A few questions.

[someone]

I took a look on the http://www.talkorigins.org/ website's FAQ page
and looked for the answers to the following questions but couldn't find
them there. They concern the atheist evolutionists (those that rule out
mutation by design) were suggesting the evolutionary pathway was from unicellular lifeforms to multicellular lifeforms. I was wondering why a
unicellular lifeform if it was to become multicellular wouldn't just
become a multicellular string of similar cells or some other basic
replicable structure, or was that a step in the theory, or was there
something else they might be expected to become?

Also should such a basic structure be thought of as one organism, or a
collection of organisms? If one organism, then what if the cells behaved
roughly the same but didn't stick to each other but floated apart?

Also how is it envisaged that the majority in a collection of self replicating
cells will sacrifice reproduction and instead it be delegated to a minority
of the cells to pass on their genetic code (which will encode for future organisms)?

This isn't to suggest that I personally think there are flaws what they are
suggesting, it is just that I am ignorant of what is being suggested, and
what they might be suggesting wasn't immediately obvious to me.

Could basic questions such as these not of gone in the FAQ section?

[alias Ernest Major]

Would you care to ask the questions again without poisoning the well first?
--
alias Ernest Major

[someone]

Where do you think I poisoned the well?

[Ron O]

On May 20, 5:38�am, someone <glenn.spi...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I took a look on thehttp://www.talkorigins.org/website's FAQ page

> and looked for the answers to the following questions but couldn't find
> them there. They concern the atheist evolutionists (those that rule out
> mutation by design) were suggesting the evolutionary pathway was from unicellular lifeforms to multicellular lifeforms.

It isn't so much as ruling something out, but just not having any
reason to rule it in. You don't have to be an atheist to understand
the usefulness of not having to consider more complexity when there is
no reason to consider it.

> I was wondering why a
> unicellular lifeform if it was to become multicellular wouldn't just
> become a multicellular string of similar cells or some other basic
> replicable structure, or was that a step in the theory, or was there
> something else they might be expected to become?

If you study biology you will soon learn that there is a grand
diversity of lifeforms that cover the whole spectrum of what you are
thinking of. There are single cells, single identical cells in
strings, biofilms of a layer of single cells, organized
conglomerations of cells like sponges that can reassemble if you
reduce them to single cells and then let them get back together. In
short there are intermediate stages and they still exist and happily
reproduce in nature. These intermediate stages aren't trying to be
anything else. They just survive and reproduce and some of them, by
chance, started to make strings of cells, some started to make layers
and then 3D structures etc. These intermediates could obviously
survive because similar lifeforms still exist.

>
> Also should such a basic structure be thought of as one organism, or a
> collection of organisms? If one organism, then what if the cells behaved
> roughly the same but didn't stick to each other but floated apart?

That is the thing about evolution, you get into categories that are
intermediate and no hard and fast rule applies. For strings of cells
you can break the string and get two strings that continue to
reproduce. You can parcel up biofilms anyway that you want down to
single cells and they will reproduce. You can take a sponge and
divide it up into single cells and you can create a bunch of little
sponges as the cells reassemble. So these primative types of
multicellular organisms are both types. We can't do that with
multicellular organisms like yourself, so as you get more complex
multicellular types it gets easier to say that a bunch of cells make
one organism instead of being just a bunch of cells.

>
> Also how is it envisaged that the majority in a collection of self replicating
> cells will sacrifice reproduction and instead it be delegated to a minority
> of the cells to pass on their genetic code (which will encode for future organisms)?

The thing about evolution is that a lifeform only has to work and
reproduce competitively. The lifeforms that were not competitive are
gone. We only see the winners. So we can see a progression of
multicellular types to those where most cells sacrifice their own
reproductive ability for the greater good. It just worked, and you
probably can't draw a line where any cell had to make that decision.
In Cnidaria you can chop up a hydra and it will regenerate whole
organisms, but more complex relatives like jellyfish can't be chopped
up. When did the cells in a hydra like organism evolve to a point
where you can't take a part and make a whole? It was obviously so
gradual that it just happened. Hydra have tenticles to snag prey and
a mouth opening and sort of a gut, so where do you draw the line.
Evolution is like that. You expect to have gray areas where things
are half and half.

>
> This isn't to suggest that I personally think there are flaws what they are
> suggesting, it is just that I am ignorant of what is being suggested, and
> what they might be suggesting wasn't immediately obvious to me.
>
> Could basic questions such as these not of gone in the FAQ section?

My guess is that this information is already on the TO web page. You
probably have to do some searching to find it.

Don't believe the dishonest propaganda. Biological evolution is a
fact. It doesn't matter whether you believe that it could have been
guided or not. It happened and life on earth has been evolving for
billions of years.

Ron Okimoto

[someone]

On Monday, 20 May 2013 12:25:31 UTC+1, Ron O wrote:

> On May 20, 5:38�am, someone wrote:
>
> > I took a look on thehttp://www.talkorigins.org/website's FAQ page
>
> > and looked for the answers to the following questions but couldn't find
>
> > them there. They concern the atheist evolutionists (those that rule out
>
> > mutation by design) were suggesting the evolutionary pathway was from unicellular lifeforms to multicellular lifeforms.
>
>
>
> It isn't so much as ruling something out, but just not having any
>
> reason to rule it in. You don't have to be an atheist to understand
>
> the usefulness of not having to consider more complexity when there is
>
> no reason to consider it.
>

I assume you think that is a fair assessment of the situation. Would you have
considered it fair for a theist to have stated that it wasn't so much a case of
ruling out random evolution, but one of just not having any reason to rule it in?

(determined evolution would replace random evolution, not be an addition)

>
>
> > I was wondering why a
>
> > unicellular lifeform if it was to become multicellular wouldn't just
>
> > become a multicellular string of similar cells or some other basic
>
> > replicable structure, or was that a step in the theory, or was there
>
> > something else they might be expected to become?
>
>
>
> If you study biology you will soon learn that there is a grand
>
> diversity of lifeforms that cover the whole spectrum of what you are
>
> thinking of. There are single cells, single identical cells in
>
> strings, biofilms of a layer of single cells, organized
>
> conglomerations of cells like sponges that can reassemble if you
>
> reduce them to single cells and then let them get back together. In
>
> short there are intermediate stages and they still exist and happily
>
> reproduce in nature. These intermediate stages aren't trying to be
>
> anything else. They just survive and reproduce and some of them, by
>
> chance, started to make strings of cells, some started to make layers
>
> and then 3D structures etc. These intermediates could obviously
>
> survive because similar lifeforms still exist.
>
>

So am I right in thinking that at one stage they are thinking that at
some stage our life form ancestor was *possibly* a sponge-type collection
of cells, in which each cell of which was responsible its own reproduction?

Presumably this would be a collection of cells in which mutations in one cell
wouldn't necessarily become more prevalent in the population than when they
occurred.

>
> >
>
> > Also should such a basic structure be thought of as one organism, or a
>
> > collection of organisms? If one organism, then what if the cells behaved
>
> > roughly the same but didn't stick to each other but floated apart?
>
>
>
> That is the thing about evolution, you get into categories that are
>
> intermediate and no hard and fast rule applies. For strings of cells
>
> you can break the string and get two strings that continue to
>
> reproduce. You can parcel up biofilms anyway that you want down to
>
> single cells and they will reproduce. You can take a sponge and
>
> divide it up into single cells and you can create a bunch of little
>
> sponges as the cells reassemble. So these primative types of
>
> multicellular organisms are both types. We can't do that with
>
> multicellular organisms like yourself, so as you get more complex
>
> multicellular types it gets easier to say that a bunch of cells make
>
> one organism instead of being just a bunch of cells.
>
>

Why can't a sponge just thought of as a collection of reproducing cells
that stick together in forms? Because if it can then why make it more
complex and say that additionally you need to be able to understand it
as being a single organism?

Could there be quite a genetic diversity within one sponge
if cells from one sponge joined with the cells of a distantly related
sponge, and then with another distantly related sponge, etc., or is there
some mechanism to prevent this?

>
> >
>
> > Also how is it envisaged that the majority in a collection of self replicating
>
> > cells will sacrifice reproduction and instead it be delegated to a minority
>
> > of the cells to pass on their genetic code (which will encode for future organisms)?
>
>
>
> The thing about evolution is that a lifeform only has to work and
>
> reproduce competitively. The lifeforms that were not competitive are
>
> gone. We only see the winners. So we can see a progression of
>
> multicellular types to those where most cells sacrifice their own
>
> reproductive ability for the greater good. It just worked, and you
>
> probably can't draw a line where any cell had to make that decision.
>
> In Cnidaria you can chop up a hydra and it will regenerate whole
>
> organisms, but more complex relatives like jellyfish can't be chopped
>
> up. When did the cells in a hydra like organism evolve to a point
>
> where you can't take a part and make a whole? It was obviously so
>
> gradual that it just happened. Hydra have tenticles to snag prey and
>
> a mouth opening and sort of a gut, so where do you draw the line.
>
> Evolution is like that. You expect to have gray areas where things
>
> are half and half.
>
>

So what is the progression you see from a collection of self replicating cells which all individually reproduce to one in which the majority will sacrifice

reproduction and instead it be delegated to a minority of the cells to pass on their genetic code (which will encode for future organisms)?

Are there sponges where a tenth of the cells don't replicate any more?

What is the random evolutionary explanation of it?

[someone]

I presume I am wrong about the sponge-type creature. I presume the
route is that sexual reproduction occurred at the unicelluar stage
in evolution, and the sexually reproducing cell could also asexually
reproduce, and that it reproduced cells only capable of asexual
reproduction. Is that right, or is there a problem or alternative
route?

[Richard Norman]

Evolution aside, you have a big misconception about the organisms that
currently exist. Sponges are multicellular animals with
differentiated cell types. They can reproduce both sexually and
asexually and the sexual reproduction is not available to all the
component cells.

You fail to comprehend what Ron O has tried to explain. That is,
biology includes all the intermediate types you mention, from single
cells to aggregates of single cells each capable of reproduction to
colonial aggregates of multicellular components, each component
capable of reproducing independently, to true multicellular organisms
where only specific cell types are capable of reproduction.

This list is NOT a "progression". You seem to think of evolution as
some "striving" or "reaching" to progress to a higher and better form
and wonder why cells would want to do that. There is no place for
such thinking in biology because there is no place for a mechanism
that could explain how it can work. Instead there is a perfectly
satisfactory explanation in terms of non-directed evolution so that
there is no reason to invoke some higher intelligence or direction for
which there is absolutely no evidence.

Many multicellular organisms, plants especially, are capable of
asexual reproduction where each and every part of the organism is
capable of reproducing. However you fail to understand the enormous
power of division of labor, where cell specialization is the key to
the success of multicellular existence. The entire entity has much
greater survival and reproductive potential if most of the cells are
specialized for survival and only a few cells specialized for
reproduction. Given that all the cells in a multicellular organism
have identical genomes, there is no evolutionary advantage for each
and every cell to be capable of reproduction. In evolutionary terms,
it is the genome that reproduces to increases its frequency in the
next generation gene pool and individual cells don't matter.

[alias Ernest Major]

"atheist evolutionists"

--
alias Ernest Major

[Rolf Aalberg]

Isn't the bulk of life on the planet composed of bacteria or
single-celled species?

Tree or plant reproduction by cutting off a branch or dividing a root.

To 'someone':
I think you are asking too many questions; I think it would be a good
idea to read some books and do as much reading as you can on the
subject. I've spent almost 80 years doing that and am not finished
reading and learning yet.

[someone]

On Monday, 20 May 2013 14:21:35 UTC+1, Richard Norman wrote:

I assume that is not common place that a cell incapable of sexual
reproduction does on asexual reproduction produce a result in which
either cell can reproduce both sexually and asexually.

The sexually reproducing cells, are all the cells they produce asexually
capable of sexual reproduction, or are some or all of them not, or is
there the range?

>
> You fail to comprehend what Ron O has tried to explain. That is,
>
> biology includes all the intermediate types you mention, from single
>
> cells to aggregates of single cells each capable of reproduction to
>
> colonial aggregates of multicellular components, each component
>
> capable of reproducing independently, to true multicellular organisms
>
> where only specific cell types are capable of reproduction.
>
>
>
> This list is NOT a "progression".

The progression I mentioned was the one mentioned by Ron.

> You seem to think of evolution as
>
> some "striving" or "reaching" to progress to a higher and better form
>
> and wonder why cells would want to do that. There is no place for
>
> such thinking in biology because there is no place for a mechanism
>
> that could explain how it can work. Instead there is a perfectly
>
> satisfactory explanation in terms of non-directed evolution so that
>
> there is no reason to invoke some higher intelligence or direction for
>
> which there is absolutely no evidence.
>
>

Where did you get that from what I wrote?

>
> Many multicellular organisms, plants especially, are capable of
>
> asexual reproduction where each and every part of the organism is
>
> capable of reproducing. However you fail to understand the enormous
>
> power of division of labor, where cell specialization is the key to
>
> the success of multicellular existence. The entire entity has much
>
> greater survival and reproductive potential if most of the cells are
>
> specialized for survival and only a few cells specialized for
>
> reproduction. Given that all the cells in a multicellular organism
>
> have identical genomes, there is no evolutionary advantage for each
>
> and every cell to be capable of reproduction. In evolutionary terms,
>
> it is the genome that reproduces to increases its frequency in the
>
> next generation gene pool and individual cells don't matter.

Why would all the cells in a sponge have an identical genome?

[someone]

I think I've presumed too far, since it could equally be that the sexually
reproducing cell could also asexually produce cells which are capable of sexually reproducing, which would seem to result in a more robust model in which
the sexual reproduction wasn't left to a single cell. Both involve
asexually producing cells which have sexual reproduction turned off.

Just thinking out aloud so to speak, but am interest to hear what the theory
actually is.

[TimR]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 6:38:46 AM UTC-4, someone wrote:
> Also should such a basic structure be thought of as one organism, or a
>
> collection of organisms? If one organism, then what if the cells behaved
>
> roughly the same but didn't stick to each other but floated apart?

Do you consider yourself human?

You're only 5%, you know. The other 95%, or 19/20ths if you prefer fractions of cells in your body are non human. You are a walking colony of bacteria and other life forms.

(now, many of these cells are small, so by weight you are mostly human; but by count of cells you are not)

[Rolf Aalberg]

Maybe because they all are descended from a parental couple? Just like
you and me, they are animals, are they not?

But as to your question about reproduction: When all the cells in
animals, trees or other multi-cellular species share identical genomes,
what does it matter which of the cells actually do reproduce?

It is in fact irrelevant, the outcome is the same anyway. Besides, when
a body is made of billions of cells, how would you do it?

Evolution is a perfect example of how nature works: It has no goal
except survival. Nature is 'cruel', it creates species that engage in
the most horrible methods an mechanisms for survival. Fungi that take
over an ant's brain in it's bizarre reproductive process; parasitic
wasps laying their eggs in larvae of other species, and I presume a lot
of other methods are in use as well.

All to further the survival of the species no matter how painful it may
be to another species.

When studying life and evolution: Survival is the #1 criterium. From
there everything else follows. Richard Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" is an
interesting view on genetics. I also liked his "The Greatest Show on
Earth" but I have a hunch you may not like it.

The best you can do is to tray and learn, and to understand how life and
nature works; then you soon will be able to answer many of your
questions yourself. I enjoy finding solutions to my own questions.

[Richard Norman]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 16:57:14 +0200, Rolf Aalberg
<rolf.a...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Richard Norman wrote:

>>> Many multicellular organisms, plants especially, are capable of
>> asexual reproduction where each and every part of the organism is
>> capable of reproducing. However you fail to understand the enormous
>> power of division of labor, where cell specialization is the key to
>> the success of multicellular existence. The entire entity has much
>> greater survival and reproductive potential if most of the cells are
>> specialized for survival and only a few cells specialized for
>> reproduction. Given that all the cells in a multicellular organism
>> have identical genomes, there is no evolutionary advantage for each
>> and every cell to be capable of reproduction. In evolutionary terms,
>> it is the genome that reproduces to increases its frequency in the
>> next generation gene pool and individual cells don't matter.
>>
>
>Isn't the bulk of life on the planet composed of bacteria or
>single-celled species?
>
>Tree or plant reproduction by cutting off a branch or dividing a root.
>

Yes, the bulk of life in terms of number of cells or numbers of
organisms and, possibly, in total mass consists of single celled
organisms.

I did say that " Many multicellular organisms, plants especially, are
capable of asexual reproduction..."

[Richard Norman]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 09:08:01 -0700 (PDT), someone
<glenn....@googlemail.com> wrote:


<snip to eliminate all the multiple blank line garbage google produces
and to leave only the important points>

>
>I assume that is not common place that a cell incapable of sexual
>reproduction does on asexual reproduction produce a result in which
>either cell can reproduce both sexually and asexually.
>
>The sexually reproducing cells, are all the cells they produce asexually
>capable of sexual reproduction, or are some or all of them not, or is
>there the range?

>Why would all the cells in a sponge have an identical genome?

When an organism capable of reproducing both sexually and asexually
does reproduce, the new organism is also capable of reproducing both
sexually and asexually. identical twins are produced from a single
embryo by asexual reproduction and they are capable of reproducing
sexually. If you get a plant to reproduce asexually by taking
cuttings from a parent, the new plants are quite capable of producing
flowers and fruit with seeds (sexual reproduction). In many (but not
all) sexually reproducing organisms a special cell line, the so-called
germ cell line, is capable of dividing by meiosis to produce gametes
(or spores in the case of plants). No other cell in the multicellular
organism does that even though they all have the genetic machinery to
do so.

All the cells in a multicellular organism have an identical genome
because they are all produced by asexual reproduction (mitosis) from a
single cell. Yes, there are some exceptions and some organisms are
chimeras but those are relatively rare exceptions. And, yes, there
are exceptions because some cell lines are polyploid. But you don't
know enough biology to know about those special cases.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Monday, 20 May 2013 18:36:52 UTC+1, Rolf Aalberg wrote:

> someone wrote:
> > Why would all the cells in a sponge have an
> > identical genome?
>
> Maybe because they all are descended from a parental
> couple? Just like you and me, they are animals, are they not?

I've been told that you can chop several sponges into sponge
soup, presumably in a laboratory, and then watch them assemble
themselves into versions of the origial distinct organisms.
But I don't vouch for this. If true, I'd guess that foreign
tissue is in some sense rejected. This may refer to different
sponge species, rather than, say, cousins.

As for t.o coverage, that's mainly about refuting stupid
creationist claims. If there's an identifiable claim here,
I think it is that it's implausible that single-cell life
could give rise to multiple cells, which is a very stupid
claim because that's /how single cells reproduce/.

My very inadequately educated guess is that it took a long
time, in fact, for "real" multicellular life to come about -
which seems to be the case - because single-cell life
is ussally /better/. If you don't believe that -
challenge cholera to a fight. I'm betting that you go down.

[J. J. Lodder]

someone <glenn....@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I took a look on the http://www.talkorigins.org/ website's FAQ page
> and looked for the answers to the following questions but couldn't find
> them there. They concern the atheist evolutionists

[snip]

Why is it that reli-nutters like you can never ask a question
without resorting to name-calling first?

Jan

[Richard Norman]

That sponge story is quite true. It was first discovered by HV Wilson
in 1907
On some phenomena of coalescence and regeneration in sponges
J Exp Zool 5(2): 245�258.

The way I head it is that he dropped the sponge into the toe of a
woman's silk stocking (this was before nylons) and squeezed it
through. However he writes "Lobes of the sponge
are cut into small pieces with scissors and then strained through
fine bolting cloth such as is used for tow nets. A square piece
of cloth is folded like a bag around the bits of sponge and is
immersed in a saucer of filtered sea-water. While the bag is
kept closed with the fingers of one hand it is squeezed between the
arms of a small pair of forceps."

A more accessible account is the paper by Galtsoff in 1923 from Biol
Bull. He used bolting silk No. 20.
http://www.biolbull.org/content/45/3/153.full.pdf

Bolting cloth is a fine mesh fabric that was used to sift flour, among
other things. The tow net referred to by Wilson is now call a plankton
net. I think the lady's stocking makes a better story.

Of course there is a modern video of this
http://shapeoflife.org/video/behavior/sponges-time-lapse-sponge-cells-recombining

[chris thompson]

On May 20, 2:00锟絧m, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 16:57:14 +0200, Rolf Aalberg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Richard Norman wrote:
> >>> Many multicellular organisms, plants especially, are capable of
> >> asexual reproduction where each and every part of the organism is

> >> capable of reproducing. 锟紿owever you fail to understand the enormous

> >> power of division of labor, where cell specialization is the key to

> >> the success of multicellular existence. 锟絋he entire entity has much

> >> greater survival and reproductive potential if most of the cells are
> >> specialized for survival and only a few cells specialized for

> >> reproduction. 锟紾iven that all the cells in a multicellular organism

> >> have identical genomes, there is no evolutionary advantage for each

> >> and every cell to be capable of reproduction. 锟絀n evolutionary terms,

> >> it is the genome that reproduces to increases its frequency in the
> >> next generation gene pool and individual cells don't matter.
>
> >Isn't the bulk of life on the planet composed of bacteria or
> >single-celled species?
>
> >Tree or plant reproduction by cutting off a branch or dividing a root.
>
> Yes, the bulk of life in terms of number of cells or numbers of
> organisms and, possibly, in total mass consists of single celled
> organisms.

It becomes more lopsided if you include organisms that contain
relatively few cells, like nematodes. What's the nematode count per
cubic cm of soil? A lot, just...a lot.

Chris

>
> I did say that " Many multicellular organisms, plants especially, are

> capable of 锟絘sexual reproduction..."

[Walter Bushell]

In article <kndmvi$frq$1...@news.albasani.net>,

Rolf Aalberg <rolf.a...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But as to your question about reproduction: When all the cells in
> animals, trees or other multi-cellular species share identical genomes,
> what does it matter which of the cells actually do reproduce?

Most of the time, sometime chimeras form. We don't know how many,
because we seldom look.

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx

[Paul J Gans]

> J Exp Zool 5(2): 245?258.

>The way I head it is that he dropped the sponge into the toe of a
>woman's silk stocking (this was before nylons) and squeezed it
>through. However he writes "Lobes of the sponge
>are cut into small pieces with scissors and then strained through
>fine bolting cloth such as is used for tow nets. A square piece
>of cloth is folded like a bag around the bits of sponge and is
>immersed in a saucer of filtered sea-water. While the bag is
>kept closed with the fingers of one hand it is squeezed between the
>arms of a small pair of forceps."

>A more accessible account is the paper by Galtsoff in 1923 from Biol
>Bull. He used bolting silk No. 20.
> http://www.biolbull.org/content/45/3/153.full.pdf

>Bolting cloth is a fine mesh fabric that was used to sift flour, among
>other things. The tow net referred to by Wilson is now call a plankton
>net. I think the lady's stocking makes a better story.

>Of course there is a modern video of this
>http://shapeoflife.org/video/behavior/sponges-time-lapse-sponge-cells-recombining

I knew it. Biologists spend their time photographing
ladies' lingerie. Probably used government money too.

Is it too late for me to change careers?

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Richard Norman]

My first scientific job was the summer after my freshman year at the
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute on a project studying diffraction
of underwater shock waves. The sensors on the end of long cables of
course had to be protected from salt water so they were encased in oil
filled (to conduct the shock wave) condoms tied to the cable. Of
course the group sent me, an 18 year old kid, to the drug store to buy
the things. This was 1958. They were NOT just sitting on the shelves
and you had to ask the clerk behind the desk for them. I had to wait
forever for the women to leave so I could get them from a man.

[Paul J Gans]

Welcome to my childhood. ;-(

I can even sort of match that. Back a long time ago I spent
summers working for an electronics R & D firm. At one point
they had a contract with NACA (that's correct, it was the
National Committee for Aeronautics and the forerunner of
NASA) to provide icing sensors for blimps.

Blimps were to be used for offshore submarine detection for
which they were admirably suited. Except for one thing. At
altitude, ice would often form on the top of the blimp. When]
the ice got to be too heavy, the blimp would roll over, making
the folks in the control area literally upset.

So an ice detector was needed. The company I worked for
got the contract and developed a rather neat one. The problem
was that it had to be tested on the ground first.

NACA had a cold chamber in their facilities next to what was
then the Cleveland Airport. They could lower the temperature
to -20 F easily. Only somebody had to be in the chamber with
the device to set it up and spray it with fog.

The test was scheduled for a very hot day in August. A
parka would be supplied. Of course, being the youngest
guy around I got the job.

It was neat (NOT). It was over 100 F in the room with the
chamber. I put on the parka and ran for the chamber. It
was -20 inside. I did my thing, which took a while and
then came out and took the parka off. The thermal shock
was not nice.

Eventually I worked out that the right thing to do was to
NOT take the parka off. By the time I'd come out it was
filled with cool air, which kept me going for the ten
minutes between runs.

Oh, by the way, the detectors worked. What happened
after that I never knew.

You can't make this stuff up.

[jonathan]

"Richard Norman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:118kp81j1qae9089t...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 20 May 2013 05:47:03 -0700 (PDT), someone
> <glenn....@googlemail.com> wrote:
>

>>>
>>> Don't believe the dishonest propaganda. Biological evolution is a
>>>
>>> fact. It doesn't matter whether you believe that it could have been
>>>
>>> guided or not. It happened and life on earth has been evolving for
>>>
>>> billions of years.
>>>
>


> Evolution aside, you have a big misconception about the organisms that
> currently exist. Sponges are multicellular animals with
> differentiated cell types. They can reproduce both sexually and
> asexually and the sexual reproduction is not available to all the
> component cells.
>
> You fail to comprehend what Ron O has tried to explain. That is,
> biology includes all the intermediate types you mention, from single
> cells to aggregates of single cells each capable of reproduction to
> colonial aggregates of multicellular components, each component
> capable of reproducing independently, to true multicellular organisms
> where only specific cell types are capable of reproduction.
>
> This list is NOT a "progression".

When it comes to the origin of life, I decided to try a little experiment
just to see what happens, try to figure out how life first started on Earth
by looking....only at Mars. At all the pictures sent back by the
twin Mars rovers over the last 8 years. And at the Opportunity
rover site, it appears to me the various conditions would lead to a
very specific progression at the very start.

From the first bacteria amidst vast surface deposits of iron, into
colonies of microbes such as biofilms and especially stromatolites,
and finally into the first multi-celled life, a marine sponge.
And from there the complexity could explode.


For instance, here's a picture of a couple of Martian spheres, note
the dimple and off-center slash.

Sphere close-ups.
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/028/1M130671782EFF0454P2953M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/028/1M130672510EFF0454P2933M2M1.HTML

And here's an image of the reproductive pod of a marine sponge, called a
gemmule.

Gemmule photo
http://waynesword.palomar.edu/plfeb96.htm#gemmules

Shouldn't the reproductive pod reflect the simpler life from
which it evolved?
And here's a rare picture of sheet stromatolites
in the Bahamas, note they're covered with spheres.

The Stromatolites of Stella Maris, Bahamas
http://www.theflyingcircus.com/stella_maris.html

And here's a couple of pics from the Endurance crater
rim on Mars.
Endurance Crater
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/n/119/1N138744629EFF2809P1987R0M1.JPG
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/n/111/1N138039382EFF2600P1986R0M1.HTML

>You seem to think of evolution as
> some "striving" or "reaching" to progress to a higher and better form
> and wonder why cells would want to do that. There is no place for
> such thinking in biology because there is no place for a mechanism
> that could explain how it can work.

Evolution most certainly is goal driven.
The relationship between randomness and evolution is so
poorly understood by both camps. Darwin and religious
philosophy both have it so wrong.

> Instead there is a perfectly
> satisfactory explanation in terms of non-directed evolution so that
> there is no reason to invoke some higher intelligence or direction for
> which there is absolutely no evidence.

But then along comes the chaos and complexity sciences
that say ..."wait a minute, random interactions have some
specific global properties"! And it's so simple to see.
What does the Second Law do best? Well, a totally random
network, zero order, when...randomly disturbed....has
the property of often creation spontaneous cyclic order.

After all, zero order, if disturbed, must create a non-zero
level of order, which can only be positive. Random interactions
are slightly more likely to produce more order then less.

You can easily visualize this tendency by looking at a large
interstellar cloud of gas and dust, when some disturbance
compresses the gasses, gravity has a way of taking over
and spontaneous formation of stars and solar systems emerge.

Since gravity wells and fitness peaks share similar behavioral
properties, this tendency exists with biological order as well.
And when randomness is no longer seen as the great obstacle
to goal driven behavior, or even design, and is seen as it
should be, which is that randomness stacks the deck in
favor of creation and evolution. With each random transaction
evolution gets a little push in the right direction, towards the
better solution. And when viewing the vast totality of
random events, combined with the highly nested relationships
then evolution and life become the norm, not the fluke.

The question becomes what stopped life from evolving to
the next step.

Randomness shouldn't be seen as an obstacle to evolution
or an argument against religion. But it shows us that evolution
is an inherent property of the universe, given to it on day one.

It's not so complicated. Whether you have an entirely random
system, or a smooth soup of energy, either 'disordered extreme
will immediately begin to seek the other. It is the extreme
that gives the potential energy, so to speak, for evolutionary
processes, whether physical systems, living or platonic.



s

[Walter Bushell]

In article <32clp8l07ru5rvibt...@4ax.com>,

Richard Norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:

> My first scientific job was the summer after my freshman year at the
> Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute on a project studying diffraction
> of underwater shock waves. The sensors on the end of long cables of
> course had to be protected from salt water so they were encased in oil
> filled (to conduct the shock wave) condoms tied to the cable. Of
> course the group sent me, an 18 year old kid, to the drug store to buy
> the things. This was 1958. They were NOT just sitting on the shelves
> and you had to ask the clerk behind the desk for them. I had to wait
> forever for the women to leave so I could get them from a man.

Hey, many store still make you ask a clerk to unlock the cabinet, then
you have to take them to checkout. But, when I was in high school
condoms could only be sold in restrooms in bars and every bar had a
condom machine in the men's restroom. (I didn't get a chance to
investigate the women's restrooms.) Apparently the Catholic Church had
reached a compromise. (Maryland is a very Roman state.) Maybe the bar
owners had a deal going.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 03:38:46 -0700 (PDT), someone
<glenn....@googlemail.com> wrote:


>Also should such a basic structure be thought of as one organism, or a
>collection of organisms? If one organism, then what if the cells behaved
>roughly the same but didn't stick to each other but floated apart?
>
>Also how is it envisaged that the majority in a collection of self replicating
>cells will sacrifice reproduction and instead it be delegated to a minority
>of the cells to pass on their genetic code (which will encode for future organisms)?

also in your first reply to Ron you wrote:

> Are there sponges where a tenth of the cells don't replicate any more?
> What is the random evolutionary explanation of it?

The answer to your question is contained within your last question.
Evolution is "random". Part of the sense of random here is that none of
the replicating organisms (or cells) actually cares if they succeed or
fail - they're not trying to do anything. Stuff just happens, and if
some of what happens results in reliable and persistent replication of
form, it is retained. And the story continues.

This can be difficult to get our heads around because we see organisms
all about us which are acting as if they care. Why would organisms be
acting as if they care about replication, if they don't actually care?

The answer: *If* through random processes a behavior develops that is
like caring (or actually is caring if you reproduce) then the organism
with that characteristic is more likely to actually reproduce and so
that characteristic (of caring) is retained.

On the other hand, if some cells in a group (say a lizard's tail or
soldier ants) are willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of the
whole, then that too can improve the likelihood of a form successfully
replicating. Whatever (from the random variations) works is retained -
none (or a tenth) of the cells don't care.

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[jillery]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 19:27:44 -0400, Richard Norman

Balloon would have worked as well, and you could have bought them
without a problem. No wonder government projects are so expensive.

[Richard Norman]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:45:53 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

Actually no. Balloons are the wrong shape and have too small an
opening to easily get over the sensor. Besides you only needed one
condom from the pack for the season and had to find ways to dispose of
the excess.

[Richard Norman]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 20:43:28 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Your fuse is rather too easily ignited.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 01:48:36 UTC+1, Walter Bushell wrote:
> [Condoms]

> Hey, many store still make you ask a clerk to unlock
> the cabinet, then you have to take them to checkout.

Hmm. I suppose they may have a theft problem...

Supermarkets in Scotland, and smaller shops soon, are
banned from displaying cigarettes, so they've installed
a kind of bureau, or something. And no vending machines.
This is with public health in mind. hey're also heavily
taxed.

> But, when I was in high school condoms could only be sold
> in restrooms in bars and every bar had a condom machine
> in the men's restroom. (I didn't get a chance to
> investigate the women's restrooms.) Apparently the
> Catholic Church had reached a compromise. (Maryland is
> a very Roman state.) Maybe the bar owners had a deal going.

This is interesting. I seem to be accidentally having
an argument about the Roman Catholic church and contraception
in group rec.arts.sf.written - something about how women
nowadays ignore the Church and contracept anyway, so how is
the church a sinister mind controlling power - and I may
need the material. Participant Terry Austin seems to be
set against atheists and other critics of the Chorch,
/and/ pottymouthed, but he's a careful and frequent
prankster, so it may be another elaborate trap.

[Mike Dworetsky]

This didn't happen to me, but it was in a letter to New Scientist in the
1970s. A new PhD was working in a university lab (some years earlier) where
there was a lot of vacuum equipment, and they used de-tipped condoms as a
relatively inexpensive way to make "flutter valves" for the expelled gas.
As the new boy, they sent him out to buy a half-dozen condoms. In those
days, in the UK at least, the most usual place to get condoms was from a
men's barber shop. After a haircut, the hairdresser would discreetly ask,
"Something for the weekend, sir?" meaning condoms.

"Yes, I'll have a dozen." Impressed by what seemed a major display of macho
boasting, the barber nonchalantly asked, "Regular or reservoir-tipped?"

"It doesn't matter, I'm going to cut the ends off anyways," was the answer
to the puzzled hairdresser.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[MarkA]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 05:47:03 -0700, someone wrote:


>>
>>
>>
> So am I right in thinking that at one stage they are thinking that at some
> stage our life form ancestor was *possibly* a sponge-type collection of
> cells, in which each cell of which was responsible its own reproduction?
>
> Presumably this would be a collection of cells in which mutations in one
> cell wouldn't necessarily become more prevalent in the population than
> when they occurred.
>

Once you have cells living together in a colony, you introduce the ability
for some of those cells to specialize. For example, cells lining the
central cavity might use their flagella to increase to flow of water
through the cavity, where the nutrients can be captured. Cells also can
communicate with each other by the release of chemicals into their local
external environment. This is exactly what hormones are in more complex
organisms, such as humans. As a further specialization, nerve cells can
directly connect other cells that are widely separated, releasing their
chemicals, now called "neurotransmitters", directly onto the surface
membrane of a target cell.

--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

[jillery]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 22:42:50 -0400, Richard Norman

Balloons come in many shapes and sizes. Alternately, you could have
used the fingers from latex gloves, or other style of work gloves.
What was needed was more creativity and less obsession.

[Richard Norman]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 09:29:52 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

Using condoms is the result of imagination and creativity. Any
obsession is in your own mind.

Fingers of latex gloves are smaller. Work gloves are much too thick.
Also in 1958 latex gloves were not readily available except through
medical supply houses which would mean writing a purchase order,
getting it approved, coping with minimum order size from the vendor,
waiting probably a week or two to get the shipment all of which would
cost the institution and granting agency far far more than buying
something that was readily available everywhere at rather low cost and
was extremely effective at doing the job.

[Harry K]

On May 21, 6:29�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 22:42:50 -0400, Richard Norman
>
>
>
>
>

> <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:45:53 -0400, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>

> >wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 20 May 2013 19:27:44 -0400, Richard Norman
> >><r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>On Mon, 20 May 2013 23:13:13 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> >>><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>

> >>>>>http://shapeoflife.org/video/behavior/sponges-time-lapse-sponge-cells...

>
> >>>>I knew it. �Biologists spend their time photographing
> >>>>ladies' lingerie. �Probably used government money too.
>
> >>>>Is it too late for me to change careers?
>
> >>>My first scientific job was the summer after my freshman year at the
> >>>Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute on a project studying diffraction
> >>>of underwater shock waves. �The sensors on the end of long cables of
> >>>course had to be protected from salt water so they were encased in oil
> >>>filled (to conduct the shock wave) condoms tied to the cable. �Of
> >>>course the group sent me, an 18 year old kid, to the drug store to buy
> >>>the things. �This was 1958. �They were NOT just sitting on the shelves
> >>>and you had to ask the clerk behind the desk for them. �I had to wait
> >>>forever for the women to leave so I could get them from a man.
>
> >>Balloon would have worked as well, and you could have bought them
> >>without a problem. �No wonder government projects are so expensive.
>
> >Actually no. �Balloons are the wrong shape and have too small an
> >opening to easily get over the sensor. �Besides you only needed one
> >condom from the pack for the season and had to find ways to dispose of
> >the excess.
>
> Balloons come in many shapes and sizes. �Alternately, you could have
> used the fingers from latex gloves, or other style of work gloves.
> What was needed was more creativity and less obsession.

What obsession? It was a creative way to make use of one object for a
different purpose. They are also used to cap the ends of gun barrels
to keep moisture out amongst other reasons.
Using a garbage bag for a poncho is anothe example or would that be an
obsession also?

Harry K

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 10:49:11 -0400, Richard Norman

You ignored my "more". I suppose you could say that someone did an
empirical study to establish that prophylactic condoms were the only
immediate solution, and nothing readily available would have worked as
well if not better, and without the need of your personal
embarrassment. But you didn't, so your rejections of other solutions
are almost certainly ad-hoc rationalizations.

>Fingers of latex gloves are smaller. Work gloves are much too thick.

How did you establish that work gloves are much too thick?

>Also in 1958 latex gloves were not readily available except through
>medical supply houses which would mean writing a purchase order,
>getting it approved, coping with minimum order size from the vendor,
>waiting probably a week or two to get the shipment all of which would
>cost the institution and granting agency far far more than buying
>something that was readily available everywhere at rather low cost and
>was extremely effective at doing the job.

Playtex started manufacturing their gloves in 1954, more than enough
time to fill the supply pipeline to you. And in different sizes, too.
Any other excuses?

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 07:55:07 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <tur...@q.com>
wrote:

The obsession is in rnorman's insistence that condoms were the only
effective solution. I'm surprised you didn't recognize it.

> It was a creative way to make use of one object for a
>different purpose. They are also used to cap the ends of gun barrels
>to keep moisture out amongst other reasons.
>Using a garbage bag for a poncho is anothe example or would that be an
>obsession also?

No. Also misleading. A more appropriate analogy to rnorman's
anecdote would be to claim a garbage bag was the only alternative.

[Richard Norman]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:25:24 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

Why do you willfully ignore the important reasons I give why neither
balloons nor glove fingers were sutiable? Why do you think I rejected
all alternative solutions? Why do you tell Harry K that "The

obsession is in rnorman's insistence that condoms were the only

effective solution"?

Condons worked well. They were readily available. They were cheap.
What more do you want? Besides, you fail to appreciate that I clearly
said I was merely a low level newcomer to the project, a technician
with a summer job. The project had been running for a number of years,
using condoms that whole time.

I told a personal anecdote that I thought amusing and several others
here seemed to agree. You are magnifying the whole thing into a major
issue. It seems to me (this is, of course, a mere opinion and you can
disagree) that you seem excessively eager to pick a fight with me. If
so, please choose a more significant topic.

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:44:32 -0400, Richard Norman

Given the above, I have to wonder why you replied in the first place.
Apparently you think it's more significant that you want to admit.

[Richard Norman]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 13:09:18 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

That is an even worse choice of topic.

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 13:15:59 -0400, Richard Norman

You accuse me of "magnifying the whole thing into a major issue"
Please identify exactly what I wrote that leads you to infer that, and
I will either explain why your inference is incorrect, or I will
apologize for misleading you.

If you can't identify exactly what I wrote that leads you to infer
that, then please explicitly retract your accusation.

[Richard Norman]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 14:26:57 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

Nothing to see here, just another jillery dustup. Please move along,
folks.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 16:28:57 UTC+1, jillery wrote:
> The obsession is in rnorman's insistence that condoms
> were the only effective solution. I'm surprised you
> didn't recognize it.

No, the obsession is yours, with criticising a practical
workplace solution specified by rnorman's boss 55 years ago.
And before that, by Winston Churchill.

(That may not be true, but, so what?)

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:14:12 -0400, Richard Norman

So you won't back up or retract your accusation. That's what I
thought.

[Paul J Gans]

Wait a minute here! We may be onto something!! Perhaps
latex gloves were really invented as condoms for certain
alien life forms otherwise hidden among us?

Note that they even come in two sexes, left handed and right
handed.

[Richard Norman]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 22:40:38 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

The opposum penis is, of course, forked to match the opposum vagina.
However that still preserves bilateral symmetry. Are you suggesting
that aliens have radial symmetry? The Cnidaria and Ctenophora are the
real products of panspermia and the rest of us bilateria just weird
mutants?

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 22:40:38 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:

[...]

>Wait a minute here! We may be onto something!! Perhaps
>latex gloves were really invented as condoms for certain
>alien life forms otherwise hidden among us?
>
>Note that they even come in two sexes, left handed and right
>handed.

Or maybe richard's first job was as a clerk in a sex novelty shop.

[Richard Norman]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 19:07:23 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Sorry, dishwasher at a golf course restaurant.

[jonathan]

"Richard Norman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:vqnlp8ph57iat1lqf...@4ax.com...

> Your fuse is rather too easily ignited.
>

This is just a classic stand off between objective and
holistic frames of references. You still see the world
in the old way. You think if everything is studied to
the n'th degree, precisely and proven so there can
be no dispute as to the facts, that will provide the
insight needed to grasp the underlying properties
of nature and reality.

And from my non-linear view, I see those facts or
components of reality as becoming increasingly chaotic,
as the system becomes increasingly evolved, rendering
all those facts utterly meaningless.

You see eleventy billion different types of objects and
systems, each with their own unique explanations, as expected
when you start with the input side of reality.

I see all things as merely different levels of complexity
of a single universal evolutionary system, which on the
output side does only ...two things. Regardless of the
level of complexity, or the system specific details.

So which view shows the truth? Reality is both and neither,
an iteration of the two (complex). And which half of reality
is seen at any given time is entirely up to the ...observer.

A complete view can only happen when one can see
both frames of references at the same time. And that
can only be done from a holistic or systems view as
all the details of the system and all it's interactions are
reflected in the behavior. While the the system behavior
isn't reflected in any of the parts.

The output tells us what the parts are doing, not the other
way around. It's not a matter of whether objective or
subjective is better than the other, but which one
comes first.

First subjective, then objective.
Not the other way around.

We should project the present into the future using
our imagination, in order to understand the past.
Not the other way around.

I'm speaking to people, with respect to understanding
reality, that essentially still believes the world is flat.
Your view of reality is grossly distorted by a simple
frame of reference error.

And frame of reference errors CARRY THROUGHOUT!

But I'm patient, and someday I'm going to figure out how
to explain to people, in fifty words or less, how to see past
their nineteeth century way of observing reality.



Jonathan



"Their height in heaven comforts not,
Their glory nought to me;
'T was best imperfect, as it was;
I 'm finite, I can't see.

The house of supposition,
The glimmering frontier
That skirts the acres of perhaps,
To me shows insecure.

The wealth I had contented me;
If 't was a meaner size,
Then I had counted it until
It pleased my narrow eyes

Better than larger values,
However true their show;
This timid life of evidence
Keeps pleading, "I don't know."




By E Dickinson



s

[jillery]

Then you should have known about Playtex gloves.

[Richard Norman]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:12:54 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Tue, 21 May 2013 19:09:07 -0400, Richard Norman
><r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 21 May 2013 19:07:23 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 21 May 2013 22:40:38 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>>><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>Wait a minute here! We may be onto something!! Perhaps
>>>>latex gloves were really invented as condoms for certain
>>>>alien life forms otherwise hidden among us?
>>>>
>>>>Note that they even come in two sexes, left handed and right
>>>>handed.
>>>
>>>
>>>Or maybe richard's first job was as a clerk in a sex novelty shop.
>>
>>Sorry, dishwasher at a golf course restaurant.
>
>
>Then you should have known about Playtex gloves.

Nobody in the kitchen wore gloves of any kind.

[Paul J Gans]

That could be too. Once you start looking, all sorts of
alien possibilities emerge. One that just popped into my brain
is this: is there a market among humans for opposum porn?

Yes, I know. I have a sick brain.

[Paul J Gans]

I doubt it. But my first one was in a hospital collecting
urine from females so that hormones could be extracted. They
needed a LOT of urine. And it "ripened".

Result: I never had any trouble getting a seat on the bus
going home.

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:18:26 -0400, Richard Norman

<r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:12:54 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 21 May 2013 19:09:07 -0400, Richard Norman
>><r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 21 May 2013 19:07:23 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 21 May 2013 22:40:38 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>>>><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>>Wait a minute here! We may be onto something!! Perhaps
>>>>>latex gloves were really invented as condoms for certain
>>>>>alien life forms otherwise hidden among us?
>>>>>
>>>>>Note that they even come in two sexes, left handed and right
>>>>>handed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Or maybe richard's first job was as a clerk in a sex novelty shop.
>>>
>>>Sorry, dishwasher at a golf course restaurant.
>>
>>
>>Then you should have known about Playtex gloves.
>
>Nobody in the kitchen wore gloves of any kind.

Not even in the winter?

[jillery]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 01:24:41 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

<gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 21 May 2013 22:40:38 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>[...]
>
>>>Wait a minute here! We may be onto something!! Perhaps
>>>latex gloves were really invented as condoms for certain
>>>alien life forms otherwise hidden among us?
>>>
>>>Note that they even come in two sexes, left handed and right
>>>handed.
>
>
>>Or maybe richard's first job was as a clerk in a sex novelty shop.
>
>I doubt it.

I thought he would have qualified, but perhaps you're right.

[Harry K]

On May 21, 8:28�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 07:55:07 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <turn...@q.com>

Why don't you go outside and then come back in again. You made a
stupid post and all your excuses are not being bought.

Harry K

[James Beck]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 01:20:43 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

If you play it, they will... well, you know.

[Harry K]

On May 21, 8:28�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 07:55:07 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <turn...@q.com>

If you read back with an _open_ mind, you will see that you called it
an "obsession" prior to any real discussion of alternattives...which
he rejected for valid reasons but you did not accewpt.

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

>>>>My first scientific job was the summer after my freshman year at the
>>>>Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute on a project studying diffraction
>>>>of underwater shock waves. The sensors on the end of long cables of
>>>>course had to be protected from salt water so they were encased in oil
>>>>filled (to conduct the shock wave) condoms tied to the cable. Of
>>>>course the group sent me, an 18 year old kid, to the drug store to buy
>>>>the things. This was 1958. They were NOT just sitting on the shelves
>>>>and you had to ask the clerk behind the desk for them. I had to wait
>>>>forever for the women to leave so I could get them from a man.


>>>Balloon would have worked as well, and you could have bought them
>>>without a problem. No wonder government projects are so expensive.


>>Actually no. Balloons are the wrong shape and have too small an
>>opening to easily get over the sensor. Besides you only needed one
>>condom from the pack for the season and had to find ways to dispose of
>>the excess.


>Balloons come in many shapes and sizes. Alternately, you could have
>used the fingers from latex gloves, or other style of work gloves.
>What was needed was more creativity and less obsession.

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

If there is any obsession here, it is on _your_ part.

Harry K

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:09:39 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <tur...@q.com>
wrote:

Care to back that up?

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:39:18 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <tur...@q.com>
wrote:

You are making way too much of this. My comment that the difference
in price between a package of balloons and a package of condoms would
have any impact on a project's budget, that should have given you a
clue as to the spirit of my original reply. Everything else is merely
following rnorman's pedantic retorts. Get over yourself.

>------------------------------
>
>>>>>My first scientific job was the summer after my freshman year at the
>>>>>Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute on a project studying diffraction
>>>>>of underwater shock waves. The sensors on the end of long cables of
>>>>>course had to be protected from salt water so they were encased in oil
>>>>>filled (to conduct the shock wave) condoms tied to the cable. Of
>>>>>course the group sent me, an 18 year old kid, to the drug store to buy
>>>>>the things. This was 1958. They were NOT just sitting on the shelves
>>>>>and you had to ask the clerk behind the desk for them. I had to wait
>>>>>forever for the women to leave so I could get them from a man.
>
>
>>>>Balloon would have worked as well, and you could have bought them
>>>>without a problem. No wonder government projects are so expensive.
>
>
>>>Actually no. Balloons are the wrong shape and have too small an
>>>opening to easily get over the sensor. Besides you only needed one
>>>condom from the pack for the season and had to find ways to dispose of
>>>the excess.
>
>
>>Balloons come in many shapes and sizes. Alternately, you could have
>>used the fingers from latex gloves, or other style of work gloves.
>>What was needed was more creativity and less obsession.
>
>-----------------------------------
>
>If there is any obsession here, it is on _your_ part.

Look in the mirror.

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:39:18 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <tur...@q.com>
wrote:

>If you read back with an _open_ mind, you will see that you called it
>an "obsession" prior to any real discussion of alternattives...which

>he rejected for valid reasons but you did not acce[]pt.


I have personally bought and used many different sizes of balloons,
some of which are much larger than any condom I have seen in a drug
store. It is _YOU_ who lacks the open mind here.

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:09:39 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <tur...@q.com>
wrote:

What excuses? You asked a question. I answered it. Since your mind
was made up before you even posted, you shouldn't have even bothered
to ask.

[Robert Carnegie]

Did you also wash their balls, maybe?

> Then you should have known about Playtex gloves.

I don't know Playtex for gloves... okay, that /is/ kinky.

Then again - I used to have a wart on my finger. So, -

[jillery]

That's ok. I still have hairy palms.

[Kermit]

On 21 May, 16:49, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Richard Norman" <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote in message

>
> news:vqnlp8ph57iat1lqf...@4ax.com...
>
> > Your fuse is rather too easily ignited.
>
> This is just a classic stand off between objective and
> holistic frames of references. You still see the world
> in the old way. You think if everything is studied to
> the n'th degree, precisely and proven so there can
> be no dispute as to the facts, that will provide the
> insight needed to grasp the underlying properties
> of nature and reality.

Yes, things are so much easier to understand if we don't study them so
much.

>
> And from my non-linear view, I see those facts or
> components of reality as becoming increasingly chaotic,
> as the system becomes increasingly evolved, rendering
> all those facts utterly meaningless.

"Facts are stupid things"
-- R. Reagan

<snip>

kermit

[Burkhard]

On 22 May, 02:20, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Tue, 21 May 2013 22:40:38 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> ><gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> >>Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:25:24 -0400, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>

> >>>wrote:
>
> >>>>On Tue, 21 May 2013 10:49:11 -0400, Richard Norman

> >>>><r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>On Tue, 21 May 2013 09:29:52 -0400, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>

> >>>>>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>On Mon, 20 May 2013 22:42:50 -0400, Richard Norman

> >>>>>><r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:45:53 -0400, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>

> >>>>>>>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>On Mon, 20 May 2013 19:27:44 -0400, Richard Norman
> >>>>>>>><r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>On Mon, 20 May 2013 23:13:13 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> >>>>>>>>><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>

> >>>>>>>>>>>http://shapeoflife.org/video/behavior/sponges-time-lapse-sponge-cells...

Sure is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0oTJecF7zk
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13uoZkZKmiU

[Walter Bushell]

In article <8vunp8p8rbbdcpnqo...@4ax.com>,

Richard Norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:

> The opposum penis is, of course, forked to match the opposum vagina.
> However that still preserves bilateral symmetry. Are you suggesting
> that aliens have radial symmetry? The Cnidaria and Ctenophora are the
> real products of panspermia and the rest of us bilateria just weird
> mutants?

The other branch of the bilateria haven't exchanged mouth and anus and
have their heads on frontwards so there is considerable support for
that position.

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx

[Arkalen]

What I'm most intrigued by is aliens having opposable penises. Why ?

[jillery]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 20:06:03 +0100, Arkalen <ark...@inbox.com> wrote:

[...]

>What I'm most intrigued by is aliens having opposable penises. Why ?

Are you asking why are you intrigued? Or why opposable penises? And
what does "opposable" penis actually mean?

[Richard Norman]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:42:52 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

A condom for an opposable penis looks like a glove but not like a
balloon.

[jonathan]

"Kermit" <free...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:439675ec-ea7f-4e0d...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

> On 21 May, 16:49, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Richard Norman" <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:vqnlp8ph57iat1lqf...@4ax.com...
>>
>> > Your fuse is rather too easily ignited.
>>
>> This is just a classic stand off between objective and
>> holistic frames of references. You still see the world
>> in the old way. You think if everything is studied to
>> the n'th degree, precisely and proven so there can
>> be no dispute as to the facts, that will provide the
>> insight needed to grasp the underlying properties
>> of nature and reality.
>
> Yes, things are so much easier to understand if we don't study them so
> much.
>

Or so much easier when we know what is important
to study, and what isn't. You can study all that exists
one by one if you like. I prefer to study only what is
common among all those things, as that is the path
to the defining properties of nature.


s

[Paul J Gans]

A certain child of mine, while working toward her PhD in
experimental psychology, invited a number of friends over
for a sex party.

On arrival they were shown a scene, filmed by infra-red
light, of rats engaging in sex. The idea was to count
the number of encounters.

Unfortunately, too much beer was provided and the counts
proved worthless.

I am also informed that watching rat sex is the third most
boring thing to do, ranking as even more boring that watching
grass grow.

[jillery]

Perhaps. There could also be glove-shaped balloons.

[jillery]

Was this a recording or live? I am told that some porn is most
entertaining by remixing the highlights and running it backwards. Also
that some chemical stimulants can be helpful.

[Ron O]

On May 20, 7:47�am, someone <glenn.spi...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 20 May 2013 12:25:31 UTC+1, Ron O �wrote:
> > On May 20, 5:38 am, someone wrote:
>
> > > I took a look on thehttp://www.talkorigins.org/website'sFAQ page
>
> > > and looked for the answers to the following questions but couldn't find
>
> > > them there. They concern the atheist evolutionists (those that rule out
>
> > > mutation by design) were suggesting the evolutionary pathway was from unicellular lifeforms to multicellular lifeforms.
>
> > It isn't so much as ruling something out, but just not having any
>
> > reason to rule it in. �You don't have to be an atheist to understand
>
> > the usefulness of not having to consider more complexity when there is
>
> > no reason to consider it.
>
> I assume you think that is a fair assessment of the situation. Would you have
> considered it fair for a theist to have stated that it wasn't so much a case of
> ruling out random evolution, but one of just not having any reason to rule it in?

The theist would be wrong. What evidence do you have that anything
exists to do the directed evolution? You have matter and energy. No
one has found a chemical reaction in life that is thermodynamically
impossible. You have lifeforms replicating imperfectly, and you can
measure evolution in populations.

>
> (determined evolution would replace random evolution, not be an addition)

It would be an addition. Evolution is happening, and you don't have
any evidence that it is directed.

> > > I was wondering why a
>
> > > unicellular lifeform if it was to become multicellular wouldn't just
>
> > > become a multicellular string of similar cells or some other basic
>
> > > replicable structure, or was that a step in the theory, or was there
>
> > > something else they might be expected to become?
>
> > If you study biology you will soon learn that there is a grand
>
> > diversity of lifeforms that cover the whole spectrum of what you are
>
> > thinking of. �There are single cells, single identical cells in
>
> > strings, biofilms of a layer of single cells, organized
>
> > conglomerations of cells like sponges that can reassemble if you
>
> > reduce them to single cells and then let them get back together. �In
>
> > short there are intermediate stages and they still exist and happily
>
> > reproduce in nature. �These intermediate stages aren't trying to be
>
> > anything else. �They just survive and reproduce and some of them, by
>
> > chance, started to make strings of cells, some started to make layers
>
> > and then 3D structures etc. �These intermediates could obviously
>
> > survive because similar lifeforms still exist.
>
> So am I right in thinking that at one stage they are thinking that at
> some stage our life form ancestor was *possibly* a sponge-type collection
> of cells, in which each cell of which was responsible its own reproduction?

That is what the data indicates. Our lineage nests within sponges,
and we are most closely related to a particular branch of sponges.

>
> Presumably this would be a collection of cells in which mutations in one cell
> wouldn't necessarily become more prevalent in the population than when they
> occurred.

In various sponges evolution can be asexual or sexual. They are
primative enough so that somatic mutations can take over a portion of
the sponge that produces another sponge. It is like somatic mutations
in a tree branch where the seeds produced by that branch transfer
their mutation to the next generation. In a sense this happens in
you, but your arm can't produce the next generation without some
assistance. The mutations have to occur in the germ line to be
transmitted to the next generation in humans. Every cell division new
mutations happen, and it takes a few cell divisions to produce your
gonads from the single cell created by the fusion of the sperm and
egg.

In the case of a tree branch the somatic mutation could be selected
for (the branch might have better resistance to pathogens or insects),
but in humans you usually have to wait for expression in the progeny.
The branch might be healthier, grow better and produce more seeds than
the other branches of the tree. You can observe this in some
variegated shrubs where the plant that produces yellow and green
leaves will put out a branch that produces only all green leaves. A
lot of times the all green branch does better than its peers in terms
of biomass production.

>
> > > Also should such a basic structure be thought of as one organism, or a
>
> > > collection of organisms? If one organism, then what if the cells behaved
>
> > > roughly the same but didn't stick to each other but floated apart?
>
> > That is the thing about evolution, you get into categories that are
>
> > intermediate and no hard and fast rule applies. �For strings of cells
>
> > you can break the string and get two strings that continue to
>
> > reproduce. �You can parcel up biofilms anyway that you want down to
>
> > single cells and they will reproduce. �You can take a sponge and
>
> > divide it up into single cells and you can create a bunch of little
>
> > sponges as the cells reassemble. �So these primative types of
>
> > multicellular organisms are both types. �We can't do that with
>
> > multicellular organisms like yourself, so as you get more complex
>
> > multicellular types it gets easier to say that a bunch of cells make
>
> > one organism instead of being just a bunch of cells.
>
> Why can't a sponge just thought of as a collection of reproducing cells
> that stick together in forms? Because if it can then why make it more
> complex and say that additionally you need to be able to understand it
> as being a single organism?

Is a sponge a single organism or colony of cells? With some sponges
it is hard to make the distinction. That is what evolution would
produce. We do not make sponges more or less like colonies. We can
categorize, but we are just observing what already exists. Obviously
each step was able to survive and many do so today.

>
> Could there be quite a genetic diversity within one sponge
> if cells from one sponge joined with the cells of a distantly related
> sponge, and then with another distantly related sponge, etc., or is there
> some mechanism to prevent this?

Every cell division you have new mutations. You can't keep them from
happening. Identical twins are not identical genetically. The cells
in your body are not identical genetically. It is just that most
mutations do not do much that we can observe. Some do bad things like
cancer that we can observe. If part of your liver was better at some
enzymatic function than the original single celled zygote how would
you tell? The mutations that matter in terms of evolution are the
ones that occur in the germ line.

>
> > > Also how is it envisaged that the majority in a collection of self replicating
>
> > > cells will sacrifice reproduction and instead it be delegated to a minority
>
> > > of the cells to pass on their genetic code (which will encode for future organisms)?
>
> > The thing about evolution is that a lifeform only has to work and
>
> > reproduce competitively. �The lifeforms that were not competitive are
>
> > gone. �We only see the winners. �So we can see a progression of
>
> > multicellular types to those where most cells sacrifice their own
>
> > reproductive ability for the greater good. �It just worked, and you
>
> > probably can't draw a line where any cell had to make that decision.
>
> > In Cnidaria you can chop up a hydra and it will regenerate whole
>
> > organisms, but more complex relatives like jellyfish can't be chopped
>
> > up. �When did the cells in a hydra like organism evolve to a point
>
> > where you can't take a part and make a whole? �It was obviously so
>
> > gradual that it just happened. �Hydra have tenticles to snag prey and
>
> > a mouth opening and sort of a gut, so where do you draw the line.
>
> > Evolution is like that. �You expect to have gray areas where things
>
> > are half and half.
>
> So what is the progression you see from a collection of self replicating cells which all individually reproduce to one in which the majority will sacrifice
> reproduction and instead it be delegated to a minority of the cells to pass on their genetic code (which will encode for future organisms)?
>
> Are there sponges where a tenth of the cells don't replicate any more?

I don't know.

>
> What is the random evolutionary explanation of it?

It happened because it could and the organism could survive and
compete in the biosphere. Essentially if it were impossible or
nonviable we would not observe the intermediates that we have or the
final products of billions of years of evolution. If you are talking
about a step by step explanation we are still working on it. We can
see some probable intermediates because they still exist. Extinction
has left some gaps. Like I said all we observe today are the
survivors.

You might be hung up on progression. There are still single celled
organisms that reproduce asexually and single celled organisms account
for the bulk of the biomass and number of cells in the biosphere. You
have more bacteria in you and on you than cells in your body. If
humans were created for a purpose it looks like we were created as
condominiums for other organisms. It isn't so much of a progression
as what has survived to reproduce.

SNIP:

Ron Okimoto

[GCPAXS...@spammotel.com]

Op donderdag 23 mei 2013 13:34:32 UTC+2 schreef Ron O het volgende:

> ... In a sense this happens in

> you, but your arm can't produce the next generation without some

> assistance. ...

Well, it is not for want of trying.

[Harry K]

On May 21, 10:23�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:09:39 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <turn...@q.com>

Sure just read the post you made. Q.E.D.

Harry K

[Harry K]

On May 21, 10:34�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:39:18 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <turn...@q.com>

Except in the first piost you made calling it an obsession you made
zero reference to the cost.

Your first "obsession" comment was immediately after him explaining
why balloons were not the choice.

Keep trying to excuse yourself. You were in the wrong, just admit it
or even just keep brining it up.

I'm not the only one who sees it that way.

Harry K

[jillery]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 07:05:19 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <tur...@q.com>
wrote:

Pathetic evasion. I have made several posts since your reply. Nor do
you specify how whatever post you pretend to be thinking of is
"stupid". All you have done so far is to take some cheap shots from
the sidelines. Yours is exactly the kind of reply that qualifies as a
sophomoric frat boy post. Your mind was made up before you even
posted your personal attack, so why bother going on?

[jillery]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 07:08:55 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <tur...@q.com>
wrote:

>> >> effective solution. 嚙瘢'm surprised you didn't recognize it.

>>
>> >> > It was a creative way to make use of one object for a

>> >> >different purpose. 嚙確hey are also used to cap the ends of gun barrels

>> >> >to keep moisture out amongst other reasons.
>> >> >Using a garbage bag for a poncho is anothe example or would that be an
>> >> >obsession also?
>>

>> >> No. 嚙璀lso misleading. 嚙璀 more appropriate analogy to rnorman's

>> >> anecdote would be to claim a garbage bag was the only alternative.
>>
>> >If you read back with an _open_ mind, you will see that you called it
>> >an "obsession" prior to any real discussion of alternattives...which
>> >he rejected for valid reasons but you did not accewpt.
>>

>> You are making way too much of this. 嚙瞎y comment that the difference

>> in price between a package of balloons and a package of condoms would
>> have any impact on a project's budget, that should have given you a

>> clue as to the spirit of my original reply. 嚙瘟verything else is merely
>> following rnorman's pedantic 嚙緝etorts. 嚙瘦et over yourself.

<snip for continuity>

>Except in the first piost you made calling it an obsession you made
>zero reference to the cost.

No, that would be my second post, after rnorman started his ad hoc
spam.

>Your first "obsession" comment was immediately after him explaining
>why balloons were not the choice.

And I returned his ad hoc explanation with why balloons could have
worked just fine.

>Keep trying to excuse yourself.

I make no excuses. I am explaining obvious reality to someone who is
manufacturing an argument.

>You were in the wrong, just admit it
>or even just keep brining it up.

Of course, you still haven't stated what it is that is so terribly
wrong that both you and rnorman have wasted so much time on it.

>I'm not the only one who sees it that way.

Since when do you claim truth by popular vote?

[Paul J Gans]

A film. And beer was provided. These were grad students,
after all. As for running it backward, I don't think that
was done.

[someone]

On Thursday, 23 May 2013 12:34:32 UTC+1, Ron O wrote:

> On May 20, 7:47�am, someone wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 20 May 2013 12:25:31 UTC+1, Ron O �wrote:
>
> > > On May 20, 5:38 am, someone wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > I took a look on thehttp://www.talkorigins.org/website'sFAQ page
>
> >
>
> > > > and looked for the answers to the following questions but couldn't find
>
> >
>
> > > > them there. They concern the atheist evolutionists (those that rule out
>
> >
>
> > > > mutation by design) were suggesting the evolutionary pathway was from unicellular lifeforms to multicellular lifeforms.
>
> >
>
> > > It isn't so much as ruling something out, but just not having any
>
> >
>
> > > reason to rule it in. �You don't have to be an atheist to understand
>
> >
>
> > > the usefulness of not having to consider more complexity when there is
>
> >
>
> > > no reason to consider it.
>
> >
>
> > I assume you think that is a fair assessment of the situation. Would you have
>
> > considered it fair for a theist to have stated that it wasn't so much a case of
>
> > ruling out random evolution, but one of just not having any reason to rule it in?
>
>
>
> The theist would be wrong. What evidence do you have that anything
>
> exists to do the directed evolution? You have matter and energy. No
>
> one has found a chemical reaction in life that is thermodynamically
>
> impossible. You have lifeforms replicating imperfectly, and you can
>
> measure evolution in populations.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > (determined evolution would replace random evolution, not be an addition)
>
>
>
> It would be an addition. Evolution is happening, and you don't have
>
> any evidence that it is directed.
>
>

I think you are being presumptuous. For example consider two different views.

One in which it is posited that reality is a spiritual reality, you are a
spiritual being, and therefore this is only a spiritual experience.

The other not the existence of the type of physical posited by the physicalists that
claim that reality is a physical reality, and that all that exists is the
physical.

In one it is a spiritual reality, and evolution is guided, and there is no
physical.

In the other it is a physical reality, and evolution is not guided, and there
is no spiritual.

The neither the unguided exist in one nor the guided in the other.

Do you mean a mutation happens, and then through asexual reproduction it
spreads, and then for some reason the sponge roughly splits along a type of
fault line where the cells with the mutation are cut off from the others
and form a new sponge?

> It is like somatic mutations
>
> in a tree branch where the seeds produced by that branch transfer
>
> their mutation to the next generation. In a sense this happens in
>
> you, but your arm can't produce the next generation without some
>
> assistance. The mutations have to occur in the germ line to be
>
> transmitted to the next generation in humans. Every cell division new
>
> mutations happen, and it takes a few cell divisions to produce your
>
> gonads from the single cell created by the fusion of the sperm and
>
> egg.
>
>
>
> In the case of a tree branch the somatic mutation could be selected
>
> for (the branch might have better resistance to pathogens or insects),
>
> but in humans you usually have to wait for expression in the progeny.
>
> The branch might be healthier, grow better and produce more seeds than
>
> the other branches of the tree. You can observe this in some
>
> variegated shrubs where the plant that produces yellow and green
>
> leaves will put out a branch that produces only all green leaves. A
>
> lot of times the all green branch does better than its peers in terms
>
> of biomass production.
>
>

Can the sponge cells capable of sexual reproduction asexually reproduce to produce

So what seems to be the main problem areas with the step by step explanation?

>
>
> SNIP:
>
>
>
> Ron Okimoto

[someone]

Sorry that should have read:

I think you are being presumptuous. For example consider two different views.

One in which it is posited that reality is a spiritual reality, you are a
spiritual being, and therefore this is only a spiritual experience.

The other posited is that reality is a physical reality, and that all that exists is the physical.

In one it is a spiritual reality, and evolution is guided, and there is no
physical.

In the other it is a physical reality, and evolution is not guided, and there
is no spiritual.

Neither does the unguided exist in one nor the guided in the other.

[someone]

On Monday, 20 May 2013 19:12:26 UTC+1, Richard Norman wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 09:08:01 -0700 (PDT), someone wrote:
>
>
> <snip to eliminate all the multiple blank line garbage google produces
>
> and to leave only the important points>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >I assume that is not common place that a cell incapable of sexual
>
> >reproduction does on asexual reproduction produce a result in which
>
> >either cell can reproduce both sexually and asexually.
>
> >
>
> >The sexually reproducing cells, are all the cells they produce asexually
>
> >capable of sexual reproduction, or are some or all of them not, or is
>
> >there the range?

>
>
>
> >Why would all the cells in a sponge have an identical genome?
>
>
>

> When an organism capable of reproducing both sexually and asexually
>
> does reproduce, the new organism is also capable of reproducing both
>
> sexually and asexually. identical twins are produced from a single
>
> embryo by asexual reproduction and they are capable of reproducing
>
> sexually. If you get a plant to reproduce asexually by taking
>
> cuttings from a parent, the new plants are quite capable of producing
>
> flowers and fruit with seeds (sexual reproduction). In many (but not
>
> all) sexually reproducing organisms a special cell line, the so-called
>
> germ cell line, is capable of dividing by meiosis to produce gametes
>
> (or spores in the case of plants). No other cell in the multicellular
>
> organism does that even though they all have the genetic machinery to
>
> do so.
>
>
>
> All the cells in a multicellular organism have an identical genome
>
> because they are all produced by asexual reproduction (mitosis) from a
>
> single cell. Yes, there are some exceptions and some organisms are
>
> chimeras but those are relatively rare exceptions. And, yes, there
>
> are exceptions because some cell lines are polyploid. But you don't
>
> know enough biology to know about those special cases.


So what are the suggested broad evolutionary steps from a sponge like organism
to a multicellular organism?

[Walter Bushell]

In article <knlsu2$evq$4...@reader1.panix.com>,

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, 22 May 2013 23:54:48 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> ><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >>A certain child of mine, while working toward her PhD in
> >>experimental psychology, invited a number of friends over
> >>for a sex party.
> >>
> >>On arrival they were shown a scene, filmed by infra-red
> >>light, of rats engaging in sex. The idea was to count
> >>the number of encounters.
> >>
> >>Unfortunately, too much beer was provided and the counts
> >>proved worthless.
> >>
> >>I am also informed that watching rat sex is the third most
> >>boring thing to do, ranking as even more boring that watching
> >>grass grow.
>
>
> >Was this a recording or live? I am told that some porn is most
> >entertaining by remixing the highlights and running it backwards. Also
> >that some chemical stimulants can be helpful.
>
> A film. And beer was provided. These were grad students,
> after all. As for running it backward, I don't think that
> was done.

In 7th grade shop class the teacher ran a film on how paper was made.
We had extra time, but not enough to do shop work, so the teacher
agreed to run the film backwards. Broke up the class. Paper going off
of rolls, being made into chips, chips into tree trunks and tree
trunks being placed on tree stumps etcetera.

[Ron O]

It doesn't matter because you would still be wrong. You can't just
delete the material that you can't deal with and expect reality to
change. Who is adding something to the real world? Can you measure
what you are adding? Can you even determine that it exists? Just
stop breathing and see how long your views persist. Why do you have
to breath? Why does your spiritual world require oxygen and the
chemical reactions in your brain?

If you really believe that the world is spiritual and not physical,
just find a sturdy brick wall. You may have to get someone to confirm
that the brick wall exists if your grip on reality is delusional.
Take 10 steps back from the wall and then run as fast as you can and
butt your head through the spiritual brick wall. Pick yourself up, if
you can, and repeat for as many times as needed to convince yourself
that you are adding something and not the other way around.

Many theists have understood this for centuries.

Ron Okimoto

[Robert Carnegie]

On Friday, 24 May 2013 03:08:37 UTC+1, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In 7th grade shop class the teacher ran a film on how paper was made.
> We had extra time, but not enough to do shop work, so the teacher
> agreed to run the film backwards. Broke up the class. Paper going off
> of rolls, being made into chips, chips into tree trunks and tree
> trunks being placed on tree stumps etcetera.

Does that disprove the theory, that only God can make a tree?

[someone]

So consider the film the Matrix, and someone in it (you for example)
came out with the suggestions you just did in order to show that
objects such as a wall, were real physical objects. I presume
if you have seen the that you could see why such suggestions seem
to reflect a lack of understanding. Anyway I think this is a bit off topic,
though I'm happy to discuss it with you if you'd like.

I'd be interested in hearing where you think the main problem areas are
with the step by step explanation (from sponges to multicellular lifeforms
in which on the basis of their reproductive cycle they could be categorised
as male or female for example).


>
> Ron Okimoto

[alias Ernest Major]

What problems do you perceive there to be in the evolution of dioecious
sponges (which exist) from hermaphroditic/monoecious sponges (which is
the norm)?


--
alias Ernest Major

[Ron O]

So demonstrate it to yourself and then ask who is adding something.
Really, you have no argument.

Run into the wall for as many times as it takes for you to get it.

>
> I'd be interested in hearing where you think the main problem areas are
> with the step by step explanation (from sponges to multicellular lifeforms
> in which on the basis of their reproductive cycle they could be categorised
> as male or female for example).

Sponges have most of the reproductive steps that you want from asexual
cloning to sexual reproduction with male and female parts. My guess
is that there are even male and female sponges in some species where
they are not the same sponge, but can live some distance from each
other and still reproduce. Do a WIKI search.

Ron Okimoto

>
> > Ron Okimoto

[Desertphile]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 03:38:46 -0700 (PDT), someone
<glenn....@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I took a look on the http://www.talkorigins.org/ website's FAQ page
> and looked for the answers to the following questions but couldn't find
> them there. They concern the atheist evolutionists (those that rule out

Yeah, that's right. As compared to the atheist electricians, and the
atheist bar tenders, and the atheist small engine mechanic.

--
"God wanted me to be in bed with the maid."

[Walter Bushell]

In article <08a4d1e1-1cf0-48bf...@googlegroups.com>,

I knew a guy who tried to make a tree, but he got splinters in a place
no man wants to get splinters.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <tc12q8lo27flnsc0g...@4ax.com>,

Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 20 May 2013 03:38:46 -0700 (PDT), someone
> <glenn....@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > I took a look on the http://www.talkorigins.org/ website's FAQ page
> > and looked for the answers to the following questions but couldn't find
> > them there. They concern the atheist evolutionists (those that rule out
>
> Yeah, that's right. As compared to the atheist electricians, and the
> atheist bar tenders, and the atheist small engine mechanic.

Atheist doctor. Stay away from any medical professional who makes a
big deal of his religion in the office. I had an experience with one
when my mother took me to get my wisdom teeth extracted.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:36:16 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:

>In article <08a4d1e1-1cf0-48bf...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, 24 May 2013 03:08:37 UTC+1, Walter Bushell wrote:
>> > In 7th grade shop class the teacher ran a film on how paper was made.
>> > We had extra time, but not enough to do shop work, so the teacher
>> > agreed to run the film backwards. Broke up the class. Paper going off
>> > of rolls, being made into chips, chips into tree trunks and tree
>> > trunks being placed on tree stumps etcetera.
>>
>> Does that disprove the theory, that only God can make a tree?
>
>I knew a guy who tried to make a tree, but he got splinters in a place
>no man wants to get splinters.

Gives a whole new meaning to "morning wood"...
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Walter Bushell]

In article <54i4q89c5u49g08l0...@4ax.com>,

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:36:16 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>
> >In article <08a4d1e1-1cf0-48bf...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Friday, 24 May 2013 03:08:37 UTC+1, Walter Bushell wrote:
> >> > In 7th grade shop class the teacher ran a film on how paper was made.
> >> > We had extra time, but not enough to do shop work, so the teacher
> >> > agreed to run the film backwards. Broke up the class. Paper going off
> >> > of rolls, being made into chips, chips into tree trunks and tree
> >> > trunks being placed on tree stumps etcetera.
> >>
> >> Does that disprove the theory, that only God can make a tree?
> >
> >I knew a guy who tried to make a tree, but he got splinters in a place
> >no man wants to get splinters.
>
> Gives a whole new meaning to "morning wood"...

Reminds me, there is actually a (herbal) tea called "Early Morning
Riser".

Unfortunately the first ingredient is Licorice which is anti
androgenic.

[Paul J Gans]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <tc12q8lo27flnsc0g...@4ax.com>,
> Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:

>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 03:38:46 -0700 (PDT), someone
>> <glenn....@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I took a look on the http://www.talkorigins.org/ website's FAQ page
>> > and looked for the answers to the following questions but couldn't find
>> > them there. They concern the atheist evolutionists (those that rule out
>>
>> Yeah, that's right. As compared to the atheist electricians, and the
>> atheist bar tenders, and the atheist small engine mechanic.

>Atheist doctor. Stay away from any medical professional who makes a
>big deal of his religion in the office. I had an experience with one
>when my mother took me to get my wisdom teeth extracted.

And you gained wisdom thereby. So why are you insinuating
that it was a bad experience?

[Walter Bushell]

In article <kntvo9$10q$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

There *are* better ways of gaining wisdom, forsooth. My mother
commented later that the doctor said that I might die and that
negative thoughts and especially prognoses should not be made with a
patient in the room under anesthesia, because statements made in those
circumstances can be taken as hypnotic commands. Also my dentist had
subtly indicated that the oral surgeon was not the best, but that she
ignored the criticism.

But I survive, whether that is good or bad who can say?

[Rolf Aalberg]

Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:36:16 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>
>> In article <08a4d1e1-1cf0-48bf...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, 24 May 2013 03:08:37 UTC+1, Walter Bushell wrote:
>>>> In 7th grade shop class the teacher ran a film on how paper was made.
>>>> We had extra time, but not enough to do shop work, so the teacher
>>>> agreed to run the film backwards. Broke up the class. Paper going off
>>>> of rolls, being made into chips, chips into tree trunks and tree
>>>> trunks being placed on tree stumps etcetera.
>>>
>>> Does that disprove the theory, that only God can make a tree?
>>
>> I knew a guy who tried to make a tree, but he got splinters in a place
>> no man wants to get splinters.
>
> Gives a whole new meaning to "morning wood"...

That was new to me; here it is "morning bread"
(morgen-br�d) Common slang "morrabr�" (� pronounced like i in Sir)

>

[Rolf Aalberg]

someone wrote:
> I took a look on the http://www.talkorigins.org/ website's FAQ page
> and looked for the answers to the following questions but couldn't find
> them there. They concern the atheist evolutionists (those that rule out

> mutation by design) were suggesting the evolutionary pathway was from unicellular lifeforms to multicellular lifeforms. I was wondering why a

> unicellular lifeform if it was to become multicellular wouldn't just
> become a multicellular string of similar cells or some other basic
> replicable structure, or was that a step in the theory, or was there

> something else they might be expected to become?

>
> Also should such a basic structure be thought of as one organism, or a
> collection of organisms? If one organism, then what if the cells behaved
> roughly the same but didn't stick to each other but floated apart?

AFAIK, there are 'species' where they do that - float apart - and come
together again. I presume they have reasons of their own for that behavior.

>
> Also how is it envisaged that the majority in a collection of self replicating
> cells will sacrifice reproduction and instead it be delegated to a minority
> of the cells to pass on their genetic code (which will encode for future organisms)?
>

Seems you have a preoccupation with that. What does it matter to a cell
whether it divides or not? Cells very often divide but that's only
because that's how they function.

"Sacrifice" reproduction? Think of all your skin cells, I have no idea
hoe many of those you shed every day. Got any clue about the contnuous
war inside your body? What are the life span of red blood cells? What
happens to the cells lining your intestien when digesting food?

All the trees shedding their foliage every fall? Seems that without
death, there wouldn't be any life.

It begins even before death: When you toes were built in your mothers
womb, cell death took care to separate your toes from each other,
otherwise you'd be born with duck feet.

But think of this: When a body, say a human, is infected by bacteria,
maybe a common cold type of, it/they don't make an immediate attack.
Like any decent army, thjay wait until they have built a proper force to
ensure that an attack stand good chances of success by being in
sufficient number to withstand losses in the war.

Smart, huh? A useful strategy in the struggle for survival, isn't it?
Even the human race apply similar tactics. Wonder why?

> This isn't to suggest that I personally think there are flaws what they are
> suggesting, it is just that I am ignorant of what is being suggested, and
> what they might be suggesting wasn't immediately obvious to me.
>
> Could basic questions such as these not of gone in the FAQ section?
>

[jillery]

>(morgen-brød) Common slang "morrabrø" (ø pronounced like i in Sir)


Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "half a loaf is better than
none".