UT Austin professors discover copy of Jesus' secret revelations to his brother

[J.LyonLayden]

SHARE PRINT E-MAIL
IMAGE
IMAGE: A PAGE FROM THE COPTIC TRANSLATION OF THE FIRST APOCALYPSE OF JAMES FROM THE COPTIC MUSEUM IN CAIRO, EGYPT. DIGITIZED BY CLAREMONT COLLEGE. view more

CREDIT: IMAGE OF ARTIFACT FROM THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY, OXFORD UNIVERSITY.

AUSTIN, Texas -- The first-known original Greek copy of a heretical Christian writing describing Jesus' secret teachings to his brother James has been discovered at Oxford University by biblical scholars at The University of Texas at Austin.

To date, only a small number of texts from the Nag Hammadi library -- a collection of 13 Coptic Gnostic books discovered in 1945 in Upper Egypt -- have been found in Greek, their original language of composition. But earlier this year, UT Austin religious studies scholars Geoffrey Smith and Brent Landau added to the list with their discovery of several fifth- or sixth-century Greek fragments of the First Apocalypse of James, which was thought to have been preserved only in its Coptic translations until now.

"To say that we were excited once we realized what we'd found is an understatement," said Smith, an assistant professor of religious studies. "We never suspected that Greek fragments of the First Apocalypse of James survived from antiquity. But there they were, right in front of us."

The ancient narrative describes the secret teachings of Jesus to his brother James, in which Jesus reveals information about the heavenly realm and future events, including James' inevitable death.

"The text supplements the biblical account of Jesus' life and ministry by allowing us access to conversations that purportedly took place between Jesus and his brother, James -- secret teachings that allowed James to be a good teacher after Jesus' death," Smith said.

Such apocryphal writings, Smith said, would have fallen outside the canonical boundaries set by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his "Easter letter of 367" that defined the 27-book New Testament: "No one may add to them, and nothing may be taken away from them."

With its neat, uniform handwriting and words separated into syllables, the original manuscript was probably a teacher's model used to help students learn to read and write, Smith and Landau said.

"The scribe has divided most of the text into syllables by using mid-dots. Such divisions are very uncommon in ancient manuscripts, but they do show up frequently in manuscripts that were used in educational contexts," said Landau, a lecturer in the UT Austin Department of Religious Studies.

The teacher who produced this manuscript must have "had a particular affinity for the text," Landau said. It does not appear to be a brief excerpt from the text, as was common in school exercises, but rather a complete copy of this forbidden ancient writing.

Smith and Landau announced the discovery at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting in Boston in November and are working to publish their preliminary findings in the Greco Roman Memoirs series of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri.



https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-11/uota-tap113017.php#.WiDZL5aS1Ks.reddit

[jonathan]

On 12/2/2017 4:42 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> SHARE PRINT E-MAIL
> IMAGE
> IMAGE: A PAGE FROM THE COPTIC TRANSLATION OF THE FIRST APOCALYPSE OF JAMES FROM THE COPTIC MUSEUM IN CAIRO, EGYPT. DIGITIZED BY CLAREMONT COLLEGE. view more
>
> CREDIT: IMAGE OF ARTIFACT FROM THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY, OXFORD UNIVERSITY.
>
> AUSTIN, Texas -- The first-known original Greek copy of a heretical Christian writing describing Jesus' secret teachings to his brother James has been discovered at Oxford University by biblical scholars at The University of Texas at Austin.
>

James Christ? What's the relevance of this article to evolution?


>
> https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-11/uota-tap113017.php#.WiDZL5aS1Ks.reddit
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>

[*Hemidactylus*]

jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/2/2017 4:42 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>> SHARE PRINT E-MAIL
>> IMAGE
>> IMAGE: A PAGE FROM THE COPTIC TRANSLATION OF THE FIRST APOCALYPSE OF
>> JAMES FROM THE COPTIC MUSEUM IN CAIRO, EGYPT. DIGITIZED BY CLAREMONT COLLEGE. view more
>>
>> CREDIT: IMAGE OF ARTIFACT FROM THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY, OXFORD UNIVERSITY.
>>
>> AUSTIN, Texas -- The first-known original Greek copy of a heretical
>> Christian writing describing Jesus' secret teachings to his brother
>> James has been discovered at Oxford University by biblical scholars at
>> The University of Texas at Austin.
>>
>
>
> James Christ? What's the relevance of this article to evolution?
>

40,000 ironymeters exploded!

[jonathan]

On 12/2/2017 7:08 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/2/2017 4:42 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>>> SHARE PRINT E-MAIL
>>> IMAGE
>>> IMAGE: A PAGE FROM THE COPTIC TRANSLATION OF THE FIRST APOCALYPSE OF
>>> JAMES FROM THE COPTIC MUSEUM IN CAIRO, EGYPT. DIGITIZED BY CLAREMONT COLLEGE. view more
>>>
>>> CREDIT: IMAGE OF ARTIFACT FROM THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY, OXFORD UNIVERSITY.
>>>
>>> AUSTIN, Texas -- The first-known original Greek copy of a heretical
>>> Christian writing describing Jesus' secret teachings to his brother
>>> James has been discovered at Oxford University by biblical scholars at
>>> The University of Texas at Austin.
>>>
>>
>>
>> James Christ? What's the relevance of this article to evolution?
>>


> 40,000 ironymeters exploded!

You're Mr Off Topic.

My obsession of complexity science is entirely
on topic, the only reason you and others
can't see that fact is the science is
above your heads, you haven't any idea
what the science teaches.

Not one person in this ng has even
been able to answer a 101 question
such as defining the term complexity
or emergence yet laugh like hyenas
at every solid cite I post about it
without even reading the cite.

I wish the conversations around
here would stick to things like
relevant concepts and ideas, but
this ng has become little more
than a typical flame infested
pile of garbage.

But I keep trying to steer every
post back to science.

Would you care to discus how complexity
science has revolutionized evolutionary
thought?

I would. Would you care to discuss this
article?



COMPLEXITY THEORY TAKES EVOLUTION TO ANOTHER LEVEL

One hundred and ninety-nine years after Charles Darwin was born, and
149 years after he published On the Origin of Species, some scientists
say that the theory of evolution is due for a revision.

Not a religiously inspired revision – intelligent designers need not
apply. Nobody suggests that genetic mutation and natural selection
aren't responsible for the evolution of birds from reptiles or humans
from tree-swingers.

But a growing number of scientists do say that neo-Darwinian evolution
doesn't explain certain jumps in biological complexity: from
single-celled to multicellular organisms, from single organisms to
entire communities.

The jumps – saltations, in complexity parlance – appear to be non-linear
emergent phenomena, the result of networked interactions that produce
self-organization at ever higher levels. From this perspective,
Darwinian evolution is a mechanism of a higher universal law, perhaps
even a variant on the second law of thermodynamics.

I've got an article in the pipeline on the union of complexity theory
and evolutionary biology, and over the next few days will publish
outtakes from the interviews here. One interviewee was Carl Woese, a
titan of 20th century microbiology, who with colleague George Fox
reorganized the organismal kingdom from five branches to three.

Woese's experience with bacteria led him to look for an evolutionary
framework larger than that provided by Darwin and his intellectual
descendants. Bacteria – which may account for up to half of Earth's
biomass – swap genes without reproducing; with millions residing in a
teaspoon of seawater, Woese sees them in terms of networked communities
rather than individual cells, and interprets their evolutionary history
as driven by the non-linear self-organization that's now being studied
at all biological scales.

It's a rough analogy, but if you knew a lot about individual stars, it's
doubtful you could predict the existence of galaxies. When the larger
unit is sufficiently integrated, the individual unit is not as
individualistic as you think. [...]

The prokaryote concept is a bunch of crap, and stood in the way of the
development of microbiology for 80 years. Only now is microbiology
emerging, and people like you can hear what I'm saying. These concepts
are not based on the individual organism, the individual species. The
individual unit in microbiology is not the cell; the primary unit is the
organismal community. Cells develop in organismal community; they don't
give rise to them; the evolution of the cell takes place in the
framework of this community. The individual organism more tightly
coupled to the whole than we recognized. [...]

The world of animals and plants began with eukaryotic cells, as you
know; what the history of the development of the eukaryotic cell is, I
don't know, but it's clearly a more complex entity than either the
archaea or the bacteria. There's something we're going to find about the
eukaryote that's very special, and captures the essence [of emergence
and complexity at the heart of evolution.] [...]

Evolution is a process that manifests itself at a level-independent way.
You've got these basic cells, viruses along with them – and then the
multicellular world, the same evolutionary scenario played out, but the
dynamics are shown to be the same; then you go to society and see the
same dynamic playing out again – but it's not the darwinian dynamic.
It's the pre-Darwinian dynamic, when individuality had little
significance, and everything was in distributed interaction. [...]

Saltations are state changes. The simple example would be something like
a magnet heated up to a high temperature where the iron dissolves;
the magnetic properties are gone; then when you reach a critical
temperature in cooling down, the magneticism reappears in a very short
temperature change.

The property is gone in the individual iron atoms, but when they behave
collectively, you see the property of the whole. That's a very simple
example.

The microbial world is where I work; [saltational evolution] predicts
that there should be properties of the collective thing, that arise as
the thing collects. [...]

Twentieth century biology was structured according to a linear
Newtonian worldview. Linear thinking is not the kind of thinking that's
needed to study evolution. It doesn't help you understand the nature of
systems. Molecular biologists were so set about linearity that when the
gene came along, they took the gene to be the be-all and end-all of
basic biology. That comes out of thinking in terms of particles and
linear interactions.... I see evolution as the quintessential non-linear
dynamics problem.

It's heady stuff, and a lot of the hard science that Woese explained
didn't come out well enough in transcription to make sense here. To
understand him more completely I highly recommend reading "A New Biology
for a New Century," published in 2004 in
Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. It's a visionary blend of
history and microbiology, and shows that Woese is that rarest of all
organisms: a brilliant scientist who can really write.

Update: a follow-up post, "Evolution as Biological Thermodynamics"



#EVOLUTION

https://www.wired.com/2008/02/complexity-theo/

[Burkhard]

*Hemidactylus* wrote:
> jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/2/2017 4:42 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>>> SHARE PRINT E-MAIL
>>> IMAGE
>>> IMAGE: A PAGE FROM THE COPTIC TRANSLATION OF THE FIRST APOCALYPSE OF
>>> JAMES FROM THE COPTIC MUSEUM IN CAIRO, EGYPT. DIGITIZED BY CLAREMONT COLLEGE. view more
>>>
>>> CREDIT: IMAGE OF ARTIFACT FROM THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY, OXFORD UNIVERSITY.
>>>
>>> AUSTIN, Texas -- The first-known original Greek copy of a heretical
>>> Christian writing describing Jesus' secret teachings to his brother
>>> James has been discovered at Oxford University by biblical scholars at
>>> The University of Texas at Austin.
>>>
>>
>>
>> James Christ? What's the relevance of this article to evolution?
>>
> 40,000 ironymeters exploded!

And does Jonathan really think "Christ" is a family name,or is he
extracting the urine?

[J.LyonLayden]

No.

>
> I would. Would you care to discuss this
> article?

No.

>
>
>
> COMPLEXITY THEORY TAKES EVOLUTION TO ANOTHER LEVEL
>
> One hundred and ninety-nine years after Charles Darwin was born, and
> 149 years after he published On the Origin of Species, some scientists
> say that the theory of evolution is due for a revision.
>
> Not a religiously inspired revision – intelligent designers need not
> apply. Nobody suggests that genetic mutation and natural selection
> aren't responsible for the evolution of birds from reptiles or humans
> from tree-swingers.
>
> But a growing number of scientists do say that neo-Darwinian evolution
> doesn't explain certain jumps in biological complexity: from
> single-celled to multicellular organisms, from single organisms to
> entire communities.
>
> The jumps – saltations, in complexity parlance – appear to be non-linear
> emergent phenomena, the result of networked interactions that produce
> self-organization at ever higher levels. From this perspective,
> Darwinian evolution is a mechanism of a higher universal law, perhaps
> even a variant on the second law of thermodynamics.

Maybe. Or maybe subspecies of all animals mate and create hybrid zones for a while after initial divergence like chimps and humans. Traits and genes are traded, and beneficial genes make sweeps. Middle Eastern neanderthals and Hss formed chins at the same time because of this.

Or coding proteins beget complex structures.

Or all three.

But this thread isn't about that. Go get your own thread. I just wanted to see what the fundamentalists would say about this article.

You likely wrote all that for nothing, because I'm not discussing it with you here.

And I don't give a damn if this post off-topic. No moderator is coming to get me. And you're looking unstable for writing a book about saltation on a post about Jesus's brother.


So calm down.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/2/2017 4:42 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>>>> SHARE PRINT E-MAIL
>>>> IMAGE
>>>> IMAGE: A PAGE FROM THE COPTIC TRANSLATION OF THE FIRST APOCALYPSE OF
>>>> JAMES FROM THE COPTIC MUSEUM IN CAIRO, EGYPT. DIGITIZED BY CLAREMONT COLLEGE. view more
>>>>
>>>> CREDIT: IMAGE OF ARTIFACT FROM THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY, OXFORD UNIVERSITY.
>>>>
>>>> AUSTIN, Texas -- The first-known original Greek copy of a heretical
>>>> Christian writing describing Jesus' secret teachings to his brother
>>>> James has been discovered at Oxford University by biblical scholars at
>>>> The University of Texas at Austin.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> James Christ? What's the relevance of this article to evolution?
>>>
>> 40,000 ironymeters exploded!
>
> And does Jonathan really think "Christ" is a family name,or is he
> extracting the urine?
>

Ya'aqov bar Yosef?

[Ernest Major]

On 02/12/2017 13:13, Burkhard wrote:
>>> James Christ? What's the relevance of this article to evolution?
>>>
>> 40,000 ironymeters exploded!
>
> And does Jonathan really think "Christ" is a family name,or is he
> extracting the urine?
>

I thought it was faux profanity.

--
alias Ernest Major

[*Hemidactylus*]

You probably don’t understand the article so why?

>
> COMPLEXITY THEORY TAKES EVOLUTION TO ANOTHER LEVEL
>
> One hundred and ninety-nine years after Charles Darwin was born, and
> 149 years after he published On the Origin of Species, some scientists
> say that the theory of evolution is due for a revision.
>
> Not a religiously inspired revision – intelligent designers need not
> apply. Nobody suggests that genetic mutation and natural selection
> aren't responsible for the evolution of birds from reptiles or humans
> from tree-swingers.
>
> But a growing number of scientists do say that neo-Darwinian evolution
> doesn't explain certain jumps in biological complexity: from
> single-celled to multicellular organisms, from single organisms to
> entire communities.
>
> The jumps – saltations, in complexity parlance –
>

“Complexity parlance”? Are you kidding me? Can jonathan see the wrongness
in this co-option of terminology? I doubt it.

>
> appear to be non-linear
> emergent phenomena, the result of networked interactions that produce
> self-organization at ever higher levels. From this perspective,
> Darwinian evolution is a mechanism of a higher universal law, perhaps
> even a variant on the second law of thermodynamics.
>

[snip]

>
> Saltations are state changes. The simple example would be something like
> a magnet heated up to a high temperature where the iron dissolves;
> the magnetic properties are gone; then when you reach a critical
> temperature in cooling down, the magneticism reappears in a very short
> temperature change.
>

[snip]

>
> Twentieth century biology was structured according to a linear
> Newtonian worldview. Linear thinking is not the kind of thinking that's
> needed to study evolution. It doesn't help you understand the nature of
> systems. Molecular biologists were so set about linearity that when the
> gene came along, they took the gene to be the be-all and end-all of
> basic biology. That comes out of thinking in terms of particles and
> linear interactions.... I see evolution as the quintessential non-linear
> dynamics problem.
>

Twentieth century biology gave us Hugo de Vries and Richard Goldschmidt.

This is the second time I invoked Goldschmidt following up to you. The
first was when I attributed the concept of phenocopy when you were
“lecturing” us about Laland’s take on niche construction. Oh have you
learned anything yet about lactase persistence?

If you don’t have a clue how de Vries and Goldschmidt fit in here (wrt
saltation) I think you seriously need to sit down and STFU!!!! And stop
copypasting other people’s stuff without any substantive commentary of your
own that indicates you have a frickin clue.

Look this one up:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natura_non_facit_saltus

Or this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltation_(biology)

“Prior to Charles Darwin most evolutionary scientists had been
saltationists.[1] Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was a gradualist but similar to
other scientists of the period had written that saltational evolution was
possible. Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire endorsed a theory of saltational
evolution that "monstrosities could become the founding fathers (or
mothers) of new species by instantaneous transition from one form to the
next."[2] Geoffroy wrote that environmental pressures could produce sudden
transformations to establish new species instantaneously.[3] In 1864 Albert
von Kölliker revived Geoffroy's theory that evolution proceeds by large
steps, under the name of heterogenesis.[4]”

Darwin was aware of the issue. So I hope you don’t go babbling in
ignorance, as is your modus operandi, about how biologists don’t know about
this new fangled “complexity parlance.” It is old hat. Older than
Darwinism. Ray probably knows that. And you apparently need a visit from
the clue fairy.

You are seriously trying my patience with this nonsense.

[Jonathan]

On 12/2/2017 8:22 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:


>But this thread isn't about that. Go get your own thread. I just
wanted >to see what the fundamentalists would say about this article.
>

I'm versed in religious philosophy and believe deeply in God.

What point are you trying to make? It's been argued over
for millennia whether Christ had brothers, with most
believing the brothers Christ talked about were in fact
his cousins or the children of Joseph. So there's nothing
new in that article, except for perhaps what the
new writings they discovered taught. Which hasn't
been revealed by the researchers yet, so...

And there's nothing inconsistent about believing in God
and in science. You know that right?

[Jonathan]

Keep up the interesting, thought provoking
posts you bunch of....

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/9qTA8BAcl8I/maxresdefault.jpg

[*Hemidactylus*]

Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/2/2017 8:22 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>
>
>> But this thread isn't about that. Go get your own thread. I just
> wanted >to see what the fundamentalists would say about this article.
>>
>
>
>
> I'm versed in religious philosophy and believe deeply in God.
>

As you tout your unique expertise in playing the stocks or how you uniquely
prognosticate economic collapse when other beat you to the punch such as
George Soros. Self proclaimed guru and expert you are.

>
> What point are you trying to make? It's been argued over
> for millennia whether Christ had brothers, with most
> believing the brothers Christ talked about were in fact
> his cousins or the children of Joseph. So there's nothing
> new in that article, except for perhaps what the
> new writings they discovered taught. Which hasn't
> been revealed by the researchers yet, so...
>
> And there's nothing inconsistent about believing in God
> and in science. You know that right?
>

Shouldn’t you be posting off topic about Syria or investment successes
instead of hypocritically haranguing others?

[Jonathan]

I asked you if you wanted to discuss some evolution.
Afraid to go toe to tow with me on some real
science talk? Like Peter?

Just in case you don't want to talk science, I gave
you something that might interest you, a typo.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/2/2017 9:53 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/2/2017 8:22 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> But this thread isn't about that. Go get your own thread. I just
>>> wanted >to see what the fundamentalists would say about this article.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm versed in religious philosophy and believe deeply in God.
>>>
>> As you tout your unique expertise in playing the stocks or how you uniquely
>> prognosticate economic collapse when other beat you to the punch such as
>> George Soros. Self proclaimed guru and expert you are.
>>>
>>> What point are you trying to make? It's been argued over
>>> for millennia whether Christ had brothers, with most
>>> believing the brothers Christ talked about were in fact
>>> his cousins or the children of Joseph. So there's nothing
>>> new in that article, except for perhaps what the
>>> new writings they discovered taught. Which hasn't
>>> been revealed by the researchers yet, so...
>>>
>>> And there's nothing inconsistent about believing in God
>>> and in science. You know that right?
>>>
>
>
>> Shouldn’t you be posting off topic about Syria or investment successes
>> instead of hypocritically haranguing others?
>>
>
>
>
> I asked you if you wanted to discuss some evolution.
> Afraid to go toe to tow with me on some real
> science talk?

As in you bombastically thumping your chest about how ignorant everyone
else here is except you then you copypasting stuff from the web with no
indication you even remotely understand it?

> Like Peter?

For what it is worth Peter could wipe the floor with you on evolution,
paleontology and math.

> Just in case you don't want to talk science, I gave
> you something that might interest you, a typo.
>

This is among the shortest of your followups. Couldn’t find anything to
copypaste.

[Jonathan]

You can't even read the sentence properly, he's saying that
non-linear or emergent concepts are replacing the saltation
ideas of the researchers you cite, you're still mired
in the old ways.

And btw the article is citing Carl Woes, a legend
in evolutionary thought, you would be strongly
advised not to laugh at or dismiss his conclusions.

Woes is ten times the theorist then you've cited.

>>
>> appear to be non-linear
>> emergent phenomena, the result of networked interactions that produce
>> self-organization at ever higher levels. From this perspective,
>> Darwinian evolution is a mechanism of a higher universal law, perhaps
>> even a variant on the second law of thermodynamics.
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> Saltations are state changes. The simple example would be something like
>> a magnet heated up to a high temperature where the iron dissolves;
>> the magnetic properties are gone; then when you reach a critical
>> temperature in cooling down, the magneticism reappears in a very short
>> temperature change.
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> Twentieth century biology was structured according to a linear
>> Newtonian worldview. Linear thinking is not the kind of thinking that's
>> needed to study evolution. It doesn't help you understand the nature of
>> systems. Molecular biologists were so set about linearity that when the
>> gene came along, they took the gene to be the be-all and end-all of
>> basic biology. That comes out of thinking in terms of particles and
>> linear interactions.... I see evolution as the quintessential non-linear
>> dynamics problem.
>>
> Twentieth century biology gave us Hugo de Vries and Richard Goldschmidt.
>

That's dated science, the science I preach is replacing that with
a far better and more universal model.

> This is the second time I invoked Goldschmidt following up to you. The
> first was when I attributed the concept of phenocopy

Phenocopy? I looked at that and it's merely an anecdotal
explanation, not a theoretical or universal solution.
You can't see the difference?

when you were
> “lecturing” us about Laland’s take on niche construction. Oh have you
> learned anything yet about lactase persistence?
>
> If you don’t have a clue how de Vries and Goldschmidt fit in here (wrt
> saltation) I think you seriously need to sit down and STFU!!!! And stop
> copypasting other people’s stuff without any substantive commentary of your
> own that indicates you have a frickin clue.
>
> Look this one up:
>
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natura_non_facit_saltus
>
> Or this:
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltation_(biology)
>
> “Prior to Charles Darwin most evolutionary scientists had been
> saltationists.[1] Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was a gradualist but similar to
> other scientists of the period had written that saltational evolution was
> possible. Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire endorsed a theory of saltational
> evolution that "monstrosities could become the founding fathers (or
> mothers) of new species by instantaneous transition from one form to the
> next."[2] Geoffroy wrote that environmental pressures could produce sudden
> transformations to establish new species instantaneously.[3] In 1864 Albert
> von Kölliker revived Geoffroy's theory that evolution proceeds by large
> steps, under the name of heterogenesis.[4]”
>
> Darwin was aware of the issue.

But he didn't have a solution, and the concepts you cite
don't either, they try but are at best dated, limited
in scope and no longer cutting edge. The ideas I'm trying
to get through /replace/ those.

So I hope you don’t go babbling in
> ignorance, as is your modus operandi, about how biologists don’t know about
> this new fangled “complexity parlance.”

You certainly don't understand a bit about it.
Define complexity or emergence, then you can
criticize me or the article I cited, but not
before.

I understand the old concept of saltation
and it's no longer relevant, it's being
replaced by complexity concepts.

> It is old hat. Older than
> Darwinism. Ray probably knows that.

The questions are old as the hills, the solution
however is brand new and universal, and you
don't want to know.

> And you apparently need a visit from
> the clue fairy.
>
> You are seriously trying my patience with this nonsense.
>

Old dogs generally get ornery when being
asked to learn new tricks.

Again, I understand all the concepts you cite
and are presenting brand new solutions to them.
It's you that refuse to take the leap and
study up on the new ways.

If you can't define complexity or emergence
you're the one not qualified for this discussion.

And all here are trying my patience in the
countless excuses for keeping your heads
in the sand and refusing to even introduce
yourself to the new ideas.

[Jonathan]

Bull, and yet he won't even try, funny about that.
He merely says 'others' have shown I'm wrong
and runs away and hides, he's a coward.

He can't even define the title of my hobby, yet
professes to know all about it, he's a poseur.

You can't either btw, yet spew like you do.

Define complexity or emergence? If you can't
in two minutes, you're not competent to
discuss this subject in any way, shape or
form.

If I couldn't define a gene, or selection wouldn't
I look pretty silly calling all of you ignorant
of Darwin and evolution?

Yes I would, that's how most here look to me
when you can't define the basics of complexity
science.

Define complexity and emergence?
You can't

I can define genes and selection.

>> Just in case you don't want to talk science, I gave
>> you something that might interest you, a typo.
>>
> This is among the shortest of your followups. Couldn’t find anything to
> copypaste.
>

I'll try to use fewer, and especially shorter words, for your sake.

Ya know it helps if you use your fingers to follow along
with each sentence, I hear that helps the elderly with
their reading.








>
>

[Kalkidas]

On 12/2/2017 4:55 AM, jonathan wrote:
> On 12/2/2017 4:42 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>>      SHARE  PRINT  E-MAIL
>>   IMAGE
>> IMAGE: A PAGE FROM THE COPTIC TRANSLATION OF THE FIRST APOCALYPSE OF
>> JAMES FROM THE COPTIC MUSEUM IN CAIRO, EGYPT. DIGITIZED BY CLAREMONT
>> COLLEGE. view more
>>
>> CREDIT: IMAGE OF ARTIFACT FROM THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY, OXFORD
>> UNIVERSITY.
>>
>> AUSTIN, Texas -- The first-known original Greek copy of a heretical
>> Christian writing describing Jesus' secret teachings to his brother
>> James has been discovered at Oxford University by biblical scholars at
>> The University of Texas at Austin.
>>
>
>
> James Christ? What's the relevance of this article to evolution?

This isn't talk.evolution. This is talk.origins.

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 10:32:38 -0500, Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:


[...]

> the science I preach

At least you admit you are preaching, not debating ...I suppose that
is worth something but you really need to take on board that this is a
*discussion* group, not some sort of pulpit for people with
obsessions.

[...]

[*Hemidactylus*]

No he’s not. He’s acting as if saltation is a de novo complexity term.

>
> And btw the article is citing Carl Woes, a legend
> in evolutionary thought, you would be strongly
> advised not to laugh at or dismiss his conclusions.
>
> Woes is ten times the theorist then you've cited.
>

I was reacting to the way you quoted the article which butchers all
historic context for saltational concepts and your form makes it difficult
to tell who says what. Someone unacquainted with your unscholarly citation
method which would fail junior high and get you thrown out if university,
would think you authored what you copypasted. Is that your intent?

>
>>>
>>> appear to be non-linear
>>> emergent phenomena, the result of networked interactions that produce
>>> self-organization at ever higher levels. From this perspective,
>>> Darwinian evolution is a mechanism of a higher universal law, perhaps
>>> even a variant on the second law of thermodynamics.
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Saltations are state changes. The simple example would be something like
>>> a magnet heated up to a high temperature where the iron dissolves;
>>> the magnetic properties are gone; then when you reach a critical
>>> temperature in cooling down, the magneticism reappears in a very short
>>> temperature change.
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Twentieth century biology was structured according to a linear
>>> Newtonian worldview. Linear thinking is not the kind of thinking that's
>>> needed to study evolution. It doesn't help you understand the nature of
>>> systems. Molecular biologists were so set about linearity that when the
>>> gene came along, they took the gene to be the be-all and end-all of
>>> basic biology. That comes out of thinking in terms of particles and
>>> linear interactions.... I see evolution as the quintessential non-linear
>>> dynamics problem.
>>>
>> Twentieth century biology gave us Hugo de Vries and Richard Goldschmidt.
>>
>
>
>
> That's dated science, the science I preach is replacing that with
> a far better and more universal model.
>

Preach being the operative term.

>
>> This is the second time I invoked Goldschmidt following up to you. The
>> first was when I attributed the concept of phenocopy
>
>
>
> Phenocopy? I looked at that and it's merely an anecdotal
> explanation, not a theoretical or universal solution.
> You can't see the difference?
>

“Recently Goldschmidt (1935a) proposed the term phenocopy for such forms,
produced experimentally from the Wild-type form, the phenotype of which
copies or duplicates the appearance of a mutant (or combination of mutants)
of the same form. We shall use this term henceforth.”

[...]

“It might be said that the number of phenocopies (up to 100 per cent) and
the degree of phenocopic change (up to the highest member of a given
series) are roughly proportional to the product of the time and the
temperature of the exposure, i.e., to the intensity of the shock. The
specific type of phenocopy produced is dependent upon the intensity of the
shock, the time of its application, and the genetic line used for the
experiment. It would be surprising, of course, if so rough a method were to
produce a 100 per cent typical result for all different combinations. But
it is a fact that, at least for some of the phenocopies, a formula can* be
given which always produces them within a certain range of variation.”

Quoted both from Goldschmidt’s _Physiological Genetics_. Sounds to be an
experimental (not anecdotal) concept to me.

And:
“Finally, Goldschmidt has shown that environmental stimuli may, by
switching development into a path which is usually only followed under the
influence of some particular gene, produce what he has called a ‘phenocopy’
of a previously known mutant type.”

From Waddington CH. 1942. Canalization of development and the inheritance
of acquired characters. Nature. 150: 563-5

If you dismiss Waddington don’t EVER let me catch you using his concepts of
canalization or epigenetic landscapes, favored by “complexity theorists”
far and wide. But you are ignorant of history so wouldn’t know.

That’s the problem. You are incompetent in getting them through.

>
> So I hope you don’t go babbling in
>> ignorance, as is your modus operandi, about how biologists don’t know about
>> this new fangled “complexity parlance.”
>
>
>
> You certainly don't understand a bit about it.
>

I doubt you do either. You are insincerely full of shit.

>
> Define complexity or emergence, then you can
> criticize me or the article I cited, but not
> before.
>
> I understand the old concept of saltation
> and it's no longer relevant, it's being
> replaced by complexity concepts.
>

Such as...wait for it... the age old non-Darwinian concept of saltation?

>
>> It is old hat. Older than
>> Darwinism. Ray probably knows that.
>
>
>
> The questions are old as the hills, the solution
> however is brand new and universal, and you
> don't want to know.
>

You are incapable of conveying it to anybody.

>
>> And you apparently need a visit from
>> the clue fairy.
>>
>> You are seriously trying my patience with this nonsense.
>>
>
>
>
> Old dogs generally get ornery when being
> asked to learn new tricks.
>
> Again, I understand all the concepts you cite
> and are presenting brand new solutions to them.
>

I think you are lying there. You show no knowledge of saltation just as you
showed no knowledge of niche construction. You are just making up
undigested vomit piles on the fly.

>
> It's you that refuse to take the leap and
> study up on the new ways.
>
> If you can't define complexity or emergence
> you're the one not qualified for this discussion.
>
> And all here are trying my patience in the
> countless excuses for keeping your heads
> in the sand and refusing to even introduce
> yourself to the new ideas.
>

Then go back to your mountain oh Zarathustra. We are not ready for the
copypaste of your wisdom.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 07:31:33 -0500, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>:

>On 12/2/2017 7:08 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

>> 40,000 ironymeters exploded!

>You're Mr Off Topic.

Now *my* IronyMeter started smoking...
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

[J.LyonLayden]

I reposted this from the Reddit archaeology forum along with a few others.

The archaeology, paleoanthropology, and paleontology forums of usenet are pretty near dead and the few who remain have begun to congregate here. It is becoming something of a catch-all for all of these, since usenet is so unpopulated.

People on usenet seem to miss a lot of news. For instance, several regular posters on sci.paleontology didn't even know about the new whale that's older than any transitional form of Artiodactyl.

Himalayacetus is a whale older than any fossil of a whale ancestor, and few here even know about it. I've also seen several comments and posts that show that many new findings about human origins are also unknown. I am just contributing new articles that Reddit seems to know about and you guys don't.

If you would like to have a discussion about what Jesus has to do with the concept of man's spiritual origin, I may not be the best person to debate. But I do understand that according to many Christians, the human soul underwent a metamorphosis due to Jesus's actions. I have also seen the question of whether he existed debated on this forum, so some might find this article useful.

I also published a paper on dinosaur feathers at the same time that you guys didn't complain about. What do dinosaurs have to do with human origins?

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Dec 02, Burkhard wrote
(in article <ovu8uc$dim$1...@dont-email.me>):

> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 12/2/2017 4:42 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > > > SHARE PRINT E-MAIL
> > > > IMAGE
> > > > IMAGE: A PAGE FROM THE COPTIC TRANSLATION OF THE FIRST APOCALYPSE OF
> > > > JAMES FROM THE COPTIC MUSEUM IN CAIRO, EGYPT. DIGITIZED BY CLAREMONT
> > > > COLLEGE. view more
> > > >
> > > > CREDIT: IMAGE OF ARTIFACT FROM THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY, OXFORD UNIVERSITY.
> > > >
> > > > AUSTIN, Texas -- The first-known original Greek copy of a heretical
> > > > Christian writing describing Jesus' secret teachings to his brother
> > > > James has been discovered at Oxford University by biblical scholars at
> > > > The University of Texas at Austin.
> > >
> > >
> > > James Christ? What's the relevance of this article to evolution?
> > 40,000 ironymeters exploded!
>
> And does Jonathan really think "Christ" is a family name,

past behavior indicates that he’s that stupid.

> or is he
> extracting the urine?

past behavior indicates that he lacks the capability to do that. (memo to
Jonny: this would be a Britishism,
seehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_the_piss
not something Donny Trump did in a Russian hotel room.)

[*Hemidactylus*]

I wasn’t sure what Burk meant. Thanks for the clarification.

[Jonathan]

OH! This ng isn't about evolution, but about our origins?

I see, well, I mean golly gee, you do realize the
only two fields qualified to discuss our origins
in a rational way are flippin' religious philosophy
and freakin' complexity science, aka the science
of (spontaneous) self organization of which...

NO ONE IN THIS NG HAS THE FIRST CLUE /ABOUT EITHER/.

Good grief~

(I know...you're gonna now deny you said that)



Jonathan


s

[Jonathan]

It also happens to be the new version of Darwinian evolution
which can be applied universally, to explain the origin
and evolution of /all that exists/ whether a physical system
a living one or an idea. And which every single scientific
discipline under the sun is currently being rewritten
from square-one using complexity concepts.

But otherwise, no big deal~

i.e. the definition of complexity and emergence is now
as central to all of scientific thought as the
definition of an atom used to be to.

And not one person in this ng can define the term atom
er, eh-hum, sorry, I meant complexity or emergence, and
no one here wants to know either.

It's as if I'm living in a world where Galileo just
rolled out his little telescope and everyone just
replied...'who needs to see all those those blurry
little lights - we already have all we need to know
about the universe...'

That's just unacceptable, and I'm gonna be brow beating
this ng into the brave new world of modern scientific
thought no matter how hard all of you kick and scream.

Define complexity and emergence?

If you can't, you live before Galileo, before Newton
and before Einstein.

In the Dark Ages of science.



Jonathan



"Tell all the Truth but tell it slant
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth's superb surprise

As Lightning to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind"



s












> [...]
>

[Jonathan]

The article stated the concepts of saltation, in terms of
complexity science appear to be best explained by...


"The jumps – saltations, in complexity parlance – appear to be

non-linear emergent phenomena, the result of networked interactions
that produce self-organization at ever higher levels.

From this perspective, Darwinian evolution is a mechanism
of a higher universal law, perhaps even a variant on the
second law of thermodynamics."





>>
>> And btw the article is citing Carl Woes, a legend
>> in evolutionary thought, you would be strongly
>> advised not to laugh at or dismiss his conclusions.
>>
>> Woes is ten times the theorist then you've cited.
>>
> I was reacting to the way you quoted the article which butchers all
> historic context for saltational concepts and your form makes it difficult
> to tell who says what. Someone unacquainted with your unscholarly citation
> method which would fail junior high and get you thrown out if university,
> would think you authored what you copypasted. Is that your intent?

I quoted the entire article from beginning to end.
Do I need to read it to you?

...."produced experimentally" Which means it's doesn't have
a theoretical foundation, that is until complexity science
came along and gave the idea a theoretical foundation
that applies to all such sudden and large jumps.

> [...]
>
> “It might be said that the number of phenocopies (up to 100 per cent) and
> the degree of phenocopic change (up to the highest member of a given
> series) are roughly proportional to the product of the time and the
> temperature of the exposure, i.e., to the intensity of the shock. The
> specific type of phenocopy produced is dependent upon the intensity of the
> shock, the time of its application, and the genetic line used for the
> experiment. It would be surprising, of course, if so rough a method were to
> produce a 100 per cent typical result for all different combinations.

Exactly as I said, that concept is anecdotal, it may explain
certain examples of sudden jumps, not a theoretical foundation
for all such jumps.

But
> it is a fact that, at least for some of the phenocopies, a formula can* be
> given which always produces them within a certain range of variation.”
>

...."for some"..."within a certain range".

Not a theoretical foundation for all such jumps
which complexity science can provide.

> Quoted both from Goldschmidt’s _Physiological Genetics_. Sounds to be an
> experimental (not anecdotal) concept to me.
>
> And:
> “Finally, Goldschmidt has shown that environmental stimuli may, by
> switching development into a path which is usually only followed under the
> influence of some particular gene, produce what he has called a ‘phenocopy’
> of a previously known mutant type.”
>

...."that environmental stimuli"

Complexity science explains the source of the large jumps
are internal to the life form, due to the way in which
the components are interacting (complex) not due to
environmental effects.

If you could define the term complexity you might be
able to grasp that sea-change in how evolution
really works, but you don't want to know.

> From Waddington CH. 1942. Canalization of development and the inheritance
> of acquired characters. Nature. 150: 563-5
>
> If you dismiss Waddington don’t EVER let me catch you using his concepts of
> canalization or epigenetic landscapes, favored by “complexity theorists”
> far and wide. But you are ignorant of history so wouldn’t know.

....replaced by complexity theorists with the new ideas
of non-linear emergence and self organization.

The history of said concept is irrelevant to the
correct solution. The correct solution matters
now the previous incorrect or incomplete attempts
to explain the jumps.

Cling to the past partial and mostly incorrect
interpretations if you like, I'd rather talk
about the correct or modern solution.

Go back to your dark cave of now discredited concepts.

I was citing the ideas of Carl Woese, it's as if
someone were claiming to understand physics while
dismissing Newton.


Carl Woese

Microbiologist Justin Sonnenburg of Stanford University said...

"The 1977 paper is one of the most influential in microbiology
and arguably, all of biology. It ranks with the works of Watson
and Crick and Darwin, providing an evolutionary framework
for the incredible diversity of the microbial world".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Woese

[*Hemidactylus*]

Strictly cosmology, abiogenesis and evolution as reflected via
creation/evolution controversy. Your megalomania not relevant.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/2/2017 11:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 10:32:38 -0500, Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> the science I preach
>>
>> At least you admit you are preaching, not debating ...I suppose that
>> is worth something but you really need to take on board that this is a
>> *discussion* group, not some sort of pulpit for people with
>> obsessions.
>>
>
>
>
> It also happens to be the new version of Darwinian evolution
> which can be applied universally, to explain the origin
> and evolution of /all that exists/ whether a physical system
> a living one or an idea.

Darwinian evolution applies to populations of living organisms and is best
captured as shifts in allelic frequencies in said populations over
generational time. Known ways of these shifts occurring include drift, gene
flow, and selection. Full stop.

> And which every single scientific
> discipline under the sun is currently being rewritten
> from square-one using complexity concepts.
>

I doubt it. Workers in various fields may utilize complexity when
warranted, but the basics remain.

>
> But otherwise, no big deal~
>
> i.e. the definition of complexity and emergence is now
> as central to all of scientific thought as the
> definition of an atom used to be to.
>

Nope. Emergence is a substitute for the fact we are not Laplace’s demon.
Levels of explanation substitute for our ignorance and reflect our bounded
macrolevel perception.

>
> And not one person in this ng can define the term atom
> er, eh-hum, sorry, I meant complexity or emergence, and
> no one here wants to know either.
>

Especially not you.

>
> It's as if I'm living in a world where Galileo just
> rolled out his little telescope and everyone just
> replied...'who needs to see all those those blurry
> little lights - we already have all we need to know
> about the universe...'
>

They laughed at Galileo. And at Bozo the clown. Which are you?

>
> That's just unacceptable, and I'm gonna be brow beating
> this ng into the brave new world of modern scientific
> thought no matter how hard all of you kick and scream.
>

By vomiting undigested copypastes?
>
> Define complexity and emergence?
>
Two terms jonathan babbles about and cribs from other people’s rhetoric no
matter the relevance.

>
> If you can't, you live before Galileo, before Newton
> and before Einstein.
>

They’re dead Jim.

>
> In the Dark Ages of science.
>

You are the benighted one ignorant of historic grounding of subjects such
as Baldwin effect and saltation. But don’t let that stop you from making an
idiot of yourself.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Saturday, 2 December 2017 12:00:02 UTC, jonathan wrote:
> On 12/2/2017 4:42 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > SHARE PRINT E-MAIL
> > IMAGE
> > IMAGE: A PAGE FROM THE COPTIC TRANSLATION OF THE FIRST APOCALYPSE OF JAMES FROM THE COPTIC MUSEUM IN CAIRO, EGYPT. DIGITIZED BY CLAREMONT COLLEGE. view more
> >
> > CREDIT: IMAGE OF ARTIFACT FROM THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY, OXFORD UNIVERSITY.
> >
> > AUSTIN, Texas -- The first-known original Greek copy of a heretical Christian writing describing Jesus' secret teachings to his brother James has been discovered at Oxford University by biblical scholars at The University of Texas at Austin.
> >
>
>
> James Christ? What's the relevance of this article to evolution?
>
>
> >

> > https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-11/uota-tap113017.php#.WiDZL5aS1Ks.reddit

What's "reddit" doing in there?

I assumed this was a joke. Technically it is, because
the quoted text is actually claiming that an unknown
"heretical Christian", and not Jesus himself, wrote this.
So the subject line is misleading; a prank.

It seems to be part, or rather all, of this,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Apocalypse_of_James>
which was already rediscovered in 1945. It's an imaginary
conversation between James and Jesus.

[Martin Harran]

Back in 397, the leaders of the Christian church, who had available to
them all the contemporary writings about Christ, formally reviewed
those writings and selected the ones they considered to be reliable.

I find it somewhat amusing when scraps of manuscripts are found with
no independent supporting evidence to support what is written in them,
some people choose to treat them as some sort of proof of a conspiracy
by the church leaders in 397 to deceive their followers.

Seems a bit to me like somebody a couple of thousand years in the
future trying to use discovered fragments of the National Enquirer to
overturn official history books.

[Paul J Gans]

Oh man, you sure have this right!

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[*Hemidactylus*]

Official history books? Are you typing that with a straight face? The more
apt comparison would be between canonical works of fantasy worlds (Star
Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter) and fan fiction. But at least the canonical
contemporary fantasy works have more internal coherence and consistency
than the scrap heap of the bible.

And the National Enquirer publishes bullshit about people who are known to
have walked the Earth. Faint praise that.

Enjoy your “history” book.

[*Hemidactylus*]

So the Gospels are acceptable as official history more reliable than that
not in the canon? How is one to judge variations of “historical” fiction?
Maybe by the political or ideological purpose served at the time?

[erik simpson]

To be fair, the National Enquirer also publishes bullshit about things that
never existed anywhere, at all. Even fainter praise. My favorites were
photographs of Satan escaping from hell in an oil well fire, and Bill Clinton
shaking hands with an alien. (He probably made inappropriate advances as well
once the cameras were out of the room.)

[*Hemidactylus*]

Are you confusing the Enquirer with the other tabloids at the supermarket?
Some have aliens on the cover.

Regardless the New Testament was famous for tabloid accusations against
*The Jews* such as your dad is the devil and the blood libel. These caused
serious damage to Jewish communities through *real history*. But perhaps
that was overblown and the only actual casualties were 3 or 4
over-enthusiastic inquisitors who accidentally stubbed their toes showing
conversos the implements misconstrued by “historians” as torture devices.


As is well known amongst the enlightened, Bruno and Galileo had it coming
as was the accepted policy at the time. Only now is it OK to accept science
because modern popes came to their senses.

[J.LyonLayden]

Who are you talking to? What are you talking about?

[J.LyonLayden]

You don't ever get laid do you? Guess I'd be angry too. You have to be pretty sexually frustrated to get so upset about a book.

[J.LyonLayden]

Yeah kinda like that video caused Benghazi. It doesn't take a book to be a sadist, any excuse will do.

Before the spread of the monotheistic religions, in most cultures human sacrifice, headhunting, and cannibalism were all in a day's work.
Without the monotheistic religions, there would have been no monks to create science.

Ahh the days of headhunting where I could just shut you up with a shark-toothed sword.

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Dec 06, erik simpson wrote
(in article<148d0646-f59b-4854...@googlegroups.com>):

Come on, man, you should know the Slickster better than that. He’d have
invited the camera crews to join in.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Twit.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Not you obviously.

>
> What are you talking about?
>

If you have to ask you will never know.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Cultural bigotry coupled with a veiled threat. Who was it you followed into
this group?

[J.LyonLayden]

It's not a threat I just want to be a barbarian and slay. Unfortunately, I was born too late. It's illegal now, because the modern religions made it so.

I'm not bigotted against non-monotheistic religions, I just haven't found evidence that all three of these related things were banned in early proto-indo-european religions. The Bushmen of Africa also don't practice such things, and their religion is either monotheistic or animist. Neither did most indigenous ASustralians.

Pretty much everyone else did practice all three well into the Neolithic.

If you have evidence of a polytheistic religion ending headhunting or human sacrifice in a region please let me know. But remember I said "most" cultures, not all. By and large, the proto-indo-european cultures paracticed both in antiquity.

Indo-European religions DID stop cannibalism in many places; I am not contesting that.

And remember I said "most" cultures. It's just a fact, not bigotry at all.

Buddhism played a large part in eradicating cannibalism from Tibet. It's sometimes considered monotheism, sometimes not. But it shares so many ideas with Christianity many have proposed links between the two.

[Mark Isaak]

There was an anthropologists a couple decades ago who seriously advanced
the proposition that humans were *never* cannibalistic. Some cultures
made noises that they were cannibals to inspire fear and loathing in
their enemies. Some may have gone as far as the person officiating a
ceremony biting into flesh without eating it. Some made it a symbolic
thing, for example eating a wafer of bread and saying it gets
transubstaniated into human flesh. But barring extreme famine, actual
cannibalistic meals did not happen.

I believe his idea died due in part to one or two well-documented cases
of cannibalism and in part from the difficulty of proving a negative.
But I believe there is probably merit to his main point that cannibalism
reports are more sound than substance.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[J.LyonLayden]

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/9hZfEvO-DrA

Yes some see him as a latter-day Marxists, promoting the "Noble Savage."
The National Geographic article in the thead on this talks about him a little.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/9hZfEvO-DrA

There were other Marxists apologists before him, but they have all been buried under the weight of cannibalized bones.

> Some cultures
> made noises that they were cannibals to inspire fear and loathing in
> their enemies. Some may have gone as far as the person officiating a
> ceremony biting into flesh without eating it. Some made it a symbolic
> thing, for example eating a wafer of bread and saying it gets
> transubstaniated into human flesh. But barring extreme famine, actual
> cannibalistic meals did not happen.

Great points.

Frazer (The Golden Bough) and the researchers above often see this as a vestige of cannibalism.

The sacrament of which you speak may indeed be a vestige. Endocannibalism of spiritual leaders is a ritual going back to the Neanderthals, according to many. The sacrament is one of several things which have led Theologians to see a link between Christianity and specifically Tibetan Buddhism. The Bon, which precede and are now a part of Tibetan Buddhism, are known to have practiced similar rituals with real subjects into modern times.

>
> I believe his idea died due in part to one or two well-documented cases
> of cannibalism and in part from the difficulty of proving a negative.
> But I believe there is probably merit to his main point that cannibalism
> reports are more sound than substance.

We were some brutal mofos. That's the kind of stuff I write about in my prehistoric fiction.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 10:35:03 AM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> J.LyonLayden <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

I was rash in my answer to you. I misconstrued something you said, and who it was meant for. I have noticed this and offer my apology.