Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 26 Oct 2006 11:27 MooseFET wrote: > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > Do you have any evidence that human societies were a herd-style > > where only one male was allowed to remain in the pack? > > It is not needed. Take a look at many of the apes or wolves. Only the > high status members get to breed. In wolves it applies to both sexes. > In apes it is mostly males. The bonobo is very much an exception to > this. The bonobos are apparently our closest cousins. Graham
From: John Larkin on 26 Oct 2006 11:27 On 26 Oct 2006 00:49:23 -0700, |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: > >> But the serious point here is that you have declared that how you >> evaluate an idea depends on the deference with which it is presented. >> That doesn't sound very scientific to me. > >If you can present a viable theory that makes testable predictions then >you stand a chance of getting somewhere. Arguing against evolution on >the basis that it conflicts with your religion will win you no friends >at all on the science groups. I have no religion and I am arguing *for* evolution. But I'm mostly exploring how emotions affect intellectual processing and creativity; the news there looks mostly grim. John
From: John Larkin on 26 Oct 2006 11:28 On 26 Oct 2006 10:42:03 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic(a)aon.at> wrote: >John Larkin wrote: > >> horsepower to manage a bit of self-tuning. Where's the rule that says >> evolution can shape an organism but can't affect evolution itself? > > >You are dangerous contemporaries. > > > You are a random word generator. John
From: Eeyore on 26 Oct 2006 11:28 John Larkin wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > > > >> > Haven't you ever wondered why he hadn't if they [Clinton's anti-terror > >> plans] were so > comprehensive and complete and effective? > >> > >> He did, some of them, while he was in office. Implementation of these > >> things takes time. Bush was unable to do anything in 9 months > > > >Because he was too busy taking time off to play golf. > > Clinton played a lot more golf, and cheated. He didn't take as much time off though. How do you cheat at golf btw ? Graham
From: John Larkin on 26 Oct 2006 11:32
On Thu, 26 Oct 06 12:35:18 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <a3vuj2hfpuisafeuk8g5tkrkakgtkmo0ca(a)4ax.com>, > John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>On Wed, 25 Oct 06 10:04:47 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>In article <vb4qj29r3tpr4ctnhbffuumsdgpj704mf8(a)4ax.com>, >>> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: ><snip> > >>>>There's all sorts of interesting stuff. Some people are born with six >>>>fully functional fingers on each hand. So "finger" must be some sort >>>>of parameterized macro, and "mirror image" must be an operation, and >>>>there must be some sort of installation crew that hooks everything up >>>>so that it all works. >>>> >>>>Aircraft parts were classicly identified by drawing number and dash >>>>number. If a part were, say, 123456-1A (the basic part defined by >>>>drawing 123456 rev A), it was automatically assumed that 123456-2A was >>>>its mirror image. >>> >>>Yep. JMF worked with a guy whose hobby was studying that kind >>>of genetic stuff. He gave JMF a video tape that was considering >>>a hypothesis that the mechanism of making the fingers, etc. >>>was mechanical. I had never considered that before. >>> >>>/BAH >> >> >>Which brings up the interesting idea of studying heritable birth >>defects, which could be assumed to be true mutations. Are heritable >>physical defects ever asymmetric? > >I don't know what you mean with the word asymmetric. I've forgotten >almost all of my biology. > Classic left-right mirror bodily image stuff. Like having six fingers on one hand and five on the other. That would tell us something about how structures are encoded. I think heritable mutations themselves are rare, symmetric or not. John |