Genetic Variation (Introduction)
by Balance_Maintained 
, U.S.A., Wednesday, September 22, 2010, 16:14 (5176 days ago)
A spin off of research related to the Neanderthal discussion led me to this article. Notice in particular, the following quote:->Ironically, the variation in PRDM9 is due to a minisatellite within the gene itself. Sir Alec said: 'I've come full circle -- starting out with minisatellites to develop DNA fingerprinting, and arriving at a gene containing a minisatellite that plays a key role in driving all kinds of human DNA diversity, including variation at minisatellites. An intriguing possibility is that it is even driving its own evolution!' >Sir Alec believes the research, along with that of others working in the field, will inevitably further scientists' ability to understand the basic processes that make us all genetically unique, as well as defining an entirely new class of genetic risk factor for numerous disease-causing DNA rearrangements that can arise when recombination goes wrong. >These findings also provide a neat solution to one great puzzle of recombination hotspots -- namely that they appear and disappear rapidly during evolution. Sir Alec said 'We've shown that hotspots have a strange propensity for self-destruction, so how can they possibly exist? The PRDM9 minisatellite gives the answer -- it evolves rapidly, like any other unstable minisatellite, and keeps churning out variants that can trigger new hotspots, replenishing those that have committed suicide. A totally crazy mechanism to ensure that recombination keeps going, but typical of the weird solutions that evolution can throw up'.- Now to me, there are several bits out of this piece that are interesting and disturbing. The first interesting bit for me is the statement: "An intriguing possibility is that it is even driving its own evolution!" The reason this is so interesting to me is that it seems to go against the grain of mainstream evolutionary theory. The standard theory is that 'random' mutations occur, and that these mutations are naturally selected based off what is useful or proactive towards the goal of survival. Then, they make a contradiction that states that external/internal pressures trigger these adaptations/genetic changes. If the changes are pressured or triggered to occur, then they can not, by definition, be truly random, but are in fact a result of cause and effect. Now, they bring in a third contradiction, namely that the mutations are not in-fact truly random at all, nor a result of external pressure, but instead are the result of a 'mini-satellite' tossing bits of code out to ensure genetic variability. -Which brings me to the next curiosity that seems to be a logical inference from this discovery. This pseudo-code generator mini-satellite gene, if isolated in all species, would mean that would explain why we see variations on a theme within taxonomic classifications, but do not actually see species diversion between on distinct family, such as canines, and another, such as felines. The mini-satellite pseudo-code would provide for nearly infinite variation on a theme, but is limited to being able to affect only certain bits of the overall code. -The third part, and by far the most disturbing to me, was the implication for this discovery on modern day humanity. Science, in general, does not know when to leave well enough alone(Manhattan Project Anyone? Biological weapons perhaps? Maybe chemical weapons are more your taste..). It has a tendency to do things because it can. It also likes to have pretty lines of data and stable trends and uniformity. When I read about scientist being able to use this data to predict genetic risk factors etc, I had the memory of a movie titled "Gattaca", where science used its predictive abilities to genetically 'screen' individuals, and created a caste separation between infants born from genetic compatibility and those born as 'love children'. I can also see them using this discovery in gene manipulation treatments that could effective make all humans genetically equal, which is even deadlier to the species.
Genetic Variation
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Wednesday, September 22, 2010, 19:57 (5175 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
It's nice to see Sir Alec continuing to make original contributions to genetic research. He is a very modest man. I met him once at Secular Hall when I was in Leicester. I'm sure there is a lot that we still don't know about how evolution works. Within what B-M calls the mainstream there is plenty of scope for variation without disrupting the core ideas, as many of DTs posts have testified.
--
GPJ
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, September 24, 2010, 00:52 (5174 days ago) @ George Jelliss
While this article is dated by over a decade, I thought it was worth a read. It's very short, but thought provoking.
Genetic Variation
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Friday, September 24, 2010, 11:30 (5174 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Snap!-http://ncse.com/rncse/20/4/creationism-pseudomathematics-By citing rubbish from the Institute for Creation Research you are revealing your hidden agenda.
--
GPJ
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, September 24, 2010, 12:29 (5174 days ago) @ George Jelliss
Hidden agenda? I am fairly certain that I have been quite open and honest with my agenda. Abolition of Darwinian evolution, to be replaced with a theory that fits the data, not vice versa. Abolition of the Big Bang theory for the same reason. We are wasting a whole lot of time and money on two theories that do not work. It is suffocation to advancement. I do not really care if creationism replaces the theory, in fact, I expect it won't seeing as how unless we have proof that would be unscientific, but it is time for the death of theories that do not fit the data and a chance to get pack to the principles of science.
Genetic Variation
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Friday, September 24, 2010, 23:09 (5173 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Hidden agenda? I am fairly certain that I have been quite open and honest with my agenda. Abolition of Darwinian evolution, to be replaced with a theory that fits the data, not vice versa. Abolition of the Big Bang theory for the same reason. We are wasting a whole lot of time and money on two theories that do not work. It is suffocation to advancement. I do not really care if creationism replaces the theory, in fact, I expect it won't seeing as how unless we have proof that would be unscientific, but it is time for the death of theories that do not fit the data and a chance to get pack to the principles of science.-The modern theory of evolution (which goes well beyond what Darwin proposed - since he knew nothing about genetics), and the Big Bang theory (with all its latest refinements like inflation and dark energy) both fit an enormous amount of data, and conform to the principles of scientific method. -Until some alternative theories emerge that better fit the data I can see no good reason for wishing to see them "abolished". Personally I have no emotional attachment to either theory, except in so far as they also fit in with my humanistic philosophy. Many others would also fit in with that philosophy. Back during my schooldays I rather liked the mathematical elegance of the steady state theory of cosmology, but that has not kept pace with the Big Bang scenario. -There is really no credible alternative to evolutionary theory at all that I have seen. Just nit-picking as you have been doing, without offering a sound alternative theory is not at all helpful. -As far as I have been able to unpick your arguments you seem to have put your bets on some medium-term creationist scenario, that requires the universe to be much younger than the 13.7 billion years, and the earth to be of the same age, and for all species to have been created at the same time much as they are now apart from variations due to "microevolution". How much humans have "microevolved" since creation you seem to be in doubt. but I suspect that you would prefer us not to have evolved at all to any extent.-Your desire for the truths of science to be concordant with your interpretation of the bible, would seem to indicate that you are a strong religious bible believer, and therefore want to fit the data to the procrustean bed of your interpretation of Genesis. Sorry if I've misinterpreted your motives, but that is how you come across to me.
--
GPJ
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 25, 2010, 00:18 (5173 days ago) @ George Jelliss
I think you have me pegged wrong on the Bible account. Actually you have it backwards. I admittedly would like to see that the Bible agreed with Science. That does not mean that I want to mold the data into my interpretation, or that I am a literal creationist. At most, I would state my position as: There is much evidence to suggest that our ancestors that were living in the biblical time frame were far more advanced than we give them credit for, and I would like to see them vindicated by their own writings, regardless of which source text it came from. -We, that is modern society, have a tendency to downplay their intelligence and accomplishments to fit in with the Theory of Evolution. I.E. They must have been grunting cave men because we have to show that they evolved into our brilliant selves. Which to me comes off as ignorant chest thumping. With all of our technology we have not been able to recreate some of the wonders that they achieved without it. Without our technology, they made cosmological predictions that have withstood the test of time. These were not hairy grunting ape men. They were not un-evolved versions of us. They were bigger, faster, stronger, and I suspect smarter, than we are. What they lacked was the sheer numbers of people that we have today.
Genetic Variation
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Sunday, September 26, 2010, 20:03 (5171 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
B-M: There is much evidence to suggest that our ancestors that were living in the biblical time frame were far more advanced than we give them credit for-I think we do give credit, particularly to the Babylonian astronomers and the Greek geometers and philosophers for example.-B-M: With all of our technology we have not been able to recreate some of the wonders that they achieved without it. -Such as ?-B-M: Without our technology, they made cosmological predictions that have withstood the test of time. -If you are referring to the Sumerian/Babylonian/Greek astronomy, such as the estimation of the phenomenon of precession I would agree they did a good job. However if you are referring to some interpretation of the creation story in Genesis, definitely not!-B-M: They were not un-evolved versions of us. They were bigger, faster, stronger, and I suspect smarter, than we are. -The evidence surely is that humans in the past were smaller than we are today. That is the general trend. You only have to compare the heights of doorways in everyday dwellings. Faster and stronger and more alert as a general average, quite probably, since they lived in more dangerous environments. -But if we're talking about human evolution we have to go back much further in time than recorded history.
--
GPJ
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 26, 2010, 21:23 (5171 days ago) @ George Jelliss
Just out of curiosity... did our ancestors have a thicker bone density?
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, September 27, 2010, 00:17 (5171 days ago) @ George Jelliss
Do we really give them the credit they deserve?-Aside from the astronomy, amazingly accurate calendars, palatial buildings, and such, they also had technology that would not be discovered again for centuries, or in some cases, over a millennium. -The Egyptian Glider(Not reinvented until Di Vinci, lost again until mid-1800's) The Antikythera Mechanism(Triangle teeth not rediscovered until Di Vinci) Nazca Lines(Not possible with modern technology until GPS) Stone HengeAside from the sheer logistical nightmare of moving the menhirs, the astronomical precision is remarkable. (How the hell did they lift the capstones with no crane?)- The list goes on and on.. it would take you about 60 seconds to find a few examples. Just google unexplained artifacts.
Genetic Variation
by David Turell , Monday, September 27, 2010, 02:39 (5171 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Do we really give them the credit they deserve? > > Aside from the astronomy, amazingly accurate calendars, palatial buildings, and such, they also had technology that would not be discovered again for centuries, or in some cases, over a millennium. > > The Egyptian Glider(Not reinvented until Di Vinci, lost again until mid-1800's) > The Antikythera Mechanism(Triangle teeth not rediscovered until Di Vinci) > Nazca Lines(Not possible with modern technology until GPS) > Stone HengeAside from the sheer logistical nightmare of moving the menhirs, the astronomical precision is remarkable. (How the hell did they lift the capstones with no crane?) > > > The list goes on and on.. it would take you about 60 seconds to find a few examples. Just google unexplained artifacts.-How about Saysachyhuman outside of Cuzco. The stones are as big as Stonehenge and cut to survive earthquakes. In Cuzco, the same thing but the stones are smaller.
Genetic Variation
by David Turell , Monday, September 27, 2010, 02:22 (5171 days ago) @ George Jelliss
> B-M: They were not un-evolved versions of us. They were bigger, faster, stronger, and I suspect smarter, than we are. > > The evidence surely is that humans in the past were smaller than we are today. That is the general trend. You only have to compare the heights of doorways in everyday dwellings. Faster and stronger and more alert as a general average, quite probably, since they lived in more dangerous environments. - English and American histiorical buildings and clothing show that the 18th and 19th century people were short. However, before the agricultural revolution, several thousand years ago, the average population was taller, with men approaching six feet. I know of no theory that explains this reduction in height with the hard work of agriculture. Dietary change? Increased caloric burn?
Genetic Variation
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 02:40 (5170 days ago) @ David Turell
> > B-M: They were not un-evolved versions of us. They were bigger, faster, stronger, and I suspect smarter, than we are. > > > > The evidence surely is that humans in the past were smaller than we are today. That is the general trend. You only have to compare the heights of doorways in everyday dwellings. Faster and stronger and more alert as a general average, quite probably, since they lived in more dangerous environments. > > > English and American histiorical buildings and clothing show that the 18th and 19th century people were short. However, before the agricultural revolution, several thousand years ago, the average population was taller, with men approaching six feet. I know of no theory that explains this reduction in height with the hard work of agriculture. Dietary change? Increased caloric burn?-What about this: When we moved from nomadic hunting societies to more pastoralized cultures where we could more easily defend ourselves in clusters it decreased the need for height; there is a ratio that for every foot tall you are you can see one mile. Access to walls decreased the need to be taller?-Maybe we ate meat more regularly than is thought before pastorlization? Mammoths could probably feed a small group for a couple months. If you add to the fact that when we go back to the ice age--we had natural refrigeration, we simply had a much more ready supply of meat? The one major difference for us now over the 19th and 18th centuries is how much meat we eat--even compared to 50 years ago. This sounds like a fairly natural explanation on why sizes of humans shrunk for a bit before curving back up over the last 100 years. -Or what if shorter just became more sexy for awhile?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 07:07 (5170 days ago) @ xeno6696
All of those are good possibilities. Gravity was another possibility that came to mind. There are a couple of theories out there, (expanding earth theory being one) that would require that the earth gains mass from meteors as it ages. A gain in mass would by necessity cause an increase in gravity, which would in turn cause shorter people. That is why I was specifically asking about a correlation between height and bone density. Same height with less density, or greater height with the same density, could be indicators of less gravity.
Genetic Variation
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 19:13 (5170 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Hidden agenda? I am fairly certain that I have been quite open and honest with my agenda. Abolition of Darwinian evolution, to be replaced with a theory that fits the data, not vice versa. -I wrote: "There is really no credible alternative to evolutionary theory at all that I have seen. Just nit-picking as you have been doing, without offering a sound alternative theory is not at all helpful."-So what is your alternative theory, based on the data?
--
GPJ
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 20:30 (5169 days ago) @ George Jelliss
Well, for a start, I will say that I have no full hypothesis to put out there. However, for a start, lets go back to square one, scratch the theories, and reexamine the data from square one, preferably without preconceived notions of how things should be. For example, lets start by trying to understand how the mathematics of the Babylonians, Egyptians, Mayans, Indians, and others were as advanced as they were. That crap doesn't just pop out of cave walls. Let us not assume that the ancients were simply delusional, or feeling especially poetic when they wrote things like:-From the Vimanas.. >'I quickly laid on an arrow, which killed by seeking out sound'. > >'...a single projectile charged with all the power of the Universe. An incandescent column of smoke and fire, as brilliant as ten thousands suns, rose in all its splendor. It was the unknown weapon, the Iron Thunderbolt, a gigantic messenger of death......The corpses were so burned as to be unrecognizable. The hair and nails fell out; pottery broke without apparent cause(shockwaves?), and the birds turned white. After a few hours all foodstuffs were infected... to escape from this fire. The soldiers threw themselves in streams to wash themselves and their equipment (Hair and nails falling out, poisoned food stuffs... sounds a tad like radiation poisoning..no?) > >"a great flying bird of light material. Inside one must put the mercury engine with its iron heating apparatus underneath. By means of the power latent in the mercury which sets the driving whirlwind in motion, a man sitting inside may travel a great distance in the sky. The movements of the Vimana are such that it can vertically ascend, vertically descend, move slanting forwards and backwards. With the help of the machines human beings can fly in the air and heavenly beings can come down to earth."- Particularly when we see the Egyptians with hieroglyphs of aircrafts and toy gliders, central american artifacts that are uncanny in their resemblance to modern aircraft. Not to mention the Piri Reis map, the Fuente Magna.(The character Putaki referenced in the article on Fuente Magna bares a striking resemblance to the same triune mentioned in Hindu texts, the Cabala, the Bible, the Koran, and Greek, Roman, and Egyptian mythology. Ironically, it was written in Proto-Sumerian which further mucks up the modern evolutionary/historical ideal seeing as how it was found in South America.)What about the light bulbs in Egyptian hieroglyphs, or the Baghdad Batteries? -We ignore the one offs because they don't fit the theory. I am sorry that I don't have a replacement theory for evolution or our current historical mismatches. But there the data is. It exists. Why do we ignore it?
Genetic Variation
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 23:51 (5169 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> We ignore the one offs because they don't fit the theory. I am sorry that I don't have a replacement theory for evolution or our current historical mismatches. But there the data is. It exists. Why do we ignore it?-The Fuente Magna site is fascinating. Thank you.
Genetic Variation
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 01:57 (5169 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Well, for a start, I will say that I have no full hypothesis to put out there. However, for a start, lets go back to square one, scratch the theories, and reexamine the data from square one, preferably without preconceived notions of how things should be. For example, lets start by trying to understand how the mathematics of the Babylonians, Egyptians, Mayans, Indians, and others were as advanced as they were. That crap doesn't just pop out of cave walls. Let us not assume that the ancients were simply delusional, or feeling especially poetic when they wrote things like: > > From the Vimanas.. > >'I quickly laid on an arrow, which killed by seeking out sound'. > > > >'...a single projectile charged with all the power of the Universe. An incandescent column of smoke and fire, as brilliant as ten thousands suns, rose in all its splendor. It was the unknown weapon, the Iron Thunderbolt, a gigantic messenger of death......The corpses were so burned as to be unrecognizable. The hair and nails fell out; pottery broke without apparent cause(shockwaves?), and the birds turned white. After a few hours all foodstuffs were infected... to escape from this fire. The soldiers threw themselves in streams to wash themselves and their equipment (Hair and nails falling out, poisoned food stuffs... sounds a tad like radiation poisoning..no?) > > > >"a great flying bird of light material. Inside one must put the mercury engine with its iron heating apparatus underneath. By means of the power latent in the mercury which sets the driving whirlwind in motion, a man sitting inside may travel a great distance in the sky. The movements of the Vimana are such that it can vertically ascend, vertically descend, move slanting forwards and backwards. With the help of the machines human beings can fly in the air and heavenly beings can come down to earth." > > > Particularly when we see the Egyptians with hieroglyphs of aircrafts and toy gliders, central american artifacts that are uncanny in their resemblance to modern aircraft. Not to mention the Piri Reis map, the Fuente Magna.(The character Putaki referenced in the article on Fuente Magna bares a striking resemblance to the same triune mentioned in Hindu texts, the Cabala, the Bible, the Koran, and Greek, Roman, and Egyptian mythology. Ironically, it was written in Proto-Sumerian which further mucks up the modern evolutionary/historical ideal seeing as how it was found in South America.)What about the light bulbs in Egyptian hieroglyphs, or the Baghdad Batteries? > > We ignore the one offs because they don't fit the theory. I am sorry that I don't have a replacement theory for evolution or our current historical mismatches. But there the data is. It exists. Why do we ignore it?-Because in some instance those ancient societies went directions that created intrinsic difficulties. Sumerian's used a base 60 system for counting. You might think, "So what," but in this system it is incredibly difficult to deal with prime numbers. That means that a very large swath of discovery was closed. Some kinds of ideas are limited by their systems. For base 2 is the only algebraic system that allows mathematics and logic to perfectly combine; There's other bases that allow you to do other things better than base 10, but my overall point was that though they were sophisticated for what they had to deal with, what we have available to us now is clearly better; being able to change bases at will allows us to do more than the ancients could imagine. The Greeks were able to destroy the Sumerians in math--culminating in "The Elements," the only book to compete with the Bible for most books ever sold. -The Sumerian system was fantastic for its purposes though; the number 60 has the most factors of any other composite number making offhand calculations a cinch. Math is a difficult thing to try and compare us vs. the ancients on; this is because Math is always based on everything that came before it. The ancients began it, but we took it to heights that no one even dreamed of 200 years ago. In fact, Euler was the last mathematical polyglot. After his death the subject became so vast that we reach where we're at today when a PhD can only reach the math of the 1950's by the time he begins his thesis. -The Greeks may have invented Exhaustion, but Newton/Leibniz gave us calculus. The rest, is history.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 06:18 (5169 days ago) @ xeno6696
Well, according to the vimanas the ancient Indians knew about 92 of the elements, studied sciences that we consider relatively young, like geology, and had aircraft. You still haven't done anything to explain the facts that don't fit with our modern historical record.
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 09:06 (5169 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Plato and Pythagoras-5000yo leather shoes-Mayans not just star gazing, masonry, and pretty faces anymore..-Ancient Kevlar- 11,500 year old temple..
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 09:59 (5169 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
The Stonehenge markers in particular are fascinating. The odd factor here for me is not that they had a much greater knowledge of math, which I expected, but rather, how did they determine the precise positions for these from the ground?
Genetic Variation
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, September 30, 2010, 00:14 (5168 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
The Stonehenge markers in particular are fascinating. The odd factor here for me is not that they had a much greater knowledge of math, which I expected, but rather, how did they determine the precise positions for these from the ground?-Could you rephrase the question?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, September 30, 2010, 04:59 (5168 days ago) @ xeno6696
So, they had no transits at the time Stonehenge and the related monuments were built, yet the monuments for a series of isosceles triangles that "point" to the next site. Many are 100 miles or more away, but GPS co-ordinates show all are accurate to within 100 metres. How do you make a straight line on the ground for over 100 miles without trig and celestial navigation (which supposedly were developed much later according to the modern historical paradigm)?
Genetic Variation
by David Turell , Thursday, September 30, 2010, 05:54 (5168 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
So, they had no transits at the time Stonehenge and the related monuments were built, yet the monuments for a series of isosceles triangles that "point" to the next site. Many are 100 miles or more away, but GPS co-ordinates show all are accurate to within 100 metres. How do you make a straight line on the ground for over 100 miles without trig and celestial navigation (which supposedly were developed much later according to the modern historical paradigm)?-Visit Meggido in Israel. The tunnel to the spring was started from top and bottom of the hill. The tunnel meets exactly in the middle, as you can tell by the axe strokes. Not off by an inch. The tunnel the Israelis dug from both ends to bring irrigation water from Lake Kenneret to middle Israel was off by 1/4 mile!!!
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, September 30, 2010, 06:00 (5168 days ago) @ David Turell
Impressive!
Genetic Variation
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, October 02, 2010, 04:38 (5166 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
So, they had no transits at the time Stonehenge and the related monuments were built, yet the monuments for a series of isosceles triangles that "point" to the next site. Many are 100 miles or more away, but GPS co-ordinates show all are accurate to within 100 metres. How do you make a straight line on the ground for over 100 miles without trig and celestial navigation (which supposedly were developed much later according to the modern historical paradigm)?-Well... I know you probably think me boring and predictable, but...-What evidence do you have that those builders didn't know trig? Greek philosophers with the aid of a simple tool called a gnomon (not the sundial version but a stick with a piece of string) used this tool--attributed to Egyptians and Babylonians. One of my favorite mathematicians, Eratosthenes accurately surmised that the world was spherical and calculated the circumference to within 10% accuracy. In Euclid's Elements, he was the first to solidify within the notion of epistemological foundationalism geometry--but many of the ideas he talked about are universal in nature--nearly every known civilization has engaged in the study of geometry. Here you engage in a little bit of your own shortchanging of the ancients. I would say that the structures themselves prove the point that they knew more trig than is credited to them. -History remembers the winners, or at least the first popular author to codify it.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, October 02, 2010, 06:11 (5166 days ago) @ xeno6696
I could just as easily ask what evidence do you have that it was built by the Egyptians or Babylonians since, as as far as we know according to the current historical paradigm, they were counted as among the very few to have access to those math systems at the time Stonehenge was erected (between 2800-1600BC)and were quite some distance away from the area under discussion. I am not suggesting that they didn't know trig or geometry, I was sarcastically suggesting that our current historical paradigm is wrong.
Genetic Variation
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, October 02, 2010, 14:05 (5166 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I could just as easily ask what evidence do you have that it was built by the Egyptians or Babylonians since, -Reread what I wrote and tell me where I made that claim.->as as far as we know according to the current historical paradigm, they were counted as among the very few to have access to those math systems at the time Stonehenge was erected (between 2800-1600BC)and were quite some distance away from the area under discussion. I am not suggesting that they didn't know trig or geometry, I was sarcastically suggesting that our current historical paradigm is wrong.-I don't know another way to say that. If you study nascent cultures even today, they can explain in non-mathematical language many geometrical truths, and with some of these cultures you can't make the case that they learned it by having contact with other, "more advanced" civilizations. We reason spatially fairly well as a species, and we can discover mathematical truths empirically by trial and error. -You mistake having knowledge of geometry/trig with having a complex and rigorous system based around it. You can do alot with a little; but the greatest feats are reserved for those cultures who made it at least a semi-rigorous system. -And history (like any other science) is purely evidence-based. If you see Stonehenge, you have to assume that the builders had access to that knowledge. However, assumption isn't knowledge, and therefore remains a mystery. The epistemology of history is predicated on what we can know for sure with x degree of accuracy. You might not like how history works in that way, but unless you can find a better method of induction, that's how the machine operates efficiently. -You seem to suffer from the same malady as David, in that you wish the paradigms would change more rapidly. Unless you solve the problem of change management for humanity, this is, and always will be--an uphill battle. Except for a few of us, we seem preprogrammed for certainty--we don't give up our ideas easily.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, October 02, 2010, 15:18 (5166 days ago) @ xeno6696
I could just as easily ask what evidence do you have that it was built by the Egyptians or Babylonians since, > > Reread what I wrote and tell me where I made that claim. > You didn't, nor did I intentionally insinuate that you did, though I can see how you would infer that. The question I posed was a rhetorical rebuttal to:->What evidence do you have that those builders didn't know trig? -Which is to say, we have no evidence that they didn't know trig or geometry, nor that they didn't have a rigorous system for it, nor that Stonehenge was not built by one of the other civilizations. It is all based on assumptions which, at least to me, seem to have some very a fundamental flaw, namely, that despite a profusion of evidence to the contrary in the form of astonishing feats of construction and engineering, we assume that the lack of written documentation means a lack of organized mathematics or an intellectual/cultural inferiority to modern man. -What do we do with all the data that doesn't fit? How do we reconcile the enigmas? How do we explain feats of engineering that would otherwise be unexplainable?-We could assume that it is all intuition, guess work, and dumb luck, though I would argue that the degree of sophistication found throughout the ancient world should be an effective enough counter for that. -We could assume that all of the out of place artifacts where the invention of some opium induced mental state of a prodigal artist/inventor, but they are too wide spread around the globe, and too coherent for that to hold much merit.-We could assume that it was E.T. that taught them how to do it, but without any evidence of E.T. life forms, I don't buy it.-We could assume that they were in possession of some form of mental powers that allowed them to move extreme mass, and perform complex equations without the pre-requisite engineering, but having no evidence of such ability, that is a low possibility.-But what happens if we work off the assumption that this is not civilizations first time around the bend? Would that explain the Vimana's, the vitrified fortresses, the model airplanes found around the world, Stonehenge, the similarity between pyramids, the legends of advanced teachers coming to various civilizations, the myths of lost civilizations, etc etc.? -One could argue that there is no evidence because we have not found the cities or what have you. But I would ask how long does it take for concrete, steel, iron, copper, and other such materials to be absorbed back into nature? I am not saying this happened, but part of science is having the imagination to think up different scenarios, and then actively working to prove or disprove them.
Genetic Variation
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, October 02, 2010, 18:04 (5166 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I could just as easily ask what evidence do you have that it was built by the Egyptians or Babylonians since, > > > > Reread what I wrote and tell me where I made that claim. > > > You didn't, nor did I intentionally insinuate that you did, though I can see how you would infer that. The question I posed was a rhetorical rebuttal to: > > >What evidence do you have that those builders didn't know trig? > > Which is to say, we have no evidence that they didn't know trig or geometry, nor that they didn't have a rigorous system for it, nor that Stonehenge was not built by one of the other civilizations. It is all based on assumptions which, at least to me, seem to have some very a fundamental flaw, namely, that despite a profusion of evidence to the contrary in the form of astonishing feats of construction and engineering, we assume that the lack of written documentation means a lack of organized mathematics or an intellectual/cultural inferiority to modern man. > > What do we do with all the data that doesn't fit? How do we reconcile the enigmas? How do we explain feats of engineering that would otherwise be unexplainable? > -We admit that the problem is in an unanswered state, and wait for evidence. -> But what happens if we work off the assumption that this is not civilizations first time around the bend? Would that explain the Vimana's, the vitrified fortresses, the model airplanes found around the world, Stonehenge, the similarity between pyramids, the legends of advanced teachers coming to various civilizations, the myths of lost civilizations, etc etc.? > -Don't get me wrong--I hold man on a pedestal, so nothing would make me feel better than being able to say "Look, look what we had wrought, earlier and better than when we had wrought it!"-A better picture of this can be made if we look at certain questions. -Name a civilization that was able to become technologically advanced without a written language? Language and the ability to write it are necessary prerequisites for any engineer who sits down to build something. I can do calcs in my head all day, or solve basic equations in my head, but my brain isn't good at multitasking. (No one's brain is.) If we're talking about something as complex as a flying machine, that's quite a bit of things to keep track of. -Then there's the problem of transferring that information from one generation to the next. My method for computing will likely be different from yours; hence why there will be some calculations I'm great at, and you not so much. I would have to find someone who "thinks like me" in order to transfer a lifetime's worth of information, issues, errors, and problems. Writing was invented first for record-keeping to solve this problem as well as taxation and transactions.-My point is, that by looking at all of known history, we have enough evidence to conclude that a written language is required for any feats like what we're talking about. Engineering requires minutiae and details; this is something that the human brain isn't good at. The human brain is good at pattern recognition and visual reasoning. You assert too much to our ancestors. -I work in a software system with 1.5Million lines of code. If you saw the design diagrams for this--I can tell you plainly that no human being is capable of understanding the entire thing. -> One could argue that there is no evidence because we have not found the cities or what have you. But I would ask how long does it take for concrete, steel, iron, copper, and other such materials to be absorbed back into nature? I am not saying this happened, but part of science is having the imagination to think up different scenarios, and then actively working to prove or disprove them.-You have a completely different approach to science as I know it: You start with observations, make sure your observations as valid, and built a minimal theory with minimal assumptions. An assumption that a society could do what you suggest with no writing makes assumptions of human beings that have proven to be false for the entirety of our own known history. You're "bridging gaps with god."
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, October 02, 2010, 22:05 (5165 days ago) @ xeno6696
You have a completely different approach to science as I know it: You start with observations, make sure your observations as valid, and built a minimal theory with minimal assumptions. An assumption that a society could do what you suggest with no writing makes assumptions of human beings that have proven to be false for the entirety of our own known history. You're "bridging gaps with god."-I think you have assumed something here which I never proposed. I never even suggested that they had no written language. Even the 11,500 year old temple has many examples of symbol usage, which when you get down to the brass tacks, is what a written language is, as exemplified by Egyptian hieroglyphs. -As for your mention about tracking the details of an airplane, the Vimana's are well documented, and as far as I know, every civilization in which evidence for ancient aircraft have appeared had some form of written language.-Yes, I build minimal theories, with minimal assumptions, but I am not 'bridging gaps with God.' Grand Theories based on grand assumptions inevitably lead to an invalid paradigm, because they are not based on evidence. -What I asked, and what you failed to answer, is what would happen to the evidence that our archaeologist are looking for? What would happen to concrete, iron, paper, etc. over the course of 10,000 plus years of elemental exposure? The other thing I take into consideration is the question, where do we look? We have no idea, we have no clues other than what came down as myths and legends, which have on occasion proven much more valid than we ever thought possible.(The story of Gilgamesh and the black sea flood)-Working in Geophysics, the one thing I am certain of is that we know next to nothing about what actually happens on this earth. Every day, the old theories of mind numbingly slow and microscopic movements are replaced by discoveries of fast, and vast changes(in geological terms). What I am doing is not trying 'bridge the god with gaps', but to merely get academic recognition for the evidence that suggest the gaps are larger than we even suspect.
Genetic Variation
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, October 02, 2010, 23:07 (5165 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
You have a completely different approach to science as I know it: You start with observations, make sure your observations as valid, and built a minimal theory with minimal assumptions. An assumption that a society could do what you suggest with no writing makes assumptions of human beings that have proven to be false for the entirety of our own known history. You're "bridging gaps with god." > > I think you have assumed something here which I never proposed. I never even suggested that they had no written language. Even the 11,500 year old temple has many examples of symbol usage, which when you get down to the brass tacks, is what a written language is, as exemplified by Egyptian hieroglyphs. > -We seem to step on each other's toes alot. Mayhaps we both agree to slow down a bit more? -> Yes, I build minimal theories, with minimal assumptions, but I am not 'bridging gaps with God.' Grand Theories based on grand assumptions inevitably lead to an invalid paradigm, because they are not based on evidence. > -But what evidence do you actually have? You only have passive references to hindu texts--which are extremely well-known to possess hidden or deep meanings. From my cursory examination of the passage, I see many things that would have a mystical meaning and not so much as something they were recording as actual fact. Especially when the oldest usage of the word "Vimana" simply meant "Temple," also "Fortress." Taken into consideration references such as 360 (degrees in a circle) which also has esoteric meanings in Western Hermetic traditions, I don't see Vimana as being something other than an idea that we must meditate on for faith or wisdom. Or in some instances--simply a sky-chariot of the Gods. You read too literally. -My people had a mythical tale of a creature called the "Baba Yaga." According to you I should take seriously the notion of a witch who lives in a cabin on chicken legs? Or what about the Greek tale of Apollo? You confuse mystical works with scientific explanations. - > What I asked, and what you failed to answer, is what would happen to the evidence that our archaeologist are looking for? What would happen to concrete, iron, paper, etc. over the course of 10,000 plus years of elemental exposure? The other thing I take into consideration is the question, where do we look? We have no idea, we have no clues other than what came down as myths and legends, which have on occasion proven much more valid than we ever thought possible.(The story of Gilgamesh and the black sea flood) > -Both of these flood links you have shown have demonstrated massive--localized--floods. Not a "world flood." As for more valid--only through sophistry like what was used on Ezekiel. -As to what would happen to the evidence, this depends on what kinds of materials they used, doesn't it? Assuming they used modern materials, we should have deep open-earth pits for where they mined for metals, we should still be able to find tons of evidence of mass-scale smelting. If they were smart they could have extracted aluminum, which would give us a tremendous amount of evidence as once the outer layers of aluminum oxidize, it'll keep forever. -The story of Gilgamesh WAS Noah's Ark. -But I'm seeing your deeper question to me is, "if there is no evidence to be found, what am I to do to answer these questions?" The problem you have with me--and the rest of science--is that you have your own epistemology which isn't fully congruent with the epistemology of scientists. The writings of the ancients can be used as very general guides, but without physical evidence--you completely cancel out any possibility of science and are left with subjective claims. Science works via foundationalism, everything must be connected to everything else in a chain of logical causation building from base principles. Any claim that cannot be connected into this hierarchical web, is literally out of scope. If you want to change the epistemology of science, you get the fun job of change management. -So we treat this as we should all claims that have no evidence: In an "unsolved" pile that would await some piece of evidence to surface to validate it. If you say this isn't an answer to your question again, than I didn't understand it to begin with. - > ...What I am doing is not trying 'bridge the god with gaps', but to merely get academic recognition for the evidence that suggest the gaps are larger than we even suspect.-But written words of Vimanas, Christ rising after 3 days, and Alexander dumping stones into the sea don't constitute evidence. All of these come from texts that assert their own validity.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Genetic Variation
by David Turell , Sunday, October 03, 2010, 00:14 (5165 days ago) @ xeno6696
We have no idea, we have no clues other than what came down as myths and legends, which have on occasion proven much more valid than we ever thought possible.(The story of Gilgamesh and the black sea flood) -There is definite evidence of a Black Sea flood in an article in Am. J. Archeology, I believe Oct. 2001, dating the flood about 7,000 years ago. Another report in the N.Y. Times, Jan 1, 2001 quoting marine biologists as placing the flood at 7,600 years ago. The reason given is glacial melt and then ice dams breaking. There were later reports in 2003 in the houston paper that tried to refute these findings, and I remember a more recent report (source not remembered), in the past year, that again supported evidence of the flood. I'm sure a local but massive flood occurred.
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, October 03, 2010, 06:36 (5165 days ago) @ xeno6696
The story of Gilgamesh was a 'myth', greatly embellished, that contained grains of historical truth that have been proven by science. However, even the story of Gilgamesh carries undertones of esoteric teachings that covers things like the death of the sun. But it also disclosed a very real historical accounting of the Black Sea flood.-I am not so literal minded that I do not see the connections to the deeper mystical and spiritual meanings behind what I read, nor am I so naive as to take ever word ever written as truth. However, I am also well aware that, sometimes, there are many different layers of meaning inside a single statement. We use a play on words to form many of the worlds greatest pun's, jokes, and satires, and ancient writers were no different in that respect. -Sometimes, the truth is that we simply ignore what we find because we can't explain it. There is no doubt that the Hindu texts I linked were probably laced through with spiritual admonishments and esoteric teachings. But I am highly doubtful that they could write about, and with astonishing amounts of detail and accuracy, something for which they had no possible frame of reference.
Genetic Variation
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, October 03, 2010, 15:44 (5165 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
edited by unknown, Sunday, October 03, 2010, 15:57
The story of Gilgamesh was a 'myth', greatly embellished, that contained grains of historical truth that have been proven by science. However, even the story of Gilgamesh carries undertones of esoteric teachings that covers things like the death of the sun. But it also disclosed a very real historical accounting of the Black Sea flood. > -The book I'm writing is rooted upon the entire epic of Gilgamesh; and every scholar of religion agrees that Gilgamesh was the proto-tale for Noah's Ark. Just like how Christian hell was actually a syncretism of Zorastrian and Jewish Mysticism. The general mode in comparative religions is that all the religions we have today all shared a common route going all the way back to our emergence out of Africa. That's why it's interesting that that small group of Uighurs I mentioned don't have a flood myth. -But again, ascribing the kind of accuracy that you want to with religious texts is generally only done through interpretive sophistry. If you engage in an act of demonstrating that the Bible had some accuracy, you can readily "verify" anything it says just by changing all the semantics of the words--like in Ezekiel. -> I am not so literal minded that I do not see the connections to the deeper mystical and spiritual meanings behind what I read, nor am I so naive as to take ever word ever written as truth. However, I am also well aware that, sometimes, there are many different layers of meaning inside a single statement. We use a play on words to form many of the worlds greatest pun's, jokes, and satires, and ancient writers were no different in that respect. > > Sometimes, the truth is that we simply ignore what we find because we can't explain it. There is no doubt that the Hindu texts I linked were probably laced through with spiritual admonishments and esoteric teachings. But I am highly doubtful that they could write about, and with astonishing amounts of detail and accuracy, something for which they had no possible frame of reference.-The link you gave me there resonates with one account I'd heard of for the birth of the Hindu religion. At some point long-past, Persians conquered the land, and the short-shrift of it was that they had installed themselves as rulers, and built the religion and caste system. I recently started reading "Bhagavad Gita As it Is," and in the introduction the author states with a dictation that "...everything there is has a controller. A person who thinks they are not controlled is insane." Though, in the same introduction he says "The reader should read the Bhagavad Gita in a mind of Submission, or they will not extract the proper meanings." -Aside from the fact that these two statements contradict each other, we have a strong suggestion right off the bat that there is a reason they are trying to abolish free will. Hinduism is largely seen as having created and supported the caste system. This explanation makes sense--Iranians were incredible innovators in religion. -That said, I never paid much attention to Vimanas the first time through the Gita, I will this time. But just to throw this out there: the earliest mention of Vimana as a flying object, was as a flying chariot for Sri Krsna. Other things I've seen online were for giant flying pyramids. They also had battering rams. So far, I've seen nothing that was so outlandish that a creative writer couldn't synthesize it.-[EDIT] But lets return to your goal: If your goal is make scientists take claims made in religious books as real, you do so using scientific claims. Because of how interpretive sophistry works, people like me will never take religious texts THAT seriously, because at least in my case doubt is the centerpiece of my thinking. Skepticism is the centerpiece of western philosophy; Science is based on empiricism, (rationalism is out of scope) and you're engaging in rationalism when you try and bridge the Black Sea Flood to Noah/Gilgamesh. Rationalism and Empiricism are two separate answers to the the problem of skepticism, but although all empirical claims are rational, the converse isn't true, that all rational claims are empirical. You need to deal with this problem, because it is THIS problem which gives difficulty to you. Not "closed minds" but the normative epistemology the person is operating with. Understand that, and you will make better cases. -No one doubts that "revealed texts" contain truths, but what truths those are and where they are is definitely not clear. You face an uphill battle here, my friend.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, October 03, 2010, 16:22 (5165 days ago) @ xeno6696
> The book I'm writing is rooted upon the entire epic of Gilgamesh; and every scholar of religion agrees that Gilgamesh was the proto-tale for Noah's Ark. Just like how Christian hell was actually a syncretism of Zorastrian and Jewish Mysticism. The general mode in comparative religions is that all the religions we have today all shared a common route going all the way back to our emergence out of Africa. That's why it's interesting that that small group of Uighurs I mentioned don't have a flood myth. - I actually purchased of copy of "Bhagavad Gita As it Is" right before I came out to the boat. I have it down in my cabin, but got side tracked reading the Gnostic Gospels :) I will start on it again here shortly and see if I can find some outstanding examples to share as well. -I do not so much look for accuracy. First off, I am looking for consistency within certain texts. That gives me a starting point for comparison with something external. I.E. If they are not consistent with themselves they will not likely be consistent with anything else. The same applies to any ancient text I study, it just happens that I am much more familiar with the bible.-And spotting links between religious ideologies is what set me down this bumpy road to begin with, and one of the reasons that I actively seek out groups like this so as to learn from others at a much faster rate than I can pick up on my own. (Don't reinvent the wheel unless it needs it)
Genetic Variation
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, October 03, 2010, 16:50 (5165 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> > The book I'm writing is rooted upon the entire epic of Gilgamesh; and every scholar of religion agrees that Gilgamesh was the proto-tale for Noah's Ark. Just like how Christian hell was actually a syncretism of Zorastrian and Jewish Mysticism. The general mode in comparative religions is that all the religions we have today all shared a common route going all the way back to our emergence out of Africa. That's why it's interesting that that small group of Uighurs I mentioned don't have a flood myth. > > > I actually purchased of copy of "Bhagavad Gita As it Is" right before I came out to the boat. I have it down in my cabin, but got side tracked reading the Gnostic Gospels :) I will start on it again here shortly and see if I can find some outstanding examples to share as well. > > I do not so much look for accuracy. First off, I am looking for consistency within certain texts. That gives me a starting point for comparison with something external. I.E. If they are not consistent with themselves they will not likely be consistent with anything else. The same applies to any ancient text I study, it just happens that I am much more familiar with the bible. > > And spotting links between religious ideologies is what set me down this bumpy road to begin with, and one of the reasons that I actively seek out groups like this so as to learn from others at a much faster rate than I can pick up on my own. (Don't reinvent the wheel unless it needs it)-dhw and I have gone round on this topic before; My position is that the consistencies between texts is too general for us to derive any meaningful conclusions or explanations. Like how we always mess up things in statistics--causation/correlation, etc. -You strike me as someone who'd like the movie "The Fountain." z
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Genetic Variation
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, September 30, 2010, 00:12 (5168 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Plato and Pythagoras > -The Pythagoreans ignored the concept of irrational numbers because it refuted the idea that the entire universe was built on what we now call "Platonic Solids." Legend has it they actually murdered the man who originally provided the proof that the square root of 2 was irrational. -> 5000yo leather shoes > That's not terribly amazing, no offense. The Iceman's shoes were more interesting. - > Mayans not just star gazing, masonry, and pretty faces anymore.. > -Having visited the ruins at Chichen Itza, I absolutely love the fact that they were able to build the site in such a way that if you clap your hands, the echo doesn't come back as a clap but as a bird call that is identical to a bird they held sacred. -Look, I never said the ancients weren't amazing, but you asked for a reason why we think ourselves superior to the ancients, and I provided an answer--trust me. Engineering is different than mathematics; they did amazing things with what was available to them (stone, in this case) but comparing that to the complexity found on an integrated circuit proves quite quickly where exactly we blow them out of the water. -> Ancient Kevlar > -THAT one is cool; but again non-mathematical. -> > 11,500 year old temple..-This reminds me of a civilization found in the Andes that dates back prior to Egypt that also has left impressive relics... I do not remember them however. I will have to dig...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Genetic Variation
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 22:54 (5168 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Well, according to the vimanas the ancient Indians knew about 92 of the elements, studied sciences that we consider relatively young, like geology, and had aircraft. You still haven't done anything to explain the facts that don't fit with our modern historical record.-And they had the rudiments of modern reconstructive plastic surgery... though with wood and leather. THAT we have evidence of. -Your point here? That in the absence of evidence we are safe to accept the claims of the vimanas? Safe to consider of course, but that--as with all things lacking evidence--remains in the "mystery" or "doubt" category. Show me a plan, or a wreckage of a machine we can reverse engineer and demonstrate and you'll see me more pliant.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, September 30, 2010, 06:17 (5168 days ago) @ xeno6696
Well, according to the vimanas the ancient Indians knew about 92 of the elements, studied sciences that we consider relatively young, like geology, and had aircraft. You still haven't done anything to explain the facts that don't fit with our modern historical record. > > And they had the rudiments of modern reconstructive plastic surgery... though with wood and leather. THAT we have evidence of. > > Your point here? That in the absence of evidence we are safe to accept the claims of the vimanas? Safe to consider of course, but that--as with all things lacking evidence--remains in the "mystery" or "doubt" category. Show me a plan, or a wreckage of a machine we can reverse engineer and demonstrate and you'll see me more pliant.- No the point is that they had no frame of reference to even begin to describe what they were describing according to our modern historical paradigm. It isn't enough to say they dreamed it all up, or imagined it. I will give a clear example of what I mean.-In the Greek myth of Icarus and Daedalous, Daedalous built a pair of fantastic wings for himself and his son. The wings were metal framed, leather harnessed, and covered with wax in which feathers were set. Now in this story, the Greeks had a very obvious frame of reference, birds. The wings were shaped like bird wings, used like bird wings, even contained feathers like bird wings. - The Vimanas however are different. Where is the frame of reference to describe a missile with atomic fallout? Where is the frame of reference for electromagnetism? Where is the frame of reference for nuclear weapons complete with accurate descriptions of the side effects (radiation poisoning, the heat blast, shock wave, the blinding light)
Genetic Variation
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, October 06, 2010, 23:40 (5161 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Well, according to the vimanas the ancient Indians knew about 92 of the elements, studied sciences that we consider relatively young, like geology, and had aircraft. You still haven't done anything to explain the facts that don't fit with our modern historical record. > > > > And they had the rudiments of modern reconstructive plastic surgery... though with wood and leather. THAT we have evidence of. > > > > Your point here? That in the absence of evidence we are safe to accept the claims of the vimanas? Safe to consider of course, but that--as with all things lacking evidence--remains in the "mystery" or "doubt" category. Show me a plan, or a wreckage of a machine we can reverse engineer and demonstrate and you'll see me more pliant. > > > No the point is that they had no frame of reference to even begin to describe what they were describing according to our modern historical paradigm. It isn't enough to say they dreamed it all up, or imagined it. I will give a clear example of what I mean. > > In the Greek myth of Icarus and Daedalous, Daedalous built a pair of fantastic wings for himself and his son. The wings were metal framed, leather harnessed, and covered with wax in which feathers were set. Now in this story, the Greeks had a very obvious frame of reference, birds. The wings were shaped like bird wings, used like bird wings, even contained feathers like bird wings. > > > The Vimanas however are different. Where is the frame of reference to describe a missile with atomic fallout? Where is the frame of reference for electromagnetism? Where is the frame of reference for nuclear weapons complete with accurate descriptions of the side effects (radiation poisoning, the heat blast, shock wave, the blinding light)-1. Backwards editing. -Otherwise, present me with the appropriate verses, and I will consider. At the same time, George Lucas's conception of the Death Star is/was a radical idea which may only have had precedent in the "Planet Eater" of Star Trek Fame.-Star Trek is a notorious show for predicting future technologies. -Was Gene Roddenberry a God, or was he just innovative and creative enough to peer into the future? You are trying to put limits on what a creative mind can imagine. What frame of reference did Gene have for the Planet Eater? How about George Lucas for his Death star, or Tolkien for his "One Ring?"-How much of the Vimanas is fact, how much is fiction, and how much is fiction believed to be fact? Unless you can answer all three of those categories, you don't have a case.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, October 07, 2010, 05:09 (5161 days ago) @ xeno6696
> 1. Backwards editing. > > Otherwise, present me with the appropriate verses, and I will consider. At the same time, George Lucas's conception of the Death Star is/was a radical idea which may only have had precedent in the "Planet Eater" of Star Trek Fame. > > Star Trek is a notorious show for predicting future technologies. > > Was Gene Roddenberry a God, or was he just innovative and creative enough to peer into the future? You are trying to put limits on what a creative mind can imagine. What frame of reference did Gene have for the Planet Eater? How about George Lucas for his Death star, or Tolkien for his "One Ring?" > > How much of the Vimanas is fact, how much is fiction, and how much is fiction believed to be fact? Unless you can answer all three of those categories, you don't have a case.-The whole point of trying to get science to investigate the claims of the Vimanas is to answer those three questions. Unless I completely misunderstand science to a gross degree, that is its primary purpose, to explore, discover, and explain.-You also completely misunderstand the term 'frame of reference', apparently. By the time Star Trek and Star Wars came along, we knew some little about space, and electronics, and photons, and plasma, and lasers etc. These provide a 'frame of reference' for an author to expound on. If you know what gravity is, you can imagine a way to defy it. If you know what an engine is, you can imagine newer, higher performance engines, that use different fuels, or work in different environments. Lord of the Rings did little but expound on things that were already familiar. Differences in humanoids have been used as part of myth and legend for thousands of years.(Puck, minotaur, harpies, etc) Even the 'rings of power' were only a conglomeration of a few different pre-existing ideas(rings, domination, greed, power, control, mysticism, volcanoes). I am not trying to discredit any of these authors, because I am a big fan of most of them, and see their imagination as inspiring. But you can not deny that they did have a frame of reference for all of their writings. -As far as references to the particular verses, I have already linked a website which contains the references you asked for, you have but to look and you will find.
Genetic Variation
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 18:29 (5169 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
B-M. You wrote that your aim was: Abolition of Darwinian evolution, to be replaced with a theory that fits the data,-I queried what your replacement theory is, and you come back with a quote about Egyptiams and Babylonians!-What the hell has this got to do with evolution?
--
GPJ
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, September 30, 2010, 03:25 (5168 days ago) @ George Jelliss
Somewhere back in that back log of posts I said that I do not have a replacement theory. The stuff I have been posting about the ancient civilizations in this thread is probably because I got threads mixed up. Besides, I have already said numerous times that I think life has evolved within the familial boundaries, but not across those boundaries. One is fact, the other fiction. One has been proven, the other has been speculated upon and grossly exaggerated, as pointed out with the not a chimp post that someone else put out there.
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, September 24, 2010, 12:51 (5174 days ago) @ George Jelliss
From you post George:-"Furthermore, if the universe is infinite, providing the event with infinitely many chances to occur, then the occurrence of the event is a virtual certainty. Thus creationist probability arguments can often be undermined by pointing out that any event with a probability greater than 0, no matter how low, will be likely to happen if given enough opportunity, and sure to happen if opportunity is unlimited."- The universe is not infinite is it. It is finite in both space and time as current research shows (regardless of whether you believe in the big bang or plasma models.) There is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) that proves that beyond doubt. So, this completely discounts the argument proposed by this argument because we have now limited the probability by both time and space(total universal mass). -You're 'slam' relies on the same tired argument of the monkey on a type writer. However, I would again point out that this requires an infinite time limit, which invalidates the argument as applied to abiogenesis and evolution. -Of course, the writer of the article says that creationist misrepresent Borel's law, then proceeds to change the wording of Borel's law: But this law of chance is not literally true, for, as we shall see, such events can and do happen. I think that a more accurate way to say what Borel had in mind is that in reality, no such event can be rationally predicted ever to occur. However, the icing is when the writer envisions the easy way to disprove the probability, yet fails to produce the experiment or results.-My all time favorite of the article though, is the conclusion: THE HEART OF THE MATTER Anti-evolutionists, of course, will continue to employ their probability arguments against the natural formation of proteins, cells, and the like, despite everything said in this article. There are two reasons for this. First, in all fairness, their probability arguments often cannot be adequately refuted without a highly technical scientific explanation of the physical processes involved in the "improbable" event in question, and no such discussion was attempted here for the same reason that none is often attempted in public discussions of the issues. -Second, and more importantly, even if all the scientific matters had been discussed, it would make no difference. The opponents of evolution are not interested in good science, and as I have attempted to show in this article, neither are they interested in good mathematics. Hence their arguments are not based on a complete and contemporary understanding of the scientific and mathematical principles that are relevant to the issue. This is yet another reason why creationist material has no business being taught in science classes - it threatens our students' education not only with bad science, but also bad mathematics.-The burden of proof is on the the person proposing the theory, not on those who say the theory is false. That is good science. But science does not apply that rule to macro-evolution, big bang, or abiogensis. That is bad science. When statistical analysis presents something that is so close to being a statistical impossibility, you don't argue that buy saying, it could happen, you provide evidence to show that it DID happen.
Genetic Variation
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, September 30, 2010, 00:19 (5168 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
From you post George: > > "Furthermore, if the universe is infinite, providing the event with infinitely many chances to occur, then the occurrence of the event is a virtual certainty. Thus creationist probability arguments can often be undermined by pointing out that any event with a probability greater than 0, no matter how low, will be likely to happen if given enough opportunity, and sure to happen if opportunity is unlimited." > > > The universe is not infinite is it. It is finite in both space and time as current research shows (regardless of whether you believe in the big bang or plasma models.) There is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) that proves that beyond doubt. So, this completely discounts the argument proposed by this argument because we have now limited the probability by both time and space(total universal mass). > -It is an established observation that the universe is expanding at a rate of 3x the speed of light, and accelerating. We live in an infinite universe. --> The burden of proof is on the the person proposing the theory, not on those who say the theory is false. That is good science. But science does not apply that rule to macro-evolution, big bang, or abiogensis. That is bad science. When statistical analysis presents something that is so close to being a statistical impossibility, you don't argue that buy saying, it could happen, you provide evidence to show that it DID happen.-Then prove how the universe is finite when it is forever growing.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, September 30, 2010, 05:07 (5168 days ago) @ xeno6696
> It is an established observation that the universe is expanding at a rate of 3x the speed of light, and accelerating. We live in an infinite universe. > > -Actually, the fact that it CAN expand is proof that it is finite, by definition.
Genetic Variation
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, October 06, 2010, 23:33 (5161 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> > It is an established observation that the universe is expanding at a rate of 3x the speed of light, and accelerating. We live in an infinite universe. > > > > > > Actually, the fact that it CAN expand is proof that it is finite, by definition.-Then... why did you challenge it?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, October 07, 2010, 05:14 (5161 days ago) @ xeno6696
You wrote that it was a fact. I was using your own words to point out that the statement was self-contradicting. It can not be both a fact that it is infinite, and a fact that it is expanding. If it is expanding, it has an outer boundary which, by definition, makes it finite. I never said I agreed with the statement.
Genetic Variation
by David Turell , Friday, September 24, 2010, 16:29 (5174 days ago) @ George Jelliss
Snap! > > http://ncse.com/rncse/20/4/creationism-pseudomathematics > > By citing rubbish from the Institute for Creation Research you are revealing your hidden agenda.--George, please relax. We all have agendas. I've read some of the creationist stuff also, just to see what they are writing. My agenda is pro-Big Bang, anti-literal creationist, partially anti-Darwin. You know this. These are my conclusions from reading all sorts of material, and even quoting some of it to agree or dispute it. I see my agenda as somewhat like b_m's and certainly unlike b_m in his disbelief of the Big Bang when the cosmic wave background radiation sits out there as WAS predicted and the wave form fits the math prediction!
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, September 24, 2010, 19:08 (5174 days ago) @ David Turell
George, please relax. We all have agendas. I've read some of the creationist stuff also, just to see what they are writing. My agenda is pro-Big Bang, anti-literal creationist, partially anti-Darwin. You know this. These are my conclusions from reading all sorts of material, and even quoting some of it to agree or dispute it. I see my agenda as somewhat like b_m's and certainly unlike b_m in his disbelief of the Big Bang when the cosmic wave background radiation sits out there as WAS predicted and the wave form fits the math prediction!-Dave, George,-Just a note on the Big Bang/Darwinian Evolution theories. The theories were ok for the time when they were posited, and in some respects, both have done much to increase sciences understanding of the world and universe around us. The same could be said for Aristotle, Copernicus, Galileo, or any other number of well respected scientist for whom I the greatest respect for. But, when Copernicus noted the flaws in Aristotle's work, he felt, near the end of his life, compelled to finally publish his opposing theory because the new data did not match the old theory. When Galileo noticed that the effect of a vacuum wasn't enough to account for the strength of non-fibrous materials. That is not to say that the theories that came before were useless, but that they did not fit the available data discovered after they were made. -Yes, the Big Bang theory made a few accurate predictions, such as CMBR, yet there are a number of other areas where it has failed miserably, such as the total mass of the universe, formation of elementary particles, formation of stars, etc etc. because it does not fit the data. Instead, we have to make a logical leap of faith into the realm of dark matter, chance, mass from nothingness, etc etc. The same could be said for evolution/abiogenesis where we have to accept staggering odds at finite time scales in unfavorable conditions, and now, cometary impact as the likeliest candidate. Or Einsteinian relativity(which the CMBR also puts doubt on). The scientific method says that we should revise the theories based on the results of new data.-Unfortunately, we have split the world into two main camps, the "Darwin-did-it"s and the "Designer-did-it"s, and each side has become so dogmatically entrenched in their beliefs that they can not see the gaping holes in their own arguments. -I am not going to poke anyone here with the labeling rod, and I would hope, that in the spirit of enlightened debate, that same rod will be withheld from me. We all have a 'favorite to win' when it comes to competing theory because we all see the theory differently and pick up on different strengths and weaknesses. But only by admitting those strengths and weaknesses can the theories themselves be revised to account for the constant inclusion of new data.
Genetic Variation
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, September 24, 2010, 04:58 (5174 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
A spin off of research related to the Neanderthal discussion led me to this article. Notice in particular, the following quote: > > >Ironically, the variation in PRDM9 is due to a minisatellite within the gene itself. Sir Alec said: 'I've come full circle -- starting out with minisatellites to develop DNA fingerprinting, and arriving at a gene containing a minisatellite that plays a key role in driving all kinds of human DNA diversity, including variation at minisatellites. An intriguing possibility is that it is even driving its own evolution!' > >Sir Alec believes the research, along with that of others working in the field, will inevitably further scientists' ability to understand the basic processes that make us all genetically unique, as well as defining an entirely new class of genetic risk factor for numerous disease-causing DNA rearrangements that can arise when recombination goes wrong. > >These findings also provide a neat solution to one great puzzle of recombination hotspots -- namely that they appear and disappear rapidly during evolution. Sir Alec said 'We've shown that hotspots have a strange propensity for self-destruction, so how can they possibly exist? The PRDM9 minisatellite gives the answer -- it evolves rapidly, like any other unstable minisatellite, and keeps churning out variants that can trigger new hotspots, replenishing those that have committed suicide. A totally crazy mechanism to ensure that recombination keeps going, but typical of the weird solutions that evolution can throw up'. > > > Now to me, there are several bits out of this piece that are interesting and disturbing. The first interesting bit for me is the statement: "An intriguing possibility is that it is even driving its own evolution!" The reason this is so interesting to me is that it seems to go against the grain of mainstream evolutionary theory. The standard theory is that 'random' mutations occur, and that these mutations are naturally selected based off what is useful or proactive towards the goal of survival. Then, they make a contradiction that states that external/internal pressures trigger these adaptations/genetic changes. If the changes are pressured or triggered to occur, then they can not, by definition, be truly random, but are in fact a result of cause and effect. Now, they bring in a third contradiction, namely that the mutations are not in-fact truly random at all, nor a result of external pressure, but instead are the result of a 'mini-satellite' tossing bits of code out to ensure genetic variability. > -The only problem here is... aside from Dawkins--evolution is generally not considered "random." Read "Denying Evolution" from Massimo Pigliucci. -But even if we were to assert "randomness," the fact that a random outside event would cause any number of internal events is itself not random. However it is still cause and effect. You have a false dilemma here. - > Which brings me to the next curiosity that seems to be a logical inference from this discovery. This pseudo-code generator mini-satellite gene, if isolated in all species, would mean that would explain why we see variations on a theme within taxonomic classifications, but do not actually see species diversion between on distinct family, such as canines, and another, such as felines. The mini-satellite pseudo-code would provide for nearly infinite variation on a theme, but is limited to being able to affect only certain bits of the overall code. > -So... in other words--it explains genetic recombination. Sorry--still don't see teleology here! -> The third part, and by far the most disturbing to me, was the implication for this discovery on modern day humanity. Science, in general, does not know when to leave well enough alone(Manhattan Project Anyone? Biological weapons perhaps? Maybe chemical weapons are more your taste..). It has a tendency to do things because it can. It also likes to have pretty lines of data and stable trends and uniformity. When I read about scientist being able to use this data to predict genetic risk factors etc, I had the memory of a movie titled "Gattaca", where science used its predictive abilities to genetically 'screen' individuals, and created a caste separation between infants born from genetic compatibility and those born as 'love children'. I can also see them using this discovery in gene manipulation treatments that could effective make all humans genetically equal, which is even deadlier to the species.-Science generates models and tools. It is up to Ethics and philosophy to guide the use of those tools. Call me evil if you will, but I am firmly in the camp of "if we have the power to do something, we should." I qualify this with that the power is in serving humans as ends, not as means to ends. -However, in my case I'm willing to suspend that ethic to defend myself or my family if needed. This includes--nuclear weapons.- [EDIT]-I need to qualify the above a tad more. I believe that science should be unhindered whenever consequences are unknown. Slowed/cautioned only when humans are involved.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, September 24, 2010, 12:13 (5174 days ago) @ xeno6696
If you believe that we should slow science only when humans are directly involved, you should do some more research on the tiny little bee. Our ecosystem is so finely balanced in some ways, that if we destroy just ONE thing, we run the risk of completely wiping out our species. So, for a small example, we use pesticides to get rid of insects because they destroy cash crops. However, the pesticide also covers the plants which the bees pollinate. The bees take pollen covered with the chemical back to the nest, where they make wax and honey from it. When the honey and wax are made, it emits a subtle chemical odor that drives the bees from their nest. So next year, the crops don't get pollinated.....
Genetic Variation
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, September 25, 2010, 14:43 (5173 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
If you believe that we should slow science only when humans are directly involved, you should do some more research on the tiny little bee. Our ecosystem is so finely balanced in some ways, that if we destroy just ONE thing, we run the risk of completely wiping out our species. So, for a small example, we use pesticides to get rid of insects because they destroy cash crops. However, the pesticide also covers the plants which the bees pollinate. The bees take pollen covered with the chemical back to the nest, where they make wax and honey from it. When the honey and wax are made, it emits a subtle chemical odor that drives the bees from their nest. So next year, the crops don't get pollinated.....-I explicitly stated that man should be served as an end and not as a means to an end.-I work in software QA. There's several mantras, one of which is "Exhaustive Testing is Impossible." We should do our due diligence--evaluating as we can the impacts of what we do environmentally and otherwise--but some of the things you've brought up here (as well as David) are things that weren't knowable before we broke them. I'm a big stickler for epistemology--everyone always assumes that problems such as bees or that river in Florida that feeds the everglades were things that were so obvious. But science has unique elements that prevents something like exhaustive testing. -1. It's about building models, when all is said and done. The goal is of course, a one-to-one model of nature. You can't build a perfect model. We can only build a model about those things that are easily studyable. -2. No scientific project, basic or applied--has unlimited funds. That means that only those things that can be afforded to test, will be tested--and that means that there will be a priority--the first priority being those things critical to the projects success. Unless you're willing to live in a drastically different economic system, commercial science (including pesticides) isn't going to change too much in this dept. -So we know exhaustive testing is impossible. We know that we have limited funds. The final limitation is our boundary of knowledge. If no one thinks to test for the lethality of bees or the effect of this pesticide on bees, than the idea will never be tested. This could have been something that was innocently missed by the project team, or deliberately not tested due to malfeasance (criminal), or more commonly--that the bases were already covered. -From your scenario, do they now regularly include bees in pesticide studies? I would think, yes. -I'm sorry I just hate it when people assume science is evil by nature...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 25, 2010, 15:27 (5173 days ago) @ xeno6696
I don't think science is evil. I said I think scientist are sloppy. Science is inanimate, unthinking, inert, a method, an idea, a tool. A gun is not evil, ignorant, or sloppy, the person making it or the person using it is. An ink pen can kill, that doesn't make the pen evil. -Ultimately, time, money, and the human factor are the biggest causes of scientific error. I still stand by the statement that just because we CAN doesn't mean we SHOULD. As has been pointed out, that is a problem for philosophers, not scientist.
Genetic Variation
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, September 25, 2010, 20:37 (5172 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I don't think science is evil. I said I think scientist are sloppy. Science is inanimate, unthinking, inert, a method, an idea, a tool. A gun is not evil, ignorant, or sloppy, the person making it or the person using it is. An ink pen can kill, that doesn't make the pen evil. > -Right; and I'm saying that scientists aren't sloppy--that they're focused on their goal and their project(s). Ideally bringing together people of vastly different disciplines can fix alot of error; again in Software QA, best practice is that all artifacts are tested by someone from a different department. (QA, in this case.) You make an unfounded assumption; that maybe by poking and prodding a little more, they would have figured out the issue with the bees. This isn't the case. -And to me, stalling or stopping a research project purely on the grounds that its long-term consequences are unknown directly translates to a safe, bland, and coddled society where innovation stops. We could all learn to live with a little more danger, my friend! - > Ultimately, time, money, and the human factor are the biggest causes of scientific error. I still stand by the statement that just because we CAN doesn't mean we SHOULD. As has been pointed out, that is a problem for philosophers, not scientist.-It's a normative question. And I still say (firmly) that we won't learn anything by deciding not to act on the "CANs." Because we can, we must. Else how will progress be made? How can you "control" science when the long-term outcomes are unknown? Science should work unhindered, with society directing the use of its tools and findings; which really--is exactly what we have today, just with a strangling level of regulations.-What do you really think we could do differently? What you define as "sloppy" I define as men and women working on the cutting edge, where they themselves don't even know what the future brings. It is not the job of the scientists to think about the implications of their work; THAT is what philosophers are for.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 25, 2010, 20:50 (5172 days ago) @ xeno6696
In somethings, I would agree with you. However, somethings are more obvious and should have been considered. For example, going back to the bees. The pesticides and herbicides were designed to be toxic. That was their purpose, and no doubt they were forced to determine if that toxicity would be problematic for humans if consumed/inhaled/touched. That is a standard for any chemical. But these chemicals were specifically designed to be toxic to other plants and wild life. Now, from that, we could make a fairly easy, logical inference as to what would need to be tested.-What flora/fauna specifically are we targeting? What fauna directly consumes the intended target flora? What fauna interacts directly with target flora on a regular basis?-Most of this information could be gathered quite readily. Then, based off the results, they could gather specimens from the identified fauna, and test for side effects. Even if they found none, and it later turned out that they were wrong, I could give them credit for trying. But as you pointed out, they were given a budget and a deadline and forced to proceed, damn the consequences. The fact that bees are responsible for a tremendous amount of pollination has been known for so long that it is anecdotal. What I am promoting is slow, stable, growth instead of fast, reckless, growth.
Genetic Variation
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, September 25, 2010, 21:12 (5172 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Balance, > Most of this information could be gathered quite readily. Then, based off the results, they could gather specimens from the identified fauna, and test for side effects. Even if they found none, and it later turned out that they were wrong, I could give them credit for trying. But as you pointed out, they were given a budget and a deadline and forced to proceed, damn the consequences. The fact that bees are responsible for a tremendous amount of pollination has been known for so long that it is anecdotal. What I am promoting is slow, stable, growth instead of fast, reckless, growth. -And that's exactly what I think the problem is. -What is an acceptable growth rate? What if the research we're talking about is like the Manhattan Project? Who gets to decide what the "proper" rate is? What is an acceptable error rate? If we know that generally speaking, we learn much better from mistakes than from successes, who are we to stop the rate of mistakes? -My greater argument is that no one decides to muck things up, but they do--typically due to a paradigmatic shortfall--not typically because they were careless or lazy.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 25, 2010, 22:03 (5172 days ago) @ xeno6696
They worked out the forces for splitting an atom in theory before they built the bomb. The KNEW the devastation it would cause, so they built it to prove that they could. They tested the bomb before they used the bomb. At that point, the knew what the bomb would do. They had all of the empirical evidence they could possibly want. So they build a few more and eradicate a few cities for good measure? Just because they CAN? I would definitely like to ask you to go explain the logic of your argument to the residents of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
Genetic Variation
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 26, 2010, 00:26 (5172 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
They worked out the forces for splitting an atom in theory before they built the bomb. The KNEW the devastation it would cause, so they built it to prove that they could. They tested the bomb before they used the bomb. At that point, the knew what the bomb would do. They had all of the empirical evidence they could possibly want. So they build a few more and eradicate a few cities for good measure? Just because they CAN? I would definitely like to ask you to go explain the logic of your argument to the residents of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.-The power of nuclear Fission was only a paper-based calculation until the the first bomb was built. You are also reorganizing my argument along your own lines. The GOAL of the Manhattan Project was to build an atomic weapon BEFORE Germany could. To state more explicitly:-The goal WAS a weapon. Oppenheimer was very troubled by this even at the time--but he knew what he was doing. -Once we had the weapon--it was out of the scientist's hands at this point--the policymakers made the decision that using these weapons would end the war more quickly and save more lives over the long-haul than sticking to conventional warfare. -To me, if you're going to win a war, the best response is asymmetric force. That's exactly what happened. The result here was no different than how the invention of gunpowder made swords irrelevant. (For the record, more people have died from gunfire than from Nuclear weapons.) I prefer to see wars won with minimal battles and casualties, but there was no way that was going to happen with a traditional invasion. -When it comes to survival, I'm not ashamed to say that I'm downright Machiavellian, and if the positions were reversed, the Japanese would have done the same thing to us. Lets not forget what they had already done to the Chinese--or our own P.O.W. Ethics and morality go out the door when you have to groups who REALLY want to kill each other. Its a plain fact. I feel empathy for what the survivors have to go through, but it's a tempered empathy. -(I quit being a Buddhist because I could not reconcile pacifism to reality.)
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 26, 2010, 00:52 (5172 days ago) @ xeno6696
edited by unknown, Sunday, September 26, 2010, 00:57
I am ex-military, have been to war, have had my friends killed, and seen many many innocent people die, including women and children. The one great fortune I can claim is that I never had to put a bullet in another human. Threat of violence was enough. I admit that I have a very strong aversion to violence of any sort. That tends to happen when you are nose to nose with the aftermath of it. Ever seen what happens to a man ran over by a tank?-I was arguing the point about the Manhattan project from a species standpoint, not political. How do we justify the slaughter? "We got them before they got us?" "They killed a few thousand of our soldiers and some civilians, so we wiped out two civilian cities?" "We split the atom because we could, built the bomb because we were told to, but have no responsibility for the damage caused by it?" We spend as much, if not more, money and time learning how to obliterate ourselves more efficiently than we do learning how to cure our illnesses.
Genetic Variation
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 26, 2010, 01:41 (5172 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I am ex-military, have been to war, have had my friends killed, and seen many many innocent people die, including women and children. The one great fortune I can claim is that I never had to put a bullet in another human. Threat of violence was enough. I admit that I have a very strong aversion to violence of any sort. That tends to happen when you are nose to nose with the aftermath of it. Ever seen what happens to a man ran over by a tank? > -No, but I worked in an ER for four years and can tell you what happens when you don't wear a motorcycle helmet! The worse part of the tank issue is that at some point some poor fool will have to clean it... -> I was arguing the point about the Manhattan project from a species standpoint, not political. How do we justify the slaughter? "We got them before they got us?" "They killed a few thousand of our soldiers and some civilians, so we wiped out two civilian cities?" "We split the atom because we could, built the bomb because we were told to, but have no responsibility for the damage caused by it?" We spend as much, if not more, money and time learning how to obliterate ourselves more efficiently than we do learning how to cure our illnesses.-Our policymakers took responsibility for our actions. I am not arguing that we don't have a responsibility to our fellow man, but that pacifism (like communism) can ONLY function if every last person on earth adheres to it. We know this is not an option. -Oppenheimer especially felt awful after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, enough that he eventually committed suicide. However, the slaughter is justified because as pearly as we like to make ourselves out to be, humans are killers just as much as we are "civilized." Denying that slaughter is in our nature denies us the right to do something about it. -At the same time, consquentialist ethics also plays a part here; but you're also mistaking a time of war as a time when men behave rationally. You never had to kill (thankfully) but because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many less people had to bear that burden as well. Less people died. And as a result, by the 1990's we feared that the Japanese were going to take us over commercially.-You also think that Japan had a similar propensity for "civilized warfare" (always thought that term stupid) that we had. They did not. If you're dealing with an enemy that is impossible to demoralize, and thinks is invincible, the only way to deal with them is to utterly shatter that illusion. An invasion wouldn't have done that job. If you beg to differ, I'm willing to entertain that scenario.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 26, 2010, 02:02 (5172 days ago) @ xeno6696
What it all boils down to for me, is that we always, whether in war or business, use the ends justify the means. Under that paradigm, we can justify anything. I could justify going on a full scale blood bath, killing every aids victim in the world with the justification that killing those millions of people would keep the disease from spreading to millions more. And, worst case scenario, if I didn't get them all, I would still be saving someone else's life. Or perhaps, knowing about genetic inheritance, we should kill everyone with a genetic disease so that they couldn't pass it on to their unborn offspring. All of this falls under the same logic as we know we will not be able to keep aids patients from screwing around or genetically diseased people from breeding.
Genetic Variation
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 26, 2010, 18:08 (5172 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
What it all boils down to for me, is that we always, whether in war or business, use the ends justify the means. Under that paradigm, we can justify anything. I could justify going on a full scale blood bath, killing every aids victim in the world with the justification that killing those millions of people would keep the disease from spreading to millions more. And, worst case scenario, if I didn't get them all, I would still be saving someone else's life. Or perhaps, knowing about genetic inheritance, we should kill everyone with a genetic disease so that they couldn't pass it on to their unborn offspring. All of this falls under the same logic as we know we will not be able to keep aids patients from screwing around or genetically diseased people from breeding.-Right, but my point was that especially in times of crisis, Consequentialist ethics always rears its head. It's part and parcel of who we are--humans are by nature a tribal people. We always make distinctions about the other "tribe." -But in the business of war and international conflict, the ONLY thing that motivates other tribes to stay in line is to carry that big stick. The only way for any nation to hold on to power is to be the one holding the biggest stick. Rome. Byzantine. Pontus. Spain. France. England. The Ottomans. All of these nations fell when they were unable to maintain their military presence. The same will happen to us, if we're not proactive.-To me you're arguing over the ideal of how humans "should" be vs. how we actually are. Say we never initiated the Manhattan Project. Lets say we just decided that we couldn't do it because we could predict the forces unleashed would kill billions. I promise you, we would be speaking Russian. By dropping the bomb on Hiroshima, we gave a clear example of what could possibly happen if you crossed us, and the result was a Cold War instead of a real war where nuclear weapons were used indiscriminately. Again, I have empathy for the human costs, but it is a price that I would retrospectively pay again. Once science at large is ready for a
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Genetic Variation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 26, 2010, 19:59 (5171 days ago) @ xeno6696
Humans, as a race, will always no what the right thing to do is, but will be unable to do the right thing.
Genetic Variation
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, September 27, 2010, 11:35 (5171 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Humans, as a race, will always no what the right thing to do is, but will be unable to do the right thing.-That's a harsh judgment that asserts that an objective, universal "good" actually exists, and that it is possible for man (as a whole) to act in agreement to accomplish such a goal. -The only way this could happen is if the entire world shared the same culture and language. While to some extents this has been happening, it is clear by watching public opinion in the middle east, that it isn't possible for complete cultural assimilation across the world without force. -I prefer to keep my goals for mankind to those that can be reached. -I'm sorry to keep this discussion up when you appear finished with it, but I think you hold mankind to a higher standard than what you would hold yourself to. When is it acceptable to kill?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Genetic Variation
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Sunday, September 26, 2010, 20:33 (5171 days ago) @ xeno6696
xeno: But in the business of war and international conflict, the ONLY thing that motivates other tribes to stay in line is to carry that big stick. The only way for any nation to hold on to power is to be the one holding the biggest stick.-This doctrine of "might is right" is false. Power does not come only in the form of a big stick. Knowledge, Organisation, Wealth, Control of strategic points, Psychology, Benevolence, and no doubt many other factors, can all come into play.
--
GPJ
Genetic Variation
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, September 27, 2010, 04:30 (5171 days ago) @ George Jelliss
xeno: But in the business of war and international conflict, the ONLY thing that motivates other tribes to stay in line is to carry that big stick. The only way for any nation to hold on to power is to be the one holding the biggest stick. > > This doctrine of "might is right" is false. Power does not come only in the form of a big stick. Knowledge, Organisation, Wealth, Control of strategic points, Psychology, Benevolence, and no doubt many other factors, can all come into play.-Right. We beat the Soviets because we were gentle. I don't buy that at all.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Genetic Variation
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Sunday, September 26, 2010, 20:21 (5171 days ago) @ xeno6696
xeno: Oppenheimer especially felt awful after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, enough that he eventually committed suicide. -I don't know where you got this from. As a matter of correcting the record, he died from throat cancer 22 years after the end of the war:-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer#Final_years-"A chain smoker since early adulthood, Robert Oppenheimer was diagnosed with throat cancer in late 1965, and after inconclusive surgery, underwent radiation treatment by cobalt gamma rays and high energy electrons, then finally chemotherapy late in 1966. These were not curative, and the tumor spread to his palate, affecting his swallowing, hearing, and breathing.[24] He died at his home in Princeton, New Jersey, USA in February 1967, at age 62." -His daughter committed suicide, perhaps that's where the confusion came from.
--
GPJ
Genetic Variation
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, September 27, 2010, 04:32 (5171 days ago) @ George Jelliss
xeno: Oppenheimer especially felt awful after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, enough that he eventually committed suicide. > > I don't know where you got this from. As a matter of correcting the record, he died from throat cancer 22 years after the end of the war: > -I probably got that somewhere deep in the 'net. I normally fact-check before I post; the result is looking like an ass. -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer#Final_years > > "A chain smoker since early adulthood, Robert Oppenheimer was diagnosed with throat cancer in late 1965, and after inconclusive surgery, underwent radiation treatment by cobalt gamma rays and high energy electrons, then finally chemotherapy late in 1966. These were not curative, and the tumor spread to his palate, affecting his swallowing, hearing, and breathing.[24] He died at his home in Princeton, New Jersey, USA in February 1967, at age 62." > > His daughter committed suicide, perhaps that's where the confusion came from.-I could see that too. Either way I was wrong.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"