Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Debunking creationist myths      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 318
Debunking creationist mythsPage 16 of 24    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)


That life exists, whether or not the theory of evolution is true? Yes. That life would definitely have occured if the theory of evolution is true? Not proved at all. Just assumed.


Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis so your line of argumentation isn't even wrong. Evolution can only occur after life already exists, and it doesn't make a spit's worth of difference how life came into existence.



That CHANGE has been observed? Yes. That was observed thousands of years before Darwin. That the theory of evolution was developed into an exact predictive set of formulae, and all them were tested accurately against the data, in a black-or-white quantitative way? Nope. Not been done at all. It's all very hazily treated, qualitatively, rather than quantitatively.


Did anyone say that Darwin invented evolution?

Do me a favor. Calculate the numbers that are going to come up in the next lottery. If you can't then obviously the lottery doesn't exist.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 319
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 11:44:29 PM
POF is populated with such, don't you know ? but don't be silly; colonies and symbionts, and suchlike - not individuals - as individuals don't have fingers that can type on keyboards.


http://fliiby.com/file/244372/t2eh5jgbvv.html
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 320
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 11:48:08 PM


His greatest accomplishment in that regard appears to have been constructs appearing to support Parson's Toroidal Ring Model of the Electron. Unfortunately for him, later experiments tended to validate the Standard Model and a lack of ringlike substructure for the Electron. So empirical observation relegated his greatest(?) acheivement to the dustbin.


I had the (mis)fortune of reading his book on the subject. On at least two occassions he claimed that a neutron decays into a proton, electron, and neutrino. A neutron actually decays into a proton, electron, and anti-neutrino. This may seem like a small difference but in particle physics it's not. His work is sloppy because he knows that most Creationists won't recognize it as sloppy.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 321
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/30/2009 12:01:33 AM
Reason ya can't tell what them ol' lottery numbers will be is because the process is random. Ain't no "quorum" or "orchestratin' a goin' on betwixt them numbers, ya see ..
or perhaps "Quorum", the "Hydra" feels that it's not random enough. A decision is sure to follow.
http://www.math.mcmaster.ca/fred/TheStar.com.2006.10.26.pdf

Brainman gambling by shape of number and feel of number


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqLzoiVzEY8&feature=channel
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 322
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/30/2009 12:05:22 AM


Now, suppose I do not have any children, my parents never get any grandchildren. I get fossilized...Am I transitional in the same way , then ? Between my parents and my kids ? No.

How would I be "transitional" in that case , in a way that is showing Evolution to be true ?


In that case we could look at the broader picture of you being a homo sapiens. Suppose in 100,000 years homo sapiens have evolved into homo superior. Even though you never had children your fossil would still be a transitional fossil between homo erectus and homo superior simply by being a member of a species intermediate between homo erectus and homo superior.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 323
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/30/2009 12:08:16 AM

In that case we could look at the broader picture of you being a homo sapiens. Suppose in 100,000 years homo sapiens have evolved into homo superior. Even though you never had children your fossil would still be a transitional fossil between homo erectus and homo superior simply by being a member of a species intermediate between homo erectus and homo superior.
So now a change in the meaning of "transitional" as to the fossil evidences. For this one, now, please explain which definition of "species" are you now using ?
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 324
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/30/2009 12:14:04 AM
no, in this case, of detectin' cheatin'
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 325
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/30/2009 12:27:20 AM
Did the numbers cheat? Or did the vendors? Read your own article, darnit.
Krebs, don' get off'n yer cycle jes yet. Ye ain't yet passed yersel last Tuesday on de backpedal.

The vendors were cheating, Cholmondeley.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 326
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/30/2009 12:37:18 AM
Ya, so them ol numbers weren't a conspiring, and having town hall meetin's to reach a quorum and what not.
of course da numbers wasn't. we was talkin'bout livin' tings doin' dis'n'dat, wasn't we, Cousin Schlitzie ?
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 327
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/30/2009 12:43:47 AM
get ready to let da "ring" sing Krebby's "retension" issues. That is a highly constipated..scratch...highly anticipated return to the Kreb-shaped hole.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 328
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/30/2009 12:51:47 AM
Kindly explain your retension issues for us. Is that something you felt was an issue being neglected, and so you add it on, # 2 being partially reiterated as # 3, for emphasis ?
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 329
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/30/2009 1:05:27 AM
jes scratchin da surface, Cholmondeley.
Now hol' still, an' stop da squirmin. Or we'll be releasin' da bandicoots to open 'er up.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 330
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/30/2009 1:35:21 AM
see if them badicoots come aroun'
we's not jawin' 'bout Bad Cooties, Cholmondeley. Bandicoots. 'em 'll go nuke-ular at a whiff.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 331
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/30/2009 2:00:15 AM
The procedure will take about half an hour, on your next visit. The receptionist at the desk will help set up an appointment, day and time when you can be available. The nurse will give you the prep medicines. Eat no food in the prior 24 hours.
Anything else ?
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 332
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/30/2009 2:27:20 AM
We have to be prepared for any eventuality, you know.
No telling if the bandicoots find foil-wrapped potatoes or that hamster from the kegger in 2004.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 333
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/30/2009 6:26:59 AM

Good Mornin'
Good Morning to you, Krebby ! Here we will be looking at whether or not retension is anything not already covered.

Interesting question.
...I think that what you mean by "learning" is actually "adaptability to munificence." Munificence is, hmm, think of it as "an inviting environment." .... There's no actual "learning" there, but rather, a process, a more mechanical process at work -- evolution. New "variation" occurred (ironically introduced by man), which was "selected for" on account of the munificence of the new environment.... whether "retention"for the fire ant will also dwindle -- them suckers are destroying their very environment, and dwindling in numbers as well, in areas that they occupy.
"Retension" in this case referring to population or even species in some cases ? Is it not already "retained" within individuals before they eat themselves out of home ?




But, what if them horned toads, a core segment of them, had possessed some genetic feature that made them survive the onslaught of the fire ants? This goes back to your question of whether they can "adapt based on information they already have.

Well, now you have two groups. The horned toads that have the feature that allows them to live with them fire ants, and also the group that does not have that genetic feature. Maybe its a genetic feature that allows them to make a mighty fine meal out of them fire ants. Now the horned toads done turned the tables on them fire ants -- munificence is reversed in this case.
Not a nice niche ? How does this differ from any other explanation of Evolution, that does not include "retension" specified as last bit of the process?



Is this rather fortunate turn of events based on "not evolving?" Of course not, because some of the horned toad population died off -- "selection" against
In this case, the individual is being selected on.


and the ones with the genetic feature, on the other hand thrived, based on their "variation" being different than the ones who died.
Survival could, however, be dependant on a learned behaviour being transmitted, either through learning ( birdsong) , or encoding. so we could see behaviourt such as clay eating detox, seen in birds and mammals when dining on poisonous seeds. If it is behaviour appearing for the first time in that population, then we have opportunity for genetic change that will follow up o that phenotype and enter a competitive system that is practically custom made for that phenotype's bettered survival odds - or if completely protecting from the toxin, then only having cyclic problems with munificence of clay resources.
Even in the absence of the food toxin, the evolutionary pathway to that phenoptype may remain fixed and available.




They were then "selected for" and "retained,"
Either case fits.. selected for DNA encoded behavour or learned behaviour .



at least as long as the environment does not come up with another surprise. Maybe, say, 3% of the horned toads had that genetic feature (variation), and now, it's being "selected for" by the new environment (feasting on fire ants). It still has to be "retained," == carried into the future.
But that is not anything different than we just went through. there is no separate action other than selection, being demonstrated.


. married in a $20,000 church weddin' and have offspring. (jes joshin'on the church weddin' thang -- them horned toads know better than that on accounta then they would have to deal with the in-laws).
OK > That's a difference. :)



So, then, evolution must be considered from a perspective that lends itself to capturing a relatively great span of time. I suppose that you can "emulate" the life span of little microbes, viruses, what have you in sterile labs. I reckon in a way that that might be considered a form of studying evolution -- but again, "sterile labs" are not the same thing as the greater complexity of natural environments.
But not a totally different either. It's a different complex, but not a differing complexity. A lab is a natural environment; everything is natural.

"Adaptation" always goes on, whether we detect it or not. Some genetic, ah, information, if you will, may exist with nothing much going on; however, at some other time
Or, some non-DNA information ( one which makes all the difference) may exist.

Krebby ? Yes or no ? A behaviour such a clay eating, even if done for the first time within a flock, will do the trick...DNA retension be damned.

:)
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 334
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/30/2009 7:29:49 AM
Now wasn't that painless? The Bandicoots we use in our clinic are precision surgeons.
You see, removal of an obstruction to understanding is their job.
Everyone has obstructions due to our biologicalness.

Be they an obstruction due to not having read the paper this morning - hence not being updated - or due to not being in school for a few years, or an obstruction due to biases, known or unknown which do serve as filters, or an obstruction as between Mendel's understandings, and Darwin's - an obstruction due to lack of media for transmission of findings, worldwide.

Since behavioural phenotype alone can be what is better for the selected-for individual or flock, nothing else matters.
Global Warming being a nice example. Either way it was our learned behaviours....almost visibly being seen to end many species and perhaps by prediction through analysis, we can "see" our own , within our lifetime or childrens' lifetime.

Or our behavour might save a few asses.
Even one individual, one accidental connection of neurons, if successful, could reverse the trend.
It certainly seems to be coming down to either DNA Encoding Change, or Acquired Behavioural Change ...which would be more likely to find the milleu of munificence, for Homo sapiens, within the century ?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 335
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/30/2009 8:30:06 AM
RE Msg: 536 by CountIbli:

That life exists, whether or not the theory of evolution is true? Yes. That life would definitely have occured if the theory of evolution is true? Not proved at all. Just assumed.
Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis so your line of argumentation isn't even wrong.
Sorry. My statement wasn't clear enough for you. It should have said:

That life exists, whether or not the theory of evolution is true? Yes. That life would definitely have occured in the way that the theory of evolution claims, if the theory of evolution is true? Not proved at all. Just assumed.

That was a given for me, since we are discussing evolution, not abiogenesis. But I guess things might have to be spelled out for you.

Evolution can only occur after life already exists, and it doesn't make a spit's worth of difference how life came into existence.
Well, not if you really don't care how species came to be, not humans, not apes, not anything. But if you do care how species came to be, then it's probably extremely important to you.


That CHANGE has been observed? Yes. That was observed thousands of years before Darwin. That the theory of evolution was developed into an exact predictive set of formulae, and all them were tested accurately against the data, in a black-or-white quantitative way? Nope. Not been done at all. It's all very hazily treated, qualitatively, rather than quantitatively.
Did anyone say that Darwin invented evolution?
Not any more than anyone claimed that Newton invented gravity, and that before 1687, that the laws of science didn't operate according to gravity. But is it true that Darwin was the one to present such a theory to the masses, just like Newton did? Yes. Is it true that Newton claimed that gravity existed before 1687, just like Darwin claimed that life developed according to evolutionary principles before 1859? Yes. So, does Newton's theory have to be consistent with all the observations of humanity before 1687? Definitely. Otherwise, Newton's claim would be false. So, does Darwin's theory have to be consistent with all the observations of humanity before 1859? Definitely. Otherwise, Darwin's claim would be false.

Do me a favor. Calculate the numbers that are going to come up in the next lottery. If you can't then obviously the lottery doesn't exist.
A = "lottery exists". B = "lottery numbers are generated according to certain principles that you claim to be the ones that generated them". Your claim is that "B is unknown, so A is false". Obviously wrong. A could be true or false, and we would have no way of proving that A is true, by using B, because B is unknown, and therefore, we cannot prove anything, not A, or B.

A = "life was generated according to certain principles that you claim to be the ones that generated them". B = "those principles make exact qualitative claims, that can be tested, and have been tested to be right. Your claim would equally be that "B is unknown, so A is false". Obviously wrong. A could be true or false, and we would have no way of proving that A is true, by using B, because B is unknown, and therefore, we cannot prove anything, not A, or B.

To be honest, I was shocked that you'd made such obvious mistakes in logic. Even when I was in high school, we'd have just laughed at anyone who made such glaring errors, even just as a joke. It's ridiculous.

RE Msg: 518 by Krebby2001:

FYI, I wasn't trying to claim that science is evil. I was trying to point out that there are many who have concerns about science. You might believe that their claims are unfounded. Fair enough. But then, if they are worried about something causing harm to people, it's only natural that they will speak out against it. It's then the job of those who are "in the know" to allay their fears, and to give them information that convinces nearly all of those people that their concerns are merely due to a lack of information on their part. They don't HAVE to do that. But if they don't, then those people will not have any choice but to continue in their thinking, and to oppose it to the the hilt. If those "in the know" think that they HAVE given enough information, but the majority of the concerned are unconvinced, then clearly, they haven't been given enough information, or that the information has not been presented to them in a way that does make it clear. Either way, it results in the same conclusion. People are afraid, and science is stopped.

A good example of this is how the scientific community handled the Seroxat scandal, and how they handled the Thalidomide scandal. Seroxat was given to lots of depressed people, and it resulted in many more suicides and family murders. It later transpired that this was known to be a factor in Seroxat by the manufacturers, but they suppressed this knowledge. So Seroxat was seen as dangerous for all, and rightly so.

To my knowledge, Thalidomide is extremely harmful when given to pregnant women, but not to anyone else. Thalidomide was given to lots of people, some of them pregnant women, and it resulted in many more cases of pregnant women giving birth to children without limbs, but no problems for anyone else. It later transpired that this was known to be a factor in Thalidomide by the manufacturers, but they suppressed this knowledge. So the sensible thing would have been to ban the prescription of Thalidomide to pregnant women, and not to anyone else, just like plenty of other drugs that are known to be extremely harmful to foetuses, which aren't banned for anyone but to pregnant women. Instead, Thalidomide was seen as dangerous for all, and banned for all.

That's bad science. It doesn't always result in harm. But it often does, because now, a lot of people would have gained great benefits from the use of Thalidomide, and now they can't.

The same is true of evolution. If evolution is treated like Thalidomide, where no-one worries about where it can harm and where it cannot harm, then we are forced to one of 2 options: let everyone use it, and let lots of foetuses be harmed by it, or let no-one use it.

That's the current state of play of evolution. Evolution is like Thalidomide. For the vast majority of cases, it's not harmful. But in the very few cases where it is, like Thalidomide is for foetuses, it is seriously harmful. But because no-one seems to be addressing the concerns of those who have seen its harm, and are wary of it as a result, it is also being treated like any science that has harmful consequences for a few, but which is not limited to ensure that those harmful consequences are avoided at all costs. The only solution is to let everyone use it, and let no-one use it. Some side with one side, and some side with the other.

But that conflict was never necessary, and was easily preventable.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 336
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/30/2009 8:54:18 AM
I should send the bandicoots after this one...got it...removed an obstruction that I had, on communicating how it is that clay eating seen for even the first time, in a flock of poisoned animals, is the "saving grace".

It is for the individuals doing it ( even one individual ) who can save some of the flock's genetics and potential phenotypes (including arising of novel ones) for the future.
There is no tomorrow in this part of the scenario, though. It was a save of today.

What happens next could be anyone's guess.
But I think it's clear that a never-before-seen, aquired behaviour, can do the trick for today.

And that there is an environmental substrate set for it already, that will allow the clay eating bird to survive in more munificence, due to it's ability to eat both poisonous and non- poisonous foods.
Genetic changes reflecting the aquired behavour, any genetic changes that by CHANCE do happen, over the course of the acquired "song" lifetime, toward clay-eater populations, will be spot-on for surviving in that environmental ( only poisonous food left ) substrate (or landscaping of it).

By eating either food, it competes for non-poisonous food, against other individuals or groups or species.

As well, it survives when the non-posionous food availablility is not so rich an environmental input.

So even if learned like a song...the ones without that learned song, die en masse sometimes.

Evolution.

Or maybe that clay-eating was an encoded-for possibility, an already tried a mostly disused evolutionary pathway, since before the flock was a flock of fish, but something merely NOT SEEN by humans before, in those birds.

gotta not sell, and stay open.

If however, genetic change happens by chance, toward a selectively clay eater bird, that genetic change of tendency will be potentiated in effect, as the behviour is already happening for survival ( day by day) anyway.

Now it would be a heritable trait, in the sense of "genes" rather than any limited length kind of song. So any survivors of catastrophe could produce clay eater offspring, whether they had learned the song or not.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 337
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/30/2009 9:39:22 AM
The "clay" eating phenotype - yes, there can be "eating" phenotypes too - might at first be present only upon learning the clay eating "song", or lesson.

That's why it's important to distinguish "phenotype" as sometimes a momentary thing, or sometimes a "permanent" thing, vis a vis any mention of it as "phenotype".

I'm identifying it as a momentary thing at first. Bite by bite.

So disaster can still happen, with only a learned behaviour as sole saving grace.

How many "clay" eating phenomes do we see...yes, we do see a diversity of animals displaying the permanent phenotype.

Homo sapiens being one. If you've ever taken milk of magnesia kind of antacid, you're "It".

Learned, but seemingly omnipresent wherever suitable clay is found as part of the munificence granted by the landscape.



pharmacognosy

http://books.google.ca/books?id=KwYIsLRyDp4C&pg=PT39&lpg=PT39&dq=clay+pharmacognosy&source=bl&ots=8fOsSolB_0&sig=a-gDs2aZz7xtFRIAvSnBN31bqig&hl=en&ei=2QQUS_mdOo7hlAfp_tyeBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false


zoopharmacognosy

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/clever-monkeys/monkeys-and-medicinal-plants/3957/


Primates also have to deal with intestinal parasites. Tamarins have been known to swallow large seeds that in effect dislodge and sweep worms out of their intestinal tract. This practice markedly decreases the parasitic load within their intestines. Other monkeys experience bouts of diarrhea brought on by parasites and viruses. The bonnet macaques of Southern India have taken to eating dirt from termite mounds. Why eat dirt from termite mounds? The dirt contains kaolin minerals, the same ingredient found in over the counter anti-diarrhetics such as Kaopectate. Rhesus macaques also partake in geophagy, the eating of dirt, for the same reasons. Clay also contains kaolin, and the rhesus macaques take extra care to only ingest clay-rich soils. Like the white-faced capuchins, which only select plants for fur-rubbing with insecticide properties, the macaques selectively choose the right kinds of dirt to sooth their stomachs.

Because their leafy diets contain high levels of cyanide, many monkeys, like the black and white colobus in Clever Monkeys, suffer from indigestion. The discovery by red colobus monkeys that eating charcoal absorbs the cyanide and relieves indigestion was revolutionary. The practice is transmitted from mother to infant by imitation. Knowledge is passed from generation to generation, just as the most tested and true remedies have been passed down by earlier generations of humans. With the toxins being absorbed, the red colobus monkeys are free to eat a wider array of plants that have a high nutritional value and are easily digested. The birth rates in red colobus monkeys that eat charcoal have exploded, proving an evolutionary advantage to self-medicating. It is their clever mind, their curiosity, and their novelty that have made them successful. The same could be said about us.

 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 338
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/30/2009 10:21:12 AM


Sorry. My statement wasn't clear enough for you. It should have said:

That life exists, whether or not the theory of evolution is true? Yes. That life would definitely have occured in the way that the theory of evolution claims, if the theory of evolution is true? Not proved at all. Just assumed.

That was a given for me, since we are discussing evolution, not abiogenesis. But I guess things might have to be spelled out for you.


That still does make any sense because evolution has nothing to do with how life came to be. It doesn't make any claim about how life occurred.



Well, not if you really don't care how species came to be, not humans, not apes, not anything. But if you do care how species came to be, then it's probably extremely important to you.


How the different species came to be is a completely different question. Evolution starts once life starts and then produces the different forms of life that we see. Whether that first life arose from a chemical soup or was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster makes no difference to evolution.



A = "lottery exists". B = "lottery numbers are generated according to certain principles that you claim to be the ones that generated them". Your claim is that "B is unknown, so A is false". Obviously wrong. A could be true or false, and we would have no way of proving that A is true, by using B, because B is unknown, and therefore, we cannot prove anything, not A, or B.

A = "life was generated according to certain principles that you claim to be the ones that generated them". B = "those principles make exact qualitative claims, that can be tested, and have been tested to be right. Your claim would equally be that "B is unknown, so A is false". Obviously wrong. A could be true or false, and we would have no way of proving that A is true, by using B, because B is unknown, and therefore, we cannot prove anything, not A, or B.

To be honest, I was shocked that you'd made such obvious mistakes in logic. Even when I was in high school, we'd have just laughed at anyone who made such glaring errors, even just as a joke. It's ridiculous.


I'm just applying your logic for rejecting evolution to the lottery. Evolution, like the lottery, exists whether there's an exact formula for it or not.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 339
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/30/2009 10:41:23 AM
the rat neurons, self-organizing and then later, not crashing on the flight simulator ? Not good enough deut-cheerios for ya ?

the ability to gain internet information and decide to place it contextually into working systems seems to me, a deutcheerio morning bite
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 340
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/30/2009 10:51:36 AM
In our stage of development, behaviours about clay eating , are heavily influenced by other behavours, such as market strategies for advertizing products; whether you take calcium or magnesium label product, chewable or liquid, antacid intended or detox intended, all of those quite clearly, are now affected by advertizing.. and as well as advertizing or market strategies, colour of product is inherently important to us, as is texture and palatability of the clay.

However, even though we have some perhaps innate "sensual" preferences for kinds of clay product, market place behaviours of humans in selling and buying. is affecting phenotype frequencies for clay eating in humans and for some of our animals. And by removing some of the clay from it's originating locale, we remove some of it from the "non-civilized" environment, initiating other cascades of events.

The discussion swings this way or that only on the philosophical hinge of the Deterministic approach
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 341
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/30/2009 11:54:19 AM
gotta develop yore, ah, other side of the brain -- deutero learnin' -- look it up on the innernet --- that'll hep out. Otherwise, why, you'll always be gettin stuck in minutae.

I have to thank you for mentioning it.
There is an article " Bateson on Deutero-Learning and Double-Bind" that is extraordinary and fitting.
 worldtraveller74
Joined: 5/10/2011
Msg: 342
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 7/9/2011 12:44:53 PM
Bahahahahah creationism.
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Debunking creationist myths