You wrote: If I was going to literally interpret the bible I'd have to ignore way too many other facts...
What did you intend that I think from that statement? Tom C. (BTW, out of respect for the rest of the list I'm pretty much done with the topic, this go 'round). >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 18:54:20 -0400 > >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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
