Dog genome may hold key to one of humanity's own diseases
Steven L.
By Carolyn Y. Johnson, Globe Staff | January 4, 2010
Scientists scouring the genome to better understand complex human
diseases are looking to an unlikely ally for guidance: our pets.
Dogs have been an integral part of human life for centuries. It is
precisely because of that intertwined history that dogs are a
potentially powerful tool for researchers seeking the genetic roots of
everything from psychiatric disorders to cancer - just two of the
ailments that are similar in both humans and dogs.
Last month, scientists studying Doberman pinschers with a compulsive
behavior disorder similar to human obsessive-compulsive disorder found a
gene associated with the condition. The genetic hit is now being
followed by other researchers, who are studying the same gene in human
patients with OCD, in hopes the clue from man's best friend may help
explain the disease in people.
"This is exactly where we were hoping to get to,'' said Elinor Karlsson,
a postdoctoral fellow at the Broad Institute, a genetics research center
in Cambridge, and coauthor of a paper on the subject. "This is taking a
disease that people have had a lot of trouble working with in humans,
that seems to be a multigenic and complex psychiatric disease, and using
a dog breed to look at something completely new about that disease -
something we wouldn't be able to find in any other species.''
In dogs, compulsive behavior includes tail chasing, licking their legs
until they develop infections, and pacing and circling - versions of
normal behaviors such as predatory behavior, grooming, or locomotion
taken to extremes. Those kinds of behaviors parallel the way that normal
human behaviors, such as hand washing or checking objects, can become
repetitive in the estimated 2.2 million American adults affected by OCD.
The Doberman study was done by researchers at the Cummings School of
Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University, the University of Massachusetts
Medical School in Worcester, and the Broad Institute.
Scientists took samples from 92 Doberman pinschers that displayed
compulsive behavior. Dogs with the disorder compulsively suck their
flanks or blankets. Researchers also used samples from 68 normal dogs,
and did a genome-wide scan, searching for spots that varied between the
two samples.
They found a genetic hot spot that was different in dogs with the
compulsive behavior. The hot spot lay in a gene called Cadherin 2, known
to be active in the brain and in a family of genes recently implicated
in autism.
Dr. Dennis Murphy, a laboratory chief in the National Institute of
Mental Health intramural research program, said he is working to follow
the research by studying the same gene in more than 300 patients with
OCD, 400 of their relatives, and about 600 people without OCD.
"Identifying a specific gene that could be a candidate gene for a
complex disorder like OCD is a gift to have,'' Murphy said. "This might
be a quick route in to a meaningful gene that just could be involved in
the human disorder, as well.''
The new finding confirms scientists' hopes when the dog genome research
was first published four years ago. Researchers have sequenced the
genomes of many animals and plants, ranging from the woolly mammoth to
maize. But publication of the dog genome was exciting not only for
veterinary medicine, but for people who study human genetics.
Geneticists have long been interested in isolated populations, such as
people in Iceland who are genetically similar to each other, making it
easier to identify variations that cause diseases or traits. Dogs take
that to a new level, said Dr. Nicholas Dodman, director of the animal
behavior clinic at the Tufts Cummings School and lead author of the new
paper, published in the journal Molecular Psychiatry.
Because of careful breeding, dogs are more inbred and less genetically
diverse than humans. They also happen to naturally develop diseases that
are in many cases similar to human forms of the disease, such as the
compulsive disorder, epilepsy, cancer, and phobias.
That means that fewer spots in the genome need to be studied to find
variations that could cause a disease, and some of the genes that cause
complex diseases may be easier to find in dogs than in humans.
"The dog sits in an interesting spot,'' said Dr. Steven Hamilton, a
psychiatrist who heads the canine behavioral genetics project at the
University of California, San Francisco. "Human geneticists like myself
are becoming much more interested in this approach - basically using the
dog as a model for human traits, a simplified genetic model for human
traits.''
While it is impossible to know whether animals have obsessive thoughts,
or to know whether a dog's psychiatric disease will ultimately shed
light on the human version, Dodman said animals' compulsive behaviors
have parallels to those in people with OCD. Both involve normal
behaviors that are repeated too often, causing distress.
Hamilton said the finding of the gene was interesting, but would need to
be confirmed in other dog breeds. Murphy said that while much remains to
be seen as researchers continue to examine the gene in dogs and in
people, the new study is a proof of principle.
"I think once people realize the power and the advantage of thinking
more about dog and cat behaviors in terms of interest in psychiatric
disorders, there's going to be a lot more,'' Murphy said. "It's going to
be a boom.''
Carolyn Y. Johnson can be reached at cjoh...@globe.com.
C Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
Kalkidas
news:tPidnSxHYM2mf9zW...@earthlink.com:
> Dog genes may hold secrets to human disease
They're products of a common design plan.
Desertphile
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Dog genes may hold secrets to human disease
Damn it, I wish these scientists would stop using evolutionary
theory to save human lives! Naffoff says that's impossible, and
I'd hate to see him make a damn fool out of himself.....
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
r norman
wrote:
The Theory of Evolution wins again. It is dogs that hold the secrets
to human disease. Not primates, not old world monkeys, not hominids,
not even our closest relative, the chimpanzee.
So much for evolution rather than simple observation of similarities
and then taking making proper use of those observations as being the
foundation for medicine.
Desertphile
wrote:
> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in
Yes, over tens of thousands of years, starting with wolves as the
base supply. -=YAWN!= We know this already.
All-seeing-I
> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote innews:tPidnSxHYM2mf9zW...@earthlink.com:
>
> > Dog genes may hold secrets to human disease
>
> They're products of a common design plan.
They are too stupid to see that.
They think all the matter on this planet randomly organized by itself
and then through some kind of magic --they call evolution-- produced
billions of species with enough common elements and commonly designed
parts as to think it happened all by itself.
Laughable to say the least.
They read science fiction; they like science fiction; they believe
science fiction to be the origins of species.
But they become horrified at the thought of an ancient tribe making
man from an ape while believing man descended from an ape instead.
Their ability to lie to themselves and to others is apparent when one
reads this newsgroup. It clearly shows that they are all under the
same "group think" that I laughingly call a mellow mass delusion they
called: 'evolution'.
I feel sorry for them.
They are frantic to discredit anything other then evolution as being
man's origins and they have more to do then they can handle with just
refuting that.
They are not really aware of just how hectic and confused our lives
are. They think scientific discoveries are 'normal' and are the only
thing to believe ---as if mankind had no capacity for understanding
before that.
It becomes clear when they are angry about their lack of ability to
understand the simplest of things such as the bible that evolution
becomes a belief to them. They have nothing else they are capable of
understanding.
Their frustration and confusion are common symptoms of powerlessness
and unimaginable perception.
So they turn from the truth.
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:80e7e928-2adf-4c60...@u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 4, 5:22 pm, Kalinda's <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote
>> innews:tPidnSxHYM2mf9zW...@earthlink.com:
>>
>> > Dog genes may hold secrets to human disease
>>
>> They're products of a common design plan.
>
> They are too stupid to see that.
>
> They think all the matter on this planet randomly organized by itself
> and then through some kind of magic --they call evolution-- produced
> billions of species with enough common elements and commonly designed
> parts as to think it happened all by itself.
>
Others think a lot of bronze age goatherds.
.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jan 4, 5:22�pm, Kalinda's <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote innews:tPidnSxHYM2mf9zW...@earthlink.com:
>>
>> > Dog genes may hold secrets to human disease
>>
>> They're products of a common design plan.
>
>They are too stupid to see that.
The stupid one is the one who sees design when none is present.
>
>They think all the matter on this planet randomly organized by itself
Who claimed that? Very little "random" about it.
>and then through some kind of magic --they call evolution-- produced
There is no magic involved in evolution. Magic is your thing.
>billions of species with enough common elements and commonly designed
>parts as to think it happened all by itself.
Where do you see design?
>
>Laughable to say the least.
>
>They read science fiction; they like science fiction; they believe
>science fiction to be the origins of species.
Silly little troll.
>
>But they become horrified at the thought of an ancient tribe making
>man from an ape while believing man descended from an ape instead.
Man is still an ape, and will be long after you are gone.
>
>Their ability to lie to themselves and to others is apparent when one
>reads this newsgroup. It clearly shows that they are all under the
>same "group think" that I laughingly call a mellow mass delusion they
>called: 'evolution'.
>
>I feel sorry for them.
>
>They are frantic to discredit anything other then evolution as being
>man's origins and they have more to do then they can handle with just
>refuting that.
We don't have to discredit anything - you do it for us.
>
>They are not really aware of just how hectic and confused our lives
>are. They think scientific discoveries are 'normal' and are the only
>thing to believe ---as if mankind had no capacity for understanding
>before that.
Science has shown that much of that "understanding" was wrong.
>
>It becomes clear when they are angry about their lack of ability to
>understand the simplest of things such as the bible
The bible is a collection of bronze and early iron age fairy stories.
> that evolution
>becomes a belief to them. They have nothing else they are capable of
>understanding.
>
>Their frustration and confusion are common symptoms of powerlessness
>and unimaginable perception.
>
>So they turn from the truth.
What would you know about the truth Mudbrain?
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
The [Dropa] stone is real, the troglodytes exist, the graves are
there, many books have been written on the subject...
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
bpuharic
>On Jan 4, 5:22�pm, Kalinda's <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote innews:tPidnSxHYM2mf9zW...@earthlink.com:
>>
>> > Dog genes may hold secrets to human disease
>>
>> They're products of a common design plan.
>
>They are too stupid to see that.
OK i'm employed as a process engineer
tell me how you implement a design WITHOUT using natural processes,
m'kay?
otherwise you guys are using 'ghostbuster' views of nature
>
>They think all the matter on this planet randomly organized by
really? got proof anyone's said that?
>and then through some kind of magic --they call evolution-- produced
>billions of species with enough common elements and commonly designed
>parts as to think it happened all by itself.
we can see it in the lab.
creationism? nada. zip. a 2000 year failure
>
>Laughable to say the least.
>
>They read science fiction; they like science fiction; they believe
>science fiction to be the origins of species.
meaningless. for 2000 years creationsits had their ghosts and goblins
running around making earthquakes and causing the weather. now they
bitch because their view of magic as a cause in nature has collapsed
>
>But they become horrified at the thought of an ancient tribe making
>man from an ape while believing man descended from an ape instead.
actually no one says we descended from apes. but, i guess, if you're a
creationist, that's your best shot.
>
>Their ability to lie to themselves and to others is apparent when one
>reads this newsgroup. It clearly shows that they are all under the
>same "group think" that I laughingly call a mellow mass delusion they
>called: 'evolution'.
and religion? no group think there, right? no group think in an
ideology that causes people to strap bombs to themselves to blow up a
school....no, no groupthing in religion at all.
>
>I feel sorry for them.
fine. be my guest.
>
>They are frantic to discredit anything other then evolution as being
>man's origins and they have more to do then they can handle with just
>refuting that.
if we saw anything than evolution that could do this, we'd accept it.
your ''ghostbusters'' view of nature doesn't qualify
>
>They are not really aware of just how hectic and confused our lives
>are. They think scientific discoveries are 'normal' and are the only
>thing to believe ---as if mankind had no capacity for understanding
>before that.
man had no scientific understanding. but, then, it's a science thing.
you wouldn't understand
>
>It becomes clear when they are angry about their lack of ability to
>understand the simplest of things such as the bible that evolution
>becomes a belief to them. They have nothing else they are capable of
>understanding.
there are 38,000 chrisitan denominations. if the bible had only 1
meaning there would be only 1 church.
>
>Their frustration and confusion are common symptoms of powerlessness
>and unimaginable perception.
says the guy who spits his hatred at science every day, believing that
demons are loose in the world
>
>So they turn from the truth.
so how's your 'truth' worked out in 2000 years?
ever recover from trying to use demons to tell us why earthquakes
happened?
>
Robert Camp
Very interesting. Then perhaps you might answer a question for me -
What are those aspects of dog or human "design" (barring the effects of
many years of artificial selection in dogs) that you are willing to say
are diagnostic of purposeful intervention or participation?
RLC
John McKendry
The sad and frustrating thing about reading your posts is that you
are smart enough to be a useful, substantive contributor here,
yet you choose to limit your participation to the repetition
of this less-than-half-true one-line playground taunt. It appears
you are not going to learn anything about the difference between
useful contribution and glib bumper-sticker insults; you are happy
to remain a minor irritant.
I know, if I don't like your posts I don't have to read them. Sounds
good to me. Welcome to my killfile. I think you'll like it in there;
you'll meet a lot of people just like you.
John
Dan Listermann
"John McKendry" <jlas...@comcast.dot.net> wrote in message
news:7qkqdo...@mid.individual.net...
Obviously you aren't getting my point. Maybe I need to be more blunt with
you. I am trying to give perspective here. There are people who love to
belittle the accomplishments of modern science while loudly singing the
praises of bronze age myths. They need to know how misguided they are and
satire is an excellent vehicle for that purpose. If you have a better idea
of how to convey this concept to them, spit it out.
.
el cid
> "John McKendry" <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote in message
I wholeheartedly agree that someone isn't getting the point but
suggest you invest in a mirror. Put another way, your retorts
are not nearly as clever as you seem to think. They are certainly
far from novel. Take a few deep breaths and try a fresh reply
with that old time New Years resolution spirit to take yourself
to a new and better level. The criticism was constructive.
r norman
wrote:
In agreement with El Cid-- Bronze Age OK. But where do the goatherds
come from?
There is one person here who belittles modern science and favors
ancient myths and we all have a pretty good impression of his
intelligence. He has constantly been told how misguided he is and
satire, even quality satire, has no better prospect of success than
fact. What really comes across, though, is your belittling ancient
peoples in a clumsy attempt to be clever. It brings you down to his
level.
Bronze Age people were just as intelligent, just as clever as we are.
I never heard of the Ancient Greeks or the Ancient Egyptians or the
Ancient Mesopotamians or whatever group being called goatherd even
though there must have been just as many agrarian farming and herding
people in those groups as anywhere else.
Glenn
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:50:45 -0800 (PST), el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com>
There have been a few people here that have belittled evolutionary
science and it's accomplishments, and perhaps some belittling of star
gazers as well, but I've not seen anyone belittle modern science in
toto. There have been many who have attempted to make it appear as if
criticism of evolutionary theory and it's usefulness is the same as
belittling all of science, though. I suspect that is the case here,
since Dan responded to ASIs criticism of evolution. That the OP
article has little to nothing to do with evolutionary theory is
irrelevant. But since I have been busy tending to my bronze age
goatherd I've missed the accomplishments of evolutionary science.
Perhaps someone could enlighten me.
r norman
wrote:
As I ranted in a different thread, there are all sorts of people who
criticize evolutionary theory and some are, indeed, quite intelligent.
However, there is a subset of fundamentalist religious railing at all
forms of "godless materialism" and all of science necessarily falls
into this category.
As to the accomplishments of evolutionary theory, you already know
that I scoff at the silly claim that it forms the foundation for
medicine. What it does do is relate humankind to the larger world, so
that we can see ourselves as part of the whole. It provides a
foundation to really understand and appreciate the intricacies of
modern biology and how things relate to one another. The hoary adage,
"nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
really is an important statement. And it was a theist who said that.
Indeed, even the phrase "the light of evolution" originated with a
Catholic priest. Just as there is an enormous spectrum of
creationists, there is also an enormous spectrum of faith among
scientists. The harsh and loud outcries from the two extremes is what
catches the attention, though.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote innews:tPidnSxHYM2mf9zW...@earthlink.com:
>
> > Dog genes may hold secrets to human disease
>
> They're products of a common design plan.
And how do you propose to test that proposition?
RF
Ron O
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 23:22:07 +0000 (UTC), Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>
> wrote:
>
> >news:tPidnSxHYM2mf9zW...@earthlink.com:
>
> >> Dog genes may hold secrets to human disease
>
> >They're products of a common design plan.
>
> The Theory of Evolution wins again. �It is dogs that hold the secrets
> to human disease. �Not primates, not old world monkeys, not hominids,
> not even our closest relative, the chimpanzee. �
>
> So much for evolution rather than simple observation of similarities
> and then taking making proper use of those observations as being the
> foundation for medicine.
If we raised a population of over a hundred million chimps under
relaxed selection pressure for thousands of years and selected for
mutations that perked our intrests along the way, I would assure you
that chimps would be a better genetic model for human genetic disease
than dogs. The advantage would be greater if dogs didn't have
advantages like reduced generation length and litter size.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
My guess is that adman should volunteer for this study and see if he
has the genetic variant that keeps getting him to attach the
electrodes to himself and flip the switch so often. My guess is that
repeated uncontroled bogus posting is linked to some form of OCD.
Pretty close to licking your hair off.
Ron Okimoto
Dan Listermann
"r norman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tduak5paegit2dige...@4ax.com...
I am trying to get one of these science deniers to defend their goatherd
science. It hasn't happened yet. All they can muster is to take cheap
shots at evolution. They need to be put on the defensive. This will cause
them to think, as best as they can, and perhaps allow a little light to get
in.
.
Burkhard
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:50:45 -0800 (PST), el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com>
While I fully and wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment of yours
and Cid's post, this sentence depends a bit on the measure of
intelligence. If you think IQ is a valid way to measure intelligence
(which I most emphatically don't), then it is likely that we are "more
intelligent" - simply because we have observed even for the 20th
century a stead increase in IQ scores ("Flynn effect")
> I never heard of the Ancient Greeks or the Ancient Egyptians or the
> Ancient Mesopotamians or whatever group being called goatherd even
> though there must have been just as many agrarian farming and herding
> people in those groups as anywhere else.
Aristaeus was the god who invented goats milk cheese, and he had an
excellent eduction (by the Centaur Chiron)
Verily, Zeus himself may ave been suckled as a child by a goat,
Amalthea, though her status is a bit unclear. And don't get me even
started on Pan. Anyway, don't diss goats is all I'm saying.
Steven L.
news:2b552026-81b7-4ef6...@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 5, 10:32�am, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 23:22:07 +0000 (UTC), Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >"Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> > >news:tPidnSxHYM2mf9zW...@earthlink.com:
> >
> > >> Dog genes may hold secrets to human disease
> >
> > >They're products of a common design plan.
> >
> > The Theory of Evolution wins again. �It is dogs that hold the secrets
> > to human disease. �Not primates, not old world monkeys, not hominids,
> > not even our closest relative, the chimpanzee. �
> >
> > So much for evolution rather than simple observation of similarities
> > and then taking making proper use of those observations as being the
> > foundation for medicine.
>
> If we raised a population of over a hundred million chimps under
> relaxed selection pressure for thousands of years and selected for
> mutations that perked our intrests along the way, I would assure you
> that chimps would be a better genetic model for human genetic disease
> than dogs.
And that's also why genetically purebred strains of brown Norway mice
are used in immunological research.
It's really a combination of two things: Is the strain of experimental
animal reasonably pure? And does that animal's biochemistry resemble
humans for the disease of interest?
The immunological response of mice resembles that of humans, so mice are
used for immunology.
The circulatory system of the pig resembles that of humans, so pigs are
often used for study of circulatory disease. (And pigs are dissected by
medical students to learn about the circulatory system.)
And now, we find that the obsessive behavior of some dogs resembles that
of some humans, so purebred dogs are used to study OCD.
TomS
<01nak51bekg66j5aq...@4ax.com>, r norman stated..."
Well, I have reservations about the "Bronze Age" part.
For one thing, I think that the Iron Age in the Ancient Near East
- looking this up in Wikipedia - begins about 1300 BC, and that
predates the Bible.
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Steven L.
wrote in message news:eq69k51sohj53vba5...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 23:22:07 +0000 (UTC), Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>
> wrote:
>
> > "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> > news:tPidnSxHYM2mf9zW...@earthlink.com:
>
> > > Dog genes may hold secrets to human disease
>
> > They're products of a common design plan.
>
> Yes, over tens of thousands of years, starting with wolves as the
> base supply. -=YAWN!= We know this already.
And humans could have started with some other species. Russian
scientists have been attempting to domesticate the silver fox.
"The domesticated foxes exhibit both behavioral and physiological
changes from their wild forebears. They are friendlier with humans, put
their ears down (like dogs), wag their tails when happy, and have begun
to vocalize and bark like domesticated dogs. They have also developed
color patterns like domesticated dogs and have lost their distinctive
musky 'fox smell'....
"On November 21, 2007, the journal Behavior Genetics published an
article about continuing research using both the domesticated and
non-domesticated foxes developed by the Institute of Cytology and
Genetics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In this paper, the authors
identify a system of measuring fox behavior that is expected to be
useful in QTL mapping to explore the genetic basis of tame and
aggressive behavior in foxes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox
Dan Listermann
>
> Bronze Age people were just as intelligent, just as clever as we are.
> I never heard of the Ancient Greeks or the Ancient Egyptians or the
> Ancient Mesopotamians or whatever group being called goatherd even
> though there must have been just as many agrarian farming and herding
> people in those groups as anywhere else.
>
I will never debate that these ancient people were equally as intelligent as
we are today. However to compare their knowledge of the subject at hand,
origins of life and species, to the people of today is absurd. Let me
correct myself, to MOST the people of today.
I want a science denier to explain why I should consider believing the myths
of nomadic herders as opposed to the repeatable observations and
predications of modern science in a positive manner, i.e.. not by harping on
some perceived weakness in science, but rather a positive statement about
the "ancient texts" beyond the false dichotomy of "why would they lie?"
.
Dan Listermann
"TomS" <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:272873884.000...@drn.newsguy.com...
While the "ancient texts" might have been written down during the Iron Age,
the myths transcribed were very probably a product of the Bronze Age.
.
r norman
It is not the goats that I really object to, it is the nomadic herder
business. The mythology of origins that the writers of the bible (Old
Testament to you) indeed says that they originated from nomadic
herders. That goes all the way back to Cain, the agriculturist whose
offering was rejected by God, and Able, the herder whose offering was
warmly received by God. However there is really no historical
evidence that such was really the case. They seemed to be city
dwellers all the way back.
So your often repeated claim of "goat herders" or, now, "nomadic
herders" has validity only if you accept the text as a truthful story
of historic events. The mythology originated in the same way as all
ancient mythologies. Again, you never say Greek mythology originated
in goat-nomadic herders? Why keep repeating that canard about this
group?
Dan Listermann
heavily dependent on nomadic herding. Sure there were cities then, but the
American South had cities as well, but it was an agricultural based economy.
It is obvious that the subjects in the "ancient texts" made their living
herding, not that there is any shame in that, mind you, but their knowledge
of biology, outside animal husbandry, was very limited.
Maybe Greek mythology had the same source, I don't know.
.
r norman
<d...@listermann.com> wrote:
It is my understanding the the economy of the capitalist age we live
is heavily based on the exploitation of the workers. All throughout
history, it has been the peasants growing the food and the proletariat
doing all the work the forms the basis of the economy. But these
people don't get to write the stories. The biblical myths were
carefully gathered and revised and edited and put into a long story to
serve the political ends of the power structure. They are recognized
to have immense literary character, something not often associated
with the illiterate workers, and the religious business is carefully
calculated to be able to control the unruly peasantry -- the
goat-herders you are so taken with. No, the goat herders certainly
didn't write the myths and any aspect of them that derives from yet
more ancient oral lore originated with the peasantry were carefully
culled and selected, always to serve the interests of the power
structure.
Dan Listermann
Nobody debates the editing and maybe the motives behind it, but even you
admit that the origins were "ancient oral lore" that probably predates
anyone who had an ability to do any writing much less editing - peasantry or
herders.
Now back to my main point. Some put huge stock in these myths and like to
belittle the findings of modern science in order to justify their
superstitions. This fact needs to be beaten into their heads.
.
Mike Lyle
What strikes me, as a layman, forcibly is the way that evolution as
conventionally explained seems to fit like a jigsaw puzzle piece with
most other branches of science, even though it doesn't explain them. As
is mentioned here from time to time, if the present account of the
origin of species were not essentially true, then many other disciplines
from geology to nuclear physics would need to be restarted.
--
Mike.
r norman
The jigsaw fitting together is a nice metaphor. I would steal it from
you to use in teaching had I not already retired!
I used a different one. Each separate discipline in biology or each
separate science is a tower built on a foundation of experimental data
and field observation. But as the towers grow in height they tend to
get precariously unstable. The theory of evolution provides strong
links between the disciplines and sciences so the entire edifice is
one solid structure. People who want evolution banned from school
curricula should also want astronomy and geology and the related
geochemistry and geophysics and cosmological physics and thus
necessarily all science banned. The whole thing is solidly connected
together. All science is of one piece.
el cid
> "r norman" <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ao2ck55m2cltfvs52...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:07:54 -0500, "Dan Listermann"
> > <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> >>news:k10ck55unbhr52of2...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:01:11 -0500, "Dan Listermann"
> >>> <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
Is that the solution? "beat it into their heads"!
Well thanks, we're so lucky to have your novel and valuable
insight into solving this problem. Don't know where we might
be without this keenly studied solution. I'm so glad that the
vast wealth of human history has finally been integrated to
yield the answer we've all struggled to find.
You sound like another valuable addition to talk.origins.
Vend
> "r norman" <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:k10ck55unbhr52of2...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:01:11 -0500, "Dan Listermann"
> > <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
Cities appear in agricultural societies, since they require a large
and relatively stable source of food.
Vend
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:01:11 -0500, "Dan Listermann"
>
>
>
> <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> >news:01nak51bekg66j5aq...@4ax.com...
>
> >> Bronze Age people were just as intelligent, just as clever as we are.
> >> I never heard of the Ancient Greeks or the Ancient Egyptians or the
> >> Ancient Mesopotamians or whatever group being called goatherd even
> >> though there must have been just as many agrarian farming and herding
> >> people in those groups as anywhere else.
>
> >I will never debate that these ancient people were equally as intelligent as
> >we are today. �However to compare their knowledge of the subject at hand,
> >origins of life and species, to the people of today is absurd. �Let me
> >correct myself, to MOST the people of today.
>
> >I want a science denier to explain why I should consider believing the myths
> >of nomadic herders as opposed to the repeatable observations and
> >predications of modern science in a positive manner, i.e.. not by harping on
> >some perceived weakness in science, but rather a positive statement about
> >the "ancient texts" beyond the false dichotomy of "why would they lie?"
>
> It is not the goats that I really object to, it is the nomadic herder
> business. �The mythology of origins that the writers of the bible (Old
> Testament to you) indeed says that they originated from nomadic
> herders. �That goes all the way back to Cain, the agriculturist whose
> offering was rejected by God, and Able, the herder whose offering was
> warmly received by God. �However there is really no historical
> evidence that such was really the case. �They seemed to be city
> dwellers all the way back.
Probably nomadic hearders were illiterate. These myths were written
down and edited multiple times by city dwellers, but they were
possibly based on oral lore by their real or mythical nomadic
ancestors.
Possibly the whole exodus and desert-wandering story is a mythical
representation of their nomadic past.
Vend
> It is my understanding the the economy of the capitalist age we live
> is heavily based on the exploitation of the workers.
...
> �and the religious business is carefully
> calculated to be able to control the unruly peasantry --
Have you been reading Marx lately? :D
Dan Listermann
An excellent point. But the creationists will try to show a conspiracy of
atheist scientists protecting their interests so they can live immoral lives
without fear. They think it is all made up!
.
Dan Listermann
"el cid" <elcid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:de9c037e-3de4-43c7...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
I am open to other alternatives. Got any?
.
Dan Listermann
"Vend" <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:1c9a4658-2d7d-4fbb...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
.
Dan Listermann
.
r norman
wrote:
Groucho or Chico?
Just because I am warning you about the spectre that is haunting
Europe? Wake up! You have nothing to lose but your chains!
r norman
wrote:
>On Jan 7, 4:47�pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
My impression of modern studies is that never was an exodus and
desert-wandering. It is all completely made-up.
r norman
Your goal seems to be to try to hammer some sense into the heads of
the most stupid of the creationists -- people who will not listen to
sense or argument and will not respond to your attempts, either.
My goal is to try to educate those people who profess faith and who
have serious doubts about evolution, to teach them about the reality
of modern science and the physical world and allow them to reconcile
science and faith as so many others have done.
My impression is that my goal might work -- were I capable enough to
do it properly. And there are lots of science educators out there
doing the same thing. On the other hand, your goal is doomed to
failure. So why are you bothering, other than to make you feel smugly
superior to your foes?
Robert Camp
>
> "el cid" <elcid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:de9c037e-3de4-43c7...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 7, 11:42 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>>> "r norman" <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:ao2ck55m2cltfvs52...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:07:54 -0500, "Dan Listermann"
>>>> <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "r norman" <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:k10ck55unbhr52of2...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:01:11 -0500, "Dan Listermann"
>>>>>> <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> "r norman" <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:01nak51bekg66j5aq...@4ax.com...
<snip>
>>>
>>> Nobody debates the editing and maybe the motives behind it, but even you
>>> admit that the origins were "ancient oral lore" that probably predates
>>> anyone who had an ability to do any writing much less editing - peasantry
>>> or
>>> herders.
>>>
>>> Now back to my main point. Some put huge stock in these myths and like to
>>> belittle the findings of modern science in order to justify their
>>> superstitions. This fact needs to be beaten into their heads.
>>
>> Is that the solution? "beat it into their heads"!
>>
>> Well thanks, we're so lucky to have your novel and valuable
>> insight into solving this problem. Don't know where we might
>> be without this keenly studied solution. I'm so glad that the
>> vast wealth of human history has finally been integrated to
>> yield the answer we've all struggled to find.
>>
>> You sound like another valuable addition to talk.origins.
>
> I am open to other alternatives. Got any?
Well, you might start by emulating some of the methods used by people
in this thread when responding to you.
RLC
Dan Listermann
You got something against feeling smugly superior to one's foes?
.
r norman
<d...@listermann.com> wrote:
You may be amused by it but only at the annoyance of all onlookers.
Dan Listermann
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 14:37:17 -0500, "Dan Listermann"
>
> have serious doubts about evolution, to teach them about the reality
> of modern science and the physical world and allow them to reconcile
> science and faith as so many others have done.
>
they do after they realize that, is their business. I have no interest in
reconciling science and superstition.
.
el cid
> On 2010-01-07 11:37:58 -0800, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
But I grant you his effectiveness in making me want to beat
something into his head. However futile such attempts are
destined to be, they have their moments of pleasure.
Mike Lyle
Stick to herbal infusions, brother! Proper tea is theft.
--
Mike.
john wilkins
Just because Marx said something doesn't mean it's wrong.
Mark Isaak
> "Vend" <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> Probably nomadic hearders were illiterate. These myths were written
>> down and edited multiple times by city dwellers, but they were
>> possibly based on oral lore by their real or mythical nomadic
>> ancestors. Possibly the whole exodus and desert-wandering story is a
>> mythical representation of their nomadic past.
>>
> Nonsense. It is craved in solid granite by the hand of God, just ask
> them.
Out of curiousity, are any ancient religious artifacts, writing or
otherwise, carved in granite? Most of the carvings in the Middle East
would have been in limestone or clay. The closest to granite I can think
of is a stone head on Easter Island carved of basalt.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Dan Listermann
"Mark Isaak" <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2010.01.08....@earthlink.net...
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:40:14 -0500, Dan Listermann wrote:
>
>> "Vend" <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote in message
>>> [...]
>>> Probably nomadic hearders were illiterate. These myths were written
>>> down and edited multiple times by city dwellers, but they were
>>> possibly based on oral lore by their real or mythical nomadic
>>> ancestors. Possibly the whole exodus and desert-wandering story is a
>>> mythical representation of their nomadic past.
>>>
>> Nonsense. It is craved in solid granite by the hand of God, just ask
>> them.
>
> Out of curiousity, are any ancient religious artifacts, writing or
> otherwise, carved in granite? Most of the carvings in the Middle East
> would have been in limestone or clay. The closest to granite I can think
> of is a stone head on Easter Island carved of basalt.
>
IIRC, there is some Egyptian granite carvings.
.
r norman
In the New World, there are Maya and Inca carvings in granite.
bpuharic
wrote:
>"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>news:tPidnSxHYM2mf9zW...@earthlink.com:
>
>> Dog genes may hold secrets to human disease
>
>They're products of a common design plan
no design can be expressed without a process...such as evolution
if you thought logically you'd know that
Earle Jones
<1496377795284597617.99...@news.individual.net>,
john wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
*
"Workers of the world, unite!
You have nothing to lose but your balls...
...and chains."
--Fred Marx (1926)
earle
*
Robert Grumbine
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:40:14 -0500, Dan Listermann wrote:
>
>> "Vend" <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote in message
>>> [...]
>>> Probably nomadic hearders were illiterate. These myths were written
>>> down and edited multiple times by city dwellers, but they were
>>> possibly based on oral lore by their real or mythical nomadic
>>> ancestors. Possibly the whole exodus and desert-wandering story is a
>>> mythical representation of their nomadic past.
>>>
>> Nonsense. It is craved in solid granite by the hand of God, just ask
>> them.
>
> Out of curiousity, are any ancient religious artifacts, writing or
> otherwise, carved in granite? Most of the carvings in the Middle East
> would have been in limestone or clay. The closest to granite I can think
> of is a stone head on Easter Island carved of basalt.
The Walters Museum in Baltimore has some Egyptian-carved basalt.
At least to my eye it's a basalt. Not sure if your emphasis was
hard rock vs soft (limestone) or you really wanted granite.
I don't think that their carvings are of religious texts, exactly.
Certainly some religious mentions. But I'd think there'd be more
extensive carvings in Egypt.
--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Desertphile
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 5:22�pm, Kalinda's <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote innews:tPidnSxHYM2mf9zW...@earthlink.com:
> > > Dog genes may hold secrets to human disease
> > They're products of a common design plan.
> They are too stupid to see that.
Evolution does not "plan," shit-for-brains.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "deser...@invalid-address.net" <deser...@invalid-address.net>
> wrote in message news:eq69k51sohj53vba5...@4ax.com:
>
> > On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 23:22:07 +0000 (UTC), Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> > > news:tPidnSxHYM2mf9zW...@earthlink.com:
> >
> > > > Dog genes may hold secrets to human disease
> >
> > > They're products of a common design plan.
> >
> > Yes, over tens of thousands of years, starting with wolves as the
> > base supply. -=YAWN!= We know this already.
>
>
> And humans could have started with some other species. Russian
> scientists have been attempting to domesticate the silver fox.
>
> "The domesticated foxes exhibit both behavioral and physiological
> changes from their wild forebears. They are friendlier with humans, put
> their ears down (like dogs), wag their tails when happy, and have begun
> to vocalize and bark like domesticated dogs. They have also developed
> color patterns like domesticated dogs and have lost their distinctive
> musky 'fox smell'....
>
> "On November 21, 2007, the journal Behavior Genetics published an
> article about continuing research using both the domesticated and
> non-domesticated foxes developed by the Institute of Cytology and
> Genetics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In this paper, the authors
> identify a system of measuring fox behavior that is expected to be
> useful in QTL mapping to explore the genetic basis of tame and
> aggressive behavior in foxes."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox
Thank you: that is an awesome article, and I see there are some
YouTube videos on the subject. Now if only we could domesticate
brewer's yeast.....
Desertphile
<jlas...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:22:45 -0500, Dan Listermann wrote:
>
> > "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:80e7e928-2adf-4c60...@u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Jan 4, 5:22 pm, Kalinda's <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >>> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote
> >>> innews:tPidnSxHYM2mf9zW...@earthlink.com:
> >>>
> >>> > Dog genes may hold secrets to human disease
> >>>
> >>> They're products of a common design plan.
> >>
> >> They are too stupid to see that.
> >>
> >> They think all the matter on this planet randomly organized by itself
> >> and then through some kind of magic --they call evolution-- produced
> >> billions of species with enough common elements and commonly designed
> >> parts as to think it happened all by itself.
> > Others think a lot of bronze age goatherds.
> The sad and frustrating thing about reading your posts is that you
> are smart enough to be a useful, substantive contributor here,
> yet you choose to limit your participation to the repetition
> of this less-than-half-true one-line playground taunt. It appears
> you are not going to learn anything about the difference between
> useful contribution and glib bumper-sticker insults; you are happy
> to remain a minor irritant.
You mean you only think or believe that a human being's opinions
are worthwhile when they talk a lot?
The sentence "Others think a lot of bronze age goatherds" is
factual, concise, accurate, and all that was required: why would
anyone feel the need to add more, pointlessly?
> I know, if I don't like your posts I don't have to read them. Sounds
> good to me. Welcome to my killfile. I think you'll like it in there;
> you'll meet a lot of people just like you.
>
> John
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:11:44 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> <ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >On Jan 4, 5:22�pm, Kalinda's <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote innews:tPidnSxHYM2mf9zW...@earthlink.com:
> >>
> >> > Dog genes may hold secrets to human disease
> >>
> >> They're products of a common design plan.
> >
> >They are too stupid to see that.
> The stupid one is the one who sees design when none is present.
I see design in nature everywhere, all the time, and I do not
consider myself stupid. The fucktard Creationist's error abobe is
not "design:" it is the word "plan." Evolution creates designs but
it does not plan.
(CUTS)
Desertphile
<rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 2010-01-04 15:22:07 -0800, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> said:
>
> > "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> > news:tPidnSxHYM2mf9zW...@earthlink.com:
> >
> >> Dog genes may hold secrets to human disease
> >
> > They're products of a common design plan.
> Very interesting. Then perhaps you might answer a question for me -
> What are those aspects of dog or human "design" (barring the effects of
> many years of artificial selection in dogs) that you are willing to say
> are diagnostic of purposeful intervention or participation?
That's a good question, and I am disappointed that no Creationist
has come along to provide an answer, no matter how absurd.
Why do dogs have thumbs located half-way up their legs, and humans
do not? How is that "a common design plan?" Why did the gods give
dogs superior smelling abilities, when humans would find that
trait very useful also? And why did the gods make us humans
predators and not prey?
Desertphile
"richardal...@googlemail.com"
<richardal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 11:22�pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote innews:tPidnSxHYM2mf9zW...@earthlink.com:
> > > Dog genes may hold secrets to human disease
> > They're products of a common design plan.
> And how do you propose to test that proposition?
Turn to Genesis 1:42.....
el cid
wrote:
Because it isn't particularly factual, accurate, relevant or useful,
useful being the most important. Unless your concept of useful is
to emphasize an 'us versus them' mentality that will surely cause
the person you respond to to dig in their heels: then it is doing
mostly what you would intend, with a side helping of childish
taunting sure to bring cheers from those with similarly arrested
development.
Dan Listermann
You are missing the perspective. It compares the science of today to
ancient myths. This needs to be pointed out because some just can't see it.
.
el cid
> "el cid" <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
And yet somehow Don Quixote, the windmills have not noticed the
keen sheen of your shield, the magesty of your steed's
cantor, nor sensed the piercing wit of your lance. Fear not,
Dulcinea del Toboso surely trembles in delight at the victories
of her hero. Know that she cheers you on, just as you have
so often imagined. And rest assured of a continuous supply of
Sanchos to support your endless quests.
Glenn
Careful, you are describing the majority of posters here.
Ye Old One
<deser...@invalid-address.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:35:48 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:11:44 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>> <ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >On Jan 4, 5:22�pm, Kalinda's <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> >> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote innews:tPidnSxHYM2mf9zW...@earthlink.com:
>> >>
>> >> > Dog genes may hold secrets to human disease
>> >>
>> >> They're products of a common design plan.
>> >
>> >They are too stupid to see that.
>
>> The stupid one is the one who sees design when none is present.
>
>I see design in nature everywhere, all the time, and I do not
>consider myself stupid. The fucktard Creationist's error abobe is
>not "design:" it is the word "plan." Evolution creates designs but
>it does not plan.
>
>(CUTS)
design
n noun
1 a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function of
something before it is built or made. �the art or action of planning
the look and function of something. �the arrangement of the features
of an artefact.
2 a decorative pattern.
3 the purpose or planning that exists behind an action or
object.
n verb decide upon the look and functioning of (something),
especially by making a detailed drawing of it. �do or plan (something)
with a specific purpose in mind.
PHRASES
by design as a result of a plan; intentionally.
have designs on aim to obtain, especially in an underhand way.
�informal have an undisclosed sexual interest in.
ORIGIN
Middle English (as a verb in the sense 'to designate'): from
Latin designare, reinforced by French d�signer.
I see no design in nature, apart from the decorative pattern meaning.
What I see in nature is "make do". Any design seen is just human
imagination playing trick on them.
--
Bob.
r norman
wrote:
>On Jan 8, 2:33�pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Fortunately for all of us, t.o. is not the same as the real world.
Vend
I generally agree with Marx said, except when he wrote about
communism.
el cid
A snowflake follows a fractal design, as do many other natural
things. You're free to call it a fractal plan without loss
of accuracy.
The error is to presume that naturally occurring rules do
not create designs or set plans. It is further an error to
promote human manufactured plans to a wholly separate
level of design. Bees manufacture well designed honeycombs
from instinctual behavior. Humans man have better abilities
to abstract and develop plans than birds do when they
build their nests but it is a matter of degree, not
necessarily an issue of a brand new phenomenon.
Glenn
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 13:57:36 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
T.O. doesn't stand for "The Orb"? Considering your claim I found my
mind wandering to questions such as "does infinity exist" and "are we
alone", followed by a numbness and ringing of ears. Consequently I
realized that there were too many credit cards in my wallet. So
naturally I went to eat a Twinkie, realizing there is reason to doubt
your claim.
r norman
wrote:
Petty quibble time -- a snowflake "looks" remarkably similar to a
fractal but it isn't. A fractal exhibits self-similarity at all
levels, that is, recursively. No finite structure can be a true
fractal.
Still, I agree with your point. Many things in nature are constructed
according to a plan, whether that plan is conscious or covert. You
mentioned honeybee combs and birds nests in your response that I
snipped to focus on the petty fractal point. Similarly, caddis fly
larvae construct elaborate tubes and termites build elaborate nests.
If you watch the behavior of an animal doing these things, there is
selection of very specific material, abandoning one object if a more
suitable one becomes available. The pieces used in the construction
are placed in very specific locations and are often adjusted if the
first attempt is less than suitable. Some elaborate constructions are
purely instinctive, some are learned, most are instinct tempered by
learning and experience. Still, you cannot dismiss even the purely
instinctive designs as "mere mechanisms". A factory worker or
construction worker is a "mere mechanism" who simply follows specific
instructions so human constructions as also "mere mechanisms".
The real problem is in where the plan resides and how it came to be.
Just as we don't know where human memory resides or how ideas come to
be, there are still mysteries in animal behavior and evolution yet to
be resolved.
el cid
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 15:13:39 -0800 (PST), el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com>
Noise.
Which yo should know is a more complex fractal derived from the
disharmonies introduced into the Ainulindal� (song of the Ainur).
> Still, I agree with your point. �Many things in nature are constructed
> according to a plan, whether that plan is conscious or covert. �You
> mentioned honeybee combs and birds nests in your response that I
> snipped to focus on the petty fractal point. �Similarly, caddis fly
> larvae construct elaborate tubes and termites build elaborate nests.
> If you watch the behavior of an animal doing these things, there is
> selection of very specific material, abandoning one object if a more
> suitable one becomes available. �The pieces used in the construction
> are placed in very specific locations and are often adjusted if the
> first attempt is less than suitable. �Some elaborate constructions are
> purely instinctive, some are learned, most are instinct tempered by
> learning and experience. �Still, you cannot dismiss even the purely
> instinctive designs as "mere mechanisms". �A factory worker or
> construction worker is a "mere mechanism" who simply follows specific
> instructions so human constructions as also "mere mechanisms".
I'm personally far more familiar with pack rats and their twisted
obsessive compulsive neurosis. Why aren't pack rats used in
animal testing on anti-anxiety drugs?
> The real problem is in where �the plan resides and how it came to be.
> Just as we don't know where human memory resides or how ideas come to
> be, there are still mysteries in animal behavior and evolution yet to
> be resolved.
The Ainulindal�.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ainulindale
Glenn
help, which is why normal mice are used instead.
Steven L.
news:92a57$4b454ecb$4a53bf9f$17...@FUSE.NET:
> "John McKendry" <jlas...@comcast.dot.net> wrote in message
> news:7qkqdo...@mid.individual.net...
> > On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:22:45 -0500, Dan Listermann wrote:
> >
> >> "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
> >> news:80e7e928-2adf-4c60...@u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On Jan 4, 5:22 pm, Kalinda's <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >>>> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote
> >>>> innews:tPidnSxHYM2mf9zW...@earthlink.com:
> >>>>
> >>>> > Dog genes may hold secrets to human disease
> >>>>
> >>>> They're products of a common design plan.
> >>>
> >>> They are too stupid to see that.
> >>>
> >>> They think all the matter on this planet randomly organized by itself
> >>> and then through some kind of magic --they call evolution-- produced
> >>> billions of species with enough common elements and commonly designed
> >>> parts as to think it happened all by itself.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Others think a lot of bronze age goatherds.
> >>
> >
> > The sad and frustrating thing about reading your posts is that you
> > are smart enough to be a useful, substantive contributor here,
> > yet you choose to limit your participation to the repetition
> > of this less-than-half-true one-line playground taunt. It appears
> > you are not going to learn anything about the difference between
> > useful contribution and glib bumper-sticker insults; you are happy
> > to remain a minor irritant.
> >
> > I know, if I don't like your posts I don't have to read them. Sounds
> > good to me. Welcome to my killfile. I think you'll like it in there;
> > you'll meet a lot of people just like you.
>
> Obviously you aren't getting my point. Maybe I need to be more blunt with
> you. I am trying to give perspective here. There are people who love to
> belittle the accomplishments of modern science while loudly singing the
> praises of bronze age myths. They need to know how misguided they are
But it's a double standard you're practicing here.
ALL ancient peoples, it seems, had their own creation myths. So did the
classical Greeks: Their mythology of Titans and Olympians. (Plato was
a genuine mystic, but I don't see you attacking him as a "Stone age
goatherd" or whatever.) The Roman Empire, arguably the longest-lasting
and most successful empire in the Western world, had their own gods and
creation myths. Could you do as well as the Romans in crafting a
successful empire?
These people were intelligent--every bit as intelligent as we are today.
They weren't waving this stuff around just for fun or because they were
crazy. They were trying to find a basis for lessons of morality, ethics,
and society.
You know, we're still doing that, thousands of years later.
One can be proud of how much more we've learned in the last 2,000
years--without ridiculing the people who lived back then.
You probably know more than your grandparents did. Do you ridicule them
too?
Generally, when someone like you goes out of their way to ridicule and
bitterly attack the Abrahamic faiths, there's usually a psychological
reason for it.
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
Steven L.
> "r norman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:tduak5paegit2dige...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 20:47:53 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On Jan 6, 9:07 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:50:45 -0800 (PST), el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> >On Jan 6, 10:02 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> >>> >> "John McKendry" <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote in message
> >>> >> and
> >>> >> satire is an excellent vehicle for that purpose. If you have a better
> >>> >> idea
> >>> >> of how to convey this concept to them, spit it out.
> >>>
> >>> >I wholeheartedly agree that someone isn't getting the point but
> >>> >suggest you invest in a mirror. Put another way, your retorts
> >>> >are not nearly as clever as you seem to think. They are certainly
> >>> >far from novel. Take a few deep breaths and try a fresh reply
> >>> >with that old time New Years resolution spirit to take yourself
> >>> >to a new and better level. The criticism was constructive.
> >>>
> >>> In agreement with El Cid-- Bronze Age OK. But where do the goatherds
> >>> come from?
> >>>
> >>> There is one person here who belittles modern science and favors
> >>> ancient myths and we all have a pretty good impression of his
> >>> intelligence. He has constantly been told how misguided he is and
> >>> satire, even quality satire, has no better prospect of success than
> >>> fact. What really comes across, though, is your belittling ancient
> >>> peoples in a clumsy attempt to be clever. It brings you down to his
> >>> level.
> >>>
> >>> Bronze Age people were just as intelligent, just as clever as we are.
> >>> I never heard of the Ancient Greeks or the Ancient Egyptians or the
> >>> Ancient Mesopotamians or whatever group being called goatherd even
> >>> though there must have been just as many agrarian farming and herding
> >>> people in those groups as anywhere else.
> >>
> >>There have been a few people here that have belittled evolutionary
> >>science and it's accomplishments, and perhaps some belittling of star
> >>gazers as well, but I've not seen anyone belittle modern science in
> >>toto. There have been many who have attempted to make it appear as if
> >>criticism of evolutionary theory and it's usefulness is the same as
> >>belittling all of science, though. I suspect that is the case here,
> >>since Dan responded to ASIs criticism of evolution. That the OP
> >>article has little to nothing to do with evolutionary theory is
> >>irrelevant. But since I have been busy tending to my bronze age
> >>goatherd I've missed the accomplishments of evolutionary science.
> >>Perhaps someone could enlighten me.
> >
> > As I ranted in a different thread, there are all sorts of people who
> > criticize evolutionary theory and some are, indeed, quite intelligent.
> > However, there is a subset of fundamentalist religious railing at all
> > forms of "godless materialism" and all of science necessarily falls
> > into this category.
> >
> > As to the accomplishments of evolutionary theory, you already know
> > that I scoff at the silly claim that it forms the foundation for
> > medicine. What it does do is relate humankind to the larger world, so
> > that we can see ourselves as part of the whole. It provides a
> > foundation to really understand and appreciate the intricacies of
> > modern biology and how things relate to one another. The hoary adage,
> > "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
> > really is an important statement. And it was a theist who said that.
> > Indeed, even the phrase "the light of evolution" originated with a
> > Catholic priest. Just as there is an enormous spectrum of
> > creationists, there is also an enormous spectrum of faith among
> > scientists. The harsh and loud outcries from the two extremes is what
> > catches the attention, though.
> >
> >
>
> I am trying to get one of these science deniers to defend their goatherd
> science. It hasn't happened yet. All they can muster is to take cheap
> shots at evolution. They need to be put on the defensive.
I agree.
But they will not be put on the defensive by YOU--because your tactics
suck.
Because in any debate, personal attacks and ridicule on a debater lead
the audience to sympathize with the one who is being attacked. All the
creationist has to do is play "more in sorrow than in anger"--and you've
lost.
You want evolution to be accepted by the American public? Here's a
clue: 88% of the American public believe in God. You have to explain to
THEM why evolution is right. And if you start by attacking their most
cherished religious beliefs, they're going to walk away--if you're
lucky. (If they're Muslims, you may have to flee for your life.)
Steven L.
> "el cid" <elcid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:de9c037e-3de4-43c7...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jan 7, 11:42 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> >> "r norman" <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>
> >> news:ao2ck55m2cltfvs52...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:07:54 -0500, "Dan Listermann"
> >> > <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>"r norman" <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> >>news:k10ck55unbhr52of2...@4ax.com...
> >> >>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:01:11 -0500, "Dan Listermann"
> >> >>> <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>>"r norman" <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> >>>>news:01nak51bekg66j5aq...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> >>>>> Bronze Age people were just as intelligent, just as clever as we
> >> >>>>> are.
> >> >>>>> I never heard of the Ancient Greeks or the Ancient Egyptians or the
> >> >>>>> Ancient Mesopotamians or whatever group being called goatherd even
> >> >>>>> though there must have been just as many agrarian farming and
> >> >>>>> herding
> >> >>>>> people in those groups as anywhere else.
> >>
> >> >>>>I will never debate that these ancient people were equally as
> >> >>>>intelligent
> >> >>>>as
> >> >>>>we are today. However to compare their knowledge of the subject at
> >> >>>>hand,
> >> >>>>origins of life and species, to the people of today is absurd. Let me
> >> >>>>correct myself, to MOST the people of today.
> >>
> >> >>>>I want a science denier to explain why I should consider believing
> >> >>>>the
> >> >>>>myths
> >> >>>>of nomadic herders as opposed to the repeatable observations and
> >> >>>>predications of modern science in a positive manner, i.e.. not by
> >> >>>>harping
> >> >>>>on
> >> >>>>some perceived weakness in science, but rather a positive statement
> >> >>>>about
> >> >>>>the "ancient texts" beyond the false dichotomy of "why would they
> >> >>>>lie?"
> >>
> >> >>> It is not the goats that I really object to, it is the nomadic herder
> >> >>> business. The mythology of origins that the writers of the bible (Old
> >> >>> Testament to you) indeed says that they originated from nomadic
> >> >>> herders. That goes all the way back to Cain, the agriculturist whose
> >> >>> offering was rejected by God, and Able, the herder whose offering was
> >> >>> warmly received by God. However there is really no historical
> >> >>> evidence that such was really the case. They seemed to be city
> >> >>> dwellers all the way back.
> >>
> >> >>> So your often repeated claim of "goat herders" or, now, "nomadic
> >> >>> herders" has validity only if you accept the text as a truthful story
> >> >>> of historic events. The mythology originated in the same way as all
> >> >>> ancient mythologies. Again, you never say Greek mythology originated
> >> >>> in goat-nomadic herders? Why keep repeating that canard about this
> >> >>> group?
> >>
> >> >>It is my understanding that the economy of the bronze age in that area
> >> >>was
> >> >>heavily dependent on nomadic herding. Sure there were cities then, but
> >> >>the
> >> >>American South had cities as well, but it was an agricultural based
> >> >>economy.
> >> >>It is obvious that the subjects in the "ancient texts" made their
> >> >>living
> >> >>herding, not that there is any shame in that, mind you, but their
> >> >>knowledge
> >> >>of biology, outside animal husbandry, was very limited.
> >>
> >> >>Maybe Greek mythology had the same source, I don't know.
> >>
> >> > It is my understanding the the economy of the capitalist age we live
> >> > is heavily based on the exploitation of the workers. All throughout
> >> > history, it has been the peasants growing the food and the proletariat
> >> > doing all the work the forms the basis of the economy. But these
> >> > people don't get to write the stories. The biblical myths were
> >> > carefully gathered and revised and edited and put into a long story to
> >> > serve the political ends of the power structure. They are recognized
> >> > to have immense literary character, something not often associated
> >> > with the illiterate workers, and the religious business is carefully
> >> > calculated to be able to control the unruly peasantry -- the
> >> > goat-herders you are so taken with. No, the goat herders certainly
> >> > didn't write the myths and any aspect of them that derives from yet
> >> > more ancient oral lore originated with the peasantry were carefully
> >> > culled and selected, always to serve the interests of the power
> >> > structure.
> >>
> >> Nobody debates the editing and maybe the motives behind it, but even you
> >> admit that the origins were "ancient oral lore" that probably predates
> >> anyone who had an ability to do any writing much less editing - peasantry
> >> or
> >> herders.
> >>
> >> Now back to my main point. Some put huge stock in these myths and like to
> >> belittle the findings of modern science in order to justify their
> >> superstitions. This fact needs to be beaten into their heads.
> >
> > Is that the solution? "beat it into their heads"!
> >
> > Well thanks, we're so lucky to have your novel and valuable
> > insight into solving this problem. Don't know where we might
> > be without this keenly studied solution. I'm so glad that the
> > vast wealth of human history has finally been integrated to
> > yield the answer we've all struggled to find.
> >
> > You sound like another valuable addition to talk.origins.
>
> I am open to other alternatives. Got any?
You could start by looking at what Francisco Ayala and Ken Miller and
Karl Giberson Rabbi Harold Kushner have been trying to do.
Unlike you, they *accept* the fact that most of the people they're
trying to reach are believers in God--and that it's unrealistic to try
to change THAT.
So they're trying to explain how one can believe in God while accepting
evolution and the rest of what modern science has to tell us.
Instead of dismissing all of religion as "Bronze Age goatherder myths"
or a 2,000 year long conspiracy by the ruling class to keep exploiting
the workers (as put forward by our very own Marxist "r norman" here),
they all believe in God *themselves*. That instantly makes them more
credible to the audience they're trying to reach. And then they offer
arguments as to how acceptance of the ToE need not be antithetical to a
broad faith in a Higher Power. (Though they all accept that some
aspects of fundamentalist religion are incorrect.)
BTW, anybody who could hang on to Marxist bullshit in the year 2010
(like our very own "r norman" has), ought to be just as much a subject
of ridicule. Because unlike the existence of God, events in the 20th
century have empirically and decisively refuted Marxism.
Just ask anyone older than 50 in Eastern Europe.
el cid
> BTW, anybody who could hang on to Marxist bullshit in the year 2010
> (like our very own "r norman" has), ought to be just as much a subject
> of ridicule. �Because unlike the existence of God, events in the 20th
> century have empirically and decisively refuted Marxism.
>
> Just ask anyone older than 50 in Eastern Europe.
I want to ask you.
>> It is my understanding the the economy of the capitalist age we live (in)
>> is heavily based on the exploitation of the workers.
How, specifically, has that been refuted, other than by some
politically motivated pseudo argument based on guilt by association
to 'something bad'?
Dan Listermann
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:RuednR6risxfA9XW...@earthlink.com...
allow them to believe that I think that their superstition is somehow
"special." A pile of filth is a pile of filth. Frankly I don't care.
.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
Well, there is some room for folks who are like that, but those are not
the ones who will persuade theistically-inclined Americans that
evolution is happening and that rejecting it is foolish.
Dan Listermann
>> >
>> I am open to other alternatives. Got any?
>
> You could start by looking at what Francisco Ayala and Ken Miller and Karl
> Giberson Rabbi Harold Kushner have been trying to do.
>
> Unlike you, they *accept* the fact that most of the people they're trying
> to reach are believers in God--and that it's unrealistic to try to change
> THAT.
>
> So they're trying to explain how one can believe in God while accepting
> evolution and the rest of what modern science has to tell us.
>
That would involve respecting superstition and I refuse to do that.
> Instead of dismissing all of religion as "Bronze Age goatherder myths" or
> a 2,000 year long conspiracy by the ruling class to keep exploiting the
> workers (as put forward by our very own Marxist "r norman" here), they all
> believe in God *themselves*. That instantly makes them more credible to
> the audience they're trying to reach. And then they offer arguments as to
> how acceptance of the ToE need not be antithetical to a broad faith in a
> Higher Power. (Though they all accept that some aspects of fundamentalist
> religion are incorrect.)
>
> BTW, anybody who could hang on to Marxist bullshit in the year 2010 (like
> our very own "r norman" has), ought to be just as much a subject of
> ridicule. Because unlike the existence of God, events in the 20th century
> have empirically and decisively refuted Marxism.
>
Marx got a lot wrong, but his assessment of religion was dead on. It is a
waste of human effort and therefore highly evil.
.
r norman
OK, so the exploitation of the workers business was merely providing a
touch of verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing
narrative. Still, there are two important factors in my story that
are not exclusively Marxist and, indeed, are widely accepted.
First, the story of "a people" is written not by the working masses
but by the power elite who have the literacy and the financing and the
leisure time to be able to formulate a convincing tale. Modern
historians have started to try to demolish this by building histories
based on everyday life. But the stories that have been passed down to
us through the ages were passed down through the power structure, not
through the common man. And the power structure were never
"goatherds". The Bible was not written by goatherds.
Second, my impression is that modern biblical scholarship indicates
that the Bible stories (Old Testament) were indeed written to try to
organize the masses into a single, coherent and unified group,
separated from their neighbors by a large chasm in beliefs, social
practices, mores, complete with a back story which seems never to have
had much historical validity. Even the goatherds among the ancient
Patriarchs seem never to have existed.
Then there is the fact that Marxism is NOT communism. Also (as has
already been pointed out in this thread) the fact that Karl Marx may
have espoused certain ideas does not automatically mean that they are
necessarily false.
r norman
Thank you for pleading my case. You wouldn't happen to be a closet
Marxist, would you?
Dan Listermann
could not know better and did the best they could under their circumstances.
They accomplished great things. I am, however, ridiculing the people of
today who still cling to the silly old myths of the ancients when an obvious
superior is on display for all to see. This is especially so when they
think that the "ancient texts" are superior to modern observable and
repeatable science. To think so is an abomination.
.
el cid
[[[ Broken record, overly self-satisfied line about goat
herders ]]]
[[[ + unsuccessful gentle tactics ]]]
> It is a personal matter to me. �I cannot respect superstition. �I refuse to
> allow them to believe that I think that their superstition is somehow
> "special." A pile of filth is a pile of filth. �Frankly I don't care.
It's a personal thing with me.
Some people as so stupid that they think their own self-righteous
indignation makes up for their counter-productive behavior. It
seems the only way to get through to them is to beat them over
the head with it. Consider yourself beaten.
Oh what the heck, here's some more.
Imagine a wanna-be comedian getting on stage and laughing hard at
every joke he tells, even pausing to think back on how funny he
thinks he is. The audience is generally stunned, seldom having
witnessed such a train wreck, except for a few "special members"
of the audience. These have no actual sense of humor but like
to hide it by laughing when they hear other laughing to avoid
feeling left out.
Guess the wanna-be comedian's name.
Dan Listermann
Hey, different strokes for different folks. If you want to pamper the
superstitious, I won't criticize you.
.
Dan Listermann
> First, the story of "a people" is written not by the working masses
> but by the power elite who have the literacy and the financing and the
> leisure time to be able to formulate a convincing tale. Modern
> historians have started to try to demolish this by building histories
> based on everyday life. But the stories that have been passed down to
> us through the ages were passed down through the power structure, not
> through the common man. And the power structure were never
> "goatherds". The Bible was not written by goatherds.
>
I will never debate that the bible was not WRITTEN DOWN by goatherds.
However the myths transcribed in the bible are very likely the product of
the imaginations of illiterate nomads like goatherds.
.
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> OK, so the exploitation of the workers business was merely providing a
> touch of verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing
> narrative. Still, there are two important factors in my story that
> are not exclusively Marxist and, indeed, are widely accepted.
>
> First, the story of "a people" is written not by the working masses
> but by the power elite who have the literacy and the financing and the
> leisure time to be able to formulate a convincing tale. Modern
> historians have started to try to demolish this by building histories
> based on everyday life. But the stories that have been passed down to
> us through the ages were passed down through the power structure, not
> through the common man. And the power structure were never
> "goatherds". The Bible was not written by goatherds.
>
> Second, my impression is that modern biblical scholarship indicates
> that the Bible stories (Old Testament) were indeed written to try to
> organize the masses into a single, coherent and unified group,
> separated from their neighbors by a large chasm in beliefs, social
> practices, mores, complete with a back story which seems never to have
> had much historical validity. Even the goatherds among the ancient
> Patriarchs seem never to have existed.
>
> Then there is the fact that Marxism is NOT communism. Also (as has
> already been pointed out in this thread) the fact that Karl Marx may
> have espoused certain ideas does not automatically mean that they are
> necessarily false.
Sound. (The same applies to Groucho, of course.) It's impossible to get
a clear understanding of power structures without considering economic
relationships and socially-accepted myths. These myths may quite as well
be secular as religious, as recent history has shown us.
--
Mike.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
Andy Kaufman?
Mark Isaak
>> [...]
> Marx got a lot wrong, but his assessment of religion was dead on.
References? For that matter, measurement criteria?
> It is a waste of human effort and therefore highly evil.
I presume you are aware that religious people tend to live longer than
non-religious folk. Why do you consider it a waste of effort to want to
live longer?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Mark Isaak
And even more likely not. There are fingerprints of priests all over the
Bible. Even if the base story ("There was this huge flood once") came
from illiterate nomads, the details that earn those stories a place in
the Bible (e.g., reason for the flood, obedience of Noah, sacrifice and
covenant afterwards) came from the priests. And priests, especially in
those days, tended not be goatherds.
Ernest Major
<eci...@earthlink.net> writes
>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 12:10:38 -0500, Dan Listermann wrote:
>
>>
>> "r norman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:35bhk51eqlf5e3aj8...@4ax.com...
>>> First, the story of "a people" is written not by the working masses but
>>> by the power elite who have the literacy and the financing and the
>>> leisure time to be able to formulate a convincing tale. Modern
>>> historians have started to try to demolish this by building histories
>>> based on everyday life. But the stories that have been passed down to
>>> us through the ages were passed down through the power structure, not
>>> through the common man. And the power structure were never "goatherds".
>>> The Bible was not written by goatherds.
>>>
>> I will never debate that the bible was not WRITTEN DOWN by goatherds.
>> However the myths transcribed in the bible are very likely the product
>> of the imaginations of illiterate nomads like goatherds.
>
>And even more likely not. There are fingerprints of priests all over the
>Bible. Even if the base story ("There was this huge flood once") came
>from illiterate nomads, the details that earn those stories a place in
>the Bible (e.g., reason for the flood, obedience of Noah, sacrifice and
>covenant afterwards) came from the priests. And priests, especially in
>those days, tended not be goatherds.
>
and urban region. If you assume a vernacular (rather than an elite)
origin for the stories wheat farmer or potter might be a better bet than
goat herd.
--
alias Ernest Major
Dan Listermann
"Mark Isaak" <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2010.01.09...@earthlink.net...
> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:26:00 -0500, Dan Listermann wrote:
>
>>> [...]
>> Marx got a lot wrong, but his assessment of religion was dead on.
>
> References? For that matter, measurement criteria?
>
>> It is a waste of human effort and therefore highly evil.
>
> I presume you are aware that religious people tend to live longer than
> non-religious folk. Why do you consider it a waste of effort to want to
> live longer?
>
Painting all the irreligious with the same brush? Saying that I won't live
as long as you because I don't buy the mumbo jumbo is a stretch. Having a
bad life style comes with ignoring the big picture. I don't ignore the big
picture, but mine is reality based, not fantasy based.
What portion of your one and only precious life is consumed by mumbling to
yourself? You can't see that as waste, can you?
.
Dan Listermann
> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 12:10:38 -0500, Dan Listermann wrote:
>
>>
>> "r norman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:35bhk51eqlf5e3aj8...@4ax.com...
>>> First, the story of "a people" is written not by the working masses but
>>> by the power elite who have the literacy and the financing and the
>>> leisure time to be able to formulate a convincing tale. Modern
>>> historians have started to try to demolish this by building histories
>>> based on everyday life. But the stories that have been passed down to
>>> us through the ages were passed down through the power structure, not
>>> through the common man. And the power structure were never "goatherds".
>>> The Bible was not written by goatherds.
>>>
>> I will never debate that the bible was not WRITTEN DOWN by goatherds.
>> However the myths transcribed in the bible are very likely the product
>> of the imaginations of illiterate nomads like goatherds.
>
> And even more likely not. There are fingerprints of priests all over the
> Bible. Even if the base story ("There was this huge flood once") came
> from illiterate nomads, the details that earn those stories a place in
> the Bible (e.g., reason for the flood, obedience of Noah, sacrifice and
> covenant afterwards) came from the priests. And priests, especially in
> those days, tended not be goatherds.
>
thought was "high tech" in their age and this was generated orally long
before by far less sophisticated minds.
.
Dan Listermann
"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:TskwwoG+...@meden.invalid...
Whatever, the point is the same. Some contemporary people hold these
primitive myths far above the repeatable observations and predictions of
modern science, much to the detriment of society.
.
el cid
> "Ernest Major" <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:TskwwoG+...@meden.invalid...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In message <pan.2010.01.09.17.54.53.159...@earthlink.net>, Mark Isaak> >>> "r norman" <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Clearly, the chevalier noir shall continue to defend the bridge,
all hail the ebon paladin.
It's time to leave before he bleeds on us or nibbles our ankles.
r norman
Why do you persist on believing that everything that was generated
orally long before persisted in the writings of the sophisticated
priests? They carefully filtered out and selected exactly what they
thought was suitable for their purposes. These purposes did NOT
include being technically precise in all respects. If locusts
(grasshoppers) have four ordinary "walking" legs plus two specialized
jumping legs, then saying "four legs" is no big deal. If you describe
the circumference of an object to one significant figure and the
diameter to one significant figure, if it turns out the pi must be
equal to 3 (to one significant figure) then so be it. The work was
never written to be a text of zoology or or mathematics.
No, you have not referred to these particular examples, but they are
the favorites of many who want to totally debunk the Bible. Of course
the Bible is not literally true in every word. This was known to the
priests who wrote it down. That is why there was an oral tradition of
biblical interpretation from the very beginning. But the Bible was
(and still is) very effective for its purpose which is why it has
lasted for several millenia.
r norman
So why don't you rail against modern people adhering to primitive
myths shown by modern science not to be literally true instead of
constantly repeating your pet phrase "Bronze Age goatherds?"
heekster
wrote:
>On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 08:45:36 -0800 (PST), el cid <elcid...@gmail.com>
>wrote in talk.origins:
>
>>On Jan 9, 11:21锟絘m, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>>
>> [[[ Broken record, overly self-satisfied line about goat
>>herders ]]]
>> [[[ + unsuccessful gentle tactics ]]]
>>> It is a personal matter to me. 锟絀 cannot respect superstition. 锟絀 refuse to
>>> allow them to believe that I think that their superstition is somehow
>>> "special." A pile of filth is a pile of filth. 锟紽rankly I don't care.
>>
>>It's a personal thing with me.
>>Some people as so stupid that they think their own self-righteous
>>indignation makes up for their counter-productive behavior. It
>>seems the only way to get through to them is to beat them over
>>the head with it. Consider yourself beaten.
>>
>>Oh what the heck, here's some more.
>>Imagine a wanna-be comedian getting on stage and laughing hard at
>>every joke he tells, even pausing to think back on how funny he
>>thinks he is. The audience is generally stunned, seldom having
>>witnessed such a train wreck, except for a few "special members"
>>of the audience. These have no actual sense of humor but like
>>to hide it by laughing when they hear other laughing to avoid
>>feeling left out.
>>
>>Guess the wanna-be comedian's name.
>
>Andy Kaufman?
That's what came to mind with me, also.
Should I be seeking help from a mental health professional? :)
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jan 8, 5:19�pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:30:04 -0700, Desertphile
>> <desertph...@invalid-address.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:35:48 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:11:44 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>> >> <ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Jan 4, 5:22�pm, Kalinda's <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> >> >> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote innews:tPidnSxHYM2mf9zW...@earthlink.com:
>>
>> >> >> > Dog genes may hold secrets to human disease
>>
>> >> >> They're products of a common design plan.
>>
>> >> >They are too stupid to see that.
>>
>> >> The stupid one is the one who sees design when none is present.
>>
>> >I see design in nature everywhere, all the time, and I do not
>> >consider myself stupid. The fucktard Creationist's error abobe is
>> >not "design:" it is the word "plan." Evolution creates designs but
>> >it does not plan.
>>
>> >(CUTS)
>>
>> design
>> n � � � noun
>> 1 � � � a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function of
>> something before it is built or made. �the art or action of planning
>> the look and function of something. �the arrangement of the features
>> of an artefact.
>> 2 � � � a decorative pattern.
>> 3 � � � the purpose or planning that exists behind an action or
>> object.
>> n � � � verb decide upon the look and functioning of (something),
>> especially by making a detailed drawing of it. �do or plan (something)
>> with a specific purpose in mind.
>>
>> PHRASES
>> � � � � by design as a result of a plan; intentionally.
>> � � � � have designs on aim to obtain, especially in an underhand way.
>> �informal have an undisclosed sexual interest in.
>>
>> ORIGIN
>> � � � � Middle English (as a verb in the sense 'to designate'): from
>> Latin designare, reinforced by French d�signer.
>>
>> I see no design in nature, apart from the decorative pattern meaning.
>> What I see in nature is "make do". Any design seen is just human
>> imagination playing trick on them.
>
>A snowflake follows a fractal design,
As in pattern, not is any other meaning of design.
> as do many other natural
>things. You're free to call it a fractal plan without loss
>of accuracy.
>
>The error is to presume that naturally occurring rules do
>not create designs or set plans. It is further an error to
>promote human manufactured plans to a wholly separate
>level of design. Bees manufacture well designed honeycombs
>from instinctual behavior.
The shape is the result of evolution.
> Humans man have better abilities
>to abstract and develop plans than birds do when they
>build their nests but it is a matter of degree, not
>necessarily an issue of a brand new phenomenon.
The was a living organism designs things is not related to design in
the living organism.
--
Bob.