 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:01:50 -0500, Warp wrote:
> 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.
Actually, there is one - and it's usually (now) held on the same day as
the NDP IIRC.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/12/2011 2:40 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> This in fact happens. We can even, in many cases, parse out what those
>> *where*, sometimes by finding those extra structures still intact in
>> other species.
>
> More to the point, biological structures can *change purpose* too.
>
>> And you are dead wrong on the later, evolution **keeps**
>> masses of junk, whether it produces a benefit or not.
>
> That too. The human genome has half a dozen broken copies of the globin
> gene, for example. (Plus 4 (?) similar but not identical copies that
> actually work.)
>
>> The single cell do not, in general, contain mitochondria.
>
> False.
>
> Note carefully that "single-celled organisms" covers a vast variety of
> life forms, only some of which are closely related. Many of these
> contain mitochondria, and many do not. The fact that they are
> unicellular does not correlate particularly well with the presence of
> absence of mitochondria.
>
> The distinction you're looking for is between eukaryotes and
> non-eukaryotes.
>
Uh, yeah. Couldn't think of the proper term though. But, the rest is
correct. If you don't have excess resources to waste on messing with
extra baggage, you don't live long if you have it. If you do have the
"power plants", you can afford to waste more space in the genome on
things that don't work, duplicate results, etc.
>> Their genetics are often **far** more streamlined, because
>> they can't afford to carry junk around, which doesn't do anything, for
>> the reason you describe. It costs resources. Having a sort of "power
>> plant" in the cell, whose genetics are 100% geared at producing excess
>> amounts of energy, over what is absolutely needed by themselves, allows
>> the rest of the genome, in the main cell, to be very sloppy in its
>> operations, copying, cleanup, etc. Anything with such an internal power
>> plant can afford to keep lots of stuff that does nothing at all, and
>> only gets rid of things that are actively defective, usually not by
>> deletion, but just by shutting them off, so they do nothing. This allows
>> for what, in a single cell, would be egregious errors, such as making an
>> exact copy of a sequence, then later having that sequence get mangled
>> into a unique function. Its way harder to manage that if you can't
>> afford extra copies lying around, where your energy input is drastically
>> damaged, if you allow such a copy to happen.
>
> I'm not sure I actually agree with this assessment.
>
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/how_to_afford_a_big_sloppy_gen.php
As to the cite for prokaryotes not having as many copy errors, I think
it would be more accurate to say, "They don't *preserve* as many." If
they did, they would have way more junk DNA, which is precisely what
they can't afford to have laying around in the first place. The actual
number of such errors that happen is likely the same, but, when it comes
to costs, if you can't afford them, you don't see those copied chunks
sticking around long.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/11/2011 1:57 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:08:49 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> The problem with this is that its the **same** excuse that is used by
>> nearly every city council, and other government body, for ***actually***
>> violating the constitution, by having an opening prayer, then babbling
>> about how it just wasn't convenient for them to find a Buddhist that
>> day, or some such, to "flesh out" the roster and make it non-Christian
>> specific. Oh, and of course, they ***never ever*** open without it, so
>> it very much supports religion in general, even when they play lip
>> service to being "fair" about which one of the, maybe 3, they will
>> bother/allow to open the meeting.
>
> I don't entirely disagree with what you've said above. Having a prayer
> of any sort during government proceedings is a problem for me.
>
> But that's not what we're talking about here.
>
>> Sorry, but Warp is dead right.
>
> I respectfully disagree. But hey, we can do that.
>
>> The government promoting a day of prayer
>> does not **in any way** imply anything other than an endorsement of
>> religion in general,
>
> Which in and of itself does not violate the the constitution.
> Acknowledging that some people are religions is different from saying
> "You must pray on this day, and if you don't, you're going to jail".
>
> From a historical context, that's what the founders were dealing with:
> In England, there was a state-sponsored religion, and practicing
> protestants were legally barred from practicing their own non-state-
> sanctioned religion.
>
>> and too often, given the words of those who do such
>> promotion, defend doing so, and get elected on the principle of the
>> "Christian nation" BS, a *specific* one. Its kind of like how federal
>> money gets spent on "faith based initiatives", yet, somehow, 99.9% of
>> all the initiatives getting funded are Christian ones, even when other
>> groups present alternatives, or worse, alternatives that are not "known"
>> to lie, cheat, steal, or fail to provide the things they claim they need
>> the money for (not that we would know, in many cases, since they are
>> often sub-groups of bigger groups, and only the "government" money needs
>> to be accounted for). The 0.1% is pure, 100%, lip service to the
>> principle, and mean jack shit with respect to the idea that the
>> government isn't "endorsing" something.
>
> And those things should be dealt with individually. That doesn't
> inherently make the NDoP a bad thing or a violation of the US
> Constitution. Again, this is something entirely different than the
> subject at hand.
>
> Jim
While this is, *technically* true, from a purely literal stance, there
is often quoted a concept of "spirit of the law". And, I would, and many
others have, that if you do not enforce the matter strictly, you lend
yourself to a slow erosion of principle, in which the number of people
trying to actively violate it, or find ways around it, or even
repeal/change it, increases, as more and more succeed in finding such
loopholes. We often have difficulty seeing this, for much the same
reason the other side can't imagine every problem being solved from
guns, or prayer, or capitalism, or what ever combination of notions they
think are king of the hill at the time. That people might breach the
spirit of the law, and, being allowed, then breach the law itself, isn't
an easy thing to recognize, if your goal is to only apply it "loosely".
The problem is, of course, we *do* see people crossing the line, such as
one case in the last ten years where a Jewish family was hounded, after
the city council member that belonged to it said, "Maybe its a bad idea
to *specifically* open with a prayer to Jesus." In some areas, this is
all too common, and the excuse is always a) we are allowed to have
prayers, so the mere accident of who gets prayed to all the time is
coincidence, b) we would (though not really, see above) allow someone
else to do it, if we had anyone else around to do so, and c) the
constitution only says you can't endorse religion, not that we can't
shove it down everyone's throughts, as long as its "non-sectarian"
(i.e., being allowed to avoid/not participate in/deal with it, is *not*
protected, according to this argument).
Its like telling someone, "You need to use turn signals, but not on
parking lots", pretty soon people are making jokes, like locally here,
in the vein of, "When you move here they inject you with a virus, which
makes you forget where the turn signals are." Enforcement *only*
happens, as it is, if someone sues, and in many places, everything from
homogenization of the assumption that there is nothing wrong with their
purely sectarian support, to even fear of what would happen *if* someone
protested, results in *no* enforcement. And, you can't take something on
a "case by case" basis, if no one will recognize there *is* problem,
admit it needs to be fixed, or actively do something about it.
If the rules was "never", this wouldn't be a problem. Instead, we have,
"Well, you are not supposed to, but....", and a near infinite list of
exclusions and exceptions. So, unless someone crosses a line by a
provable amount, nothing happens, and even if they do, they pay a fine,
maybe lose some government endorsement (unless they are the government),
and next week the are doing the same thing again.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/12/2011 8:53 AM, 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"?
>
> 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.
>
Yes, this is precisely the point being missed by others. "Black History
Month", doesn't imply you should examine Chinese Immigrants, American
Indians, or some UFO nuts "Reptiloid aliens living in the center of the
Earth.". It means they look at "Black History". Someone calls for a day
of prayer, it doesn't mean, "How about buying a lot of lattes, watching
more TV, going to dance clubs, nude bicycling, or 5 billion other things
you might opt to do." It means, "We would like to encourage you to do
something specifically religious, not not just religious, but specific
to a specific 'set' of religions, since some don't." To me, this is a
huge, Duh! I literally don't get why others can't see what is wrong with it.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:54:12 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> And, I would, and many
> others have, that if you do not enforce the matter strictly, you lend
> yourself to a slow erosion of principle, in which the number of people
> trying to actively violate it, or find ways around it, or even
> repeal/change it, increases, as more and more succeed in finding such
> loopholes. We often have difficulty seeing this, for much the same
> reason the other side can't imagine every problem being solved from
> guns, or prayer, or capitalism, or what ever combination of notions they
> think are king of the hill at the time.
My word, that's a very long run-on sentence. ;-)
But it boils down to the "slippery slope" argument, and while I have been
guilty of using it myself in the past, in more recent times, I've not
really been convinced of it.
Both ideologies use the argument when it suits them.
I'm not really sure what the rest of what you wrote was, because it was
so difficult to read. Sorry.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:07:50 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> It means, "We would like to encourage you to do
> something specifically religious, not not just religious, but specific
> to a specific 'set' of religions, since some don't."
No, really, it doesn't. At least not to me.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The distinction you're looking for is between eukaryotes and
>> non-eukaryotes.
>>
> Uh, yeah. Couldn't think of the proper term though. But, the rest is
> correct. If you don't have excess resources to waste on messing with
> extra baggage, you don't live long if you have it. If you do have the
> "power plants", you can afford to waste more space in the genome on
> things that don't work, duplicate results, etc.
>> I'm not sure I actually agree with this assessment.
>>
> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/how_to_afford_a_big_sloppy_gen.php
>
> As to the cite for prokaryotes not having as many copy errors, I think
> it would be more accurate to say, "They don't *preserve* as many." If
> they did, they would have way more junk DNA, which is precisely what
> they can't afford to have laying around in the first place. The actual
> number of such errors that happen is likely the same, but, when it comes
> to costs, if you can't afford them, you don't see those copied chunks
> sticking around long.
I think we need to distinguish between DNA that isn't used for anything,
and DNA which actually produces proteins, but they don't do anything
really useful.
Just having a sequence in your genome doesn't really cost that much.
Synthesizing it into a protein is much more expensive.
It wouldn't surprise me if non-eukaryotes have fewer genes turned on,
and possibly smaller genomes, but I doubt that they have radically
"cleaner" genomes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> 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.
The definition of species is related to genetics, not to behavior.
> 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?
It's about genetics, not about behavior.
> 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?
The offspring must be fertile. Ligers and tigons aren't.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The definition of species is related to genetics, not to behaviour.
I disagree.
By human intervention, you can cause all kinds of matings to occur that
would never, ever happen in nature. That does /not/ mean that all
animals are of the same species.
> The offspring must be fertile. Ligers and tigons aren't.
Apparently it was long thought that ligers and tiglons were infertile,
but apparently they have in a few rare cares produced long-lived offspring.
But in any case, yes, I agree that the offspring must be fertile.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Surprisingly enough, it really is trivial.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Artificial_speciation
It talks about preference, not about capability. Just because some man will
not mate with fat women doesn't make the man a different species.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:01:50 -0500, Warp wrote:
> > 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.
> Actually, there is one - and it's usually (now) held on the same day as
> the NDP IIRC.
Mandated by your congress, announced by your president?
Yeah, exactly the same thing, really.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > The definition of species is related to genetics, not to behaviour.
> I disagree.
> By human intervention, you can cause all kinds of matings to occur that
> would never, ever happen in nature. That does /not/ mean that all
> animals are of the same species.
The definition of species is that two individuals are of the same species
if they can create fertile offspring. Behavior is irrelevant.
If a man never has sex with fat women by choice, that doesn't make the
man a different species. That would be just ludicrous.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 13/01/2011 13:15, Warp a écrit :
> The definition of species is that two individuals are of the same species
> if they can create fertile offspring. Behavior is irrelevant.
Ok, so, 2 males are never (?) of the same species, right ?
They cannot create fertile offspring by themselves.
Same for 2 females.
(but science is so great... )
(Just playing around!)
More seriously, does such definition get transitive ?
A & B are from the same specie because they can produce fertile offspring.
B & C are .... too.
Does that means A & C are the same specie automatically ?
What about a long chain : A & B, B & C, C & D, D & E, E & F...
till X & Y;
Are automatically A & Y of the same specie ?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> It talks about preference, not about capability.
How do you talk a fruit fly into mating with another fruit fly if it doesn't
want to?
I think you think "species" is much more strictly defined than it is.
--
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 Thu, 13 Jan 2011 07:06:52 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:01:50 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>
>> Actually, there is one - and it's usually (now) held on the same day as
>> the NDP IIRC.
>
> Mandated by your congress, announced by your president?
>
> Yeah, exactly the same thing, really.
Like I sorta said earlier, talking with you is often like talking to a
brick wall. It's all black-and-white to you, isn't it?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron <lef### [at] freefr> wrote:
> More seriously, does such definition get transitive ?
That was already discussed elsethread.
(If you missed it, here's a quick summary: Search for "ring species".)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > It talks about preference, not about capability.
> How do you talk a fruit fly into mating with another fruit fly if it doesn't
> want to?
Ostensibly it can be tested without relying on behavioral patterns.
> I think you think "species" is much more strictly defined than it is.
It's just that defining "species" in terms of behavior is ludicrous.
That would eg. mean there's not one single species of humans currently
living.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 07:06:52 -0500, Warp wrote:
> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:01:50 -0500, Warp wrote:
> >
> >> > 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.
> >
> >> Actually, there is one - and it's usually (now) held on the same day as
> >> the NDP IIRC.
> >
> > Mandated by your congress, announced by your president?
> >
> > Yeah, exactly the same thing, really.
> Like I sorta said earlier, talking with you is often like talking to a
> brick wall. It's all black-and-white to you, isn't it?
I understand that reply to mean that no, your so-called "atheism day"
is not official, mandated by your congress. That's my point. There's a
definite bias.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:03:01 -0500, Warp wrote:
>> Like I sorta said earlier, talking with you is often like talking to a
>> brick wall. It's all black-and-white to you, isn't it?
>
> I understand that reply to mean that no, your so-called "atheism day"
> is not official, mandated by your congress. That's my point. There's a
> definite bias.
Um, no, my comment was nothing more than a comment on your obstinance.
It should not be taken as an answer to your question, nor should this be.
It's a shame that I have to *explain* that something that isn't an answer
to your question *isn't an answer to your question*.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/01/2011 8:38 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
...
>
> Jim
Mornington Crescent! :-P
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12-1-2011 18:01, 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.
>
> 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.
The technical term for that is a 'hidden variable theory'; the variable
has a value except we don't know it. Bell has shown that if the universe
can be described by a hidden variable theory some measurable quantities
have different values than if the variable has no value until measured.
Alain Aspect has shown that nature is incompatible with a hidden
variable theory. So Darren is right, and you, Einstein, Podolsky, and
Rosen are proven wrong. Nothing to be ashamed of, I'd say.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-1-2011 12:45, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> The definition of species is related to genetics, not to behavior.
No that is a choice and one that not everybody agrees on. It might be in
your biology book but that does not prove much.
>> 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?
>
> It's about genetics, not about behavior.
>
>> 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).
Given that their habitats do not overlap...
> Are these separate species?
>
> The offspring must be fertile. Ligers and tigons aren't.
That too is a choice that not everybody agrees on. It is still often
used as a definition, read the origin of species for many examples where
this does not make sense. Among other things offspring of two 'species'
that are more viable than the pure breeds.
No definition of species exists that is not violated in some 'species'.
I think it may be hard to find a biologist in this field that would
supply you with something more than: 'in most cases this will match you
intuitive concept'. I can live with that. People whose mental health
depend on the assumption that there is a clear definition of 'species'
may freely ignore the evidence.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-1-2011 13:00, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Surprisingly enough, it really is trivial.
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Artificial_speciation
>
> It talks about preference, not about capability. Just because some man will
> not mate with fat women doesn't make the man a different species.
>
It talks about both: 'Diane Dodd was also able to show how reproductive
isolation can develop from mating preferences' see also the discussion
on speciation genes somewhat lower on the page.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:03:01 -0500, Warp wrote:
> >> Like I sorta said earlier, talking with you is often like talking to a
> >> brick wall. It's all black-and-white to you, isn't it?
> >
> > I understand that reply to mean that no, your so-called "atheism day"
> > is not official, mandated by your congress. That's my point. There's a
> > definite bias.
> Um, no, my comment was nothing more than a comment on your obstinance.
> It should not be taken as an answer to your question, nor should this be.
> It's a shame that I have to *explain* that something that isn't an answer
> to your question *isn't an answer to your question*.
And it's a shame I have to point out when I'm being sarcastic since you
don't seem to get it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:09:17 -0500, Warp wrote:
> And it's a shame I have to point out when I'm being sarcastic since
> you
> don't seem to get it.
That's what sarcasm tags are for - it's very difficult in a written-only
medium to pick up on those cues.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:52:18 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 13/01/2011 8:38 PM, Jim Henderson wrote: ...
>>
>> Jim
>
> Mornington Crescent! :-P
It's about time! :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The offspring must be fertile. Ligers and tigons aren't.
How often do they have to be fertile for it to count. If 10% of the
offspring are viable, is that enough? 1%?
Also, there are some tree species[*] C that's a cross between species A and
species B. It won't fruit except in the presence of A or B. I.e., the
offspring are fertile with their parents, but not with each other. Does that
count?
And, has been mentioned, men are not the same species as other men, so it's
difficult to understand exactly how to apply this definition to individuals.
[*] I thought it was tangelos, but wikipedia doesn't mention that on their page.
--
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:
> It's just that defining "species" in terms of behavior is ludicrous.
Well, give a definition that shows two men are the same species, that a
bacteria's descendants are the same species, and that these two populations
of fruit flies are the same species. What exactly has to be in the genetics?
--
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 1/13/2011 2:49 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> The distinction you're looking for is between eukaryotes and
>>> non-eukaryotes.
>>>
>> Uh, yeah. Couldn't think of the proper term though. But, the rest is
>> correct. If you don't have excess resources to waste on messing with
>> extra baggage, you don't live long if you have it. If you do have the
>> "power plants", you can afford to waste more space in the genome on
>> things that don't work, duplicate results, etc.
>
>>> I'm not sure I actually agree with this assessment.
>>>
>> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/how_to_afford_a_big_sloppy_gen.php
>>
>>
>> As to the cite for prokaryotes not having as many copy errors, I think
>> it would be more accurate to say, "They don't *preserve* as many." If
>> they did, they would have way more junk DNA, which is precisely what
>> they can't afford to have laying around in the first place. The actual
>> number of such errors that happen is likely the same, but, when it comes
>> to costs, if you can't afford them, you don't see those copied chunks
>> sticking around long.
>
> I think we need to distinguish between DNA that isn't used for anything,
> and DNA which actually produces proteins, but they don't do anything
> really useful.
>
> Just having a sequence in your genome doesn't really cost that much.
> Synthesizing it into a protein is much more expensive.
>
> It wouldn't surprise me if non-eukaryotes have fewer genes turned on,
> and possibly smaller genomes, but I doubt that they have radically
> "cleaner" genomes.
You are forgetting that you *still* have to copy all that extra stuff,
when ever you divide the cell, so there is still a cost to synthesize
all the copies, before the cell splits to form new cells. Also, its not
a simple case of, "just ignore the stuff I don't use", something has to
run through the pattern, decide what needs to be unfolded, or folded,
jump past any stuff that is folded into an unusable state, etc.
And, most of the code, unlike in multi-celled organisms, is going to be
"on". There is no reason to turn parts off, except for mitosis, and the
like, if you are not differentiating the cells, which requires shutting
off the parts you don't need running at all. Something that has a mess
of extra code is going to have a lot of stuff the maneuver around to get
anything done, and those that don't, are not likely to have a lot of
inactive code, which isn't doing synthesis, more or less massively
parallel, constantly.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/13/2011 5:00 AM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Surprisingly enough, it really is trivial.
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Artificial_speciation
>
> It talks about preference, not about capability. Just because some man will
> not mate with fat women doesn't make the man a different species.
>
But, by the same token, just because a species has developed to "prefer"
their own species, doesn't mean its 100% impossible for an impregnation
to happen, it just isn't too common. The question then is, are the rest
of the genes compatible at all. The answer is, "Depends". For common
things, like insulin, the genome doesn't much care, as long as its
"close enough". Basically, you have these barriers:
1. Pheromone response.
2. Reproductive compatibility (fusion will happen).
3. Number of chromosomes, though a difference of 1-2 may *not* be a big
deal, as long as there are parallels, or the two available fill in any gaps.
4. Immune response - does the host mother's immune system see the cell
as a problem?
5. Hormonal issues - the wrong levels "may" effect development, if far
enough off.
Most of these are not likely to be surmountable by species in nature,
short of a lot of very unusual mutations all coinciding. In principle,
we could take steps to eliminate most of them, but no one is likely to
do that (at least not in legit labs, in first, or probably even second,
world countries). However, that the odds of a pure chance combination of
factors resulting in a combination working being low doesn't mean
"impossible". That is the problem. Of course, one big difference also
comes down to the fact that "preference" in this case is *not* the same
thing at all. For a fruit fly, preference means, short of outside
intervention, its almost 100% certain they will never mate with a
different species. The more complex the organism, the greater the odds
it will "override" that preference, by self choice. Which is why you
don't see, say, birds trying to mate spiders, but its not unheard of for
dogs to try to mate with sheep, etc., or apes to mate with everything
from frogs, to anything else that can't get away, mostly purely to "got
off", which most simpler species don't do at all either. But, at that
level of complexity, the number of barriers in place to prevent cross
over is *very* high, even if they develop some truly odd preferences.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/12/2011 11:27 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:54:12 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> And, I would, and many
>> others have, that if you do not enforce the matter strictly, you lend
>> yourself to a slow erosion of principle, in which the number of people
>> trying to actively violate it, or find ways around it, or even
>> repeal/change it, increases, as more and more succeed in finding such
>> loopholes. We often have difficulty seeing this, for much the same
>> reason the other side can't imagine every problem being solved from
>> guns, or prayer, or capitalism, or what ever combination of notions they
>> think are king of the hill at the time.
>
> My word, that's a very long run-on sentence. ;-)
>
> But it boils down to the "slippery slope" argument, and while I have been
> guilty of using it myself in the past, in more recent times, I've not
> really been convinced of it.
>
> Both ideologies use the argument when it suits them.
>
> I'm not really sure what the rest of what you wrote was, because it was
> so difficult to read. Sorry.
>
> Jim
Well, the reason both sides make the argument is that its correct. If
you don't enforce absolute moral codes, and arrest, hang, burn, or
whatever, anyone you catch at it, you end up finding that some of the
stuff you think is wrong becomes "normal", for everyone except your
group. The flaw in the ointment is that they assume they *know* the
answer, and what the consequences are, even when they have no evidence.
I would say that, while this *sometimes* happens with the other side,
most of the arguments *tend* to be backed by, "We tried that, it didn't
work, made things worse, or nothing bad happened when no one followed
it." All of them much more sane arguments than, "The world will come to
an end if we let X people do Y thing! Someone told me, though I have
know idea on what page, that the Babble says so!!!"
Or, Rand's book said so, or the wild guess I pulled out of my ass
yesterday says so, or I find it icky, so it must be so, etc., ad nauseum.
Someone quoted the thinking behind some of this stuff as, "Credo quia
absurdum" : 'I believe *because* the idea is absurd.'
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/12/2011 11:28 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:01:50 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Actually, there is one - and it's usually (now) held on the same day as
> the NDP IIRC.
>
> Jim
I also here there is a "national body awareness day", AKA, "national
nude day", but I don't see anyone in congress, or the president,
standing up and declaring *either* a NBAD day, *or* a, "national day of
keep your clothes on". The people *in* the government are far more
Christian, usually, than the ones that elected them. Few, if any, are
anything else, with the exception of some Jewish people. The presidents
have *all* been Christian. It is irrelevant if the "indended" result
isn't sectarian. You might as well go to Africa and not complain when
the local president, with great cheers from everyone else in the
government, and a lot of stupid speeches about the "blackness" of
Africa, declared a, "National day of not being white."
What matters is the result, the perceived support it lends to the
majority religion, the very narrow list of "faiths" that tend to get
mentioned, and that it *supports*, how ever unintended, the position of
people who *literally* believe that the government *can* be totally
Christian, supporting it, endorsing it, etc., just so long as they
"allow" everyone else to worship as they please (just not marry, have
sex in certain ways, dress, look, speak, think, sell, buy, own, or
publicly display what they wish, if it offends the sort of Christians
that those people believe qualify).
Its this thinking, and the inadvertent support for it, which makes the
national day of prayer a problem. For them, it *does* endorse it, and
they quite clearly do not think that "endorsing" religion, even their
own, is a problem, only denying others their own (save, again, for any
conflicts in expression, in which case their own overrides the "wrong" one).
We see it all the damn time, in everything from the 100% church driven
drive to get Prop 8 passed, to violence against minority religions,
which gets brushed off as, "Well, its a small town, so.. And they won
the case, even if they lost their business, home, etc., due to having to
move.", to you name it. Its the same argument some atheists give
"against" those they call "accommidationists". If you give ground, you
find yourself not addressing one clear issue, you find that the issue
gets buried under a dozen stray men, 50 irrelevant issues, and 100
unrelated cases/assertions. Even if you win, you lose, since merely
trying to win will result in cries of persecution. Nah, merely
suggesting that you might have a relevant point about *any* religion
does, even from the people that don't follow it.
The whole "Nation day of Atheism" thing is precisely what they would
like to see atheists do, or anyone else with the "wrong religion", or
who doesn't pray. We do our thing, you do yours, just so long as its out
of sight, in the basement, with the door locked, and we don't hear any
of it. After all, we outnumber you, and most of us are *sure* God =
Jesus. Suggesting otherwise is persecution, and how dare you do that on
the "national day of prayer".
This is the logic we are trying to deal with here. What is "intended",
never mind "legal" doesn't mean jack, if 10% of the people think its
about *them*, 60% of them don't give a shit, as long as you *are*
praying, and everyone that isn't is seen as stupid, abnormal, wrong
headed, or even Un-American, for not "joining in", and the 20% that
don't care *also* don't care to try to change the situation. Its about
perception, not strict legality. And, just as you can't cry "fire" in a
crowded theater, it is not appropriate to cry, "All you people are
special, if you are one of the ones that prays", in a nation where most
of them see it as reflecting one religion, some see it as *only* about
that one religion, and it actively excludes those that do not believe in
doing it at all, including other religions.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/01/2011 11:02 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:52:18 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 13/01/2011 8:38 PM, Jim Henderson wrote: ...
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> Mornington Crescent! :-P
>
> It's about time! :-)
>
How many words?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I think we need to distinguish between DNA that isn't used for anything,
>> and DNA which actually produces proteins, but they don't do anything
>> really useful.
>>
>> Just having a sequence in your genome doesn't really cost that much.
>> Synthesizing it into a protein is much more expensive.
>>
>> It wouldn't surprise me if non-eukaryotes have fewer genes turned on,
>> and possibly smaller genomes, but I doubt that they have radically
>> "cleaner" genomes.
> You are forgetting that you *still* have to copy all that extra stuff,
> when ever you divide the cell, so there is still a cost to synthesize
> all the copies, before the cell splits to form new cells.
Yes, there is a cost. What I'm saying is that it's a very small cost.
> Also, its not
> a simple case of, "just ignore the stuff I don't use", something has to
> run through the pattern, decide what needs to be unfolded, or folded,
> jump past any stuff that is folded into an unusable state, etc.
It's not like a computer, doing a linear scan of the entire genome
looking for active genes. It doesn't work like that.
As far as I know (and I'm not an expert on the subject), having extra
inactive genes imposes very little penalty for transcription.
> And, most of the code, unlike in multi-celled organisms, is going to be
> "on". There is no reason to turn parts off, except for mitosis, and the
> like, if you are not differentiating the cells
False.
Unicellular organisms might not build colonies of differentiated cells,
but that does *not* mean that all genes are switched on, all the time.
There are organisms that can metabolise both aerobically and
anaerobically. That's two different metabolic pathways, involving
different sets of proteins. Many if not most organisms can utilise more
then one food source. That's different sets of proteins. Many organisms
have a life-cycle more complex them just "grow, divide, grow, divide".
That requires different sets of proteins. Some cells even signal each
other, and undergo limited differentiation under certain conditions.
More sets of genes. Then there are genes only used in response to attack
or damage. And so forth.
Seriously. Few if any organisms go around with *all* their genes
switched on all the time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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.
OK, but that was my point, it could be controlled by something
*impossible* for us to find out. The same way as an artificial brain
simulation running on one of our computers would find it impossible to
find out about our universe.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
