit in Uncommon Descent for a day.


Spoilsport! :)

Date: 2008/02/06 13:22:57, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 06 2008,10:57)
Here it is.  A veritable hive of activity, judging from the parking lot.

It's near Leary Way? Huh.

Date: 2008/02/06 13:28:52, Link
Author: Henry J
boobies ? The meaning of life? Say what?  :p

Date: 2008/02/06 15:30:42, Link
Author: Henry J
Well, remember that there are only 10 kinds of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't. :p

Date: 2008/02/07 22:17:59, Link
Author: Henry J
A stellar astronomer would be one who prefers studying stars over studying planets or gas clouds. :p

Henry

Date: 2008/02/12 21:41:56, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
The road to hell, after all, has to be paved with SOMETHING.


Bones of sinners? :p

Henry

Date: 2008/02/12 21:42:06, Link
Author: Henry J
J. O'Donnell
Quote
If God started evolution, where did he interject in the process or was the result already known ahead of time? In the first case, I don't think you have anything better than what ID already claims, but in the second case you do have an almighty creator - he's just not taking much interest in the world. Then, once you have humans around, why is there a more sudden interference in human affairs and then why does this interference suddenly stop seemingly arbitarily?


The first part of that seems to have an implicit assumption that God's purposes (whatever they are) depend on the anatomical, biochemical, temporal (i.e., how long after the initiation of the project) and astronomical (i.e., on which planet) details of the intelligent species that arises. If the purpose doesn't depend on those details, then there'd be no theological need to assume sporadic interjections into the process. (Or perhaps I should rephrase that?)

Now the last part of that - lack of evidence of recent interference - isn't impacted by evolution theory.

Reciprocating,
Quote
natural history bodes ill for many more specific theological assertions regarding the nature of human beings relative to any such creator: e.g., we are made in God's image, we have souls that set us apart ontologically from other creatures,


Yep, that point could be a snag in trying to reconcile religion with science. Course, there's also the question of why and how people assume that no animals have souls - I don't see any non-egotistical reason to assume we're more likely to have souls than other animals, especially the more intelligent species (several mammal species, some types of birds, and some many tentacled mulluscs come to mind here).

Henry

Date: 2008/02/13 15:51:20, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 13 2008,10:57)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 13 2008,11:56)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 13 2008,11:35)
But Jesus loves you, right? So it's all ok.

Doubt it. FTK is the least christian christian I've ever encountered.

One one hand perhaps God meant the 10 commandments. Another  theory is he didn't. Teach both.

There were supposed to be fifteen commandments, but Mel Brooks dropped the third tablet.
:p

Date: 2008/02/14 14:06:21, Link
Author: Henry J
A theory is a body of knowledge about a subject.

A law is a single statement, very often a mathematical equation (or sometimes inequality), that expresses a consistently observed relationship.

Date: 2008/02/14 21:42:21, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
A theory is a sort of wild guess drawn out of thin air,


Out of thin air, or out of hot air? :p

Henry

Date: 2008/02/14 21:42:35, Link
Author: Henry J
Wouldn't dinosaur mating more closely resemble bird mating than mammal mating?

Henry

Date: 2008/02/14 23:12:45, Link
Author: Henry J
I found it fascinating, but being an amateur I can't really judge relevance. That part about somebody thinking that bacteria merged to form eukaroytes, that surprised me, since everything I've read related to that indicated that mitochondrial eukaryotes were eukaryotes before they had mitochondria - so I didn't know that anybody ever thought otherwise to that.

Henry

Date: 2008/02/18 11:37:37, Link
Author: Henry J
I'm not sure that "log out" would take one's name off the list of those who've been active in the last 15 minutes. ;)

Date: 2008/02/18 15:29:46, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Over 700 scientists have signed a statement [...]


And to paraphrase Einstein, if the ToE were wrong, it would only take one with a sensible evidence-supported argument.

Date: 2008/02/19 11:16:28, Link
Author: Henry J
Even the water molecules that happen to evaporate on the way down? :p

Date: 2008/02/19 11:17:55, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
That's right where I live.  Looks like I can quit worrying about global warming because it isn't going to affect me!  :)


Is that like a poster on another BB who "looks forward" to the effects of global warming? (Apparently he thinks it will increase the growing season in some areas, or something.) :O

Henry

Date: 2008/02/19 16:27:10, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 19 2008,14:32)
Aw, come on!   He was only off by a little bit!

Well sure, but that little bit was a fourth of a nibble!!!1!!

Date: 2008/02/20 13:27:42, Link
Author: Henry J
Casey went to bat but he struck out?

Or am I mixing him up with somebody else? :p

Date: 2008/02/20 15:16:27, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 20 2008,13:21)
Quote
[...]

"I think they could be teaching a lie," he said. "There's not a place on me where they took the tail off."

Well, then he's simply not among the few percentage of people (I forget what the exact percentage is) for which tail removal did occur.

Henry

Date: 2008/02/20 17:06:08, Link
Author: Henry J
DNA (or whatever they were using back then) swapping before there were real boundaries between species?

Date: 2008/02/22 11:47:15, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Have you made up your mind about the age of the earth yet?


Just wait for its next birthday, then count the candles on the cake. :p

In other news, JAM's avatar almost had me reaching for a fly swatter...

Henry

Date: 2008/02/22 12:21:47, Link
Author: Henry J
Wonder what those people think of meteorology, since it can't predict more than a very limited time into the future either?

Henry

Date: 2008/02/25 22:28:17, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
I say give them their own island and we can watch on TV as they return to the bronze age.

EDIT sometime later: No, it's not the UK :p isle of Wight perhaps....  


For poetic justice, make it the Galapagos. ;)

Henry

Date: 2008/02/27 14:17:58, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
The stuff from Dave is so confused I don't really know where to begin!


"In the beginning, the Earth was without form..."

Or alternately,

"It was a dark and stormy night. And suddenly..."

Date: 2008/02/27 14:28:54, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Paul Flocken @ Feb. 27 2008,08:56)
When marketers want to publicize movies they want the public to go see, don't they usually, well, invite critics?  When I hear that a movie was not screened it always means they have a dud on their hands and they dont want people to know it.  I wonder how many non-disclosure agreements Lucas forced people to sign before watching the original StarWars?

Use the farce, Ben!

Date: 2008/02/28 11:37:20, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Wow. 900 pages of AtBC Uncommonly Dense thread.


It's like the Energizer Bunny, it just keeps going and going and going...

Date: 2008/02/29 09:47:00, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Why Bother To Log In?


Don't know about him, but in my case logging in is automatic; I'd have to do something extra to lurk without logging in.

Henry

Date: 2008/02/29 09:47:56, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
The Pharyngula Effect,


Wonder if they've found a treatment for that yet? :p

Date: 2008/02/29 09:56:37, Link
Author: Henry J
There was a comment from FtK on one of the PT threads, cheerleading for FL.

Henry

Date: 2008/02/29 10:17:54, Link
Author: Henry J
Even if saltation did remove the requirement for long time frames, that wouldn't change the fact that the time frames that actually occurred have been measured.

(It would also of course depend on the degree of saltation, and the amount of recovery time needed between saltation events. Also it might take more than salt; sometimes pepper and other spices may be needed.)

Henry

Date: 2008/03/03 11:25:19, Link
Author: Henry J
Or maybe it's gone with the wind?

Date: 2008/03/03 11:48:53, Link
Author: Henry J
Flying fish, maybe?

Date: 2008/03/03 21:49:41, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Maybe it is not lava, the jury is still out!


Maybe a different brand of soap?

Henry

Date: 2008/03/04 11:52:18, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Physical impossibility is no problem for the Big Guy, you know.


Which means that they can't claim that evilution is impossible. ;) :p

Date: 2008/03/04 19:18:18, Link
Author: Henry J
Hierarchy = groups within groups within groups ... within groups.

What's not to understand? :)

Henry

Date: 2008/03/05 15:46:18, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Mar. 05 2008,14:06)
When I saw NFV, I thought "No Free Vegetables".  That would be a great title for a Dembski book.  Like Wolpert's "No Free Lunch" but without any meat to it.

He could'a had a V8.

Date: 2008/03/06 10:30:54, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
God stole his code, too.


From who? ;)

Date: 2008/03/10 23:13:25, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
If there are 25,000 genes, with an average of 100 aminos per gene, that would mean that there's about 250 alleles.


Wouldn't that 250 be only the ones that happen to differ between the two individuals being compared? Other individuals could have different alleles for those 250 genes or for other genes that were the same in the two that were being compared here.

Henry

Date: 2008/03/11 15:40:46, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
So, is horse evolution a problem for Darwinism or not?


Neigh!

:)

Date: 2008/03/11 23:10:15, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
The only part of horse evolution that I ever claimed was a problem for Darwinism was the [disputed] claim that the reduction in toes began before it was beneficial.


As long as it wasn't detrimental, why would it be a problem?

Henry

Date: 2008/03/12 16:30:41, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 12 2008,08:23)
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 12 2008,01:48)
Did Paul ever provide a single example of any argument in his dishonest little book that isn't decades-old creationism with the word creationism strategically deleted?

HaHaHa!   As if...  Not in this multi-verse.

I would at least like to hear about the turtles!

Michelangelo, Donatello, and I forget the other two.

Leonardo, Raphael.

(But don't ask me which one wears which color of mask! :p )

Date: 2008/03/12 17:08:34, Link
Author: Henry J
Cn b vwl, Vnn?

Date: 2008/03/12 21:52:00, Link
Author: Henry J
A prose by any other name...

Date: 2008/03/15 12:44:53, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
I do not seem to be able to save out a raw copy of the comment text that does not drop characters so far.


This BB has plenty of characters, so that shouldn't be a problem. :p

Henry

Date: 2008/03/15 12:45:34, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
I would say those falcons aren't selective agents. You should probably find some example where a predator has been bitten by the snake and survived. Such an example would support your neodarwinian fairy-tale about coral snake mimicry.


What? A bird that learned about avoiding certain prey, due to surviving a bad experience, would be an example of an animal learning something during its lifetime. It wouldn't be an example of natural selection.

What would be an example of natural selection would be if some birds have an inherited tendency to avoid the snakes, and subsequently they become more prevalent within their species than their relatives that don't have an aversion to that kind of snake.

Henry

Date: 2008/03/17 16:02:55, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Yet the reality seems to be different than neodarwinists would like to have it:


What's the evidence that "neodarwinists" (whoever they are) want things to be the way described in that writeup?

Henry

Date: 2008/03/18 11:27:33, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Did you notice these words: "Portmann's unwillingness to accept the extensive experimental work"?


Ah. But that's just one person. One person having an attitude doesn't imply that that attitude is common in the group that he's in.

Henry

Date: 2008/03/18 22:15:13, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Hey bob if you say all that information over and over again, say, the whole thing about 100 times, then it all starts to sound the same.


The same as what? ;)

Anyways, as regards binary, there's only 10 kinds of people in the world - those who understand it, and those who don't.

Henry

Date: 2008/03/19 17:29:56, Link
Author: Henry J
But do the people on their side notice that damage?

Date: 2008/03/20 16:57:23, Link
Author: Henry J
Yeah, all we know about that exo-planet is that it has gas...
:p

Date: 2008/03/21 09:36:26, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
(Though being a physics geek I would vote for Davetard saying he violates the SLoT every time he types a sentence.)


A funny thing about that is that if there were anything to it, it would kill the 2nd law arguments against evilution in one swell foop. I.e., if the "law" didn't apply to living things as he implied there, then it couldn't be applied to evolution.

Henry

Date: 2008/03/22 17:56:55, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
No one bird has been observed to survive after being bitten. So how can any bird learn not to touch coral-like snakes?


If it happens often for a particular bird species, it might give an advantage to any variety within that species that happens to have an aversion (or even just a lack of interest) in snakes of that appearance, over varieties of the species that lack that aversion.

Henry

Date: 2008/03/22 18:32:02, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Quote
As I remarked earlier, JP, the exclusively Asian provenance of this ?discovery? that you have so astutely questioned, naturally makes one suspicious that this is a case of scientific fraud.


Ya know, the first question that would come to my mind on that point would be whether that evolutionary development just might have occurred in Asia and not here? (Should I put any stocking into that thought?)

Henry

Date: 2008/03/24 09:51:36, Link
Author: Henry J
Physics questions?

Why do the up and down quarks have the electric charge values that they have?

Henry

Date: 2008/03/25 15:20:41, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
and QCD may in fact predict fractional charge from more fundamental laws.


That's what I was wondering - whether the -1/3 and +2/3 were implied by current theory, or determined empirically.

And if it's implied, is the reasoning expressable in language that I would understand or would it shoot over my head?

Henry

Date: 2008/03/26 16:04:35, Link
Author: Henry J
Re "Nonetheless, it seems that the alleged products of blind Darwinian processes are outperforming human technology,"

Well, nature does have much more resources and time than any human built laboratory.

Henry

Date: 2008/03/26 20:53:53, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Prescribed by who or what?


The family doctor? :p

Henry

Date: 2008/03/27 20:48:39, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
It also means that different groups of Vertebrata has arisen independently.


The problem with that conclusion is that it would leave us with a huge number of apparently homologous features that couldn't actually be homologous if that conclusion were correct.

As for why some snakes (or any type of living thing, for that matter) resemble each other - given the huge number of species out there, it seems to me that it'd be extremely unlikely to not find some that resemble each other, sometimes in the same geographic area.

For that matter, such a coincidence as that would be a prerequisite for actual adaptive mimicry.

As for the resemblance of marsupial and placental "wolf", as I understand it that's simply a result of having a similar environment, and a similar way of getting food, therefore similar physical abilities would be a direct result of adaptation to that lifestyle. (It's analogous to why dolphins and whales are largely fish-shaped - that shape is advantageous in that environment.)

Henry

Date: 2008/03/28 21:07:38, Link
Author: Henry J
Sometimes I wonder if maybe writers of advertisements don't actually have to sell to the public - they only have to sell the script to the company that's trying to sell something to the public.

Henry

Date: 2008/03/28 21:51:44, Link
Author: Henry J
How about those eye drops (I forget the brand name) that "get the red out" - do those really work? :p

Henry

Date: 2008/03/29 15:40:18, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
I mentioned non-homology of germ cells. Obviously such case doesn't indicate "common ancestor".


Perhaps if that was the only evidence available that conclusion might follow. But in the presence of all the other apparent homologies, claiming that birds and mammals don't have a common ancestor would require an incredible amount of coincidental similarities that would no longer have any explanation. (Not to mention the fossils that trace both back to early reptiles and/or amphibians*, which would also be an unlikely coincidence if they weren't ancestrally related.)

Besides, is there any reason to supposed it to be impossible for a different type of tissue to start generating germ cells? All the tissues have all the genes, so there's no obvious reason to suppose that the trigger for germ cell development couldn't ever occur in a different tissue type than it had up to that time. (I'd guess that such an occurrence would be quite rare though, especially if it's homologous within each of the bird and mammal classes.)

As for these color patterns - if it was established earlier in the thread that similarity can sometimes be coincidental, is there still a point to that argument? Certainly scientists can make mistakes about details; the fact that they often disagree with each other about details proves that, since if/when they disagree at least one of them is wrong. Seeing adaptation where there's only coincidence may be an easy mistake to make. A mistake about a detail is not in itself an argument against the general principles.

As I think I said before, given a huge number of species, an occasional coincidence in appearance seems more likely than not for such to never happen.

As for predicting similarity of DNA based on similarity of coloration, I doubt that would work. Seems likely that the genes that affect coloration would be a very small portion of the genome. Plus, similar colors could be produced by different chemicals, so coicidental similarity of color could occur without a corresponding similarity of the color-related portion of the DNA.

*Which may have tasted like chicken.

Henry

Date: 2008/03/29 16:09:32, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
but compared to their specific ignorance of chemistry


And that's dispite the fact that chemistry is an elementary subject, a point that should be put on the table periodically.

Henry

Date: 2008/03/30 22:28:11, Link
Author: Henry J
Edit buttons take time to evolve. ;)

Henry

Date: 2008/03/31 10:22:59, Link
Author: Henry J
Or a reaction that may compound the problem, and we wouldn't wanna polarize the discussion.

Date: 2008/03/31 15:32:45, Link
Author: Henry J
But what's that in English? :p

Date: 2008/03/31 21:04:48, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
3. "Contains no chemicals." -> It's amazing what vacuum can do for you.


Sounds like somebody thinks "chemicals" means only substance made by people in a laboratory.

Quote
1. "Never tested on animals." -> Congratulations on buying our product and joining our test group.


That was always my first thought on hearing that claim, too. If they don't test it first, then they're testing it on their customers!

How about an item 8 - this product will make you irresistable to the opposite gender.

And item 9 - this car is sexy. Uh - cars don't reproduce! (And if they did, would you really want one that attracted other cars while driving down the highway? :p )

Henry

Date: 2008/04/02 14:58:51, Link
Author: Henry J
Maybe that's the opposite of intelligent falling? :p

Date: 2008/04/02 22:00:24, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
"There will be no bargain, young JediDarwinist. I shall enjoy watching your theory die."


Use the farce!

Henry

Date: 2008/04/03 16:15:07, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Brace for "Darwinism can't explain....'


Surely not! :p

Date: 2008/04/04 22:17:47, Link
Author: Henry J
Well, given what's been said so far on the subject, I have to conclude that coloration is not always under selection due to predation. For one thing, if coloration doesn't significantly affect success rates then it would be free to drift. After all, a creature that can be seen is going to have some color pattern, whether it's bright or drab, solid or multicolored patterned. So, sometimes a similarity in appearance may be simply a coincidence - a point that was established up thread and afaik it wasn't denied by anybody. So unless there's something new to say I don't see any point continuing to rehash that issue.

The presence of unanswered questions does not in itself invalidate general principles that are firmly established by the answering of other questions (such as why are there nested hierarchies - a separate origin model would have to look elsewhere for any explanation of that).

I wonder if any of those beetles have good enough eyesight for their color patterns to serve as species recognition and/or mating signals - in that case coloration could be due to social or sexual selection. I also wonder if the males and females of those species have the same color patterns - do any beetles (or other insects) use the strategy that some bird species do, in which one gender is brightly colored and the other one drab?

Henry

Date: 2008/04/04 22:53:32, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
You're just jealous 'cause she puts out for me.
:p


Uh - puts out what? ;)

On second thought, forget I asked. :p

Henry

Date: 2008/04/05 15:47:44, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote

Quote

For example, to evolve a heart, the heart has to become non-critical to survival and thus not subject to strong selection. This would be like changing a tire on a moving truck (but far more difficult).



Er, what? He thinks a species that already has a heart is going to make that heart non-critical in order to evolve something it already has? I do not grok that (which is probably a good thing).

Henry

Date: 2008/04/05 20:54:17, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Don't think it's easy to grow mushrooms in your basement. It's really darn difficult.


But they are such fun gi's, aren't they?

Henry

Date: 2008/04/06 18:05:48, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote

Quote
(guthrie @ April 04 2008,09:42)
Is there a USA'ian significance about the name "summer glau"?


The significance is that she is way, super hot. And seems like she could kick all kinds of ass- in her sleep. Gracefully. While preforming "The Nut-Cracker Suite.

Which, again, makes her way super hot.

Watch the last battle scene of Serenity.

This is a woman Frazetta would have died to see in motion.


It was all that training in ballet dancing that she's had - that sort of training is very helpful when doing simulated fight scenes.

Henry

Date: 2008/04/06 18:49:40, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Be that as it may, Pi remains a construct, perhaps a "social construct," because it is simply a way in which we humans understand the world.  3.1415926... is not something that we found in the world, it is something that our minds abstracted (or inferred) out of our observations (which themselves are already interpretation before they even hit consciousness).


That, and the value follows as a direct consequence (i.e., by logical deduction) of the rules of the kind of geometry that people use most of the time for anything that involves geometry (i.e., Euclidean geometry).

Henry

Date: 2008/04/06 18:49:49, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Quote

The real question is, how many functional* mutations are possible per generation within the darwinian model. Some have suggested that there is a limit of two or three. I strongly suggest that the limit is one.


Doesn't the measured mutation rate in humans match quite closely to that conclusion? I recall that the average number of point mutations in functional DNA was one point something or other, and some fraction of those will be neutral due to not actually changing the produced protein, so that could well resolve to about one functional change, afaik.

Henry

Date: 2008/04/06 19:06:55, Link
Author: Henry J
In short, our interests dictate that the presence of a given area of the wall of the cooker, and countless other facts about the physics of the explosion, take their places as background conditions rather than causes of the explosion.

Or, one could compare the attributes of the one that exploded to the larger majority of pressure cookers that didn't. ;)

Henry

Date: 2008/04/07 21:44:37, Link
Author: Henry J
Has anybody mentioned that eugenics is closer to artificial selection than to natural selection?

Not to mention also that if evolution teaches anything, it teaches that more variety = better chance of surviving a disaster that wipes out 1 or 2 of the current varieties. Otoh, less variety = the next disaster might wipe out the 1 variety that the eugenics program left intact (i.e., oops).

Henry

Date: 2008/04/07 22:40:39, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
They were descended from Adam, don't ya know?


Wasn't everybody? ;)

Quote
Quote
So of course, it's ridiculous to say that if there is a scientific consensus that 2+2=4, we should immediately hold such an equation suspect. That's because this is an empirical statement. No interpretation required. Worldview doesn't play a role.


Empirical statement? No, 2+2=4 is a logical deduction from the axioms and definitions of the integer number system (or from axiomatic set theory if one starts at the beginning). The next two statements are actually correct - no interpretation of evidence is involved, and no role for worldview.

Henry

Date: 2008/04/07 22:40:56, Link
Author: Henry J
Funny, I somehow had the impression that the word "martyr" implied something other than merely losing a job? Oh well, what do I know.

Henry

Date: 2008/04/08 10:28:27, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Doc Bill @ April 07 2008,22:24)
Once again our Kevin expounds on that about which he knows nothing: paleontology!

Not empirical, eh?  So, I guess paleontologists don't measure bone lengths and widths.  Yeah, someone else must do that.  I guess paleontologists don't make any measurements at all.  Nope, someone else must do that like chemists and physicists.  I guess paleontologists spend their time walking around the Badlands with their picks and shovels, contemplating their worldview.

Yeah, Kevin, that's what paleontologists do.

And they make no bones about it, too! :p

Date: 2008/04/08 21:27:25, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Please tell me if by your definition (there are so many conflicting definitions) whether or not I am a creationist -- so I know if I am allowed to reply.


I doubt there is any one definition that would fit all the usages of the term.

An operational definition that might (or might not) work, is somebody who takes seriously arguments that, if true, would imply that hundreds of thousands of scientists have been as a group making it all up as they go, without losing their jobs en masse, and without any evident lack of research results, and without any explanation of why scientists from different nations, religions, cultures, backgrounds, and worldviews, would agree fairly well with each other on the general principles of their branch of science (even if not on all the technical details).

Now as to how often I argue about evolution in person - so far I don't. I don't have much experience in oral debate, and don't think that fast (it's often a few minutes or several later when I figure out what I should have said). For another thing, in this subject I'm an amateur, so most of the technical stuff will be over my head. Plus, somebody who's been arguing from the other side for long is somebody who's chosen to disregard what the experts say about their own subjects (see operational definition above). Also, antievolutionist frequently judge arguments first by how the feel about the conclusion, a habit that can make communication rather difficult.

On-line, otoh, there's time to think bewteen comments, there's time to look up stuff, and other people to jump in with added details. Also there's a record of what the other person said, and there's no actual interrupting of somebody while they're typing something. (Er, I mean from the other participants in the argument, not from others in that person's home. :p )

Henry

Date: 2008/04/09 11:49:15, Link
Author: Henry J
Warrior king? Didn't Xena kill him a while back? :p

Date: 2008/04/09 11:56:27, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 08 2008,21:44)
Could be. But he's also your aunt, which makes me your daddy.   :angry:

One should use a Darth Vader accent when saying that... :p

Date: 2008/04/10 14:16:37, Link
Author: Henry J
When I tried to post a reply on PT just now it says "500 - Internal Server Error".

The latest reply showing now was posted at 2:10 this morning.

Henry

Date: 2008/04/10 16:58:29, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
But darwinists do not have any clue - except their fantasy of course -  how to tell apart aposematism, mimicry and a coincidence of color patterns. Black-yellow patterns are so common patterns in insect realm that it is hard to imagine  why only some dragonflies should mimic wasps where other conspicuous dragonflies thrive as well in their "struggle for life". I would say we have a pallete of coloration in dragonflies and coincidentally some of them look waspish. The same for many other species or families. Only a prejudiced mind of a selectionist see in all those cases "mimicry".


Never mind whether darwinists (whatever those are) have any clues; the question is whether evolutionary biologists know how to set up tests on particular species to distinguish which of those factors are relevant for that species.

Henry

Date: 2008/04/10 17:16:50, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote (Amadan @ April 10 2008,09:29)
It seems you are mistaken. NFC stands for Nature Favours Christianity. The argument is related to those that support the view that gravity is at precisely the right strength to prevent missionaries in less fortunate lands from falling off.

NFC relies on the non-materialist doctrine of copywrong. This permits gene duplications to occur without increase of information. Legally, it is quite interesting. Simply put, the fee-simple copyholder can claim in rem that a non-repudiatory rescission is moot, given that the locus standi of notice parties at the interlocutory stage of interrogatories vitiates quasi-judicial application of the equitable doctrine of estoppel. Of course, this leaves open the availability of a plea in laches (subject to novation by the interceding party). But I'm sure you knew that.

The who whatting how with huh?

Date: 2008/04/11 23:59:44, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Hmm, do BW entries get new times?


I've wondered about that, too. I have the impression that they keep their original post times, based on the fact that they seem to get inserted before stuff that was already on the BW thread.

Henry

Date: 2008/04/13 00:53:30, Link
Author: Henry J
Quote
Who (or what) is Hilary?


I wonder if it's a reference to the politician - the senator from N.Y. who's actually from Arkansas by way of D.C.? Well, unless he was referring to somebo