101. Comment #134649 by LorienRyan on February 28, 2008 at 4:20 am

Hmm let's try another way of logic:

Isn't that cute, the wooter is pretending to be logical again. Look everybody, it's so sweet, enjoy it now while you can because they grow up fast. First you see their first steps then the next thing you know their all grown up. Ok wooter back in your cot:)

EDIT: Ok, that was gratuitous, but I don't think wooter is being entirely honest in his endeavour.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

102. Comment #134650 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 4:21 am

Comment #134647 by hungarianelephant

Spot the wooter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGR0BriodkM

George Carlin quotation - "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

Other Comments by epeeist

103. Comment #134652 by LorienRyan on February 28, 2008 at 4:32 am

The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

Non-existence is some handicap - that is impressive.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

104. Comment #134656 by Steve Zara on February 28, 2008 at 4:35 am

Wooter:

I asked you what it would take for you to change your mind. You asked in return what it would take for me to change my mind. I will tell you. A long message in well-preserved DNA (such as that for chromatin) saying something like "This organism is copyright Alpha Centauri Bioinformatics", to indicate design.

I have answered your question. Your turn.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

105. Comment #134657 by hungarianelephant on February 28, 2008 at 4:37 am

Steve Zara - I'd also like to see the mark showing that we meet approved Alpha Centauri standards of design and manufacture. They'll be receiving a strongly worded letter of complaint about my back problems.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

106. Comment #134660 by Steve Zara on February 28, 2008 at 4:39 am

Comment #134657 by hungarianelephant

Someone probably forgot to buy the extended warranty.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

107. Comment #134662 by Geoff on February 28, 2008 at 4:43 am

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy has this to say about the Alpa Centauri Bioinformatics company:

"The corporation's complaints department now covers all the major land masses of the first three planets in the Centaurus star system"

Other Comments by Geoff

108. Comment #134663 by hungarianelephant on February 28, 2008 at 4:43 am

Hey! I'm only 34. The days of our age are threescore years and ten. Says so in the instruction manual.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

109. Comment #134667 by Quetzalcoatl on February 28, 2008 at 4:51 am

Steve-

unfortunately the Alpha Centaurian for "This organism is copyright Alpha Centauri Bioinformatics" when translated to English reads as "Goddidit".

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

110. Comment #134671 by LorienRyan on February 28, 2008 at 4:59 am

A long message in well-preserved DNA (such as that for chromatin) saying something like "This organism is copyright Alpha Centauri Bioinformatics", to indicate design.

Don't give them (creationists) ideas. Next thing you know they'll be nano-stamping DNA.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

111. Comment #134672 by StephenP on February 28, 2008 at 4:59 am

Wooter,

A closed mind is such a terrible waste.

The days of our age are threescore years and ten.

Closer to onescore years and ten, until men and women of science and reason took a hand in things.

Other Comments by StephenP

112. Comment #134689 by PJG on February 28, 2008 at 5:40 am

Wooter

So we may be able to have a reasonable conversation about your understanding of ET, could you tell me why you have refused to watch the Potholer54 (or similar) videos which have been recommended to you so many times by so many people? You always accuse us of sending you on expeditions into the Internet instead of answering your questions when we ARE trying to answer your questions in the clearest, most effective way. A picture says a thousand words and the pictures in these videos would save so much time and complicated written explanations... we are trying to save time - yours and ours.

If I have been guilty of being less than patient, it is only because there must be some REASON for your reluctance to watch them and see where we are coming from and that makes you seem argumentative and ignorant.

If you watch them, at least we could perhaps start to look at some of your misconceptions.

So far as "How does E.T explain luck and coincidence or chances that have no consciousness is able to design and create intelligible, conscious creation, human being who can hear, see, feel. Sad or happy? ".

Maybe it is the form of the sentence, but this is almost unintelligible. If you are asking how "luck, chance and coincidence" (which is your (incorrect) understanding of how ET works) can result in something like a human being who can hear, see and feel sad or happy, then we have told you so often to find out how natural selection REALLY "works" and you may understand how a human being who can hear, see and feel sad or happy can be the (so far) end product.

I AM trying, I really am, but you have to work with me here!

Other Comments by PJG

113. Comment #134705 by The Reverend Dark on February 28, 2008 at 6:01 am

So you are saying that a blind and crippled person can draw or do painting a lot better than a healthy person? Interesting? Do you want me to answer this? I hope not.

Hey, what do you know. Wooter is just as ignorant about art as he is about everything else.

How about deaf musicians - Beethoven
Blind Pianists - Ray Charles
Blind Guitarists - Jeff Heally.
Blind Artists http://nebaart.org/
http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/publicWebsite/public_paint_famous_viartists.hcsp

So yes, blind and crippled painters (and other artists) can indeed create a better painting than a healthy person.

Unlike the Pope I do know about art, and I know what I like.

The Reverend Shayne Dark

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

114. Comment #135126 by Jon_Sociologist on February 28, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Comment #134633 by wooter:

How does E.T explain luck and coincidence or chances that have no consciousness is able to design and create intelligible, conscious creation, human being who can hear, see, feel. Sad or happy?

I assume that by "E.T" you mean evolutionary theory rather than a glowing fingered idiot savant dwarf from outer space.

Astrophysical theories show us how organic chemicals are a common by product of stars. Stars that existed prior to our solar system exploded seeding our solar system with the chemicals see so prevalent throughout our solar system.

Chemistry theories and observations show us how some of these organic chemicals have a tendency to bind weakly in specific patterns (DNA and RNA), separating and then duplicating themselves, giving us an explanation for the earliest DNA or possibly RNA life forms. The earliest life forms would have been nothing more than a self-replicating chemical reaction: bare DNA/RNA. Similar life forms are still around today in the form of viruses.

The process by which these chemicals replicate themselves is not always 100% accurate, thus we get the random element referred to as mutations. These mutations create variation; most mutations are negative making the organism less able to replicate itself while some are positive, making an organism better able to replicate itself.

The process of elimination by which the organisms with negative mutations are weeded out is the non-random (or at least partially non-random) element, and is referred to as natural selection. DNA/RNA is not just a blueprint that is mysteriously read and magically turned into organisms. DNA/RNA through chemical reactions can actually synthesize the chemicals from the environment into protein sheaths (cell walls) and the structures that we see inside of individual cells, thus we see how viruses evolved into bacteria/single celled organisms, which still reproduce by copying themselves.

At some point a single cell organism had a mutation that caused it to fail to separate once it divided, thus we have the first multi-cellular organisms.

With the rise of multi-cellular organisms it became possible for cells to specialize into the various rolls that a living organism requires to survive. Thus we have the various structures such as nerves, muscles, and etc. that we see in complex organisms.

Once organisms developed brains, complex behaviour began to have an impact on the course of evolution. Hormones and other bio-chemical reactions have been clearly demonstrated to have a major impact on behaviour (picture a woman with PMS, or a man with "roid rage"). The structure of the brain also influences behaviour.

Now that we have an explanation for how evolution can act upon behaviour, it becomes possible to understand, how evolution by natural selection can lead to humans who can feel sad or happy. Organisms that are capable of feeling happiness will usually try to take courses of action that make themselves happy. Thus organisms that become happy when taking actions that lead to their increased ability to survive and propagate will be selected for. Suffering is also easily explainable through the theory of evolution: organisms that are capable of suffering will usually try to take courses of action that avoid their own suffering. Thus organisms that suffer when taking actions that reduce their ability to survive and propagate will be selected for. For example, one of the reasons we feel pain is so that we will dislike and therefore avoid injuring ourselves.

Compare this explanation to Intelligent Design. I have never seen a believable explanation for how "god" managed to create humans who can hear, see, feel, and suffer or be happy. 'He breathed on clay', if that were all it took then my art classes in elementary school should have been a lot more interesting when we made clay sculptures. I was breathing on those things all the time, not one of them came alive. 'He stretched forth his hand', my wife does that all the time when she does yoga, so far our living room has yet to be destroyed by a universe popping into existence. There is no alternative theory to Darwin's Theory of Evolution that has not already been debunked. ID does not explain HOW life came to be as it is; it just postulates that there is an intelligent designer behind it. The Theory of Evolution does explain how life came to be as it is, and an intelligent designer is superfluous to the explanation. Occam's Razor, which is the basis of the scientific method, leads us to discard this superfluous element.

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

115. Comment #135149 by Jon_Sociologist on February 28, 2008 at 3:24 pm

Comment #134635 by wooter:

Fake transitional fossils
Fake experiments â€" Moth experiment

What fake transitional fossils?

Are you seriously suggesting that there is a global conspiracy among palaeontologists to plant fake fossils throughout the world? You think that it's more reasonable to assume that all palaeontologists (including the christian ones) are in on a big plan to trick the world into believing in evolution? What could possibly motivate all scientists everywhere to do something like that? Or are you thinking that only a minority of fossils represent transitional forms, and those ones are fake? If so you are mistaken in that you have overlooked the simple fact that all fossils are transitional, just like all living organisms are transitional.

Fake moth experiment?

Are you referring to the moths in England (Peppered moth evolution) where the factories turned white trees black thus favouring black moths and then pollution controls allowed the trees to turn white again, thus favouring white moths. You think that was some big conspiracy to discredit the bible as well? Why would you believe this? Presumably someone told you that these scientists are liars, but why would you believe them? Couldn't they be the liars?

The beauty of science is that you don't need to take anything on faith, if you don't believe it you can check the facts for yourself. You can become an entomologist and go and study the moths for yourself. Any scientific "fact" that I have personally looked into has turned out to be true. I have gone and dug up bones in the badlands of Drumheller, I have measured the progress of the moon in its orbit, I have compared the measurements of a Neanderthal's skull that I held in my hands to the measurements of living human beings. Go to university take a science class. You want to feel the wonder, and the mysteries of the universe, you can do it for yourself, with your own hands, eyes and ears and you don't have to take anyone's word for it.

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

116. Comment #135210 by Mitchell Gilks on February 28, 2008 at 5:53 pm

Sorry, but I understood what you meant, and this contradicts our understanding of Relativity.

In fact, it also contradicts some interpretations of quantum theory. The transactional interpretation involves propogation of waves back and forth in time, to a past that is "still there"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation

(*rollseyes*) Nothing I said in any way contradicts relativity, and if it did, it would be great if you explained how, or in what way instead of just asserting that I am without an explanation.

Also, yes, what I said does contradict that minority interpretation of quantum theory, as it contradicts the majority veiw, which is what I said jives with. Evolution contradicts creationism, doesn't make evolution wrong. Lots of views contradict other views, for all the majority held views there are contradictory poitions that minorities take. Everything I said is derived from the dominate veiws.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

117. Comment #135241 by Steve Zara on February 28, 2008 at 6:39 pm

(*rollseyes*) Nothing I said in any way contradicts relativity, and if it did, it would be great if you explained how, or in what way instead of just asserting that I am without an explanation.

As I have suggested, you need to read up about the "block universe" model of reality. As I have indicated before, this is described in detail in in Brian Greene's "Fabric of the Cosmos".

It is normally those who propose views who contradict mainstream physics who should provide the detailed explananation.

Also, yes, what I said does contradict that minority interpretation of quantum theory

Unless you are a world-renowned physicist, I don't think it is wise to contradict any interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

118. Comment #135261 by Bonzai on February 28, 2008 at 7:03 pm

Nothing I said in any way contradicts relativity, and if it did, it would be great if you explained how, or in what way instead of just asserting that I am without an explanation.

Causality does have absolute meaning even in relativity. Absolute past and future of any given event is defined by the local light cone.

Without a picture it is difficult to explain what a light cone is and why it is so named, the important thing is that the future light cone contains all events that can be casually influenced by the given event and the past light cone consists of all events that can influence our event. Since the speed of any signal is limited by the speed of light and causal influence is mediated through signals of some kind, the boundary of the light cone is defined by the wave front of a light pulse sent from the given event "towards the past and the future". Imagine dropping a pebble into a pond, at the point where the pebble lands a circle of ripples would arise and spread outward. The inside of the expanding circle of ripples is sort of a low dimensional, mechanical analogy to the future light cone of the source event (the pebble hitting the pond)

The observer dependent part is the temporal order of events which are not causally related, these events lie outside of the local light cones of each other.

In pre relativistic physics spacetime is stratified into "parallel" slices of simultaneous events (a snapshot of the universe at a given instant if you like), this stratification is 1) global and 2) absolute(i.e observer independent). As a result events can be ordered temporally on an absolute and universal scale by ordering these slices.

In relativity, events that appear to be simultaneous with a given reference event necessarily lie outside its light cone,--so in particular they are not casually related to the reference event, this is easy to understand because no information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light for any observer. This means these events cannot be assigned to the absolute past or future to the reference event. As a result, one doesn't have the observer independent stratification of spacetime into slices of "snapshots" like in pre-relativistic physics any more,

Other Comments by Bonzai

119. Comment #135265 by Steve Zara on February 28, 2008 at 7:08 pm

Bonzai:

I was hoping to improve Greene's book sales, and there you go explaining things :)

Other Comments by Steve Zara

120. Comment #135266 by Bonzai on February 28, 2008 at 7:10 pm

Steve,


Why are you hiding your face again? It seems that time is running backward as far as your avatar is concerned.

Other Comments by Bonzai

121. Comment #135268 by Diacanu on February 28, 2008 at 7:11 pm

Steve, I see you have your thermoptic camouflage deployed again.

What gives?

Section 9 has you after the Puppetmaster?

Or, is it the Laughing Man this time?

Other Comments by Diacanu

122. Comment #135270 by Steve Zara on February 28, 2008 at 7:14 pm

Why are you hiding your face again?

I have had many compliments on the hat. I felt it should take centre stage for a while.

time is running backward as far as your avatar is concerned.

Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so
(Douglas Adams)

Other Comments by Steve Zara

123. Comment #135299 by Bonzai on February 28, 2008 at 7:43 pm

Steve,

Unless you are a world-renowned physicist, I don't think it is wise to contradict any interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Just a small point. It makes sense to call someone out if his or her assertion contradicts quantum mechanics,--QM "facts" like Bell's inequality and what not,-- but contradicting an interpretation of QM is a lot murkier because there is no agreed upon interpretation of QM. The mainstream "interpretation" is basically that QM is weird, let's forget about interpretations and compute, which is not really an interpretation.

Other Comments by Bonzai

124. Comment #135302 by Steve Zara on February 28, 2008 at 7:47 pm

Bonzai:

Fair enough. But the particular interpretation I was referring to (John Cramer's) is pretty reasonable, being based on the same principle as the Feynman-Wheeler Absorber Theory.

I think that if anyone came up with a way to falsify a QM interpretation, that could well be Nobel Prize-worthy :)

Other Comments by Steve Zara

125. Comment #135308 by Quine on February 28, 2008 at 8:02 pm

Section 9 has you after the Puppetmaster?

Perhaps Aramaki assigned him to 'dive' the RD site.

Other Comments by Quine

126. Comment #135359 by Jon_Sociologist on February 28, 2008 at 9:40 pm

Sorry to piss on your physics conversation parade guys (saw a parade, had to pee, you know the drill), but I have to make some on topic comments.

I have to say I found the little moralizing bit at the end a little odd and nonsensical. Yes, obviously it is just by chance (chance and natural selection that is) that the intermediate forms between humans and any animal, that we might wish to eat or test shampoo on, have died out. Yes, obviously we are related to all of these animals, and any barrier is artificially constructed in our own minds. But this is also true of the plants that died to make the tofu that vegetarians so often expound on. It reminds me of a Tool song (track 69 on the album Undertow if I recall correctly):

And the Angel of the Lord came unto me, snatching me up from my place of slumber. And he took me on high and higher still until we moved between the spaces betwixt the air itself and he brought me to the vast farmland of our own Midwest. And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil. One thousand, nay, a million voices full of fear!!! And terror possessed me then. And I begged, "Angel of the Lord! What are these tortured screams?" And the Angel said unto me, "these are the cries of the carrots. The cries of the carrots! For you see Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day. To them IT IS THE HOLOCAUST. And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat like the tears of one million terrified brothers and I roared, "hear me now! I have seen the light! They have a consciousness! They have a life! They have a soul! DAMN YOU!!! LET THE RABBITS WEAR GLASSES. Save out brothers! Can I get an Amen. (EEeegghh). Can I get a Hallelujah. (AAAAeeeegggghhh). Thank you Jesus.

The song goes on to chant "this is necessary, life feeds on life."

It may be tacky to quote modern musicians to make a philosophical point. But there is a lot of truth to be had in the above quotes, and as an added bonus it can be taken to make fun of vegetarians, and christians at the same time (gotta respect the efficiency).

I find the conclusion that because all life is connected, we should be vegetarians against animal testing, a little off the mark. We are also similarly connected to vegetables. Knowledge of science and evolution does not lead inevitably to vegetarianism and animal rights activism.

A 'lesson' that evolution does teach us is that some species eat meat, and our species happens to be one of those species. From an evolutionary standpoint, one of the most important traits that cows and chickens have is that they taste good with barbecue sauce. There are far more cows in the world today, than prior to their domestication (in fact the species we originally domesticated them from is extinct: Aurochs).

My wife was telling me a story tonight, about one of her professors. The issue of animal testing came up in class, with the animal rights position being taken. The professor responded that we can never know for sure until we test something on a human, but while animal testing does not give us perfectly accurate results, it does give us a very good idea of what a products effects on humans will likely be (thereby saving many human lives). The inescapable truth when it comes to new products, is that they have to be tested. If we do not test a product on animals, then necessarily the first humans to use the product become the first test subjects. Scientists who test on animals are not doing so out of some malicious desire to torture helpless animals, they are trying to protect human beings. And as a parent, I want to know that a new product was tested on an animal, and that it is reasonably safe to assume that our tearless shampoo is not a nerve toxin that will cause my children to die a horrible and painful death when it accidentally gets in their eyes.

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

127. Comment #135371 by Steve Zara on February 28, 2008 at 10:01 pm

Comment #135359 by Jon_Sociologist

I find the conclusion that because all life is connected, we should be vegetarians against animal testing, a little off the mark. We are also similarly connected to vegetables.

I do understand your concerns. I believe that testing on animals should be as pain-free and humane as possible. To be honest, I think there is a difference between testing a life-saving drug and testing a shampoo.

Vegetables don't seem to have nervous systems. They don't seem to experience pain, or fear. The more we look at animals, the more it appears that they do experience these feelings.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

128. Comment #135382 by Jon_Sociologist on February 28, 2008 at 10:30 pm

Further to the domestication being evolutionarily good for a species: I'm going to go out on a limb and theorize that there are more dogs in the world than wolves, and more hens and roosters than feral chickens, more pigs than wild boars. Their future is also much more secure. Wolves, wild boars and feral chickens are all vulnerable to habitat destruction while we clear space for the domesticated versions.

And as to habitat destruction, evolutionary history teaches us that it's what we do, and it's what we've always done. Every time modern humans arrived in a new habitat, there were massive extinctions. Like a number of other species, instead of adapting to our environment (which we do as well) we humans adapt our environment to us. Any normative conclusion (moral lesson) drawn from this is not science. The occurrence of habitat destruction is a scientific issue. Deciding if such destruction is good or bad does not fall within the purview of science (although it should be consulted to judge between outcomes).

Something to remember is that in many cases, protecting a habitat means that people will starve. It's easy to sit in England, where there are virtually no "natural" habitats left, and say that India must not clear jungle to make room for housing or farmland. It's easy to sit in Canada where we can afford to protect large "natural" areas in national or provincial parks, and say that Brazil needs to stop cutting down the rainforest. In doing so many people forget that we are asking Brazilians and Indians to starve and live in shantytowns.

Don't get me wrong I'm an environmentalist when it comes to not polluting rivers, and protecting the ozone layer. But I draw the line when it comes to asking human beings to suffer or die, so that happy little bunnies, chinchillas or panda bears can live in peace. If you're that concerned about them, see how they taste with barbecue sauce, you may very well secure a long future for such creatures.

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

129. Comment #135391 by Jon_Sociologist on February 28, 2008 at 10:39 pm

Comment #135371 by Steve Zara:

I believe that testing on animals should be as pain-free and humane as possible.

I agree.

To be honest, I think there is a difference between testing a life-saving drug and testing a shampoo.

I agree with the words, but I suspect, not the spirit. There is a difference: testing a life saving drug on animals protects the, in many cases tiny, portion of the population that will actually take the drug. Whereas testing shampoo protects virtually everyone. Almost everyone uses shampoo, but most people will go their entire lives without needing a drug to treat diabetes.

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

130. Comment #135395 by Jon_Sociologist on February 28, 2008 at 10:53 pm

I also have to comment that vegetarians/animal rights activists are radically different, between here (Canada) and Europe. In Canada, vegetarians/animal rights activists tend to be a bit flaky and weird. In Europe, they are often slobbering psychopaths. I have heard so many horror stories about people trying to kill people with bombs, being threatened with death, beaten up etc. over animal rights. Not to say that Canada is perfect, we had a few homicidal idiots hiding metal spikes in trees in an attempt to kill or maim loggers a decade or so ago, but in Europe that sort of thinking appears to be the norm. Once a person starts truly putting animals and trees ahead of people they should consider the possibility that they are criminally insane.

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

131. Comment #135416 by Mitchell Gilks on February 28, 2008 at 11:43 pm

Unless you are a world-renowned physicist, I don't think it is wise to contradict any interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Oh, I didn't realise that you were when you offered your opinion on the subject. Because, as I stated, the interpetation you offered contradicts other interpretations...so unless you are a "world-renowned physicist" I don't see how you are in any better position to be offering an interpretation than I.

Bonzai, yes I understand relativity (at least superficially). Now of what you mention requires a past or future to exist in the present. The ripple is over the length of preceived time by the observes at different frames of reference, but are all still happening in the present.

Think of space as a plain, and time as a ball in the middle of the plain, moving along it representing movement through time. As the ball moves along, the plain closes behind it, and opens in front of it. Neither the past or future exist in the present, this is the number one reason time travel is ruled out, modern physics disallow it as a posibility.

As for causality, as I have already stated, events on the subatomic level have been observed that has no casuation, and this violate causality. It is by no means an absolute law, and I would be suspect of any theory that claims anyhting was absolute, how could they possibly back that up? We assume it, but there is no way to varify if the laws of physics obtain in other galaxies, let alone claim them to be absolute laws. Also, even if it were an absolute law of things in the universe, it would still be fallacious reasoning to suggest that it then applies to the universe as whole.

As for the moral issues raised about non-human animal rights. The reasoning is far more complicated than that. You have to ask why you don't hurt people, and why you behave morally towards them? If it is something arbitrary like because they are the same species, then that is no different than cutting your moral considerations off at race, sex, hight or weight. I don't willingly and avoidabily harm things because they can be harmed, and because they would rather not be harmed. For the same reasons I don't think others should harm me. Shock it up to the universal good. All things strive for what benefits them, and avoids what damages them. My moral considerations are based on respecting the good. The only universally shared moral evaluation by all living things.

Why I don't think non-human animals should be tested on, obviiously for the same reasons I am against it being tested on humans. Especially being that testing things on non-humans to attempt to gather information applicible to humans, although yields results, and works, is vastly inferior to the information that would be derived from testing on humans. So, it's an unfair double standard.

The point is merely to reflect on how you draw moral considerations, beyond people that share your DNA, as in close relatives, there is no reason that isn't arbitary and give you any more reason to be moral to a complete stranger that is a human, then you do to one that isn't human that I am aware of. If you can come up with one I'd be happy to hear it.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

132. Comment #135432 by PJG on February 29, 2008 at 12:43 am

Wooter

That is great. I will warn you that it appears the videos were made because of the misinformation put out by creationists (and Potholer54's frustration with this is sometimes clear). They may appear a bit harsh to you. Please ignore that and watch the explanation of how natural selection works. I think you will be fascinated.

This is not some worldwide, fantastic conspiracy. The vast majority of accredited scientists all over the world agree that evolution takes place because the evidence for it is overwhelming. No discoveries, so far, have contradicted it. It is true that there are slight disagreements between SOME scientists about SOME of the detail but that doesn't affect the theory as a whole.

Natural Selection Made Easy (9minutes 48 seconds)
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8

The Theory of Evolution Made Easy (9 minutes 51 seconds)
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4&feature=related

Human Evolution Made Easy (9minutes 59 seconds)
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=MCayG4IIOEQ&feature=related

Other Comments by PJG

133. Comment #135494 by Peacebeuponme on February 29, 2008 at 3:31 am

2. "While today's digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina's real-time performance goes unchallenged. Actually, to simulate 10 milliseconds (one1hundredth of a second) of the complete processing of even single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second."

Evolution and the complexity of life sure are amazing.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

134. Comment #135500 by Peacebeuponme on February 29, 2008 at 3:39 am

Steve

Vegetables don't seem to have nervous systems. They don't seem to experience pain, or fear. The more we look at animals, the more it appears that they do experience these feelings.

Is the pain experienced by animals the experienced in the same way as for humans? My thinking is that the most distressing thing about the pain can be the distress/angst that goes along with it. The feeling of "why is this hurting me?" or "I'm being caused pain: pain is bad" that leads to genuine upset. Is is the same for animals, or is it more a functional process alerting the brian to the danger and causing action? If so, would they feel pain in the same way?

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

135. Comment #135504 by Steve Zara on February 29, 2008 at 3:41 am

Comment #135491 by wooter

1. We have got around 1,000 different scent receptors our nose, with which we are able to detect more than 10,000 smells through by way of the magnificent scent perception system in the nose. How does luck and chances can do that? I can smell pizza or I can smell scrambled egg. How is that possible with selfish genes or natural selection or blind watchmaker?

That is simple. We don't have to have receptors for every single smell, just like we don't have to have different cells in our eyes for every single colour.

Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second.

Do you know how many supercomputers it would take to simulate all the molecules in a drop of water? The water molecules don't need computers ... they just get on with being water molecules.

The processing in nerve cells isn't done by solving equations.

By the way, you have not completed your part of the deal. I told you what would convince me I was wrong. You need to tell me what would change your mind.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

136. Comment #135511 by Dr Nev on February 29, 2008 at 3:55 am

RE: 140. Comment #135395 by Jon_Sociologist
In regards to your comment regarding vegetarians/ animal activists.

I'm a vegetarian. I chose not to eat meat as I don't feel comfortable eating animal flesh. But I'm more than happy for anyone else to consume as much as they want. I don't have a problem with drug testing on animals. Not all of us vegetarians are activists, tree hugging greenies... I and many others would never dream of putting animals and trees above human causes! Simply put some of us just don't eat meat - no new age reason and no activist reasoning, and obviously no religious meaning! It's just a plain old boring reason , I and some others don't like eating meat. Actually you will find quite a few people in the medical profession are this way inclined - (no I'm not talking about alternative therapists).

Other Comments by Dr Nev

137. Comment #135514 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 3:58 am

Comment #135491 by wooter

magnificent scent perception system in the nose. How does luck and chances can do that?

For fucks sake wooter, read what you are presented with. Evolution is not based on luck and chance. Selection is non-random. You have been told this and shown the evidence at least three times in the past two days.

You remind me of my kids when they were small. Going anywhere in the car you get "Are we there yet?", response "No, it should be about an hour". Two minutes later "Are we there yet?", response "Why don't you have a look at the countryside, we haven't been here before". Two minutes later "Are we there yet?". Repeat ad nauseum. Of course my kids grew out of this behaviour by the time they were 10 and used to work out what might be interesting on the journey, what toys and books to take to keep themselves occupied.

To paraphrase RD "Go read a book, you might like it".

Other Comments by epeeist

138. Comment #135515 by Steve Zara on February 29, 2008 at 3:58 am

Is the pain experienced by animals the experienced in the same way as for humans? My thinking is that the most distressing thing about the pain can be the distress/angst that goes along with it.

Well, we know animals can learn to fear some situations. So, I am sure there is at least some distress for many species.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

139. Comment #135522 by Peacebeuponme on February 29, 2008 at 4:04 am

don't have a problem with drug testing on animals. Not all of us vegetarians are activists, tree hugging greenies... I and many others would never dream of putting animals and trees above human causes!

I'm a meat eater, but have respect for vegetarians who are consistent with their views (i.e wrt to fish etc!). They are making a moral choice and all power to them. Similarly I wouldn't have anything against guys like you who just plain don't like meat - though I have to say I can't imagine how you can not like a nice rare steak or peice of Welsh Lamb!

Steve made the key point above about animal testing. I think we have enough different types of make-up and shampoo in the world now, so don't see why that type of research has to continue. But when it comes to drugs, I just have to say that if its between human life and animals, I've just got to pitch in with my team.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

140. Comment #135523 by PJG on February 29, 2008 at 4:04 am

OK, I tried, I'm done.

Jon-socialist, he's all yours!!! :o)


* PJG goes to stroke a cat*

Other Comments by PJG

141. Comment #135525 by Peacebeuponme on February 29, 2008 at 4:10 am

Epeeist

For fucks sake wooter

Sums it all up.

Stand by for some more cut and paste about the human nervous system, the kingfishers catching prowess, red blood cells, any other aspect of the world we live headed up with the phrse "How can ET explain.."

He will never change.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

142. Comment #135527 by hungarianelephant on February 29, 2008 at 4:17 am

Just a minor observation - there's actually less testing of drugs in animals than you might think.

Animals are almost exclusively used for very early stage testing - basic safety (for new compounds) and indicative bioavailability (for reformulations). There's not a lot of point doing extensive studies on animals once you establish that they don't drop dead or become obviously very ill. Because we haven't yet been able to engineer a mouse which is able to say "Ow, my head hurts. I don't like this."

The big studies are done in humans, so you can do a proper evaluation of what the drug does. What is does in a monkey is a better indicator than what it does in a pig, which is better than a dog, which is better than a mouse (generally speaking). But none of them are really reliable. You have to put it into adult volunteers to try it properly.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

143. Comment #135528 by Dr Nev on February 29, 2008 at 4:17 am

RE:151. Comment #135522 by Peacebeuponme

I get just a little defensive at times because people often associate vegetarianism with crazy activists, new age loonies and eastern religion, which I can understand. I understand that Steve was really making the point about animal testing which I totally agree with. When it comes to human life and animals I'm with humans every time too.

My apologises if I came across a bit uptight.

Other Comments by Dr Nev

144. Comment #135535 by irate_atheist on February 29, 2008 at 4:31 am

149. Comment #135514 by epeeist -

To paraphrase RD "Go read a book, you might like it".

Or better still, bend over and I'll shove a book up your arse, wooter. It's clearly the only way you'll ever digest any knowledge.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

145. Comment #135540 by Dr Nev on February 29, 2008 at 4:38 am

Marvellous, I'll go get the lube. On second thoughts maybe no lube?

Other Comments by Dr Nev

146. Comment #135541 by StephenP on February 29, 2008 at 4:38 am

Waste of a good book, unless you use "the good book" in which case I can't think of a better place for it!

Other Comments by StephenP

147. Comment #135543 by irate_atheist on February 29, 2008 at 4:41 am

...sideways, if possible.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

148. Comment #135570 by The Reverend Dark on February 29, 2008 at 5:22 am

Sniff... Sniff... The assault is terrible. I can't tell if a cow shat in here, or Wooter is back. My highly evolved sense of smell, is having trouble sorting through the assault; a whiffy air burst of stupidity so potent that it would knock a turkey buzzard off a vomit cart; cause strong men faint; and passing bloodhounds to explode into a misty red cloud of blood and flesh and half-digested kibble.

Sniff..sniff... No a cow did not park its fudge here. Too bad. The growing season approaches and some steaming, fresh from the source, turds would be great to get some seeds started. Sure it is shite, but it is useful shite.

We don't get useful shite.
We get Wooter.
Wooter - incapable of any intellectual growth
Wooter - a staggering combination of being unintelligent and unintelligable.
Wooter - say his name three times and Wipeout appears.

Wooter who will post anything that he thinks might prop up his god centric view of the world. Without checking who it is from, or what sort of expertise they bring to the field.

And so we come to www.dnarefutesevolution.com

Hey, the site looks pretty. Nice colours, good layout, pretty pictures. It quote mines pretty heavily, and I do not see a single reference to a published, peer reviewed paper.

So who is responsible for this questionable piece of work?

Drum roll please.... Adnan Oktar - who operates under the pen name of Harun Yahya. Adnan is a veritable grab-bag of crazy fantasies, conspiracy theories and other delusions. He is nuttier than the proverbial squirrel turds.

A young earth creationist and writer of 'Holocaust Lie'(arguing that it was not gas chambers, but typhoid.) A prominent anti-semite, who has mellowed into a strange combination of Zionist conspiracy theories (those members of Zionist conspiracies take heart, his is equally goof-ball-nutso over Freemasonry conspiracies) and projection of darwinism onto the phenomenon of anti-semitism. You might remember his coffee table book 'The Evolution Deceit' which was handed out in droves some time ago; followed by 'The Atlas of Creation' more recently.

It should be noted that upon review by actual biologists (Adnan is not a scientist)it was noted that laughing boy does not even understand the most basic evidence for evolution.

Which is probably why Wooter finds him so accesible. Who says opposites attract.

So that is Adnan Oktar out of the way.

Back to Wooter.

Spot the wooter
Spot the evolution(!).

Spot the plagiarism in comment 135491

The first paragraph is in the Wooterine sytle, the second is an unattributed cut and paste from an article by Dr. David H. Menton and can be found at www.jesus-is-lord.com. Menton is reproducing the paragraph from an article written by John Stevens.

Menton's whole argument can be found here
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/evoleye.txt

I don't think it will take anyone here (especially those who have actually read the Blind Watchmaker) any time to pick apart the string of Menton's arguments.

Wooter, dear little sausage. Once more you step up to the plate with more of your creationist drivel, only to have it rebutted, refuted, and for good measure, urinated upon. The last in not necessary, but we are all hoping that the strip will change colour and indicate that some hint of a clue will have lodged in your brainpan, and started growing into a resemblance of rational thought.

I will take the time to recommend Neil Shubin's latest to you (again) as it has a chapter dedicated to the evolution of our sense of smell. It is actually far grander than even your hyperbole laden ravings would have you believe. Grander, and explained clearly through evolutionary theory

You truly are a pathetic little human.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

149. Comment #135576 by Quetzalcoatl on February 29, 2008 at 5:27 am

RevD-

I've probably said this before. In all sincerity, as always your way with words puts me to shame.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

150. Comment #135594 by Peacebeuponme on February 29, 2008 at 5:52 am

Dr Nev

My apologises if I came across a bit uptight.

No need, you did not.

I just wanted to add to what you were saying.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme