In principio

[Johannes Patruus]

Genesis starts: "In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram", but we are
informed at 5'16" of this video -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=EAPJGiYExPs#t=316
that the Hebrew for "in principio" literally means "in a beginning" rather
than, as the English translations have it, "in the beginning".

How this may be understood is discussed in this article -
http://jbq.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/312/312_berry.pdf

Patruus

[Ed Cryer]

Yippee! My theory vindicated by experts.
I've always thought that God must have slipped up quite severely with
this world; and he absent-mindedly left it running in a corner of his
workshop while getting on with better ideas.

Ed

[Evertjan.]

Johannes Patruus <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote on 27 jan 2014 in
alt.language.latin:

The Ashkanaz pronounciation being "Breyshies", btw.

What is not said, is that reshit, reshies "beginning" comes from "rosh"
=cornerstone, first [in time], "resh" =first [when counting] [compare rosh-
hashanah, rosh-ha-shone =new year].

So the English parallel of "in a beginning" could well be translated as the
count word "ONCE", in the sense of "once upon a time", a common start of a
story.

Who could say Genesis 1:1 is not the start of a story:

"b-reshies bara elohiem et ha-shamayiem v-et ha-aretz."

"Once upon a time, God divided the heavens [=sky] and the earth."

et = accusative preposition
v- = and
ha- = the

bara = dividing, splitting, cutting in two, the concept of "creating
something from nothing" does not apply here, the substrate to be divided
being already there, so sorry, no big bang, but that is a different story in
principle.

Genesis [= Greek for Breyshies]
being just as much fun to read as Homer's Ilias:

Mehnin a-eide thea Pehlehyadeoh Achilehos oulomenehn, heh muri Achayois ...

Both have so many words where there is not enough comparative information to
realy know what that word means, so making an educated guess is the best you
can do.

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[Will Parsons]

Johannes Patruus <inv...@invalid.invalid> writes:

> Genesis starts: "In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram", but we
> are informed at 5'16" of this video -
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=EAPJGiYExPs#t=316
> that the Hebrew for "in principio" literally means "in a beginning"
> rather than, as the English translations have it, "in the beginning".

Hebrew doesn't have an indefinite article, so I don't think it can be
stated that the Hebrew "literally" means "in a beginning". Note that
the Greek translation (LXX) is:

᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γήν.

Like the Hebrew, without a definite article.

--
Will

[Will Parsons]

"Evertjan." <exxjxw.h...@inter.nl.net> writes:

...

> The Ashkanaz pronounciation being "Breyshies", btw.
>
> What is not said, is that reshit, reshies "beginning" comes from "rosh"
> =cornerstone, first [in time], "resh" =first [when counting] [compare rosh-
> hashanah, rosh-ha-shone =new year].
>
> So the English parallel of "in a beginning" could well be translated as the
> count word "ONCE", in the sense of "once upon a time", a common start of a
> story.
>
> Who could say Genesis 1:1 is not the start of a story:
>
> "b-reshies bara elohiem et ha-shamayiem v-et ha-aretz."

Are you sure? Why would the lenited taw of ראשית/reshith be pronounced
[s] but the final taws in את/eth be pronounced [t]? Shouldn't the
latter also be [s]?

> "Once upon a time, God divided the heavens [=sky] and the earth."
>
> et = accusative preposition
> v- = and
> ha- = the
>
> bara = dividing, splitting, cutting in two, the concept of "creating
> something from nothing" does not apply here, the substrate to be divided
> being already there, so sorry, no big bang, but that is a different story in
> principle.
>
> Genesis [= Greek for Breyshies]
> being just as much fun to read as Homer's Ilias:
>
> Mehnin a-eide thea Pehlehyadeoh Achilehos oulomenehn, heh muri Achayois ...
>
> Both have so many words where there is not enough comparative information to
> realy know what that word means, so making an educated guess is the best you
> can do.

--

Will

[Evertjan.]

Will Parsons <wbpa...@alum.mit.edu> wrote on 28 jan 2014 in
alt.language.latin:

>> "b-reshies bara elohiem et ha-shamayiem v-et ha-aretz."
>
> Are you sure?

No.

> Why would the lenited taw of žùž ž¸žTž¦/reshith be
> pronounced [s] but the final taws in ž ž¦/eth be pronounced [t]?

> Shouldn't the latter also be [s]?

Indeed, you must be right in principio.

My ctrl-c emulates the copying of all ages, but my too hasty ctrl-v leaves a
lot to be desired.

You could very well be right in žùž ž¸žTž¦, is there a final tav there?

My very basic Hebrew does not visually recognize these characters. This
being Usenet, my newsreader only conforms to the basic 128 [or 256?]
characters of original ASCII.

[Patricio]

On Monday, January 27, 2014 6:30:17 PM UTC-5, Evertjan. wrote:

> Both have so many words where there is not enough comparative information to
>
> realy know what that word means, so making an educated guess is the best you
>
> can do.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Evertjan.
>
> The Netherlands.

That's a keen insight.

I'd like to say it of all words, or almost all, but definitely of some more than others, and not always the ones you might expect.

--Patricio

[Johannes Patruus]

Lane's Lexicon draws attention to the cognateness of this verb with the
Arabic verb "bara'a" which has a comparable semantic range -
http://www.tyndalearchive.com/TABS/Lane/ppages/Lane-P45803.gif
(third column, lines 4-8)

> Genesis [= Greek for Breyshies]
> being just as much fun to read as Homer's Ilias:

Fun is precisely what we're after!

Patruus

[Ed Cryer]

That's probably why we have "wine-dark sea", "ox-eyed Hera" and
"owl-eyed Athena"; plus a host of other misunderstood Homeric epithets.

Mind you, the first one above has become so famous that I bet Homer
might wish that was what he meant.
:-)

Ed

[Evertjan.]

Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 28 jan 2014 in
alt.language.latin:

> That's probably why we have "wine-dark sea"

Aithi-ops must be something-eyed.

We find it with the sea and with wine, so "wine-dark" is not my choice.

Aithi is maybe unknown [see below conversation], but could very weell be
black or dark.

So "dark-eyed" is my favorite translation.

Aithiops thalassa, the dark-eyed sea, is the sea you can see from Krete
looking against the low sun, pitch-dark full of glistering "dots".

We just talked about it on this NG last february:
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.language.latin/LL9eSFDm4qI>

[Ed Cryer]

Evertjan. wrote:
> Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 28 jan 2014 in
> alt.language.latin:
>
>> That's probably why we have "wine-dark sea"
>
> Aithi-ops must be something-eyed.
>
> We find it with the sea and with wine, so "wine-dark" is not my choice.
>
> Aithi is maybe unknown [see below conversation], but could very weell be
> black or dark.
>
> So "dark-eyed" is my favorite translation.
>
> Aithiops thalassa, the dark-eyed sea, is the sea you can see from Krete
> looking against the low sun, pitch-dark full of glistering "dots".
>
> We just talked about it on this NG last february:
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.language.latin/LL9eSFDm4qI>
>

The "wine-dark" comes from οἶνοψ (oinops). In both the Iliad and the
Odyssey the phrase ἐνὶ οἴνοπι πόντῳ occurs.

There's no elision, which suggests to me a lost digamma; distinguishing
"oinops" from "woinops". And that points to a lost word which later
Greeks took as "oinops".

Ed

[Ed Cryer]

Here's my explanation for "owl-eyed" Athena.
The Greek word is γλαυκῶπις; Athena Glaukopis;
http://www.thaliatook.com/OGOD/glaukopis.html

The thing on her hand is a γλαύξ (owl, very common in Athens), but the
word γλαυκός meant something different.

Ed

[Evertjan.]

Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 28 jan 2014 in
alt.language.latin:

> The "wine-dark" comes from ŨĻ ŽôŨŦŨĻØ^ (oinops). In both the Iliad and the
> Odyssey the phrase  Ž ŨŦ Ŧô ŨĻ ŽïŨŦŨĻØ Ũû Ø ØOŨŦØ" Ļü occurs.

>
> There's no elision, which suggests to me a lost digamma; distinguishing
> "oinops" from "woinops". And that points to a lost word which later
> Greeks took as "oinops".

That's a correct assumption, methinks.

The pre-greek woinos developed into winos, and went on as

Latin vinus
French vin
Dutch wijn
English wine
Irish fín
Welsh gwîn
Lithuanian vynas

perhaps [see OED] connected to:

Ethiopic [sic!] wain
Hebrew yayim

As seen in the modern Greek "to inopantopolio"
from "oino-panto-poleion" = "wine and general store".

But where is the woinos in aithiops?

[Ed Cryer]

Evertjan. wrote:
> Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 28 jan 2014 in
> alt.language.latin:
>

>> The "wine-dark" comes from ר���׫ר�^ (oinops). In both the Iliad and the
>> Odyssey the phrase �� ׫��� ר���׫ר� �� � �O׫�"��� occurs.

>>
>> There's no elision, which suggests to me a lost digamma; distinguishing
>> "oinops" from "woinops". And that points to a lost word which later
>> Greeks took as "oinops".
>
> That's a correct assumption, methinks.
>
> The pre-greek woinos developed into winos, and went on as
>
> Latin vinus
> French vin
> Dutch wijn
> English wine

> Irish f�n
> Welsh gw�n

> Lithuanian vynas
>
> perhaps [see OED] connected to:
>
> Ethiopic [sic!] wain
> Hebrew yayim
>
> As seen in the modern Greek "to inopantopolio"
> from "oino-panto-poleion" = "wine and general store".
>
> But where is the woinos in aithiops?
>

Could you put your Hebrew to good use for me? There's something in
Genesis that's bothered me for decades. Maybe a full analysis of the
original text might help me.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
It got Adam and Eve kicked out of Eden; and severely punished thereafter.
St Augustine built a whole world-view on "original sin".
I've dedicated my whole life to the pursuit of knowledge and
understanding; including studying moral philosophy.

What is/was that tree?

Ed

[Johannes Patruus]

While awaiting a reply, why not bone up on the Wikipedia article? -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_the_knowledge_of_good_and_evil

> Ed

Patruus

[Evertjan.]

Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 29 jan 2014 in
alt.language.latin:

> Could you put your Hebrew to good use for me? There's something in
> Genesis that's bothered me for decades. Maybe a full analysis of the
> original text might help me.
>
> The tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
> It got Adam and Eve kicked out of Eden; and severely punished thereafter.
> St Augustine built a whole world-view on "original sin".
> I've dedicated my whole life to the pursuit of knowledge and
> understanding; including studying moral philosophy.

I am not into this silly christian preoccupation with sin [and punishment],
sorry. Perhaps I am not very "original", but that is not my idea of fun.

If you want to try on your own, start here:
<http://biblehub.com/text/genesis/2-9.htm>
Look at the Strong numbers of each word and try to look at other places
where it is used. Just like you would read Homer.

Jewish discussion precludes any dogmatism and discussion by authority,
even of any man being "holy", so world-views helt by someone like that
should not be the basis of a discussion, perhaps his arguments could.

If you however want to have a world-view, use reason, scientific exploration
and doubt.

[Ed Cryer]

At face value the Eden story is a simple allegory of growing up and
losing the innocence of childhood. But someone has tried to put it in a
religious context; a fall from grace with God, and not for the
individual but for the species. We're all fallen; all children of sinful
Adam and Eve.
And God's punishment was severe and chronic.

Now then, it's this Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that worries me.
I'd like to say that I love Jacob Bronowski's phrase "The Ascent of
Man", because that's how I view our human pedigree. We've ascended
through learning; not fallen through sin. We've mastered our environment
with understanding and technology; which we call "progress". We've risen
from apes, and they arose from tiny mammals that used to scuttle around
the toes of mighty dinosaurs.

I take this Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil to be simply "knowledge".
In other words "the pursuit of knowledge is sinful". Fundamentalism in a
nutshell; God has spoken, revealed how he wants us to live and be, and
"sic fiat".

Am I right or wrong?
I was hoping that a closer look at the Hebrew might give some insight.

Ed

[Ed Cryer]

The Neanderthals are all gone, and we're still here. More than here,
really. We're at the top.
When other life-forms have found a survival niche, we've learned to
survive anywhere; on the land, in the water, out in space.
War, nastiness, treachery and betrayal. Yes. Red in tooth and claw, but
we are "homo sapiens" (man the thinker, endowed with mind).

There's no doubt that we are the totally dominant species on this
planet. Any passing alien would recognise that very quickly.
Whether or not we "deserve" to be there; well, that's another question;
a question of value and preference.
One thing's for sure; we're not meek, we're not poor in spirit, we're
not lambs of God. And if we had been such when the sabre-toothed tigers
roamed this planet, well, we wouldn't be here now.

Put your faith in reason; and keep your powder dry.

Ed

[Johannes Patruus]

I suggest you learn Hebrew for yourself. A welcome change from boring old
Latin & Greek!

> Ed

Patruus

[Evertjan.]

Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 31 jan 2014 in
alt.language.latin:

> The Neanderthals are all gone, and we're still here. More than here,
> really.

"We", Ed, meaning we humans?

Many of us, the ones that left Africa "early", are Neanderthal in part, in
principle, having skin keratides against ultraviolet, a smaller blind spot
in the eye, specilal conditioning against the cold, like more fur, a
slightly different antibody system, etc, that are specific Neanderthal
traits.

The sex was good and led to viable offspring. "We" are here to prove it.

At least 300 different individual Homo Neanderthalensis left their genetic
marks on us. The amount of Homo sapiens in the equasion will also not be in
the 100 thousants, I presume.

The modern Negroid is far more pure Homo Sapiens than the pityfull rest of
us, but who counts purity, when we can be the dominant species?

The Adam [= Odom] & Chava [= Eva] story crumbles unde this new concept of
not originating from a single couple.

And with it the original sin, Ed. ;-)

However, Genesis 6:4, could already have hinted at the large Neanderthaler
daughters that looked very very sexy:

"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the
sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to
them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

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

> There's no doubt that we are the totally dominant species on this
planet.

That is just, because "we" identify with the habits we are good in, like
thinking and idealizing about who is dominant.

A mouse, if it had such nonsensical habit, would perhaps measure its
dominance by the relative length of the tail.

Insects and bacteria by the number of individuals on this planet.

Our darm bacteria by how they can exploit humans. BTW, we humans have far
more foreign cellular individuals inside us than the total count of our own
cells.

These others just, AFAWN, don't have this silly habit of thining about who
is dominant.

> Any passing alien would recognise that very quickly.

Only passing aliens of the "type of life as we know it".

Perhaps passing aliens are amoebae, and don't even notice humans,
think those silly cities of stone and iron are things of the far past,
when Earth amoebae were more technological advanced.

Perhaps passing aliens are unaware of life and water, those being far below
the density that their senses are able to detect. Only those iron objects,
that all move at the same distance from the center of this planet, while
seemingly flying from one rocky mountain to the other, makes them curious.

They never come to the conclusion, however, that they are in fact mammoth
ultra large crude oil tankers, they only see the steel hull, the oil and the
surrounding sea are just emptyness to them. Archimedes ideas would make no
sense to them, as would the concept of dreading being naked.

Noli turbare circulos meos, quousque tandem!

[Evertjan.]

"Evertjan." <exxjxw.h...@inter.nl.net> wrote on 31 jan 2014 in
alt.language.latin:

Sorry, the official names of these subspecies are:

Homo sapiens sapiens
&
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis

> However, Genesis 6:4, could already have hinted at the large
> Neanderthaler daughters that looked very very sexy:
>
> "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when
> the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare
> children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of
> renown."

So when the German calvinist theologian and songwriter Joachim Neumann
[Bremen, 1650 – Bremen, 31 May 1680], or his forefathers,
changed Neumann [ = new man] into the Greek "Neander",
this name was used for a little valley [Thal] where the river Düssel
meanders its course,and where Jochim used to wander on his days off, the
name Neanderthal was coined.
<http://www.backerdirks.com/history_05.htm#jneanderIEng>

Joachim Neander even wrote about this valley:
"Ist auch ein Reise-Lied im Sommer oder Herbst denen nach Franckfurt am Mayn
den Reinstrohm auff und abfahrenden, woselbst zwischen Cöllen und Maintz
Berge, Klippen, Bäche und Felsen mit sonderbahrer Verwunderung zu sehen;
auch im Bergischen Lande in dem Gesteins nicht weit von Düsseldorff."
[sorry, not in Hebrew]

In 1856 some fossils were found there.
The rest is history ....

BTW, since the "Rechtschreibreform von 1901" Thal had to be written "Tal",
but not in the official taxonomy of "neanderthalensis".

[Ed Cryer]

Well written, man. I think I go along with a lot of this; with one
exception.
Look at our species and at how it's changed since, say, the last ice
age. Changed in terms of numbers, areas of the planet covered, problems
solved; and all summed up in the word "knowledge". Can you point to any
other species that's undergone anything at all like that?
What other species leaves books and libraries for the next generations
to learn from and improve on?

Ed

[Ed Cryer]

Latin and Greek are far from boring. They contain some of humanity's
highest reachings.
The intellectual heights of ancient Greece, and the practical
achievements of ancient Rome, that's where its' at.
What does Hebrew contain?
My answer; metaphysical speculations into a nation's god.

Ed

[Evertjan.]

Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 01 feb 2014 in
alt.language.latin:

>> Noli turbare circulos meos, quousque tandem!
>>
>
> Well written, man. I think I go along with a lot of this; with one
> exception.
> Look at our species and at how it's changed since, say, the last ice
> age. Changed in terms of numbers, areas of the planet covered, problems
> solved; and all summed up in the word "knowledge". Can you point to any
> other species that's undergone anything at all like that?
> What other species leaves books and libraries for the next generations
> to learn from and improve on?

That is only relevant because we have this silly notion that it is relevant,
but it might be only relevant to us, not to other species that are alien to
us.

Perhaps there are species where space travel is not the result of science
and development, like the flying of birds and insects is not, to our
constant amazement.

Perhaps there are species that have another way of conserving knowledge and
history, or to whom the whole idea of "next generations" is utterly foreign,
and/or their knowledge being "in the cloud" of a common single concience for
the whole species, like a human's [and other complex species' as-we-know-it]
concience and memory realy is the common concience of all his cells.

Most of these notions were developed, discussed and written down by a group
of sci-fi writers in early post WWII London, btw.

[Ed Cryer]

I rather like your depiction of an intelligent species without angst. It
sounds rather like Eden to me; or maybe some south-sea island before the
arrival of crushing civilisation; perhaps like the Plains Indians in
"Dances with Wolves".
:-)

A major item in this debate has always been "mind". Even today it beats
science just how the brain generates it. But it does do that, and the
consciousness and self-awareness that it gives must surely have endowed
us with immense survival benefits. It's a fair assumption that other
intelligent life-forms with larger brains will have mind too; maybe
dolphins and the higher apes. And most definitely any aliens that have
mastered their environment and reached their moon.

Ed

[Evertjan.]

Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 01 feb 2014 in
alt.language.latin:

> I rather like your depiction of an intelligent species without angst. It
> sounds rather like Eden to me; or maybe some south-sea island before the
> arrival of crushing civilisation; perhaps like the Plains Indians in
> "Dances with Wolves".
> :-)

Methinks that living without existential fear is something that is
relatively easy for many atheists and people who do not believe in a godly
punishment after death, like many Jews.

That Freud thought existential fear was innately bound to the human mind is
very debatable, like much of his unproven theories.

In many eastern religious people there is only "shame", no "fear of sin".
I we tempted to say .. primitive .., but religion as such is rather that.

That does not mena religion did not have a strong evolutionary bonus, I
think it had, like other falacies and tricks of the mind. Seeing the world
as it realy is, could have been far to intensive or explensive, evolutionary
speaking.

> A major item in this debate has always been "mind". Even today it beats
> science just how the brain generates it. But it does do that, and the
> consciousness and self-awareness that it gives must surely have endowed
> us with immense survival benefits. It's a fair assumption that other
> intelligent life-forms with larger brains will have mind too; maybe
> dolphins and the higher apes.

There are so many things that are not yet absolutely explained by science,
both in the living world, and in the non living, mind being nothing special
per se.

Mind is just the falacy of believing in someting "outside" the realm of
science. Even "mind of his own", being free will, is debatable.

You are still not free from this notion that your valued "mind" is so much
more important than a long tail [mouse] or a unquestionable community spirit
[ants]. That it is not in their mind to debate such value, does not make
mind valuable in itself.

That having a mind lets you "rule the world" is also a falacy, as in fact,
single celled life, insects, plants have a much more firm stand in this
world, being far in the majority and more adaptable, and probably being here
when we are long gone.

> And most definitely any aliens that have
> mastered their environment and reached their moon.

No, that is just a trick mind plays on you. Perhaps there are beings that
can be called living, where interterestial travel is innate and not the
result of a scientific upbringing.

Perhaps their bodies are made of dark matter, their size is light years
long, and they innately communicate by gamma rays, the same as we, not
innately, do with WiFi. Our little planet could fit in a drop on their nose,
wiped off without realizing there is scentient life there craving to be
noticed.

That we are made of stardust, does not mean all living beings should be made
by that. There is much much more dark matter than stardust.

[Ed Cryer]

OK, you win, man. Your viewpoint is far more scientific than mine.
Mine's tainted with pride in my species and an anthropocentricity.
I have an old-fashioned Romantic love of life. I love its awesome
grandeur; I love learning and finding-out. And I think I also love my
fellow humans; perhaps more easily in the abstract than when living next
door to them. (:-

But yes, when it comes to an impartial outlook on life itself, I bow to
your higher vantage-point.

I have one reservation.
Imagine a giant meteorite was heading our way, we detected it, blew it
apart and saved not only our species but whales and squirrels and
tadpoles. Well, that would be put down to technology; and that comes
from science, from theorising, from having discovered nature's workings,
and invented things to protect us all. Not from a nature-given benefit,
but from knowledge and mind.

Ed

[Evertjan.]

Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 02 feb 2014 in
alt.language.latin:

> Imagine a giant meteorite was heading our way, we detected it, blew it
> apart and saved not only our species but whales and squirrels and
> tadpoles. Well, that would be put down to technology; and that comes
> from science, from theorising, from having discovered nature's workings,
> and invented things to protect us all. Not from a nature-given benefit,
> but from knowledge and mind.

... comes from science, from theorising, from having discovered nature's
workings, and invented things ...

.... which comes as benefits from natural selection, being a nature-given
benefit.

Or could you imagine your knowledge and mind comes from something else than
natural selection?

I don't agree with "nature-given" btw, nature has nothing to "give" in this
sense, nature is not something tangible or godly to be contrasted with the
human being.

The human being is just another living being, like all the other.

Even more to the point, it is just part of the single evolving life on this
earth.

[Ed Cryer]

Wait until we clone an army, genetically modify all the world's crops,
change the whole planet with global warming, build cities on the moon
and Mars.
1. Me - I'll praise human ingenuity.
2. A Christian will praise God's providence.
3 You'll put it all down to determinism and fate.

Ed

[Evertjan.]

Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 03 feb 2014 in
alt.language.latin:

>> Even more to the point, it is just part of the single evolving life on
>> this earth.
>
> Wait until we clone an army, genetically modify all the world's crops,
> change the whole planet with global warming, build cities on the moon
> and Mars.
> 1. Me - I'll praise human ingenuity.

You may. To what purpose?

> 2. A Christian will praise God's providence.

Illogical and unscientific, but evolutionarily understandable.

> 3 You'll put it all down to determinism and fate.

Not me.

In evolution nothing is "determined",
and there is no need for "fate" to explain it.

New mutations are all pure chance, and are evaluated by active selection
generated by better or worse reproductive survival.

Humans use human ingenuity where other species use brute force, mimicry or
other properties to get an evolutionary advantage.

Why would you praise ingenuity over mimicry, but that surely is an
antropocentric delusion. They are just accidental and equally effective
means of increasing chances of reproductive survival.

The ingenuity of humans and other animals is just such a selection of
accidental improvement.

There is such [be it subjective] beauty in how evolution works,
giving rise to the diversity of apparent life on this earth,
there is no need for determination of fate to make this diversity and this
mechanism beautyfull.

The facts give no hint for determined intelligent design. Improvements are
sometimes stupidly imperfect in the sense of "designing new builds":

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0>

Human ingenuity gives rise to love, protectionism, artisticy, large wars
between nations, genocide, pedofylic actions and religion, all probably
because it gave evolutionary advantages at one time, or the accidental
genetic mutation produced other effective changes that had such advantages.

[Richard van Schaik]

On 03-02-2014 1:02, Evertjan. wrote:

> Human ingenuity gives rise to love, protectionism, artisticy, large wars
> between nations, genocide, pedofylic actions and religion, all probably
> because it gave evolutionary advantages at one time, or the accidental
> genetic mutation produced other effective changes that had such advantages.

Just take sickle cell anaemia. Homo-zygotic a decease but hetero-zygotic
a benefit in malaria ridden countries.

Richard

--
Richard van Schaik
f.m.a.vans...@THISgmail.com
http://www.fmavanschaik.nl/
The world is one big madhouse and this is main office.

[Evertjan.]

Richard van Schaik <f.m.a.vans...@THISgmail.com> wrote on 03 feb
2014 in alt.language.latin:

> On 03-02-2014 1:02, Evertjan. wrote:
>
>> Human ingenuity gives rise to love, protectionism, artisticy, large
>> wars between nations, genocide, pedofylic actions and religion, all
>> probably because it gave evolutionary advantages at one time, or the
>> accidental genetic mutation produced other effective changes that had
>> such advantages.
>
> Just take sickle cell anaemia. Homo-zygotic a decease but hetero-zygotic
> a benefit in malaria ridden countries.

Indeed, Richard, but not as you spell it.

There is a difference between a homo-zygotic sickle cell patient that is
"deceased", and the hetero-zygotic "disease", also called "sickle cell
trait", that, while being responsible for inherent "sickle cell anaemia",
slightly, but statistically importantly, lowers the chance of becoming
deceased by malaria tropica [due to Plasmodium falciparum], not or less in
the case of the other Plasmodia.

1954, A. C. ALLISON, D.PhiI., B.M.:
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2093356/pdf/brmedj03376-
0014.pdf>