Thanks for putting a strawman in my mouth, (to totally mix a metaphor). Since I never said anything like your assertion, I think I consider the rest of your debating style suspect.
Tom C wrote: > So you're assuming that a book or person always has to be interpreted one > way, either literally or otherwise, but not that some parts are meant to be > taken literally whereas other parts may not be? > > I'd consider that reasoning to be suspect. > > Since modern science only began to understand the workings of DNA some 50+ > years ago, I wouldn't rest my faith on what they think they know right now. > > Tom C. > > > >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted >> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:40:54 -0400 >> >> Genetic drift puts the event well into prehistory. If I was going to >> literally interpret the bible I'd have to ignore way too many other >> facts... >> >> Tom C wrote: >> >>> Odd how that scientific study seems to correlate with Noah (1), his >>> >> three >> >>> sons (3) and their respective wives (4). 1 + 3 + 4 = 8. >>> >>> Feel free to ignore the seeming coincidence. >>> >>> Tom C. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted >>>> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:29:11 -0400 >>>> >>>> That's true, but in hard times, (and there have been a lot of hard >>>> times), something as anti survival as a resource hungry giant brain, >>>> that hasn't yet reached real survival value, (and the brain is very >>>> resource hungry), would be very anti-survival. I don't remember >>>> >> exactly >> >>>> where I've read this but, I seem to recall that at one point the >>>> progenitors of current humanity were down to 8 or so individuals, >>>> >> (based >> >>>> on some genetic study or other). That is rather extreme speciation >>>> The only other modern species that had such a close call are cheetahs, >>>> at a much later time period. >>>> >>>> AlunFoto wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Human brain development may well be a runaway evolution process, just >>>>> like the tail feathers of paradise birds, reindeer antlers, etc. etc. >>>>> Any feature that enhance your probability of reproduction can continue >>>>> evolving far beyond mere likelihood of survival. >>>>> >>>>> There's a lot of literature... >>>>> >>>>> Jostein >>>>> >>>>> 2007/6/13, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> No you've not paid attention to the literature. A larger brain is >>>>>> helpful up to the point where it stops helping with basic survival. >>>>>> This happens quite a bit smaller than ours. In fact at the size of >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> homo >>>> >>>> >>>>>> habilis, after that, until the advent of true tool making and real >>>>>> cooperation beyond a hunt it's just dead weight. The brain is >>>>>> >> ghastly >> >>>>>> expensive in energy resources for the human body and incremental >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> changes >>>> >>>> >>>>>> in size from that point don't add to capabilities enough to make up >>>>>> >> for >> >>>>>> the costs. The development of a larger than needed brain was not >>>>>> >> pure >> >>>>>> chance, it was incremental, but with no practical survival value. >>>>>> >>>>>> graywolf wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> No, you are missing a point there, Peter. Non-survival traits do >>>>>>> >> away >> >>>> with a line. Survival traits give it a boost. But traits that do not >>>> >> affect >> >>>> survival are a dice roll, which is the point you are missing. Pure >>>> >> chance, >> >>>> in other words. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> dog. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a >>>> >> dog. >> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > > > > -- All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
