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