Invisible wrote:
> Just about every living organism has homeostasis. I presume you mean 
> *temperature* homeostasis?

Yes.

> Right. So what you're saying is that it's unusual that 5 digits is a 
> conserved feature?

It seems like a very minor and easily-mutated feature, compared to (say) 
bilateral symmetry.

> I suspect what it boils down so is that there's no specific reason why 
> some number other than 5 would be an advantage, so it hasn't changed. 
> (This of course doesn't rule out random "neutral" changes I suppose...)

That's my point. It doesn't rule out neutral changes, yet we don't see 
neutral changes. And people investigating this have found that we don't see 
neutral changes because neutral changes in the gene for finger bones are 
also catastrophically detrimental changes to the reproductive system.

> extremely highly conserved.)

What I've read, which I found interesting, is that five fingers is highly 
conserved not because of itself, but because it's linked to other highly 
conserved genes. That's basically what I'm saying. I.e., something no 
designer would have a reason to do.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 09:20:13 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Warp wrote:
>> "Observances of the National Day of Prayer took place throughout the
>> U.S. in 2009 and again in 2010.
> 
> OK. But it has been around longer than either of us have been alive;
> it's not something Obama ass-pulled. I'm not sure what "The Obama
> administration" refers to there, but I'm pretty sure it encompasses far
> more than "Obama".

What's more, I would disagree with the court that this is an 
unconstitutional practice.  The first amendment protects against the 
government establishment of a state-sponsored religion.  Setting aside a 
"national prayer day" doesn't violate that unless it also mandates that 
everyone, for example, recite the Lord's Prayer, and establishes 
penalties for those who do not.

I don't think saying "here's a day where if those of you want to focus 
your efforts on praying, you can do so" truly violates that intention in 
the 1st amendment.

But IANAL - nor do I participate in the NDoP.  So far, I've not been 
jailed for it or fined for my non-participation. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > life on Earth wouldn't exist because
> > all bodies of water would freeze from the bottom up, killing all living
> > organisms.

> Well, unless they evolved in San Diego. ;-)

  The reference is completely lost on me.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > (Also, most liquids other than water get denser when they
> > solidify, which is a big problem.)

> I'm not sure that's as much of a problem as you think it is for anything 
> other than fish.

  Well, life on Earth was completely in water for the first... what?
3 billion years?

>  Why do you think the fact that it floats is important?

  Because it affects (or in the case of water, doesn't) submarine habitats
quite radically. (As said, it's probably quite difficult for life to form
in non-liquid environments.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> ID is certainly testable: We've found no irreducibly complex substructures, 

  Even if there *are* irreducibly complex structures in biology (which
I wouldn't be surprised if they existed) it still doesn't mean it could
not have formed by natural means. "Irreducibly complex" does not mean
"impossible to build" (because it would be outright *impossible*, duh).
It simply means that the structure cannot be formed by simply adding each
individual part one at a time. However, it can be built by having additional
helping structures which are later removed as obsolete.

  The classic example is an arc made of stones: Remove even one single
stone, and the whole arc collapses. The arc is irreducibly complex.
However, that doesn't mean the arc is impossible to construct: First
you build a supporting frame, then add the stones, then remove the frame.
Nothing says this cannot happen naturally. (In fact, evolution often gets
rid of parts that become useless over time because they only consume valuable
resources for no benefit. Thus, just because a supporting part is not anymore
there doesn't mean it was never there.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > "Observances of the National Day of Prayer took place throughout the
> > U.S. in 2009 and again in 2010.

> OK. But it has been around longer than either of us have been alive; it's 
> not something Obama ass-pulled. I'm not sure what "The Obama administration" 
> refers to there, but I'm pretty sure it encompasses far more than "Obama".

  I think you badly misunderstand.

  The federal judge ruled it unconstitutional for the government to endorse
the national day of prayer, and *regardless of this* Obama decided to
proclaim it. In other words, he willingly broke the first amendment with
complete disregard of the ruling.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> What's more, I would disagree with the court that this is an 
> unconstitutional practice.  The first amendment protects against the 
> government establishment of a state-sponsored religion.  Setting aside a 
> "national prayer day" doesn't violate that unless it also mandates that 
> everyone, for example, recite the Lord's Prayer, and establishes 
> penalties for those who do not.

  So as long as no specific religion is explicitly mentioned, any kind of
religious decree is ok?

  I don't think your first amendment says nor means that.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:08:44 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> What's more, I would disagree with the court that this is an
>> unconstitutional practice.  The first amendment protects against the
>> government establishment of a state-sponsored religion.  Setting aside
>> a "national prayer day" doesn't violate that unless it also mandates
>> that everyone, for example, recite the Lord's Prayer, and establishes
>> penalties for those who do not.
> 
>   So as long as no specific religion is explicitly mentioned, any kind
>   of
> religious decree is ok?
> 
>   I don't think your first amendment says nor means that.

Have you read the first amendment to the US Constitution?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of 
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to 
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now tell me how a declaration of a National Day of Prayer by the 
executive branch is (a) Congress establishing a law respecting the 
establishment of religion, or (b) prohibits the free exercise thereof.

The way I read it, it actually encourages and promotes the free exercise 
of religion, including the right of one *not* to participate.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:06:09 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>> > "Observances of the National Day of Prayer took place throughout the
>> > U.S. in 2009 and again in 2010.
> 
>> OK. But it has been around longer than either of us have been alive;
>> it's not something Obama ass-pulled. I'm not sure what "The Obama
>> administration" refers to there, but I'm pretty sure it encompasses far
>> more than "Obama".
> 
>   I think you badly misunderstand.
> 
>   The federal judge ruled it unconstitutional for the government to
>   endorse
> the national day of prayer, and *regardless of this* Obama decided to
> proclaim it. In other words, he willingly broke the first amendment with
> complete disregard of the ruling.

I don't think you understand the text of the first amendment, and I might 
even be so bold as to say that the federal judge also doesn't understand 
it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:16:46 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:08:44 -0500, Warp wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> What's more, I would disagree with the court that this is an
>>> unconstitutional practice.  The first amendment protects against the
>>> government establishment of a state-sponsored religion.  Setting aside
>>> a "national prayer day" doesn't violate that unless it also mandates
>>> that everyone, for example, recite the Lord's Prayer, and establishes
>>> penalties for those who do not.
>> 
>>   So as long as no specific religion is explicitly mentioned, any kind
>>   of
>> religious decree is ok?
>> 
>>   I don't think your first amendment says nor means that.
> 
> Have you read the first amendment to the US Constitution?
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Now tell me how a declaration of a National Day of Prayer by the
> executive branch is (a) Congress establishing a law respecting the
> establishment of religion, or (b) prohibits the free exercise thereof.
> 
> The way I read it, it actually encourages and promotes the free exercise
> of religion, including the right of one *not* to participate.

Not only that, but the judge in the case actually ruled that her ruling 
should not be considered a bar to any prayer days until all appeals are 
exhausted.  So even in the event that the federal judge is correct, she 
herself effectively said her ruling did not impose an injunction or 
prohibition on the President from continuing to do what he has done.

So Obama has not, in fact, broken any law, as the appeals have clearly 
not run out yet.

Jim

Post a reply to this message