Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> It's trivial to do in a lab. Take any experiment that speciates fruit flies, 
> for example. Stop it half way through and let them mix together again. 
> Bingo, it happened. :-)

  Can you actually speciate two groups of fruit flies in the lab so much
that they can't reproduce anymore with each other, hence making them two
different species?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 12/01/2011 03:30 PM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> It's trivial to do in a lab. Take any experiment that speciates fruit flies,
>> for example. Stop it half way through and let them mix together again.
>> Bingo, it happened. :-)
>
>    Can you actually speciate two groups of fruit flies in the lab so much
> that they can't reproduce anymore with each other, hence making them two
> different species?

I should imagine so.

If you can't, take a look at dogs. Some kinds can't interbreed with each 
other, if only due to huge differences in size. Humans did that.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >   Of course it is. It's an implicit encouragement from the government
> >   for
> > people to follow a religious custom.

> IF THEY BELIEVE IN IT.  It's not saying "even if you don't believe in it, 
> give it a try, you might like it".

  Yeah, like there were only two types of people: Those who firmly believe
and those who firmly don't believe. There is nothing in between. Like,
I don't know, impressionable children? Yeah, they don't exist.

  It's not the place for the government to tell people, even indirectly,
that a religion has a sound basis. There *are* impressionable people out
there who will believe something more easily if a high authority promotes
it. There is already enough misinformation out there. The government
shouldn't be encouraging it.

> >> "Shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion" does not
> >> mean that it prohibits people who work in government from ever talking
> >> about religion.
> > 
> >   Of course they are free to do whatever they want, but not officially
> > on behalf of the government. The government has certain responsibilities
> > and duties towards their citizens.

> Of course they do.  And encouraging people to practice their beliefs - 
> whatever those beliefs are - isn't advocating for a particular religion.  

  Ah, so you want to nitpick between "advocating for a *particular* religion"
vs. "advocating religion". The government can be as religious as they want
as long as they don't advocate any particular religion.

  No, and a thousand times no. It's not the place for the government to
take any stance whatsoever on religion (or non-religion). It doesn't matter
if they differentiate between religions or not. That's not the issue.

  If you ask a government official, in an official setting, "what's the
government's position on religion?", the correct answer is "no comment".

> It doesn't establish a state-sponsored religion at all.  It says "hey, if 
> you believe in this, practice it".  Simple.

  A "national day of prayer" is certainly not a neutral proclamation of
religious freedom, "if you want to do something religious, just do it,
we won't stop you".

  Just think about it like this: Why exactly do you need a "national day
of prayer"? What's so special about that particular day? What purpose does
it serve? Why does the government have to declare a special day for that?

  If you think about the answer, you'll see that the government is not
being neutral and impartial in this matter, as they should.

>  Not advocating for Jesus, 
> not advocating for the Pope

  Advocating prayer. What's the difference, exactly?

> >   When the president speaks to the country on a televised official
> >   ceremony,
> > that's quite different from the president talking with a friend.

> Sure.  And saying "if you believe in this, here's an opportunity to 
> practice it" is different from saying "if you don't, we'll fine you or 
> lock your ass up in jail."

  You don't seem to understand the difference between promoting and forcing.

  You claim is "they are not promoting religion" and your argument for that
is "they are not forcing religion to be practiced". A fallacious argument if
I ever saw one.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   Of course it is. It's an implicit encouragement from the government for
> > people to follow a religious custom.

> Does this mean Black History Month implies you should go out and be Black 
> for a few weeks?

  How exactly does "Black History" imply "you should *be* black"?

  It implies that people should study and consider the history of black
people, doesn't it? So yes, it is quite a similar thing.

  Likewise "national day of prayer" promotes prayer. Not all people are
either firm believers or firm unbelievers. There *are* impressionable
people who may follow authority in these matters, and it's certainly *not*
the place for a secular government to promote religion.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Apparently, the Congress requires the President to announce the national day 
> of prayer. Obama is the most atheist-friendly president we've ever had, afaik.

> """
> The Congress, by Public Law 100-307, as amended, has called on the President 
> to issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a 
> "National Day of Prayer."
> """

  Ok, I retract my allegation that it was Obama's own decision to announce
the day. It might well be that he had not much choice (lest he cause even
*more* unneeded controversy).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I'll just point out again that it wasn't the executive branch, but the 
> congress, that declared a national day of prayer.

  The first words of the first amendment to your constitution somehow
resonate in my head when I read that, causing a terrible pain...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> I fail to see how telling 
> people "if you believe in something, practice it" comes even close to 
> establishing a state-sponsored religion

  For fair balance, shouldn't there be a "Nation Day of Atheism"? You can
make the exact same arguments: It's not promoting atheism nor forcing
anybody to be atheist. You can be atheist if you want, but it's your choice.

  Too bad the day will never come in my lifetime when the US congress passes
that law. It would be a show to remember.

  (And if you didn't get it, my point is that there's a clear *bias* towards
religion, a bias which shouldn't exist.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> If you can't, take a look at dogs. Some kinds can't interbreed with each 
> other, if only due to huge differences in size. Humans did that.

  I don't think that is what defines a species. It's about genetics.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> The distinction you're looking for is between eukaryotes and 
> non-eukaryotes.

I'm getting too used to my Kindle. I wanted to put the mouse over that word 
and have the exact definition pop up.

Doubly-funny, considering how long it took me to learn to JFGI.

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

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>>> but maybe that's just because we haven't figured out yet what is
>>> driving those events, so they just *appear* random to us.
>>
>> FWIW, the answer to this speculation is "no, we have proven that's not
>> the case." :-)
> 
> Really?  How?

Look up "Bell's Inequality."  It has recently (in the last couple of years) 
gone on from there to prove that the problem is not non-local interactions.

Yeah, it was pretty surprising to me too.

There are lots of explanations out there, but here's one I found was very 
clear: http://phys.wordpress.com/bells-theorem/

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

Post a reply to this message