ok lets start with a carbon based life form

Post #133,757 by boxley 1/5/04 9:09:27 PM Reply	ok lets start with a carbon based life form that from amoeba to humans that share a basic building block that happens to be in supply around here. Now lets zoom in on Bill taking a dump in a field in Alaska without a shovel. First the flies find it followed by a fox to check out the big stuff. Flies lay eggs that hatch into larvae creating new life. The fox takes sick and dies making food for the ravens. Now did Bill design the life that followed his dump? Yes if by design meaning he didnt want the load in his pants squishing all the way to anchorage. Now chaos theory (as understood by the simple) is that systems decay from organised into chaos, this particular chain of rock seems to be rather stoutly organised from the bottom strand DNA to the top (man and frogs share amazing amounts of strands) We should be seeing a silicone based life system at war with the carbon based. We should have velocorapters driving cabs for chimpanzees. We dont. We have a simple take over or die out in the event in 80% of the lifeforms on the planet. In only isolated places is organization practicing decay, the rest are basing a formal global takeover. Now are we a nugget from some cosmic turd or a science experiment. Either way I beleive in design. thanx, bill stick a spork in it. questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #133,851 by ben_tilly 1/6/04 11:46:40 AM Reply	Chaos theory as misunderstood, you mean? Science is like programming in that you can't just make shit up and expect it to work. Chaos theory says that many systems are incredibly sensitive to initial conditions, two very similar systems will quickly become different. Which is why weather prediction becomes hard, miss anything (eg a butterfly flapping its wings) and the clouds wind up in different places. This has dick-all to do with saying that organization inevitably descends into chaos. Furthermore while silicon (note, silicon is not silicone) based life-forms are a nice piece of science fiction, at the temperature that the Earth is at, silicon doesn't like to get involved in complex chemical compounds. It just sits there in sand. That's why we don't see silicon-based life. And I have no idea what fantasy you pulled velocrapters driving cabs for chimps out of. Well I have a vague idea, but I thought that you could tell the difference between Jurassic Park and reality. Do you have any more non-sequitors to crap on this forum? Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #133,856 by jake123 1/6/04 12:01:42 PM Reply	More non-sequiteurs Gerbils! Gerbils and Peruvian Flake! --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #133,858 by admin 1/6/04 12:03:06 PM Reply	Body piercings don't have this kind of torque, though. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #133,863 by jb4 1/6/04 12:23:50 PM Reply	ICLRPD! (new thread) Created as new thread #133862 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=133862\|ICLRPD!] jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating that facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #133,950 by boxley 1/6/04 8:21:54 PM Reply	large phlem dripping from a donkeys ass Science is like programming in that you can't just make shit up and expect it to work. you want to adjust that statement? I have spent an entire profitable career following behind people who thought just like that. Forget jurrasic park think Mario Brothers Chaos theory says that many systems are incredibly sensitive to initial conditions, two very similar systems will quickly become different. Which is why weather prediction becomes hard, miss anything (eg a butterfly flapping its wings) and the clouds wind up in different places. lets use that statement and examine neanderthal vs homos, too very similar systems that merged not separated. Look at our current scientific knowledge about DNA typing, you think there was no design in how that evolved? Lets use a non designed point of view for a moment. Is it your opinion that disimularities did not survive and only blended componant systems did until we arrive at todays species? Dont forget when I insisted in the seventies that birds and dinosaurs were related I was branded a loon. Now that is acceptable scientific thought. So either one ascribes todays world as an cumulation of accidents and mutations that has a single atomic key while insisting that our politics is being orchestrated by a cabal and there is no such thing as coincidence. I find such arguments amusing (not accusing you of sharing these thoughts) I postulate that certain ancient texts describe things common to todays world as being in place eons ago. I also think that we live on a seeded planet. That is my belief sustained by examination of human and animal events and behaviors as well as some geographic knowledge. thanx,m bill stick a spork in it. questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #133,965 by ben_tilly 1/6/04 9:29:19 PM 1/6/04 10:10:06 PM Reply	I'll amend that statement You're right. You can make shit up and expect it to work. But it generally won't, or if it does, then not well. And anyone competent that you run across won't think much of your droppings. Now let's run through your current list of non sequiturs. You claim that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens merged, not seperated. Last that I checked, there was active debate on whether they were one species that interbred or two with Neanderthals being wiped out. Whichever was the case, this has dick-all to do with weather. DNA typing, no I don't think that there was external design. Why should I? I can't make heads or tails of your comment about "disimularities" versus "blended componant systems". Unless I know what you mean by that, I can't answer. On insisting in the seventies that birds and dinosaurs were related, that was a debate that had been carried on from the 1800's on. In the 70's the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs got a lot more support, leading to its becoming the favoured hypothesis. Today there are still people arguing that birds are descended from something closer to a crocodile, but most paleontologists think that they are descended from birds. Of course the popular press oversimplifies, and so through most of the 1900's (when the bird theory was thought to be wrong) they would dogmatically report that birds aren't dinosaurs. Today they dogmatically report that birds are dinosaurs. Also note that scientists are sometimes just flat-out wrong. While the process of science in the long-run tends to be very solid, at any point in time its results are far less so. As for ascribing the world etc, enjoy your amusement. Evolution is a directed stochastic process (the direction is towards having lots of surviving descendents). Your postulates are on worse ground. All surviving ancient texts happened within a geological blink of the eye. Depending on what you mean by "seeded", the world might be. (It has been hypothesized that key organic compounds for starting life came from comets. I don't buy it, but biogenesis is something we know next to nothing about, so we can't rule it out.) On your final belief, I note some (unintentional) honesty. You omitted reasoning from causes for your belief. That fits the stream of conciousness that you have presented so far... Regards, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi] Edited by ben_tilly Jan. 6, 2004, 10:10:06 PM EST Expand All History
Post #133,968 by admin 1/6/04 10:02:32 PM Reply	NON SEQUITUR NGGGHGHGHGHGGGHHHHH! With a U! And NO hyphen! Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #133,971 by ben_tilly 1/6/04 10:12:02 PM Reply	Sorry, boxley's spelin is werng off N I warn't evuh gud. Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #134,159 by boxley 1/7/04 8:32:19 PM Reply	Of course, you have met me, do I act at all reasonable? readem and weep [link\|http://www.omniology.com/A-LittleFish.html\|http://www.omniology...A-LittleFish.html] Chen enjoys seeing his fossils get the attention. But to him, the big story is not that he has discovered our earliest traceable ancestor but that the Cambrian explosion of new body plans is proving to be real, not an illusion produced by an incomplete fossil record. Because new animal groups did not continue to appear after the Cambrian explosion 530 million years ago, he believes that a unique kind of evolution was going on in Cambrian seas. And, because his years of examining rocks from before the Cambrian period has not turned up viable ancestors for the Cambrian animal groups, he concludes that their evolution must have happened quickly, within a mere 2 or 3 million years. According to Chen, the two main forces of evolution espoused by neoDarwinism, natural selection ("survival of the fittest") and random genetic mutation, cannot account for the sudden emergence of so many new genetic forms. "Harmony can be a driving force [of evolution], too," Chen proposed at the Chengjiang conference. As if to underscore the abruptness of Haikouella's place in the fossil record, Chen pointed out the features that make Haikouella look so much more advanced than expected for an early Cambrian animal. Biologists had been expecting to see something that would look like a primitive ancestor to the middle Cambrian animal called Pikaia, formerly promoted as the world's earliest chordate. Rather than finding evidence that Pikaia had a lesscomplex ancestor, Chen instead found a chordate that already displayed many vertebrate characteristics 15 million years earlier. maybe if you read something besides Scientific AMERICAN you might be open to new ideas, thanx, bill stick a spork in it. questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #134,176 by a6l6e6x 1/7/04 9:12:17 PM Reply	But, I see no mention of extinctions. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=134135\|We just talked about one]. See also [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/science/AP-Death-From-the-Sun.html\|NY Times] version. -- The second-largest extinction in the Earth's history, the killing of two-thirds of all species, may have been caused by ultraviolet radiation from the sun after gamma rays destroyed the Earth's ozone layer. Astronomers are proposing that a supernova exploded within 10,000 light years of the Earth, destroying the chemistry of the atmosphere and allowing the sun's ultraviolet rays to cook fragile, unprotected life forms. All this happened some 440 million years ago and led to what is known as the Ordovician extinction, the second most severe of the planet's five great periods of extinction. o o o The Ordovician was the first of five great extinctions in history. The Devonian, 360 million years ago, killed 60 percent of all species; the Permian-Triassic, 250 million years ago, killed 90 percent of all life; the late Triassic, 220 million years ago, killed half of all species; and the Cretacious-Tertiary event destroyed the dinosaurs and half of all other species about 65 million years ago. These things shake up the dice considerably. Alex There is nothing that can be said by mathematical symbols and relations which cannot also be said by words. The converse, however, is false. Much that can be and is said by words cannot successfully be put into equations, because it is nonsense. -- Clifford Ambrose Truesdell (1919-2000)
Post #134,364 by ben_tilly 1/8/04 6:03:52 PM Reply	I've met you and you act like you don't give a shit I read your article. I've read enough articles that seriously misreport what scientists say to never accept quotes out of context. I've also read articles from scientists who are pissed off and frustrated over being constantly misquoted. That is so even when you don't add possible language difficulties (bad translations, etc) to the possibilities for misinterpretation. Plus we have the prospect of some hacks in The Communist Party who don't understand what they are talking about but see the opportunity for some publicity. Ugly mix. OK, it is in The Boston Globe, which limits how intentionally misreported things are. However my impression of reporters is that they generally don't understand the subject that they are reporting, and show a combination of looking for sensational angles to stories while doing as little actual work as possible. The result is not particularly accurate. In this particular case, Chen could easily have been talking about a classic gradualism vs rapid evolution debate, and his "harmony" could be rapid co-evolution. I don't know that. I don't have his papers available. But when I googled for more, the best that I could find was [link\|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&frame=right&rnum=1&thl=0,1624866489,1624808500,1624791143,1624782978,1624735252,1624726748,1624695954,1623996043,1624542267,1624524504,1624506909&seekm=dY%3DPN6LVWnCXP%3Dk2%3D1WQJoEhV3Te%404ax.com#link1\|this thread] which includes the quotes in the Globe article and lots of links to this paleontologist's work, all of which are now broken. However comments made in that thread suggest that people who got to put some context around the quotes felt that his conclusions were misinterpreted badly. Furthermore his conclusions could simply be wrong. For instance suppose that the Cambrian explosion took place in shallow seas around one continent over an extended time period. We don't have many deposits from that time, and so have no records from that continent. When drift pushed that continent near enough to others, the ecosystem exploded out. Voila! Tons of animals and no trace of ancestors anywhere that we can find! This becomes reasonable hypothesis when you consider that we have evidence that the end of the Pre-Cambrian saw a major continental collision, and all areas which we have record of saw massive ice in the Pre-Cambrian. Incidentally there are theories that might explain why evolution should be particularly rapid through the Cambrian explosion. For a random instance see [link\|http://pr.caltech.edu/media/lead/072497JLK.html\|this hypothesis]. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #134,373 by boxley 1/8/04 6:38:38 PM Reply	good link pole shifts can and do explain a lot stick a spork in it. questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #134,753 by broomberg 1/10/04 4:52:29 PM Reply	Hey - You can't do THAT! This is supposed to be flames. You take a position, stupid or not, and argue until someone dies. You can't even hint about the possibilty the the previous post was misguided. STICK TO YOUR POSITION DAMMIT! Or take the thread to someone like science.
Post #134,766 by boxley 1/10/04 8:32:36 PM Reply	naw busy trying to find the link where ben said he didnt think pole shifts took place, memory is going though, Although that link supports m position, ever try a potters wheel, try a cosmic one. thanx, bill stick a spork in it. questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #134,768 by ben_tilly 1/10/04 9:19:16 PM Reply	Dream on I think that there was such a discussion..but the pole shifts under discussion then were so different in time frames (both when they happened, and the speed with which they happened) that none of my objections apply to the article that I just linked on the pre-Cambrian. But feel free to dream that somewhere there is a post that says whatever you want it to. Just don't confuse that with reality. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #134,780 by boxley 1/10/04 10:10:17 PM Reply	a squint in yer eye now I member I had confused a pole shift with a magnetic pole shift and you set me straight, back to work grr, bill stick a spork in it. questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #134,810 by Ashton 1/11/04 7:30:31 AM Reply	Poleax shifts.. Eons ago, I saw a letter from a guy who described self as a "Gyroscope Tinkerer". He'd sent his 'work' to a physicist friend, and we examined it. It consisted of a series of Amazing Coincidences\ufffd.. wherein he tended to divide certain Large Numbers into other Large Numbers (like the mean distance Sun-Earth, Earth diameter, a value for G, pi, etc. etc.) Of course all these divisions were without regard to the Units, number of significant digits in the 'values' etc. He would find that, sometimes he'd get a similar number.. apparently he'd heard of magnetic pole shifts (even back than) and his theory was that, The Earth Flipped, whenever such might occur. .. .. tidal waves, buried pre-SUVs yada yada. Sounded then, a lot like ID. Don't think it ever hit any classrooms, though. 'Course now: we gots our very own US Messiah aDoin Xian Gawd's Work.. so he might stand a better chance of publication in '04 {Of course too, that there's anything! including us, IS The Mystery.. Anthropomorphize away - it'll still be Gyroscope Tinkering\ufffd for fun, profit and sanctimonious Righteousness cha cha cha}

Welcome to IWETHEY!