College project : Is the number of human chromosomes fixed, or could it change?
Sapient Fridge
Sutter) as to whether or not humans could change chromosome count. My
point was that there was no known reason why it could not happen, and he
asserted that the chromosome count could not change as it was fixed in
all species.
Anyway, I thought it was an interesting subject and might be suitable
for an "official" college project (I attend courses run by Cambridge
University). After talking to my tutor she agreed, and this is the
result:
http://www.SapientFridge.org/chromosome_count/index.html
Many thanks to the people in this group who contributed information to
the thread, and who found various science papers and web pages which
were of help.
I also owe thanks to the creationists for their help with this project.
Without their unsupported assertions and determination not to accept
facts it is unlikely that I would have been motivated enough to do the
research which made this project possible.
Previous projects etc. are also accessible from my new (but rather
basic) home page:
http://www.SapientFridge.org/
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Free Lunch
<use_repl...@spamsights.org> wrote in talk.origins:
>Last year I was involved in a long thread with a creationist (Timothy
>Sutter) as to whether or not humans could change chromosome count. My
>point was that there was no known reason why it could not happen, and he
>asserted that the chromosome count could not change as it was fixed in
>all species.
>
>Anyway, I thought it was an interesting subject and might be suitable
>for an "official" college project (I attend courses run by Cambridge
>University). After talking to my tutor she agreed, and this is the
>result:
>
>http://www.SapientFridge.org/chromosome_count/index.html
>
>Many thanks to the people in this group who contributed information to
>the thread, and who found various science papers and web pages which
>were of help.
>
>I also owe thanks to the creationists for their help with this project.
>Without their unsupported assertions and determination not to accept
>facts it is unlikely that I would have been motivated enough to do the
>research which made this project possible.
>
>Previous projects etc. are also accessible from my new (but rather
>basic) home page:
>
>http://www.SapientFridge.org/
Thanks for posting the paper.
spintronic
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:51:15 +0000, Sapient Fridge
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's not a paper. It's a google search.
Sapient Fridge
<6da4dcd5-fdd2-4582...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
spintronic <spint...@hotmail.com> writes
Nope, this is what google search looks like:
I fail to see the similarity to my web pages.
If you are accusing me of plagiarism then I suggest you back it up by
posting the links where you think I copied the text from.
hersheyh
Which, of course, is better than your presentations here. At least
Sapient understands the available material well enough to get it
right. And that is better than you have done here.
Timothy Sutter
> Last year I was involved in a long thread with a creationist (Timothy
> Sutter) as to whether or not humans could change chromosome count. My
> point was that there was no known reason why it could not happen, and he
> asserted that the chromosome count could not change as it was fixed in
> all species.
by 'count' one means the chomosome number for
an entire 'species', and not individuals, not
concentrating on the ambiguities involved
in 'species' asignment at this time.
when addressing the horse problems you'll find that
i said that possible chromosome alterations which
may have reduced -counts- in horses could have been
the result of man's interference, inasmuch as man
delves in the breeding of certain animals, and so,
my 'caveat' was 'natural breeding' where some
purposeful action that may separate out a population
of chromosomal anomalies would not be considered
"natural breeding" even if the breeders were
unaware of the chromosomal anomaly.
at this time, i need not suggest that chromosomal
'anomalies' in equines are or are not, a result
of breeding or simply several independant
breeding populations.
to be clear, i have never argued against the
appearance of chromosomal anomalies in individuals.
though klinefelter's syndrome was mentioned indirectly,
the known anomalies with even chromosome numbers where
multiple sets of sex chromosomes are developed was not
touched on, and i have wondered if it would be possible
for two fifty chromosome people to have offspring, and,
what i still say, is that no known 'breeding population'
of chromosome count other than =46= is developing
in human beings, and so, as of right now,
the chromosome count of 46 remains as fixed
and is -not- changing, and this is because
these anomalies -tend- to be 'sifted out'
in a 'natural' breeding population.
as far as the contention that chimps of 48 chromosomes
may have having produced a line of 46 chromosome chimps,
that developed into an offset breeding population
of 46 chromosomes, one may still do well to look for
and find, a contemporary breeding population
of chimpanzees with 46 chromosomes.
-that- would be 'researching' the hypothesis,
and, as of now, any similarities in human and chimp genetics
tend towards being purely speculative and circumstantial
as -no- =contiguous breeding population= which includes
both chimpanzees and human beings can be shown,
but, in order for chimps of 48 chromosomes to produce
offspring of 46 chromosomes which develop into a unique
breeding population one might suspect that this 'anomaly'
would be somewhat common and not at all deleterious,
and shows up in the chimpanzee population with
a greater frequency than just once in
all of known history.
-but- even if, you show a breeding population
of 46 chromosome chimpanzees, this is -not-
incontrovertible proof that chimpanzees slowly
and gradually morphed in to human beings,
as, it is not the case, that human beings are,
in fact, nothing more than chimpanzees
with 46 chromosomes.
i'm not seeing anything 'new'
you should have looked further into the circumstances
surrounding the live 44 chromosome human, to find out if
it was drug induced as in the conception of the stillborn.
you could at least, show me the chimpanzee population
of chromosome count 46 that is wandering about today.
spintronic
wrote:
.
.
> >> >http://www.SapientFridge.org/
>
> >> Thanks for posting the paper.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >That's not a paper. It's a google search.
>
> Nope, this is what google search looks like:
>
> http://www.google.co.uk/
No, that's what google looks like.
> I fail to see the similarity to my web pages.
> If you are accusing me of plagiarism then I suggest you back it up by
> posting the links where you think I copied the text from.
Like I said. "google search".
Garamond Lethe
> Sapient Fridge wrote:
>
>> Last year I was involved in a long thread with a creationist (Timothy
>> Sutter) as to whether or not humans could change chromosome count. My
>> point was that there was no known reason why it could not happen, and he
>> asserted that the chromosome count could not change as it was fixed in
>> all species.
>
>
<snip>
> but, in order for chimps of 48 chromosomes to produce
> offspring of 46 chromosomes which develop into a unique
> breeding population one might suspect that this 'anomaly'
> would be somewhat common
Why? Citation, please, not your guesswork.
> and not at all deleterious,
Why? Deleterious mutations can become fixed in the population, and it's
possible to calculate how likely this is to occur and how long it will
take.
> and shows up in the chimpanzee population with
> a greater frequency than just once in
> all of known history.
Assume it showed up only once and was mildly deleterious. So?
>
>
> -but- even if, you show a breeding population
> of 46 chromosome chimpanzees,
I know a few....
> this is -not-
> incontrovertible proof that chimpanzees slowly
> and gradually morphed in to human beings,
It's probably best if you stick with epistemological nihilism. There's
no incontrovertible proof that the earth orbits the sun, either, but
somehow it's less embarrassing if you decide to be ignorant about everything
rather than several specific things.
> as, it is not the case, that human beings are,
>
> in fact, nothing more than chimpanzees
>
Ah, yes, the famous "You might be wrong, so I'm right" argument.
Shall we take this fallacy out for a spin?
"You have no incontrovertible proof that your neighbors are humans. Thus,
they are space aliens. Or puppies. Or hydrangeas."
"You have no incontrovertible proof that your checking account is overdrawn.
Thus, you are a millionaire. Or a hydrangea. Or both."
"You have no incontrovertible proof that God exists. Thus, He doesn't.
Neither does She."
It's a pretty sophisticated argument for a 6-year old. Most people grow
out of it.
> with 46 chromosomes.
>
>
> i'm not seeing anything 'new'
>
I'm not surprised. I see a lot that's new. We may be reading different
journals.
<snip>
> you could at least, show me the chimpanzee population
> of chromosome count 46 that is wandering about today.
They post on Usenet a lot. Try looking there.
chris thompson
Um, no it's not. It's a project. There's no similarity to a Google
search at all.
Chris
HighQ
> <6da4dcd5-fdd2-4582-bcba-ba2ba3d44...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> writes
> Grok:http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org* nuke a spammer *
> Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net * today *
> Kill:http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh look I found the original pic you stole & placed on your website.
Guess where I found it?
That's right; "in a "google search"".
HighQ
> On Nov 28, 1:45 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
.
> > > Thanks for posting the paper.
.
.
> > That's not a paper. It's a google search.
>
> Um, no it's not. It's a project.
He said it was a "paper".
> There's no similarity to a Google search at all.
Weird, because when I do certain "google searches" the similarity is
quite stunning.
http://www.sapientfridge.org/chromosome_count/chromosomes.html
vs
> Chris- Hide quoted text -
r norman
Perhaps you forgot to mention that Sapient properly cites exactly
where he got that image. It is not plagiarism or copying when one
cites the source. Using published images to illustrate a student
essay (not a primarily research paper) is quite acceptable.
Perhaps you also forgot to mention that the source Sapient used for
that illustration states quite explicitly: "All of the illustrations
in the Talking Glossary of Genetics are freely available and may be
used without special permission."
Perhaps in your forgetting, you also forgot to mention exactly what
the problem is you found.
chris thompson
> On 28 Nov, 21:01, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 28, 1:45 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> .
> .
>
> > > > Thanks for posting the paper.
>
> .
> .
>
> > > That's not a paper. It's a google search.
>
> > Um, no it's not. It's a project.
>
> He said it was a "paper".
What Free Lunch calls it is immaterial. Sapient Fridge called it a
project, and that is a fine label
>
> > There's no similarity to a Google search at all.
>
> Weird, because when I do certain "google searches" the similarity is
> quite stunning.
>
> http://www.sapientfridge.org/chromosome_count/chromosomes.html
>
> vs
>
> http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https://www.msu.edu/course/i...
So there's a figure available on Google that SF used in his project.
Big deal. It's normal to use other sources when submitting a project
to a tutor. That's called a "literature review" and it's standard in
all academic pursuits. Properly cited sources are a necessary part of
literature reviews.
The fact is that the project _overall_ is not a Google search, and
bears no resemblance to one. If that's not what you meant, then get
off your lazy ass and use more precise language. Sloppy language comes
from sloppy thinking.
Chris
chris thompson
wrote:
> Last year I was involved in a long thread with a creationist (Timothy
> Sutter) as to whether or not humans could change chromosome count. My
> point was that there was no known reason why it could not happen, and he
> asserted that the chromosome count could not change as it was fixed in
> all species.
Interesting notion. In a semantic sense, Timothy is right. You could
(successfully, I think) argue that if the chromosome number of a
species changes you no longer have the same species. This is excluding
aberrations like Klinefelter's and Turner's Syndromes, of course. But
if the human population, over time, shifted to 46 chromosomes, would
it still be _Homo sapiens_? Probably not. And if it happened fast
enough so that the populations were contemporaneous, there is at least
a chance of reproductive isolation.
Allopolyploidy in animals is quite rare but not unheard of. It's
unlikely that an allopolyploid individual would find a mate, but what
if s/he did? Would they be humans?
Chris
>
> Anyway, I thought it was an interesting subject and might be suitable
> for an "official" college project (I attend courses run by Cambridge
> University). After talking to my tutor she agreed, and this is the
> result:
>
> http://www.SapientFridge.org/chromosome_count/index.html
>
> Many thanks to the people in this group who contributed information to
> the thread, and who found various science papers and web pages which
> were of help.
>
> I also owe thanks to the creationists for their help with this project.
> Without their unsupported assertions and determination not to accept
> facts it is unlikely that I would have been motivated enough to do the
> research which made this project possible.
>
> Previous projects etc. are also accessible from my new (but rather
> basic) home page:
>
> http://www.SapientFridge.org/
> --
> sapient_usene...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
> Grok:http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org* nuke a spammer *
> Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net * today *
Timothy Sutter
> >> Last year I was involved in a long thread with a creationist (Timothy
> >> Sutter) as to whether or not humans could change chromosome count. My
> >> point was that there was no known reason why it could not happen, and he
> >> asserted that the chromosome count could not change as it was fixed in
> >> all species.
> <snip>
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > but, in order for chimps of 48 chromosomes to produce
> > offspring of 46 chromosomes which develop into a unique
> > breeding population one might suspect that this 'anomaly'
> > would be somewhat common
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> Why? Citation, please, not your guesswork.
the citation -is- the severe trouble is bringing
a 44 chromosome =human= population to bear.
this definitely doesn't seem to be happening and
one could suggest this is because the associated
genetic anomalies are more often deleterious and
not benign nor beneficial,
but, it is also that the occurence of 44 chromosome
human beings is -very- rare, only two are described,
one live birth and one stillborn, that tends to suggest
that -if- such an anomaly -could- produce a 'new'
=breeding population=, that such an anomaly -should be-
more common, as the rarity would most definitely be
sifted out in the over all breeding population,
and so, if more common, one is well to suggest
that such an anomaly could be found -today-
and, if not, the case tends to lose a greater
amount of credibleness as opposed to gaining credibleness
by -being- found in the present chimpanzee population.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > and not at all deleterious,
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> Why? Deleterious mutations can become fixed in the population, and it's
> possible to calculate how likely this is to occur and how long it will
> take.
we are not talking about becoming fixed -in- a population,
but about the potential for a 'new' population,
of altered chromosome count, to emerge -from-
a larger population.
as you'd suggest below, if it's a "one time" deal
it is not becoming 'fixed' in the larger population.
and so, -if- this 'mutation' is deleterious,
there's much less possibility that any individual 'carriers'
will succeed in bring offspring to term in the larger population,
and, tend to be filtered out of the larger population.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > and shows up in the chimpanzee population with
> > a greater frequency than just once in
> > all of known history.
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> Assume it showed up only once and was mildly deleterious. So?
there's no convenient way to =test= this "assumption"
and, a "one time" occurence doesn't bode well for
inclusion as "axiomatic" or self evident probability
which needs no such testing, and so, such an
'assumption' seems trapped in conjecture.
but, 'assumimg' it showed up 'only once'
still doesn't bode well for the formation
of a 'new' and steady breeding population.
further 'assuming' will depend on stances concerning
the possibility that any break-away population of 'hominid'
which was 48 chromosome count and is now 46 chromosome count,
managed to interbreed -after- such a supposed split.
some suggest that the two, now distinct breeding populations,
managed to continu interbreeding, and, if this is an actuality,
then, the likelihood, is that the 'new' population would
be absorbed back into the 'olde' population,
and no 'new' population would ever emerge.
if tehre is no chance of interbreeding
between the 46 and 48 [assumed]
it, the 'mutation' definitely does not become 'fixed'
and has a slim chance of randomly finding appropriate
mates with teh identical anomaly, outside of its bundle,
and, a greater probability of other deterious
and 'lethal genes' arising within some small subset.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > -but- even if, you show a breeding population
> > of 46 chromosome chimpanzees,
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> I know a few....
then you should be able to show me these
chimpanzee breeding populations
with 46 chromosomes.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > this is -not-
> > incontrovertible proof that chimpanzees slowly
> > and gradually morphed in to human beings,
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> It's probably best if you stick with epistemological nihilism. There's
> no incontrovertible proof that the earth orbits the sun, either, but
> somehow it's less embarrassing if you decide to be ignorant about everything
> rather than several specific things.
there is no contiguous breeding population that
'starts' with a 48 chromosome creature, and ends
with two breeding populations, one of
46 chromosome count and one
of 48 chromosome count.
there is a great deal of =speculation= to this effect,
but no actual contiguous breeding populations.
and so, it still remains that similar function
is simply associated with similar genetic structure
with no real connection of ancestry being necessary.
similar traits develop without common ancestry.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > as, it is not the case, that human beings are,
> > in fact, nothing more than chimpanzees
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> Ah, yes, the famous "You might be wrong, so I'm right" argument.
i think what i said was that finding
a 46 chromosome chimpanzee population
is not in itself sufficient 'evidence'
that chimpanzees morphed into human beings,
but, that, if one is going to make such a claim
that one -might- actually look for such a creature,
and/or breeding population, and that would be,
actually -looking for- a chimpnazee population
of 46 chromosome count and not =assuming=
-anything- at all.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > with 46 chromosomes.
> > i'm not seeing anything 'new'
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> I'm not surprised. I see a lot that's new.
> We may be reading different journals.
i was actually addressing "sapient fridge" and
there's nothing 'new' in sapient fridge's 'webpage'
with regards to this particular topic.
it doesn't look into the circumstances of the
live birth 44 chromosome human, with respect to the
still born which was a drug induced conception and
it doesn't show findings of a living chimpanzee
breeding population of 46 chromosomes.
> <snip>
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > you could at least, show me the chimpanzee population
> > of chromosome count 46 that is wandering about today.
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> They post on Usenet a lot. Try looking there.
trot'em out.
Ernest Major
<70622cc6-0e55-4438...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> writes
>> Last year I was involved in a long thread with a creationist (Timothy
>> Sutter) as to whether or not humans could change chromosome count. �My
>> point was that there was no known reason why it could not happen, and he
>> asserted that the chromosome count could not change as it was fixed in
>> all species.
>
>Interesting notion. In a semantic sense, Timothy is right. You could
>(successfully, I think) argue that if the chromosome number of a
>species changes you no longer have the same species.
If one argued that one what have to accept that new mice species have
developed since they were introduced into Macaronesia. IIRC, it's
Madeira that has 5 cytotypes, all different from the ancestral cytotype.
However, as there are several examples of mammalian species which are
polymorphic for chromosome number, I don't think that the position is
valid.
(There is the problem of which chromosomal races are cryptic species,
but if I recall correctly there are clear enough instances of chromosome
number polymorphisms in a single species.)
>This is excluding aberrations like Klinefelter's and Turner's
>Syndromes, of course. But if the human population, over time, shifted
>to 46 chromosomes, would it still be _Homo sapiens_? Probably not. And
>if it happened fast enough so that the populations were
>contemporaneous, there is at least a chance of reproductive isolation.
>
>Allopolyploidy in animals is quite rare but not unheard of. It's
>unlikely that an allopolyploid individual would find a mate, but what
>if s/he did? Would they be humans?
You might mean autopolyploidy. Allopolyploids are of hybrid derivation.
If autopolyploid humans were viable, and a reproducing population of
them existed, and they were reproductively isolated from diploid humans
then they would be a separate biological species. However, by my
reckoning, they would still be humans.
Species have a penumbra of deviant cytotypes. With the exception of
those of hybrid origin (because of the question of which parent taxon to
refer them to) these are included within the species, unless they
develop independently reproducing populations. Thus if a triploid plant
occurs because of gamete non-reduction in a diploid species it is part
of the species, unless (for example) it is capable of reproducing
apomictically (asexually). I suppose one could argue for excluding
sterile cytotypes from the species, but I don't like the look of that
slippery slope. (Assuming that social insect worker castes are sterile -
would you want to say that the workers are not members of the species?)
--
alias Ernest Major
Ye Old One
wrote:
>Last year I was involved in a long thread with a creationist (Timothy
>Sutter) as to whether or not humans could change chromosome count. My
>point was that there was no known reason why it could not happen, and he
>asserted that the chromosome count could not change as it was fixed in
>all species.
>
>Anyway, I thought it was an interesting subject and might be suitable
>for an "official" college project (I attend courses run by Cambridge
>University). After talking to my tutor she agreed, and this is the
>result:
>
>http://www.SapientFridge.org/chromosome_count/index.html
>
>Many thanks to the people in this group who contributed information to
>the thread, and who found various science papers and web pages which
>were of help.
>
>I also owe thanks to the creationists for their help with this project.
>Without their unsupported assertions and determination not to accept
>facts it is unlikely that I would have been motivated enough to do the
>research which made this project possible.
>
>Previous projects etc. are also accessible from my new (but rather
>basic) home page:
>
>http://www.SapientFridge.org/
Very good work. I trust you got really good marks for it :)
I think a link to it should also go on the TO site.
--
Bob.
A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest
imaginary friend.
Sapient Fridge
<aee479bc-2e2e-4c5b...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
HighQ <einst...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
http://www.sapientfridge.org/chromosome_count/chromosomes.html
And where does my image go to when you click on it?
http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Hyperion/DIR/VIP/Glossary/Illustration/chromosome.cfm?key=chromosome
Which says:
"All of the illustrations in the Talking Glossary of Genetics are freely
available and may be used without special permission."
And what does my reference for the image say?
"Top image from the National Human Genome Research Institute"
So my use of the image is both credited and does not need permission.
In no way is the image "stolen"? You owe me an apology.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Stuart
wrote:
> Last year I was involved in a long thread with a creationist (Timothy
> Sutter) as to whether or not humans could change chromosome count. My
> point was that there was no known reason why it could not happen, and he
> asserted that the chromosome count could not change as it was fixed in
> all species.
>
unnecessary
from the getgo.
Stuart
Sapient Fridge
<70622cc6-0e55-4438...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> writes
>wrote:
>> Last year I was involved in a long thread with a creationist (Timothy
>> Sutter) as to whether or not humans could change chromosome count. �My
>> point was that there was no known reason why it could not happen, and he
>> asserted that the chromosome count could not change as it was fixed in
>> all species.
>
>Interesting notion. In a semantic sense, Timothy is right. You could
>(successfully, I think) argue that if the chromosome number of a
>species changes you no longer have the same species.
Nope. The different chromosome counts can still interbreed and have
pretty much identical genetic "content" only packaged differently, that
means they are still the same species by any definition I know.
It might *lead* to different species in the long run because
interbreeding is may have some disadvantages, but in the short term a 44
chromosome human cannot be considered a different species.
> This is excluding
>aberrations like Klinefelter's and Turner's Syndromes, of course. But
>if the human population, over time, shifted to 46 chromosomes, would
>it still be _Homo sapiens_? Probably not.
Humans *do* have 46 chromosomes.
<snip>
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Garamond Lethe
>
>> >> Last year I was involved in a long thread with a creationist (Timothy
>> >> Sutter) as to whether or not humans could change chromosome count. My
>> >> point was that there was no known reason why it could not happen, and he
>> >> asserted that the chromosome count could not change as it was fixed in
>> >> all species.
>
>> <snip>
>
>
>
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>
>> > but, in order for chimps of 48 chromosomes to produce
>> > offspring of 46 chromosomes which develop into a unique
>> > breeding population one might suspect that this 'anomaly'
>> > would be somewhat common
>
>
> Garamond Lethe wrote:
>
>> Why? Citation, please, not your guesswork.
>
>
> the citation -is- the severe trouble is bringing
> a 44 chromosome =human= population to bear.
No, sorry, that's not a citation.
This is what a citation looks like. From Avril Coghlan and
Kenneth H. Wolfe's "Fourfold Faster Rate of Genome Rearrangement
in Nematodes Than in Drosophila", Genome Res. 2002.
12: 857-867
doi: 10.1101/gr.172702
<q>
We compared the genome of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans to 13% of that of
Caenorhabditis briggsae, identifying 252 conserved segments along their
chromosomes. We detected 517 chromosomal rearrangements, with the ratio of
translocations to inversions to transpositions being ∼1:1:2. We estimate that
the species diverged 50–120 million years ago, and that since then there have
been 4030 rearrangements between their whole genomes. Our estimate of the
rearrangement rate, 0.4–1.0 chromosomal breakages/Mb per Myr, is at least four
times that of Drosophila, which was previously reported to be the fastest rate
among eukaryotes. The breakpoints of translocations are strongly associated
with dispersed repeats and gene family members in the C. elegansgenome.
</q>
Hey, how 'bout that, it's an actual rate of this kinds of mutation. Now you
could take something like this as an upper bound and calculate how often you'd
expect to see this in primates and /maybe/ come up with an interesting result.
Care to do the math, or would you prefer to still with armchair speculation?
>
> this definitely doesn't seem to be happening
How do you know? Cite, please.
<snip>
>
>
> but, it is also that the occurence of 44 chromosome
> human beings is -very- rare, only two are described,
> one live birth and one stillborn, that tends to suggest
And the expected rate is? And what's your sample size?
<snip>
>
>
>
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> > and not at all deleterious,
>
>
> Garamond Lethe wrote:
>
>> Why? Deleterious mutations can become fixed in the population, and it's
>> possible to calculate how likely this is to occur and how long it will
>> take.
>
>
> we are not talking about becoming fixed -in- a population,
>
> but about the potential for a 'new' population,
Maybe an undergraduate biology textbook would be a better place for you
to start. "Population" has a specific meaning in this context and you're
not aware of what it is.
If you don't mind a bit of math, you can try starting here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalescent_theory
If you do mind math, then you should probably take up a different hobby.
<snip>
>
>
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> > and shows up in the chimpanzee population with
>> > a greater frequency than just once in
>> > all of known history.
>
>
> Garamond Lethe wrote:
>
>> Assume it showed up only once and was mildly deleterious. So?
>
>
> there's no convenient way to =test= this "assumption"
I can think of a handful of ways. You can't; that's fine. I was,
for sake of argument, allowing you to continue without demonstrating
this.
> and, a "one time" occurence doesn't bode well for
> inclusion as "axiomatic"
I can't think of anything outside of mathematics that's considered
axiomatic.
> or self evident probability
Well, probability calculations are rarely self-evident, but with a
bit of study it's not that hard to pick up. One thing it has in
common with evolution is that many Americans think they understand
evolution and probability without having any grasp on either subject,
which goes a long way towards explaining why so many Americans reject
evolution and play the lottery.
> which needs no such testing, and so, such an
> 'assumption' seems trapped in conjecture.
>
>
> but, 'assumimg' it showed up 'only once'
>
> still doesn't bode well for the formation
> of a 'new' and steady breeding population.
"Population" is sufficient, and you're right. Most mutations
are deleterious or neutral, and most mutations that fix in a
population are beneficial. If this particular mutation is
specified ahead of time, then yes, we would be surprised to see
it happen at all and be further surprised to see it fix. But
it hasn't been specfied ahead of time --- which invalidates your
probability analysis.
It's an old example, but no less valid. I shuffle a deck of
cards and deal them all out face up. You're seeing that random
order and claiming that it beggars belief that something so
unlikely could have just happened without some outside intervention.
If you had written down the order of the cards *before* I dealt
them out, you'd have the beginning of an argument. You didn't,
and you don't.
<snip>
>
> then you should be able to show me these
> chimpanzee breeding populations
> with 46 chromosomes.
Got a mirror?
>
>
>
>
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> > this is -not-
>> > incontrovertible proof that chimpanzees slowly
>> > and gradually morphed in to human beings,
>
>
> Garamond Lethe wrote:
>
>> It's probably best if you stick with epistemological nihilism. There's
>> no incontrovertible proof that the earth orbits the sun, either, but
>> somehow it's less embarrassing if you decide to be ignorant about everything
>> rather than several specific things.
>
>
> there is no contiguous breeding population that
> 'starts' with a 48 chromosome creature, and ends
> with two breeding populations, one of
> 46 chromosome count and one
> of 48 chromosome count.
In other news, the earth has never been observed to go around the sun.
Not once.
Nobody has ever parked a camera above the plane of the ecliptic and shown,
frame by frame for a year, the earth's progress.
Really.
That's epistemological nihilism. If you're honest, then nothing can be
known. If you're a little less honest, then you only trot this argument
out when you're too lazy to think of anything else.
So, does the earth go around the sun? How do you know?
>
>
> there is a great deal of =speculation= to this effect,
>
> but no actual contiguous breeding populations.
No videotape of the earth, either.
<snip>
>> I'm not surprised. I see a lot that's new.
>> We may be reading different journals.
>
>
> i was actually addressing "sapient fridge" and
> there's nothing 'new' in sapient fridge's 'webpage'
> with regards to this particular topic.
What journals are you reading?
<snip>
Sapient Fridge
<59dae2f1-91ed-4a2f...@x16g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,
Stuart <bigd...@gmail.com> writes
Yep, but the point of the web pages is to explain *how* it happens and
*why* it isn't a problem. Also a lot of people don't know that varying
chromosome counts isn't unusual.
Anyway, it got me my CAT points and produced a fairly readable web page.
I think it was worthwhile doing.
Sapient Fridge
<use...@mcsuk.net> writes
>On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:51:15 +0000, Sapient Fridge
><use_repl...@spamsights.org> enriched this group when s/he
>wrote:
>
>>Last year I was involved in a long thread with a creationist (Timothy
>>Sutter) as to whether or not humans could change chromosome count. My
>>point was that there was no known reason why it could not happen, and he
>>asserted that the chromosome count could not change as it was fixed in
>>all species.
>>
>>Anyway, I thought it was an interesting subject and might be suitable
>>for an "official" college project (I attend courses run by Cambridge
>>University). After talking to my tutor she agreed, and this is the
>>result:
>>
>>http://www.SapientFridge.org/chromosome_count/index.html
>>
>>Many thanks to the people in this group who contributed information to
>>the thread, and who found various science papers and web pages which
>>were of help.
>>
>>I also owe thanks to the creationists for their help with this project.
>>Without their unsupported assertions and determination not to accept
>>facts it is unlikely that I would have been motivated enough to do the
>>research which made this project possible.
>>
>>Previous projects etc. are also accessible from my new (but rather
>>basic) home page:
>>
>>http://www.SapientFridge.org/
>
>Very good work. I trust you got really good marks for it :)
Yep, the only thing I was criticised for was using wikipedia links in
the text (they are frowned upon in academia), but I pointed out
wikipedia is pretty accurate for science articles and links to wikipedia
are better than not having any links at all.
The other possibility would have been having a crappy glossary with a
short paragraphs written by me, instead of linking to live wikipedia
pages which then refer to proper up-to-date references at the end.
Personally I think the links are fine.
All-Seeing-I
wrote:
> Last year I was involved in a long thread with a creationist (Timothy
> Sutter) as to whether or not humans could change chromosome count. My
> point was that there was no known reason why it could not happen, and he
> asserted that the chromosome count could not change as it was fixed in
> all species.
>
> Anyway, I thought it was an interesting subject and might be suitable
> for an "official" college project (I attend courses run by Cambridge
> University). After talking to my tutor she agreed, and this is the
> result:
>
> http://www.SapientFridge.org/chromosome_count/index.html
>
> Many thanks to the people in this group who contributed information to
> the thread, and who found various science papers and web pages which
> were of help.
>
> I also owe thanks to the creationists for their help with this project.
> Without their unsupported assertions and determination not to accept
> facts it is unlikely that I would have been motivated enough to do the
> research which made this project possible.
>
> Previous projects etc. are also accessible from my new (but rather
> basic) home page:
>
> http://www.SapientFridge.org/
> --
> Grok:http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org* nuke a spammer *
> Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net * today *
Good job on design, layout and useability of the site.
Timothy Sutter
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >> > but, in order for chimps of 48 chromosomes to produce
> >> > offspring of 46 chromosomes which develop into a unique
> >> > breeding population one might suspect that this 'anomaly'
> >> > would be somewhat common
> > Garamond Lethe wrote:
> >> Why? Citation, please, not your guesswork.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > the citation -is- the severe trouble is bringing
> > a 44 chromosome =human= population to bear.
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> No, sorry, that's not a citation.
it is germaine to the actual point of contention.
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> This is what a citation looks like. From Avril Coghlan and
> Kenneth H. Wolfe's "Fourfold Faster Rate of Genome Rearrangement
> in Nematodes Than in Drosophila", Genome Res. 2002.
> 12: 857-867
> doi: 10.1101/gr.172702
> <q>
> We compared the genome of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans to 13% of that of
> Caenorhabditis briggsae, identifying 252 conserved segments along their
> chromosomes. We detected 517 chromosomal rearrangements, with the ratio of
> translocations to inversions to transpositions being ∼1:1:2. We estimate that
> the species diverged 50–120 million years ago, and that since then there have
> been 4030 rearrangements between their whole genomes. Our estimate of the
> rearrangement rate, 0.4–1.0 chromosomal breakages/Mb per Myr, is at least four
> times that of Drosophila, which was previously reported to be the fastest rate
> among eukaryotes. The breakpoints of translocations are strongly associated
> with dispersed repeats and gene family members in the C. elegansgenome.
> </q>
this 'citation' doesn't seem to be showing this
'mutational' rearrangement to be common
in chimpanzees nor in humans.
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> Hey, how 'bout that, it's an actual rate of this kinds of mutation.
not exactly, you must assume that these organisms
which you now call two distinct organisms were
once a single identical organism as you have
no direct evidence of this as fact.
what you have, is two distinct organisms which
have similar genetic traits which are packaged
in slightly different manners.
if you do -not- assume that these two organisms
were ever a single identical organism, the finding
of similar genetic information packaged differently,
does not -demand- that you do, and so,
if you do -not- assume that these two distinct
organisms were ever a single organism, then,
the finding of the alternate array of packaging,
can be supportive of the idea that similar genetics
in different packaging is the common datum,
and so, when some people seem to see a similar genetic
sequencing in chimpas and humans with slightly different
packaging structures, this alone, does not -demand-
a common ancestor, and you still have to -assume-
that such a common ancestor ever existed.
"if we assume A, then we prove A"
circular reasoning
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > this definitely doesn't seem to be happening
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> How do you know? Cite, please.
> <snip>
there are two documented instances of a 44 chromosome birth
one a still born and one live birth.
===
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7173858
We report the unique finding of a human fetus
with 44 chromosomes with homozygous 14;21 translocations
<...>
The mother's underlying disease, systemic lupus erythematosis (SLE),
and her prior chemotherapy may have contributed to the appearance
of these chromosome aberrations.
<...>
there are no previous reports in newborn surveys of a child
with 44 chromosomes resulting from the mating of two identical
Robertsonian translocation carrier parents.
===
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2798341
chromosome tests are not uncommon, especially
in families which have a history of congenital problems,
so, the chances of a large number of 44 chromosome births
going completely unnoticed is probably rather small.
quite probably, the two parents who both had
the 45 chromosome anomaly, knew beforehand
that they did, in fact, carry this anomaly,
and so, this would tend to reduce the
'randomness' of the occurence.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > but, it is also that the occurence of 44 chromosome
> > human beings is -very- rare, only two are described,
> > one live birth and one stillborn, that tends to suggest
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> And the expected rate is? And what's your sample size?
down's patients are not uncommon, but this
44 chromosome anomaly has to come about in
a third generation, and not directly
from two 46 chromosome parents.
> <snip>
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >> > and not at all deleterious,
> > Garamond Lethe wrote:
> >> Why? Deleterious mutations can become fixed in the population, and it's
> >> possible to calculate how likely this is to occur and how long it will
> >> take.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > we are not talking about becoming fixed -in- a population,
> > but about the potential for a 'new' population,
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> If you don't mind a bit of math,
> you can try starting here.
> Coalescent_theory
> If you do mind math, then you should
> probably take up a different hobby.
the trouble remains, that you must assume
a single common ancestor and that, if you
do not assume a single common ancestor,
the trait structures, as laid out,
do not demand that you do, insist
upon a common ancestor.
you -can- have two disparate organisms
who have similar genetic structures and
them even packaged in different manners,
and no common ancestor need be cited.
the appearance of similar genetic structures
does not demand common ancestry.
and assuming that it does, is not
sufficient as proof that it does.
> <snip>
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >> > and shows up in the chimpanzee population with
> >> > a greater frequency than just once in
> >> > all of known history.
> > Garamond Lethe wrote:
> >> Assume it showed up only once and was mildly deleterious. So?
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > there's no convenient way to =test= this "assumption"
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> I can think of a handful of ways. You can't; that's fine. I was,
> for sake of argument, allowing you to continue without demonstrating
> this.
well, as of now, it's only this 'assumption' that you have.
you assume a common ancestor where no such common ancestor is demanded.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > and, a "one time" occurence doesn't bode well for
> > inclusion as "axiomatic"
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> I can't think of anything outside of mathematics that's considered
> axiomatic.
then it isn't self evident that such a thing must have
happened to set off this morphing of chimpanzees
to human beings.
but, if you have a container with a separating wall down teh middle,
and two different gases in either chamber, and you remove the wall,
the two gases will spontaneously mix and it is not know for the
two gases to ever spontaneously separate into two chambers,
and this is considered 'self evident' and not in need of 'proof'
Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > or self evident probability
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> Well, probability calculations are rarely self-evident, but with a
> bit of study it's not that hard to pick up. One thing it has in
> common with evolution is that many Americans think they understand
> evolution and probability without having any grasp on either subject,
> which goes a long way towards explaining why so many Americans reject
> evolution and play the lottery.
uh, it's not self evident that chimpanzees go
from a 48 chromosome count to a 46 chromosome
count and then proceeded to morph into human beings.
so, assuming that they -might- have is speculative,
and, if you would like to -demonstrate- that chimpanzees
did alter from 48 chromosomes to 46 chromosomes and
then proceed to morph into human beings, the it is not
the proper starting point to simply assume that
such a thing did, in fact, happen,
and then, consider the assumption to be
an unquestioned fact from there on out,
thereby -proving- that chimpanzees altered
from 48 chromosoems to 46 and proceeded
to morph into human beings.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > which needs no such testing, and so, such an
> > 'assumption' seems trapped in conjecture.
> > but, 'assumimg' it showed up 'only once'
> > still doesn't bode well for the formation
> > of a 'new' and steady breeding population.
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> "Population" is sufficient, and you're right. Most mutations
> are deleterious or neutral, and most mutations that fix in a
> population are beneficial. If this particular mutation is
> specified ahead of time, then yes, we would be surprised to see
> it happen at all and be further surprised to see it fix. But
> it hasn't been specfied ahead of time --- which invalidates your
> probability analysis.
you want me to assume that this alteration happened,
and happened once and never again,
and that is why we don't see
chimpanzees with 46 chromosomes.
if we don't assume that chimps and humans
were ever a single organism, then, this
differently packaged, and yet similar
genetic information, does not
demand that we do.
i don't assume that chimps and
human beings were ever the same organism,
and similar genetic information
does not demand that i do so.
==================================
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
[fixed width text]
-------
|A __|___
| | | B |
| | | _|____
---|--- | | |
|____|_| |
| C |
|______|
some A are in B
some B are in C
does not return as
some A -are- in C
some A are not in B
some B are not in C
some A -may- be in C
some A may not be in C
all A -may not- be in C
"all common traits denote common ancestry,
-but- sometimes, common traits do not
denote common ancestry"
so, we have to remediate that;
"some common ancestry is denoted by some common traits"
"some common traits are shared by humans and deer"
and -then- the grand leap;
"[all] common ancestry is shared by humans and deer"
"common ancestry is not denoted by some common traits"
"some common traits are shared by humans and deer"
"common ancestry is not shared by humans and deer"
as soon as you break it to "some"
you get only a "maybe"
if you can't say;
"all common traits denote common ancestry"
then you fall well short of;
"common traits denote common ancestry"
"some common traits denote common ancestry"
"some common traits do not denote common ancestry"
"human beings and deer have some common traits"
"human beings and deer may or may not share a common ancestry"
so, it's an arm twist to demand that
some common traits denote common ancestry
> [fixed width text]
> -------
> |A __|___
> | | | B |
> | | | _|____
> ---|--- | | |
> |____|_| |
> | C |
> |______|
> so, it's an arm twist to demand that
> some common traits denote common ancestry
and this basically breaks it for "95% common traits"
so,
it's -still- an arm twist to say this;
"95% common traits denote common ancestry"
no, it's still quite conceivable that
a -complete- discontinuity exists
even where "95%" common traits
are possessed.
> [fixed width text]
> -------
> |A __|___
> | | | B |
> | | | _|____
> ---|--- | | |
> |____|_| |
> | C |
> |______|
> so, it's an arm twist to demand that
> some common traits denote common ancestry
and this basically breaks it for "95% common traits"
so,
it's -still- an arm twist to say this;
"95% common traits denote common ancestry"
no, it's still quite conceivable that
a -complete- discontinuity exists
even where "95%" common traits
are possessed.
and therefore, substantial room
for reasonable doubt
in suspecting that "95%" common traits
denote -any- sort of common ancestry.
and so, my doubt remains...
> > [fixed width text]
> > -------
> > |A __|___
> > | | | B |
> > | | | _|____
> > ---|--- | | |
> > |____|_| |
> > | C |
> > |______|
"all common traits denote common ancestry,
-but- sometimes, common traits do not
denote common ancestry"
and this is what you are looking at with
the facts surrounding the construction
of so-called "phylogentic trees"
there is no single phylogentic tree
without conflict,
and so, we are stuck with;
"common traits -may- denote common ancestry"
and further;
-some- A is in B
-some- B is in C
with -no- clear reckoniong of
the relationship between A and C
A and C may be world's apart
period
> > so, it's an arm twist to demand that
> > some common traits denote common ancestry
> and this basically breaks it for "95% common traits"
> so,
> it's -still- an arm twist to say this;
> "95% common traits denote common ancestry"
> no, it's still quite conceivable that
> a -complete- discontinuity exists
> even where "95%" common traits
> are possessed.
> and therefore, substantial room
> for reasonable doubt
> in suspecting that "95%" common traits
> denote -any- sort of common ancestry.
> and so, my doubt remains...
> > > [fixed width text]
>
> > > -------
> > > |A __|___
> > > | | | B |
> > > | | | _|____
> > > ---|--- | | |
> > > |____|_| |
> > > | C |
> > > |______|
> "all common traits denote common ancestry,
> -but- sometimes, common traits do not
> denote common ancestry"
you get stuck with a;
"if A then A"
"if we assume common ancestry,
we prove common ancestry"
but that's a "fairy tale"
[fixed width text]
_______________
| || || |
|A||common ||B|
| ||traits || |
| || || |
_______________
see, even
-most- 'common traits' are in A
-most- 'common traits' are in B
and yet, no A is in B
which is to say, that even
a large 'percentage' of
"common traits"
does -not- necessitate
"common lineage"
it -can- be pure coincidence...
this may be a little clearer;
[fixed width text]
___ _
| | |B|
|A| | |
|_|_________|_|
| common |
| traits |
|_____________|
meaning, you can construct a little diagram
where -nearly all- of "A" and "B"
are found in "C", 'common traits'
and yet, in which, a complete
discontinuity between
"A" and "B" remains.
something like this
[fixed width text]
_______________
/ |\ /| \
/A|\common /|B\
/ |\traits /| \
/ |\ /| \
_______________
the commonality does not, in itself,
denote comon breeding populations,
or basically -any- sort of "A" and "B"
meaning, "A" and "B" can stand
for just about anything,
apples and oranges if you like...
apples are very much like oranges in many ways,
but, apples are not oranges...
> > > > -------
> > > > |A __|___
> > > > | | | B |
> > > > | | | _|____
> > > > ---|--- | | |
> > > > |____|_| |
> > > > | C |
> > > > |______|
it's not just a matter of
whether -i- 'like' it or not,
it -is- doubtful...
"common ancestry" -is- a dubious claim
see, but the same cannot be said for the
'proponents' of a single phylogentic theory,
-they- =like it=
and therefore, they repress their skepticism
on this account...
if you opened it up to just minimal skepticism,
common ancestry would blow away in the breeze
like so much worthless dust.
==================================
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> It's an old example, but no less valid. I shuffle a deck of
> cards and deal them all out face up. You're seeing that random
> order and claiming that it beggars belief that something so
> unlikely could have just happened without some outside intervention.
> If you had written down the order of the cards *before* I dealt
> them out, you'd have the beginning of an argument. You didn't,
> and you don't.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
you'd be demanding that i go to vegas and get dealt
250 consecutive royal flushes and not arouse
any suspicion from the house.
> <snip>
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > then you should be able to show me these
> > chimpanzee breeding populations
> > with 46 chromosomes.
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> Got a mirror?
you're assumimng that i am a chimpanzee of 46 chromosomes
and that, therefore, if, some chimpanzee population
of 48 chromosomes just happened to experience
this sort of translocation event, that, we'd see me
in a community of 48 chromosomed chimpanzees,
and, the thing that made me, was
the translocation event alone,
but, as yet, we've never seen this happen.
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >> > this is -not-
> >> > incontrovertible proof that chimpanzees slowly
> >> > and gradually morphed in to human beings,
> > Garamond Lethe wrote:
> >> It's probably best if you stick with epistemological nihilism. There's
> >> no incontrovertible proof that the earth orbits the sun, either, but
> >> somehow it's less embarrassing if you decide to be ignorant about everything
> >> rather than several specific things.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > there is no contiguous breeding population that
> > 'starts' with a 48 chromosome creature, and ends
> > with two breeding populations, one of
> > 46 chromosome count and one
> > of 48 chromosome count.
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> In other news, the earth has never been observed to go around the sun.
> Not once.
> Nobody has ever parked a camera above the plane of the ecliptic and shown,
> frame by frame for a year, the earth's progress.
> Really.
> That's epistemological nihilism. If you're honest, then nothing can be
> known. If you're a little less honest, then you only trot this argument
> out when you're too lazy to think of anything else.
> So, does the earth go around the sun? How do you know?
there is no physical record of
any contiguous breeding population
which includes any non-human organism [X]
and humans.
it is only speculation that such a
contiguous breeding population exists.
such a contiguous breeding population
is not a fact.
the speculation on the existance of
a contiguous breeding population which
includes a non-human organism and humans
certainly seems to be non-verifiable with
any sort of physical observation.
such speculation is a bad 'theory'...
see, my problem with the so-called 'fossil record'
is this, inability to ascertain breeding population.
so, in essence you have people concluding things about
this so-called 'fossil record' with a very key bit of
information not only missing, but unattainable.
so, for instance, someone concludes that two sets
of boney fragments that look somewhat alike in form
constitute a similar organism, and that two fragments
that look quite dissimilar, constitute variant organisms
all without any way of establishing absolute breeding population.
meaning, -if- you were to dig up something that looked
like a pekinese, and some other thing that looked like
a great dane, you -could- argue about them as if they
were different 'species' to the exclusion of any opinion
that would suggest that they are the same "species",
by "convention" all without any way of determining if
the two fragments were ever able to mate and produce
viable offspring, which, as it turns out, they can.
and, it's also, quite possible, that two bugs,
that look nearly identical may not be able to have
ever produced viable offspring, and, were therefore,
never part of a single contiguous breeding population
and, therefore, not the same 'species' and yet, be
classified -as- the same species with no chnace of
fully demonstrating breeding population, based
on outward appearance alone.
now, you find a variety of bugs, and start
trying to hang "extinct" labels on them
all without any idea as to whether one of -them-
could reproduce viable offspring with a bug that
is wandering about today, even if, it's appearance
has changed somewhat and it looks different as
far as one can tell from a 'fossil'
so, you start making up all these stories about
"extinct" species that you have zero method of
determining relationship with present day finds
with regards to breeding potential.
and then we have to\he problme of what appears
to be a genetic poverty developing as opposed
to a genetic richness.
take, for instance, the cheetahs and their potential
for extinction because they have had loss in populations
which can not be replenished because much genetic
information has been lost to the population losses
and gentic lethalities are prevalent and the
same sort of situation is occuring
in human beings.
it looks as though genetic poverties are on the rise
and not genetic richness, and this -because- of divergences.
and so, the model from creation would posit
prototype models with a genetic -richness-
which included an array of potential outward expressions
of traits many of which are now classified as variant
-species- by taxonomers but which are, in reality, simply
variant expressions of trait structures that were already
present in the initial prototypes
from square one.
and bones, being what they are, there is little opportunity
of demonstrating absolute breeding populations from bones alone,
and so, the models rise to an impassive ambiguity which
cannot be broken based on that boney evidence.
there simply is no contiguous breeding population to latch on to
to demonstrate any sort of 'interspecies' transformation.
it's inconclusive...
meaning, it's not possible to conclude either of these;
"it is possible that a fossil find could have bred
with a contemporary living organism and produce
viable offspring"
or
"it is not possible that a fossil find could have
bred with a contemporary living organism and produce
viable offspring"
or, "it is possible that a fossil find could have
bred with another fossil find to produce viable offspring"
or, "it is not possible that a fossil find could have
bred with another fossil find and produced viable offspring"
and without that very key information,
all statements concerning fossil relationships to
contemporary organisms are rather meaningless.
there's just no way of establishing
a contiguous breeding population
and so, positting that such a contiguous
breeding population exists is speculation.
not fact...
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > there is a great deal of =speculation= to this effect,
> > but no actual contiguous breeding populations.
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> No videotape of the earth, either.
this is a problem;
first, it is set forth that;
disparate breeding populations can
manifest similar characteristics,
and then it is positted that;
a similar characteristic found
on disparate breeding populations,
demonstrates a "common ancestry"
it's not just ambiguous, it's contradictory.
first, common ancestry is not required for similar traits
and then, similar traits are used to suggest common ancestry.
that it is clearly shown that common traits
do not require common ancestry nullifies
any contention that common traits
demonstrate common ancestry.
it's that simple...
there is no single phylogenetic tree,
and common ancestry is not shown
by the 'evidence'
the notion of common ancestry
is demanded -only- by personal bias,
and therefore, it -should be- discarded.
the evidence can be used to describe a situation
where multiplex and disparate breeding populations
exist independantly without common physical ancestry.
and now, you can add in the bits about ducks and dogs...
which is to say that it need not be shown
that "today's" assortment/taxonomy is -identical-
to "yesterday's" assortment/taxonomy, because
"species" is defined in an ambiguous manner.
+ [digression]
and so, now, what i posit is this;
that, if you were to gather up sperm
and egg samples from all sexually
reproducing organisms,
a huge library of samples,
and run all of the possible permutations
of viable offspring developement,
that you would find, not only a smaller number
of groups which could be considered
'breeding populations'
and therefore classified as 'species'
but that you would also find discontinuity
and a discontiguous nature to all available
organisms, and that, it would be, therefore,
possible to contend that this discontiguous
nature to all organisms,
has always been a factor.
meaning, you would find sets of groups,
and that production of ofspring was available
within given groups, and not available
between discontiguous groupings.
where =current= environment
and =current= breeding habits
are not the criterion for species,
but the ability to produce an offspring
is the sole criterion.
one wonders why no 'evolutionist' group
argues for the potential of a -discontiguous-
nature as opposed to the contention of a
-necessity- for a contiguous nature,
because no such -necessity- exists.
see, 'conflict' in the so-called "phylogentic tree"
shows that similar functionality, is found on organisms
-after- they are categorized -as- discontiguous,
and not -before-.
meaning, similar functionality is said to have
'arisen' in -disparate- organisms -by- 'conflicts'
in the so-called "phylogentic tree" and that this
similar functionality is not possibly -passed on-
from any 'common ancestry,'
and this tends to discredit any contention that
'common ancestry' is -necessary- to account
for similar functionality.
what?
you can find similar functionality
=without= implying 'common ancestry'
and so, the so-called "phylogenetic tree"
may not be a single distinct tree at all,
but -can be- viewed as -several-
-discontiguous- =trees=, plural.
no one can supply me with
a -single- "phylogentic tree"
without -conflicts- and therefore,
is is valid to suggest
that no such -single- "phylogentic tree"
is an apt description of the reality
of all relationships of all organisms
on the planet heretofore called "earth"
+ [end digression]
which is to say that organisms are categorized according
to physical characteristics, from outward display of trait
to molecular organization, which do not conclusively
describe placement within a particular breeding population,
and so, while these physical characteristics may permutate
over time, and therefore, the subjective assorting of organisms
according to such characteristics may likewise see alteration,
that multiplex and disparate breeding populations exist
independantly and without common physical ancestry
remains valid, and therefore even gross comparison
between "yesterday" and "today" doesn't bring you much
in the way of useful information in establishing
primary relatedness.
in other words, it's sort of a "fool's game"
in that one may be forced to try and solve for
5 independant variables with s single equation,
and so, you get multiple -solutions- to,
Ax + By + Cz + Dj + Ei = P
where A, B, C, D, E and P are constants
and x, y, z, j, and i are independant variables.
just making all constants 1, and yo uget
x + y + z + j + i = 1
and this alone has an infinite number of solutions,
and so, the "fool's game" goes like this;
you substitute and "tweak" the variables
to get your single "agreed upon" 'solution'
but you can carry this on ad nauseum
and never reach _THE_ solution because
no such _THE_ solution exists.
in other words...
the appearance of multiple, discontiguous
lines of organisms would generally be identical
to the consequences of multiple forms brought
about by an act of special creation.
the demand of a -singular- pathway
from bacterium to man ruins -evolution-
because of the gaping contradiction,
and that contradiction being;
first, common ancestry is not required for similar traits
and then, similar traits are used to suggest common ancestry.
that it is clearly shown that common traits
do not require common ancestry nullifies
any contention that common traits
demonstrate common ancestry.
and it -seems- as if the only reason
to maintain the "singular pathway" theory
is to contradict the prospect of special creation
resulting in numerous "kinds" which were never part
of a single breeding population.
so, in the long run, in maintaining a singular pathway
for this reason, you will do nothing but break the back
of the entire evolutionary schemata as opposed to
ruining any ideas of special Creation by design,
and it matters little if it takes 500 years for
"Science" to come to its senses and agree to
a multiple pathway theory "en masse", as
a multiple pathway -is- what
the evidence suggests,
and, of course, a multiple pathway
is indistinguishable from multiple kinds
brought forth by acts of special creation
by design.
> <snip>
> >> I'm not surprised. I see a lot that's new.
> >> We may be reading different journals.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > i was actually addressing "sapient fridge" and
> > there's nothing 'new' in sapient fridge's 'webpage'
> > with regards to this particular topic.
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> What journals are you reading?
a corrolary to this,
is that you do, and will, find,
that -common ancestry-,
is -not- a requirement
of similar -functionality-.
that different 'groups' in a
discontiguous -present- structure,
possess similar functionality
where this common -functionality-
is exhibitted in separate and
discrete patterns.
id est, even in an 'evolutionary' model,
similar functionality may be said to 'arise'
in groupings which are known to be discontiguous.
and so, 'common ancestry' need -not- be cited
to account for instances of similar functionality,
and this lends further support
to the idea that the =discontiguous nature=
of all living organisms of earth
is the reality, inasmuch as we
don't -require- 'common descent'
to account for similar functionality.
hybrid ducks and mutt dogs are entailments
of the same dynamic principle.
a mallard and a wood duck
may be the same species, and
a great dane and the chihuahua
could be categorized as not
the same species, and
this ambiguity tends to make
assertions about the origins
of species unwarranted.
it still seems like one is seeing
the origins of familial traits within a given genetic line
and not an origin of a genetic line in itself.
because sometimes, what -amounts to-
familial or "phenotypic" genetic traits
are used to delimit species, and sometimes,
these trait structures clearly do not
specify such a demarcation.
and also...
digression...
the origins of all the various traits
is in the genetics themselves.
like, there was a primary dog form that was produced from scratch
and everything that makes a taco bell dog and a marmaduke and a
german shepherd and a boxer were already in that primary dog
from the onset.
and the same sort of dynamic applies to ducks
and all sorts of creatures.
a primary specimen was assembled from scratch
and that primary form already had the genetic information
from which to educe various other outward appearing forms.
just like marmaduke was "hidden" in the primary canine from,
and brought out by the hand of man to express itself outwardly,
so, donald and daffy duck were both 'hidden' [unexpressed]
in a primary duck form and were both brought
out by natural shufflings in and among
the environment.
of course it's possible that there
were several 'primary' duck forms
from which the many many duck forms originated,
but there's a lack of information at
our disposal to elucidate that fine a detail.
if you gathered up sperm and egg samples from all duck varieties
and purposefully set out to mix and match each and every sample,
then you'd have more information so as to understand
which ducks may be able to produce offspring with
which other types of ducks,
but such a task would be somewhat daunting.
and the prospect of doing such a global search
on all species so as to discover which forms
could produce offspiring with which other
forms is moreso,...daunting a task.
end digression...
but see, various forms of ducks and dogs are -like-
a digression from a primary specimen, and while
we can posit a common ancestor
for marmaduke and the taco bell dog,
and for donald and daffy duck,
we can -not- easily posit a common ancestor
for marmaduke and daffy duck.
anyway, there is a great deal of information
that is -not- available upon which lack,
gross assumptions are being made.
> <snip>
Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> http://www.SapientFridge.org/chromosome_count/index.html
<http://www.SapientFridge.org/chromosome_count/population_spread.html>
Typo: "they are probably [decended] from Genghis Khan"
Otherwise the presentation looks reasonable.
Sapient Fridge
<d906fbbd-4abc-49b8...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> writes
Thanks. I try to keep the pages as simple and easy to navigate as
possible, they can look a bit basic but are robust.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Sapient Fridge
http://tinyurl.com/uh3t" <seeWeb...@rem.intarweb.org> writes
>> From: Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
>> http://www.SapientFridge.org/chromosome_count/index.html
>
><http://www.SapientFridge.org/chromosome_count/population_spread.html>
>Typo: "they are probably [decended] from Genghis Khan"
Thanks, fixed now. The Genghis Khan bit was added as I was finishing
up and I suspect I forget to spellcheck it again.
>Otherwise the presentation looks reasonable.
Sapient Fridge
Sutter <a20...@lycos.com-> writes
>Sapient Fridge wrote:
>
>> Last year I was involved in a long thread with a creationist (Timothy
>> Sutter) as to whether or not humans could change chromosome count. My
>> point was that there was no known reason why it could not happen, and he
>> asserted that the chromosome count could not change as it was fixed in
>> all species.
Ah, I see the Black Knight is back for another round. How are the
replacement limbs doing?
>by 'count' one means the chomosome number for
>an entire 'species', and not individuals, not
>concentrating on the ambiguities involved
>in 'species' asignment at this time.
A mutation that appears in a single individual can spread through an
entire population. In fact that must have happened many, many times.
Read the Genghis Khan paper for a recent example:
http://web.unife.it/progetti/genetica/Giorgio/PDFfiles/ajhg2003.pdf
<snip>
>what i still say, is that no known 'breeding population'
>of chromosome count other than =46= is developing
>in human beings, and so, as of right now,
>the chromosome count of 46 remains as fixed
>and is -not- changing, and this is because
>these anomalies -tend- to be 'sifted out'
>in a 'natural' breeding population.
True, but the point is that it's *possible* for the chromosome number to
change and our chromosome 2 is evidence that this is exactly what
happened to us in the past.
My web site explains what the mechanics and circumstances needed for
such a change to happen are, it's *not* claiming that it is happening
today or even that such a change is likely.
<snip>
>but, in order for chimps of 48 chromosomes to produce
>offspring of 46 chromosomes which develop into a unique
>breeding population one might suspect that this 'anomaly'
>would be somewhat common and not at all deleterious,
>and shows up in the chimpanzee population with
>a greater frequency than just once in
>all of known history.
We don't know how often chromosome 2 fusion happens in chimps because we
don't analyse their karyotypes as often as we do for humans.
About 1:1000 humans have a fused chromosome so one would expect about
the same frequency in chimps, but I doubt enough have been analysed to
confirm that expectation
<snip>
>you could at least, show me the chimpanzee population
>of chromosome count 46 that is wandering about today.
Look in the mirror.
Sapient Fridge
<a20...@lycos.com-> writes
>the citation -is- the severe trouble is bringing
>a 44 chromosome =human= population to bear.
>
>this definitely doesn't seem to be happening and
>one could suggest this is because the associated
>genetic anomalies are more often deleterious and
>not benign nor beneficial,
You seem to be under the misapprehension that my web site is suggesting
that humans are likely to change chromosome number or that such a change
is happening today. That is wrong. The point of the web site is to
show that the number of chromosomes in a species *can* change, not that
it *is* changing. Have another look:
http://www.SapientFridge.org/chromosome_count/index.html
Thanks for the original thread though, without you the website would
never have been written. Do you remember how this started? You wrote:
>you have to have divergence, followed
>by this alteration in chromosome number
>-after- a species diverges from the
>larger population,
>
>and there's no reasonable mechanism
>to account for such a thing, especially
>nasmuch as dna is a very conservative molecule.
and
>the hard and fast differences in chromosome
>number seem to stand inthe way of such
>species to have ever been members of
>a single breeding population.
The point of my web site is to show that chromosome numbers are not
"hard and fast" and that there is indeed a reasonable mechanism for a
change in chromosome number in a population.
You have changed from saying that it can't happen to saying that there
is no evidence for it happening today. I suppose it's easier for you to
fight a strawman than to try to stick to your original argument i.e.
that the number of chromosomes in a species is fixed.
Timothy Sutter
> >> Last year I was involved in a long thread with a creationist (Timothy
> >> Sutter) as to whether or not humans could change chromosome count. My
> >> point was that there was no known reason why it could not happen, and he
> >> asserted that the chromosome count could not change as it was fixed in
> >> all species.
> Timothy Sutter writes
> >by 'count' one means the chomosome number for
> >an entire 'species', and not individuals, not
> >concentrating on the ambiguities involved
> >in 'species' asignment at this time.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> A mutation that appears in a single individual can spread through an
> entire population. In fact that must have happened many, many times.
> Read the Genghis Khan paper for a recent example:
and yet, we are not seeing any emerging breeding
population of 44 chromosomed human beings.
it isn't happening.
there may be =other factors= involved which
render your scenario impossible and unworkable.
> <snip>
> Timothy Sutter writes
> >what i still say, is that no known 'breeding population'
> >of chromosome count other than =46= is developing
> >in human beings, and so, as of right now,
> >the chromosome count of 46 remains as fixed
> >and is -not- changing, and this is because
> >these anomalies -tend- to be 'sifted out'
> >in a 'natural' breeding population.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> True,
right, "true"
the chromosome number is staying fixed at 46,
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> but the point is that it's *possible* for
> the chromosome number to change
there are individuals with different chromosome
numbers that the fixed population figure.
i never said otherwise.
i said "true species"
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> and our chromosome 2 is evidence that this is exactly what
> happened to us in the past.
now you are running with a presumption that is not a fact.
similar gentic make-up does not necessitate common ancestry.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> My web site explains what the mechanics and circumstances needed for
> such a change to happen are, it's *not* claiming that it is happening
> today or even that such a change is likely.
exactly, it does not show that your proposed mechanism -can- 'work'
> <snip>
> Timothy Sutter writes
> >but, in order for chimps of 48 chromosomes to produce
> >offspring of 46 chromosomes which develop into a unique
> >breeding population one might suspect that this 'anomaly'
> >would be somewhat common and not at all deleterious,
> >and shows up in the chimpanzee population with
> >a greater frequency than just once in
> >all of known history.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> We don't know how often chromosome 2 fusion happens in chimps because we
> don't analyse their karyotypes as often as we do for humans.
if you do not assume common ancestry,
these similarities do not demand common ancestry.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> About 1:1000 humans have a fused chromosome so one would expect about
> the same frequency in chimps, but I doubt enough have been analysed to
> confirm that expectation
> <snip>
> >you could at least, show me the chimpanzee population
> >of chromosome count 46 that is wandering about today.
> Look in the mirror.
well, then, you should see human beings
appear in the chimp population with great
frequency inasmuch as these chromosome
fusions happen with such regularity
according to your speculation.
we do not see human beings appearing
in the chimp population.
Timothy Sutter
> >the citation -is- the severe trouble is bringing
> >a 44 chromosome =human= population to bear.
> >this definitely doesn't seem to be happening and
> >one could suggest this is because the associated
> >genetic anomalies are more often deleterious and
> >not benign nor beneficial,
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> You seem to be under the misapprehension that my web site is suggesting
> that humans are likely to change chromosome number or that such a change
> is happening today. That is wrong. The point of the web site is to
> show that the number of chromosomes in a species *can* change, not that
> it *is* changing. Have another look:
what you haven't actually shown, is that your
proposed mechanism, -can- actually 'work'
and the simple fact that it is -not- happening today
does not support that it -can- actually 'work'
your proposed mechanism is -not- 'working'
fact.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> Thanks for the original thread though, without you the website would
> never have been written. Do you remember how this started? You wrote:
Ron O said:
> So what is your argument?
and i said;
that true specicies boundaries
are hard and fast
and variations in the chromosome
numbers of many species seem
to bear this out.
===
what i said first and foremost is that
"true species boundaries are hard and fast"
and that "variations in chromosome number
seem to bear this out."
whether or not there are simple variations
in individuals i never argued against.
that chromosomal numbers may
wander a bit within a species,
and this i have never denied
because down's children have
come up in my travels before
and i am aware of alterations
in individual chromosome number,
does not detract from the main contention
and that is that "true" -species- is hard and fast,
and as of yet, i have no reason to wander from that.
i referenced chromosome numbers as
indications that seem to point at
this being the case,
but the main contention, remains,
that "true species" boundaries
are hard and fast,
and we still are not seeing any
reason to waver from this point.
even the fetus of the 44 human
was for all practical purposes,
"phenotypically human"
artificially derived and unique that it was,
and, that as far as certain "species"
that seem to form "hybrids" with
other species, is concerned,
that these arbitrary species assignments
do not correspond to "true species" assignments
even if "all biologists" agree with them.
and, i'm sure i mentioned this before.
Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >you have to have divergence, followed
> >by this alteration in chromosome number
> >-after- a species diverges from the
> >larger population,
> >and there's no reasonable mechanism
> >to account for such a thing, especially
> >nasmuch as dna is a very conservative molecule.
> and
> >the hard and fast differences in chromosome
> >number seem to stand in the way of such
> >species to have ever been members of
> >a single breeding population.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> The point of my web site is to show that chromosome numbers are not
> "hard and fast" and that there is indeed a reasonable mechanism for a
> change in chromosome number in a population.
but you don't show that "true species"
is not hard and fast where "true species"
has to do with the ability to interbreed
and that's all, and i said as much,
in that very thread.
and, i never once suggested that individuals
in a population can not have different chromosome numbers,
and, your proposed mechainsm is not showing
a new breeding population of 44 chromosomes.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> You have changed from saying that it can't happen to saying that there
> is no evidence for it happening today.
no, i said the same thing then, it isn't happening today.
but, what you haven't actually shown, is that your
proposed mechanism, -can- actually 'work' and say
as much in this very post.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> I suppose it's easier for you to fight a strawman than
> to try to stick to your original argument i.e.
> that the number of chromosomes in a species is fixed.
no, i said that "true species" is fixed
and alluded to a hard and fast
chromosome count for entire species
and -not- in individuals.
never once did i deny the existance
of 47 or 45 chromosome individuals,
and your proposed mechanism is -not-
altering the chromosome count of the
entire species or even a subset
population of said species.
Sapient Fridge
<a20...@lycos.com-> writes
<snip>
>
>Sapient Fridge wrote:
>
>> You seem to be under the misapprehension that my web site is suggesting
>> that humans are likely to change chromosome number or that such a change
>> is happening today. That is wrong. The point of the web site is to
>> show that the number of chromosomes in a species *can* change, not that
>> it *is* changing. Have another look:
>
>
>
>what you haven't actually shown, is that your
>proposed mechanism, -can- actually 'work'
Actually that's precisely what it does show, it takes you step by step
through the process and provides the links, papers and research that
back it up. If you feel that any step is wrong then show your reasoning
and cite the papers to back up your claims.
<snip>
>even the fetus of the 44 human
>was for all practical purposes,
>"phenotypically human"
>
>artificially derived and unique that it was,
What is "artificially derived" about a natural human birth?
<snip>
>and, your proposed mechainsm is not showing
>a new breeding population of 44 chromosomes.
Strawman. I just pointed out above that my web page is not about a 44
chromosome population actually forming, it's about he *possibility* of
such a population forming. I'm not sure why you have difficulty
understanding this point.
<snip>
>and your proposed mechanism is -not-
>altering the chromosome count of the
>entire species or even a subset
>population of said species.
It shows the mechanism and the population dynamics that would be needed
for a chromosome number change to happen.
If you don't feel that my research is correct then please do feel
welcome to provide the cites which show I'm wrong. Even better, why
don't you make a web page and we can exchange links?
Sapient Fridge
>> >Sapient Fridge wrote:
<snip>
>> A mutation that appears in a single individual can spread through an
>> entire population. In fact that must have happened many, many times.
>> Read the Genghis Khan paper for a recent example:
>
>
>and yet, we are not seeing any emerging breeding
>population of 44 chromosomed human beings.
>
>it isn't happening.
A goalpost shift *and* a strawman in one paragraph! You must be so
proud. I have never said that there is an emerging population of 44
chromosome human beings.
>there may be =other factors= involved which
>render your scenario impossible and unworkable.
There might be, perhaps you can do the research to find them. Until
that point you appear not to anything useful to say.
<snip>
>i said "true species"
So humans with chromosome counts other than 46 are not "true" humans?
<snip>
>> My web site explains what the mechanics and circumstances needed for
>> such a change to happen are, it's *not* claiming that it is happening
>> today or even that such a change is likely.
>
>
>
>exactly, it does not show that your proposed mechanism -can- 'work'
Show me where the reasoning breaks down then. So far all you have are
unsupported assertions and strawmen attacks, as always.
<snip>
>> >you could at least, show me the chimpanzee population
>> >of chromosome count 46 that is wandering about today.
>
>
>> Look in the mirror.
>
>
>well, then, you should see human beings
>appear in the chimp population with great
>frequency inasmuch as these chromosome
>fusions happen with such regularity
>according to your speculation.
I never said any such thing. There are about 40 million mutational
differences between us and chimps, the chromosome fusion event accounts
for just *one* of those. A change in chromosome number is not what
defines a species, that's the point.
From a biological point of view we *are* just another species of chimp
though. Here's a book for you to read though:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Third-Chimpanzee-Evolution-Future-Animal/dp/0060845503
>we do not see human beings appearing
>
>in the chimp population.
Quite true. Phew, isn't it lucky that I didn't say that such a thing
would happen?
Timothy Sutter
> >Sapient Fridge wrote:
> >> You seem to be under the misapprehension that my web site is suggesting
> >> that humans are likely to change chromosome number or that such a change
> >> is happening today. That is wrong. The point of the web site is to
> >> show that the number of chromosomes in a species *can* change, not that
> >> it *is* changing. Have another look:
> Timothy Sutter writes
> >what you haven't actually shown, is that your
> >proposed mechanism, -can- actually 'work'
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> Actually that's precisely what it does show, it takes you step by step
> through the process and provides the links, papers and research that
> back it up. If you feel that any step is wrong then show your reasoning
> and cite the papers to back up your claims.
no, it does not, it shows -only- that -individuals-
with 44 chromosomes may develop within the
larger 46 chromosome population.
what it does not show, is that such
a 'new' breeding population that "breeds true"
to 44 chromosomes is actually happening
nor, that such a 'new' population
-can- actually happen.
-that- you don't have.
as i -tried- to suggest,
-if- you could find a small breeding population
of chimpanzees with 46 chromosomes, you would,
at least, have -that- piece of information to show,
but you do not, and -that- does not make your
mechanism become -more- plausible.
seems to me, you accused me of trying
to send you on a "wild goose chase"
when i first suggested only this.
i wouldn't consider that a "wild goose chase"
i may call that 'science'
but, not a 'wild goose chase'
> <snip>
Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >even the fetus of the 44 human
> >was for all practical purposes,
> >"phenotypically human"
> >artificially derived and unique that it was,
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> What is "artificially derived" about a natural human birth?
well, i wrote that bit back in 2008, and i was concentrating
on the -fetus- whose mother's anomaly was said to have arisen
"de novo" because of her medications.
i just copied and pasted that in now.
but, as i said in another post,
even the two 45 parents who gave birth to a live child,
may have been =alerted= to their circumstance in ways
that chimpanzees could never be alerted.
which makes that, somewhat, "artificial"
> <snip>
> Timothy Sutter writes
> >and, your proposed mechainsm is not showing
> >a new breeding population of 44 chromosomes.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> Strawman. I just pointed out above that my web page is not about a 44
> chromosome population actually forming, it's about he *possibility* of
> such a population forming. I'm not sure why you have difficulty
> understanding this point.
it is not a strawman, i am not saying that you are saying
that a new breeding population of 44 chromosomed humans
is developing, i am saying that you agree that such
a 'new' breeding population is -not- develioping,
and that -this- is not supportive of the contention
that your proposed mechanism -can- produce a 'new'
breeding population of 44 chromosomed humans.
that, there may be =other factors= which stand
in the way of this, and that all you will -ever- see,
is a few individuals with the make-up here and there,
and no new population that "breeds true" for 44 chromosomes.
> <snip>
> Timothy Sutter writes
> >and your proposed mechanism is -not-
> >altering the chromosome count of the
> >entire species or even a subset
> >population of said species.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> It shows the mechanism and the population dynamics that would be needed
> for a chromosome number change to happen.
> If you don't feel that my research is correct then please do feel
> welcome to provide the cites which show I'm wrong. Even better, why
> don't you make a web page and we can exchange links?
by your own statements, you agree that
this mechanism is -not- =happening=.
and that is, the mechanism to breed a 'new'
population that breeds true for 44 chromosomes
is -not- happening.
this is what -you- say.
Timothy Sutter
> <snip>
> >> A mutation that appears in a single individual can spread through an
> >> entire population. In fact that must have happened many, many times.
> >> Read the Genghis Khan paper for a recent example:
> Timothy Sutter writes
> >and yet, we are not seeing any emerging breeding
> >population of 44 chromosomed human beings.
> >it isn't happening.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> A goalpost shift *and* a strawman in one paragraph! You must be so
> proud. I have never said that there is an emerging population of 44
> chromosome human beings.
i have no such 'goalposts'
-you- are proposing this thing -as- a mechanism
for the emergence of a 'new' population and -not-
simply for the appearance of individuals.
you want to point at individuals and say;
"this proves population...*can* happen,
and therefore -did- happen"
and i must tell you,
that, you do -not- have population.
> Timothy Sutter writes
> >there may be =other factors= involved which
> >render your scenario impossible and unworkable.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> There might be, perhaps you can do the research to find them. Until
> that point you appear not to anything useful to say.
exactly, there might be other factors which
prevent the emergence of such a 'new' population.
> <snip>
> >i said "true species"
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> So humans with chromosome counts other than 46 are not "true" humans?
didn't say that at all.
said something much easier to grasp, i did.
> <snip>
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> >> My web site explains what the mechanics and circumstances needed for
> >> such a change to happen are, it's *not* claiming that it is happening
> >> today or even that such a change is likely.
> Timothy Sutter writes
> >exactly, it does not show that your proposed mechanism -can- 'work'
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> Show me where the reasoning breaks down then. So far all you have are
> unsupported assertions and strawmen attacks, as always.
i "breakes down" precisely where -you- say that it is -not- happening,
and then further when you agree that there may be 'other factors'
which prevent it.
> <snip>
> Timothy Sutter writes
> >> >you could at least, show me the chimpanzee population
> >> >of chromosome count 46 that is wandering about today.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> >> Look in the mirror.
> Timothy Sutter writes
> >well, then, you should see human beings
> >appear in the chimp population with great
> >frequency inasmuch as these chromosome
> >fusions happen with such regularity
> >according to your speculation.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> I never said any such thing. There are about 40 million mutational
> differences between us and chimps, the chromosome fusion event accounts
> for just *one* of those. A change in chromosome number is not what
> defines a species, that's the point.
well, as long as we agree on that.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> From a biological point of view we *are* just another species of chimp
> though. Here's a book for you to read though:
well, as of right now, you can't show me
any offspring from a chimpanzee/human coupling.
and one trouble with this, as a side note,
is that, there seems to be this contention that,
humans drew away from chimpanzees
while chimpanzees remained static.
no, i'm not saying you have said this,
but, the implication is there in other references.
there is something to be said for -not- a static chimp.
> Timothy Sutter writes
> >we do not see human beings appearing
> >in the chimp population.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> Quite true. Phew, isn't it lucky that I didn't say that such a thing
> would happen?
well, when you tell me to "look in the mirror"
to see a 46 chromosomed chimpanzee, the allusion is
not to much of a stretch.
Timothy Sutter
> > we see how very difficult and rare individuals
> > of 44 chromosomes appearing in the population
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> Looks like one per decade or so in the population that is getting
> genetic testing for other reasons. That's a sliver of the world
> population, of course. So while this is rare enough that a few
> papers have been published, it's by no means a one-off.
chromosome tests are not so rare as full dna footprints,
and, what you are not showing, in any manner,
is the appearance of a new breeding population
of 44 chromosome human beings.
if it was so commonly possible, we may expect
to see a small population somewhere
in the world already.
this doesn't seem to be the case.
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >> >===
> >> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7173858
> >> > We report the unique finding of a human fetus
> >> > with 44 chromosomes with homozygous 14;21 translocations
> > Garamond Lethe wrote:
> >> Yep. And you snipped: "This fetus appeared phenotypically normal."
> >> So far as quote mining goes, you have a lot to learn.
Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > i wasn't arguing that the child was not phenotypically normal,
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> I thought you had said that it was a deleterious mutation.
i said that in the case of chimpanzees,
it should not be deleterious.
> <snip>
> >> So?
> > so, two human beings who are may otherwise
> > not know they have such a chromosomal situation
> > are purposefully brought together in order
> > to produce an offspring, and, with regards
> > to chimpanzees of 46 or 47 chromosomes -finding-
> > other chimpanzees of 46 or 47 chromosomes,
> > they have not the luxury of being told who
> > among them has 46 or 47 chromosomes and
> > who does not and so, the greater likelihood,
> > is that they find another 48 chromosome
> > chimpanzee first, and the 48 chromosome population
> > washes out any possible budding 46 chromosome
> > population before it becomes isolable.
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> And if this mutation occured on, oh, some small island,
> how would this affect your calculation? And if it happened
> in some population that was genetically isolated for some
> reason other than geography, would that affect your
> calculation as well?
bottom line is, it isn't happening.
> > Garamond Lethe wrote:
> >> I understand that this is not an assumption you share.
Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > the assumption of one contiguous breeding population is unfounded.
> > Garamond Lethe wrote:
> >> You've not convinced me yet that you have the better model.
Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > the evidence looks more like multiple and discontiguous sets
> > of breeding populations.
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> Great! I'd love to see that evidence. Do you have a citation handy?
one bit of evidence is that apes and blue jays
do not interbreed, nor can they, they -are- 'discontiguous'
> >> [I expect I've managed to make no fewer than three dumb arithmetic errors
> >> in the above, two of which will become painfully obvious as soon as I hit
> >> "send".]
Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > you're just telling me that 'science' cannot give
> > you the significant testing of your assumptions,
> > because such a test would be impracticable,
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> It was your assumption, and yes, testing it in this universe is not feasible.
it shows you that there is a lot of information
that you do not have and making your grand leaps
based on the small amount that you do have,
is unwarranted.
Garamond Lethe wrote:
# If you want to see a nontrivial example of this, check out the
nanopond
# simulation. This allows multiple discontiguous populations to be
created.
# But if you let it run long enough, you always end up with a population
# based on a common lineage. I think the theory behind this is called
R*,
# but let me check. Basically, the multi-lineage solution isn't stable.
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> (That being said, it may have some use in much smaller domains like
> evolutionary algorithms, but I doubt it will ever be applied to anything
> other than toy problems.)
doesn't speak well for you nanopond bit being
anything in the realm of a true picture of reality.
Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > because, you feel that, neither
> > can they be disproven.
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> If you'd like to show me how you can fit representations of 4^8215200000
> genomes into 10^80 atoms, I'd love to see it.
doesn't speak well for you nanopond bit being
anything in the realm of a true picture of reality.
> >> <snip lots>
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >> > the appearance of multiple, discontiguous
> >> > lines of organisms would generally be identical
> >> > to the consequences of multiple forms brought
> >> > about by an act of special creation.
> > Garamond Lethe wrote:
> >> So would anything else.
> >> You having the DNA of a fruit bat is perfectly consistent with
> >> special creation.
Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > i may very well have sections of my dna that have
> > some similarity to that of a fruit bat.
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> You do. You have more in common with chimpanzees, less in common with
> slugs, and still less in common with conifers.
> Evolution provides an explanation as to why this is so.
> The best you've managed so far is "arbitrary coincidence".
no, i have said that common traits may require common genetic make-up
and yet, common genetic make-up does -not- require common ancestry,
which it does not.
Ernest Major
<a20...@lycos.com-> writes
>
>chromosome tests are not so rare as full dna footprints,
>
>and, what you are not showing, in any manner,
>is the appearance of a new breeding population
>of 44 chromosome human beings.
>
>if it was so commonly possible, we may expect
>to see a small population somewhere
>in the world already.
>
>this doesn't seem to be the case.
>
that we should not expect to see them in the last few hundred years, and
for them to have occurred in the past. For example, supervolcano
eruptions. Can we take it that you don't believe that supervolcano
eruptions happen? Or do you agree that Christianity is false because we
don't see a messiah wondering around the world today?
--
alias Ernest Major
Timothy Sutter
> >chromosome tests are not so rare as full dna footprints,
> >and, what you are not showing, in any manner,
> >is the appearance of a new breeding population
> >of 44 chromosome human beings.
> >if it was so commonly possible, we may expect
> >to see a small population somewhere
> >in the world already.
> >this doesn't seem to be the case.
Ernest Major wrote:
> It is quite possible for events to be sufficiently rare (infrequent)
> that we should not expect to see them in the last few hundred years, and
> for them to have occurred in the past. For example, supervolcano
> eruptions. Can we take it that you don't believe that supervolcano
> eruptions happen? Or do you agree that Christianity is false because we
> don't see a messiah wondering around the world today?
well, mt st. helens was a fairly massive event
maybe it wasn't a 'super volcano' but it did
seem to blow half a mountain apart, and, aparently,
some people are alarmed by a possible 'super volcano'
brewing on mt. st. helens now.
so, i can believe that volcanism is
capable of blowing a mountain apart.
i've seen some before and after
pictures of mt. st. helens.
it looks like half the mountain was blown apart.
if a super volcano -must- blot out the light from the sun,
i suppose i can believe that it be possible.
another problem with this genetics bit is that,
it really need not take a very long time,
if such a thing be possible at all,
and so, it wouldn't be enough to suggest
that a 44 chromosome human population has
not developed, because it needs
more time to emerge.
time is no real issue there.
as far as a messiah w[a]ndering around
the world today, some christians may
say this very ting is happening
albeit that this messiah, is a 'spiritual entity'
that makes its presence known in ways that are
supra-physical, and, inasmuch as physicists allude
-to- such supra-physical phenomenon as "strings"
and such, the existence of some supra-physical
manifestation that just happens to be "conscious"
is not so outlandish,
and that, this supra-physical consciousness
can interfere with the physical manifestation.
conscious interference patterns...
Ernest Major
<a20...@lycos.com-> writes
>
>well, mt st. helens was a fairly massive event maybe it wasn't a 'super
>volcano' but it did seem to blow half a mountain apart, and,
A supervolcano eruption is several hundred times bigger than the 1980
eruption of Mount St. Helens. If one occurred in the United States it
would blanket several states with volcanic ash.
> aparently, some people are alarmed by a possible 'super volcano'
>brewing on mt. st. helens now.
>
Citation please. I can imagine people worrying about VEI 5/6 eruptions
of Cascade volcanoes (but I would have thought that some other volcano,
such as Rainier, would be of more concern that St. Helens), but the VEI
8 concerns usually related to Yellowstone and Long Valley (in
California). I'm not aware that anyone is concerned about renewed
activity at Valles in New Mexico.
--
alias Ernest Major
Timothy Sutter
> >well, mt st. helens was a fairly massive event maybe it wasn't a 'super
> >volcano' but it did seem to blow half a mountain apart, and,
Ernest Major wrote:
> A supervolcano eruption is several hundred times bigger than the 1980
> eruption of Mount St. Helens. If one occurred in the United States it
> would blanket several states with volcanic ash.
if that's your criterion for 'super volcanoes'
then, the 1980 eruption does not fit that criterion.
> > aparently, some people are alarmed by a possible 'super volcano'
> >brewing on mt. st. helens now.
Ernest Major wrote:
> Citation please.
mind you, i did say -some people-
and not that such a thing had some
sort of definitive agreement.
i'm sure arguements can be had
which downplay this prospect.
Ernest Major wrote:
> I can imagine people worrying about VEI 5/6 eruptions
> of Cascade volcanoes (but I would have thought that some other volcano,
> such as Rainier, would be of more concern that St. Helens), but the VEI
> 8 concerns usually related to Yellowstone and Long Valley (in
> California). I'm not aware that anyone is concerned about renewed
> activity at Valles in New Mexico.
right, i saw a blurb concerned with Yellowstone.
that such a cataclysm may be possible,
i still say;
"i suppose"
Timothy Sutter
> > >well, mt st. helens was a fairly massive event maybe it wasn't a 'super
> > >volcano' but it did seem to blow half a mountain apart, and,
> Ernest Major wrote:
> > A supervolcano eruption is several hundred times bigger than the 1980
> > eruption of Mount St. Helens. If one occurred in the United States it
> > would blanket several states with volcanic ash.
the one thing, though, is that it need not
be 100 times more forceful than mt. st. helens,
as, it would seem to depend more on the
amount of rubbish that gets lifted into the sky.
Timothy Sutter
> > > >well, mt st. helens was a fairly massive event maybe it wasn't a 'super
> > > >volcano' but it did seem to blow half a mountain apart, and,
> > Ernest Major wrote:
> > > A supervolcano eruption is several hundred times bigger than the 1980
> > > eruption of Mount St. Helens. If one occurred in the United States it
> > > would blanket several states with volcanic ash.
> > > Timothy Sutter writes
> the one thing, though, is that it need not
> be 100 times more forceful than mt. st. helens,
> as, it would seem to depend more on the
> amount of rubbish that gets lifted into the sky.
and, it depends more on how "blanket" is described,
as, mt. st. helens ash was lifted rather high
and traveled far, even into other states.
the cloud rained ash as far as north dakota;
and ten other states.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/special/helens/story1.html
so, mt. st. helens may be a 'super volcano' by your criterion
unless of course, you demand a total blackout
and a foot thick rain of ash.
Sapient Fridge
<a20...@lycos.com-> writes
>> <snip>
>
>> >Sapient Fridge wrote:
>
>> >> You seem to be under the misapprehension that my web site is suggesting
>> >> that humans are likely to change chromosome number or that such a change
>> >> is happening today. That is wrong. The point of the web site is to
>> >> show that the number of chromosomes in a species *can* change, not that
>> >> it *is* changing. Have another look:
>
>
>
>> Timothy Sutter writes
>
>> >what you haven't actually shown, is that your
>> >proposed mechanism, -can- actually 'work'
>
>
>Sapient Fridge wrote:
>
>> Actually that's precisely what it does show, it takes you step by step
>> through the process and provides the links, papers and research that
>> back it up. If you feel that any step is wrong then show your reasoning
>> and cite the papers to back up your claims.
>
>
>no, it does not, it shows -only- that -individuals-
>with 44 chromosomes may develop within the
>larger 46 chromosome population.
Yep, and given the right circumstances it would be hypothetically
possible for them to replace the 46 chromosome population.
>what it does not show, is that such
>a 'new' breeding population that "breeds true"
>to 44 chromosomes is actually happening
Yep, so it's just as well that I never said that a 44 chromosome
population was forming today. Why do you have so much difficulty
understanding this point?
>nor, that such a 'new' population
>-can- actually happen.
Nope, it shows that it *can* happen. If you thing there is something
stopping it from happening then it's up to you to show your reasoning
and cite your sources. Just saying it doesn't make it true.
<Snip>
>Sapient Fridge wrote:
>
>> It shows the mechanism and the population dynamics that would be needed
>> for a chromosome number change to happen.
>
>> If you don't feel that my research is correct then please do feel
>> welcome to provide the cites which show I'm wrong. Even better, why
>> don't you make a web page and we can exchange links?
>
>
>by your own statements, you agree that
>this mechanism is -not- =happening=.
Not now, but it has happened in the past:
http://www.sapientfridge.org/chromosome_count/great_apes.html
My web page explains the mechanisms by which such a change can happen so
the next time a creationist declares that chromosome numbers are fixed
then I just have to point them at my web pages.
Don't forget that science is as much about explaining things that have
happened in the past as much as it is about what is happening now or in
the future.
<snip>
Sapient Fridge
<a20...@lycos.com-> writes
<snip>
>Sapient Fridge wrote:
>
>> Show me where the reasoning breaks down then. So far all you have are
>> unsupported assertions and strawmen attacks, as always.
>
>
>i "breakes down" precisely where -you- say that it is -not- happening,
>and then further when you agree that there may be 'other factors'
>which prevent it.
Wrong on both counts.
Firstly I never said that a new population is forming today, only that
it appears to have happened in the past. Since an extant population of
44 chromosome humans is not a prediction of my pages the fact that we
don't know of any such populations has absolutely no impact.
Secondly, hypothesis don't break down because someone says they *might*
be wrong, they break down when someone *shows* that they are wrong. If
you want to declare my research is erroneous then you are going to
provide some actual evidence.
So, are you going to do the research and prove me wrong, or are you just
going to continue to blow hot air and build strawmen to attack?
<snip>
>Sapient Fridge wrote:
>
>> From a biological point of view we *are* just another species of chimp
>> though. Here's a book for you to read though:
>
>
>
>well, as of right now, you can't show me
>any offspring from a chimpanzee/human coupling.
Eh? Species cannot/or do not interbreed. That is part of the
definition of species so why on earth should the fact that humans and
chimpanzees don't mate have anything to do with this thread?
>and one trouble with this, as a side note,
>
>is that, there seems to be this contention that,
>
>humans drew away from chimpanzees
>
>while chimpanzees remained static.
Chimpanzees are just as evolved as us. We are roughly 20 million
mutations away from the common ancestor and so are chimps. That's why
we are about 40 million mutations away from them.
>no, i'm not saying you have said this,
>
>but, the implication is there in other references.
>
>
>there is something to be said for -not- a static chimp.
I never said that chimps were static so I've no idea why you are
bringing this up.
<snip>
Timothy Sutter
> >> >> You seem to be under the misapprehension that my web site is suggesting
> >> >> that humans are likely to change chromosome number or that such a change
> >> >> is happening today. That is wrong. The point of the web site is to
> >> >> show that the number of chromosomes in a species *can* change, not that
> >> >> it *is* changing. Have another look:
> >> Timothy Sutter writes
> >> >what you haven't actually shown, is that your
> >> >proposed mechanism, -can- actually 'work'
> >Sapient Fridge wrote:
> >> Actually that's precisely what it does show, it takes you step by step
> >> through the process and provides the links, papers and research that
> >> back it up. If you feel that any step is wrong then show your reasoning
> >> and cite the papers to back up your claims.
> Timothy Sutter writes
> >no, it does not, it shows -only- that -individuals-
> >with 44 chromosomes may develop within the
> >larger 46 chromosome population.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> Yep, and given the right circumstances it would be hypothetically
> possible for them to replace the 46 chromosome population.
these 'right circumstances' cannot possibly so outlandish
that this same sort of event which you would claim -has-
taken place in chimpanzees is not common enough so as
to already be evident in the human population.
according to your theory, the right circumstances
have already shown themselves,
and yet, we don't see a 44 chromosomed human breeding population,
nor, do we see a 46 chromosomed chimpanzee breeding population.
> Timothy Sutter writes
> >what it does not show, is that such
> >a 'new' breeding population that "breeds true"
> >to 44 chromosomes is actually happening
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> Yep, so it's just as well that I never said that a 44 chromosome
> population was forming today. Why do you have so much difficulty
> understanding this point?
it's not a matter of whether you said this or not,
it's a matter of the contention that there are
some 'right circumstances' that have already shown
themselves, and yet, we don't see either a
44 chromosomed human breeding population, nor
a 46 chromosomed chimpanzee breeding population.
your 'right conditions' are not that outlandish,
but, we do not see what we do not see.
it isn't happening.
> Timothy Sutter writes
> >nor, that such a 'new' population
> >-can- actually happen.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> Nope, it shows that it *can* happen. If you thing there is something
> stopping it from happening then it's up to you to show your reasoning
> and cite your sources. Just saying it doesn't make it true.
the simple fact that the 'right conditions'
are not outlandish and yet, we are -not-
-seeing- it happen detracts from the
possibility that it ever -did-
actually 'happen'
and, the genetic similarities
Timothy Sutter
> >> >Sapient Fridge wrote:
> >> >> You seem to be under the misapprehension that my web site is suggesting
> >> >> that humans are likely to change chromosome number or that such a change
> >> >> is happening today. That is wrong. The point of the web site is to
> >> >> show that the number of chromosomes in a species *can* change, not that
> >> >> it *is* changing. Have another look:
> >> Timothy Sutter writes
> >> >what you haven't actually shown, is that your
> >> >proposed mechanism, -can- actually 'work'
> >Sapient Fridge wrote:
> >> Actually that's precisely what it does show, it takes you step by step
> >> through the process and provides the links, papers and research that
> >> back it up. If you feel that any step is wrong then show your reasoning
> >> and cite the papers to back up your claims.
> Timothy Sutter writes
> >no, it does not, it shows -only- that -individuals-
> >with 44 chromosomes may develop within the
> >larger 46 chromosome population.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> Yep, and given the right circumstances it would be hypothetically
> possible for them to replace the 46 chromosome population.
thee 'right circumstances' cannot possibly so outlandish
that this same sort of event which you would claim -has-
taken place in chimpanzees is not common enough so as
to already be evident in the human population.
according to your theory, the right circumstances
have already shown themselves,
and yet, we don't see a 44 chromosomed human breeding population,
nor, do we see a 46 chromosomed chimpanzee breeding population.
> Timothy Sutter writes
> >what it does not show, is that such
> >a 'new' breeding population that "breeds true"
> >to 44 chromosomes is actually happening
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> Yep, so it's just as well that I never said that a 44 chromosome
> population was forming today. Why do you have so much difficulty
> understanding this point?
it's not a matter of whether you said this or not,
it's a matter of the contention that there are
some 'right circumstances' that have already shown
themselves, and yet, we don't see either a
44 chromosomed human breedig population, nor
a 46 chromosomed chimpanzee breeding population.
your 'right conditions' are not that outlandish,
but, we do not see what we do not see.
it isn't happening.
> Timothy Sutter writes
> >nor, that such a 'new' population
> >-can- actually happen.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> Nope, it shows that it *can* happen. If you thing there is something
> stopping it from happening then it's up to you to show your reasoning
> and cite your sources. Just saying it doesn't make it true.
the simple fact that the 'right conditions'
are not outlandish and yet, we are -not-
-seeing- it happen detracts from the
possibility that it ever -did-
actually 'happen'
and, the genetic similarities
do not demand common ancestry.
> <Snip>
> >Sapient Fridge wrote:
> >> It shows the mechanism and the population dynamics that would be needed
> >> for a chromosome number change to happen.
> >> If you don't feel that my research is correct then please do feel
> >> welcome to provide the cites which show I'm wrong. Even better, why
> >> don't you make a web page and we can exchange links?
> Timothy Sutter writes
> >by your own statements, you agree that
> >this mechanism is -not- =happening=.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> Not now, but it has happened in the past:
no, this is your assumption.
your assumption is that this similarity
in genetic make-up has -only- the
explanation that you offer up,
and that is, one of common ancestry.
the similarity -can- be explained
without common ancestry.
Timothy Sutter
> >> Show me where the reasoning breaks down then. So far all you have are
> >> unsupported assertions and strawmen attacks, as always.
> Timothy Sutter writes
> >i "breakes down" precisely where -you- say that it is -not- happening,
> >and then further when you agree that there may be 'other factors'
> >which prevent it.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> Wrong on both counts.
> Firstly I never said that a new population is forming today, only that
> it appears to have happened in the past. Since an extant population of
> 44 chromosome humans is not a prediction of my pages the fact that we
> don't know of any such populations has absolutely no impact.
it does have an impact inasmuch as it would
support these not so outlandish 'right conditions'
to be responsible for a one time deal
sometime in the distant past and never
again and not in the human population
that you would like to claim,
it -can- happen in.
and so, the prospect of thess "other factors,"
which you agree may be at work, tend to
dismiss the necessity of these non-outlandish
'right conditions' as the criterion
which -must- be met, and, instead,
point one towards the 'other factors'
as teh criterion which -must- be met,
and, are -not- being met, either
-now- nor in the distant past.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> Secondly, hypothesis don't break down because someone says they *might*
> be wrong, they break down when someone *shows* that they are wrong. If
> you want to declare my research is erroneous then you are going to
> provide some actual evidence.
you resist looking for and detailing -any- 'other factors'
because, maybe, as of right now, you cannot imagine what these
'other factors' may be which would prevent this from
taking place in the 46 chromosome human population,
and also fail to provide evidence for
a 46 chromosome chimp population.
the 'right conditions' are not so outlandish,
the thing isn't happening,
there may be 'other factors which prevent it'
the genetic similarities are
insufficient to solidify the argument.
> <snip>
> >Sapient Fridge wrote:
> >> From a biological point of view we *are* just another species of chimp
> >> though. Here's a book for you to read though:
> Timothy Sutter writes
> >well, as of right now, you can't show me
> >any offspring from a chimpanzee/human coupling.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> Eh? Species cannot/or do not interbreed. That is part of the
> definition of species so why on earth should the fact that humans and
> chimpanzees don't mate have anything to do with this thread?
sure they do, there are "Hybrid ducks" which are purportedly,
two different species of duck, mating and producing offspring,
and you suggest that human beings are 'another species of chimp'
but, as i've already said, 'species' tends towards being
such an ambiguous term as to become rather meaningless
in actual practice.
> Timothy Sutter writes
> >and one trouble with this, as a side note,
> >is that, there seems to be this contention that,
> >humans drew away from chimpanzees
> >while chimpanzees remained static.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> Chimpanzees are just as evolved as us. We are roughly 20 million
> mutations away from the common ancestor and so are chimps. That's why
> we are about 40 million mutations away from them.
and yet, you do not have actual evidence of this
supposed "species X" from which both are claimed
to have been drawn out, in some sort of
contiguous breeding population.
> Timothy Sutter writes
> >no, i'm not saying you have said this,
> >but, the implication is there in other references.
> >there is something to be said for -not- a static chimp.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> I never said that chimps were static so I've no idea why you are
> bringing this up.
well, in order to even try employing "gene clocks"
you'd have to suggest that one remained static
while the other moved away from the static one,
and, if you suggest that both moved away
from the center, which you -do not- have,
then, the standard "species X" is an unknown
and you're juggling one equation with two unknowns,
and, there would be many non-unique solutions.
you've got "species X"
which you'd claim is 20 million amino acid or
somesuch different from both humans and chimps,
the prospect of reproducing -the- genetics
of "species X' in this situation is not very good.
so, you generally see that they take the
differences between modern chimps and modern humans
and constructing a timeline, based
on no actual record of "species X"
Sapient Fridge
<a20...@lycos.com-> writes
<snip - more hand-waving, strawmen and unsupported assertions>
I'm getting bored of this.
Try again when you have some actual facts and evidence that we can talk
about instead of the hot air, opinions and personal incredulity that you
are coming up with now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Timothy Sutter
> <snip>
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> I'm getting bored of this.
ok
Garamond Lethe
>> >> >> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> > we see how very difficult and rare individuals
>> > of 44 chromosomes appearing in the population
>
>
> Garamond Lethe wrote:
>
>> Looks like one per decade or so in the population that is getting
>> genetic testing for other reasons. That's a sliver of the world
>> population, of course. So while this is rare enough that a few
>> papers have been published, it's by no means a one-off.
>
>
> chromosome tests are not so rare as full dna footprints,
Ummm... "dna footprints"?
>
> and, what you are not showing, in any manner,
> is the appearance of a new breeding population
> of 44 chromosome human beings.
>
And what you're not able to show, in any manner whatsoever, is
that the earth goes around the sun.
Here's the reason I keep bringing this up.
You're bringing a set of tools to this problem. They're called
epistemological nihilism. If you play fast and loose with these
tools, you may be able to tell the difference between noon and
midnight if you're standing outside in good weather.
Beyond that, though, it's impossible for you to learn anything
about the world around you.
Science can be usefully thought of as the study of things we
can't observe directly. You, on the other hand, have to stick
to what you can see: a rare mutation and no subpopulation.
I can go beyond that: mutation rates and likelihood that we
will see this population arise given a certain amount of time.
I can also explain why the earth goes around the sun.
You can't.
So I think I'll stick to my epistemology. It's a bit more useful
than yours.
> if it was so commonly possible, we may expect
> to see a small population somewhere
> in the world already.
What is that likelihood? Math, please. I've told you where
you can find the formulas you need.
>
> this doesn't seem to be the case.
>
But you don't know. However, if we were to find an isolated
community somewhere in the Amazon where everyone had 44 chromosomes,
that's still consistent with special creation. And if someone else
reported that only people who are exactly 5' tall get this mutation,
well, that's consistent with special creation. And if it's later
pointed out that the later report was a not very competent hoax,
well, that's consistent with special creation too.
Special creation isn't too picky about the universe it lives in.
This leads people who believe in it to be unusually gullible.
<snip>
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> > the evidence looks more like multiple and discontiguous sets
>
>> > of breeding populations.
>
>
> Garamond Lethe wrote:
>
>> Great! I'd love to see that evidence. Do you have a citation handy?
>
>
> one bit of evidence is that apes and blue jays
> do not interbreed, nor can they, they -are- 'discontiguous'
Oh, I though you were trying to say something profound.
If you use "species" instead of "multiple and discontiguous sets of
breeding populations", you'll save a lot of wear on your keyboard.
<snip>
Well, not much more to be said, really. You live in a frightening,
arbitrary world of coincidence and miracles ruled by a stupid,
incompetent, and forgetful god. A thousand years ago, that was
at least understandable. Now, it's just a reliable indicator of
laziness.
Timothy Sutter
> > one bit of evidence is that apes and blue jays
> > do not interbreed, nor can they, they -are- 'discontiguous'
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> Oh, I though you were trying to say something profound.
it's that simple.
Garamond Lethe
First, let me congratulate you on your sudden outbreak of brevity.
Second, it's polite to indicate where you've snipped.
Third, the point you make above is exactly why creationism is
considered vacuous. You can observe apes and blue jays failing
to interbreed, and.... that's it.
The fact that they don't is only due to a whim of a god, and that
whim can be arbitarily replaced by another whim. These whims can't
be predicted or explained, only endured.
As a model, this is perfectly consistent and perfectly useless.
However, it does let you justify your ignornace. After all, if
nothing can be known, then those who know nothing can't be at
/that/ much of a disadvantage, right?
When you want to learn how to that the earth moves around the sun,
try Koestler's _The Sleepwalkers_.
Timothy Sutter
> > it's that simple.
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> First
you don't know where hard lines of continuity exist
and where no lines of continuity exist.
it's that simple.
Garamond Lethe
Using your model, nothing can be known. And that's fine for
moody theater undergraduates, but adults are expected to come
to grips with the concept of "better" and "worse".
A model that doesn't require any miracles is better than a model
that requires an inexhaustible supply. Your model needs a constant
stream of tedious, pointless miracles. Mine doesn't. Mine wins.
Your model is consistent with every possible set of observations
and cannot explain why we seen one set instead of another. My model
explains, predicts, and can be improved as new facts come in. My
model wins.
Neither model allows absolute certainty. And nobody (excepting
moody theater undergraduates) cares.
Timothy Sutter
> > you don't know where hard lines of continuity exist
> > and where no lines of continuity exist.
> > it's that simple.
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> Using your model, nothing can be known.
i have a great appreciation of nature.
i don't need to win kewpie dolls.
i know an elephant when i see one.
i'm even willing to call it an "elephant"
when i do see one, even though i didn't
make up the name.
i enjoy feeding the sparrows and cardinals
and other assorted birds that wait outside
my door in the morning.
occasionally, a squirrel runs up to my door
looking for peanuts, and has been known to take
a peanut from my hand, though, squirrels are,
rather timid woodland creatures.
the little squirrel seems to see me behind the door,
and runs up expecting that i bring peanuts out,
which, i do, of course.
there is life, beyond what you can
detect with your instruments.
before the universe began, there
was no physical material, so, whatever
'was' in existence, could not be detected
by your instruments either.
there is no accident associated with
metastable physics that can be cited
and so, it is valid, to cite a purposed event.
given the nature of this universe,
postulating a Conscious Deity is perfectly reasonable.
the material universe is not infinitely old
the material universe has a beginning
unreasonable to assume that the smallest
volume of the universe is finite and non-zero.
zero volume completely removes any
possibility of harmonic oscillation
from matter.
now, show yourself that there
is no tuning fork to -induce-
a vibration in anything
else anywhere.
now, what made the material universe ignite?
no accidental ignition is possible.
there simply is no trigger.
and there is your absolute necessity
for a Creative Personality.
genesis can -not- be an accident.
and that which you can see now,
was brought into being by this
Creative Personality which
you can not see.
otherwise, the material universe
never ignites, it remains static.
The Creator Made the material universe happen.
it's that simple.
this is -reasonable-
and that's all that matters.
it is -reasonable-
if there is nothing and only nothing
the only possible replica of nothing is nothing,
and, nothing can do nothing and only nothing is.
in order for something to be,
something always is.
what is
the original something
the original indivisible entirety
that which is
activity potential
something can happen
something does something
something happens
if nothing is nothing is done
something that is is something that does
is does
something does something to something
nothing else is
that can do something
to something
is does
is acts on is
is is not acted upon
because nothing else is
how is does is known to is
this is who is is
the one who knows
is is is
something that is is something
that can be doing something
something that is is something that
can be making something happen.
and there is the origin
the beginning
and the end of all regression
The Origin
Is Is
The Primary Source
Is aware
and i suggest to you,
that this primary source, being conscious
can and will become known to anyone who
will humble themselves like a small child
and admit their own shortfall and allow
this Being to show for you,
as, your instruments of detection may be eluded.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > you don't know where hard lines of continuity exist
> > and where no lines of continuity exist.
> > it's that simple.
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> Using your model, nothing can be known.
the claim that there is a single cell line,
from one single cell of unknown origin,
that slowly and gradually alters, against
the conservative mechanism of cell replication,
to produce a whole slough of variant lifeforms
in one single continuous trendline,
is a bare fantasy,
and the prospect of multiplex cell lines,
of some origin, meandering about in a discontiguous manner
-more- resembles what we -do- see =now= and does -not-
make a certainty where none exists.
as i have said;
you don't know where hard lines of continuity exist
and where no lines of continuity exist.
and yet, you -insist- that such
a single contiguous cell line exists.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > you don't know where hard lines of continuity exist
> > and where no lines of continuity exist.
> > it's that simple.
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> Using your model, nothing can be known. And that's fine for
> moody theater undergraduates, but adults are expected to come
> to grips with the concept of "better" and "worse".
> A model that doesn't require any miracles is better than a model
> that requires an inexhaustible supply.
yours requires an inexhaustible
supply or fantasy constructions
mine requires only the conscious
interference of a knowable
creative agent.
> Your model needs a constant
> stream of tedious, pointless miracles.
i have never proposed such a constrant stream of tedious "miracles"
i do propose a conscious initiation of genesis,
and the facts as they stand, are supportive of this.
> Mine doesn't.
i don't see much in the way of "theory" from you at all,
and so, soem of my comments cannot be directed at "your theory"
but, i may make some comments on the generalized "god-less mythology"
> Mine wins.
you can hold on to your "uncertainty" for as long as you like,
but what, exactly, you "win" will also, remain a mystery.
> Your model is consistent with every possible set of observations
as it should be
> and cannot explain why we seen one set instead of another.
we see a veiled image of what stands before us.
our senses don't see all there is to know about an onion.
> My model explains, predicts, and can be improved
> as new facts come in.
you should avoid inserting your own
baseless speculation as a "newfound fact"
> My model wins.
your model never gets off the ground.
> Neither model allows absolute certainty. And nobody (excepting
> moody theater undergraduates) cares.
your false, before the fact, assumptions,
cloud your understanding.
Timothy Sutter
moderating usenet seems about as
pointless as scrubbiing the sidewalk
with lavendar soap.
[fixed width text]
=======================================
_______/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_______
N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_N U
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231 D
_______/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_______
=======>
_NN_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
=======>
_N_121
\
\
123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
-N-434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
=======>
_N_121-123
434 \
\
124-324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
/
-N-434
=======>
_N_121-123-124
434-234 \
\
324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
/
-N-434-234
=======>
_N_121-123-124-324
434-234-431 \
\
432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
/
-N-434-234-431
=======>
_N_121-123-124-324-432
434-234-431-213 \
\
412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
/
-N-434-234-431-213
=======>
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412
434-234-431-213-143 \
\
431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
124-324 /
-N-434-234-431-213-143
=======>
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431
434-234-431-213-143-124 \
\
231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324 /
434-234-431-213-143-124
=======>
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231
434-234-431-213-143-124-324 \
\ U
N--324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324
/ |
/ NN
/ /
124-N-413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324 / D
434-234-431-213-143-124-324
=======>
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231-N-324
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 \
\
321-232-123-413-231-243-324
|
NN
/
N-413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324 /
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124
=======>
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413 \
\
232-123-413-231-243-324
|
NN
/
412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324 431-231 /
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124-N-413
=======>
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412 \
\
123-413-231-243-324
\
NN
/
143-234-121-342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231 /
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124-N-413-412
=======>
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143 \
\
413-231-243-324
\
NN
/
234-121-342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231 /
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124-N-413-412-143
=======>
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123-413
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234 \
\
231-243-324
\
NN
/
121-342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231 /
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124-N-413-412-143-234
=======>
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123-413-231
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121 \
\
243-324
\
NN
/
342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231 232-123 /
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124-N-413-412-143-234-121
=======>
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342 \
\ UU
324
\
NN ====
/
112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123 / DD
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342
=======>
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231 324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324
\ \ / \
\ N N UU
\ / \
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112
->
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_N_ UU
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
++++++
231--N-- DD
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123 /
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112
->
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123 243-324
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231-N- DD
->
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_N_ DD
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
_______/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_______
N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_N U
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_N
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231 D
_______/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_______
=======================================>>>
this is a little assembly line,
and it's operative mission is
to make replicas of itself.
this operative mission is not innovative, and
incorrect copies are generally spot repaired,
shunted off to a recycling area, or destroyed.
the machine itself is not geared towards innovations.
the machine itself is geared towards precise replication.
in addition to making replicas of itself,
this machine builds and maintains a larger,
composite 'fractalized' version of itself.
which is to say, the machine replicates itself
in its indivisible micro-state, and,
erects and maintains, a composite superstructure
of which, -it- is the blueprint image.
generally, when and if, 'misprints' and other incorrect copying
pass through all of the safeguard devices which assure
replication of the mico-state mechanism, the
composite superstructure tends
to lose functionallity,
where redundancy is incorporated into the make-up
of the micro-state mechanism, which safeguards against
total breakdowns of the composite superstructure
attributable to such misprints and other incorrect
copyings in the micro-state mechanism.
which is to say that;
the micro-state system, will tend to have multiple components
which carry out the same task in erecting and maintaining the
composite superstructure, and so, when one or two 'break down'
due to incorrect copying, the other correct copies will still
be operative so as to assure the overall functionality
of the composite superstructure,
and also, it can be the case, where only very minimal 'damage'
is experienced because of a misprint etc. and the generalized
functionality may be maintained, even in the 'damaged' component.
but, what never seems to be seen, is, that,
a broken of damaged component provides
a =greater= efficacy to the overall workings
of the composite superstructure,
and so, the mechanism itself
is "non-innovative"
and so, what still seems to be in effect
is that organisms who =possess= the more
greatly diverse genomes tend to be able
to maintain their survivability over
the more extensive enviromental systems,
and in this way does a particular environmental sub-system
educes trait structures, -from- an -existing- _genomic_ structure,
which are more suitable for a given, particular,
envirnonmental sub-system,
and, so, we have a "non-innovative" mechanism
inhabitting a variable =environmental= system
where the =environment= -educes- variant
-expressed- trait structures from the
=already diverse and adaptable=
genomic structures,
and -this- is what =some= people would call "evolution"
what we are not seeing is
genetically less diverse organisms
gaining greater genetic diversity
through environmental eduction.
such as; we do not see "the environment" -assisting- in
an =innovation= of more highly adaptable -genomic- structures,
inasmuch as the genomes themselves are "non-innovative" and
geared towards replication, but only in the eduction of
more survivable strains or expression,
from already diverse genomes.
so, it seems as if, Life -on- this Earth is engaged in
a fierce struggle -with- the environment -of- this Earth
and slowly losing its diversity, functionality
and survivability -to- this Earth.
we see organisms survive because they already have
the genomic variability which make them adaptive
to multiplex environmental sub-systems.
this fits a model for "special creation"
meaning, organisms =begin= with the greater diversity
and are =losing- functionality and adaptability
to forces of environmental decay.
it really isn't as bleak as it -could be-
if this "Creator God" had simply abandoned the creation.
-then- it would be bleak... indeed
but this hasn't happened,
and, people who are not even aware of the Creator
still reap the benefits of the Creator's 'hedges.'
Timothy Sutter
a fundamental particle is accompanied by and
encased in an -intrinsic- spacial void which
buffers it's intrusion by any other partical
which prevents such a particle
from being further reduced,
a fundamental irreducible partical
so, two dots screaming towards each other
can -not- crash because of these -intrinsic-
spacial voids which tends to push each other
'out of the way,' as it were,but, there are
levels of spacial energetics much like the
energy levels of the 'hydrogenlike'
electron energy states.
and when and if these spacial void levels
are energetically favorable, you get
mixing of spacial regions which allow
a 'coagulation' of sorts and the
formation of the larger, so called 'atoms'
but these were already set at time of manufacturing.
there's a bunch of other stuff
like the concious awareness of
the supra-universal intender
-who- is able to -direct- the
apparent motivity of such
seemingly massless particals -by- a -real-
form of psychokinetic interactivities.
and that's what the governors protect
until such time as we can be fully trusted
to move mountains by force of will.
only the human being is already blessed with trust.
but our eyesight can still get in the way
and block us from our useful comprehensibility.
these little fish sleep in a pool until
they are interactivated by conscious awareness
which acts upon them and brings them into being
inasmuch as they were unrecognizable as
being until they were motivated to swim.
which is the other wierd thing;
ask, "who knew 'they' were "there""
who could possibly know things that
have no being as they sleep were anywhere
when no spacial orientation had yet
been given real formulation?
the One who -can- see things that
"be not as though they be"
and no thing else.
no other being could have known.
'they' weren't even there until acted
upon by the Knowing Being of all Creativity.
very strange,
when asleep,
they do not exist in a real sense,
but when activated by conscious intent,
they appear.
and the Rest is future history
too many strange things...
God knows what Rest is
what would you call a massless object
that is not in motion?
'nothing' ??
right, -you- would call that 'nothing'
but it really may be some thing,
only most any observer would have
no means to detect it
it has no mass
it has no motion
it may as well not be there at all
and yet, it is
it gains these things;
mass and motion
when the time is right
well, that was not entirely correct
inasmuch as we have no time to speak of
as long as 'it' has no mass and no motion.
"what do yo mean massless?"
exactly that,
it matters little if 'it' has any substance
what matters is that 'mass' is a comparitive attribute.
and as long as 'it' is =completely= 'at rest'
there is no possible comparison.
and so, the curtain is down.
but when the still small voices whisper in Unison;
"Be Light"
"Be Light"
then,
there IS Light
of course, IT always was
only only THEY could know IT
Timothy Sutter
no animals will be hurt during
the course of these next
several sentences.
if you have a bowling ball and
you stick the bowling ball in
a cardboard box in which
a refrigerator came,
then you could say that you know
where the bowling ball is, only
that you don't know exactly where it is,
because you just know that it's
in the cardboard box somewhere.
it's in there somewhere, and given that
you left a lot of packing material in the box,
the ball may not be on the bottom of
the box, but could be anywhere in the box.
it's in there somewhere.
now, you leave the room,
if you feel like it,
but you don't have to,
and someone else comes in and takes
the ball out of the refrigerator box,
and sets it into a color television box.
now, you come back and look at the new box,
and you can say that you know the ball is
in that box somewhere,
and, seeing that the box is smaller,
your knowledge of where the ball is
is a little bit clearer,
but, it's still in there somewhere.
now, your assistant takes the ball
and places it into a small green
trash bag that -just- fits over
the ball, and now, you can prwactically
see the shape of the ball,
and you can say that you know
fairly well where the ball is,
it's right there in the bag.
the container -just- fits over it.
now you start working with
much smaller objects, and
what you find eventually,
is that you cannot make container
small enough for you to have as
clear an image of where the ball
is as you had with the bowling
ball in the trash bag.
this because the stuff you have
to work with to make a box for
your object, itself -contains-
the objects you are trying to observe.
the stuff you have for making containers
has an inherent spacial void which
cannot be overcome by your ingenuities.
so, for these tiny objects,
within their own tiny little containers,
you basically get back to a bowling
ball in a cardboard refrigerator box
and find that the best you can say is;
"it's in there somewhere"
always realizing that the container
is a bit larger that the object,
-but- you can get a fairly, not
so bad, idea of where the refrigerator box is,
or, in this case, the single 'atom' of tungsten.
so, you know where the little particle is.
for all practical purposes,
it's in the little box somewhere.
and you pretty much know where the little box is.
a bowling ball you can hold in your hand.
an electron is already in your hand.
whether there actually is such
an object as an electron, inasmuch
as you can't see it, is moot,
some set of phenomena,
taken together and looked
at independantly, seem to
behave as if such a thing
as an electron does,
in fact, exist.
it's somewhere in the box
and the box is right there.
> and you pretty much know where the little box is.
or, like a bowling ball in a baseball stadium.
and this bowling ball is self propelled
and spinning around the stadium.
you know exactly where the baseball stadium is.
and the bowling ball in there
somewhere,
spinning around.
and, we don't -have- to say
that the baseball stadium
is the size of the perceived universe,
and that the bowling ball is -just-
"somewhere in the universe"
cuz then, of course, we'd be entirely sure,
but we can be quite sure even in baseball stadiums
that are -much- smaller that the perceived universe
and even say that in a baseball stadium
the size os a small glass of water,
there is a clear certainty that -many-
electrons are contained therein.
for a fact.
and believe it or not, we can reduce
the size of that baseball stadium
even further, and know that
some phenomenon
which could be likened to
a spinning bowling ball,
is definitely in there.
see, a snowflake
is your baseball stadium
and you can be sure that there are
quite a lot of many bowling balls
in that baseball stadium
because that baseball stadium is,
itself, -constructed- of things that
behave just like tiny spinning
bowling balls.
Timothy Sutter
it concerns the accuracy of clocks and
the smallest increment of time measured
by human beings.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/mercury_atomic_clock.htm#background
---
http://www.atomic-clock.galleon.eu.com/atomic-clock/atomic-clock.htm
The Caesium Atomic Clock has an accuracy
of one second in one million years!
---
http://physics.nist.gov/TechAct.2000/Div847/div847h.html
and here's a bit about looking
at a small bit of time pulsed.
--
Clock Measures Attosecond Pulses
http://www.photonics.com/content/spectra/2002/September/research/77347.aspx
--
one attosecond 1 x 10^-18 seconds
what's of note is that there is no
accurate clock in the range of anything
smaller than 10^-15-10^-18 seconds
and so, for all practical purposes,
it is not safe to suggest that any
smaller increment of time even exists.
and so, for anyone to make comments
about what may or mat not be happening
at 10^-25 seconds is unwarranted
and purely speculative.
but everyone already knew that, right?
10^-27 seconds doesn't even exist.
so, you can say, as far as you
can demonstrate with experiment,
that there was T = 0 and then
there was T = 10^-18 seconds,
at best.
so what?
so, making referrence to bits of time
smaller than 10^-15-10^-18 seconds
is purely a metaphysical conjecture
and -not- 'scientific discovery.
[that's 10 to the -minus- 18 seconds]
or;
0.000000000000000001 seconds
think about this for a second;
hold your hands about two feet apart
and try and convince yourself that
the material universe was encapsulated
in that space and just sat there
waiting to burst forth in an
expansionary ignition.
now tell yourself why this two foot
area isn't fully collapsed to a zero volume.
say three solar systems in volume,
same thing, why isn't it completely collapsed?
truth is, even considering the universe as
'occupying' the space of only ten of our
solar systems, all atomic integrity would
be lost and you would not have matter
as 'we' know it.
so, you realize that a pre-ignition
material universe occupies no volume.
no volume
no gravity
no electromagnetism
no atomic forces
no heat.
in essence, if you have a blob of matter,
and that blob of matter absorbs energy
from some outside source, that absorption
of energy is coincident with an increase
in the vibration of the harmonic oscillation
in the atoms of the blob.
just like two tuning forks, where
one vibrating fork induces a tune
or vibration in the second fork,
when held in close proximity.
matter can absorb light energies
in the form of an increased
harmonic vibration.
the light is vibrating, passes thru
the matter and induces a vibration
in the atomic structure of the matter.
well, look, in a collapsed non-atomic state
there is no harmonic oscillation to induce
in anything and no interstitial spaces
to even allow vibrations at all
in any manner.
and so, in a completely collapsed
material universe, no such induction
of vibrations is possible.
and this idea of "collapse" is just a model
looking backwards from an inflated material
universe we live in, and noting these
observationally derived datums;
the material universe is not infinitely old
the material universe has a beginning
the material universe is said to be expanding
it's that simple.
now look at these definitions;
----
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mass
Mass
Abbr. m Physics. A property of matter equal
to the measure of an object's resistance
to changes in either the speed or direction
of its motion. The mass of an object is
not dependent on gravity and therefore is
different from but proportional to its weight.
Mass is the quantity of matter in a body;
Matter
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=matter
Something that occupies space and can be perceived
by one or more senses; a physical body, a physical
substance, or the universe as a whole. Physics.
Something that has mass and exists as a
solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.
----
so, "in the beginning"
the material universe had no existance at all.
can be no mass with no possible speed
nor possible direction of motion.
can be no material without
space in which to reside.
id est, matter occupies space.
all mass and matter is a void of some
non-definable 'stuff' that is -not-
detectable by any physical method.
and this 'stuff' has no triggering
mechanism by which to suddenly burst
forth in some sort of explosive violence.
now, you may find that some suggest
a definition for 'heat' which is based
on the generic -motion- of particles,
but, the "singularity" has no properties
and is not 'waiting to burst forth'.
likewise, if we extrapolate an expansive
universe which has a beginning back
to the beginning,
there can be no citation of any motion
and therefore, no heat content is
possible in any manner.
whether from the springlike qualities of atomic
structure or some generic motion of particles
contended to have been spewed out of
a motionless singularity.
no matter how you dice it up,
no particles no motion,
no motion no heat
-not- 'infinite heat waiting to burst forth'
you can't cite a springloaded, metastable 'singularity'
'motion' of particles that don't
exist cannot be generating heat.
that would be paradoxical.
you can't say that the motion of particles
provided the heat that resulted in their
own existance.
without citing the motion of particles,
you have no heat content to cite.
it's still the same problem.
at Time T = 0
no motion can be cited.
no heat content.
not to mention that citing the motion of
particles is really just citing a kinetic
-potential- energy as they would not generate
a heat until they hit a wall of some sort.
that would be the statistical
mechanical framework.
a moving partical has kinetic energy.
heat would be generated in collisions.
you can't really say that a solitary
particle that is in motion, is 'hot'
basically, motion, in and of itself is
not 'heat' there has to be some sort
of dynamic interaction.
so, you invent this phantom 'quantum gravity'
that would cause 'objects simultaneously all
moving away from each other to start banging
into each other with no apparent anti-impetus.
anyway, it's all moot,
-no- accidental triggering mechanism.
citation of Creator God is necessary.
a Creator God with concious intent
must be cited as source for
the material universe.
but, here's a parlor trick you may see;
the contention would be that at Time T = 0
total universal energy was encapsulated
within an infinitesimal 'space'
and then, in the span of less than 10^(-43) seconds
thats;
{0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001} s
a small amount of so-called 'matter//anti-matter'
had -formed- with a momentum and therefore a
'kinetic energy' which may be described
as a 'heat potential'
you may hear it stated like this somewhere;
--
"and matter and antimatter existed in almost
equal amounts, but they were both dominated
by the background energy of the universe."
--
and now;
-all- of the universal energy can
be described as 'heat energy'
that is, now they may speak of
"infinitely large heat content"
-this- is a parlor trick.
if you do claim that some infinitesimal
amount of matter anti-matter has always existed,
then this would also have an infinitesimal
heat content associated with the momenta
of both types of 'particles' and not some
infinite heat content.
and so, it's a parlor trick to convince
yourself that 'universal energy' may be
reckoned as an 'infinite heat energy'
given the use of the defining attribution
that would ascribe 'heat energy' to the
momentum of particles.
and that, at best, only an infinitesimal amount
of this so-called 'matter//anti-matter' -may-
have existed which would deliver any momentum
which may be described as a heat potential.
albeit, this so-called "matter//anti-matter"
is not quarks and electrons but some sort
of precursor formulation that for all practical
purposes, has an infinitesimal mass and therefore,
no real momentum, or infinitesimal momentum,
and we're back to infinitesimal heat potential
and not 'infinite heat energy'.
basically, if you don't cite a time at which
no matter//anti-matter existed, you lose
some reckoning of the process having
a 'beginning' you have to cite some
phantom repressor technology that
holds back the switchover until
ca. 14 billion years ago.
even if one cites a span from
10^(-150) to 10^(-100) seconds as an actual
interval of time, seeing as how we get to
speak of infinitessimals here,
during this 'period' no matter nor anti-matter
may be said to exist and therefore, we have
no 'heat potential' at all.
and this would collapse to some sort
of reckoning of the state at Time T = 0
even if you will like to claim that
total universal energy is a citable
phenomenon, encapsulated within this
infinitesimal void, there is no reason
to suggest that it is 'infinite heat energy'
and there's just no inanimate,
metastable trigger to initiate genesis
===============
> here's your parlor trick;
> the contention would be that at Time T = 0
> total universal energy was encapsulated
> -within- an infinitesimal 'space'
mind you, in entertaining this
notion of universal energy;
this sort of spacial void for universal energy
is not really relevant, because there's no real
geographic location to point at and say, "it's all there"
but, you can point at some small blob of
so-called matter//anti-matter and say,
"there it is"
and, as such, assign it its -infinitesimal- heat content.
so, as opposed to some immense heat blob cooling,
you have some situation where some seed of
matter//anti-matter accepts a transfer of
energy in some form which is converted -to-
heat in the form of an increased momentum.
but there's really no impetus for
something like this to ever happen.
that is, it's very highly implausible that a
blob of matter//anti-matter was laying dormant
in a sea of universal energy and -not- absorbing
energies and being delivered a momentum.
so, you still get stuck speculating on some
state where no matter in any form exists at all.
or citing some sort of repressor technology.
like God's hand holding it back.
the very fact that there is
all this stuff is remarkable.
why is it very 'cold' in the
space between the sun and
the earth?
there has to be some thing to
'absorb' energy from the light.
and the light passes off and induces
higher frequency harmonic oscillations
to the stuff, and this phenomenon is
'felt' as warmth or heat.
but if there is no thing there to absorb
the energy from the light the light just
passes on thru space and keeps -it's-
oscillating frequency basically as constant.
if the light itself behaved at all as a
heated object behaves then light would
shove off 'heat' to empty space and 'heat'
would simply dissipate from light as it
travels thru space and interstellar
space would be 'warm'
but this doesn't happen.
you can't speak of light
as having a 'heat' content.
the way light can transfer energy
is by inducing oscillating frequencies
in some 'object' that has an oscillating
potential energy state that is the
same as that of the light.
when sunlight makes you feel warm
a particular frequency of light is
being absorbed by material in your
body that has energy levels that
are of the same frequency so as
experience some induced oscillation.
long story short
to speak of infinite heat content in a situation
where you cannot point at any object that would
present itself to any sort of induced oscillation
is unwarranted.
that is, light itself can be said
to be self contained and 'cold'
there's no tendency for light
to dissipate 'heat' into a vacuum.
like there is a tendency for a heated object
to dissipate heat into a surrounding vacuum.
so, for all practical purposes, in citing
this matter//anti-matter blob that increases
in momentum, you have to be going from a rather
cold situation to a much warmer situation as
the blob absorbs energies from the
surrounding universal energy.
like the conduit thru which universal energy
could be transformed to universal matter.
but it has to have a beginning of some sort,
meaning some time when there was no such
matter//anti-matter blob in existance,
or when such a blob had no momentum and yet,
was not being impelled by the surrounding
universal energy,
and still, you are stuck citing a
Creator Being to make that happen.
Timothy Sutter
your clocks are going real slow,
and as you s l o w down,
your clocks begin to speed up,
but you, as enclosed observer,
don't notice the time speeding up,
and for you, a second 'then'
[at light velocity{which may be faster
than what we measure here on earth now}]
seems indistinguishable from a second 'now'
[at terrestrial velocity]
and yet, the second -then- is much much
different from the second -now-
there's a consequence to this...
so, when you're travelling very fast,
your little heart is beating somewhere
in the one beat per second range,
and as you slow down, your heart is still
beating in the one beat per second range
according to you and your little stop watch,
and as you come closer to a dead stop, your
heart is still beating at roughly one
beat per second
according to you and your
own personal stop watch,
but, as it turns out,
there was someone else on the slow earth
timing your heart beats as well,
and at first, when -you- were going very fast,
for them [on earth], your heart was beating
at nearly one beat per thousand years,
and when you got to earth,
your heart was beating at roughly one beat per second,
all according to [their] stop watch.
you never noticed it,
but [they] did.
so, you seem to be really really -old- to the generations
of people who were on the earth monitoring your heart beat
but you only saw a day or two tick off
of your own personal stop watch.
so, when i was a photon
and i was screaming across the newly developing
spacial patterns at speeds far in excess of
300000 kilometers per second,
i managed to get to the newly formulating earth
in several days according to my reckoning of time,
and when i became a man, and i turned myself
to ascertain how long i had been in transit,
it -looked- as if i had been travelling
for several billions of years.
see, it's sort of like, space itself
was s t r e t c h i n g out with my progression
and so, it appeared as if, i was travelling at speeds
which would be calculated as in -excess- of the speed of light,
perhaps even a full order of magnitude faster, like 10 or
maybe even 50 times the speed of light, as reckoned from
the slow moving earth in the fully stretched out spacial domain.
and as i slowed down, and came to light
on my blue little habitat...
... it -looked- like i had been on
a very long journey, but,
it didn't really take that long...
if you could figure out the 'age'
of the calcium in your bones, and you
found that the calcium in your bones
was much older than the date
on your birth certificate
you may want to change the date
on your birth certificate to reflect
the age of the calcium in your bones,
tne again, you may not,
because chances are that the calcium
in your bones is 'older' than the
date reflected on your
birth certificate.
because there are pockets of ores
scattered throughout the earth,
it is probable that the earth
was never entirely molten at
any time it its 'history'
which is to suggest, for one thing,
that the earth is older than the earth,
meaning, it seems quite probable that
the components which make up the earth
are 'older' than the earth itself.
so, someone asks you;
"how old is the gold silver and platinum?"
for one thing, even if you could get a date
for the age of the gold silver and platinum
you could not say that this age reflects
the age of the earth because the earth
is not a fusion generator and therefore,
the gold silver and platinum could not
have been produced on the earth as
the earth is now.
bearing in mind that we still suggest
that it doesn't look as if the earth
was ever entirely molten and so,
'melt inclusions' become problematic
in assigning 'absolute' age of
composition of the earth itself.
also considering that if a so-called
'meteorite' fell to earth in tact and
no one saw it fall,
and someone stumbled onto it later and
simply assumed that it was a native stone
and they found that this 'meteorite'
claimed to be '10000 years old'
in reality, you'd still have no firm basis
in claiming that the age claimed by this
stone at all reflected the age of
the planet earth any more than you would
claim that a hip replacement makes you
as old as the materials in the new joint.
you still end up wanting to say,
no matter -what- you say, that;
"the earth is older than the earth"
so, you get stuck with an earth
that seems 'older' than itself
and no real way of determining
any absolute relationship between
formations of component substructures
and formation of the planet
as it appears today.
so, even though the calcium
in your bones may suggest that -you-
are older than the planet itself,
you'd still be warranted in assigning
your 'age' as that reflected on
your birth certificate.
if platinum is not formed by
any mechanism found on this planet
then any platinum which is found
on this planet is quite possibly
older than the planet itself,
unless, of course, the planet and the platinum
came into being in some simultaneous manner.
6000 lightyears
is roughly 5 billion terrestrial years...
i mean,
it's sort of like,
if you were sitting in a chair,
and you were watching a dart
travelling at the speed of light,
a tiny dust mite on the dart would notice
a second tick off it's little tiny pocket watch,
and in -that- time,
-you- would see nearly 10 days go by.
yeah, that's not backwards...
right, supposedly, time at
the speed of light slows down
and time at very slow speeds
like sitting in a chair speed up.
they're sort of inversely related.
so, 1 second for the fast travelling dustmite,
is about 10 days for the slow
travelling person in a chair on earth.
so, part of what i'm still driving at, is,
that, if there was some very fast rapido movement
going on during the so-called 'first day' of Creation
when the Almighty stretched out the heavens,
that 'time' during that 'epoch' was moving rather slowly
and that viewed through the filter of the 'now'
meaning, viewed through our very slow pace and speedy time,
we might see an artifact of the initial rapidittity of creation
in a stretched out -apparent- "local time"
not -just-
"a day is as a thousand years
and a thousand years is as a day"
but actually, this is really close
within the same order of magnitude...
but still,
sometimes it depends on who/m you're asking
you or the speedy dust mite on a dart...
if that dust mite has been whizzing around
from the instance of the onset of genesis,
it's little clock hasn't really ticked off
as much time as we think has been ticked
off sitting in our comfy little chairs
on the earth...
but...
anyway, it's just something to consider.
Timothy Sutter
wax impression of this place and
this place is fading into nothingness,
then you are, ..., then you are holding
on to a memory of a place that will
be soon forgotten.
> you are a ball of silly putty
> upon whom gravity, electromagnetism,
> time and tide have left an impression.
> you can be more
> "you must be born again"
that's part of the whole point,
God leaves an impression upon 'you'
which is conscious and alive, in itself,
and is not just a dent made by some
stone that hit 'you' in the head.
so, you're born a human being
and immediately, sense stimuli
begin leaving their marks upon 'you'
and 'you' are basically finding ways
of ordering things in ways that give
you some sense of comprehensibility,
and in so doing, 'you' get put
in order by the sense stimuli.
this is all old news,
but memory
being the transient creature
that it is,
oftentimes requires reinforcement.
so, the material world unconsciously
erects an idol to itself, in 'you',
which persistent hammering can do
little to prevent and/or alter.
strife results when the image
-it- created in 'you' leaves
'you' petrified
so you call out to the wind
and the still small voice calls
to you from the midst of the
incomprehensible void,
and you want to move towards it
but the metamorphosis is nearly
complete as you approach total
objectification and loss of consciousness...
next: the perils of Pauline
so, you'd say that you want to go live in the woods
away from 'this civilization' where you have to look
for food and clothing and secure dwelling space and
protect yourself from the elements which is what
'this civilization', by and large, does for you.
so, it's not 'this civilization'
which is your 'civilizing' force
but your own personal need for
food and clothing and protection
from the elements.
but you want to 'do whatever it is that you like'
-and- 'free yourself' from the bindings of the
'civilization' that would make it possible
for you to do just this.
gee whiz but you are tangled up in barbed wire.
you essentially say this;
'this is all there is, therefore i should throw myself to it'
'this is all there is, therefore, i should free myself from it'
this is a, somewhat, contradictory statement.
the contradiction lies in claiming
to seek to free yourself from what
you would also throw yourself over to.
whether 'this is all there is' is true
is irrelevant to whether your statement
represents a contradiction or not.
you would free yourself from cake
and iced cream by eating as much
of it as you can.
"slavery is freedom"
what you really want is to maintain some
sense of personal integrity in a 'civilization'
which imprints its 'own personality' upon you.
where 'its' 'personality' is nothing
but an illusory image of -your- need
to secure food, clothing, shelter
and certain amenities.
-it- is shining an image of _you_ back at you
and you are rejecting -it- because you sense
that there -is-, in fact, something 'more'.
well, you aren't really rejecting it,
you want to dive into it and hope the
iron teeth don't rip you to shreds.
you wish there is more, but some
certain knowledge of this 'more'
seems to elude your grasp,
and so, you hang on to the precipice,
unable to comprehend what -may- be on
the ledge above, and looking to fall
headway into the mechanical iron teeth
of the reality about you, and fearing
the prospect of your own anihilation.
the perils of Pauline...
it's sort of like this;
the claim being that, impersonal nature
is -forced- into producing a human being,
falls short of an appropriate explanation
simply because it suggests that an impersonal
nature which has no choice of its own,
develops a being which has choice.
the claim would be that the universe
is naturally geared towards producing
a human being in the same manner as
planetary motion is naturally geared
to fall into elliptical orbits.
so, this sort of theory must be accompanied
by a human being who has no real choice and
who simply finds itself in a universe
where the behaviors of natural forces
dictate 'its' every action.
it is not reasonable to posit an impersonal
natural universe which is able to grant, or
even allow, any part of it, a relevant
conscious decision making pattern.
and believe it or not, that is what you do see
as the entailments of this brand of theorization:
that man is dictated his behaviors -by- his
natural physical make-up, and that he has
no real choices to make,
and so, if his natural make-up dictates crime,
to jail he goes, and if his natural make-up
dictates benevolence, to 'heaven' he goes.
there is no chance nor opportunity
for any alteration of the natural =order=
where basically, according to this natural =order=
there is no chance for any flesh to transcend this
final disposition, and so altering, the -perception-
of 'right' and 'the truth' to fit this dictatorial
universal destination, must remove even the semblance
of choice, and will only serve to expose particular
sets of pigeon holes, into which each person must
simply accept his fateful destination.
according to this view;
we would have an impersonal nature which
seems to be forced into preparing for itself,
a glimpse at a process it can never realize.
an impersonal nature forces itself to catch
a glimpse at a choice it does not really have,
and cannot therefore bestow on itself in any
real manner, only to have this illusion of a
choice stripped from it as if this choice
never existed in the first place.
an insoluable paradox.
and i mean, insoluable utter confusion
inasmuch as this will run headlong -into-
and against, any aspects of Cynical Pragmatism
where "one's good is getting what one wants and
one's bad is not getting what one wants and
one must, therefore do whatever one can
to get what one wants,"
simply because we first would be forced to strip
away any veneer that man even -can- know what he
wants in order for man to accept placement in
whichever pigeon hole his physical make-up dictates.
Cynical Pragmatism itself would suggest that man -can- be
motivated -by- a personalized criterion -for- choices
only to have these 'choices' removed from him as illusory
-by- the impersonal nature of existance, and so, you are
further trapped in a dizzying decent into utter madness.
but _we_ -see- that man -can- alter
his environment and this is where
Our Savior enlivens our
perceptions of escape.
the choice is yours...
choose life.
in other words,
it wants a conscious being
to consider itself as not
a conscious being
"i think, therefore, i am not"
aside from all the criminality bit,
one area you can relate to is body metabolism.
simply put;
body metabolism can be effectively manipulated.
yes, it can,
otherwise, you would not be able to claim
that fast food is a conspiracy to make you fat,
but you will claim this, if it suits you.
and, there is no point in blaming your
great great grandparents for dumping
a truckload of work on you simply
because they aren't around
to take it from you.
anyway, this would be a more
useful way to look at things;
from the standpoint of
overall body metabolism.
it's -more- precise, not the be all end all
with definitive clinical support,
but, the 'endomorph' 'ectomorph' 'mesomorph'
bits are entirely -too- vague so as
to be very useful at all,
that's all i'm driving at here.
you can keep the 'endomorph', 'ectomorph', 'mesomorph'
distinctions around as a reference, but, what
may be more precise is something along the
lines of a body metabolism index/spectrum.
where you can assign a '2' to the morbidly obese[MO]
and a '90-100' to marathon runners[MR] and
cross country skiers.
2 50 100
|---------------------------------------------|
[MO] [MR]
the advantage to this is that it present you with
a sliding scale which takes into account the
metabolic rate from birth and thru the
generalized phases of life.
as you probably realize, the body's metabolism
naturally slows a bit after adolescence and
into middle age and on and so forth et cetera.
now all you have to see is that it is possible
to be born with a metabolism which you gained
from your parents, but which can and will
see alterations as time progresses.
say Kip Keno or Emil Zadopek
were born with a metabolism of '90,'
and they worked and ran and edged
their metabolisms up to '99.'
if they had not worked at all,
their metabolisms may have dropped
to '75' as a for instance.
now, say that you were born in the range of '50'
the natural elements, unchecked over time,
will push you down into the '40s' or even '30s,'
but checked by you, can be raised
into the '60s' or even '70s'.
true, one born in the fifty range may not be
able to raise up to the 90 range without
considerable hard work,
but over successive generations,...
if you took three cloned mice germ cells
and impregnated three different 'mothers,'
one 'mother' an 'ectomorph'
one an 'endomorph' and one
a 'mesomorph'
the chances are high that each of the three germ
cell offspring would carry the metabolic
predispositions of the 'mother' rather than
any ingrained 'genetic' predisposition
of the individual cloned germ cells.
if you can see what i'm drivng at.
and so, this is how successive generations
of offspring gather up a predisposition
towards a particular metabolic 'rate'
because successive generations of offspring
are born as '60s' then '50s' then '40s' --->...
and then natures little deal starts off
already pushing down on you, but from
a lower starting point,
and will you push back?
the main punch line is that
you shouldn't trick yourself into
suggesting that you were born with
a certain metabolic tendency that
remains with yor throughout your
life and you can have no effect
on this at all even if you tried,
because this is clearly false
as you can see that the natural
tendency itself effects and
alters the metabolic rates.
anyway,
sure, the christian will say that
not only can your metabolism
be affected
but that your personality structure
may be effected as well,
and that this is what they really look for
inasmuch as an olympic athlete trains his
whole life for a crown of laurel leaves
which fades and dies,
but we would be training our whole lives
from that Crown of Glory which would
be bestowed on us by God.
but, the two are interconnected
and so, character enhancements
and physical maturation are quite
probably related in some manner.
we just don't want to look at someone outside
and immediately draw a conclusion about the
inner person, because judging according
to the flesh is a tricky business.
not that there is absolutely -no- correlation,
but... you get the idear.
you -can- and must and -should-
seek the new creature,
in Christ.
not harping on the subject but
simply investigating any
possible exposed angle.
while yet clay, we may see this,
faintly flickering comprehension
of being alive.
for God the actual clay is our personness,
and God can be working that clay while we
are, as yet, not alive as God is alive.
if we cede ourselves entirely over
to the clay, as material object,
we fall in to the danger of losing
our personness entirely, and ending
abruptly as a disposable drinking cup.
there is no condemnation of
a disposable drinking cup,
but, neither is their
any real life, as
'it' is an object.
as we remain in the hands of God and allow
the fashioning and molding to proceed we
experience the transmission of God's life
through the clay, forging our real person
that can be presented as a Gift
to the Everlasting.
a Fired vase that holds water from which
real, living flowers perpetually blossom,
with intricate inlays of characterization
which surpass the fleeting glories of the
metalurgist's fineries.
take part
become a living Being.
"cogito ergo sum"
impersonal nature is pure mechanism
a being arises who considers itself a person
impersonal nature forges its own image upon this 'person'
impersonal nature strips this being
of its perceived personness and replaces
it with purely mechanical behavior patterns.
Timothy Sutter
who says that 'virgin birth'
is a 'miracle' is;
are you insisting that
'miracles' do -not- happen?
and then consider material life itself;
there is insufficient physical data to support
the notion that any living tissue will rise from
the earthly surroundings by random collisions of
'non-living' molecules or that -algorithms- will
simply write themselves into existence from the
earthly surroundings under their own volition.
On the contrary a wealth of observation supports
the very opposite notion that Life begats Life
and that DNA is the template for its own replication.
that is, 'we' observe that Life springs
from that which is already alive, number one.
and, that -algorithms- never write
themselves in to existence, number two.
-algorithms- arise from the purposeful
assembly of instruction sets
by an outside agency.
the central dogma of molecular biology would state;
esssentially, "replication, transcription, translation"
DNA --> RNA --> Protein
and never;
RNA --> Protein --> DNA
nor
Protein --> RNA --> DNA
and the central dogma of genetics would say;
"DNA is the template for its own replication"
DNA, here, is our -algorithm- and we observe,
essentially, that DNA is a primary necessity
for the production of DNA and this has never
been observed to be violated in any manner.
and so, proposing the idea that living tissue
manufactured itself from inert chemical materials
leaves us with a quandary that a purposed phenomenon
like an algorithm, wrote itself into existance
in a set of freakish accidents.
this is contrary to all observation and must,
therefore, be discarded as a self evident falsehood.
now, you -should- begin to see *exactly* why any
proposed theories of 'abiogenesis' are based
on self evident falsehood.
it steamrolls overtop of physical observation and
overwrites it with some simplistic metaphysical lie
gleaned from the entrails of an owl.
as far as physical observation is concerned,
a purposeful Creative Event is exactly necessary.
and this is no accident.
can be classified as "miraculous" even.
certainly, there's more to
a living creature that just DNA.
but, as far as proteins which are -not- alive
following some non-demonstrable mechanism
that fits together a self duplicating and
living organism and then shuts off and
is never seen again, there is not any sort
of viable explanation for such an
impracticable possibility.
the trouble with this sort of consideration
is that it suggests that natural forces
provide the onus for a living cell to
deliver its own functionality before
-it- is there to provide the onus for itself.
that is to say;
natural forces -cause- the components of a
living cell, gathered up from whatever source,
to behave as if they were part of a working
device -before- that device is working
and this phantom mechanistic device carries
out the purpose of bringing the actual device
into being.
it basically cedes a living
-purpose- to an inanimate nature.
it is as if the living cell were
operating without being a living
cell -to produce- a living cell
whereupon, this mechanism
disappears into oblivion,
and the living cell procedes to
continue producing living cells.
that is, the living cell uses proteins
and the like to reproduce DNA et al
but in this very special case,
natural forces did the work of the mechanism
-without- any sort of encoded instructions.
instructions the cell now receives
from the living cell mechanism.
this demands that -no- mechanism has brought
a self promulgating mechanism, in to existance,
where the functions of a cell are carried out
by no cell -until- the actual cell is
there to carry it out.
nothing like this is observed.
it requires belief -against- factual
reality to support such a hokum.
see what i mean?
you have -no- mechanism bringing
a self perpetuating mechanism
in to existance.
and that should be much more puzzling
than any chicken/egg difficulties.
you have the functions of a
cell being carried out by no cell,
-until- the actual cell is
there to carry it out.
nothing like this is observed.
we just say something like;
"the power of will in words is alive"
the design personality of the Creator
turned ideas into reality by a Power
contained in the Creator's declarations.
and materials aligned themselves around
and about those 'powerful' declarations.
and we -have- observed
things -exactly- like this.
now, if we claimed that God was entirely
beyond our understanding, and "unknowable"
-then- we should speak no further,
however, we do not speak of a "God" who is
beyond all understanding and unknowable
but of a Creator who -does- present
God for inspection.
a God we -can- come to know and understand.
we simply maintain that much personal
understanding of the Creator must
be presented -by- that same Creator.
we don't abstract God -from- natural reality
we learn of God from God in much the
same way as we learn of each other
from each other and learn of stones
and flowers from stones and flowers.
the design personality of the Creator
caused materials to align themselves
around a template of conscious purpose,
by a Power contained in the Creator's
own demonstrative declarations.
the Creator molded space in to
a template and the materials aligned
themselves about this template.
theories of 'abiogenesis' would demand
a similar unseen template structure to
exist and operate and would be forced
to cede a conscious -purpose- to an
inanimate nature.
we know the consciously purposeful designer.
this is no mystery to us
and yet, it will forever remain a mystery
to anyone who would make attempts at ceding
conscious purpose to inanimate materials.
no statements in favor of such an outlandish
proposal as inert chemical materials initiating their
own advance towards structures that actually support
living processes because there is no statement that
will possibly stand in support of a conscious purpose
existing in an inanimate material nature.
"conscious purpose"
this is the fundamental idea that
you will never be able to reconcile
with your god-less mythology.
"conscious purpose" is required to initiate genesis
"conscious purpose" is not an attribute
of inanimate material and natural forcework.
"conscious purpose" is an attribute
of Personality and Living Being.
these are not two equally viable prospects.
conscious purpose -is- a Living Personal Being.
we know God.
and life itself is miraculous, not because
we do -not- understand it, but because
we -do- understand it.
Timothy Sutter
God has not appeared to people in
a spectacular array of light and such,
when some say that God has not been
'proven' to exist, they mean they have
no referrence to mechanical measuring
devices which detect God;
what physical measurement?
what machine apparatus have you
designed that will measure
such a phenomenon?
what, exactly, is the nature of
the phenomenon for which you
seek physical measurement?
in lieu of appropriate answers to these,
your problem is simply one of disbelief
in a thing that you have not
directly experienced.
will you suggest that the flavor chemist
and the perfume chemist are not involved
in scientific discovery?
of course not, as these are two very
important branches of chemistry,
a "hard science."
so anyway, generally, in flavor chemistry,
they run chemical samples from known natural
products thru a machine apparatus like a mass
spectrometer or an infra red or nuclear magnetic
resonance spectrometer to determine the chemical
make-up of a given flavor, say bananas.
they determoine that one of the main
components of the flavor of bananas
is ethyl acetate;
CH3-C[O]O-CH2CH3
now, they synthesize this chemical
from available sources and then,
*they ask people to taste the stuff
to see if it tastes like bananas*
why?
because there's no machine apparatus
that can tell you if that stuff
tastes like anything.
just don't talk about "science"
and "measurement" when you mean,
mechanical detection.
when you develop the mechanical device
that can detect God, and it doesn't
detect God, then you can speak.
you'll simply have to rely, in part,
on the descriptions of human beings
for your "measurements" in much the
same way as the flavor chemist must
rely on human beings to tell [him]
if [his] compounds taste "good" or not.
but, a given experiment designed to allow
you to ascertain the experience of God
is possible and plausible.
and if you don't gain an audiance with the
Holy Spirit the first time, you'll have to
do the experiment over and over till
you get it right.
and central to this, is greeting
the words of Faith with faith.
no faith, no experience.
no experience, no knowledge.
no knowledge, keep silent.
if God's Holy Spirit is detectable
in and by human beings, then this
represents a phenomenon and
physical measurement.
to say otherwise is blind assumption that
the human entity is incapable of divulging
proper 'scientific' data.
which is nonsense, as most real discovery
is taken and delineated and accepted by
none other than the human entity.
go drop a stone from the tower of Pisa,
who is taking a measurement? get a sophisticated
listening device to do the same thing,
now who is taking the data? still the
human being, as the machine apparatus
is merely a device to extend
our capabilities.
now, if you cannot design an appropriate device
to extend your mechanical capabilitues in the
area of God detection, then you are simply at
a primitive stage in your machine designing
abilities and need further study before you
can ever make some blanket statement to the
effect that God is not physically detectable
because God is most certainly detectable
by the human entity.
what you have to realize is that God has
placed something -like- a "terminate and
stay resident" program in your being that
behaves -like- an "analog to digital converter."
there is some sort of 'spirit' in man that
remains in the background, that is 'resident'
but not running until activated by
the 'words of faith'
-then- this 'spirit' becomes active
and converts the 'analog' signal from
God, thru the Holy Spirit, into a 'digital'
signal that your cortical brain structure
can interpret as a meaningful presence.
you don't even know it is there
until it becomes activated.
now see, i cannot personally switch on
your 'spirit' and pour the Holy Spirit
into your life, but i can present
statements which can trigger your
TSR programs to activate the
A-to-D converter.
here's someone, with whom i find
agreement, describing a phenomenon
like this "TSR--A-to-D converter"
of which i speak.
----------------
1 Corinthians 13:1 and 14:3-4,13
Though I speak with the unknown
spiritual languages of men and
of angels....
He who speaks in unknown spiritual languages
does not speak to men but to God, in the spirit
he speaks mysteries, for no one understands him;
He who speaks in an unknown spiritual language
teaches himself, if I pray in an unknown
spiritual language, my spirit prays, but
my understanding is unfruitful.
Therefore let him who speaks in an unknown
spiritual language pray that he may interpret.
What is the conclusion then? I will pray with
the spirit, and I will also pray with
the understanding.
----------------
notice that Paul describes a distinction
between the "spirit" and the "understanding"
also notice that you can edify
your "self" in a manner which
your "understanding" is unaware.
hold on a minute, now look at this.
same passage different portion;
----------------
1 Corinthians 14:1-3,12,39
since you are zealous for spiritual gifts,
let it be for the teaching of the faithful
that you seek to excel. Let all things be
done for such edification;
Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but
especially that you may speak an understanding
of God which comes from God. He who utters such
divine revelations speaks comfort, encourages
and edifies the faithful.
desire earnestly to understand and speak
divine revelations, and do not forbid to
speak with unknown spiritual languages.
----------------
now he's suggesting that comprehending
spiritual knowledge of God with your
corporeal "understanding" is of
primary importance.
that is, understanding God
with your "understanding"
but look, he's also suggesting that
you may find yourself speaking with
God in a language that is unknown
to your conscious understanding
but -not- unknown to your background
"TSR" program which behaves as
an A-to-D converter.
a trivial example can be found in a
very general description of the manner
in which your computer operates.
your computer operates programs that are
written in a so-called "high level language"
and these high level languages translates
that into a machine code assembly language
and finally into machine code ones and zeroes.
the machine only "understands"
"yes" and "no" which is fed to it
in the form of a "one" and a "zero"
but the machine is able to interpret
the "high level language" of the
computer programmer by use
of compiler programs.
within details.
in a similar manner, there is an intimate
connection between your "spirit" and your
corporeal "understanding," even if the
'two' are non-identical, and both see
growth and aligniment with God's
own Personal Presence.
and now, what would be nice, would be
for that "spirit" part of -you- to relay
the message to what amounts to your
'corporeal' understanding, and reform
-that- thing of -you- in the
image of Christ.
as this should relieve any conflict
which your corporeal "understanding"
may place on your "spirit" inhibitting
your spiritual growth.
a spiritual growth that will further
cleanse the conscience of "dead works"
bringing your -actions- into a greater
conformity with your understandable
"intentions".
understandable intentions which more
and more closely align with a Spirit
who knows no -want-
so, it's like your understandable intentions
are the nexus point between this "spirit"
and your corporeal "understanding".
like, your 'spirit' shows
itself in your -intentions-
and your corporeal understanding
shows itself in your actions.
and you'd like to align a purity of
intentions to blameless actions.
each feeding off the other feeding
from the root of the vine which is God.
----------------
1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author
of confusion but of peace
----------------
and that's what Jesus -was-
by a peculiarity of birth, Jesus' "spirit"
-was- The Holy Spirit and Jesus' corporeal
understanding became perfectly
aligned with -that-.
# as this should relieve any conflict
# which your corporeal "understanding"
# may place on your "spirit" inhibitting
# your spiritual growth.
right, a "conflict" very much -like- a
"yes = no" statement in a computer program.
if you tell a machine "yes = no" it won't operate.
in similar manner, your personal conflict
inhibits growth and, in effect, shuts down
your 'spirit' processors.
personal conflict which has "yes = no"
statements as an underpinning.
like i said before,
this sort of situation arises when
you operate under the idea that "good"
is getting what you want and "bad"
is not getting what you want.
this enables you to seek a "good" for
your self at the expense of carrying
out an action which you would consider
"bad" if it was done -to- you.
"good = bad"
"yes = no"
system failure
----------------
1 Corinthians 14:39
desire earnestly to understand and speak
divine revelations, and do not forbid to
speak with unknown spiritual languages.
----------------
ok, so, there still is a definite
benefit to having your 'spirit' edified
in an unvarnished manner where you may
have blood in your eyes and so, you
wouldn't want to immediately sully
an understanding of a thing before
that thing had a chance to work within
your 'spirit' and seep into your
knowledgeable understanding more
slowly removing the blood from your
eyes so that you can see more clearly.
like that 'spirit' "TSR" program had
been dormant in you and when it was
awakened by the words of Faith it needed
refreshement and enlivening with waters
from the fountain of God's own Presence.
and so, that 'spirit' is living and growing too.
so, don't -discourage- the utterrance
in other unknown spiritual languages
as this can be viewed as a direct
sampling from God to you without your
own personal viewpoint getting in
the way of a clear understanding.
which also suggests that you should be
on the lookout for virulent doctrines
taking up residence and corrupting
your understanding of God.
corruptions which display themselves
in a variety of "yes = no" statements.
make no room for this sort of thing.
it is truly for your own good.
thank you for listening.
Timothy Sutter
here's a sample of the 'scientific'
statements about the efficacy of
certain pharmaceutical products;
"take this drug, it may make you sick
and it may not work, but it works
for many people, ask your doctor"
the drug industry employs 'scientific'
methodologies, and yet they can make
no profoundly exact statement as to
the efficacy of all of their products.
these are considered truthful statements,
but not statements that will lead anyone
to believe that all drugs are always
100% effective, and therefore not
'proof' that such drugs are cures.
one can go into the literature, find a
description of a method to synthesize
"Paxatol"[fictitious example] a cancer
medication that is also a natural product
found in the tree bark of the yum-yum tree.
this synthesis is multistep
and provides very low yield.
now, if all you do is read the literature
you have description of someone else's
method to synthesize this chemical.
if you attempt the synthesis yourself,
you will still have to analyze the
compound after you get a product
-if- you get a product.
as i said, the compound
is also a natural product.
and so, the compound itself
grows in plants and can be
isolated and analyzed.
this analysis can provide a
standard for the identity
of the compound.
and this standard identification
can be placed in the literature.
and now, when you analyze your product,
you can compare it to the standards
found in the literature.
and then, when you consider you
have your product, you may begin
administering it to patients.
when it works on people, to do the
desired effect, your understanding
that that compound is therapeutic grows.
this same sort of argument
applies to our walk with Jesus.
we get the Word from the Body of Christ.
this Word -is- the product of the Divine Nature,
we then go about the task of synthesizing our
own natural product based on the Word as substrate
and 'the word' as conceptual literature.
we compare our experience of God to the
words of the paradigm structure found in
the literature, we apply literature
methodologies to our personal lives,
we grow in understanding and see
that it WORKS.
we attenuate our vision by continued
repetetive usage. our evidence
builds and grows.
we brush aside the talk of those
who refuse to follow proper and
time tested procedures in favor
of their own view that no such
working knowledge can be attained.
all the while, leaving the message
open for anyone to take and
put to good use.
disagreement among people who speak
-about- God is summed up best by
the brocolli example.
three people may be served broccoli
prepared in the very same manner by
the very same chef, and when questioned,
all three may provide differing decriptions
of that broccoli, and, based on these,
when questioned about the character of
the chef, they also, may all three
provide somewhat differing attribution.
all, without ever having spoken to
nor meeting with, the chef in person.
people can come to the considered opinion
that a God must exist and make comments
about the cooking without ever having
met the Creator personally.
multiplex opinions about a Being known
to exist based on study of surroundings
is perfectly reasonable.
and so, based solely on examination
of the personal veiwpoint of the Creation
and an assumption that a God is responsible
for this, coupled with an assumption that
this same Creator is responsible for
-everything- they see,
you will indeed, receive manifold
explanation of the Creator.
-but- these assorted descriptions do not
yield a comprehensive understanding of
that Creator who maintains an aloofness
to the material.
we differrentiate between knowing
-of- God and knowing God personally.
that is, one who knows -of- God may make
some false conclusions about the nature
of God based upon his own personal
understanding of his own surroundings.
all we claim is that such personal knowledge
of a personal Deity is not only possible, but
the only way to actually know God and not simply
know something -about- God or -about- what
the nature of the material universe says
about the nature of God.
a nature that is tainted by our own
presence which removes our ability
to maintain an untainted objectivity.
our presence in the world taints
the nature itself to an objective
understanding of that nature.
our own understanding of ourselves
is tainted by personal bias.
we can't just look at
ourselves and say,
"God is a liar a cheat a thief
and a murderer who does charitable
works when the mood strikes"
here's a little problem;
some have maintained that the conflicting
reports as to the characteristic attributes
of God draws all descriptions of
said God in to question.
that is, because there are variant descriptions
of God, -all- descriptions of God are of
a dubious nature.
much of this problem stems from intuitive human ideas
-about- God based mainly on personal circumstances
and vantage point on their surroundings, coupled
with some notion that a "God" is responsible for these.
but consider this for instance;
consider this as you would a picture being
a two dimensional representation of three
dimensions, only it's a three dimensional
representation of zero dimensions.
you prepare a plate of broccoli, and in
three different rooms, you serve this
broccoli to three different people.
albeit, they never see you, the preparer.
one person says they didn't like
it at all. one person says it was
wonderful and, another person says
it needed a little salt.
the broccoli was identically prepared
and served. the only difference was
in the people eating the broccoli.
and now, they are asked to assess the
character of you, the preparer of the
brocolli, based on their opinions
of the brocolli.
none have ever met you, the preparer,
and only have had a plate of your brocolli.
conflicting reports of your character
are received from people who have
never met -you- at all.
if we say that the preparer of the brocolli is
-like- God and the brocolli represents empirical
sense perceptions and impressions derived from
their own personality structure,
none of -those- people had an actual experience
with and of God, but based an intuitive portrait
of God from their impressions of the physical
reality surrounding them and their own self
assessments, and personality structure, coupled
with some assurance that a "God" was
responsible for these.
fine, and then you have people who feel
the need to tamper with -these- people's
understanding of the preparer by suggesting
that the brocolli simply prepared itself.
but then people come along and say
that they have actually spoken
with the preparer.
---
Romans 8:16
The Spirit Himself bears witness with
our spirit that we are children of God,
---
and tell that the preparer has
left a form of forwarding address.
---
Matthew 11:27
All things have been delivered to Me by My Father,
and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does
anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one
to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
Romans 10:9
that if you confess with your mouth the
Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that
God has raised Him from the dead,
you will be saved.
Romans 10:12-14
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek,
for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call
upon Him. For "whoever calls on the name of YHWH "[Joel 2:32]"
shall be saved."
How then shall they call on Him in whom they have
not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of
whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear
without a preacher?
---
so, you basically have to hear that you
should call upon YHWH thru Jesus, who is
your Savior, and Jesus, your Savior, will
send witness to your spirit that you
are a child of God.
["Jesus" means "YHWH Saves"]
and -then- it's possible that your
particular take on Christ can be infused
into an overall portrait of The Almighty.
and that's sort of like this;
there's a concept called "resonance structures"
which concerns that structure of molecules.
---
Ephesians 2:20-22
having been built on the foundation of
the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ
Himself being the chief cornerstone, in
whom the whole building, being fitted
together, grows into a holy temple in
the Lord, in whom you also are being
built together for a dwelling place
of God in the Spirit.
---
somewhat like the broccoli example;
several people may read the bible and
get variant reckonings depending
their understanding of the author.
that is, someone who may believe that a God exists
based on inspection of their worldly surroundings,
but has no personal relationship with God, will
approach reading the bible thru a filter of a
preconceived nature of God for the better or
the worse, see things in the bible which he
claims conflicts with his own ideas of what
a God -should- be like and begin to find
fault with the bible as a record of
divine revelation to man.
several examples, like one who takes an elixur
into his mouth, doesn't like the taste and then
spits it out, and says that the medicine has
no curative effect.
someone who does not believe that a God exists,
and has no personal experience of God will see
it in an entirely negative manner and will not
take the word into themself at all but only
inspect it from the outside.
sort of like looking at a bottle of
arthritus medication and wondering
why it has no positive effect.
and then there are those who
use and compare the literature
with the divine natural product
of the Holy Spirit and see
true understanding.
one point being, you cannot suggest that
God has no 'proof' or has not been 'proven'
to exist just because God doesn't seem to work
for all people, any more than the fact that
"Paxatol" may make some people sick should
prevent it from being administered
it to anyone at all.
some of us have proof in a very concrete
manner that God not only exists but
works among human beings.
take the body and blood of Christ into you.
this is real food and real drink and very effective.
if you don't know how, consult the literature.
Timothy Sutter
see, God is already perfectly
reflected in God's own Word.
God is Breathing, eternally, God.
when the breathing Spirit moves forward
in some utterance, this Word brings
the Spirit in to a 'new place'
a 'new place' that comes in to being
simultaneously with the utterance.
before this beginning, God knows God
as the private inspiration of God.
before this beginning, Love is a
private matter known only in God.
one can suggest that The Word which is
always present in Spirit and with Spirit
summarily formulates an encapsulation
of God's own Spirit, and,
as God speaks
this unseen Word, that which was not seen,
becomes seen, and God is beginning to show
that which God has always known.
in this beginning, of material and
non-material structures, is seen the
evidence of the unseen Word
and, as
the unseen Word is made manifest,
so also, the Spirit is realized
in this 'new place'
a replication of Structure
in a 'new' structure
strange is the singular declaration
made by God and conceived in
the human Mary,
is
different from the multiple
declarations made by God which
resulted in the material universe.
which is to say: the material universe
is brought forth in discrete stages,
whereas
Jesus,
that ultimate manifestation of The Word,
came about in one complete declaration.
one minor detail;
there is first, a declaration which
results in the conception in Mary,
and later, two declarations
of support for the human
being so formed,
which is to say, the thunder
from the blue which states;
"this is My Son in whom
i am well pleased"
and then;
"this is My Son, listen to Him"
and then, Jesus is -declared-
"first born from the dead"
but each time here,
it's stamping the same
general remark upon
the human race.
a remark of God's own completeness and
Holiness upon a material creation that
was made to stand apart from God, suffered
paling anguish in comparison to God, and
is redeemed to a station of Unity in God.
if we say that each declaration made by God
carries an exacting image of God's own presence,
then, the multiple declarations made in bringing
forth the material universe, each resemble
particular manifestations of Theistic attribution,
whereas, that singular declaration which
conceives Christ, is the Spirit made Word
made material.
God has taken hold of this 'new place' and
the multiple manifestations all reside as One.
The Word made manifest is God,
but, a summed duplication of God is not God,
this drama serves first to demonstrate
with crystal clarity that God is God
and there can be no other God.
while God knew that God's own Spirit
would be presented with undeniable
clarity in God's own Word,
God can also be aware that any summation
of all Theistic attribution would remain
short of the Fullness of Deity in Love,
but, any lack of recognition of God's
Ultimate Preeminence in All
found in any summed
duplication of God's attributes must
be met with the strictest Judgement
until such time as God's own Mercy
is to be correspondingly bestowed.
to be 'not God' is not a crime.
to be 'not God' and not comprehend,
must be treated as a crime.
such chastizement is unutterably profound
subsequently, the removal of all blot is
Joy unspeakable and full of Glory.
God acts according to God's own Will
founded in that Love which human beings
aspire to comprehend.
God spins out a governing authority
as independant Beings.
before we examine the purpose to which
these independant Beings were spun out,
we would consider that in spinning out
these structural elements as independant
characteristics, these elements first take
on the attribute of 'not God' inasmuch as
they become as creations, and therefore,
God must redeem these structural elements,
themselves, in to full unity with God.
what could be considered strange, is that
any of these God breathed characteristics
could turn around, and view God as subject
to -it's- authority.
so, now, looking at this view, we can
easily see a potential for God's own
creation to turn on God and convince
itself that God belongs in
-its- dominion.
the Creator being ruled by a creation.
such authority as God already possesses
in God's own Perfect Will in Love.
God acts according to God's
own Will founded in Love.
such a turnaround could found a Selfish
elevation which would nullify �that�
creation's claim to Love, the defining
characteristic of God.
should such a turnaround occur, its reckoning
as a potential hazzard would already have been
recognized, but still, it will remain as a
controversy in any creation that would desire
to subjugate that perfect Will of God.
in so doing,
�that� creation stymies its own freedom.
in so doing,
�that� creation distorts it's
view of Self to deny that
perfect Will of God.
in so doing,
�that� creation captures itself in a snare.
to aspire to God by denying that to which it aspires
it must deny it's own God breathed characteristics
and distort it's own view of it's own authority.
meanwhile, God is still God and only Loves.
but, �that� unruly ruler has fallen headlong
in to a morass of irrational justifications.
whereas, ideally it would have it's
independant will in submission to
the unity of God's perfect
Will in Love,
it now has two �competing� wills
it has birthed an indecisive
competition with it�self which
it also translates into an
adversarial position against
God, its Creator.
Self destruction is immenent
freeze it there for a while...
> God acts according to God's own Will
> founded in that Love which human beings
> aspire to comprehend.
we could call this True autonomy.
behaving independantly according to personal will,
coupled with designs only to carry those admirable,
harmless and benevolent actions borne out of Love.
as God grants autonomy to its creations, we would
not consider it harmless and benevolent to allow
any creation to fixate on its own attributes
to the point of self destructive idolatry.
and so, should such a situation arise, during the
subsequent course of extracting such a creation
from it's self induced strugglings, if God appears
to 'smite' that creation with harsh criticisms,
we may still conclude that these criticisms are
borne out of an admirable Love.
even if that criticism involves removal
of autonomy and exacting demonstrations
of shortfall.
so, we should conclude that God's meting
out Justice is itself borne out of Love
and alone accomplishes the most Merciful ends.
it is not that God's work is purposefully 'booby-trapped'
but it is as if, in spinning out autonomous figures,
God stands at the door when those autonomous figures
seek an immediate return to the domain of God,
and now, God at the door represents a stumbling stone.
there is no way around God at the door,
because God is the door, and the desire
towards True autonomy is all pervasive.
there is this fine line tripwire which
is simply inherent in the situation.
in God as perfect Unity in Love the good
of the neighbor is exactly the good of God,
but, as God spins out these autonomous figures,
these new creatures must confront the motivating
forces towards True autonomy coupled with the
overriding necessity to cede 'all others' their
own personal autonomy.
and so, when these newly spun autonomous figures
are able to see their own good in and as the good
of all others, they succeed, but as any see their
own personal good as of primary and even sole
importance, they fall short.
and i mean, fall headlong over the stumbling stone.
and so, what may seem to us as
unbearably harsh chastizements,
is simply God falling with the stumbler,
and being there to lift 'it' back up
in newness of Life.
God never pushed it down, it fell.
and God alone can make it rise again.
cut away to bugs bunny;
'london bridge is falling down
falling down falling down...'
Arise; sir loin of beef,
arise; duke of chestnut,
arise; oil of watercress...
'''got lotsa stamina'''
just remember, these are the king's carrots.
sorry, i couldn't help it, my mind wandered...
anyway, i know this doesn't matter
to anyone but me, but it does
matter to me.
i'm not quite finished...
with this bit.
Timothy Sutter
> > you don't know where hard lines of continuity exist
> > and where no lines of continuity exist.
> > it's that simple.
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> Using your model, nothing can be known.
the claim that there is a single cell line,
from one single cell of unknown origin,
that slowly and gradually alters, against
the conservative mechanism of cell replication,
to produce a whole slough of variant lifeforms
in one single continuous trendline,
is a bare fantasy,
and the prospect of multiplex cell lines,
of some origin, meandering about in a discontiguous manner
-more- resembles what we -do- see =now= and does -not-
make a certainty where none exists.
as i have said;
you don't know where hard lines of continuity exist
and where no lines of continuity exist.
Timothy Sutter
Timothy Sutter
someone do is describe the state of the
"universe" at time T = 0.
all the first second bit and physical science
in general cannot rightly make a clear definition
of the situation at time T = 0 so, you have two
choices in your speculative conjecture.
either you cite the existance of some substance
that has no known physical qualities, meaning no
physical qualities that may be measured and
therefore does not exist in the normal fashion,
or, you must cite a beginning from
absolute nothing, and this second
choice amounts to a magic.
a "something from nothing,"
that is the definition of a "magic".
but, if you make any referrence to this
"substance" that has no real physically
knowable qualities, you cite a "thing"
that you can have no physical reckoning of.
for all practical purposes, "science" must
discount the "something from nothing"
possibility as a "magic"
and therefore is confined to the emanation of
physical substances _from_ a "substance" that
has no knowable physical properties of its own.
and so, in referrence to absolute origins,
"science" is "stuck" citing a "thing"
that it can never recognize as "real"
but see, i got something even funnier,
you can't even demonstrate that the universe
by necessity came about in the manner described
in the "first second" manner.
this also amounts to pure conjecture.
so, what you cannot rightly disprove is
the proposition that all things simply
popped out of some such "quantum singularity"
fully in tact. that is, that planets and
suns just blurted out of this thing
already in tact.
which leaves you with another stange thing
and that is, that at time T = 0 there was
no physical reality, and at time T = 1 there
was a star that was "apparently"
6 billion years old.
that is, something like this,
that a "black hole" or "quantum sigularity"
just sort of sneezed and blew apart into
constituent fragmentary, atomic nature,
pieces that were already completely formed.
of course, we don't cite an
uncontrolled accident as our origin.
we cite a specifically ordained
manifestation of mechanical effluence.
specifically directed intelligence made it happen.
as metastability cannot be cited
where no mechanistic forces,
as yet, exist.
that is, we cannot suggest that the
flower pot was teetering imperceptibly
on the shelf, and then fell.
as, in the unity of the All, no potential
differences can be credibly cited.
no oppositional forcework.
only Love
whatever that is.
all you can do is say, "we've never
seen anything like that happen before"
but then, you've never studies a true
quantum singularity in any lab of yours
either, and in fact, you cannot.
so, basically, given that the state of
affairs at Time T = 0 favor uncertainty
and not a certainty of nothing at all,
the idea of an eternal God hanging out in
the "midst" of all that unknowable and not
ever knowable "stuff" loses me no sleep at all.
unknowable to experimental material
physics observation knowable to -that-
"stuff" whatever it may be.
what's funny about "life" -inside- of this
nowhere land is the apparent "sequence of events"
that may take place where no seconds tick
off of any clock.
that always struck me as entirely odd.
and the whole 'place' could be tinier than
the head of a pin or larger than the andromeda
galaxy or both simultaneously and neither
because there's no spacial measurement
possible either.
id est, there's no space, no physical
measuring device can comprehend it.
but yet, something "lives" 'there'.
wherever "there" 'is'
but what it -ain't- is
"something from nothing"
something from something
i can come to grips with.
but, nothing is nothing
and what can come of nothing?
so then, there is 'substance'
to that which can never be 'touched'
now nothing can confound you, any more.
or can't, as the case may be.
anyway, materialism falls under this.
simply because there's a "substance"
that has no knowable physical attributes.
and therefore, is not "material" in any way
that you could can describe based on physical
experimentation and observation.
therefore does not "exist" to physical discovery,
but yet, must exist.
and -only- a being with
conscious intent can
'make a tree'
and speaking of genesis from singularity
and lack of any triggering mechanisms;
you have to provide as clear a description
for the state of affairs -at- Time T = 0
it's only much after that that you
can begin to speak of any sort of
atomic material, and any properties
which accompany that stuff.
properties which include heat content,
electromagnetic forces, gravitational
forces, and atomic forces, work and energy,
cannot be credibly cited as 'locked'
inside of any 'singularity' waiting
to burst forth.
no, these properties are
the -consequence- of
atomic material.
and so, in considering a genesis from
a singularity state, no triggering
mechanism can be positted and therefore,
a very absolute requirement for some
sort of concious being to speak things
into existance from nothing
at all is the consequence
with which you are stuck.
so, backtracking from the atomic world..;
you have your little atom,
and you see it like a spring.
just like a little slinky.
the slinky is wah-wah-ing back and forth.
the wah-wah-ing is what's
giving you time space
and temperature.
that is, the vibrational qualities
of the spring carry the attributes
of time space and temperature.
now, you claim you'd like to visit
a 'place' where the spring is compressed
into a void of zero space.
fine, you crush the atomic spring
into an entirely different substance.
well, now that "stuff" has no spring qualities.
you can no longer cite springlike qualities
in regards to this -other- stuff with
any degree of certainty whatsever.
so, you can't speak of concepts like
"infinite heat content" and "infinite density"
with any reasonable understanding.
no, you have vanished those 'springlike'
qualities in favor of some -other-
set of qualities.
qualities that you can never fully realize
from within the constraints of
your "physical" reality.
that is, you have, first, provided the ultimate
necessity for a "substance" that has no 'physical'
reality and now you must divorce yourself from
making a 'physical' attribution upon this "stuff"
that has no springlike qualities.
you -can- convince yourself, quite readily,
that this "stuff" has no "beginning" but you
can not make this broad leap that the qualities
understood in the atomic reality apply, in any
fashion, to this "stuff" that has
no springlike qualities.
you can't even go so far as to suggest that
this "stuff" is "consumed" into becoming
the atomic material.
but you remain stuck citing
a "stuff" that isn't 'real'.
failing to do so it tantamount to lieing.
in crushing the spring out of the atom,
you have an entirely different 'substance'
which is alien to the physical material
composition to classify.
what you can not broadly assume is that
this 'immaterial-substance' has the springlike
attributes of time space and temperature
locked in a void "waiting" to burst forth.
you are not considering a loaded spring.
you are ceding 'substance' to the immaterial.
energy is not present in a non-atomic state.
no mass, no energy in the material sense.
no volume no gravity, no mass.
whatever is the composition of 'it'
gravitational potential energy is lost without mass.
electromagnetic energy is lost without atomic structure.
heat energy is lost without heat content.
atomic energy is lost without atomic structure.
and you have no trigger to push over
any metastable teetering. what you have
is a definition of energy as an ability
to do work and generate heat,
outside of volume, no work
can be accomplished, and without
atomic vibrations, no heat
can be generated.
so, you cannot suggest that heat and work
were trapped, springloaded, in a singularity.
as heat and work -are- virtues of the material.
no trigger.
you can't just say;
"all energy was in the form
of heat and waiting to be
converted to work"
aside from matter you have no heat.
you need matter to generate heat.
without matter and without volume,
you have no heat or work potential.
those things come in to existance simultaneously.
i said;
"infinite heat capacity and
infinite density are unreal
concepts"
inasmuch as 'infinity'
is -not- a 'real' number.
infinity fails as a 'real' number
by additive identities,
1 plus infinity = infinity
infinity plus infinity = infinity
any real number, when you add another
nmumber to it takes to the next successor
and does not return itself.
no real number, when added
to itself, returns itself.
infinity is a "non-real" 'mathematical' concept.
therefore, 'infinite heat capacity'
and 'infinite density' are
meaningless statements.
what you have is some non-material
with no forcework acting upon it
triggered by some intelligent Hand.
physically 'at rest' with
no forcework to jostle
anything material at all.
which is why i liken it
to a matter/energy 'generator'
you can't speak of 'it' being
'consumed' to produce the material.
and you can't demonstrate that 'it'
is not still just as available
'now' as it was 'then'
this immaterial 'device'
is employed by God and
Jesus made use of 'it'
Timothy Sutter
given constant material composition;
non-expansive infinitely old burnout
non-expansive young beginning
expansive infinitely old burnout
expansive young beginning
even granting the shadowy 'infinite time'
an inclusion in reality, either we have
a burned out material universe or a
material universe with a beginning.
[note, infinity plus one equals infinity
therefore 'infinity' is not a 'real' number
by some property of additive succession]
we are here to see that
the material universe is
not burned out, therefore
the material universe
has a beginning.
just take this example,
let's say 32 trillion trillion trillion years ago,
the material universe was of similar composition
as it is 'today'
well, given that,
all of its fuel should already be spent,
and we shouldn't be here to ponder its
present state of affairs.
need more time?
45 quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion
quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion years;
it should be spent.
and that ain't even in the
neighborhood of 'infinitely old'
under the presently understood circumstances
for an 'infinitely old' universe to not already
be a burned out cinder 'new matter' must be
emanating from some 'unknwown' -source-.
similar problem as previously stated,
'new' matter requires some impetus
for appearing from no-thing.
to suggest that existing gravitational effects
be responsible for extracting new matter from
no apparent source will require that empty space
be composed of a material substance.
contradiction
therefore, -if- any 'new matter' were
being continuously introduced into the system,
its source can not be it's -own- eternal existance.
'new matter' requires a source, which is
-not- itself, with some -intent- to bring
new matter in to being.
if we are to grant a minimal consideration
to some prospect of an imploding universe,
upon implosion, all atomic material integrity
is lost and we are stuck with the problem
of 're'-genesis from singularity in which case,
all triggering mechanisms are lost and
no self contained impetus for
genesis is available.
not to mention the problems of dissipative
heat loss which may never again accomplish
useful work and so, ...burned out cinder.
to insinuate infinite 'new beginnings'
itself implies 'beginnings' and beginnings
from 'no-thing' inasmuch as an imploded
material universe is no longer composed
of phyical material.
no razor can cut God,
the substance of things not seen,
out of the picture.
regarding such speculations of an
infinite eternal material universe;
[infite mass / infinite volume]
vector analysis forces a -static- universe.
in all directions any object would experience
an 'infinite gravitational force' locking
it in a fixed position for all eternity.
an 'infinite' mesh of evenly dispersed,
very small 'objects', with evenly
dispersed heat content.
this situation can not be made
to agree with our being here at all.
therefore, this situation must be
discarded as self evident falsehood.
universal mass must be finite.
incidental;
all forms of energy, of which human beings
are aware, are generated -from- mass.
at best, human beings have succeeded
in generating energy -from- mass, and
transforming that _mass-born energy_
in to mass. [questionable results,
some call it a 'transporter']
aside from this, human beings have never
experienced a generating of mass -from- energy.
mass ---> energy
mass ---> [work and heat]
no mass ---> no [work and heat]
no mass ---> no energy
finite universal mass dictates
universal burnout given infinite time.
[previous conclusion]
this situation can not be made
to agree with our being here.
infinitely aged, 'eternal', material universe
must be discarded as self evident falsehood.
therefore, this material universe
is finite and must have beginning.
Creation from scratch stands uncontestable.
[previous conclusion]
long story very short;
we are here ---> God
it's really that simple.
no God ---> no us
Us ---> God
here's another problem, the simple fact
that a lab has smashed an atom into smaller
constituents is -not- an indication that these
smaller constituents were ever precursor
structures to the atomic elements themselves.
no lab has ever taken 'quarks'
and -produced- a single atom.
and, we can cite mass spectrometry as a support
for the notion that break down products are not
always to be considered as precursors for
the larger structure.
in mass spectrometry, a molecule is
-esssentially- 'smashed' with a bombardment
of electrons, and fragmentary pieces are
detected by the apparatus.
point being, the fragmentary elements
of the mass spectrometric process are
-not- precursor elements in the
synthesis of the larger molecule.
i can easily support this with details.
so, there's no reason to support
the metaphysical speculation that
heat energy became quarks became atoms.
whole structures may have
appeared in tact from the onset
with some intrinsic fracturing
to allow for wiggle room.
and as such,
any eternal 'substance' that may be said
to exist can only be converted into spacial
atomic material by conscious initiation as
no metastable triggering mechanism exists
which will set off any accidental ignition.
one cannot even go so far as to suggest that
any such "ssubstance" is "consumed" into becoming
atomic material because you lose all ability
to ascribe dimensionality to 'it'.
as far as anyone with a measuring wand in their
hand and a thermometer and whatever other devices
you may employ to analyze the physical atomic
nature is concerned, such devices will not be
relevant to any such non-atomic 'substance'
the atomic materials are a subcategory
of any such 'substance' which can only
be manipulated by the conscious
intent of God.
any such 'substance' is not the sum
total of God's conscious Being.
God maintains God's integrity as conscious Being
before during and after the initiation of genesis
of atomic material from any such 'substance'
to which one cannot ascribe physical
properties associated with atomic materials.
only God, our conscious Being initiator
can deliver the impetus required to convert
this 'substance' into the atomic materials.
and yet, the conscious Being of God is not
altered in any manner and maintains God's
full integrity.
the dimensional nature simply exists as an
idea in the mind of Christ before the onset.
God's full conscious integrity exists today
as it did yesterday and before the onset
of the physical material universe.
God as eternal conscious Being exists
and atomic materials with dimensionality
have a very definite beeginning of time.
God as eternal conscious Being
can be communicated with now.
until one has such communion,
one may simply say that they have
never had such communion with God.
aside from that, i'll go on about my ways,
as none of this continued discussion
about God being has any real meaningful
relevant purpose.
Timothy Sutter
[fixed width text]
=======================================
=======>
_NN_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
=======>
_N_121
\
\
123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
-N-434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
=======>
=======>
=======>
=======>
=======>
=======>
=======>
=======>
=======>
=======>
=======>
=======>
=======>
=======>
=======>
->
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_N_ UU
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
++++++
N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_N U
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_N
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231 D
=======================================>>>
composite superstructure tends
to lose functionallity,
of the composite superstructure,
is "non-innovative"
envirnonmental sub-system,
=already diverse and adaptable=
genomic structures,
genetically less diverse organisms
gaining greater genetic diversity
through environmental eduction.
from already diverse genomes.
and, people who are not even aware of teh Creator
Timothy Sutter
it concerns the accuracy of clocks and
the smallest increment of time measured
by human beings.
here's a bit on the atomic clock ca. 1993
some of the links may be outdated.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/mercury_atomic_clock.htm#background
---
http://whyfiles.org/078time/3.html
1993 NIST-7 -- the latest atomic clock --
comes on line, with an accuracy of
five parts in 10^15.
---
===
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/5/8
Optical clocks, however, could meet our needs
for better timekeeping. With frequencies
approaching 10^15 Hz - some 100,000 times higher
than the 9.2 GHz microwave frequency of the
fountain - optical clocks should be stable
to almost one part in 10^15 simply by averaging
over just a few seconds, rather than a day.
With longer averaging times, stabilities
of one part in 10^17 or better should be possible.
===
http://physics.nist.gov/TechAct.2000/Div847/div847h.html
and here's a bit about looking
at a small bit of time pulsed.
--
Clock Measures Attosecond Pulses
http://www.photonics.com/spectra/research/XQ/ASP/preaid.28/QX/read.htm
http://www.photonics.com/content/spectra/2002/September/research/77347.aspx
--
so what?
to even allow vibrations at all
in any manner.
and so, in a completely collapsed
it's that simple.
so, "in the beginning"
no particles no motion,
no motion no heat
that would be paradoxical.
at Time T = 0
no motion can be cited.
Timothy Sutter
Timothy Sutter
to the moon is 384400 km and the speed of
light is 299792.458 km/s,
on average, it takes 1.28 seconds for
light from the moon to reach the earth.
so, hypothetically speaking, if you had a human being,
standing on the moon pointing a flashlight at the earth,
which you could see through a telescope on the earth,
and that person, shut off the flashlight,
there would be a lag time of over 1 second
between the time that person turned that
flashlight off, and the time -you- on earth,
stopped seeing the light from that flashlight.
so, for over one second, you'd still think that
the person was flashng a light at you after that
person had already shut that light off.
so now,
let's say that we have a person
on some further distant 'moon'.
let's say that 'moon' is 384400000000 km from earth
and the speed of light is still pretty much the same.
now it takes 1280000 seconds for us to realize
that that person has shut off the flashlight.
it will take nearly -15 days- for us to realize
that the person has turned off the flashlight.
so, if we say that we 'see the flashlight'
we still cannot say that the flashlight is still -on- 'now'
where 'now' is -our- immediate time frame.
now, convince yourself that the light from
a distant Star 10 billion light years 'away'
is most assuredly a Phantom of a light that
has been turned off X number of billions
of years -before- 'we' see that light 'now'
or, at least, if you saw what was
a yellow star like the sun, -then-
it would be long beyond yellow and
converted to a red giant by 'now'
well, actually, if you saw a yellow star like
the sun 10 billion light years away, that star
would be long gone 'now' inasmuch as estimates
for the life of the sun is ~5 billion more years.
so, you'd be seeing a light artifact
of a sun which is not there anymore.
so, what you may conclude is that much
of what some people are seeing through
telescopes isn't -there- 'now' ...
one other little thing,
up to a point, it seems like
you are looking 'out there'
and up to a point, you may very
well be looking 'out there'
but at a certain point,
you have to be looking 'in there'
which is to say, you look
out to 'nearby' galaxy
and it is 'out there'
but, looking much farther 'out'
you flip around and are looking
-into- a more distant -past-
and, if you believe that
the material universe has
been expansive, then, in
the more distant -past-
you flip around and are looking -inwards-
as if you are on the crest of a wave that
is moving -away- from any possible
'central region'
in any attempt to visualize this, you should
-not- try to place the earth in the -center-
of the universe
after a point, the optical illusions take precedence
and -you- are on the -outer edge- looking -inward-
always remembering that you'd be looking
-inwards- to a past that isn't there anymore.
like you're in the outer edge crust
of pie that's been eaten, only you
seem to see a pie still there.
at least some of the pie is eaten already.
but you -seem- to be seeing the whole pie.
and you may -expect- that stuff in
the more remote -past- would appear
to be moving -faster-
and that it is this -outer edge earth-
that is, in fact, 'slowing down'
just as would be expected.
what may give you trouble is;
"why aren't we seeing the empty null region
outside of the universe if we are out along
the edge and not in the center?"
right, if 'we' really are more out along
the periphery of the material universe
and -not- in some central region which
may not even be 'there' anymore,
then, we are seeing the edge, and that is -us-
and we are also seeing some illusions which
have disappeared into time, and, any
'empty null region' wouldn't be 'visible'
to -us- anyway inasmuch as it has nothing
we can relate to with our instruments.
seeing, hearing etc.
but that's drifting off...
back to square one.
all that and, though the
'speed of light' may
be constant,
the velocity of light is not,
and, the interstellar miasma
is just that,
not a vacuum, but more like
a dirty swimming pool but that's
another difficulty entirely.
sort of
Timothy Sutter
if you know what the answer is.
the answer stares you in the face
so that you can derive why the
answer is the way it is.
you have to start in the middle of things
the Creation itself stands as testament
that God is not in contention with God.
if God were in contention with God,
then God would be indecisive
and no Creation would be possible.
the Creation itself stands as testament
that God is not in contention with God.
the lack of contention makes God Unity.
God is One
further, the ability to Create implies
some inherent plurality in God inasmuch
as God could be willing to recognize
anything "other" at all.
the reason God is able to Create anything
is because God is able already to recognize
what an "other" would be.
God is Two
so, based on the fact that we are here at all
we can derive statements about God
that suggest that God is a Unified Plural.
we -have- to start in the middle of things,
because that is where we are.
so, we have God who is not
possessed of contention
and we have -us- who seem
to find ourselves in just that,
contention
and we wish to resolve the matter
in us so that we can be more like God,
and this will help us to resolve why God
can See contention and not Be contention.
rather now, we can start from
the inside and work our way out
as God creates 'not God'
as an Image of God
God does not place contention -in- 'not God'
but knows that -this- "other" is a created being
and can never therefore be The Creator, and,
therefore, a certain contention is innate
in this formulation, in that this Image
can -never- Be "The Creator"
so, we may not suggest that God placed a contention
in this Creation by Divine Foreknowledge, but that
God is fully able to recognize the potential for
such a self derived contention to arise
given this inherent 'shortfall' in The Image.
so, one funny thing is this;
that God can use some self derived contention
towards God to -break- the Creation and then
lead that Creation into Creating its own
unified personality structure.
still allowing that -if- no such contention arises,
that God can craft a more perfect Image in -this-
"other" through careful deliberations.
and actually,
this would be the preferred methodology.
that -any- "other" would recognize
[its] inherent 'shortfall' without contention,
and petition God for remediation
towards the perfecting of the Image.
one type of "other" is inevitably -broken-
by circumstance and led back in to
the fullness of Christ,
and one type of "other" accepts [its] shortfall
without condemnation and is deliberately led
into the crafting of the more perfect Image.
the end is Christ
in the long run outcome,
there's no real difference to speak of or consider.
contention is nil
Purified Love
Just as God
Be So
sometimes, the 'beginning' is in the middle of things
and that's where i found myself, anyway,
in the middle of things.
gregwrld
wrote:
Not only that: he's arguing that if we don't
see it in the here and now it can't have
happened - as if every crime needs a human
eyewitness to gain a conviction of the
perpetrator.
Pretty silly, really.
It seems a constant with creos that magical
explanations are always better than scientific
investigations and results. They still can't get
it that "godditit" is not an explanation.
gregwrld
Timothy Sutter
Victor Eijkhout
> Anyway, I thought it was an interesting subject and might be suitable
> for an "official" college project (I attend courses run by Cambridge
> University). After talking to my tutor she agreed, and this is the
> result:
Cool. Nicely reasoned and presented.
Victor.
--
Victor Eijkhout -- eijkhout at tacc utexas edu
Timothy Sutter
i think those links were old,
and these should work...
here's something worthwhile noting;
it concerns the accuracy of clocks and
the smallest increment of time measured
by human beings.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/mercury_atomic_clock.htm#background
---
http://www.atomic-clock.galleon.eu.com/atomic-clock/atomic-clock.htm
The Caesium Atomic Clock has an accuracy
of one second in one million years!
---
http://physics.nist.gov/TechAct.2000/Div847/div847h.html
and here's a bit about looking
at a small bit of time pulsed.
--
Clock Measures Attosecond Pulses
Timothy Sutter
===
Genesis 1:31
Then God looked at everything
that was made, and indeed
it was very good...
= <-- God pulls away and steps back
Genesis 6:12
So God looked upon the earth,
and indeed it was decayed and corrupt;
for all flesh had corrupted
their way on the earth.
===
this isn't a "micromanaging" "God"
this "God" seems to have called things
into a particular ordering that was "good"
and then, stepped back, and watched
as 'it' decayed and became corrupted
-without- "God's" influence.
hersheyh
wrote:
> In message <4B128212....@lycos.com->, Timothy Sutter
> <a202...@lycos.com-> writes
>
>
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> >Sapient Fridge wrote:
>
> >> >> You seem to be under the misapprehension that my web site is suggesting
> >> >> that humans are likely to change chromosome number or that such a change
> >> >> is happening today. �That is wrong. �The point of the web site is to
> >> >> show that the number of chromosomes in a species *can* change, not that
> >> >> it *is* changing. �Have another look:
>
> >> �Timothy Sutter writes
>
> >> >what you haven't actually shown, is that your
> >> >proposed mechanism, -can- actually 'work'
The proposed mechanism has predictable consequences. It says that
*some* (not *all*) living species (I am using the operational BSC
definition of species; I am unsure what definition of species Timothy
is using to claim that species are fixed) will show significant
intermediacy in that they will have significant levels rather than
minor levels of chromosomal variants in a population that can still
interbreed and exchange genetic information with others of its
species. It predicts that there will be *some* (not all) living
populations that show intermediacy in the species formation process,
with reduced gene flow between populations, in some cases *because* of
the accumulation of chromosomal rearrangements that may accumulate
precisely because hybrids are less fit than either parent.
I could give Timothy examples, but he, I am quite sure, would merely
claim that those are still the same *species*, since he is probably
using the word *species* to mean "biblical kind", aka "kindergarten
taxonomic name" that expands as needed to allow the claim "But it's
still a ....".
> >Sapient Fridge wrote:
>
> >> Actually that's precisely what it does show, it takes you step by step
> >> through the process and provides the links, papers and research that
> >> back it up. �If you feel that any step is wrong then show your reasoning
> >> and cite the papers to back up your claims.
>
> >no, it does not, it shows -only- that -individuals-
> >with 44 chromosomes may develop within the
> >larger 46 chromosome population.
>
> Yep, and given the right circumstances it would be hypothetically
> possible for them to replace the 46 chromosome population.
>
> >what it does not show, is that such
> >a 'new' breeding population that "breeds true"
> >to 44 chromosomes is actually happening
>
> Yep, so it's just as well that I never said that a 44 chromosome
> population was forming today. �Why do you have so much difficulty
> understanding this point?
>
> >nor, that such a 'new' population
> >-can- actually happen.
>
> Nope, it shows that it *can* happen. �If you thing there is something
> stopping it from happening then it's up to you to show your reasoning
> and cite your sources. �Just saying it doesn't make it true.
>
> <Snip>
>
> >Sapient Fridge wrote:
>
> >> It shows the mechanism and the population dynamics that would be needed
> >> for a chromosome number change to happen.
>
> >> If you don't feel that my research is correct then please do feel
> >> welcome to provide the cites which show I'm wrong. Even better, why
> >> don't you make a web page and we can exchange links?
>
> >by your own statements, you agree that
> >this mechanism is -not- =happening=.
>
> Not now, but it has happened in the past:
Actually, given that we do have humans with different chromosomal
rearrangements, we cannot be sure that it is not happening now. That
is, it is quite possible that 100,000 generations from today, any
species derived from our current population will have fixed in some
relatively infrequent and rare rearrangement that is currently present
at a frequency of 1/100,000 alleles or less. Assuming that the
rearrangement is not too deleterious. As you point out, it has
happened somewhere in the human lineage between our common ancestor
with the great apes and now. Of course, neither you nor I will be
around to see it. Nor can we predict that it *will* happen. Such is
the mathematical nature of random walks, as any gambler will be happy
to explain.
>
> http://www.sapientfridge.org/chromosome_count/great_apes.html
>
> My web page explains the mechanisms by which such a change can happen so
> the next time a creationist declares that chromosome numbers are fixed
> then I just have to point them at my web pages.
>
> Don't forget that science is as much about explaining things that have
> happened in the past as much as it is about what is happening now or in
> the future.
>
> <snip>
> --
> sapient_usene...@spamsights.org �ICQ #17887309 � � �* �Save the net �*
> Grok:http://spam.abuse.net�http://www.cauce.org* nuke a spammer �*
> Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net�* � �today � �*
> Kill:http://mail-abuse.com�http://au.sorbs.net�http://spamhaus.org
Timothy Sutter
Timothy Sutter
Timothy Sutter
moderating usenet seems about as
pointless as scrubbiing the sidewalk
with lavendar soap.
Timothy Sutter
the claim being that, impersonal nature
Timothy Sutter
# most rudimentary forms of memory.
# the fender shows a memory of a collision.
# this is not 'conscious memory' but then again,
# magnetic disk drives are not conscious either.
# muscle cells have a rudimentary form of memory as well.
anyway, skipping the bits about muscle cell memory,
we could say that our much of our conscious memory
is 'imprinted' upon the material in a kaleidascopic
series of indentations placed on our neural circuitry
cells which are brought into close proximity with
external stimuli through our sensory receptors.
x number of tiny dents on neural cells
y number of cooperative neural cells
z percent overlap so as to be
classified as 'cooperative'
meaning, for a given set of neural cells
to be 'cooperative', they must carry a
given percentage of identical indentations
now, with y and z in place,
a vast number of x are brought together
so as to formulate the mental image.
obviously, the more disparate the nature of the x
the clearer the mental image
and so, the most complete image of
a thing comes through the input of
all of the various sensory apparatuses
but here, we still resemble silly putty,
and the world focuses its wax impression
on the material bits and forges an image
of itself which 'we' sometimes mistake for 'us'
now, we claim we can take these wax impressions
and pull aside relatedness and see a 'higher' image
meaning, we claim we can examine how the
wax impressions are held together and 'abstract'
another idea in form which is an implicit
function of of the stuff itself without being
the product of the wax impressions themselves.
we've taken a filtered image
and drawn out a clearer image
of the way things must fall into place.
and we show the clarity when we can
formulate a predictive image which
corresponds more precisely
to future outcomes.
and now we are finger painting.
less passive than being a sheet of silly putty,
but still, mainly, simple manipulations
of things that just happen to present
themselves to us.
just ordering and reordering stuff
that's already there, in any number
of myriads of arrays.
considering that the mind of God
is of a variant formulation than
our own, and that not of a physical
material nature, we shall assume that
no possible 'denting' mechanism can
exist by which God's mind should
operate and function.
and so, for now, we could call any phenomenon
associated with God's comprehension of the
natural physical reality as
'instantaneous knowledge'
and reckon that as the time-less
tangent line to 'right now'
and say that this would be dissimilar to a
series of wax impresions and abstractions
of their relatedness to each other
and more resemble the focus of quantized
images of God in to particular and discrete
aspects of the time bound physical reallity.
and, in likewise manner,
the transmission of quantized images
of God in to the focal range of the
neural circuity is how God accomplishes
a comprehensible communication with
'our' abstractable detection of relatedness.
the the highest version of God's
communicative efforts, God is not
leaving a 'dent' behind, but
a pure form of relatedness.
meaning, God may very well communicate
with the material realm via direct,
conscious manipulation of the
physical nature,
but, God can also 'breath' a direct
mental image of the relatedness of God
in to the neural circuitry which acts
as an elaborate detection device in itself.
the detectabilty of the device is already in place,
it's just that as far as the 'denting' mechanism
and the 'breath of God' the material device is
unable to focus on that which it has
no prior impression, but, God is able
to focus such a direct impression
of relatedness on the material device.
we cannot discover a relatedness in
a thing for which we have no impression,
God can provide a necessary impression
towards the highest registries in our
conscious abstraction mechanism.
we become the focus of the tangent
of the time-less 'state' with the
frame of 'right now'
and, as it might be expected,
the quantized bit images of God's time-less nature
will have a 'fractalized' pattern which remembles
the 'whole picture'
somewhat like, yeah, you guessed,
somewhat like a seed.
the whole tree is in the acorn,
but as that tree takes root and
grows to produce acorns of its own...,
-and- =yet=
there is -still- more...
more as we can be brought more
fully in to the time-less state
so as the 'image' -becomes- pure communion.
Spirit for Spirit
> and we show the clarity when we can
> formulate a predictive image which
> corresponds more precisely
> to future outcomes.
some of this next little bit may matter
when and if you find that some don't
take the same things for 'granted' that
you take for granted.
when you hold a stone in your hand
you believe that when you release
it from your grasp, that it will
fall to the ground.
you may say to yourself, that
every time you have ever released
a stone from your grasp, it has
always fallen to the ground,
but as long as you hold the stone
in your hand, you have only that
belief that your memories of some
past event are a faithful representation
of the reality which has yet to come forth.
their is no -proof- that the stone will
fall to the ground other than your
confident assurance that some future
event will resemble all past events.
the fact comes into being as you
let go of the stone, and yet, you
feel you know for sure, that the
stone will fall each and every
time you let go of it.
the proof -happens- as you let go, but
you have never been disappointed and so,
you feel that you can never be disappointed.
and this becomes your unquestioned reality.
and that is the nature of the thing itself,
your descriptions of past events become
more precise to the point where you can
make relevant statements about future events.
when and if these future event predictions
are brought in to reality, you can then
maintain that your descriptions of past
events resemble the truth.
but each time, the -proof- is
in the letting go of the stone.
Faith is that confidant assurance that
you are going to be pleased and can be
likened to that certain knowledge you
have that when you release a stone
from your hand it will fall
to the ground.
this begins to describe the
activity of the Spirit
in your life.
and now, we would turn to the Truth of God
and begin to suggest that the good news of
God's own tranquility, resting upon your
shoulders, is a confident haven, in which
you may continually take refuge, and as
you see this blossoming and flourishing
in your own life, is also a realization
of the Truth of God as the description
of past present and future states
of unmeritted blessing.
this confident assurance cannot disappoint
you as each time you step out in faith you
are rewarded with the gladness that
accompanies God's own Presence.
So, your own personal description of
the reality of God becomes more precise
to that point where you can make confident
declarations about things that have not
yet ocurred as though they have
already taken place.
and faith meets Faith
you see peaceful Unity with God
you begin to know Love.
we suggest, without a doubt;
God knows when God sets out to do
a fine work, God will be pleased.
we suggest that God knew that man
would not bring forth a pleasing
scent when left to his own devices,
it becomes important that -we-
see that just as God sees that.
God can only begin that work in
you when you offer up this sort of
conscious understanding of God as
the only real source of
all things good.
God knows full well that you will be
a child of God after God's own heart
in whom God is very well pleased
when God places that heart within you.
and this is the sort of 'prayer' that
rises to God as a "sweet smelling inscence."
not a 'prayer' which would only serve your
covetous desire but a primary acknowledgement
of your desire to see God as God in you.
in this way the pleasant nature
will land on your shoulders and
you will see peace.
it's that simple.
your assurance that you are going
to be pleased is the same as that
certain knowledge you have that
when you release a stone from
your hand it will fall
to the ground.
this begins to describe the
activity of the Spirit
in your life.
> next, maybe, some consideration
> of 'tertiary' forms and their relation
> to God's own mental structure.
> where 'tertiary' forms would be
> the relatedness of various secondary
> abstractions from the wax impressions.
> one might suggest 'quaternary' forms, and
> find them to be of the 'zeroth' order instead.
> whatever that means...
maybe later
just, before you say out loud;
"God, come out the sky on me
and say "let there be light"
so i can know you're there"
that you'd be looking for the wrong thing
and that this sort of vision/sight may not
necessarily be the 'proof' you want anyway.
yeah, it's the first thing that
going to run through your mind;
"God, show me a sign"
little realizing that your
being there to ask such a thing
is already a remarkable accomplishment.
you just take your own being there for granted.
but you still want God to pop out the sky on you.
but this 'christian' thing brings
'the Presence' =itself= direct
-to- -you-
and that's the profound thing about
what God has done in Jesus Christ.
if God were to merely pop out the sky on you,
not to mention, that this would remain as
-just- you looking at something from the
outside and trying to make sense of it,
you'd still be comparing this to
phenomena that you experience everyday,
and, "to what -can- you -truly- 'compare' God?"
sort of like,
the manifold wisdom of God is not
a new 'man' that -you- can wrap
an olde garment of your sensory
comprehensions around.
like as if -you- would try to put
-your- old clothes on a new image
of God in your life and find that
not only do they not fit properly,
but you can't even find a proper
place to hang them on, and they
keep falling off.
and so, this -is- truly, a 'radical'
renovation of your very being insamuch
as God would bypass all the experiential
baggage and come directly under the soil
of your physical rationality and grab
hold of your unique identity structure
and bring -that- to the surface,
exposing and pruning away the roots
of the iconic portrait the existing conditions
has manufactured over top of 'you'
and -then- you will begin to actually
say that you -do- 'see God' in that you
come to realize... yeah yeah yeah,
you come to realize that God is not -in-
the earthquake or the hurricane or the
dazzling display of lights, but, in that
'still small voice' that presents itself
at your doorway asking you why you're there.
but really, when you ask for 'a sign'
you'd be looking for things that -you-,
under a heap of rubble, would consider
to -be- an image of God, little realizing
that you have =nothing= -to- take for 'granted'
in that you even should or could know what
such a manifestation can encompass.
as they say; 'first things first'
obviously, any 'imposter' could simply
appear to you in some form that -you-
would be 'expecting'
but none of this has ever been -about-
what -you- should expect.
-but- if God -did- surprise you
like some thief in the night,
you may also, -not- be expecting
that 'thief' to =give= you
your brand new heart.
...and then you can shake your head.
and you can -try- to convince yourselves
that the better idea will be exposed thru
the struggles of personalities only to find
that you've left your progeny nothing but
a bloody floor and them to mop up your mess,
and another brawl breaks
out amidst all the blood,
and no good better or best
has come from any of it.
it's not that 'politics' and 'religion' -don't- mix
it's that they -do- mix,
and as you may very well know
it is impossible for the cart -to- pull the horse
which is which?
now we may be approaching some sort of tertiary form.
"but i show you a higher way"
Timothy Sutter
Timothy Sutter
the course of these next
several sentences.
if you have a bowling ball and
you stick the bowling ball in
a cardboard box in which
a refrigerator came,
then you could say that you know
where the bowling ball is, only
that you don't know exactly where it is,
because you just know that it's
in the cardboard box somewhere.
it's in there somewhere, and given that
you left a lot of packing material in the box,
the ball may not be on the bottom of
the box, but could be anywhere in the box.
it's in there somewhere.
now, you leave the room,
if you feel like it,
but you don't have to,
and someone else comes in and takes
the ball out of the refrigerator box,
and sets it into a color television box.
now, you come back and look at the new box,
and you can say that you know the ball is
in that box somewhere,
and, seeing that the box is smaller,
your knowledge of where the ball is
is a little bit clearer,
but, it's still in there somewhere.
now, your assistant takes the ball
and places it into a small green
trash bag that -just- fits over
the ball, and now, you can prwactically
see the shape of the ball,
and you can say that you know
fairly well where the ball is,
it's right there in the bag.
the container -just- fits over it.
now you start working with
much smaller objects, and
what you find eventually,
is that you cannot make container
small enough for you to have as
clear an image of where the ball
is as you had with the bowling
ball in the trash bag.
this because the stuff you have
to work with to make a box for
your object, itself -contains-
the objects you are trying to observe.
the stuff you have for making containers
has an inherent spacial void which
cannot be overcome by your ingenuities.
so, for these tiny objects,
within their own tiny little containers,
you basically get back to a bowling
ball in a cardboard refrigerator box
and find that the best you can say is;
"it's in there somewhere"
always realizing that the container
is a bit larger that the object,
-but- you can get a fairly, not
so bad, idea of where the refrigerator box is,
or, in this case, the single 'atom' of tungsten.
so, you know where the little particle is.
for all practical purposes,
it's in the little box somewhere.
and you pretty much know where the little box is.
a bowling ball you can hold in your hand.
an electron is already in your hand.
whether there actually is such
an object as an electron, inasmuch
as you can't see it, is moot,
some set of phenomena,
taken together and looked
at independantly, seem to
behave as if such a thing
as an electron does,
in fact, exist.
it's somewhere in the box
and the box is right there.
> and you pretty much know where the little box is.
or, like a bowling ball in a baseball stadium.
and this bowling ball is self propelled
and spinning around the stadium.
you know exactly where the baseball stadium is.
and the bowling ball in there
somewhere,
spinning around.
and, we don't -have- to say
that the baseball stadium
is the size of the perceived universe,
and that the bowling ball is -just-
"somewhere in the universe"
cuz then, of course, we'd be entirely sure,
but we can be quite sure even in baseball stadiums
that are -much- smaller that the perceived universe
and even say that in a baseball stadium
the size os a small glass of water,
there is a clear certainty that -many-
electrons are contained therein.
for a fact.
and believe it or not, we can reduce
the size of that baseball stadium
even further, and know that
some phenomenon
which could be likened to
a spinning bowling ball,
is definitely in there.
see, a snowflake
is your baseball stadium
and you can be sure that there are
quite a lot of many bowling balls
in that baseball stadium
because that baseball stadium is,
itself, -constructed- of things that
behave just like tiny spinning
bowling balls.
Kleuskes & Moos
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > you don't know where hard lines of continuity exist
> > > and where no lines of continuity exist.
> > > it's that simple.
> > Using your model, nothing can be known.
<snip pseudopoetic squirrel- and elephant stuff...
> there is life, beyond what you can
> detect with your instruments.
Elephants, squirrels, funghi and bacteria can all be detected by our
instruments (in various ways). So in order to support that claim,
please name one form of life which cannot be detected by instruments.
> before the universe began, there
> was no physical material, so, whatever
> 'was' in existence, could not be detected
> by your instruments either.
If i understand correctly (and Both St. Augustine and Dr. Hawkins are
with me on this one), The universe was "created" with time, not in
time. So the notion of "before the universe existed" is meaningless.
> there is no accident associated with
> metastable physics that can be cited
>
> and so, it is valid, to cite a purposed event.
Ah... Please do.
> given the nature of this universe,
>
> postulating a Conscious Deity is perfectly reasonable.
Not if you haven't got any evidence to back it up.
> the material universe is not infinitely old
> the material universe has a beginning
Yup. Some 13.8 billion years ago, scientists tell us. However, you say
"material universe" in a way to suggest you know of an "immaterial
universe" care to share your evidence supporting that?
> unreasonable to assume that the smallest
> volume of the universe is finite and non-zero.
Why?
> zero volume completely removes any
> possibility of harmonic oscillation
> from matter.
And why is that important? How about non-harmonic oscilations?
> now, show yourself that there
> is no tuning fork to -induce-
> a vibration in anything
> else anywhere.
A nice, firm, whopping jolt of energy will do. There's no reason why
only harmonic oscilations can do that.
> now, what made the material universe ignite?
Good question. One i verymuch doubt you have any answer to.
> no accidental ignition is possible.
Why not?
> there simply is no trigger.
Why should any trigger be neccesary?
> and there is your absolute necessity
> for a Creative Personality.
Based on your particular brand of rethoric. However, rethoric, however
nice and emotionally satisfying, is no substitute for actual data and
a well-formulated hypothesis.
> genesis can -not- be an accident.
Genesis is a bible-book. No one ever claimedthat to be an
accident. Probably someone spent a lot of time, energy and
imagination to write it.
It does not, however, say diddley-squat about the universe as we know
it today. If your worldview has notbeen changed by (for instance) the
photo's of HST (especially the deep-field images), you weren't paying
attention, you're ideologically blindfolded, or just plain lazy.
> and that which you can see now,
> was brought into being by this
> Creative Personality which
> you can not see.
Preaching is not substitute for actual research, actual data and
actual scientific discussions of that data.
> otherwise, the material universe
> never ignites, it remains static.
Says you. And as far as i know, you're not a cosmologist, astronomist
or even a physicist. Therefore, it's nice to know you have an opinion
and can write nice sermons, but scientifically, it doesn't mean
anything. Just some nice sounding verbal foliage.
> The Creator Made the material universe happen.
>
> it's that simple.
So for a very interesting, difficult problem, you have a simple
solution which explains everything: Goddidit.... Basta...
That answers hasn't been acceptable since,awww, the 16th century.
> this is -reasonable-
Nope. It's crap. Your explaination does not explain anything.
> and that's all that matters.
Nope. Your "hypothesis" (and i use the term strictly without
prejudice) fails to make predictions, is not supported by any evidence
and cannot be falsified. Hence it's neither reasonable, nor is it all
that matters (fortunately).
> it is -reasonable-
No it ain't.
> if there is nothing and only nothing
> the only possible replica of nothing is nothing,
> and, nothing can do nothing and only nothing is.
More verbal foliage, which tells us....
NOTHING.
> your false, before the fact, assumptions,
>
> cloud your understanding.
So far, i've seen little else than MAJOR assumptions and a lot of
pseudo-poetic brouhaha in your post. Somehow you fail to understand
that faith, any faith, however deeply held, and however nicely
formulated is no substitute for actual data and
well formulated hypothesis.
Timothy Sutter
> > you don't know where hard lines of continuity exist
> > and where no lines of continuity exist.
> > it's that simple.
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> Using your model, nothing can be known. And that's fine for
> moody theater undergraduates, but adults are expected to come
> to grips with the concept of "better" and "worse".
> A model that doesn't require any miracles is better than a model
> that requires an inexhaustible supply.
yours requires an inexhaustible
supply or fantasy constructions
mine requires only the conscious
interference of a knowable
creative agent.
> Your model needs a constant
> stream of tedious, pointless miracles.
i have never proposed such a constrant stream of tedious "miracles"
i do propose a conscious initiation of genesis,
and the facts as they stand, are supportive of this.
> Mine doesn't.
i don't see much in the way of "theory" from you at all,
and so, soem of my comments cannot be directed at "your theory"
but, i may make some comments on the generalized "god-less mythology"
> Mine wins.
you can hold on to your "uncertainty" for as long as you like,
but what, exactly, you "win" will also, remain a mystery.
> Your model is consistent with every possible set of observations
as it should be
> and cannot explain why we seen one set instead of another.
we see a veiled image of what stands before us.
our senses don't see all there is to know about an onion.
> My model explains, predicts, and can be improved
> as new facts come in.
you should avoid inserting your own
baseless speculation as a "newfound fact"
> My model wins.
your model never gets off the ground.
> Neither model allows absolute certainty. And nobody (excepting
> moody theater undergraduates) cares.
Timothy Sutter
Timothy Sutter
Timothy Sutter
> > you don't know where hard lines of continuity exist
> > and where no lines of continuity exist.
> > it's that simple.
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> Using your model, nothing can be known.
i have a great appreciation of nature.
i don't need to win kewpie dolls.
i know an elephant when i see one.
i'm even willing to call it an "elephant"
when i do see one, even though i didn't
make up the name.
i enjoy feeding the sparrows and cardinals
and other assorted birds that wait outside
my door in the morning.
occasionally, a squirrel runs up to my door
looking for peanuts, and has been known to take
a peanut from my hand, though, squirrels are,
rather timid woodland creatures.
the little squirrel seems to see me behind the door,
and runs up expecting that i bring peanuts out,
which, i do, of course.
there is life, beyond what you can
detect with your instruments.
before the universe began, there
was no physical material, so, whatever
'was' in existence, could not be detected
by your instruments either.
there is no accident associated with
metastable physics that can be cited
and so, it is valid, to cite a purposed event.
given the nature of this universe,
postulating a Conscious Deity is perfectly reasonable.
the material universe is not infinitely old
the material universe has a beginning
unreasonable to assume that the smallest
volume of the universe is finite and non-zero.
zero volume completely removes any
possibility of harmonic oscillation
from matter.
now, show yourself that there
is no tuning fork to -induce-
a vibration in anything
else anywhere.
now, what made the material universe ignite?
no accidental ignition is possible.
there simply is no trigger.
and there is your absolute necessity
for a Creative Personality.
genesis can -not- be an accident.
and that which you can see now,
was brought into being by this
Creative Personality which
you can not see.
otherwise, the material universe
never ignites, it remains static.
The Creator Made the material universe happen.
it's that simple.
this is -reasonable-
and that's all that matters.
it is -reasonable-
if there is nothing and only nothing
the only possible replica of nothing is nothing,
and, nothing can do nothing and only nothing is.
in order for something to be,
something always is.
what is
the original something
the original indivisible entirety
that which is
activity potential
something can happen
something does something
something happens
if nothing is nothing is done
something that is is something that does
is does
something does something to something
nothing else is
that can do something
to something
is does
is acts on is
is is not acted upon
because nothing else is
how is does is known to is
this is who is is
the one who knows
is is is
something that is is something
that can be doing something
something that is is something that
can be making something happen.
and there is the origin
the beginning
and the end of all regression
The Origin
Is Is
The Primary Source
Is aware
and i suggest to you,
that this primary source, being conscious
can and will become known to anyone who
will humble themselves like a small child
and admit their own shortfall and allow
this Being to show for you,
as, your instruments of detection may be eluded.
Timothy Sutter
Pandeism Fish
> Sapient Fridge wrote:
> when addressing the horse problems you'll find that
> i said that possible chromosome alterations which
> may have reduced -counts- in horses could have been
> �the result of man's interference, inasmuch as man
> delves in the breeding of certain animals, and so,
> my 'caveat' was 'natural breeding' where some
> purposeful action that may separate out a population
> of chromosomal anomalies would not be considered
> "natural breeding" even if the breeders were
> unaware of the chromosomal anomaly.
>
It is worth noting that no human has even plucked out and altered a
sequence of genes from a horse or a dog or a cat as a way to breed a
characteristic into such animals.... the changes that have appeared in
such animals over the period of their domestication have occurred
through the natural means -- genetic mutation -- with man's role being
solely the imposition of selection pressures.... and these mutations
do indeed introduce new information, for example the ridge of the
Rhodesian Ridgeback, not found in their ancestral wolves....
Victor Eijkhout
> by 'count' one means the chomosome number for
> an entire 'species', and not individuals,
Did you see the page "How could the change spread through the
population"?
> you could at least, show me the chimpanzee population
> of chromosome count 46 that is wandering about today.
Just a guess, that's us. Somewhere there was a split where some pre-ape
got 46 chromosomes. That line became humans, the other line became
apes/monkey/whatever.
Hey, I have no idea what I'm speaking of, but then, clearly neither do
you.
Timothy Sutter
see, before there was any thing
God is conscious of God aside from any thing
the consciousness of God is the medium
upon which the consciousness of God propagates.
for all practical purposes, 'our' consciousness
is propagated upon the electrical impulses
generated by our 'brains'
we have and are, essentially, a
'consciousness emulator'
this consciousness emulator, which we are,
can detect and magnify the consciousness
of God which dwells inviolable
needing no physical medium upon which
to propagate and impervious to tresspass
by any and all physical adulteration.
and so, we shed the 'dead works'
associated with our physical beings
which stand in the way of our conscious
reception of the Holy Conciousness of God.
likewise, as the Holy Consciousness of God
pares away our physical barriers to the Presence
we 'see the light' of this Holy Consciousness of God
more clearly as through a polished lens and not
a dark mirror.
this is the 'Magnificat'
in essence
-if- all you are is a silly putty
wax impression of this place and
this place is fading into nothingness,
then you are, ..., then you are holding
on to a memory of a place that will
be soon forgotten.
> you are a ball of silly putty
> upon whom gravity, electromagnetism,
> time and tide have left an impression.
> you can be more
> "you must be born again"
that's part of the whole point,
God leaves an impression upon 'you'
which is conscious and alive, in itself,
and is not just a dent made by some
stone that hit 'you' in the head.
so, you're born a human being
and immediately, sense stimuli
begin leaving their marks upon 'you'
and 'you' are basically finding ways
of ordering things in ways that give
you some sense of comprehensibility,
and in so doing, 'you' get put
in order by the sense stimuli.
this is all old news,
but memory
being the transient creature
that it is,
oftentimes requires reinforcement.
so, the material world unconsciously
erects an idol to itself, in 'you',
which persistent hammering can do
little to prevent and/or alter.
strife results when the image
-it- created in 'you' leaves
'you' petrified
so you call out to the wind
and the still small voice calls
to you from the midst of the
incomprehensible void,
and you want to move towards it
but the metamorphosis is nearly
complete as you approach total
objectification and loss of consciousness...
next: the perils of Pauline
so, you'd say that you want to go live in the woods
away from 'this civilization' where you have to look
for food and clothing and secure dwelling space and
protect yourself from the elements which is what
'this civilization', by and large, does for you.
so, it's not 'this civilization'
which is your 'civilizing' force
but your own personal need for
food and clothing and protection
from the elements.
but you want to 'do whatever it is that you like'
-and- 'free yourself' from the bindings of the
'civilization' that would make it possible
for you to do just this.
gee whiz but you are tangled up in barbed wire.
you essentially say this;
'this is all there is, therefore i should throw myself to it'
'this is all there is, therefore, i should free myself from it'
this is a, somewhat, contradictory statement.
the contradiction lies in claiming
to seek to free yourself from what
you would also throw yourself over to.
whether 'this is all there is' is true
is irrelevant to whether your statement
represents a contradiction or not.
you would free yourself from cake
and iced cream by eating as much
of it as you can.
"slavery is freedom"
what you really want is to maintain some
sense of personal integrity in a 'civilization'
which imprints its 'own personality' upon you.
where 'its' 'personality' is nothing
but an illusory image of -your- need
to secure food, clothing, shelter
and certain amenities.
-it- is shining an image of _you_ back at you
and you are rejecting -it- because you sense
that there -is-, in fact, something 'more'.
well, you aren't really rejecting it,
you want to dive into it and hope the
iron teeth don't rip you to shreds.
you wish there is more, but some
certain knowledge of this 'more'
seems to elude your grasp,
and so, you hang on to the precipice,
unable to comprehend what -may- be on
the ledge above, and looking to fall
headway into the mechanical iron teeth
of the reality about you, and fearing
the prospect of your own anihilation.
the perils of Pauline...