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?
> 

Surprisingly enough, it really is trivial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Artificial_speciation

-- 
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 12/01/2011 04:12 PM, Warp wrote:
> 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.

How about this: There are two species of grasshopper that never 
interbreed. The females of species A ignore the songs of males of 
species B. However, if you mute the male and play back a recording of a 
male of species A, the two will mate, and produce viable offspring. It's 
just that this only ever happens in the lab.

Does that not count as two species then?

Similarly, there are probably classes of birds where you could do the 
same thing by putting coloured visors over the bird's eyes, or moths 
where you could mask one chemical pheromone with another. Are these 
separate species?

You can apparently mate a lion with a tiger, producing either a "liger" 
or a "tiglon". (Go look them up.) But this never happens in the wild (as 
far as we know). Are these separate species?

Indeed, you can even do really weird stuff like implant a goat embryo 
into a big. But that doesn't make goats and pigs the same species.

If two creatures would not normally interbreed, they are separate species.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   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?

One thing I've never settled on is the concept of "a moment of silence." If 
you're doing it to somehow respect an event (i.e., a moment of silence to 
respect the victims of this horrible tragedy), is it different from a moment 
of silence before we start doing business for the day? Does it imply 
anything religious, given that it's obviously intended that religious people 
pray?

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

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 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"?

That's why it's silly, yes. :-)

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

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 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).
> 

Actually, given that he almost invariably includes people of no faith when 
discussing such things in his speeches, and this particular speech he 
didn't, I think he did indeed make it a religious national day of prayer.

I just don't think that blaming Obama for something that's been official for 
decades is worthwhile. It makes it sound like it's Obama's fault, or 
something unusual about Obama's administration in this respect.

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

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 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...
> 

Yeah, me too.

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

Post a reply to this message

>>>> 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.

But does that really prove that there is nothing else controlling what 
we are measuring?  If you liken our universe to a computer simulation, 
then outside of the simulation none of the limitations inside the 
simulation necessarily apply.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> But does that really prove that there is nothing else controlling what 
> we are measuring? 

It means that the value you are measuring is not determined until you 
measure it. Hence, as far as we will ever be able to know without divine(*) 
intervention, yes, it's random. It is unpredictable until measured, which 
is, by definition, random.

I.e., we're getting into semantics here. Does something really exist that 
has absolutely no affect on anything anywhere in the universe? If there's 
nothing at all you can do that will influence whether you know the result in 
advance, is that not random?

(*) Where "divine" includes the person running the simulation.

-- 
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 Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:49:02 -0500, Warp wrote:

> 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.

Stop putting words in my mouth.  I never said there were only two types 
of people in this regard.

>   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.

And it isn't advocating for it.  It's simply saying "if you believe, do 
something about it".  Seems to me that if a large number of people 
believe in a giant blue fish in the sky, and that belief is *supposed* to 
make them more compassionate, then encouraging compassion in your fellow 
citizens is beneficial to society.

The way I see it, NDP is a day for people to reflect on their beliefs.  
Here in the US, many people put themselves forth as some form of 
"Christian", but they sure don't act like it.  This is a chance to remind 
people like that that they say they have a certain belief set, and to get 
them to reflect on the things they do that are inconsistent with that 
belief set.

I see that as a GOOD thing, even though I don't believe myself.

>> >> "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.

Oh, FFS, it's not "nitpicking", it's a rather important distinction.  
Which you are failing to see.

>   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".

Yes, absolutely.  But that's not what NDP is about, from all I've read.

>> 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?

If you don't see what the difference is, I'm not sure I can explain it to 
you.  You seem to be particularly closed-minded about it anyways, so even 
if I took the time to try to explain it, I'm sure you'd outright reject 
it without a second thought anyways.  One might say that your particular 
views on this subject are extremely *religious* (in that anything that 
contradicts it must be wrong or some sort of heresy.)

>> >   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.

I know the difference perfectly well.  You don't seem to want to 
understand what I'm saying.

>   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.

Nonsense.  That you aren't seeing the difference doesn't mean there isn't 
one.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 08:54:55 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Warp wrote:
>>   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?
> 
> One thing I've never settled on is the concept of "a moment of silence."
> If you're doing it to somehow respect an event (i.e., a moment of
> silence to respect the victims of this horrible tragedy), is it
> different from a moment of silence before we start doing business for
> the day? Does it imply anything religious, given that it's obviously
> intended that religious people pray?

Seems to me it's a moment of reflection, nothing more.  Whether it's 
prayer, meditation, or wondering who won the big game - what one does 
with the moment of silence is up to the individual.

Jim

Post a reply to this message