8 science questions
Vanman
mutations have to occur? The first mutation to increase the size of the
skull..and then the 2nd mutation to increase the size of the brain? Do I
have this right?
2. My guess is that most creationists suspect all these hundreds of
neanderthal bones (nevermind all the other huminoid bones) are simply homo
sapiens that were diseased?
3. If another of my fathers sperm fertilized my mothers "egg" instead of the
one that occured for me, would that result in another person or would that
still result in me (potentially stupid question)?
4. Due to religious reasons Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to receive blood.
Their argument (besides biblical based arguments) from what I understand is
that even if blood is added to a body that has lost significant amounts..it
takes alot of time for that blood to oxygenate hence it is functionally
useless and would not save anyone in time (i have also heard a "Red Cross"
based conspiracy B.S but lets not go there). I have serious doubts here?
Any truth to this statement?
5. I need some clarification. The "Intelligent Design" crowd of Behe,
Demski do believe in evolution right? They just state that some elements in
evolution are too complex to occur on their own and hence in some aspects
God (or superior beings) must have intervened at some specific points? Is
this correct?
6. In each solar system there is a presumable "habitable zone". How large
is this estimated to be? Does it not have to be quite wide just based on the
fact that we have organisms at the bottom of the sea in frigid tempatures,
under tremendous water pressure and without light (or in extreme heat)?
Does this not extend the habitable zone significantly?
7. Is there any evidence for the possibility of "multiple universes"?
Thanks guys. I must say that I appreciate the minds in this newsgroup (minus
the ego based wars that occur periodically....groan)
jillery
On Jan 3, 8:16�pm, "Vanman" <Vancan...@shaw.ca> wrote:
<8 interesting questions>
Some need further definition and elaboration before they can have
meaningful answers (example: what defines "you"?). In order to avoid
going off too far afield, I would like to know if you have some kind
of overarching theme in mind, or are you asking in a stream-of-
conscience, whats-in-the-the-kitchen-drawer kinda way?
John Harshman
> 1. Regarding the mutation that effected brain size..would two different
> mutations have to occur? The first mutation to increase the size of the
> skull..and then the 2nd mutation to increase the size of the brain? Do I
> have this right?
No. Development doesn't work that way. Brain and skull communicate when
growing. But of course many mutations were presumably involved.
> 2. My guess is that most creationists suspect all these hundreds of
> neanderthal bones (nevermind all the other huminoid bones) are simply homo
> sapiens that were diseased?
When they think about it, yes.
> 3. If another of my fathers sperm fertilized my mothers "egg" instead of the
> one that occured for me, would that result in another person or would that
> still result in me (potentially stupid question)?
It would result in a genetically different individual. Whether you wan
to call that individual "you" isn't a scientific question.
> 4. Due to religious reasons Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to receive blood.
> Their argument (besides biblical based arguments) from what I understand is
> that even if blood is added to a body that has lost significant amounts..it
> takes alot of time for that blood to oxygenate hence it is functionally
> useless and would not save anyone in time (i have also heard a "Red Cross"
> based conspiracy B.S but lets not go there). I have serious doubts here?
> Any truth to this statement?
I don't know whether JWs make that claim. But the claim is false. One
passage through the lungs is all it takes for the blood to oxygenate.
And a complete trip around the circulatory system takes about a minute.
> 5. I need some clarification. The "Intelligent Design" crowd of Behe,
> Demski do believe in evolution right? They just state that some elements in
> evolution are too complex to occur on their own and hence in some aspects
> God (or superior beings) must have intervened at some specific points? Is
> this correct?
It's hard to tell, because they often don't want to say, for political
reasons. The main grassroots support for ID comes from young-earth
creationists, who reject all evolution. But many IDers accept it. Behe,
for example, thinks that all life is related by common descent, and that
natural selection can accomplish most adaptation. Dembski is harder to
pin down, and I can't say what he believes. Other IDers vary. Some are
YECs. At least one is apparently a deist.
> 6. In each solar system there is a presumable "habitable zone". How large
> is this estimated to be? Does it not have to be quite wide just based on the
> fact that we have organisms at the bottom of the sea in frigid tempatures,
> under tremendous water pressure and without light (or in extreme heat)?
> Does this not extend the habitable zone significantly?
It's as wide as you want to make it, since it's all a wild-ass guess anyway.
> 7. Is there any evidence for the possibility of "multiple universes"?
Depends on what you mean by evidence. There are theories that imply such
universes. I don't know of any way to test any of those theories.
> Thanks guys. I must say that I appreciate the minds in this newsgroup (minus
> the ego based wars that occur periodically....groan)
Is there a reason you mentioned 8 questions?
Paul Ciszek
In article <Ljb0n.8963$Sh7....@newsfe25.iad>,
Vanman <Vanc...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>1. Regarding the mutation that effected brain size..would two different
>mutations have to occur? The first mutation to increase the size of the
>skull..and then the 2nd mutation to increase the size of the brain? Do I
>have this right?
Genes do not code for a "blueprint" of the finished animal so much as
they code for a process for getting there. Living things adapt quite
a bit to circumstances as they develop. For example, there is nothing
in the human genome that codes for a branched gut, yet the Hensel twins
are relatively healthy with two heads, two stomachs, a branched small
intestine, and one large intestine; four lungs (two of them slightly
fused) but one diaphragm, etc. Somehow during embryonic development,
the whole mess adapted. Compared to that, matching the growth of the
brain and skull is simple.
>2. My guess is that most creationists suspect all these hundreds of
>neanderthal bones (nevermind all the other huminoid bones) are simply homo
>sapiens that were diseased?
I have heard one OEC claim that, yes.
>3. If another of my fathers sperm fertilized my mothers "egg" instead of the
>one that occured for me, would that result in another person or would that
>still result in me (potentially stupid question)?
More like a metaphysical question. The resulting baby would have had
genetic differences, could have been a different gender, or might have
died early in pregnancy (something that happens more often than people
realize). Would that baby have been "you"? That is like asking, if
your parents had never met, would you have never been born--or would you
have been born somewhere else, to different parents? If Scotty beams
you up to the Enterprise but due to a quantum flux of bullshiton particles
the original you on the ground is not disassembled as the copy of you is
assembled in the transporter room, are they both you?
>4. Due to religious reasons Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to receive blood.
>Their argument (besides biblical based arguments) from what I understand is
>that even if blood is added to a body that has lost significant amounts..it
>takes alot of time for that blood to oxygenate hence it is functionally
>useless and would not save anyone in time (i have also heard a "Red Cross"
>based conspiracy B.S but lets not go there). I have serious doubts here?
>Any truth to this statement?
Last I heard, Jehovah's Witnesses who were anticipating major surgery
would make a few donations ahead of time so that they could receive their
own blood--a process called autotransfusion--and do an end run around the
prohibition against transfusion. So at least some of them acknowledge
the usefulness of more blood when one is being cut open.
>5. I need some clarification. The "Intelligent Design" crowd of Behe,
>Demski do believe in evolution right? They just state that some elements in
>evolution are too complex to occur on their own and hence in some aspects
>God (or superior beings) must have intervened at some specific points? Is
>this correct?
The "Intelligent Design" crowd developed it as a wedge to get religion
into the science classroom. The proponents of ID do not themselves
believe in it. See http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
>6. In each solar system there is a presumable "habitable zone". How large
>is this estimated to be? Does it not have to be quite wide just based on the
>fact that we have organisms at the bottom of the sea in frigid tempatures,
>under tremendous water pressure and without light (or in extreme heat)?
>Does this not extend the habitable zone significantly?
The habitable zone is supposed to be the range of distances from the sun
at which a planet could support liquid water. I think the requirement may
be that there be liquid water somewhere on the planet at all times, but
I'm not sure. The size, atmospheric composition, geological activity, etc.
of the planet also play a role in determining the surface temperature, and
this broadens the hypothetical habitable zone. Also, the zone may shift
as the star ages and its brightness changes. (Has anyone run simulations
to see if Venus could have had liquid water when the Sun was younger and
dimmer, and the oceans of Earth were frozen solid?)
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Ernest Major
<Vanc...@shaw.ca> writes
>1. Regarding the mutation that effected brain size..would two different
>mutations have to occur? The first mutation to increase the size of the
>skull..and then the 2nd mutation to increase the size of the brain? Do I
>have this right?
No. The genome is not a blueprint. A recipe is a better (but still
imperfect) metaphor. The different tissues interact during growth. For
example to achieve a longer arm doesn't require a mutation for a long
bone, and several mutation for a longer muscle, and a mutation for a
longer nerve, and several mutations for longer veins and arteries, and a
mutation for more skin. It just requires a mutation that makes the arm
grow faster and/or longer during development, such as greater production
or sensitivity to a growth promoter.
>
>2. My guess is that most creationists suspect all these hundreds of
>neanderthal bones (nevermind all the other huminoid bones) are simply homo
>sapiens that were diseased?
Then they would have to explain why only diseased individuals are found,
and why the nature of the disease changes over time.
>
>3. If another of my fathers sperm fertilized my mothers "egg" instead of the
>one that occured for me, would that result in another person or would that
>still result in me (potentially stupid question)?
The result would be genetically different from you, and would be
expected to be phenotypically different. But if you were given up for
adoption at birth, the resulting individual would also be expected to be
phenotypically different from you. It seems to me that this is more a
philosophical question that a scientific question.
For an edge case, if a mutation did or did not occur in a zygote, are
the resulting individuals the same or different persons.
>
>4. Due to religious reasons Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to receive blood.
>Their argument (besides biblical based arguments) from what I understand is
>that even if blood is added to a body that has lost significant amounts..it
>takes alot of time for that blood to oxygenate hence it is functionally
>useless and would not save anyone in time (i have also heard a "Red Cross"
>based conspiracy B.S but lets not go there). I have serious doubts here?
>Any truth to this statement?
It seems to me that donated blood would be no less oxygenated than
venous blood, and possibly more so. The latter gets oxygenated when
passing though the lungs, so presumably so would the former.
>
>5. I need some clarification. The "Intelligent Design" crowd of Behe,
>Demski do believe in evolution right? They just state that some elements in
>evolution are too complex to occur on their own and hence in some aspects
>God (or superior beings) must have intervened at some specific points? Is
>this correct?
Behe has conceded common descent. I am not aware that any others have,
except that Dembski has claimed that ID can accomodate all the results
of "Darwinism".
>
>6. In each solar system there is a presumable "habitable zone". How large
>is this estimated to be? Does it not have to be quite wide just based on the
>fact that we have organisms at the bottom of the sea in frigid tempatures,
>under tremendous water pressure and without light (or in extreme heat)?
>Does this not extend the habitable zone significantly?
The habitable zone is the region in which liquid water can exist. On one
side is bordered by zones in which a runaway greenhouse effect occurs,
and on the other where a global glaciation occurs. Tidal heating and
subsurface oceans potentially extend the outer boundary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone
>
>7. Is there any evidence for the possibility of "multiple universes"?
I'm not aware of any.
>
>Thanks guys. I must say that I appreciate the minds in this newsgroup (minus
>the ego based wars that occur periodically....groan)
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Kalkidas
news:Ljb0n.8963$Sh7....@newsfe25.iad:
> 1. Regarding the mutation that effected brain size..would two
> different mutations have to occur? The first mutation to increase the
> size of the skull..and then the 2nd mutation to increase the size of
> the brain? Do I have this right?
No. Increasing brain size is not a matter of mutation. A new, larger
brain must be designed.
> 2. My guess is that most creationists suspect all these hundreds of
> neanderthal bones (nevermind all the other huminoid bones) are simply
> homo sapiens that were diseased?
There are many human species. Neanderthal is one.
> 3. If another of my fathers sperm fertilized my mothers "egg" instead
> of the one that occured for me, would that result in another person or
> would that still result in me (potentially stupid question)?
No. The soul is contained in an individual sperm. Another sperm would
have another soul, resulting in a different person.
> 4. Due to religious reasons Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to receive
> blood. Their argument (besides biblical based arguments) from what I
> understand is that even if blood is added to a body that has lost
> significant amounts..it takes alot of time for that blood to oxygenate
> hence it is functionally useless and would not save anyone in time (i
> have also heard a "Red Cross" based conspiracy B.S but lets not go
> there). I have serious doubts here? Any truth to this statement?
I don't know.
> 5. I need some clarification. The "Intelligent Design" crowd of Behe,
> Demski do believe in evolution right? They just state that some
> elements in evolution are too complex to occur on their own and hence
> in some aspects God (or superior beings) must have intervened at some
> specific points? Is this correct?
They accept evolution on a small scale within a species. They reject
Darwinism, which purports to explain the origin of all species by
evolution.
> 6. In each solar system there is a presumable "habitable zone". How
> large is this estimated to be? Does it not have to be quite wide just
> based on the fact that we have organisms at the bottom of the sea in
> frigid tempatures, under tremendous water pressure and without light
> (or in extreme heat)? Does this not extend the habitable zone
> significantly?
There is life everywhere in creation, even in so-called "empty" space.
> 7. Is there any evidence for the possibility of "multiple universes"?
Yes. The Vedas describe the multiverse, and there is abundant paranormal
evidence for other dimensions.
> Thanks guys. I must say that I appreciate the minds in this newsgroup
> (minus the ego based wars that occur periodically....groan)
It's unlikely you're going to avoid an "ego-based war" here.
Dan Listermann
"Vanman" <Vanc...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Ljb0n.8963$Sh7....@newsfe25.iad...
>
> 6. In each solar system there is a presumable "habitable zone". How
> large is this estimated to be? Does it not have to be quite wide just
> based on the fact that we have organisms at the bottom of the sea in
> frigid tempatures, under tremendous water pressure and without light (or
> in extreme heat)? Does this not extend the habitable zone significantly?
>
you seem to be presuming that there is a planet in that zone and that planet
has the other parameters to allow life. This is a huge presumption.
.
jillery
Mike Dworetsky
> 1. Regarding the mutation that effected brain size..would two
> different mutations have to occur? The first mutation to increase the
> size of the skull..and then the 2nd mutation to increase the size of
> the brain? Do I have this right?
The changes in brain size and skull size are likely to involve more than two
mutations. And they probably developed over considerable time periods. For
obvious reasons, they would have developed together. Also, I understand
that other hominid brains overlapped in size range with modern human brains.
>
> 2. My guess is that most creationists suspect all these hundreds of
> neanderthal bones (nevermind all the other huminoid bones) are simply
> homo sapiens that were diseased?
Some say this. Others avoid the issue.
>
> 3. If another of my fathers sperm fertilized my mothers "egg" instead
> of the one that occured for me, would that result in another person
> or would that still result in me (potentially stupid question)?
Indeed. You would be your (unborn) brother or sister.
>
> 4. Due to religious reasons Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to receive
> blood. Their argument (besides biblical based arguments) from what I
> understand is that even if blood is added to a body that has lost
> significant amounts..it takes alot of time for that blood to
> oxygenate hence it is functionally useless and would not save anyone
> in time (i have also heard a "Red Cross" based conspiracy B.S but
> lets not go there). I have serious doubts here? Any truth to this
> statement?
Blood transfusions have saved many thousands of lives. If they want to
justify their position on a strictly religious/textual basis, fine, but the
above is made up.
>
> 5. I need some clarification. The "Intelligent Design" crowd of Behe,
> Demski do believe in evolution right? They just state that some
> elements in evolution are too complex to occur on their own and hence
> in some aspects God (or superior beings) must have intervened at some
> specific points? Is this correct?
As I understand it, this is correct, that Behe, in particular, accepts (he
says) virtually all of evolution *except* for a few bits of molecular
biology that he claims are "irreducibly complex", though no other biologists
seem to think so. No one actually can tell what Dembski believes except
that being devious is essential in his case.
>
> 6. In each solar system there is a presumable "habitable zone". How
> large is this estimated to be? Does it not have to be quite wide just
> based on the fact that we have organisms at the bottom of the sea in
> frigid tempatures, under tremendous water pressure and without light
> (or in extreme heat)? Does this not extend the habitable zone
> significantly?
The habitable or "Goldilocks" zone is the range of distances from the
central star in which liquid water is possible on the surfaces of
terrestrial (rocky) planets. It is assumed that liquid water is essential
for life to get started and survive.
As stars evolve and their luminosity increases slowly over time (rapidity
depending on type), the habitable zone tends to move outwards.
Whether there actually is water on the surface also depends on the type of
atmosphere.
The actual depth and pressure of an ocean does not enter into the
definition.
>
> 7. Is there any evidence for the possibility of "multiple universes"?
Not really, but some theories of cosmological origins imply that they exist
or could exist.
>
> Thanks guys. I must say that I appreciate the minds in this newsgroup
> (minus the ego based wars that occur periodically....groan)
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
John Wilkins
<Vanc...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> 1. Regarding the mutation that effected brain size..would two different
> mutations have to occur? The first mutation to increase the size of the
> skull..and then the 2nd mutation to increase the size of the brain? Do I
> have this right?
No: the growth of the brain in utero will automatically increase the
size of the skull: when the skull is prevented from growing, then there
are troubles (and some genetic diseases can do that). There will be
selection in favour of skull growth once you have a bigger brain for
whatever reason.
>
> 2. My guess is that most creationists suspect all these hundreds of
> neanderthal bones (nevermind all the other huminoid bones) are simply homo
> sapiens that were diseased?
That's their explanation, yes. The fact that the bones are perfectly
healthy is beside the point.
>
> 3. If another of my fathers sperm fertilized my mothers "egg" instead of the
> one that occured for me, would that result in another person or would that
> still result in me (potentially stupid question)?
Someone very like you, but not entirely like you, since the relatedness
would be identical to your brother's.
>
> 4. Due to religious reasons Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to receive blood.
> Their argument (besides biblical based arguments) from what I understand is
> that even if blood is added to a body that has lost significant amounts..it
> takes alot of time for that blood to oxygenate hence it is functionally
> useless and would not save anyone in time (i have also heard a "Red Cross"
> based conspiracy B.S but lets not go there). I have serious doubts here?
> Any truth to this statement?
No, and daily experience in ERs and hospitals shows otherwise.
>
> 5. I need some clarification. The "Intelligent Design" crowd of Behe,
> Demski do believe in evolution right? They just state that some elements in
> evolution are too complex to occur on their own and hence in some aspects
> God (or superior beings) must have intervened at some specific points? Is
> this correct?
They vary. If pushed Behe and others will admit to believing in
transmutation and common descent, and only object to natural selection.
But Dembski and Berlinski and others have made it clear they object to
"randomness" and a lack of divine responsibility.
>
> 6. In each solar system there is a presumable "habitable zone". How large
> is this estimated to be? Does it not have to be quite wide just based on the
> fact that we have organisms at the bottom of the sea in frigid tempatures,
> under tremendous water pressure and without light (or in extreme heat)?
> Does this not extend the habitable zone significantly?
Depends on the nature of life. Our form of it is highly sensitive to
variations in environment: from around just above the boiling point of
water to just below it, from around 100 atmospheres to around 1/100th
atm, and sheltered from high doses of UV and radiation in general. That
means you need a planet where such conditions obtain: they may be on
the surface, but they may also be subterranean.
>
> 7. Is there any evidence for the possibility of "multiple universes"?
No. Evidence for this is by definition impossible to get.
jillery
> 7 interesting question <
In order to not stray too far afield, I would like to know if you have
in mind an overarching theme? Or are these just stream-of-conscious
whatever-is-in-the-kitchen-drawer kinds of questions?
Kermit
> In article <Ljb0n.8963$Sh7.2...@newsfe25.iad>, Vanman
<snip>
> > 2. My guess is that most creationists suspect all these hundreds of
> > neanderthal bones (nevermind all the other huminoid bones) are simply homo
> > sapiens that were diseased?
>
> That's their explanation, yes. The fact that the bones are perfectly
> healthy is beside the point.
Well, except for being dead.
<snip>
Kermit
Kermit
Were you having trouble seeing your posts yesterday? I was; I was
posting from Google groups.
Kermit
Ray Martinez
> 1. Regarding the mutation that effected brain size..would two different
> mutations have to occur? The first mutation to increase the size of the
> skull..and then the 2nd mutation to increase the size of the brain? Do I
> have this right?
>
Evolution-did-it.
> 2. My guess is that most creationists suspect all these hundreds of
> neanderthal bones (nevermind all the other huminoid bones) are simply homo
> sapiens that were diseased?
>
It is evidence of obscene credulity. Anyone who thinks decaying bones
is evidence of evolution is a moron or an Atheist.
Ray
Mike Dworetsky
> "Vanman" <Vanc...@shaw.ca> wrote in
> news:Ljb0n.8963$Sh7....@newsfe25.iad:
>
>> 1. Regarding the mutation that effected brain size..would two
>> different mutations have to occur? The first mutation to increase the
>> size of the skull..and then the 2nd mutation to increase the size of
>> the brain? Do I have this right?
>
> No. Increasing brain size is not a matter of mutation. A new, larger
> brain must be designed.
>
>> 2. My guess is that most creationists suspect all these hundreds of
>> neanderthal bones (nevermind all the other huminoid bones) are simply
>> homo sapiens that were diseased?
>
> There are many human species. Neanderthal is one.
>
>> 3. If another of my fathers sperm fertilized my mothers "egg" instead
>> of the one that occured for me, would that result in another person
>> or would that still result in me (potentially stupid question)?
>
> No. The soul is contained in an individual sperm. Another sperm would
> have another soul, resulting in a different person.
Does that mean that male masturbation, or wearing a condom, is a mortal sin
akin to Nazi genocides?
>
>> 4. Due to religious reasons Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to receive
>> blood. Their argument (besides biblical based arguments) from what I
>> understand is that even if blood is added to a body that has lost
>> significant amounts..it takes alot of time for that blood to
>> oxygenate hence it is functionally useless and would not save anyone
>> in time (i have also heard a "Red Cross" based conspiracy B.S but
>> lets not go there). I have serious doubts here? Any truth to this
>> statement?
>
> I don't know.
>
>> 5. I need some clarification. The "Intelligent Design" crowd of
>> Behe, Demski do believe in evolution right? They just state that some
>> elements in evolution are too complex to occur on their own and hence
>> in some aspects God (or superior beings) must have intervened at some
>> specific points? Is this correct?
>
> They accept evolution on a small scale within a species. They reject
> Darwinism, which purports to explain the origin of all species by
> evolution.
I think you will find Behe admits to around 99% of what evolution already
says.
>
>> 6. In each solar system there is a presumable "habitable zone". How
>> large is this estimated to be? Does it not have to be quite wide just
>> based on the fact that we have organisms at the bottom of the sea in
>> frigid tempatures, under tremendous water pressure and without light
>> (or in extreme heat)? Does this not extend the habitable zone
>> significantly?
>
> There is life everywhere in creation, even in so-called "empty" space.
Been reading too much SF?
>
>> 7. Is there any evidence for the possibility of "multiple universes"?
>
> Yes. The Vedas describe the multiverse, and there is abundant
> paranormal evidence for other dimensions.
Well, that factually wraps it up for the rest of us, then.
>
>> Thanks guys. I must say that I appreciate the minds in this newsgroup
>> (minus the ego based wars that occur periodically....groan)
>
> It's unlikely you're going to avoid an "ego-based war" here.
--
John Harshman
> "Vanman" <Vanc...@shaw.ca> wrote in
> news:Ljb0n.8963$Sh7....@newsfe25.iad:
>
>> 1. Regarding the mutation that effected brain size..would two
>> different mutations have to occur? The first mutation to increase the
>> size of the skull..and then the 2nd mutation to increase the size of
>> the brain? Do I have this right?
>
> No. Increasing brain size is not a matter of mutation. A new, larger
> brain must be designed.
Oddly enough, various larger brains were designed sequentially, in a
time series beginning about 4 million years ago, appearing almost as if
one had changed into the next. One could even argue that this process
had begun around 30 million years ago, when the brain sizes of mammalian
predator and prey animals began to increase in tandem.
>> 2. My guess is that most creationists suspect all these hundreds of
>> neanderthal bones (nevermind all the other huminoid bones) are simply
>> homo sapiens that were diseased?
>
> There are many human species. Neanderthal is one.
Were all of them separately created?
>> 3. If another of my fathers sperm fertilized my mothers "egg" instead
>> of the one that occured for me, would that result in another person or
>> would that still result in me (potentially stupid question)?
>
> No. The soul is contained in an individual sperm. Another sperm would
> have another soul, resulting in a different person.
What about all the trillions upon trillions of souls that don't end up
fertilizing an egg? And for that matter, why don't eggs have souls?
Wouldn't that be much more parsimonious, since fewer eggs are wasted?
What evidence do you have that sperm contain souls?
>> 4. Due to religious reasons Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to receive
>> blood. Their argument (besides biblical based arguments) from what I
>> understand is that even if blood is added to a body that has lost
>> significant amounts..it takes alot of time for that blood to oxygenate
>> hence it is functionally useless and would not save anyone in time (i
>> have also heard a "Red Cross" based conspiracy B.S but lets not go
>> there). I have serious doubts here? Any truth to this statement?
>
> I don't know.
>
>> 5. I need some clarification. The "Intelligent Design" crowd of Behe,
>> Demski do believe in evolution right? They just state that some
>> elements in evolution are too complex to occur on their own and hence
>> in some aspects God (or superior beings) must have intervened at some
>> specific points? Is this correct?
>
> They accept evolution on a small scale within a species. They reject
> Darwinism, which purports to explain the origin of all species by
> evolution.
Actually, you're wrong about that. Behe, for one, accepts common descent
of all life and considerable natural evolution in the process. He just
thinks that certain rare adaptations require a divine push.
>> 6. In each solar system there is a presumable "habitable zone". How
>> large is this estimated to be? Does it not have to be quite wide just
>> based on the fact that we have organisms at the bottom of the sea in
>> frigid tempatures, under tremendous water pressure and without light
>> (or in extreme heat)? Does this not extend the habitable zone
>> significantly?
>
> There is life everywhere in creation, even in so-called "empty" space.
Any evidence for this?
>> 7. Is there any evidence for the possibility of "multiple universes"?
>
> Yes. The Vedas describe the multiverse, and there is abundant paranormal
> evidence for other dimensions.
!
>> Thanks guys. I must say that I appreciate the minds in this newsgroup
>> (minus the ego based wars that occur periodically....groan)
>
> It's unlikely you're going to avoid an "ego-based war" here.
Mu.
Kermit
> "Vanman" <Vancan...@shaw.ca> wrote innews:Ljb0n.8963$Sh7....@newsfe25.iad:
>
Your responses are of course not scientific answers, but instead one
set of religious responses out of thousands.
> > 1. Regarding the mutation that effected brain size..would two
> > different mutations have to occur? The first mutation to increase the
> > size of the skull..and then the 2nd mutation to increase the size of
> > the brain? Do I have this right?
>
> No. Increasing brain size is not a matter of mutation. A new, larger
> brain must be designed.
You have yet to produce evidence for this. As with Christian
creationists, you have merely asserted this.
>
> > 2. My guess is that most creationists suspect all these hundreds of
> > neanderthal bones (nevermind all the other huminoid bones) are simply
> > homo sapiens that were diseased?
>
> There are many human species. Neanderthal is one.
There *were many human species. They all seem to be extinct now,
except us. There is a small possibility, not yet supported by widely
accepted evidence, that neanderthals interbred with us, and we may be
part neanderthal. The neanderthal may have been our only intellectual
equal.
>
> > 3. If another of my fathers sperm fertilized my mothers "egg" instead
> > of the one that occured for me, would that result in another person or
> > would that still result in me (potentially stupid question)?
>
> No. The soul is contained in an individual sperm. Another sperm would
> have another soul, resulting in a different person.
As good an answer as any for a metaphysical question.
>
> > 4. 锟紻ue to religious reasons Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to receive
> > blood. Their argument (besides biblical based arguments) from what I
> > understand is that even if blood is added to a body that has lost
> > significant amounts..it takes alot of time for that blood to oxygenate
> > hence it is functionally useless and would not save anyone in time (i
> > have also heard a "Red Cross" based conspiracy B.S but lets not go
> > there). 锟絀 have serious doubts here? Any truth to this statement?
>
> I don't know.
Thanks for honesty. The blood is useful almost immediately; it only
has to pass around the lungs once to get oxygenated and be useful -
the same as the blood already in our body. Someday soon we will have
acceptable artificial blood, and be able to provide it to anyone who
needs it. Probably even the JWs would accept it.
>
> > 5. 锟絀 need some clarification. The "Intelligent Design" crowd of Behe,
> > Demski do believe in evolution right? They just state that some
> > elements in evolution are too complex to occur on their own and hence
> > in some aspects God (or superior beings) must have intervened at some
> > specific points? 锟絀s this correct?
>
> They accept evolution on a small scale within a species. They reject
> Darwinism, which purports to explain the origin of all species by
> evolution.
Behe accepts common descent, but insists there was constant tweaking
by some higher power. Like you, he fails to provide evidence for this.
Other people might consider themselves Creationist, in believing that
the creator set everything up, but let evolution run its course. We
don't normally call them Creationist here, but it would not be
unreasonable to do so. They make no claims contrary to science.
>
> > 6. 锟絀n each solar system there is a presumable "habitable zone". 锟紿ow
> > large is this estimated to be? Does it not have to be quite wide just
> > based on the fact that we have organisms at the bottom of the sea in
> > frigid tempatures, under tremendous water pressure and without light
> > (or in extreme heat)? Does this not extend the habitable zone
> > significantly?
>
> There is life everywhere in creation, even in so-called "empty" space.
Evidence?
>
> > 7. Is there any evidence for the possibility of "multiple universes"?
>
> Yes. The Vedas describe the multiverse, and there is abundant paranormal
> evidence for other dimensions.
Perhaps you could present some. Note that written records fo ancient
legends are not very good evidence, especially of fantastic events.
The Vedas contradict the Jewish-Christian bible, for example.
>
> > Thanks guys. I must say that I appreciate the minds in this newsgroup
> > (minus the ego based wars that occur periodically....groan)
>
> It's unlikely you're going to avoid an "ego-based war" here.
It gives us purpose...
Burkhard
The science part of most of your questions seem to have been dealt
with by others, here my two pennies worth on the more philosophical
issues and a BIG disclaimer: what follows is an "irrational
reconstruction" of several lines of inquiry in philosophy and logic,
and neither comprehensive, chronological or even accurate - but it
relates them to your question in a do-able way ( I put some further
reading at the end, if you want to find out more) . :
>
> 3. If another of my fathers sperm fertilized my mothers "egg" instead of the
> one that occured for me, would that result in another person or would that
> still result in me (potentially stupid question)?
Not at all stupid, but philosophically very difficult. Essentially, it
depends on what you mean with "me", and philosophers can talk without
end about this.
Your specific set up however relates it in an interesting way to
another of your questions;
> 7. Is there any evidence for the possibility of "multiple universes"?
"Multiple universes" or "possible worlds" are one way philosophers,
logicians and certain linguists think about the identity question you
raised in 3. Intuitively, we understand what it means when we say: If
I had taken an earlier bus, I woudl never have met my wife and my life
would have been very different from what it is now. I would be much
more aggressive and bitter than I am now". We are perfectly capable of
using this type of hypotheticals in an argument. For classically
trained logicians however, sentences of this form pose several
problems. One of them is that this "other me" now has properties
other than me - and since two things are identical if and only if they
share all their properties (Leibniz identity) this "other me" who
never met my wife is, strictly speaking, not me and any argument based
on this notion is trivially false.
One way to deal with issues like this is "possible world semantics".
In this approach, there is another possible world where I never met my
wife, and I can so to speak "look" into this world, find "me" and
determine what other properties I have there that I do not have in the
actual world.
But then we have the next problem: How do I find "me" in this other
world, what makes a person my "counterpart"? Well, one way could be to
distinguish certain properties: Accidental properties are those that
can change and I am still me, necessary properties are those that
define me, and if you change them the very talk about counterparts or
"what ifs" stops making sense. I can ask rationally what "I" woudl
have done had I not had breakfast today, I can't really ask what "I"
would do if I had been born in a village in Africa in 400 BC - there
is no "counterpart" or "me" to be found in that possible world. So
your question becomes in this setting: Can we reasonably talk about
"you" in this other possible world, do you have a counterpart.
So the next quest became the identification of suitable candidates of
"essential " properties that allow cross world identification - and
suddenly, analytical philosophy became much more metaphysical than
people had imagined. Some emphasise that is is all about reasoning -
and linguistic rather than "real world" criteria are relevant, like
e.g. your name. (e.g. Saul Kripke in naming and necessity) . But
others saw these "possible worlds" not just as a neat formal tool
(formally speaking, they are just maximally consistent sets of
sentences closed under deduction, or "stories" (so e.g Hintikka) but
as something more real.
Here, your two questions meet for the first time David Lewis in "On
the Plurality of Worlds (1986) proposed a form of "modal realism"
where these possible worlds or universes do really exist - and he
argued that this was backed up by at least one interpretation of
quantum mechanics (see for a critical discussion Adrian Kent, One
world versus many: the inadequacy of Everettian accounts of evolution,
probability, and scientific confirmation in Asher Peres, Quantum
Theory: Concepts and Methods, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1993.) In this view,
multiple universes to indeed exists.
For a modal realist, the problem how to identify counterparts is even
more pressing than for a conventionalist, and DNA has been suggested
as one of the identifying criteria. Go to the other possible world,
look for persons with the same DNA, and Bob's your uncle. Since your
putative other self (the one from a different sperm) has a different
DNA from you, s/he would not be your counterpart in other possible
worlds.
As i said, this is a bit of a caricature of the very intricate debate
that crosses over philosophy, logic, linguistics - and in my view a
bare fig leave of physics. One problem with the "DNA as essential
property" approach is that it would make sense to say: what would I do
had I been abducted at birth and raised by yak herders in Nepal", but
not: "What would I do if a random mutation at birth had given me a
slightly lighter hair colour" - even though intuitively, it is much
more problematic to say in the first case that this person is still
"me" in any meaningful sense of the word.
To cut a long story short: it is and remains a philosophical problem,
and scientific quick fixes for these seldom work. It depends too much
what you mean with "me", and any answer you give commits you to a
whole host of philosophical assumptions.
Some readings, as promised:
Della Rocca, Michael, 2002, "Essentialism versus Essentialism", in
Gendler and Hawthorne 2002.
Lewis, David, 1983, "Survival and Identity", in Amelie O. Rorty [ed.]
The Identities of Persons (1976; University of California Press.) and
in Philosophical Papers I, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gibbard, Alan, 1975, "Contingent Identity", Journal of Philosophical
Logic 4, pp. 197-221
Mackie, Penelope, 2006, How Things Might Have Been � Individuals,
Kinds and essential Properties, Oxford: Clarendon Press
Steven L.
news:3cca3$4b4335d9$4a53bf9f$26...@FUSE.NET:
Astronomers have already discovered at least two such planets, Gliese
581c and Gliese 581d, that are within the habitable zone of their
system. And Gliese 581 is only 20 light years from Earth. Given that
the Galaxy is 100,000 light years in diameter, there are likely to be
thousands of such planets throughout the Galaxy.
But as you say, we don't know all the factors that allow life. For
example, have comets actually brought liquid water to Gliese 581d, as
they probably did with Earth?
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
Kermit
Maybe I still am...
I see these posts displayed with the dates out of order, too :(
Kermit
Steven L.
> 1. Regarding the mutation that effected brain size..would two different
> mutations have to occur? The first mutation to increase the size of the
> skull..and then the 2nd mutation to increase the size of the brain? Do I
> have this right?
My guess is that a whole bunch of mutations were involved--not just for
the skull and brain but for the female pelvis as well. (As the human
skull got larger to hold a larger brain, the female pelvis had to widen
in order for the big-skulled baby to pass through it during childbirth.)
The brain, the skull, and the female pelvis, all had to evolve in
tandem.
In fact, the female pelvis is the biggest constraint preventing any
larger brain size. If the pelvis got much wider, the woman would be
unable to walk.
So those big-brained humanoids with normal-sized pelvises that you see
in science fiction (cf. Star Trek's Talosians) are medically impossible.
The SF movie "Forbidden Planet" did get that right, in that they hinted
that the supra-intelligent aliens (Krell) had much wider craniums AND
pelvises than humans.
> 2. My guess is that most creationists suspect all these hundreds of
> neanderthal bones (nevermind all the other huminoid bones) are simply homo
> sapiens that were diseased?
Yeah, pretty much. It gets more interesting when you ask them about
Homo Habilis, which evolved earlier. Half of them will tell you it's an
odd-looking ape, and the other half will tell you it's a crippled human.
>
> 3. If another of my fathers sperm fertilized my mothers "egg" instead of the
> one that occured for me, would that result in another person or would that
> still result in me (potentially stupid question)?
The old nature-nurture argument, eh? Presumably you would still be
raised by your mom and dad the same way, so you might end up with a
similar education and similar ethics. But a part of you is genetically
determined. If a different sperm fertilized your mom's egg, you might
have ended up as VanWoman. :-)
And VanWoman is highly unlikely to behave exactly like VanMan.
>
> 4. Due to religious reasons Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to receive blood.
> Their argument (besides biblical based arguments) from what I understand is
> that even if blood is added to a body that has lost significant amounts..it
> takes alot of time for that blood to oxygenate hence it is functionally
> useless and would not save anyone in time (i have also heard a "Red Cross"
> based conspiracy B.S but lets not go there). I have serious doubts here?
> Any truth to this statement?
Absolute nonsense, assuming you're quoting them accurately.
> 5. I need some clarification. The "Intelligent Design" crowd of Behe,
> Demski do believe in evolution right? They just state that some elements in
> evolution are too complex to occur on their own and hence in some aspects
> God (or superior beings) must have intervened at some specific points? Is
> this correct?
Yes. At the Dover trial, Behe said he accepted an ancient Earth and the
evolution of one species into another--which alienated his
fundamentalist supporters.
> 6. In each solar system there is a presumable "habitable zone". How large
> is this estimated to be? Does it not have to be quite wide just based on the
> fact that we have organisms at the bottom of the sea in frigid tempatures,
> under tremendous water pressure and without light (or in extreme heat)?
> Does this not extend the habitable zone significantly?
The "habitable zone" determines whether there can be liquid oceans at
all. If the Earth were closer to the Sun, the oceans would boil away
(or never form in the first place). If the Earth were further to the
sun, the oceans would freeze into ice.
And in our solar system at least, the habitable zone is wide enough to
encompass only Earth. Neither Mars nor Venus possess large bodies of
liquid water.
>
> 7. Is there any evidence for the possibility of "multiple universes"?
No, just theories and hypotheses.
But some of those theories are well grounded in certain basic principles
of physics for which there is strong evidence.
RAM
> "Vanman" <Vancan...@shaw.ca> wrote innews:Ljb0n.8963$Sh7....@newsfe25.iad:
>
> > 1. Regarding the mutation that effected brain size..would two
> > different mutations have to occur? The first mutation to increase the
> > size of the skull..and then the 2nd mutation to increase the size of
> > the brain? Do I have this right?
>
> No. Increasing brain size is not a matter of mutation. A new, larger
> brain must be designed.
By Satan, Siva, Brahma, or Vishnu? Religious people everywhere want
to know!
>
> > 2. My guess is that most creationists suspect all these hundreds of
> > neanderthal bones (nevermind all the other huminoid bones) are simply
> > homo sapiens that were diseased?
>
> There are many human species. Neanderthal is one.
>
> > 3. If another of my fathers sperm fertilized my mothers "egg" instead
> > of the one that occured for me, would that result in another person or
> > would that still result in me (potentially stupid question)?
>
> No. The soul is contained in an individual sperm. Another sperm would
> have another soul, resulting in a different person.
This is great news for the sperm! Ovaries got no soul! Who'da thunk
that!
Man, wow, man, wow! You da one! Knows it all!
>
> > 4. 锟紻ue to religious reasons Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to receive
> > blood. Their argument (besides biblical based arguments) from what I
> > understand is that even if blood is added to a body that has lost
> > significant amounts..it takes alot of time for that blood to oxygenate
> > hence it is functionally useless and would not save anyone in time (i
> > have also heard a "Red Cross" based conspiracy B.S but lets not go
> > there). 锟絀 have serious doubts here? Any truth to this statement?
>
> I don't know.
What and you know so much about sperm!
>
> > 5. 锟絀 need some clarification. The "Intelligent Design" crowd of Behe,
> > Demski do believe in evolution right? They just state that some
> > elements in evolution are too complex to occur on their own and hence
> > in some aspects God (or superior beings) must have intervened at some
> > specific points? 锟絀s this correct?
>
> They accept evolution on a small scale within a species. They reject
> Darwinism, which purports to explain the origin of all species by
> evolution.
You better reread Behe.
>
> > 6. 锟絀n each solar system there is a presumable "habitable zone". 锟紿ow
> > large is this estimated to be? Does it not have to be quite wide just
> > based on the fact that we have organisms at the bottom of the sea in
> > frigid tempatures, under tremendous water pressure and without light
> > (or in extreme heat)? Does this not extend the habitable zone
> > significantly?
>
> There is life everywhere in creation, even in so-called "empty" space.
More important information. Wow!
Louann Miller
news:Ljb0n.8963$Sh7....@newsfe25.iad:
Damn fine questions, btw. Some of them are a little surprising to me (I
had no idea the JW made up stuff like that to support their blood
doctrines) but you're asking them clearly and listening to the answers.
> 6. In each solar system there is a presumable "habitable zone". How
> large is this estimated to be? Does it not have to be quite wide just
> based on the fact that we have organisms at the bottom of the sea in
> frigid tempatures, under tremendous water pressure and without light
> (or in extreme heat)? Does this not extend the habitable zone
> significantly?
As noted elsewhere, this one is going to involve huge amounts of
guesswork. But the smart money is on planets in orbits where water can
exist in liquid form. (This is sometimes called the Goldilocks zone: not
too hot, not too cold, just right.)
Kalkidas
news:_oGdnX87Udr...@giganews.com:
The question was about the "intelligent design crowd". My answer was as
accurate as possible for the "crowd".
In any case, there can be "common descent" without Darwinian evolution.
John Harshman
> So those big-brained humanoids with normal-sized pelvises that you see
> in science fiction (cf. Star Trek's Talosians) are medically impossible.
You need to think outside the pelvis. There are two ways to have
big-brained aliens with small pelvises:
1. The brain grows a whole lot after birth.
2. The pelvis isn't involved in birth, i.e the birth canal comes out
somewhere else. (Do aliens even have pelvises, which term refers to a
set of three paired bones found in terrestrial vertebrates?)
This whole brain/pelvis thing is another accident of human evolution,
like hiccups, goose bumps, and so on.
John Stockwell
> 1. Regarding the mutation that effected brain size..would two different
> mutations have to occur? The first mutation to increase the size of the
> skull..and then the 2nd mutation to increase the size of the brain? Do I
> have this right?
More than two likely.
>
> 2. My guess is that most creationists suspect all these hundreds of
> neanderthal bones (nevermind all the other huminoid bones) are simply homo
> sapiens that were diseased?
Creationists are not interested in science. They are interested
in discrediting any science that disagrees with their religious
position, so they will say anything to dismiss a fossil that
is an embarassment to their position.
>
> 3. If another of my fathers sperm fertilized my mothers "egg" instead of the
> one that occured for me, would that result in another person or would that
> still result in me (potentially stupid question)?
Owing to the way that genes recombine, even if the same sperm
and the same egg were combined, we might not get *you*.
If the environment you were raised in, we might also not get "you".
>
> 4. Due to religious reasons Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to receive blood.
> Their argument (besides biblical based arguments) from what I understand is
> that even if blood is added to a body that has lost significant amounts..it
> takes alot of time for that blood to oxygenate hence it is functionally
> useless and would not save anyone in time (i have also heard a "Red Cross"
> based conspiracy B.S but lets not go there). I have serious doubts here?
> Any truth to this statement?
JWs view transfusions as "eating blood" and so that is forbidden
by the Old Testament. Lev. 7:26,27; 17:10ff; Deut. 12:23.
>
> 5. I need some clarification. The "Intelligent Design" crowd of Behe,
> Demski do believe in evolution right? They just state that some elements in
> evolution are too complex to occur on their own and hence in some aspects
> God (or superior beings) must have intervened at some specific points? Is
> this correct?
The ID community is big tent creationism, which is supposed to
include anybody who believes in God. Behe states that he
has no problem with the standard results of earth science and
biology, but he does not believe that natural processes are sufficient
to explain many biological structures. Dembski is harder to pin
down, but he also believes that he has effectively argued that
"design can be detected" without any additional information except
by seeing "specified complexity" in an object. These guys are
following the lead of Philip Johnson who encouraged his followers
to pull the discussion away from issues such as the age of the
earth and the flood, and concentrate on origin of life, and origin
of complexity in organisms.
>
> 6. In each solar system there is a presumable "habitable zone". How large
> is this estimated to be? Does it not have to be quite wide just based on the
> fact that we have organisms at the bottom of the sea in frigid tempatures,
> under tremendous water pressure and without light (or in extreme heat)?
> Does this not extend the habitable zone significantly?
Habitable zone as compared to what? If we were talking about
the habitable zone for archae bacteria, then the earth may not
even be in the habitable zone, and could be moved closer.
>
> 7. Is there any evidence for the possibility of "multiple universes"?
The "many worlds hypothesis" is an idea put forth by physicist
Hugh Evert to deal with the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics
and as an explanation of the "collapse of the wavefunction"
that quantum mechanics formulates as occurring in the interaction
of quantum objects with each other or with classical objects.
>
> Thanks guys. I must say that I appreciate the minds in this newsgroup (minus
> the ego based wars that occur periodically....groan)
-John
Kermit
> On Jan 3, 5:16 pm, "Vanman" <Vancan...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > 1. Regarding the mutation that effected brain size..would two different
> > mutations have to occur? The first mutation to increase the size of the
> > skull..and then the 2nd mutation to increase the size of the brain? Do I
> > have this right?
>
> Evolution-did-it.
Yup. The devil is in the details, though, right? I have a testable
model that fits all the facts. Do you?
>
> > 2. My guess is that most creationists suspect all these hundreds of
> > neanderthal bones (nevermind all the other huminoid bones) are simply homo
> > sapiens that were diseased?
>
> It is evidence of obscene credulity. Anyone who thinks decaying bones
> is evidence of evolution is a moron or an Atheist.
Would you agree that ink smeared on a page is an insufficient reason
to postulate a supernatural entity of great power?
>
> Ray
Kermit
bpuharic
wrote:
>"Vanman" <Vanc...@shaw.ca> wrote in
>news:Ljb0n.8963$Sh7....@newsfe25.iad:
>
>> 1. Regarding the mutation that effected brain size..would two
>> different mutations have to occur? The first mutation to increase the
>> size of the skull..and then the 2nd mutation to increase the size of
>> the brain? Do I have this right?
>
>No. Increasing brain size is not a matter of mutation. A new, larger
>brain must be designed.
meaningless response. what is 'designed?'. i just designed a time
machine....to creationists that means i also built it.
>> 3. If another of my fathers sperm fertilized my mothers "egg" instead
>> of the one that occured for me, would that result in another person or
>> would that still result in me (potentially stupid question)?
>
>No. The soul is contained in an individual sperm. Another sperm would
>have another soul, resulting in a different person.
you guys used the 'soul' crap for a long time. it was only after DNA
was discovered that we figured out how people go made.
>
>> 5. I need some clarification. The "Intelligent Design" crowd of Behe,
>> Demski do believe in evolution right? They just state that some
>> elements in evolution are too complex to occur on their own and hence
>> in some aspects God (or superior beings) must have intervened at some
>> specific points? Is this correct?
>
>They accept evolution on a small scale within a species. They reject
>Darwinism, which purports to explain the origin of all species by
>evolution.
having graduated from lehigh, and having had a chance to talk with
behe, it's my impression he thinks evolution can account for most of
speciation, but not all featues of an organism, such as his mythical
view of 'irreducible complexity'.
>
>> 6. In each solar system there is a presumable "habitable zone". How
>> large is this estimated to be? Does it not have to be quite wide just
>> based on the fact that we have organisms at the bottom of the sea in
>> frigid tempatures, under tremendous water pressure and without light
>> (or in extreme heat)? Does this not extend the habitable zone
>> significantly?
>
>There is life everywhere in creation, even in so-called "empty" space.
more garbage.
no wonder you creationists made no progress for 3000 years.
>
>> 7. Is there any evidence for the possibility of "multiple universes"?
>
>Yes. The Vedas describe the multiverse, and there is abundant paranormal
>evidence for other dimensions.
ah. paranormal evidence? tea leaf reading? chicken entrail reading?
Frank J
> "Vanman" <Vancan...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
He has admitted an ancient Earth - and ancient life and common descent
- for years, but I missed that he conceded that speciation is an
evolutionary process. I'll have to re-read his Dover tesimony, as I
read it rather quickly before.
I doubt that many of his fundamentalist supporters are too concerned
though, because (1) they are good at tuning out conflicting
information as long as the messenger emphasizes the "weaknesses" and
"evils" of "Darwinism," and (2) Behe would have to admit that
evolutionary processes operate at the family level to eliminate the
need for "design insertions" to separate us from our common ancestor
with our closest relatives. IIRC, in "Edge of Evolution" he placed
families and genera (species too?) in the "maybe" category.
I expect him to get even more vague as time goes on.
>
> > 6. �In each solar system there is a presumable "habitable zone". �How large
> > is this estimated to be? Does it not have to be quite wide just based on the
> > fact that we have organisms at the bottom of the sea in frigid tempatures,
> > under tremendous water pressure and without light (or in extreme heat)?
> > Does this not extend the habitable zone significantly?
>
> The "habitable zone" determines whether there can be liquid oceans at
> all. �If the Earth were closer to the Sun, the oceans would boil away
> (or never form in the first place). �If the Earth were further to the
> sun, the oceans would freeze into ice.
>
> And in our solar system at least, the habitable zone is wide enough to
> encompass only Earth. �Neither Mars nor Venus possess large bodies of
> liquid water.
>
>
>
> > 7. Is there any evidence for the possibility of "multiple universes"?
>
> No, just theories and hypotheses.
> But some of those theories are well grounded in certain basic principles
> of physics for which there is strong evidence.
>
> --
> --
> Steven L.
> sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
jillery
Sorry for my multiple posts. I hope you got what you wanted.
Dan Listermann
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cfdbe239-1c62-46b4...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> It is evidence of obscene credulity. Anyone who thinks decaying bones
> is evidence of evolution is a moron or an Atheist.
>
So the campfire mumblings of bronze age goatherds is superior evidence of -
well - whatever?
.
Frank J
You probably have most answers, so I'll just add my 2c to some
questions. Pardon if you heard it all before.
> 1. Regarding the mutation that effected brain size..would two different
> mutations have to occur? The first mutation to increase the size of the
> skull..and then the 2nd mutation to increase the size of the brain? Do I
> have this right?
>
> 2. My guess is that most creationists suspect all these hundreds of
> neanderthal bones (nevermind all the other huminoid bones) are simply homo
> sapiens that were diseased?
Creationists are in fact hopelessly confused about that:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html
So nowadays they mostly cover-up that and other irreconcilable
differences, such as with *how old* life is (anything from 6000 years
to 4 billion), what constitutes a "kind," whether there was a global
flood, etc.
>
> 3. If another of my fathers sperm fertilized my mothers "egg" instead of the
> one that occured for me, would that result in another person or would that
> still result in me (potentially stupid question)?
Actually an excellent question. If an identical twin can be another
"unit of consciousness" then it's reasonable to suspect that that
would be another person, especially if the sperms differed in the X,Y
category.
But could God have inserted your soul in another fertilized egg? I
can't imagine any way to test that one way or another.
>
> 4. 锟紻ue to religious reasons Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to receive blood.
> Their argument (besides biblical based arguments) from what I understand is
> that even if blood is added to a body that has lost significant amounts..it
> takes alot of time for that blood to oxygenate hence it is functionally
> useless and would not save anyone in time (i have also heard a "Red Cross"
> based conspiracy B.S but lets not go there). 锟絀 have serious doubts here?
> Any truth to this statement?
>
> 5. 锟絀 need some clarification. The "Intelligent Design" crowd of Behe,
> Demski do believe in evolution right? They just state that some elements in
> evolution are too complex to occur on their own and hence in some aspects
> God (or superior beings) must have intervened at some specific points? 锟絀s
> this correct?
Ah, here's where I think I can really add something.
Behe accepts common descent and the whole 4-billion year chronology of
life, but thinks that something other than evolution ("RM + NS" in his
myopic view) is responsible for some of the "in vivo" changes. He is
very careful not to claim that *speciation* involves some other
process (or designer intervention) because speciation by any
reasonable definition has been *observed* - in a time frame that is
1000s of times less than would be considered instantaneous in geologic
time.
Dembski and most other DI folk agree with Behe on all that, except
common descent. But they don't *disagree* either, they just play
"don't ask, don't tell." They know they need YEC support, and are more
concerned than Behe about not offending them.
It's paradoxical, but IDers on one hand concede more of evolution, but
on the other hand they are better than YECs and OECs at promoting any
and all versions of evolution-denial because they rarely advertise
their own positions and *never* challenge anti-evolutionists who
disagree with them. YECs and OECs instead make more testable claims
about *their* account (they are not theories) and make it much easier
for people to see *their* fatal weaknesses and contradictions.
>
> 6. 锟絀n each solar system there is a presumable "habitable zone". 锟紿ow large
> is this estimated to be? Does it not have to be quite wide just based on the
> fact that we have organisms at the bottom of the sea in frigid tempatures,
> under tremendous water pressure and without light (or in extreme heat)?
> Does this not extend the habitable zone significantly?
>
> 7. Is there any evidence for the possibility of "multiple universes"?
>
Andre Lieven
On Jan 5, 12:13�pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Vanman" <Vancan...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:Ljb0n.8963$Sh7....@newsfe25.iad:
>
> > 1. Regarding the mutation that effected brain size..would two different
> > mutations have to occur? The first mutation to increase the size of the
> > skull..and then the 2nd mutation to increase the size of the brain? Do I
> > have this right?
>
> My guess is that a whole bunch of mutations were involved--not just for
> the skull and brain but for the female pelvis as well. �(As the human
> skull got larger to hold a larger brain, the female pelvis had to widen
> in order for the big-skulled baby to pass through it during childbirth.)
> � The brain, the skull, and the female pelvis, all had to evolve in
> tandem.
>
> In fact, the female pelvis is the biggest constraint preventing any
> larger brain size. �If the pelvis got much wider, the woman would be
> unable to walk.
>
> So those big-brained humanoids with normal-sized pelvises that you see
> in science fiction (cf. Star Trek's Talosians) are medically impossible.
Ah, but do we know that said Talosians were born the usual way, or
were grown in tanks, or some such outside of a uterus manner ?
> The SF movie "Forbidden Planet" did get that right, in that they hinted
> that the supra-intelligent aliens (Krell) had much wider craniums AND
> pelvises than humans.
Yes.
> [...]
>
> > 6. �In each solar system there is a presumable "habitable zone". �How large
> > is this estimated to be? Does it not have to be quite wide just based on the
> > fact that we have organisms at the bottom of the sea in frigid tempatures,
> > under tremendous water pressure and without light (or in extreme heat)?
> > Does this not extend the habitable zone significantly?
>
> The "habitable zone" determines whether there can be liquid oceans at
> all. �If the Earth were closer to the Sun, the oceans would boil away
> (or never form in the first place). �If the Earth were further to the
> sun, the oceans would freeze into ice.
>
> And in our solar system at least, the habitable zone is wide enough to
> encompass only Earth. �Neither Mars nor Venus possess large bodies of
> liquid water.
While the suggestion could be made that Mars' problems have much to
do with the small size and mass of the planet, it still is reasonable
to
suggest that an Earth sized world in Mars' orbit would be too cold for
an atmosphere as thick as Earth's, and, even if it could hold such an
atmosphere, that that would keep things warm enough to keep water
in a liquid form.
I find it interesting, though not meaningful, that, in round numbers,
Venus as an atmosphere about a hundred times thicker than ours,
and Mars', a hundredth of ours. In round numbers. <g>
Andre
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>1. Regarding the mutation that effected brain size..would two different
>mutations have to occur? The first mutation to increase the size of the
>skull..and then the 2nd mutation to increase the size of the brain? Do I
>have this right?
No.
>
>2. My guess is that most creationists suspect all these hundreds of
>neanderthal bones (nevermind all the other huminoid bones) are simply homo
>sapiens that were diseased?
Yes, creationists do have that daft idea.
>
>3. If another of my fathers sperm fertilized my mothers "egg" instead of the
>one that occured for me, would that result in another person or would that
>still result in me (potentially stupid question)?
A different person. Maybe even a different sex.
>
>4. Due to religious reasons Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to receive blood.
>Their argument (besides biblical based arguments) from what I understand is
>that even if blood is added to a body that has lost significant amounts..it
>takes alot of time for that blood to oxygenate hence it is functionally
>useless and would not save anyone in time (i have also heard a "Red Cross"
>based conspiracy B.S but lets not go there). I have serious doubts here?
>Any truth to this statement?
None whatsoever. In fact athletes have used their own stored blood,
given back to them just before a race, to boost performance. That
could not happen if that above were true.
>
>5. I need some clarification. The "Intelligent Design" crowd of Behe,
>Demski do believe in evolution right? They just state that some elements in
>evolution are too complex to occur on their own and hence in some aspects
>God (or superior beings) must have intervened at some specific points? Is
>this correct?
Yes.
>
>6. In each solar system there is a presumable "habitable zone". How large
>is this estimated to be? Does it not have to be quite wide just based on the
>fact that we have organisms at the bottom of the sea in frigid tempatures,
>under tremendous water pressure and without light (or in extreme heat)?
>Does this not extend the habitable zone significantly?
The so-called "goldilocks zone" is where conditions would be right for
life to originate.
>
>7. Is there any evidence for the possibility of "multiple universes"?
Mmmmmm. No.
>
>Thanks guys. I must say that I appreciate the minds in this newsgroup (minus
>the ego based wars that occur periodically....groan)
That was only seven questions.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Nick Keighley
> On Jan 4, 1:16 am, "Vanman" <Vancan...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > 3. If another of my fathers sperm fertilized my mothers "egg" instead of the
> > one that occured for me, would that result in another person or would that
> > still result in me (potentially stupid question)?
>
> Not at all stupid, but philosophically very difficult. Essentially, it
> depends on what you mean with "me", and philosophers can talk without
> end about this.
I don't see why (well I /can/ people will argue about anything)
monozygotic twins are more closely related then this Lazerus thing.
Twin-A is not Twin-B. qed.
Dana Tweedy
> 1. Regarding the mutation that effected brain size..would two different
> mutations have to occur? The first mutation to increase the size of the
> skull..and then the 2nd mutation to increase the size of the brain? Do I
> have this right?
It would be a set of mutations in concert. There's no a single gene
that makes the brain larger, and another that makes the skull larger.
The genes work together.
>
> 2. My guess is that most creationists suspect all these hundreds of
> neanderthal bones (nevermind all the other huminoid bones) are simply homo
> sapiens that were diseased?
Creationists aren't really very consistent in this. Some claim some are
"ape" bones, and some are "human", but they can't get a consensus on
which are which. All would agree that the earliest hominids were "ape"
and the later ones "human", but the ones in between, like H. erectus,
and H. habilis tend to get classified as either/or
>
> 3. If another of my fathers sperm fertilized my mothers "egg" instead of the
> one that occured for me, would that result in another person or would that
> still result in me (potentially stupid question)?
You are a mix of both nature and nurture. If a different sperm had
fertilized the egg, you'd probably have a slightly different set of
traits.
>
> 4. Due to religious reasons Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to receive blood.
> Their argument (besides biblical based arguments) from what I understand is
> that even if blood is added to a body that has lost significant amounts..it
> takes alot of time for that blood to oxygenate hence it is functionally
> useless and would not save anyone in time (i have also heard a "Red Cross"
> based conspiracy B.S but lets not go there). I have serious doubts here?
> Any truth to this statement?
It doesn't take that long for blood to oxygenate as long as it gets to
the lungs. There's no real scientific reason why not to accept a
properly matched and screened blood transfusion.
>
> 5. I need some clarification. The "Intelligent Design" crowd of Behe,
> Demski do believe in evolution right?
Behe says he does. I'm not sure what Dembski believes.
> They just state that some elements in
> evolution are too complex to occur on their own and hence in some aspects
> God (or superior beings) must have intervened at some specific points? Is
> this correct?
More or less. Of course, other creationists don't accept this.
>
> 6. In each solar system there is a presumable "habitable zone". How large
> is this estimated to be?
I think that would depend on the size, and chemical composition of the
star.
> Does it not have to be quite wide just based on the
> fact that we have organisms at the bottom of the sea in frigid tempatures,
> under tremendous water pressure and without light (or in extreme heat)?
> Does this not extend the habitable zone significantly?
Life on Earth has a fairly large range of conditions where it can
survive. I don't know if that means that life can originate under a
wide range, or if it requires a fairly narrow range to get started.
>
> 7. Is there any evidence for the possibility of "multiple universes"?
I don't know.
>
> Thanks guys. I must say that I appreciate the minds in this newsgroup (minus
> the ego based wars that occur periodically....groan)
No problem
DJT
>
Paul Ciszek
In article <c8adndgxG5WY6N7W...@earthlink.com>,
Steven L. <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Astronomers have already discovered at least two such planets, Gliese
>581c and Gliese 581d, that are within the habitable zone of their
>system. And Gliese 581 is only 20 light years from Earth. Given that
>the Galaxy is 100,000 light years in diameter, there are likely to be
>thousands of such planets throughout the Galaxy.
>
>But as you say, we don't know all the factors that allow life. For
>example, have comets actually brought liquid water to Gliese 581d, as
>they probably did with Earth?
One of the recent finds has a mass and size such that the only way it
could plausibly have that density is if it was mostly water (by volume)
with a rocky core--basically, a terrestrial planet with an ocean thousands
of kilometers deep.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Paul Ciszek
In article <L_-dnbX6_tnL7t7W...@earthlink.com>,
Steven L. <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>In fact, the female pelvis is the biggest constraint preventing any
>larger brain size. If the pelvis got much wider, the woman would be
>unable to walk.
>
>So those big-brained humanoids with normal-sized pelvises that you see
>in science fiction (cf. Star Trek's Talosians) are medically impossible.
Not at all. Here in the USA, we already have starlets opting for
elective ceasarians rather than give birth naturally, purely as a
matter of personal preference. Now, assume a race with that medical
technology manages to avoid technological collapse for many dozens
of millenia...which those big-headed aliens must have, since they
clearly are not fit to hunt or till the soil.
Of course, the Old Republic in the Star Wars prequels appeared to have
no obstetric medicine at all, or birth control for that matter. I mean,
Natalie Portman is apparently expecting a difficult birth, and the only
solution is for her husband to try to learn archaic, death-defying magic
from a Sith Lord? In any other space opera it would have been "Let's
get those damn twins out of you and into a uterine replicator, stat!"
--
Please reply to: | "Evolution is a theory that accounts
pciszek at panix dot com | for variety, not superiority."
Autoreply has been disabled | -- Joan Pontius
Nick Keighley
> > 3. If another of my fathers sperm fertilized my mothers "egg" instead of the
> > one that occured for me, would that result in another person or would that
> > still result in me (potentially stupid question)?
>
> Someone very like you, but not entirely like you, since the relatedness
> would be identical to your brother's.
he only specified using a different sperm not a different ovum
therefore it'd be closer than a brother (it could be nearer than a
sister of course).
rmacfarl
"Kermit" <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a8db762-f11a-4cb4...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 4, 11:14 pm, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>> In article <Ljb0n.8963$Sh7.2...@newsfe25.iad>, Vanman
>
> <snip>
>
>> > 2. My guess is that most creationists suspect all these
>> > hundreds of
>> > neanderthal bones (nevermind all the other huminoid bones)
>> > are simply homo
>> > sapiens that were diseased?
>>
>> perfectly
>> healthy is beside the point.
>
> Well, except for being dead.
>
> <snip>
>
> Kermit
>
The bones weren't diseased, just the flesh & skin around them.
:-)
Actually the stuff re diseased humans arises from the "old man of
La Chapelle aux Saints" who was the first NEanderthal skeleton
that was extensively described by Marcellin Boule in the early
20th century. His description of a bent, shuffling subhuman has
coloured people's mental images of cave men ever since, but it
was a badly flawed analysis because he failed to recognise that
the skeleton was of an old man badly affected by arthritis. The
truth is Neanderthals were distinct humans, with brains larger
than average modern humans (but differently shaped), and
massively powerful physiques...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Chapelle-aux-Saints_1
John Harshman
Nonsense. The "crowd" is so widely dispersed as to make any particular
answer wrong. Different IDers think different things, and they are
united only in their agreement that god must in some way be involved.
> In any case, there can be "common descent" without Darwinian evolution.
That depends on what you mean by Darwinian evolution. If you mean
natural selection, sure there can. However, I wager that most IDers
agree that natural selection happens. So, in fact, do many creationists.
Behe agrees that natural selection is responsible for most adaptation,
excepting the minority that are IC. Michael Denton even believes that
god doesn't intervene in the universe at all, having set up the natural
laws so that humans would evolve.
What do you think about the history of life? Do you agree with common
descent? What about natural selection?
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> In article <Ljb0n.8963$Sh7....@newsfe25.iad>, Vanman
> <Vanc...@shaw.ca> wrote:
[...]
> > 7. Is there any evidence for the possibility of "multiple universes"?
> No. Evidence for this is by definition impossible to get.
That depends on your definition of "universe."
In some cosmological models (e.g., "eternal inflation"), "universes"
like ours nucleate inside other universes. The best easily visualized
analogy I know is that of bubbles forming in a pot of boiling water,
but you then have to allow new bubbles to form within older ones
(picture more phases than just solid, liquid, and gas).
In these models, each "bubble" starts out extremely small at its own
"big bang," and expands to become a universe much like ours. But
there has been some interesting recent work on the possible traces
left by colliding bubbles. In some models, collisions could be fairly
common very early in the history of a particular bubble, and could
leave measurable signatures.
So in principle there could be evidence of multiple "universes" of this
kind, if universes can collide.
For a technical review, see http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.4105.
Steve Carlip
Frank J
> On Jan 3, 6:16 pm, "Vanman" <Vancan...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > 1. Regarding the mutation that effected brain size..would two different
> > mutations have to occur? The first mutation to increase the size of the
> > skull..and then the 2nd mutation to increase the size of the brain? Do I
> > have this right?
>
> More than two likely.
>
>
>
> > 2. My guess is that most creationists suspect all these hundreds of
> > neanderthal bones (nevermind all the other huminoid bones) are simply homo
> > sapiens that were diseased?
>
> Creationists are not interested in science. They are interested
> in discrediting any science that disagrees with their religious
> position, so they will say anything to dismiss a fossil that
> is an embarassment to their position.
>
>
>
> > 3. If another of my fathers sperm fertilized my mothers "egg" instead of the
> > one that occured for me, would that result in another person or would that
> > still result in me (potentially stupid question)?
>
> Owing to the way that genes recombine, even if the same sperm
> and the same egg were combined, we might not get *you*.
> If the environment you were raised in, we might also not get "you".
>
>
>
> > Their argument (besides biblical based arguments) from what I understand is
> > that even if blood is added to a body that has lost significant amounts..it
> > takes alot of time for that blood to oxygenate hence it is functionally
> > useless and would not save anyone in time (i have also heard a "Red Cross"
> > Any truth to this statement?
>
> JWs view transfusions as "eating blood" and so that is forbidden
> by the Old Testament. Lev. 7:26,27; 17:10ff; Deut. 12:23.
>
>
>
> > Demski do believe in evolution right? They just state that some elements in
> > evolution are too complex to occur on their own and hence in some aspects
> > this correct?
>
> The ID community is big tent creationism, which is supposed to
> include anybody who believes in God.
Not "anybody who believes in God" but anybody who rejects evolution
(1), asserts that acceptance of it leads to all sorts of bad behavor,
and claims that 99+% ofevolutionary biologists are involved in a
conspiracy to "expel" an oppressed minority that signs vague "dissent"
statements instead of developing their own theory. Note, you don't
necessarily have to *believe* it, only *peddle* it.
In fact, once they get past the cheap Dawkins-bashing they admit that
theistic evolutionists, which include evangelical Christians like
Francis Collins, are ID enemy #1.
(1) Note: one of the other replies said that Behe accepts "evolution."
He may accept the fact of common descent, sometimes called the "fact
of evolution" but rejects the overall theory (how the diversity of
life arose).
>嚙畿ehe states that he
> has no problem with the standard results of earth science and
> biology, but he does not believe that natural processes are sufficient
> to explain many biological structures. Dembski is harder to pin
> down, but he also believes that he has effectively argued that
> "design can be detected" without any additional information except
> by seeing "specified complexity" in an object. These guys are
> following the lead of Philip Johnson who encouraged his followers
> to pull the discussion away from issues such as the age of the
> earth and the flood, and concentrate on origin of life, and origin
> of complexity in organisms.
>
>
>
> > 6. 嚙瘢n each solar system there is a presumable "habitable zone". 嚙瘡ow large
Kermit
Sure. No accusations or complaints directed at you; just wanted to
make sure that I wasn't going crazy.
[...]
Crazier.
Kermit
Burkhard
wrote:
Yes, but does this answer a hypothetical question? In your scenario,
you have two really existing people to compare. In the scenario of
the question, one of them does not exist - and identity criteria for
non-existing objects are difficult. I can easily imagine a scenario
where one of the many point mutations I have "did not happen", and my
hair would be a slight shade darker. Would that still be me? In your
answer, probably not, and that is fine, but there is a price to pay
for this - it makes certain hypothetical statements trivially false,
but we can sometimes use them is science to great effect.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:
<snip>
>In any case, there can be "common descent" without Darwinian evolution.
Really? Perhaps you should define both "Darwinian evolution"
and "common descent" so we'll know you have some idea what
you're talking about, since your statement indicates
otherwise.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Dana Tweedy
> On Jan 3, 5:16 pm, "Vanman"<Vancan...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> 1. Regarding the mutation that effected brain size..would two different
>> mutations have to occur? The first mutation to increase the size of the
>> skull..and then the 2nd mutation to increase the size of the brain? Do I
>> have this right?
>>
>
Evolution is a testable mechanism that is known to produce change in
populations. That's why it's science, and not religion.
>
>> 2. My guess is that most creationists suspect all these hundreds of
>> neanderthal bones (nevermind all the other huminoid bones) are simply homo
>> sapiens that were diseased?
>>
>
> It is evidence of obscene credulity.
Why? Do you think the bones just existed by themselves?
> Anyone who thinks decaying bones
> is evidence of evolution is a moron or an Atheist.
Ray, why wouldn't bones "decaying" or not, be evidence for evolution?
Are you trying to claim that bones don't fossilize? Do you think that
bones don't show the existence of organisms?
In other words, why are you running away from the evidence?
DJT
Vend
> John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> > In article <Ljb0n.8963$Sh7.2...@newsfe25.iad>, Vanman
>
> [...]
>
> > > 7. Is there any evidence for the possibility of "multiple universes"?
> > No. Evidence for this is by definition impossible to get.
>
<snip>
> So in principle there could be evidence of multiple "universes" of this
> kind, if universes can collide.
I think that Wilkins is using an epistemological of "universe" as
"everything we can observe".
john wilkins
Yes, I realized that after I hit Send.
john wilkins
"Universe" to a philosopher is more like the possible world realism that
Burkhart so clearly described elsewhere in the thread. Pocket universes
are less problematic, in that they may still have causal influence on
our observable universe. I had a Brane in mind.
john wilkins
More succinct than my response; but not quite right. That would make our
lightcone a universe. I had in mind "everything that causally interacts
with what we (or some observer) can observe".
alextangent
I'm confused by your explanation. Anything outside the observer's
lightcone cannot (by definition) be observed.
john wilkins
Gravitational influences of a galactic cluster on observable galaxies,
but which is just outside our lightcone?
Michael Siemon
alextangent <bl...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
But it can be causally connected (e.g., from an earlier state of the
_soi disant_ universe, when the light-cone included it...)
Bill
No. The gravitational influence of the galactic cluster "just outside
our light cone" has to travel some distance, at c, to influence the
galaxy that is just inside in our light cone, then the the light
showing the change in position of the observable galaxy has to travel
at c to reach us. If you go far enough back in time for the effect to
occur and then to reach us, then you've included the galactic cluster
in our light cone.
>
> - Perlihatkan teks kutipan -
John Wilkins
<b5db2f85-3765-4dff...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Bill <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
Of course you are right...
Nick Keighley
wrote:
I suspect that was an accident on his part. I just found the "nearer
than a brother" bit amusing.
Nick Keighley
> Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
> > On Jan 6, 6:10 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > > John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> > > > In article <Ljb0n.8963$Sh7.2...@newsfe25.iad>, Vanman
> > > > <Vancan...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > 7. Is there any evidence for the possibility of "multiple
> > > > > universes"?
>
> > > > No. Evidence for this is by definition impossible to get.
>
> >
> > > So in principle there could be evidence of multiple "universes" of
> > > this kind, if universes can collide.
>
> > I think that Wilkins is using an epistemological of "universe" as
> > "everything we can observe".
>
> More succinct than my response; but not quite right. That would make our
> lightcone a universe. I had in mind "everything that causally interacts
> with what we (or some observer) can observe"
I used to argue that /by definition/ there can be only one universe
and to claim otherwise was like counting the wheels on a unicycle. But
I was overwhelmed by physicists who don't care about etymology.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Nick Keighley
<nick_keigh...@hotmail.com>:
If you consider "universe" to be shorthand for "observable
universe" it's easier to accommodate.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 21:21:20 +0000 (UTC), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:
>
><snip>
>
>>In any case, there can be "common descent" without Darwinian evolution.
>
>Really? Perhaps you should define both "Darwinian evolution"
>and "common descent" so we'll know you have some idea what
>you're talking about, since your statement indicates
>otherwise.
[Crickets...]
Not interested in clarity? OK.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"Vanman" <Vanc...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Ljb0n.8963$Sh7....@newsfe25.iad...
> 1. Regarding the mutation that effected brain size..would two different
> mutations have to occur? The first mutation to increase the size of the
> skull..and then the 2nd mutation to increase the size of the brain? Do I
> have this right?
No.
>
> 2. My guess is that most creationists suspect all these hundreds of
> neanderthal bones (nevermind all the other huminoid bones) are simply homo
> sapiens that were diseased?
No, the were the ancestors of inbred southern rednecks.
>
> 3. If another of my fathers sperm fertilized my mothers "egg" instead of
> the one that occured for me, would that result in another person or would
> that still result in me (potentially stupid question)?
Potentially? No; there's no question about it.
>
> 4. Due to religious reasons Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to receive blood.
> Their argument (besides biblical based arguments) from what I understand
> is that even if blood is added to a body that has lost significant
> amounts..it takes alot of time for that blood to oxygenate hence it is
> functionally useless and would not save anyone in time (i have also heard
> a "Red Cross" based conspiracy B.S but lets not go there). I have serious
> doubts here? Any truth to this statement?
The statement is untrue - as is the suggestion that ANYONE who is a J.W. has
the brains to think that complex.
>
> 5. I need some clarification. The "Intelligent Design" crowd of Behe,
> Demski do believe in evolution right? They just state that some elements
> in evolution are too complex to occur on their own and hence in some
> aspects God (or superior beings) must have intervened at some specific
> points? Is this correct?
Kinda.
They're still looking for ANY evidence that "goddidit" - and settle for even
the most outrageous excuses and fairy tales.
>
> 6. In each solar system there is a presumable "habitable zone". How
> large is this estimated to be? Does it not have to be quite wide just
> based on the fact that we have organisms at the bottom of the sea in
> frigid tempatures, under tremendous water pressure and without light (or
> in extreme heat)? Does this not extend the habitable zone significantly?
It would seem so.
No one, as far as I know, has ever come up with a measurement for a
"haitable zone"
>
> 7. Is there any evidence for the possibility of "multiple universes"?
Yes ..... at least one other ..................... the evidence being the
outrageously deranged thoughts and comments from fanatical, religious zealot
creationists.
>
> Thanks guys. I must say that I appreciate the minds in this newsgroup
> (minus the ego based wars that occur periodically....groan)
Oh,......... I thought you were talking to me.
Richard Smol
> 1. Regarding the mutation that effected brain size..would two different
> mutations have to occur? The first mutation to increase the size of the
> skull..and then the 2nd mutation to increase the size of the brain? Do I
> have this right?
Yes. Very simply put, that is.
> 2. My guess is that most creationists suspect all these hundreds of
> neanderthal bones (nevermind all the other huminoid bones) are simply homo
> sapiens that were diseased?
A lot of them do, but I don't know about "most".
> 3. If another of my fathers sperm fertilized my mothers "egg" instead of the
> one that occured for me, would that result in another person or would that
> still result in me (potentially stupid question)?
It would be another person. As a matter of fact, even the same egg &
sperm could lead to a different person, like you can see with
identical twins.
> 4. �Due to religious reasons Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to receive blood.
> Their argument (besides biblical based arguments) from what I understand is
> that even if blood is added to a body that has lost significant amounts..it
> takes alot of time for that blood to oxygenate hence it is functionally
> useless and would not save anyone in time (i have also heard a "Red Cross"
> based conspiracy B.S but lets not go there). �I have serious doubts here?
> Any truth to this statement?
No.
> 5. �I need some clarification. The "Intelligent Design" crowd of Behe,
> Demski do believe in evolution right? They just state that some elements in
> evolution are too complex to occur on their own and hence in some aspects
> God (or superior beings) must have intervened at some specific points? �Is
> this correct?
Yes, mostly.
> 6. �In each solar system there is a presumable "habitable zone". �
Well, I don't believe objects like neutron stars have a habitable
zone, but I could be mistaken.
> How large
> is this estimated to be? Does it not have to be quite wide just based on the
> fact that we have organisms at the bottom of the sea in frigid tempatures,
> under tremendous water pressure and without light (or in extreme heat)?
> Does this not extend the habitable zone significantly?
Yes, I'd say so. Keep in mind though that even in those circumstances
the planet will still have to gain a lot of energy from the star.
> 7. Is there any evidence for the possibility of "multiple universes"?
Not yet.
RS
jillery
<snip for brevity>
> 7. Is there any evidence for the possibility of "multiple universes"?
I suspect cosmology was easier when scientists thought the Universe
had no beginning. Once they accepted the evidence for a Universal
origin, they faced another turtle hurdle, so to speak, and had to
figure out what caused the Big Bang. "Multiple universes" is one
solution. As material evidence of events before the Big Bang is
understandably hard to find, I am not concerned by the current lack of
it. However, I am surprised that some publicly-avowed metaphysical
naturalists clasp these currently untestable ideas to their
philosophical bosoms. By assuming a variation of Infinite Monkeys,
they argue that eventually a Universe appeared which had all of the
apparently finely-tuned physical parameters needed for intelligent
life. Of course, by that reasoning it's just as likely that a Matrix-
like Universe appeared, and we, as mere simulations in that Universal
computer, can't tell the difference.
Creationists already know that theorizing is easier when they don't
worry about evidence.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Richard Smol
<richar...@gmail.com>:
>On 4 jan, 02:16, "Vanman" <Vancan...@shaw.ca> wrote:
<snip>
>> 7. Is there any evidence for the possibility of "multiple universes"?
>Not yet.
I think that should be changed to "no compelling evidence".
In _The Fabric of Reality_ (1997, ISBN 0-7139-9061-9) David
Deutsch presents evidence based on photon scattering
experiments which he claims indicates the existence of
multiple universes (Chapter 2 - "Shadows", IIRC). A caveat -
I'm not a physicist, nor do I play one on Usenet, so I can't
verify his claims from my own training or experience. But I
found his arguments both interesting and persuasive.
Any additional info on this subject, specifically counter
arguments or further research results, from anyone who
*does* have such qualifications would be gratefully
accepted.
jillery
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 04:02:37 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Richard Smol
>
> >On 4 jan, 02:16, "Vanman" <Vancan...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> 7. Is there any evidence for the possibility of "multiple universes"?
> >Not yet.
>
> I think that should be changed to "no compelling evidence".
> In _The Fabric of Reality_ (1997, ISBN 0-7139-9061-9) David
> Deutsch presents evidence based on photon scattering
> experiments which he claims indicates the existence of
> multiple universes (Chapter 2 - "Shadows", IIRC). A caveat -
> I'm not a physicist, nor do I play one on Usenet, so I can't
> verify his claims from my own training or experience. But I
> found his arguments both interesting and persuasive.
>
> Any additional info on this subject, specifically counter
> arguments or further research results, from anyone who
> *does* have such qualifications would be gratefully
> accepted.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> � � � � � � � � � � � � � - McNameless
Well, I'm not a trained physicist either, so I don't know how you will
"accept" this info, but your comments got me Googling, as I have a
more-than-casual interest in the 2-slit experiments you might be
thinking of. In fact, David Deutsch is the person who proposed that
the intereference pattern seen by these experiments can be explained
by assuming the existence of parallel universes.
Below is a URL to a TED video of David Deutsch giving a lecture in
front of a large audience about a better way to explain explanations.
He says that it's not enough for hypotheses to be merely testable;
even myths are testable. Good hypothesis first must be hard to vary;
they must link cause and effect. Poor hyptheses are easy to vary
because they don't explain anything and so are functionally
informationless.
He doesn't have a lot of stage presence, but what he has to say makes
up for it.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/david_deutsch_a_new_way_to_explain_explanation.html
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by jillery
<69jp...@gmail.com>:
>On Jan 11, 3:34�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 04:02:37 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Richard Smol
>> <richard.s...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On 4 jan, 02:16, "Vanman" <Vancan...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> 7. Is there any evidence for the possibility of "multiple universes"?
>> >Not yet.
>>
>> I think that should be changed to "no compelling evidence".
>> In _The Fabric of Reality_ (1997, ISBN 0-7139-9061-9) David
>> Deutsch presents evidence based on photon scattering
>> experiments which he claims indicates the existence of
>> multiple universes (Chapter 2 - "Shadows", IIRC). A caveat -
>> I'm not a physicist, nor do I play one on Usenet, so I can't
>> verify his claims from my own training or experience. But I
>> found his arguments both interesting and persuasive.
>>
>> Any additional info on this subject, specifically counter
>> arguments or further research results, from anyone who
>> *does* have such qualifications would be gratefully
>> accepted.
>Well, I'm not a trained physicist either, so I don't know how you will
>"accept" this info, but your comments got me Googling, as I have a
>more-than-casual interest in the 2-slit experiments you might be
>thinking of. In fact, David Deutsch is the person who proposed that
>the intereference pattern seen by these experiments can be explained
>by assuming the existence of parallel universes.
That was my point, that the results seen (self-scattering of
a single photon, IIRC) can be explained by the existence of
corresponding photons in an alternate universe, and cannot
be satisfactorily explained otherwise.
>Below is a URL to a TED video of David Deutsch giving a lecture in
>front of a large audience about a better way to explain explanations.
>He says that it's not enough for hypotheses to be merely testable;
>even myths are testable. Good hypothesis first must be hard to vary;
>they must link cause and effect. Poor hyptheses are easy to vary
>because they don't explain anything and so are functionally
>informationless.
I certainly can't argue with that.
>He doesn't have a lot of stage presence, but what he has to say makes
>up for it.
>
>http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/david_deutsch_a_new_way_to_explain_explanation.html
Interesting; thanks! What he says makes quite a bit of
sense, and I confess I hadn't thought of that aspect.
JohnN
> On Jan 3, 8:16 pm, "Vanman" <Vancan...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Some need further definition and elaboration before they can have
> meaningful answers (example: what defines "you"?). �In order to avoid
> going off too far afield, I would like to know if you have some kind
> of overarching theme in mind, or are you asking in a stream-of-
> conscience, whats-in-the-the-kitchen-drawer kinda way?
Seems he's asking in the I-don't-care-enough-for-the-answers-to-read-
the-thread way.
JohnN
jillery
I see your point, but his questions remain interesting to me.
jillery
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 03:20:33 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by jillery
At the risk of sounding overly pendantic, there's an important
difference between "cannot be" and "hasn't yet been".
> >Below is a URL to a TED video of David Deutsch giving a lecture in
> >front of a large audience about a better way to explain explanations.
> >He says that it's not enough for hypotheses to be merely testable;
> >even myths are testable. �Good hypothesis first must be hard to vary;
> >they must link cause and effect. �Poor hyptheses are easy to vary
> >because they don't explain anything and so are functionally
> >informationless.
>
> I certainly can't argue with that.
>
> >He doesn't have a lot of stage presence, but what he has to say makes
> >up for it.
>
> >http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/david_deutsch_a_new_way_to_explain_...
>
> Interesting; thanks! What he says makes quite a bit of
> sense, and I confess I hadn't thought of that aspect.
Glad to share it with you.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> � � � � � � � � � � � � � - McNameless- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by jillery
Of course. I meant the latter, but in the sense of "cannot
currently be explained". And to be pedantic in my turn, I
believe this is superior to "hasn't yet been", which implies
that at some future point it will be explained under the
stated constraints. A matter of semantics...
Walter Bushell
Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> No. The soul is contained in an individual sperm. Another sperm would
> have another soul, resulting in a different person.
Oh bother it! What is your grounds for that assertion?
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Walter Bushell
<362fd33c-d148-4859...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> There *were many human species. They all seem to be extinct now,
> except us. There is a small possibility, not yet supported by widely
> accepted evidence, that neanderthals interbred with us, and we may be
> part neanderthal. The neanderthal may have been our only intellectual
> equal.
There is some evidence that a species that was our intellectual superior
existed and died out. (Googles) Boskops.
<http://discovermagazine.com/2009/the-brain-2/28-what-happened-to-hominid
s-who-were-smarter-than-us>
Walter Bushell
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> More like a metaphysical question. The resulting baby would have had
> genetic differences, could have been a different gender, or might have
> died early in pregnancy (something that happens more often than people
> realize).
And that a good thing.
Kermit
> In article
> <362fd33c-d148-4859-8675-d0cb879ef...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>
> �Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There *were many human species. They all seem to be extinct now,
> > except us. There is a small possibility, not yet supported by widely
> > accepted evidence, that neanderthals interbred with us, and we may be
> > part neanderthal. The neanderthal may have been our only intellectual
> > equal.
>
> There is some evidence that a species that was our intellectual superior
> existed and died out. (Googles) Boskops.
>
> <http://discovermagazine.com/2009/the-brain-2/28-what-happened-to-hominid
> s-who-were-smarter-than-us>
>
Kewl. Too small a breeding group to make it? We went through several
bottlenecks, and must have been close to extinction for a long time.
Maybe they didn't have the right temperament. Maybe we ate them :(
> --
> �A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Kermit
bpuharic
wrote:
>In article <Xns9CF6AD4545...@80.93.112.4>,
> Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>> No. The soul is contained in an individual sperm. Another sperm would
>> have another soul, resulting in a different person.
>
>Oh bother it! What is your grounds for that assertion?
his astrologer told him
John Wilkins
<pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <Xns9CF6AD4545...@80.93.112.4>,
> Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > No. The soul is contained in an individual sperm. Another sperm would
> > have another soul, resulting in a different person.
>
> Oh bother it! What is your grounds for that assertion?
Don't you mean, that ejaculation?
John Wilkins
<8e19df13-dd73-4e1b...@u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 10:17�am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <362fd33c-d148-4859-8675-d0cb879ef...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > There *were many human species. They all seem to be extinct now,
> > > except us. There is a small possibility, not yet supported by widely
> > > accepted evidence, that neanderthals interbred with us, and we may be
> > > part neanderthal. The neanderthal may have been our only intellectual
> > > equal.
> >
> > There is some evidence that a species that was our intellectual superior
> > existed and died out. (Googles) Boskops.
> >
> > <http://discovermagazine.com/2009/the-brain-2/28-what-happened-to-hominid
> > s-who-were-smarter-than-us>
Yeah, right:
<http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/brain/paleo/lynch-granger-big-brain-
boskops-2008.html>
<http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/brain/paleo/return-amazing-boskops-
lynch-granger-2009.html>
haiku jones
> "Vanman" <Vancan...@shaw.ca> wrote innews:Ljb0n.8963$Sh7....@newsfe25.iad:
>
> > 1. Regarding the mutation that effected brain size..would two
> > different mutations have to occur? The first mutation to increase the
> > size of the skull..and then the 2nd mutation to increase the size of
> > the brain? Do I have this right?
>
> brain must be designed.
>
> > 2. My guess is that most creationists suspect all these hundreds of
> > neanderthal bones (nevermind all the other huminoid bones) are simply
> > homo sapiens that were diseased?
>
>
> > 3. If another of my fathers sperm fertilized my mothers "egg" instead
> > of the one that occured for me, would that result in another person or
> > would that still result in me (potentially stupid question)?
>
> No. The soul is contained in an individual sperm. Another sperm would
> have another soul, resulting in a different person.
So, when the egg, having been fertilized by one sperm, splits
and identical twins result, does each twin have 1/2 soul?
Haiku Jones
>
> > 4. 锟紻ue to religious reasons Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to receive
> > blood. Their argument (besides biblical based arguments) from what I
> > understand is that even if blood is added to a body that has lost
> > significant amounts..it takes alot of time for that blood to oxygenate
> > hence it is functionally useless and would not save anyone in time (i
> > have also heard a "Red Cross" based conspiracy B.S but lets not go
> > there). 锟絀 have serious doubts here? Any truth to this statement?
>
> I don't know.
>
> > 5. 锟絀 need some clarification. The "Intelligent Design" crowd of Behe,
> > Demski do believe in evolution right? They just state that some
> > elements in evolution are too complex to occur on their own and hence
> > in some aspects God (or superior beings) must have intervened at some
> > specific points? 锟絀s this correct?
>
> They accept evolution on a small scale within a species. They reject
> Darwinism, which purports to explain the origin of all species by
> evolution.
>
> > 6. 锟絀n each solar system there is a presumable "habitable zone". 锟紿ow
> > large is this estimated to be? Does it not have to be quite wide just
> > based on the fact that we have organisms at the bottom of the sea in
> > frigid tempatures, under tremendous water pressure and without light
> > (or in extreme heat)? Does this not extend the habitable zone
> > significantly?
>
> There is life everywhere in creation, even in so-called "empty" space.
>
> > 7. Is there any evidence for the possibility of "multiple universes"?
>
> Yes. The Vedas describe the multiverse, and there is abundant paranormal
> evidence for other dimensions.
>
> > Thanks guys. I must say that I appreciate the minds in this newsgroup
> > (minus the ego based wars that occur periodically....groan)
>
> It's unlikely you're going to avoid an "ego-based war" here.
Cory Albrecht
I wonder where the ova come in?
John Wilkins
<coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
They're just ovahead.
Dan Listermann
"haiku jones" <575j...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d056c6dd-2e2b-4915...@a17g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 4, 5:02 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> "Vanman" <Vancan...@shaw.ca> wrote
>> innews:Ljb0n.8963$Sh7....@newsfe25.iad:
>>
>> > 1. Regarding the mutation that effected brain size..would two
>> > different mutations have to occur? The first mutation to increase the
>> > size of the skull..and then the 2nd mutation to increase the size of
>> > the brain? Do I have this right?
>>
>> No. Increasing brain size is not a matter of mutation. A new, larger
>> brain must be designed.
>>
>> > 2. My guess is that most creationists suspect all these hundreds of
>> > neanderthal bones (nevermind all the other huminoid bones) are simply
>> > homo sapiens that were diseased?
>>
>> There are many human species. Neanderthal is one.
>>
>> > 3. If another of my fathers sperm fertilized my mothers "egg" instead
>> > of the one that occured for me, would that result in another person or
>> > would that still result in me (potentially stupid question)?
>>
>
>
>> No. The soul is contained in an individual sperm. Another sperm would
>> have another soul, resulting in a different person.
>
> So, when the egg, having been fertilized by one sperm, splits
> and identical twins result, does each twin have 1/2 soul?
>
>
this individual have two souls? Inquiring minds want to know!
.
Walter Bushell
bpuharic <wf...@comcast.net> wrote:
It has some similarity to the views of Aristotle.
Walter Bushell
<8e19df13-dd73-4e1b...@u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Probably figured out that having children was more trouble than it is
worth.
John Wilkins
<pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <6244m5d0ptfrj4rs9...@4ax.com>,
> bpuharic <wf...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:10:17 -0500, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article <Xns9CF6AD4545...@80.93.112.4>,
> > > Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > >
> > >> No. The soul is contained in an individual sperm. Another sperm would
> > >> have another soul, resulting in a different person.
> > >
> > >Oh bother it! What is your grounds for that assertion?
> >
> > his astrologer told him
>
> It has some similarity to the views of Aristotle.
Well sort of. A thought that the sperm (the male semen, actually) held
the *form* of the progeny in it (the ovum caused deviation due to
excesses of heat, dry, wet or cold). But the *soul* was a motivating
force that allowed growth, motion, sensation and, in humans, reasoning.
Nick Keighley
> So, when the egg, having been fertilized by one sperm, splits
> and identical twins result, does each twin have 1/2 soul?
I believe this was a traditional eskimo belief
Dan Listermann
"Nick Keighley" <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c1cb8093-1edf-45bd...@h2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Were there any social consequences to this belief?
.
haiku jones
> In article <proto-AB64FF.23052128012...@news.panix.com>, Walter Bushell
>
>
>
> <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > In article <6244m5d0ptfrj4rs959qk1ddsjkhor1...@4ax.com>,
> > �bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:10:17 -0500, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > > >> No. The soul is contained in an individual sperm. Another sperm would
> > > >> have another soul, resulting in a different person.
>
> > > >Oh bother it! What is your grounds for that assertion?
>
> > > his astrologer told him
>
> > It has some similarity to the views of Aristotle.
>
> Well sort of. A thought that the sperm (the male semen, actually) held
> the *form* of the progeny in it (the ovum caused deviation due to
> excesses of heat, dry, wet or cold). But the *soul* was a motivating
> force that allowed growth, motion, sensation and, in humans, reasoning.
Plus, Augustine thought Original Sin came along in the
same package as well.
Haiku Jones
Steven L.
news:8e19df13-dd73-4e1b...@u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
Maybe they were so smart that they invented weapons of mass destruction,
like television.
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
Steven L.
news:Xns9CF79207AB...@80.93.112.4:
> John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in
> news:_oGdnX87Udr...@giganews.com:
>
> > Kalkidas wrote:
> >> "Vanman" <Vanc...@shaw.ca> wrote in
> >> news:Ljb0n.8963$Sh7....@newsfe25.iad:
> >>
> >>> 1. Regarding the mutation that effected brain size..would two
> >>> different mutations have to occur? The first mutation to increase
> >>> the size of the skull..and then the 2nd mutation to increase the
> >>> size of the brain? Do I have this right?
> >>
> >> No. Increasing brain size is not a matter of mutation. A new, larger
> >> brain must be designed.
> >
> > Oddly enough, various larger brains were designed sequentially, in a
> > time series beginning about 4 million years ago, appearing almost as
> > if one had changed into the next. One could even argue that this
> > process had begun around 30 million years ago, when the brain sizes of
> > mammalian predator and prey animals began to increase in tandem.
> >
> >>> 2. My guess is that most creationists suspect all these hundreds of
> >>> neanderthal bones (nevermind all the other huminoid bones) are
> >>> simply homo sapiens that were diseased?
> >>
> >> There are many human species. Neanderthal is one.
> >
> > Were all of them separately created?
> >
> >>> 3. If another of my fathers sperm fertilized my mothers "egg"
> >>> instead of the one that occured for me, would that result in another
> >>> person or would that still result in me (potentially stupid
> >>> question)?
> >>
> >> No. The soul is contained in an individual sperm. Another sperm would
> >> have another soul, resulting in a different person.
> >
> > What about all the trillions upon trillions of souls that don't end up
> > fertilizing an egg? And for that matter, why don't eggs have souls?
> > Wouldn't that be much more parsimonious, since fewer eggs are wasted?
> > What evidence do you have that sperm contain souls?
> >
> >>> 4. Due to religious reasons Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to receive
> >>> blood. Their argument (besides biblical based arguments) from what I
> >>> understand is that even if blood is added to a body that has lost
> >>> significant amounts..it takes alot of time for that blood to
> >>> oxygenate hence it is functionally useless and would not save anyone
> >>> in time (i have also heard a "Red Cross" based conspiracy B.S but
> >>> lets not go there). I have serious doubts here? Any truth to this
> >>> statement?
> >>
> >> I don't know.
> >>
> >>> 5. I need some clarification. The "Intelligent Design" crowd of
> >>> Behe, Demski do believe in evolution right? They just state that
> >>> some elements in evolution are too complex to occur on their own and
> >>> hence in some aspects God (or superior beings) must have intervened
> >>> at some specific points? Is this correct?
> >>
> >> They accept evolution on a small scale within a species. They reject
> >> Darwinism, which purports to explain the origin of all species by
> >> evolution.
> >
> > Actually, you're wrong about that. Behe, for one, accepts common
> > descent of all life and considerable natural evolution in the process.
> > He just thinks that certain rare adaptations require a divine push.
>
> The question was about the "intelligent design crowd". My answer was as
> accurate as possible for the "crowd".
>
> In any case, there can be "common descent" without Darwinian evolution.
Sure.
Dogs and cats, as well as all other domesticated species, evolved
without natural selection.
We bred them through artificial selection, over many generations.
Mike Painter
<snip>.
>
> Dogs and cats, as well as all other domesticated species, evolved
> without natural selection.
> We bred them through artificial selection, over many generations.
>
I was on the fence when I had a dog. It at least acted happy when I got
home.
Now the dog is gone and there is a cat.
It no longer looks up when I get home.
Once she gets comfortable on the bed I am hesitant to move, less I disturb
her.
Who did what to who is very confusing.