>> Which is /obviously/ what I asked in the first place, to anybody who
>> actually understands how evolution works.
>
> When you start throwing around the word 'design', you start demonstrating
> a lack of understanding of how evolution works or even what it is.
>
> Evolution *is* *not* *design*.  Not even remotely.

*sigh*

Yes, and when I say "Word 2003 doesn't understand files saved by Word 
2010", I do not for one minute intend imply that Word is actually a 
concious, thinking, comprehending entity. Of course I *know* that Word 
is merely a construction of op-codes, a sequence of instructions blindly 
executed by a mindless automaton, an inanimate machine. I know that 
there is no "thinking" or "understanding" involved. IT'S A FIGURE OF 
SPEACH!!!

Sheesh...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Am 15.09.2011 19:14, schrieb Orchid XP v8:

> The Black Widow's venom is very toxic to insects. Which isn't
> surprising, considering that this is what spiders usually eat. The venom
> is completely non-toxic to, say, cats. Which makes sense, since spiders
> don't eat cats. (And cats don't usually eat spiders.)

You don't know the cats I owned :-)

> And yet, Black Widow venom /just happens/ to be lethal to humans. Not
> because there's any advantage to that, but just be coincidence.
>
> And that's what I'm asking. Is mammal predation on fungi significant
> enough that it's worth developing defences against it? Or is the extreme
> toxicity of some fungi merely an unrelated accident?

Is toxicity (mild or extreme) of fungi to mammals...

a) rare, found only in very few species, or
b) frequent, found in multiple - even very different - species?

Is it therefore...

a) probably a stray coincidence, or
b) probably an indication that it gives those fungi a systematic 
evolutionary edge?

Post a reply to this message

On 15/09/2011 07:41 PM, clipka wrote:

> Is toxicity (mild or extreme) of fungi to mammals...
>
> a) rare, found only in very few species, or
> b) frequent, found in multiple - even very different - species?
>
> Is it therefore...
>
> a) probably a stray coincidence, or
> b) probably an indication that it gives those fungi a systematic
> evolutionary edge?

Now you're asking relevant questions.

To the laboratory! Let us all eat fungi! For science!!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> IT'S A FIGURE OF SPEACH!!!

  Is that like a cross between a spinach and a peach?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 15.09.2011 20:43, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
> On 15/09/2011 07:41 PM, clipka wrote:
>
>> Is toxicity (mild or extreme) of fungi to mammals...
>>
>> a) rare, found only in very few species, or
>> b) frequent, found in multiple - even very different - species?
>>
>> Is it therefore...
>>
>> a) probably a stray coincidence, or
>> b) probably an indication that it gives those fungi a systematic
>> evolutionary edge?
>
> Now you're asking relevant questions.
>
> To the laboratory! Let us all eat fungi! For science!!

Those questions were actually intended to be purely rhetoric. I'd have 
expected the answer to the first one to be common knowledge, and the 
answer to the second to be easily deductible from that.

Okay, let's add two other questions:

Are lay people warned to...

a) not eat self-collected fungi that have a certain well-known look, or
b) not eat /any/ self-collected fungi unless they're /absolutely/ sure 
of what they are?

Is this because...

a) the toxic species of fungi are so few that they can easily be 
described and remembered, or
b) the toxic species of fungi are too many to be easily described or 
remembered?

Post a reply to this message

On 15/09/2011 07:54 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> IT'S A FIGURE OF SPEACH!!!
>
>    Is that like a cross between a spinach and a peach?

More like a cross between Finnish and Meech, but anyway...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> Now you're asking relevant questions.
>>
>> To the laboratory! Let us all eat fungi! For science!!
>
> Those questions were actually intended to be purely rhetoric. I'd have
> expected the answer to the first one to be common knowledge, and the
> answer to the second to be easily deductible from that.
>
> Okay, let's add two other questions:
>
> Are lay people warned to...
>
> a) not eat self-collected fungi that have a certain well-known look, or
> b) not eat /any/ self-collected fungi unless they're /absolutely/ sure
> of what they are?
>
> Is this because...
>
> a) the toxic species of fungi are so few that they can easily be
> described and remembered, or
> b) the toxic species of fungi are too many to be easily described or
> remembered?

How about

c) Most of the toxic species have no known antidote and are usually 
very, very fatal.

People are also advised to drive at 30 MPH in areas where people live, 
even if there are no people there.

Alternatively,

d) Most fungi actually look pretty similar to each other, and you need 
specialist equipment to tell them apart.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/09/15 04:24, Invisible a écrit :
> On 15/09/2011 03:38 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 9/14/2011 6:24 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> Are fungi poisonous on purpose, or is it just a side-effect of their
>>> unusual body chemistry?
>>
>> Nothing is "poisonous on purpose", everything is a side-effect of
>> different body chemistry. It just happens that, in some cases, those
>> side effects make them a lot bloody harder for other things to eat.
>
> OK, but consider this: The venom of the Black Widow spider is "designed"
> to be lethal to insects - and indeed it is. To mammals, it's harmless.
> It has no effect on dogs, cats, mice... oh, but by freak coincidence, it
> happens to be deadly to humans. How unlikely is that?

The production of that venom is beneficial to the spider as it make it 
easier for it to get it's food. So, it's a survival advantage.

>
> Point being, humans aren't the target. It just happens to work on them.
> Insects are the target.
>
>> In
>> the case of Fungi, however, it may also lend itself to death near the
>> fungi, and this more nutrients, or it might have a similar effect on
>> other fungi, which are in competition, and just, by coincidence, happen
>> to effect humans, and animals. Most often, the effected species are
>> insects. Thus, anything that, for example, has a nervous system, is
>> likely to have the unfortunate coincidence of also being harmed by
>> something that originally only was lethal to insects.
>
> You're aware that insects have an utterly different nervous system to
> mammals, right?
>
> For example, permethrin is a lethal fast-acting nerve toxin... to
> insects. To mammals it's almost completely harmless. (Except cats,
> randomly.)
>
>> As Darwin said, "No adaptation is ever for the explicit benefit, or
>> harm, of another species. It can only benefit the species that has it,
>> any effect it has on other species is happenstance."
>
> Well, yes, to a degree that's true. It's also clear that, for example,
> snake venom is "obviously" designed to kill the things that snakes eat.
> I'm just wondering whether fungi deliberately manufacture substances for
> no other reason than to prevent them being eaten, or whether the stuff
> that makes them so poisonous is just a normal part of their internal
> chemistry.

Here also, it makes it much easier for the snake to capture it's food. A 
quick bite and let go. Leisurely follow the poisoned prey untill it dies 
= easy meal.
It also a defencive side effect: A predator comes up, a quick bite and 
that predator is no longer a treat, even if it survive the poison. The 
pain and sickness will teach it no to try again, protecting other snakes 
in the future.

As for the poisonous fungi, the toxine is prety usefull to cull down 
competition = more room for it's devlopment, and fend off nasties bent 
on eating the fungi, increased survival chances.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/09/15 05:32, Stephen a écrit :
> On 15/09/2011 9:24 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> I'm just wondering whether fungi deliberately manufacture substances for
>> no other reason than to prevent them being eaten,
>
> Do you believe in a god?
>

In fact, not at all!

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/09/15 06:12, Invisible a écrit :
> On 15/09/2011 10:32 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 15/09/2011 9:24 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> I'm just wondering whether fungi deliberately manufacture substances for
>>> no other reason than to prevent them being eaten,
>>
>> Do you believe in a god?
>
> *sigh*
>
> OK, well if you want to split hairs...
>
> I'm just wondering whether the fact that many fungi are poisonous to
> large mammals is positively selected for, or a neutral trait.

In some cases, it's a survival advantage.
In other cases, it's neutral and offers no real advantage. There may 
have been a time when it WAS an advantage to protect it from some, now 
disapeared, harmfull organism.

>
> (Which is /obviously/ what I asked in the first place, to anybody who
> actually understands how evolution works.)

Yes, over very long time periods and countless individuals. Advantagous 
traits leads to higher survival rate and more offsprings. Disadvantagous 
traits leads to earlier death and less offsprings.

>
> The tea tree manufactures caffeine for no reason other than to control
> pests. It is of no "use" to the plant itself, it's just poisonous to
> certain insects that try to eat the plant. If there were no insects, the
> tree wouldn't need to make caffeine at all. This is "deliberate toxicity".

Nothing deliberate here.
A pland had a slight random mutation and started making caffeine. By 
chance, it killed some insects that where eating the plant, and some 
times killed it. Maybe those insects also eated the seeds of flowers, 
reducing the number of offsprings.
That plant chances of survival thus increased, leading it to have more 
decendents.

Similar to the production of vitamin C by plants. It protect them from 
some infections. It's actualy toxic to some fungi and bacterias.

>
> Other substances, however, are manufactured as part of an organism's
> internal metabolic processes. As hormones, as intermediate compounds, as
> storage, whatever. A few of these just happen to be toxic to other
> species. This is "accidental toxicity".
>
> None of this is intended to imply /actual concious intent/. It's just a
> figure of speech. Sheesh...

Post a reply to this message

On 15/09/2011 9:14 PM, Alain wrote:
> Le 2011/09/15 05:32, Stephen a écrit :
>> On 15/09/2011 9:24 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> I'm just wondering whether fungi deliberately manufacture substances for
>>> no other reason than to prevent them being eaten,
>>
>> Do you believe in a god?
>>
>
> In fact, not at all!

Nor do I.
But you did not ask if fungi deliberately manufacture substances for...

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 9/15/2011 1:24 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 15/09/2011 03:38 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 9/14/2011 6:24 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> Are fungi poisonous on purpose, or is it just a side-effect of their
>>> unusual body chemistry?
>>
>> Nothing is "poisonous on purpose", everything is a side-effect of
>> different body chemistry. It just happens that, in some cases, those
>> side effects make them a lot bloody harder for other things to eat.
>
> OK, but consider this: The venom of the Black Widow spider is "designed"
> to be lethal to insects - and indeed it is. To mammals, it's harmless.
> It has no effect on dogs, cats, mice... oh, but by freak coincidence, it
> happens to be deadly to humans. How unlikely is that?
>
> Point being, humans aren't the target. It just happens to work on them.
> Insects are the target.
>
Designed no. But if your a spider and you can't produce poison that 
effects insects, its not going to help you much. That some of them 
happen to accidentally effect other species, is not coincidence, in that 
you need the same chemical processes, on some level, in all animals. A 
poison doesn't have to do the same "identical" thing, hence the lack of 
some having an effect at all. In other cases, it may do some of same 
things, but because the poison isn't effecting the nervous system, but 
some other effect (spider venom also has necrotic effects, which kill 
tissue, regardless of *whose*, because it breaks down cells chemically, 
without needing to target specific characters "of" those).

A good example is snakes. Snakes have a very complex cocktail of organic 
chemicals. In most of them, those have been adapted to shut down pain, 
in most of the prey they go after. Since humans are not "prey", *none* 
of them should have a chemical for that. Yet, there is one in Africa, 
which does, and its not a python, or anything that might logically eat 
people. But... it might have eaten monkeys, of some sort or another, and 
a chemical that targets some nonspecific characteristics of pain 
receptors in monkeys "might" by sheer accident also effect humans, do to 
commonalities in the two nervous systems.

In any case, a "designed" venom wouldn't need 40+ different, often 
redundant, organic chemicals, instead of 3-4 very specific ones. They 
wouldn't need to contain things that have no effect on their prey, at 
all, but effect things, in some cases, that they would *never* come in 
contact with, etc. There are a lot of cases like that. Adaptations, 
which while they don't stress the animal enough to lose them, are nearly 
useless, because what they once affected is no extinct locally, and 
others where the effect of the adaptation actually is worse for other 
species, than the one it targets. Why? Because it works well enough for 
what its used for, and the coincidence that its much worse for something 
else is accident. Snakes don't "intend" to kill people, but some of them 
*will*, because we have the misfortune of happening to react **very 
badly** to their venom. It makes about as much sense to ask why this is 
the case, as though it was "designed", as to ask why some flowers 
produce pollen, which *happens* to make some percentage of people *very* 
allergic.

Post a reply to this message

On 9/15/2011 10:14 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> And that's what I'm asking. Is mammal predation on fungi significant
> enough that it's worth developing defences against it? Or is the extreme
> toxicity of some fungi merely an unrelated accident?
>
Since we don't eat all sorts of them, but just the larger ones, I would 
say, "probably". At the very least, wild pigs eat them, and probably 
others too. Besides which, that they have the characteristic, and its so 
heavily involved in their chemistry at this point, doesn't mean that the 
species that they *did* have a risk from is still present. After the 
trait exists, it merely needs to have "some" limited benefit, or not 
cost more than getting rid of it, to continue.

Post a reply to this message

Am 15.09.2011 21:32, schrieb Orchid XP v8:

>> Are lay people warned to...
>>
>> a) not eat self-collected fungi that have a certain well-known look, or
>> b) not eat /any/ self-collected fungi unless they're /absolutely/ sure
>> of what they are?
>>
>> Is this because...
>>
>> a) the toxic species of fungi are so few that they can easily be
>> described and remembered, or
>> b) the toxic species of fungi are too many to be easily described or
>> remembered?
>
> How about
>
> c) Most of the toxic species have no known antidote and are usually
> very, very fatal.
>
> People are also advised to drive at 30 MPH in areas where people live,
> even if there are no people there.
>
> Alternatively,
>
> d) Most fungi actually look pretty similar to each other, and you need
> specialist equipment to tell them apart.

Note your use of the word "most" here, implying a significant number of 
toxic fungi in both cases, hence indicating that a) can be ruled out at 
any rate.

That aside, AFAIK c) is not true (only few fungi must be classified as 
"very, very fatal", at least in the sense of being frequently fatal even 
with good medical care), and neither is d) (I've never heard of any 
toxic fungi that need specialist /equipment/ to distinguish them from 
any edible species of fungi; AFAIK, the most that is required is a good 
deal of attention to visual details, and of course profound knowledge 
about the similarities and differences between edible fungi and their 
toxic look-alikes).


(Disclaimer: I Am Not A Fungi Expert, so don't rely on the above.)

Post a reply to this message

On 9/14/2011 6:24, Invisible wrote:
> In a similar way, if I wanted somebody to go to an empty field and just
> *build* me a house, what would that cost?

That's pretty easy. Look at your homeowner's replacement cost insurance.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:00:44 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Evolution *is* *not* *design*.  Not even remotely.
> 
>   Evolution is emergence.

Yes.

>   OTOH, it also depends how exactly you define "design".

The verb "to design" implies one who designs.  "Design" is not 
"emergence".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 19:13:45 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> Which is /obviously/ what I asked in the first place, to anybody who
>>> actually understands how evolution works.
>>
>> When you start throwing around the word 'design', you start
>> demonstrating a lack of understanding of how evolution works or even
>> what it is.
>>
>> Evolution *is* *not* *design*.  Not even remotely.
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> Yes, and when I say "Word 2003 doesn't understand files saved by Word
> 2010", I do not for one minute intend imply that Word is actually a
> concious, thinking, comprehending entity. Of course I *know* that Word
> is merely a construction of op-codes, a sequence of instructions blindly
> executed by a mindless automaton, an inanimate machine. I know that
> there is no "thinking" or "understanding" involved. IT'S A FIGURE OF
> SPEACH!!!
> 
> Sheesh...

It's not a figure of speech, it's an inaccurate statement that those 
proponents of so-called "intelligent design" latch onto like leeches and 
say "see, see, there IS a creator!"

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Yes, and when I say "Word 2003 doesn't understand files saved by Word
>> 2010", I do not for one minute intend imply that Word is actually a
>> concious, thinking, comprehending entity. Of course I *know* that Word
>> is merely a construction of op-codes, a sequence of instructions blindly
>> executed by a mindless automaton, an inanimate machine. I know that
>> there is no "thinking" or "understanding" involved. IT'S A FIGURE OF
>> SPEACH!!!
>>
>> Sheesh...
>
> It's not a figure of speech, it's an inaccurate statement that those
> proponents of so-called "intelligent design" latch onto like leeches and
> say "see, see, there IS a creator!"

And I really don't care if those fools want to purposely misunderstand 
me. They aren't my intended audience.

Post a reply to this message

On 16/09/2011 03:23 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/14/2011 6:24, Invisible wrote:
>> In a similar way, if I wanted somebody to go to an empty field and just
>> *build* me a house, what would that cost?
>
> That's pretty easy. Look at your homeowner's replacement cost insurance.

Isn't that just the cost to buy another already-existing house of a 
similar type?

Though come to think of it, presumably /building/ a house will always be 
more expensive than merely /buying/ one, so that gives us a lower bound 
on price...

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >   OTOH, it also depends how exactly you define "design".

> The verb "to design" implies one who designs.  "Design" is not 
> "emergence".

  Well, I think one could *colloquially* (iow. not scientifically) say
something like "evolution has designed birds to fly", even though the
"designing" process was not made be any conscious being, but was simply
a consequence of undirected natural phenomena. (Of course this may be a
bit of a poor way of phrasing it because "design" could be interpreted
so that there was a target towards which evolution aimed at, and directed
changes towards that target. Naturally this isn't the case, and the "design"
as a concept can only be applied retrospectively. However, attacking the
use of the word "design" may be seen as needlessly pedantic.)

  Now, if the argument is "we shouldn't be using the word 'design' in this
context because it easily gets associated with the ID movement", than that's
a completely different issue.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Though come to think of it, presumably /building/ a house will always be 
> more expensive than merely /buying/ one, so that gives us a lower bound 
> on price...

  If that were true, then the builder would be losing money. It wouldn't
make sense. Why sell at less than the cost of building?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 16/09/2011 04:37 PM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> Though come to think of it, presumably /building/ a house will always be
>> more expensive than merely /buying/ one, so that gives us a lower bound
>> on price...
>
>    If that were true, then the builder would be losing money. It wouldn't
> make sense. Why sell at less than the cost of building?

Presumably building twenty identical houses is cheaper than building 
just one house. Cheaper per unit, anyway. And that's how commercial 
entities make their money.

Plus, the vast majority of all house purchases are for existing houses. 
It wouldn't surprise me if *new* houses are more expensive just because 
they're new.

Post a reply to this message

On 9/15/2011 3:12, Invisible wrote:
> (Which is /obviously/ what I asked in the first place, to anybody who
> actually understands how evolution works.)

The problem is that the actual answer to your question is "mu", the answer 
that unasks the question. The very question you're asking is nonsensical, so 
no amount of disclaiming the phrasing of it is going to get you a reasonable 
answer. I.e., you're asking the wrong question, and people are picking on 
your wording to try to illustrate that the very concept behind the question 
is nonsensical.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 9/16/2011 1:03, Invisible wrote:
> Isn't that just the cost to buy another already-existing house of a similar
> type?

No. For one thing, you're no longer mass-producing the house.

> Though come to think of it, presumably /building/ a house will always be
> more expensive than merely /buying/ one, so that gives us a lower bound on
> price...

Buying a house costs whatever the seller is willing to sell it for. Plus, 
you're also buying the land, which at least around here is almost always far 
more expensive than the house itself.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/09/15 19:47, clipka a écrit :
> Am 15.09.2011 21:32, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
>
>>> Are lay people warned to...
>>>
>>> a) not eat self-collected fungi that have a certain well-known look, or
>>> b) not eat /any/ self-collected fungi unless they're /absolutely/ sure
>>> of what they are?
>>>
>>> Is this because...
>>>
>>> a) the toxic species of fungi are so few that they can easily be
>>> described and remembered, or
>>> b) the toxic species of fungi are too many to be easily described or
>>> remembered?
>>
>> How about
>>
>> c) Most of the toxic species have no known antidote and are usually
>> very, very fatal.
>>
>> People are also advised to drive at 30 MPH in areas where people live,
>> even if there are no people there.
>>
>> Alternatively,
>>
>> d) Most fungi actually look pretty similar to each other, and you need
>> specialist equipment to tell them apart.
>
> Note your use of the word "most" here, implying a significant number of
> toxic fungi in both cases, hence indicating that a) can be ruled out at
> any rate.
>
> That aside, AFAIK c) is not true (only few fungi must be classified as
> "very, very fatal", at least in the sense of being frequently fatal even
> with good medical care), and neither is d) (I've never heard of any
> toxic fungi that need specialist /equipment/ to distinguish them from
> any edible species of fungi; AFAIK, the most that is required is a good
> deal of attention to visual details, and of course profound knowledge
> about the similarities and differences between edible fungi and their
> toxic look-alikes).
>
>
> (Disclaimer: I Am Not A Fungi Expert, so don't rely on the above.)

Some deadly mushrooms are indeed very dificult to distinguish from 
delicious and nutritive ones. It's to the point that, in some cases, 
even peoples who regularly collect them may pick the wrong one.

That's for macro mushrooms. For micro mushrooms, or fungi, you usualy 
need to observe them in a microscope or use sepcific reactants to make 
the difference.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 08:59:59 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> Yes, and when I say "Word 2003 doesn't understand files saved by Word
>>> 2010", I do not for one minute intend imply that Word is actually a
>>> concious, thinking, comprehending entity. Of course I *know* that Word
>>> is merely a construction of op-codes, a sequence of instructions
>>> blindly executed by a mindless automaton, an inanimate machine. I know
>>> that there is no "thinking" or "understanding" involved. IT'S A FIGURE
>>> OF SPEACH!!!
>>>
>>> Sheesh...
>>
>> It's not a figure of speech, it's an inaccurate statement that those
>> proponents of so-called "intelligent design" latch onto like leeches
>> and say "see, see, there IS a creator!"
> 
> And I really don't care if those fools want to purposely misunderstand
> me. They aren't my intended audience.

Propagating a misconception doesn't help all the same.  It's important to 
choose words with care.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:32:26 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >   OTOH, it also depends how exactly you define "design".
> 
>> The verb "to design" implies one who designs.  "Design" is not
>> "emergence".
> 
>   Well, I think one could *colloquially* (iow. not scientifically) say
> something like "evolution has designed birds to fly", even though the
> "designing" process was not made be any conscious being, but was simply
> a consequence of undirected natural phenomena. (Of course this may be a
> bit of a poor way of phrasing it because "design" could be interpreted
> so that there was a target towards which evolution aimed at, and
> directed changes towards that target. Naturally this isn't the case, and
> the "design" as a concept can only be applied retrospectively. However,
> attacking the use of the word "design" may be seen as needlessly
> pedantic.)

Evolution doesn't design, though.  It selects advantageous features over 
an extended period of time.  That's entirely different than design.

>   Now, if the argument is "we shouldn't be using the word 'design' in
>   this
> context because it easily gets associated with the ID movement", than
> that's a completely different issue.

It's partially the same issue.  It's about being clear in what is said.

We already have a problem with a misunderstanding (intentional or not) 
over the meaning of the word "Theory" in "Theory of Evolution".  Let's 
not cloud the issue further by claiming that evolution "designs" things.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:03:16 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Isn't that just the cost to buy another already-existing house of a
> similar type?

Not necessarily.  Replacement cost sometimes does include construction 
(ie, actual replacement).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> It's not a figure of speech, it's an inaccurate statement that those 
> proponents of so-called "intelligent design" latch onto like leeches and 
> say "see, see, there IS a creator!"

  If you want to have a fun evening, try searching for youtube videos
"disproving" evolution. You can start eg. with these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXVNJXu4R1c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7kJP08fF9w

  Those are so bad that it's very hard to distinguish them from poes,
but AFAIK they are being serious.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Evolution doesn't design, though.  It selects advantageous features over 
> an extended period of time.  That's entirely different than design.

  Actually evolution is descent with modification. Evolution itself doesn't
select anything. Natural selection does. Evolution is just change.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 12:55:04 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Evolution doesn't design, though.  It selects advantageous features
>> over an extended period of time.  That's entirely different than
>> design.
> 
>   Actually evolution is descent with modification. Evolution itself
>   doesn't
> select anything. Natural selection does. Evolution is just change.

Neither of those things is design, though.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 12:52:54 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> It's not a figure of speech, it's an inaccurate statement that those
>> proponents of so-called "intelligent design" latch onto like leeches
>> and say "see, see, there IS a creator!"
> 
>   If you want to have a fun evening, try searching for youtube videos
> "disproving" evolution. You can start eg. with these:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXVNJXu4R1c
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7kJP08fF9w
> 
>   Those are so bad that it's very hard to distinguish them from poes,
> but AFAIK they are being serious.

I've probably seen them before - if they're the ones I think they are, I 
actually became less intelligent after watching them.  Fortunately, it 
was only "temporary stupidity". ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>> It's not a figure of speech, it's an inaccurate statement that those
>>> proponents of so-called "intelligent design" latch onto like leeches
>>> and say "see, see, there IS a creator!"
>>
>> And I really don't care if those fools want to purposely misunderstand
>> me. They aren't my intended audience.
>
> Propagating a misconception doesn't help all the same.  It's important to
> choose words with care.

Nobody worries for one second about saying things like "Word 
misunderstood what I told it to do". Because very few people are stupid 
enough to believe that a computer program like Word actually 
"understands" anything. Similarly, our language is full of such 
short-cuts, who's meaning is obvious. The only reason we're having this 
conversation is that a few nutcases want to pretend that their invisible 
friend made the universe. Well, that's their problem.

Post a reply to this message

On 16/09/2011 05:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:03:16 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>
>> Isn't that just the cost to buy another already-existing house of a
>> similar type?
>
> Not necessarily.  Replacement cost sometimes does include construction
> (ie, actual replacement).

I wonder if they ever include relocation costs...

Post a reply to this message

On 16/09/2011 05:20 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/15/2011 3:12, Invisible wrote:
>> (Which is /obviously/ what I asked in the first place, to anybody who
>> actually understands how evolution works.)
>
> The problem is that the actual answer to your question is "mu", the
> answer that unasks the question. The very question you're asking is
> nonsensical, so no amount of disclaiming the phrasing of it is going to
> get you a reasonable answer. I.e., you're asking the wrong question, and
> people are picking on your wording to try to illustrate that the very
> concept behind the question is nonsensical.

*sigh* In Wales there exists at least one field which contains at least 
one sheep, at least one side of which is black. :-P

Would it make you happier if I asked whether the poisonous compounds are 
primary or secondary metabolites? Because that's clearly what I'm 
asking. :-P

Post a reply to this message

On 19/09/2011 9:11 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>>> It's not a figure of speech, it's an inaccurate statement that those
>>>> proponents of so-called "intelligent design" latch onto like leeches
>>>> and say "see, see, there IS a creator!"
>>>
>>> And I really don't care if those fools want to purposely misunderstand
>>> me. They aren't my intended audience.
>>
>> Propagating a misconception doesn't help all the same. It's important to
>> choose words with care.
>
> Nobody worries for one second about saying things like "Word
> misunderstood what I told it to do". Because very few people are stupid
> enough to believe that a computer program like Word actually
> "understands" anything. Similarly, our language is full of such
> short-cuts, who's meaning is obvious. The only reason we're having this
> conversation is that a few nutcases want to pretend that their invisible
> friend made the universe. Well, that's their problem.

There is no need to be rude and offensive.

You said:
“It's also clear that, for example, snake venom is "obviously" designed 
to kill the things that snakes eat.”
And
“I'm just wondering whether fungi deliberately manufacture substances…”
Then
“(Which is /obviously/ what I asked in the first place, to anybody who 
actually understands how evolution works.)”

You have had several people telling you that your choice of words, in 
this matter, is imprecise and does not make any real sense. Believe them 
before you make a bigger fool of yourself than is necessary.
Except when people breed things for specific traits, nothing in the 
animal kingdom is designed. Evolution is random, you are anthropomorphising.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> Nobody worries for one second about saying things like "Word
>> misunderstood what I told it to do". Because very few people are stupid
>> enough to believe that a computer program like Word actually
>> "understands" anything. Similarly, our language is full of such
>> short-cuts, who's meaning is obvious. The only reason we're having this
>> conversation is that a few nutcases want to pretend that their invisible
>> friend made the universe. Well, that's their problem.
>
> There is no need to be rude and offensive.

I wasn't aware that I was. I'm just exasperated that I asked a simple 
question who's meaning is obvious, and yet people are splitting hairs 
over semantic quibbles. (Which I guess just means that nobody actually 
knows the answer... which is cool, I guess.)

> You said:
> “I'm just wondering whether fungi deliberately manufacture substances…”
> Then
> “(Which is /obviously/ what I asked in the first place, to anybody who
> actually understands how evolution works.)”
>
> You have had several people telling you that your choice of words, in
> this matter, is imprecise and does not make any real sense. Believe them
> before you make a bigger fool of yourself than is necessary.
> Except when people breed things for specific traits, nothing in the
> animal kingdom is designed. Evolution is random, you are
> anthropomorphising.

And when I say "it's raining cats and dogs here", I don't /literally/ 
mean that small quadrupedal carnivorous mammals are accelerating towards 
the surface of the Earth due to the local spacetime deformations caused 
by the Earth's immense mass. What I *actually* mean is that we're 
experiencing copious quantities aqueous precipitation in the lower 
troposphere.

People do this ALL THE TIME. Our language is full of phrases that don't 
/literally/ mean what they say, or that say one thing which is really an 
imprecise summary of a much more complicated idea, but everybody 
understands what that idea is so it's fine.

And if that makes me an idiot... well, I guess I'll go sit quietly in 
the corner. I'm almost sorry I even asked.

Post a reply to this message

On 19/09/2011 10:40 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
> I wasn't aware that I was.


Well I for one, don’t like being referred to as a nutcase.

> I'm just exasperated that I asked a simple
> question who's meaning is obvious, and yet people are splitting hairs
> over semantic quibbles.

Therein lies the problem. You think the meaning is obvious and others, 
myself included, read it differently.

> (Which I guess just means that nobody actually
> knows the answer... which is cool, I guess.)
>

I think that you have been given the answer.

>
> And when I say "it's raining cats and dogs here", I don't /literally/
> mean that small quadrupedal carnivorous mammals are accelerating towards
> the surface of the Earth due to the local spacetime deformations caused
> by the Earth's immense mass. What I *actually* mean is that we're
> experiencing copious quantities aqueous precipitation in the lower
> troposphere.
>
Yes that is an idiom which is a colloquial metaphor. Well understood.

> People do this ALL THE TIME. Our language is full of phrases that don't
> /literally/ mean what they say, or that say one thing which is really an
> imprecise summary of a much more complicated idea, but everybody
> understands what that idea is so it's fine.
>

Indeed idioms are fine, a blind friend of mine will say. “I’ll see you 
next week.” Even though he cannot see. The meaning is understood.
The problem here arises with the topic. Using “designed” or 
“deliberately manufacture” implies sentience in the changing of the 
object whether by an internal or external power. Since life forms cannot 
grow or cause their offspring to grow, say bigger teeth or a more 
virulent poison, just by wishing it. That only leaves a godlike power to 
intervene. Hence everyone is picking you up on it.
Has anyone written to say that they agree with you? And assuming that it 
isn’t beat Andrew up, week. Does that not tell you something?

> And if that makes me an idiot... well, I guess I'll go sit quietly in
> the corner. I'm almost sorry I even asked.

I bet you are and you're not. :-P

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> I wasn't aware that I was.
>
> Well I for one, don’t like being referred to as a nutcase.

Um, I think you'll find that I said that people who believe in ID are 
nutcases. (Unless you think you fit that description...)

> Has anyone written to say that they agree with you? And assuming that it
> isn’t beat Andrew up, week. Does that not tell you something?

Fine. I give up. You win.

Post a reply to this message

On 9/19/2011 2:40, Invisible wrote:
> question who's meaning is obvious,

And we're telling you that the meaning isn't obvious, because the very 
phrasing of the sentence makes it absurd.

> (Which I guess just means that nobody actually knows the
> answer... which is cool, I guess.)

No, it means the question as you asked it is meaningless, even if everyone 
tries to interpret it in the way you think you meant it.

> People do this ALL THE TIME.

We're not arguing that your phrasing of the question is too anthropomorphic. 
We're arguing that the phrasing of your question is *meaningless*.  There is 
no interpretation of what you asked that can be answered.

It's like asking "does a submarine swim?"  The question is meaningless 
*because* of the anthropomorphic choice of words. There is no right answer, 
because any interpretation of the question leads to the answer "the question 
makes no sense."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 9/19/2011 1:24, Invisible wrote:
> Would it make you happier if I asked whether the poisonous compounds are
> primary or secondary metabolites? Because that's clearly what I'm asking. :-P

Yes. A question like that can certainly be answered, assuming there's a 
reasonable distinction between primary and secondary metabolites. That's a 
rational question.

Asking "does this food make me sick?" is a rational question. Asking "does 
my stomache know it's making me sick?" is not a rational question. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 9/19/2011 1:13, Invisible wrote:
> On 16/09/2011 05:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:03:16 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't that just the cost to buy another already-existing house of a
>>> similar type?
>>
>> Not necessarily. Replacement cost sometimes does include construction
>> (ie, actual replacement).
>
> I wonder if they ever include relocation costs...

Generally you have to actually rebuild the house in order to get the 
replacement costs paid. This prevents people from torching the place to get 
the money.

Often there will be payment of temporary housing costs while the original 
house is rebuilt.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

>>>> Isn't that just the cost to buy another already-existing house of a
>>>> similar type?
>>>
>>> Not necessarily. Replacement cost sometimes does include construction
>>> (ie, actual replacement).
>>
>> I wonder if they ever include relocation costs...
>
> Generally you have to actually rebuild the house in order to get the
> replacement costs paid. This prevents people from torching the place to
> get the money.
>
> Often there will be payment of temporary housing costs while the
> original house is rebuilt.

Is this one of those things that varies by country? Also, I wonder if my 
house is actually insured at all...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:54:24 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 9/19/2011 2:40, Invisible wrote:
>> question who's meaning is obvious,
> 
> And we're telling you that the meaning isn't obvious, because the very
> phrasing of the sentence makes it absurd.
> 
>> (Which I guess just means that nobody actually knows the answer...
>> which is cool, I guess.)
> 
> No, it means the question as you asked it is meaningless, even if
> everyone tries to interpret it in the way you think you meant it.
> 
>> People do this ALL THE TIME.
> 
> We're not arguing that your phrasing of the question is too
> anthropomorphic. We're arguing that the phrasing of your question is
> *meaningless*.  There is no interpretation of what you asked that can be
> answered.
> 
> It's like asking "does a submarine swim?"  The question is meaningless
> *because* of the anthropomorphic choice of words. There is no right
> answer, because any interpretation of the question leads to the answer
> "the question makes no sense."

Well said, Darren - much better than I could have said it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:13:47 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> On 16/09/2011 05:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:03:16 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't that just the cost to buy another already-existing house of a
>>> similar type?
>>
>> Not necessarily.  Replacement cost sometimes does include construction
>> (ie, actual replacement).
> 
> I wonder if they ever include relocation costs...

Depends on the policy.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 19:22:12 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>>>> Isn't that just the cost to buy another already-existing house of a
>>>>> similar type?
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily. Replacement cost sometimes does include construction
>>>> (ie, actual replacement).
>>>
>>> I wonder if they ever include relocation costs...
>>
>> Generally you have to actually rebuild the house in order to get the
>> replacement costs paid. This prevents people from torching the place to
>> get the money.
>>
>> Often there will be payment of temporary housing costs while the
>> original house is rebuilt.
> 
> Is this one of those things that varies by country? 

It tends to vary by policy, depending on what the homeowner is willing to 
pay for (or is required to pay for).

> Also, I wonder if my
> house is actually insured at all...

Is there still a mortgage due on it?  If it is, the bank most likely 
requires that there be some type of homeowner's policy on it in order to 
protect their investment.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 9/19/2011 2:40 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> Nobody worries for one second about saying things like "Word
>>> misunderstood what I told it to do". Because very few people are stupid
>>> enough to believe that a computer program like Word actually
>>> "understands" anything. Similarly, our language is full of such
>>> short-cuts, who's meaning is obvious. The only reason we're having this
>>> conversation is that a few nutcases want to pretend that their invisible
>>> friend made the universe. Well, that's their problem.
>>
>> There is no need to be rude and offensive.
>
> I wasn't aware that I was. I'm just exasperated that I asked a simple
> question who's meaning is obvious, and yet people are splitting hairs
> over semantic quibbles. (Which I guess just means that nobody actually
> knows the answer... which is cool, I guess.)
>

The problem is, its not a semantic quibble. Its the difference between 
talking about things scientifically, and talking about them in a way 
that a) isn't accurate, and b) is pretty much the way those that are 
absolute enemies of science use the term. Its like calling it a semantic 
quibble to ask, "Was that backstroke you got swimming", when you "meant" 
actual swimming, but the "context" of how you used the word implies you 
"might have" meant it in terms of, "swimmingly", and "backstroke" could 
be construed to mean something entirely different. It wouldn't help 
matters if their was a well known collection of people dressing in the 
clothing of the time the phrase was common, giving massages, who thought 
"swimming" was evil, and morally corrupting society.

And believe me, there are at least two other analogies that are less 
nice that I thought of, for how semantic quibbles "do" matter.

Post a reply to this message

On 9/19/2011 11:22, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Is this one of those things that varies by country?

I would certainly think the details would.

> Also, I wonder if my house is actually insured at all...

Are you paying for where you live? Do you write a check to an insurance 
company each year?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 9/15/2011 12:14 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> And yet, Black Widow venom /just happens/ to be lethal to humans. Not
> because there's any advantage to that, but just be coincidence.

It should be noted (although, I strongly recommend against being bitten 
by a black widow) that it is not lethal in the dosage a black widow can 
typically provide to a healthy adult human. It is potentially lethal to 
children and the elderly.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:24:40 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake thusly:

> In a similar way, if I wanted somebody to go to an empty field and just  
> *build* me a house, what would that cost? Obviously this one varies  
> wildly depending on exactly what I want them to build, what  
> infrastructure is already in place, etc. But let's take the astronomer's  
> perspective: how many digits does the price tag have in it? (Assuming I  
> want them to build a normal-sized house that isn't made of sure  
> zirconium or anything weird like that.)

Tesco are selling flat pack self assembly houses for £10k  
http://direct.tesco.com/q/R.200-3012.aspx

Going by the Land Directory 50m2 in your area would be about £35k, then  
add in sewerage, electricty etc.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message