woolley

Science doesn't have an agenda, it's a methodology. I think, at a fundamental level, the agendas of people are quite similar, i.e. intellectual and psychologial satisfaction. Once you design your framework things diverge.

Bernard Butler

??? If you lack the answer to a question, does that mean that you must/may not rule out any of the possible answers in play?

I'd like to see 15,982 killed in retaliation. A single civilian more than that is over the line though. Much of the US was lit up like a Christmas tree just over a month ago, because it was Christmas. Once a year is enough, unless you're some sort of Christian fanatic who thinks we should celebrate Christmas more than once a year. -Woolley

Sure, some are. I think conservatives are more likely to be hypocritical in the sex/drugs arena and liberals in the environment/money arena (libs who drive gas guzzlers and zip about in private jets, or who own companies who employ non-union non-benefit workers, etc.) Personally, I'd pick a sex hypocrite over a money hypocrite when it comes to public servants, but that's just me. Also, nothing gets people going quite like hypocrisy. The preaching that is heard when a hypocrite is exposed is as nasty and self-righteous as can be. -Woolley

??? The Nazis in general, or in particular? If you want pseudo-science, Nazi Germany was a veritable motherload. I guess one way of looking at pseudo-science is that it takes intelligence to come with some of the more wacky bits. -Woolley

Shoot a buck, then have them culled, or cull them yourself. The antlers. -Woolley

How old are you? -Woolley

Yah, I was typing fast, my bad. Yah, it was me who made the relation. We're essentially different. We theorize and we apply knowledge. We conceptualize. You label that as "special", and that's fine, I don't have a problem with the word, and you do, which is why you use the word "special" derisively, when I never use it. It appears to me that you have a problem with the concept of "special" and are exercising an itch here. ONCE AGAIN, this is going *past Darwinian evolution*. The majority of the majority of my posts are not about the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution. If you want to preach Darwinian evolution that's fine, but my posts aren't directly and specifically about Darwinian evolution, so why the hell do you need to bring up how this isn't 100% kosher with the "evolutionary" standpoint. YEAH, that's exactly the POINT. First, the concept of special, something which you continually invoke, is apparently a real concept. You are quite sensitive about it. You don't like to think that humans are special. Message received. I've never used that word, and you keep using it for me, again, to exercise that itch of yours. I think you're talking past me, so I'm not sure if I care to respond to this bugaboo anymore. Humans can theorize and apply knowledge in ways that no others species can. Fact. You dub that special, and then get all hot and bothered about it being special. I'm not even saying it is special. It is what it is. Humans are natural, of course. I'm not saying they are supernatural, or above the natural. Gravity works on us just like it works on anything else. Now, can we theorize and construct ways to escape gravity (physicists call it escape velocity, I reckon that's another manisfestation of scientists thinking about humans as *special*)? Sure. We do that by comprehending the force of gravity, something that other species just don't do. That's a fact. Is it a *special* fact? You tell me, you're both the expert and iconoclast of that word. You missed my point. What is science? Articulated and tested theory which rises to any number of levels, be it simple theory or the exalted position of law. Is science necessary for nature to do what nature does? No. So what's the point of science? A coping mechanism for humans. Do any other species give a damn about science? No. Sure, science can be classifed as anthropocentric nonsense. Your turn to get hot and bothered. -Woolley

Busy today and don't want to post anything curt/petty. Just one point. Like you say, beavers have the innate...it's not even knowledge...it's a drive to build dams. You can imagine it to be a learned skill but it ain't. Birds have the innante skills to build nests. My pet dove (sniff sniff) was bought a week after it was born. It never observed, never learned how to build a nest. Yet in the days before she'd lay an egg she would drag twisties, little sticks, pieces of paper into some sort of nest formation. That's not technology, because all that came from within. Technology isn't the mere manipulation of objects. A beaver or a bird doesn't know why they are doing what they are doing. My pet dove built a really crappy looking nest for unfertilized eggs. It was an exercise in futility. Technology is dependent upon the application of theories that exist outside of the self. The most nascent levels of human technology...or I guess I'd call them pre-technology...set the foundations of technology. Striking stones together to set off a spark...I wouldn't call that technology. Perhaps .0001% of humans could figure that out in a world absolutely devoid of all recorded knowledge. Technology, however, applies the knowledge of others into more complex applications. Human technology, therefore, is not innate. Building a computer will never be an innate, instinctual skill. No, I can't force you to see a real difference, but the difference can be articulated. It's not a difference of degree, but of type. Why you are driven to invoke the phrase "anthropomorphic nonsense" is beyond me. Hell, the concept of *science* is anthropomorphic nonsense, no? If science didn't exist, things would still happen. Why articulate things into theories? To make people happy? But that's an inconsistency you have to handle, I think the phrase is simply unnecessary in this discussion. -Woolley

No, it depends on both. Saying that genetic fitness is not dependent on the gene (you know, the word that makes up the word genetic) is ridiculous. How many spontaneous abortions occur due to genetic abnormalities? Or how about birth defects that render life difficult, end lives after a few months? Would you posit that in a better environment such persons would be genetically fit? I get your point. Why can't you get HA's point? -Woolley

It's not because we are human beings...thousands of years ago the rules would have...directly and essentially applied to us. Rules are rules. Have we gotten to a point where we can control and modify and direct our species? I think so. Just as we can control our impulses, we can also *control* how nature affects us. It's cold, but I can wear clothing and go into a heated building. I have an infection, but I treat it with a man-made antibiotic. The reality of these things (temperature, disease) have changed not because they have essentially changed over time, but our technology has neutralized or tempered their effect on us. Now, things certainly can change. Let's say 500 years from now all computers are wiped out, all books are burned, and the smarty-pantses are killed in some mass pogrom, all technology is wiped out. There goes the knowledge and the technology, but we're still humans. Would the Darwinian survival of the fittest motifs be more relevant? Absolutely. Because it would be a rough and tumble world *where many people won't survive or won't reproduce*. Then you'll have gene selection happening on a "natural" scale. Today, as I've said, there really is no reproductive stress, no difficulty in reproducing, no real competition between newborns to survive and reproduce. No, I was trying to sort-of redefine evolve. Our species is evolving, but not in the way species of rodents evolved millions of years ago or whatever. Our species is evolving...we're getting bigger, right?...but that's not genetics, that's nutrition. We're living longer lives, but that's because of medicine, and not because are genes are getting any "better". So there is evolution, and it's driven by technology, which is not itself a natural force, but an artificial one. Apparently me? If you don't think we're special, that's fine. So we're no more speical than the average dandelion. That is independent of the points I'm making. Forget the special bit. Does technology guide are species? Is there real competition amongst humans in reproducing? Are there real stresses that make it difficult for the young to grow to reproductive age and reproduce? Do circumstances (what social class, economic class, political climate) have more to do with the quality, even quantity, of our lives completely independent of our genes? Things happen. Happens happens. No, evolution happens all around us. Have we, in a sense, overridden it? That's my opinion. If I am wearing rubber boots in the rain and lightning strikes the puddle I'm standing in, I haven't prevented the lightning strike...the puddle...the combination of the two...the reality of the electrical current that could kill me. I'm just using a technologically developed block. Nothings really stopped, I'm just handling it. I almost said this for you 5 posts ago or so, I've been waiting for you to articulate this. Because this is a great point (nice of you to make one). I would stress that technology is outside of ourselves. Babies, in a vacuum, aren't going to grow and be technological, but if they grow in a technological world, it will become an acquired trait. It doesn't say it anywhere, it doesn't need to, we being special and all. We're the exception, not the rule. Now, tell me what competitive selection of advantageous traits is currently happening world wide in our species. But it's in their genes to build dams. It's not in our genes to build airplanes. You're great at making mountains out of molehills by the way. Later. -Woolley

Did you miss the part where he defined the mutation as leading directly to a more rapid reproduction rate? I'm not familiar with your example, but that seems to be a different sort of mutation than the one you laid out. It's a shame you have to supply juvenile responses to a thoughtful conversation. If this is beneath you, that's fine, I can accept that, but why do you have to be insulting? -Woolley

I agree that technology and science are not the same thing. As for anthropocentrism, well, that is the driving force behind technology, so I guess you got me there. -Woolley

Maybe. I don't know. I don't know how anybody really knows. The heartland.org article is quite good. I think the "several reasons for global warming" is the way to go, the one guy says that there just isn't enough to proclaim one cause for the primary reason, and some other guy says that years from now we may be saying thank God for global warming. For decades, the fear was the next Ice Age. Many geologists think of time as the span between Ice Ages. When's the next magnetic pole reversal due? -Woolley

No, the atmosphere is *not* a problem with Earth. It is the reason there is life on our planet! That and a thousand other things. No atmosphere, no earth. If heat radiation is a constant, then measurable heat increases would be reasonably blamed on a failure of heat, bouncing off the surface, returning into space. If less heat is radiated by the earth back into space, it is sensible that the atmosphere would be keeping more heat within its confines (again, assuming constant heat radiation from the sun). Mars doesn't have the atmosphere issue. If the surface temp on Mars is rising...the question is why? Not the atmosphere. Increased solar heat radiation? Sure, and solar scientists say that this increase in heat radiation is measureable and real. They call it slight, and we don't know what a slight increase in solar radiation will mean in real temperature increase on planets. But that's as reasonable a cause for global warming as any, I think. The variable, then, is not solar heat radiation, because that is constant...the Earth and Mars each receives it, relative to distance from the sun. The variable is the atmosphere, and the lack thereof makes Mars the control group, which is defined by the essential difference between the two groups being compared. That's the whole point, that makes Mars a control group in this particular thought exercise. You limit the variable to as few as possible...in this case, one. Have you ever heard a scientist on TV/radio/newspaper demanding millions or billions of dollars, UN global initiatives to send probes into space to get to the bottom of what the real effects of fluctuating sun activity would have on global temperature? Go to the source...what's more reasonable than that? And why the hell should we assume that the sun is a constant...when we know that it isn't? I think it's analagous to studying asteroids that may hit the Earth. Not comfortable to think about, but let's get to this stuff. It's simpler, I think, to say that we are to blame for everything that changes on the planet, in spite of the fact that if there's one reality in the life of the universe it is *constant* change. And even global warming is temporary, we're all going to be a degree above absolute zero eventually. Enjoy it while we can. I don't know how much man is affecting the situation, and I'm also against pollution. Maybe we should figure out ways to *cool* global temperatures in a real way. You never know when that may come in handy. I think such efforts would be futile, but at least it's thinking about action and how to solve problems, instead of more mathematical models and doom and gloom scenarios which never go past speculation and are just goalposts to be moved as time passes. I remember reading Erlich's Population Bomb. I think...15 years after he wrote the book he wrote an article responding to criticism...he admitted to lots of absolute wrong statements, but the point of his article that he wasn't actually wrong, he was just wrong in his timeframes, things would just take a lot longer to happen. It's Malthusian thinking, and I don't see how it's productive. Let's *do* stuff and cut out the *in thirty years we're DOOOOOOOOOMED* crap. -Woolley

Venus's essential atmospheric problem is an almost total absence of water vapor, and it's inability to recycle carbon. I have yet to hear a single scientist proclaim that these are two issues we should be worrying about. http://filer.case.edu/~sjr16/venus.html No, we certainly don't want to achieve the atmospheric dynamic and composition of Venus (they don't have an ozone layer), but I don't think we're ever going to have that problem, at least not for millions of years. Is it a good idea to be responsible when it comes to gas emissions? Absolutely. I can appreciate that with out scare tactics and apocayptic prophecies. No difference between that and Christian apocalytics who keep telling Christ is just a few years away from returning. -Elliot

That's my opinion. I'm not saying that so-called greenhouse gases aren't causing global warming, and I think it reasonable, rational, and yes even scientifically-valid to nominate it as a cause. I don't know what percentage any one thing is to blame for the totality of the problem. I don't know how much of temperature fluctuation is cyclical. I don't know if cow farts are as guilty as auto emissions. Nobody knows. I'm just advocating skepticism, and am buggered by people preaching a gospel of fear and demonizing various individuals and making a fortune while doing it. Hell, if they're right I guess it's good to get the money while we still can. Good points, I didn't mean to come off as a environment hating oaf. Big ups to clean air and clean water. -Woolley

The best way to survive from malaria is by using technology. http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html You'll note that there is no outcry for genetic engineering which will promote more sickle cell anemia in newborns. You're welcome to start such an outcry of course. Also, sickle cell anemia is *accurately* defined as a blood disorder (feel free to petition the various universities and institutes behind such a horribly prejudicial view) and those who have full-blown sickle cell anemia have a real rough go. You've even got people trying to cure the wonderful thing. The bastards! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?...=gnd.section.98 http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000527.htm http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/malaria_sickle.html Sarcasm aside...your example confirms the technology point. Malaria is being eliminated not by promoting sickle cell, but finding ways to technologically destroy the mosquitos who spread malaria. Yes, sickle cell promoted *some* survival success in technologically-free parts of the world where malaria was rampant. Yet malaria remained rampant. We can actualy wipe malaria out (with DDT, who woulda thunk) with technology. Viva la revolucion! -Woolley

Why are you even bothering to ask why he is even bothering? Because it makes both of you feel better about yourselves to be dismissive of others. A teeny wee bit sorry to respond to your rhetorical question, won't happen again. -Woolley

I would have used the word stasis meself, but don't miss his point by getting stuck on that one phrase. Or do. They are so intertwined though, right? How do people survive cancer, or AIDS, if not technological advancement? How many children have survived illnesses that would have been fatal hundreds of years ago, but for technological advancement? I get your point. Survivors survive, basically. A couple things. First, your example is quite extraordinary...you probably can't even articulate a mechanism for how such a disease would wipe out the intelligent. And then you ignore technology, where perhaps we could use our brains to fight such a disease. Fitness, it is true, is contingent on the reality of the day. Yet we will make statements and predictions based on what we know. That's a reasonable thing to do, don't you think? If what we know changes, then our statements will change. I insist that there's nothing wrong with saying that highly intelligent people are better off, when it comes to surviving sans technology, than less intelligent people. I base that on what I know. If that gets you all hot and bothered I'm sorry about that. I get your theoretical point (even though it's highly speculative and ill-defined), it's similar to an asteroid wiping out the dinosaurs, if it happens it happens, but for the tiny speck of the millions of years between such events I'll work with what is happening around me. Right. The rich...those who can afford air filtration systems or homes that shield from deadly rays, those who can afford to move to places where the climate is most condusive to good living. And technology will keep such people alive. You're not making a point in your favor here. No technology back then, which is just as important a condition as, oh I don't know, say a disease that kills all intelligent people. It also happens to be a *real* condition, and not a theoretical one. And neither Holcomb or myself are contradicting any of these specifics, I think we understand evolution in a world void of technology just fine. You seem to disagree, which is fine I guess. Sheesh, use your brain and exercise the ignore option when it comes to any given poster. Overcome the learned helplessness you are displaying. Discard your fear of technology and *use* it, it will make you happier. -Woolley

Cheers Holcomb! Now that we have that cleared up...I think the point can be made real succinctly. Human evolution is a *real* thing, and is not determined or driven by classical Darwinian mechanisms. *edit to add* It's OK to talk about human evolution in a way that has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution, because in a sense we have conquered it. As for judging genes...why not? Some people have terrific eyesight, some people have horrible eyesight (like myself). Mine is a genetic deficiency, but it is maksed by technology. Without technology, it would be a genetic deficiency which will also leave me at a fitness disadvantage. I am of the opinion that it is OK to declare genetic deficiencies while realizing that they may not be realized as such when measured by reproductive fitness. Why? Because of technology. And that reality is more real to our species today than Darwinian evolution. This is interesting...I think you're saying that humans aren't becoming *inherently or essentially* smarter, simply as determined by the genes which are behind the design of our brains. Human knowledge, it can be said, is by and large independent of our brains (although it takes a brain to interact with the knowledge). I know nothing about auto repair, but give me enough books and instructions guides and I can get by. Maybe that's not a good example. Where intelligence would come into play would be in the forward thinking department. Now, I don't know if forward thinking is an acquired trait or not (I suspect that it is), but yours is an interesting point. -Woolley

My point is that for humas, this is no longer relevant. Agreed, I'm sorry you assume, or have read into, me proposing that. In regards to Springer types, my idea is that minus technology, this would be relevant, as intelligence and general health concerns would come into play. Agreed, and my point is that today all humans are genetically successful. My point, furthermore, is how we talk about "evolved" when it comes to humans has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. Thanks. -Woolley

Hats off to all the people getting paid to declare their total knowledge about the whys for and the causes of global warming. People have to feed their families. Now...basic science types like myself believe in things like "control groups"...I'm not a highly paid phD who chicken littles governments and foundations into mega grants, but there is a control group, it's called Mars, and here you go. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sola...w_011206-1.html http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars...age_031208.html The atmosphere on Mars is a thin layer of CO2, completely dissimilar to Earth's atmosphere, and is not capable of trapping any heat. Greenhouse gas theories about earth global warming have everything to do with the trapping of heat. So if Martian surface temperature is rising, it is because of direct solar radiation, without the ricochet effect of bouncing of the surface and being trapped by the atmosphere. It is generally agreed that solar radiation is measurable higher today than it was 30 years ago. How does that effect global temperatures? Nobody knows. It is generally agreed that solar sunspot activity is higher today, and recently, than it has been in previous generations. The thing about the sun is we can't control it, and for that reason, I think researchers are loathe to nominate the sun as the prime culprit for global warming. Because if it is, there is *nothing* we can do about it. That and the money. -Woolley

Let me give this another shot... A lot of talk about how humans are evolving...but it's not Darwinian, or neo-Darwinian evolution that we are talking about. In many parts of the world, you still have at least relatively high death rates, high infant morality, people who don't live long enough to reproduce. But that has nothing to do with the quality of one's genetic code. Rather, you could have the best genes imaginable but be born into really horrible conditions, and there's not much you can do. In parts of the world where life is good, you can be a complete genetic waste and have dozens of kids, just watch Jerry Springer. There is no survival of the fittest, the least fit are often subsidized and welfared into a situation where they would be declared evolutionary fit (they live, they reproduce, and so do their progeny). And then you have nations where birth rates are plummeting because "highly evolved" people have decided that it's better to not have kids than to have kids, or, to just have one kid. From an evolutionary perspective you would not call such persons evolutionary success stories, but in everyday language we do dub such people as evovled. Evolution, for humans, is completely unnatural, or completely detached from the most basic, naturalistic, materialistic Darwinian understanding. Technology has overriden Darwinian evolution. Genetic evolutionary success has as much to do with what genes are more successful as what genes are less successful. In the wild, most animals die young. But people no longer die young. If everybody lives to be old, the genetic pool will remain basically stagnant. In the wild, if some animals are genetically resistant or a disease, those animals will surivive and thus the speicies will survive. With humans, we conquer disease by technology, not by survival of the fittest. Sci-fi types have all these conceptions about how we'll look 1000 years from now based on evolution, and I say naturalistic evolution wil lhave nothing to do with it. You'll have more blending between different races, but all human genetic advances will have everything to do with what our brains can do and create and nothing to do with random genetic shuffling, the mutation that miraculously survives, or forces of nature which wipe out large portions of the population because of genetic inadequacies. Modern Darwininan philosophers often assert that this is an absolute triumph for man. That we have transcended Darwinism. That morality can only exist once you've overcome survival of the fittest, made it irrelevant. -Woolley