------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 05:23pm Nov 27, 1997 ET (#900 of 902)
and as for me, I found that my belief system has its own unique strength not comparable with other's. Carry on to the nth msg for this board. I think this topic (Cloning) is here to stay... for quite a while....
Joe
(p/s Noel, I don't like unix, programmers/hackers may like it, but to me... limited apps; end user as me wants microsoft office util/win95 apps + lots of other pc flexible upgrades... but, I just hope Microsoft won't dictate what people should use, in the future)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Nicolai - 06:13pm Nov 27, 1997 ET (#901 of 902)
Located in Taipei Taiwan
Now the mainland Chinese are going to clone a rare monkey.
This should bring the issue of human cloning one step closer to realization. At least it is highly probable that many people will think so.
A flury of repressive legislation should follow the success of this even though there isn't any difference in cloning any mammal and humans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Moorhead - 12:03am Nov 28, 1997 ET (#902 of 902)
(From my experience, after my critical analysis, I found the facts in the Koran very special than other scriptures, and it does not contradict modern scientific findings. Due to these facts, (I believe) it is unlikely that for Koran could contain false information. )
It is generally accepted that there are numerous rough drafts of the Koran. Even written instructions have been found ordering the return of old manuscripts upon the threat of death.
Yet the archaeological evidence is overwhelming that the Bible we have today, both old and new Testaments, is exactly the same as when it was originally written and that it, not the Koran, is the reliable record.
However, we both embrace the book of Genesis. Cloning a human will simply mean that we are copying God's design. We are creating NOTHING that has not already been created.
What arrogance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 04:02am Nov 28, 1997 ET (#903 of 904)
Cliff Beall: There is one such scripture from the Bible which would be relatively easy for me to find. Johari MA: But you didn't
No, and I am not going to. If I were debating the contents of the Bible with one of my Christian friends, and it became an issue, I would go to the trouble to look it up.
Cliff Beall: All I would have to do to find it would be to look up the word "sparrow" in a concordance Johari MA: Too far away from what I am pointing out
Of course not. I knew this. It would not have been meaningful to you if I had gone to the trouble of looking it up. That is why I didn't.
Johari MA: From my experience, after my critical analysis, I found the facts in the Koran very special than other scriptures, and it does not contradict modern scientific findings. Due to these facts, (I believe) it is unlikely that for Koran could contain false information.
I don't think your analysis is very critical. But that is my opinion.
Johari MA: Cliff, I have spoken enough; a pile of (unupdated) work waiting for me ... It has been a nice chat, and my apology if I have said anything not appropriate. If I sounds a bit 'unfriendly', sometimes, pls take it just as a joke, for fun.
Joe, I do not take anything you have said about your belief system as a joke. It is clear that you are very passionate with respect to your belief system. However, I must say I consider our conversation over the last several days one of the more pleasant, civil exchanges of ideas that I have ever had with a man of faith.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 04:05am Nov 28, 1997 ET (#904 of 904)
Carl Nicolai: A flury of repressive legislation should follow the success of this even though there isn't any difference in cloning any mammal and humans.
I do not expect any such thing in this country. In which country to you expect this legislative activity?
Mark Moorhead: Yet the archaeological evidence is overwhelming that the Bible we have today, both old and new Testaments, is exactly the same as when it was originally written and that it, not the Koran, is the reliable record.
Mark, this is simply not true. Bible scholarship has revealed that the Pentateuch (the first five books of the old Testament) contains a multiplicity of traditions, some of which are very ancient, and some which are not so ancient. The ancient traditions were not originally written down. The Pentateuch was edited into its final form during the post exilic period around 410 BCE. Most of the other books of the old Testament were edited into their final form during the next hundred years. The new Testament, as received, was written down from the beginning, but, in some cases, are based on sources which we do not have.
To learn more about form criticism and the making of the old and new Testament canon, I suggest you consult a scholarly Bible commentary or a good encyclopedia.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 07:44am Nov 28, 1997 ET (#905 of 905)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
Are you saying it remains a possibility that, about 4000 years ago, there was a worldwide flood that comletely covered the earth with water and destroyed all of humanity, and all land animals, except for Noah and his family, and the animals that were taken into the arc?
It is probably worth mentioning that there is evidence of a catostopic event that would have involved flooding throughout the Mediteranian region about 4000 years ago, but translating the "world" as we would today (all of the Earth,) I don't see how anyone can support a global flood event.
The previous thread reagrding haves & have nots is one example of the profound change we make make on our evolution with genetic sciences. I don't really see much potential for this outcome as many genectic therapies will likely be fairly inexpensive when they are mature.
I would also like to reinforce an idea brushed upon regarding the desirability of employing 120 year olds. Unless we are able to fundementally change the way in which our minds (not brains in this usage) function the 120 year old is liable to be so inflexible in his/her thinking as to be considerably less desireable for employment than the 40 year old.
The points about the accumulation of wealth and the spectare of dramatic overpopulation seem to be very valid to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Moorhead - 11:49am Nov 28, 1997 ET (#906 of 907)
Cliff
In 144 cases of transliteration from Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Moabite into Hebrew and in 40 cases of the opposite, or 184 in all, the evidence shows that for 2300 to 3900 years the text of the proper names in the Hebrew Bible has been transmitted with the most minute accuracy.
The evidence for the Old Testament is profound in its historical accuracy.
The Books of the Bible, when discovered, have never been found to contradict other copies (allow 5% grammatical error rate for misspellings, verb usage that DID NOT alter the context)
The Koran on the other hand cannot claim that. Contradicting versions are numerous.
Again, cloning is simply making a copy of God's design. If life happens with this procedure then that life will be a unique human being, with a Soul, and God will love him; as he promises.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 01:16pm Nov 28, 1997 ET (#907 of 907)
Keith Fosberg: It is probably worth mentioning that there is evidence of a catostopic event that would have involved flooding throughout the Mediteranian region about 4000 years ago, but translating the "world" as we would today (all of the Earth,) I don't see how anyone can support a global flood event.
Keith, I am not sure that it can be maintained that there is physical evidence of flooding throughout the Mediterranean region in that time frame. If you know something I don't, I would be interested. I believe I have read (somewhere) that there is physical evidence of significant flooding in lower Mesopotamia in the Persian Gulf region, perhaps in that time frame, and there does seem to be a definite middle eastern memory of a particularly catastrophic flood. The Sumero-Babylonian legend, the Epic of Gilgamesh, contains a flood story, that is, in many ways, similar to the flood story in Genesis.
Keith Fosberg: I would also like to reinforce an idea brushed upon regarding the desirability of employing 120 year olds. Unless we are able to fundementally change the way in which our minds (not brains in this usage) function the 120 year old is liable to be so inflexible in his/her thinking as to be considerably less desireable for employment than the 40 year old.
Well, I suppose it depends on the person. And, this may be as much perception as reality. In any case, maybe the elimination of the "aging gene" will take care of both the perception as well as the reality.
Mark Moorhead: The evidence for the Old Testament is profound in its historical accuracy.
Mark, I would be most interested in your source of information. Also, I would wonder if this supposed "historical accuracy" extends to the Book of Daniel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Moorhead - 02:01pm Nov 28, 1997 ET (#908 of 912)
The dispute over the Book of Daniel is when it was written; not that several copies stating different things are in existence. However, the alleged historical inaccuracies are fast disappearing. The accurate naming of several Governors would indicate a 600b.c. Timeframe. Even Aramaic documents have shown that Daniel was written in a form of Imperial Aramaic, an official dialect known in all parts of the Near East at that time. Further, the scrolls of Daniel found at Quern are copies, indicating that the original was written before the Maccabean era. Further, Christ identified Daniel as a Prophet in Matt. 24:15 and Mark 13:14 and Daniel did state he wrote Daniel (12:4)
Cliff, understand that I am not a scholar by any means. I came into my faith in late 1992 and have been seeking truth ever since. I have several Bible programs on my computer, historical texts that report the history of the Christian faith, several books attesting to the accuracy of the Bible. And of course access (like yourself) to the incredible amounts of information that both question and support Christianity.
Sticking to the subject of cloning, cloning is simply making a copy of God's design. If life happens with this procedure then that life will be a unique human being, with a Soul, and God will love him; as he promises.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 02:39pm Nov 28, 1997 ET (#909 of 912)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
Mark, Sticking to the subject of cloning, cloning is simply making a copy of God's design. If life happens with this procedure then that life will be a unique human being, with a Soul, and God will love him; as he promises.
I don't disagree, but;
The ability to take a mature cell and cause it to revert to the state in which it can grow into a complete organism opens a lot more frontiers than simply replicating the donor.
Medical advances, designer children, and new custom tailored species are all suggested by this technology.
Cliff,
Oops, I conceed! You are correct, gotta remember, first coffee, then post! I think the thrust of my comment is valid, but man, did I wack out the details! There was a flood, and in the time that the accounts of it were recorded it may have seemed that it was the whole world. As far as the entire planet being submerged, well... I don't see any evidence of that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Moorhead - 03:24pm Nov 28, 1997 ET (#910 of 912)
Keith,
You're absolutely right; "designer children, and new custom tailored species are all suggested by this technology." I don't support any Federal funds for this research.
Any attempt to clone yourself for spare parts (I imagine for the very rich) would be an abomination before the Lord.) I believe that Science will soon be able to accomplish this. This ability does not diminish Gods sovereignty over us. God is still the architect. I'm sure we (man) will find many ways to pervert his design in this process.
As for the worldwide flood, I have found many well written books from the "Institute for Creation Research" on this subject. Many Scientist do not support the "mainstream" belief of evolution. Many Scientist believe there is ample evidence of a worldwide flood. From my perspective they put forth a very credible argument.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 04:10pm Nov 28, 1997 ET (#911 of 912)
Cliff Beall 11/28/97 4:02am
CB:No, and I am not going to. If I were debating the contents of the Bible with one of my Christian friends, and it became an issue, I would go to the trouble ..........It would not have been meaningful to you if I had gone to the trouble of looking it up. That is why I didn't.
IMO, u're just giving excuses to avoid the question.
CB:I don't think your analysis is very critical. But that is my opinion.
I am, of course, have no time, to explain the whole history of my analysis, on this puny board. The previous quote, was just a short statement of my (whole) analysis. IMO, you and some other people, are the one not doing a critical analysis; You said (earlier)
Cliff Beall 11/18/97 9:19pm
CB:But that is not the kind of God described in the ancient scriptures of the various major religions. The kind of God described in those scriptures is a "personal God" who has a personality much like the people who worship him
This is a clear indication of your misinterpretation about my belief system. Other belief system may have a 'god' as you said, but not mine. Then, there are people who got confused, and said that 'god needs love, like a 12 yr old spoilt child'.
Kurt Schoedel 11/18/97 10:09pm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 04:10pm Nov 28, 1997 ET (#912 of 912)
Kurt Schoedel 11/18/97 10:09pm
KS:Besides, why would one beleive in a god that has the emotional maturity of a typical spoiled 12-year old child
Then, when I presented my argument, with obvious facts in the Koran, people were (obviously) uninformed about the content of this scripture. And, with all these confusions, you want to claim that my analysis is not critical? He he he. It seems very clear, to me, who is not doing a 'critical analysis', here, on this board. If skeptics have done their critical analysis, they would have no confusion about my belief system, it's concept about God, and what I have presented earlier.
CB:It is clear that you are very passionate with respect to your belief system.
I am.
CB:However, I must say I consider our conversation over the last several days one of the more pleasant, civil exchanges of ideas that I have ever had
Same with me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 09:06pm Nov 28, 1997 ET (#913 of 914)
Mark Moorhead: The dispute over the Book of Daniel is when it was written; not that several copies stating different things are in existence. However, the alleged historical inaccuracies are fast disappearing. The accurate naming of several Governors would indicate a 600b.c. Timeframe.
I have not indicated that several copies of Daniel stating different things are in existence since I am not aware of that--and would find it hard to believe, in any case. I am aware of the problems with its date of composition, and numerous internal problems. The internal problems are not unique to Daniel, however, and discussion of same runs into some of the kinds of problems Johari and I have encountered in our discussion of the Koran: different interpretations.
I have, therefore, chosen to question the historical accuracy of Daniel for a different reason, one that should not be subject to interpretation. It is this: the Babylonian kingly successions, as recorded in Daniel, do not match Babylonian records and the order of conquest by Cyrus, as recorded in Daniel, do not match Persian records. If Daniel is historically accurate, as you say it is, the Babylonian kingly successions and the sequence of conquests by Cyrus, recorded in Daniel, should match the historical records. They do not. Therefore, it is my opinion that Daniel can not possibly be historically correct. (Incidentally, in addition to the internal evidence, on which we would, no doubt, disagree, this is another reason to question the date of composition. If the author of Daniel did not know the correct Babylon kingly successions, nor the correct order of Cyrus's conquests, he must have not been from that time period.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 09:07pm Nov 28, 1997 ET (#914 of 914)
Mark Moorhead: Cliff, understand that I am not a scholar by any means. I came into my faith in late 1992 and have been seeking truth ever since.
Mark, I do not question your sincerity, nor you faith. I have high regard for all religions, and respect for all belief systems, that are based on high moral values. Yours is certainly one of those.
Keith Fosberg: Medical advances, designer children, and new custom tailored species are all suggested by this technology.
This is correct.
Mark Moorhead: I don't support any Federal funds for this research [designer children, and new custom tailored species].
Neither do I.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Moorhead - 10:39pm Nov 28, 1997 ET (#915 of 915)
Cliff,
The book of Daniel has been under "attack" throughout history because of what it predicts. With my limited resources I believe that I can dispute your claim of conflicting lists of Kings: (It is this: the Babylonian kingly successions, as recorded in Daniel, do not match Babylonian records and the order of conquest by Cyrus, as recorded in Daniel, do not match Persian records.)
I remember reading of this potential conflict. This evidence was easily disputed by recent archeological evidence that supported the Biblical claim in the book of Daniel and convincingly challenged the authenticity of the records you are discussing.
I know, I'll find the reference. I might need a day or two.
Thanks for the civil challenge! I didn't want you to think that I left.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 11:45pm Nov 28, 1997 ET (#916 of 920)
This place is a total freak out! WHO MADE WHO!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 01:36am Nov 29, 1997 ET (#917 of 920)
Mark,
The Babylonian successions were as follows: Nebuchadnezzer died in 562 BCE and was succeeded by his son Evil-merodach (Babylonian: Amel-Marduke) who, incidentally released King Jehoiachin after 37 years of captivity, Reference, II Kings 25:27-30. A year later, however, Amel-Marduk was overthrown and killed by his brother-in-law, Neriglissar, who subsequently died in 556 BCE. Neriglissar's son ruled for three months until he was slain in a conspiracy led by Nabonidus, who subsequently was made king. Nabonidus was the King when Cyrus took Babylon. Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus, and crown prince at the time of the conquest.
The order of Cyrus' conquests were as follows: Gained control of the Median Empire in 550 BCE. Conquers Lydia in 546 BCE. Takes the Babylon without a battle in 539 BCE.
What does this mean? 1. Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzer. 2. Belshazzar was never a king, although he was the son of a king, a crown prince, and ruled Babylon as co-regent when his father, Nabonidus, was away on military campaigns. 3. There was no period during which "Darius, the Mede" ruled Babylon. (Actually, the figure, Darius, the Mede, appears not to have ever existed at all.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 02:03am Nov 29, 1997 ET (#918 of 920)
Tom,
You should have dropped by earlier this week. Noel, M.A, Kurt, Keith and I had a lively discussion on cloning technologies. But on the weekends, those guys take off and leave the board to Mark, Keith and me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Carey - 10:48pm Nov 29, 1997 ET (#919 of 920)
Cliff B.---- I would suggest that you are wasting your time debating someone who gives any credibility to literature from the Institute for Creation Research. I admire your religious tolerance, as I do Noel's, but I think there comes a point that '' tolerating '' such drivel becomes tantamount to participating in their ignorance. It's the equivalent of debating a ''flat earther'', and will yield about the same results. Otherwise, I enjoy your posts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Moorhead - 11:20am Nov 30, 1997 ET (#920 of 920)
Cliff,
Thanks for the challenge! I have hit the Library and several bookstores and have found more information on this topic than I know what to do with. Recent volumes have been written on the very three points your disputing +more. I cannot hope to "edit" their lengthy responses. Suffice it to say there is a very strong case made that Daniel is the author, and the original writing is indeed 600b.c. (Sir Robert Anderson - "Daniel in the Critics Den" was one of three sources I used.)
On this note Cliff, I'll look for your name on other more appropriate postings for these discussions. Where we can exchange ideas and debate within the subject.
I am surprised that I received only one response to my mentioning of the Institute for Creation Research. On a board that is discussing Cloning, I expected more "Random Chance" Evolutionists to jump on board. To Philip Carey I'll say simply, real science observes, records, and measures. Any supposition is called a theory. You can no more prove evolution (missing fossils of the transitional creatures) than I can prove creation.
To believe in evolution you deny God's creation; (except in the Catholic Church who, incidentally, were the real "flatearthers")
To believe in Creation your labeled as ignorant. Oh well the subject was cloning, right?
Again Cliff, Thanks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 02:35pm Nov 30, 1997 ET (#921 of 923)
To anyone interested with the (difference) in the description of the 'Flood' [Bible vs The Koran], pls read the book suggested earlier, pg 214-218 (rather than just sitting in front of the computer, just complaining, doing nothing -- as practised by the people from the Institute of Ignorant.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 04:16pm Nov 30, 1997 ET (#922 of 923)
Philip Carey: I would suggest that you are wasting your time debating someone who gives any credibility to literature from the Institute for Creation Research. I admire your religious tolerance, as I do Noel's, but I think there comes a point that '' tolerating '' such drivel becomes tantamount to participating in their ignorance.
Nothing of the kind, Philip. I think there is nothing wrong with engaging people of different points of view. I am an advocate of religious tolerance. If I want people like Johari and Mark to be tolerant of my agnosticism (and I do, for good reason--there are more of them than there are of me), I think I must be tolerant of their belief systems. I don't think I am participating in ignorance, and I think I am making a few points. I love civil discourse of this kind. And, besides, Noel, MA and Kurt have taken off for the weekend. Nothing else to do, and I am having fun.
I wish you would get more involved in the discussions on cloning and immortality. I suspect that you and Kurt are soul-mates. If so, or if not, I would be interested in your contributions to the discussion.
Mark Moorhead: On this note Cliff, I'll look for your name on other more appropriate postings for these discussions. Where we can exchange ideas and debate within the subject.
I will be interested in your views on cloning technologies. I assume we will have some agreements and some disagreements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 04:20pm Nov 30, 1997 ET (#923 of 923)
Mark Moorhead: To Philip Carey I'll say simply, real science observes, records, and measures. Any supposition is called a theory. You can no more prove evolution (missing fossils of the transitional creatures) than I can prove creation.
Actually, Mark, you are wrong. To be scientific, one must make use of the scientific method. To apply the scientific method, one must be able to test a supposition. A supposition without evidence (mathematical or physical) is a hypothesis. A theory requires evidence. Evolution is a theory since it has much evidence in its favor. The evidence is in the rock and in the DNA. In many respects, the fossil record is rich. That evolution has occurred, and continues to occur is unquestionable. The specific paths of evolution, as revealed in the fossil record, is questionable in some cases. Increasingly, DNA evidence is being used to more firmly establish specific paths of evolution. Actually, the only real question remaining is the specific mechanism of the genesis of the simplest forms life from inanimate substance. Admittedly, this does remain to be established since no such mechanism has been proven to exist.
Creation is a hypothesis, but it is not a testable hypothesis. There is no hard physical evidence for it whatever. Thus creation is neither scientific, nor a theory.
Johari MA: To anyone interested with the (difference) in the description of the 'Flood' [Bible vs The Koran], pls read the book suggested earlier
Maybe I missed something Joe, what book are you referring to?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Moorhead - 11:09pm Nov 30, 1997 ET (#924 of 928)
Cliff
(Actually, Mark, you are wrong. To be scientific, one must make use of the scientific method. To apply the scientific method, one must be able to test a supposition. A supposition without evidence (mathematical or physical) is a hypothesis. A theory requires evidence.)
Your absolutely right Cliff, I am guilty of over generalizing on the point I was trying to make. I believe that the Bible is the literal Breathed Word of God, through man, preserved for all time, for all mankind.
(Creation is a hypothesis, but it is not a testable hypothesis. There is no hard physical evidences for it whatever. Thus creation is neither scientific, nor a theory.)
Disagree. The evidence that this theory requires is the Bible, what God said, and the events recorded in the Bible. The evidence is everywhere you look. Evolution is a theory, as is Creation. Both use the fossil, geological, and DNA evidence to support their different hypothesis. Both should have equal weight in the academic community. However, if you believe in a Creator God, you are scoffed and laughed at in the "scientific" community. The two can't go together - it would seem.
(That evolution has occurred, and continues to occur is unquestionable)
That "change" has occurred within species is unquestionable. A Poodle bred to a Poodle will result in a Poodle. A Poodle bred to a Chow will result in many "variations." A Dog bred to a Cat cannot occur. Change will occur. A lizard will not grow wings and fly; (read the recent Scientific studies that refute this theory.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 11:15pm Nov 30, 1997 ET (#925 of 928)
Cloning is anti-thema to evolution. Evolution simply put is a change in the (or a) gene pool over time. This happens via mutation and natural selection in the wild. If you clone, no genetic variation occurs and no variability is passed on to future generations. If cloning does happen, you better make sure the organisms can't reproduce. Life finds a way.(I learned that watching Jurasic Park.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 11:27pm Nov 30, 1997 ET (#926 of 928)
Mark M. " A lizard will not grow wings and fly"
Don't be so sure of that. If there was some environmental advantage for lizards with wings, it may or may not occur. Remember the Taridachdyle (Spelling.eee!)? Consider the lizard that runs on water. That is an adaptation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 11:37pm Nov 30, 1997 ET (#927 of 928)
For some reason, that species of lizard arose. Presumably, a closley related earlier type or group began this behaviour (for some advantageous reason). There bodies adapted in such a way (muscles, feet etc.) to allow them to run on water. That uniqueness in the genetic pool survived (was selected) and was passed on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 12:18am Dec 1, 1997 ET (#928 of 928)
When I first read the following post, I found a minor point of disagreement--likelyhood of repressive legislation, and mentioned it in one of my subsequent posts. In re-reading the posts for the past week, however, it occurs to me that the contents of this post deserves more than I gave it and could probably serve well as a topic for discussion. See if you agree.
Carl Nicolai, #901: Now the mainland Chinese are going to clone a rare monkey. This should bring the issue of human cloning one step closer to realization. At least it is highly probable that many people will think so. A flury of repressive legislation should follow the success of this even though there isn't any difference in cloning any mammal and humans.
Some questions that should be addressed are:
1. Is the experiment likely to be successful (to prevent extinction of the monkey).
2. Does this really bring the issue of human cloning a step closer to realization?
3. Is repressive legislation likely, as a consequence?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 01:38am Dec 1, 1997 ET (#929 of 929)
Mark Moorhead: That "change" has occurred within species is unquestionable. A Poodle bred to a Poodle will result in a Poodle. A Poodle bred to a Chow will result in many "variations." A Dog bred to a Cat cannot occur.
Mark, the question is not whether you can breed two animals together, and what you get if you can, the question is one of common ancestry. For example, do you deny that a dog and a wolf have a common ancestry. I submit that the fossil record clearly indicates that they do. Also, do you deny that all birds have a common ancestry. I submit that the fossil record clearly indicates that they do. I will take it a step further. I submit that the fossil record clearly indicates that birds and reptiles have a common ancestry. (I could continue with additional steps, but I think that that is enough for now.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 09:24am Dec 1, 1997 ET (#930 of 944)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
OK, take a deep breath.... there is no "Creation Theory," nor can there be. Since Creationism is untestable it can not, by definition, be theory.
This does not mean that the folks behind "Scientific Creationism" are wrong (I think they are, but I could be in error.) it simply means that Creationism is not theory.
You are correct Tom, mass cloning certainly would interfere with evolution, as does medicine and any "genetic tinkering." I don't stipulate that we should abandone any of these technologies, but I do think we had better establish some kind of goals if we are going to replace evolution with technology as the mechanism for adaptation.
Which brings me to the monkey.... Other than increasing the number of living individuals, how does cloning aid in the preservation of the species? If the number of genetically unique individuals of this species is very low, cloning them may help very little, if at all, in preserving the species.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 10:47am Dec 1, 1997 ET (#931 of 944)
Cliff B. #928: 1. Is the experiment likely to be successful (to prevent extinction of the monkey).
DEAF
2. Does this really bring the issue of human cloning a step closer to realization?
DUMB
3. Is repressive legislation likely, as a consequence?
BLIND
Does that answer your questions?
Keith Fosberg #930: I agree with your opinion of monkey cloning. Genetic variability would be compromised. The only solution is breeding in captivity with very little cloning. Is poaching the problem with the monkey or loss of habitat or both? The orientals are notorious for using animal parts for "medicine".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sohail Zia - 11:00am Dec 1, 1997 ET (#932 of 944)
With all the intelligence in Nature, I can not deny my Creator; the Source
Noel Yap - 03:54pm Nov 17, 1997 ET (#807) For example, only twenty years ago, gays were deemed psychologically ill and that they should make the effort to become more "normal" in their preferences. This is not the case today. Other moral issues may undergo this perception shift.
Sorry, I could not understand your 'perception shift' as you being an advocate of logic!
If I perform a 'root cause' analysis on the natural basis for sex, then the homosexuality never turns out to be a logical answer, nor if we believe in free will, nor if we want to identify any social illness.
To my understanding nature has evolved (the faithless version) or Creator has created in us (the faithful version) the sex and sexual desire for the purpose of human reproduction, we also observe that whenever we have departed from a naturally balanced system, we have faced undesirable side effects although, we have always claimed our acts to be 'well thought' (e.g. global warming, deforestation etc.). I think homosexuality is a product of the 'land of rights' and not of duties, whereas in the world of believers, ones' duties becomes the others' rights.
Cliff Beall - 11:08pm Nov 17, 1997 ET (#810) Gays will want this option. What do you say to that? Might be interesting when the offspring of a gay person, using this method of reproduction, turns out to not to be gay. Do you believe that?
Yes, indeed. <previous message Sohail Zia 11/23/97 11:12pm >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 11:51am Dec 1, 1997 ET (#933 of 944)
Sohail Zia: If that is your real name, what on earth does homosexual talk have to do with the cloning issue. Take your way off topics elsewhere please.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
M.A.DeLuca - 01:19pm Dec 1, 1997 ET (#934 of 944)
Actually, Tom, although it might not be germane to Sohail's discussion, a number of homosexual and feminist groups have discussed the possibility of using cloning to do away with sexual reproduction. As has been noted, this would be genetically disasterous.
Cliff, thank's for noticing my weekend absences. Am I that obvious? By the way, if you think I'm direct, what do you think about Tom's "Deaf, Dumb, and Blind?"
Anyway getting back to the aging argument, I think employers do worry about the age of new hires, and are reluctant to bring in someone over a certain age. Certainly, that's the concern of some of my coworkers at the engineering firm I work for. Whether that's because they won't work for the company for too long before retiring, are likely to be less healthy and need more sick time, demand too high a salary, or are too old and set in their ways (in the company's opinion), I can't say, although I do think a combination of these factors is probably at work.
Keith Fosberg brings up an excellent concern about whether the mind grows inflexible with age, and I know some developmental psychology research has been aimed at the "plasticity" of children's minds as a function of their learning potential. By my recollection, this progressively wears off (at rates varying from individual to individual), leaving an older mind less capable of dealing with new paradigms (Oh, I love using that word!)
Is this a natural function that has to be corrected apart from aging? Or is this something that will disappear once anti-agathics become widespread and effective? I don't know, but I'm still optimistic about the outcome. I just hope I live long enough to be able to take advantage of it...cryonics or not, I still don't want to die!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 03:27pm Dec 1, 1997 ET (#935 of 944)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
Could you spell that Tom?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:12pm Dec 1, 1997 ET (#936 of 944)
M.A.DeLuca: So, you think this technology will increase suffering?
That would all depend on who gets to use the technology. For example, if it's used in India to further aggravate an already out-of-control population problem, it would increase suffering. On the other hand, although the US isn't perfect, I feel we have enough balance so that the relative amount of suffering won't increase much. Assuming this balance still holds in the future, I don't think we need to worry too much about the scenario I posted.
Noel Yap: I'm on a Unix system -- a real OS -- and using vi.
Cliff Beall: Talk about archaic: can\222t you afford Windows?
Windows is fine for a front end, but when you need real work done, you'll have to go to another OS.
If you've noticed, there are more and more books about Linux than about MS stuff. And, Linux is free. Furthermore, if you know what you're doing, you can debug the relatively few flaws yourself rather than reporting GPF's to MS.
Cliff Beall: Maybe it depends on who are the weak and who are the strong--in real terms.
Yes, I forgot to mention that weak and strong can be in terms of economics as well as any number of other criteria.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:12pm Dec 1, 1997 ET (#937 of 944)
Cliff Beall: In a sense, it is no longer survival of the fittest, but survival of the ones to which certain technologies are made available.
It would depend on what constitutes "fittest."
Cliff Beall: to increase population on an increasing scale to more quickly use up available limited resources.
This cannot keep going indefinitely. At some point, we'll hit a population level that'll force us to drastically drop in population. We've seen it happen with deer populations when we got rid of their predators. We are no different.
Cliff Beall: But morally speaking, how can one deny life extending procedures to those who need it to stay alive?
It's part of nature. Or, putting it another way, "How can one deny resources to many others just to save one life?"
Cliff Beall: Cloning is supposed to make certain life extending medicines cheaper. This seems good, but down the road, perhaps the more widespread the use of these life extending therapies become, the sooner the ultimate total destruction of the human race.
Right.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:13pm Dec 1, 1997 ET (#938 of 944)
Cliff Beall: Maybe it would be better to limit the technology to a select, special, favored few.
Economics was developed when demand surpassed supply.
Cliff Beall: Maybe then the have-nots will kill off the haves and throw mankind back into the cave era where only the fittest survive.
Something like this has happened in the past. We were not the first, nor will we be the last, global civilisation.
Cliff Beall: thirty years is usually not considered much better than twenty years.
If you stay in the same field. As M.A., I could see that I would get bored after a while. I would then use my savings and experience to go into a new field. Although I may not have experience in this new field, my prior (personal as well as professional) experiences will undoubtedly help me.
Kurt Schoedel: The second could only be done by multi-millionaires whereas the first opens the door to making it available to the third world (it would be injection rather than surgery based).
I am opposed to the third world using the tech until they've made the choice of sacrificing their culture for technology. As I've said before, the problems they face now is due to the imbalance between society and technology.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:13pm Dec 1, 1997 ET (#939 of 944)
Kurt Schoedel: I think the birth rate would plummit because the only people who would have kids would be those who are genuinely into it.
People will continue to have kids 'cos they are used to having kids. The decreased infant mortality rate in India and other third world countries hasn't decreased the birth rate; it's only aggravated the population problem.
Kurt Schoedel: Most people who have kids for either selfish reasons or for fear of growing old alone would be liberated from thier fears and, therefor, would not have kids.
Fears are not this rational.
Kurt Schoedel: every immortalist I've know (including myself) eventually wants to migrate into space.
This is one solution I've mentioned. It would require that we develop space (and other) technologies alongside cloning.
Cliff Beall: I think that overpopulation is a real problem that, as far as I know, only China is addressing. Sooner or later, we will have to do the same thing.
I agree.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:14pm Dec 1, 1997 ET (#940 of 944)
Johari MA: (p/s Noel, I don't like unix, programmers/hackers may like it, but to me... limited apps; end user as me wants microsoft office util/win95 apps + lots of other pc flexible upgrades... but, I just hope Microsoft won't dictate what people should use, in the future)
Red Hat sells the office suite for Linux for $79.00. There's also a student price. There're also Windoze emulators and many other apps out there (most of which are free.)
MS already dictates what people should use. They make their OS as closed as possible (ie they don't stick to already-established standards) and they pretty much force people to take the OS's ('cos the computer manufacturers pay for the OS whether or not it's loaded on the PC they sell you.)
Mark Moorhead: Cloning a human will simply mean that we are copying God's design. We are creating NOTHING that has not already been created.
Copying (and then changing) is the fastest way to learn how something new works. For example, I, and many others, use this technique to learn new programming languages, software libraries, and design paradigms.
Tom A: WHO MADE WHO!
Thats, "WHO MADE WHOM!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:16pm Dec 1, 1997 ET (#941 of 944)
Mark Moorhead: I expected more "Random Chance" Evolutionists to jump on board.
Evolution is not random. The universe itself is chaotic, not random. Chaos theory is a relatively new (about 15y old) science that (simplistically) says that there is order within disorder and vice versa. Evolution is a process that creates this order.
Mark Moorhead: You can no more prove evolution ... than I can prove creation.
I agree, but evolution is more fun to simulate than creation ;)
Cliff Beall: I think I must be tolerant of their belief systems.
I agree. Only through civil discourse can people test their belief systems.
Tom A: Evolution simply put is a change in the (or a) gene pool over time.
Evolution is more than this.
This part of evolution doesn't explain how different animals have different numbers of chromosomes. Or, more generally, how at some point, species of the parent can no longer mate with species of the offspring.
It also does not explain how, for example, a limited population of humans being born from an ape -- I'm assuming that the same change is highly unlikely to occur among individual apes -- don't become retarded after so much inbreeding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:17pm Dec 1, 1997 ET (#942 of 944)
Cliff Beall: I submit that the fossil record clearly indicates that they do.
God put those fossil records there ;)
Keith Fosberg: how does cloning aid in the preservation of the species? If the number of genetically unique individuals of this species is very low, cloning them may help very little, if at all, in preserving the species.
Cloning will buy us some time until we figure out how and in what way to change the gene pool of the existing animals.
Tom A: The only solution is breeding in captivity with very little cloning.
Breeding in captivity doesn't always work (ie the animals might not be "in the mood" when they're being watched.)
Noel Yap: For example, only twenty years ago, gays were deemed psychologically ill and that they should make the effort to become more "normal" in their preferences. This is not the case today. Other moral issues may undergo this perception shift.
Sohail Zia: Sorry, I could not understand your \221perception shift\222 as you being an advocate of logic!
Could you elaborate, I don't understand what you're getting at.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:18pm Dec 1, 1997 ET (#943 of 944)
Sohail Zia: If I perform a \221root cause\222 analysis on the natural basis for sex, then the homosexuality never turns out to be a logical answer, nor if we believe in free will, nor if we want to identify any social illness.
Then how would you explain (non-human) animals engaging in homosexual acts? Certainly, these species don't follow the same morals as we do. Furthermore, there are tribes (not influenced by the Western world) that engage in homosexual acts as a rite of passage. No, homosexuality is not completely a learned trait; it must be (at least) partially genetic.
Tom A: what on earth does homosexual talk have to do with the cloning issue. Take your way off topics elsewhere please.
Please read the past posts before making such comments.
M.A.DeLuca: this progressively wears off (at rates varying from individual to individual), leaving an older mind less capable of dealing with new paradigms
This might make sense since new paradigms would hardly map into the generalisations that the brain has formed to model old things. On the other hand, how often do new paradigms occur? I know in the computer industry, I often make analogies to the automobile industry and, patterns (ie solutions to problems that transcend domains) has been very successful in the software industry.
Whew, takes a while to catch up after a long weekend.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 05:32pm Dec 1, 1997 ET (#944 of 944)
Cliff, the book referred was : The Bible, The Qur'an and Science (by Dr. Maurice Bucaille), American Trust Publications. The Bible clearly indicates that it is a universal cataclysm, but the Koran OTOH, does not do so. Although there are similarities, they are not identical. (eg. The Bible said that the ark landed on Mt. Ararat, while the Koran said it landed on Mt. Judi) Genesis, 7 clearly indicate the flood wiped off ALL living creatures ("every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground") While the Koran does not state this (search the index for the verses with 'Noah' as the keyword, at the site given earlier). In fact, the Koran stated that the flood caused Noah's people to drown [25:37], without mentioning it as a major cataclysm [in contra to Genesis, 7]. The author of the book also agree that, it is hard to conceive during Noah's time, a universal cataclysm is possible, based on the (relative) historical data. For more info, pls refer to the book.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Nicolai - 10:16pm Dec 1, 1997 ET (#945 of 950)
Located in Taipei Taiwan
I beleive that total cloning has not been accomplished yet. To do that the egg and neculus have to come from the same animal. Otherwise the mycondrial dna will be different (all of which comes from the mother). (47 geans I beleive in humans)
We really don't know the total effect of this dna.
Also everyone is sure that genetic faiding will lead to the extinction of the sepcies if cloning is the only reproductive method. Garlic however does not sexually reproduce and the three remaining varities have been arround for a long time.
Evloution can also occur by alteration of the dna due to chemicals or ionizing raidation or random genetic accidents. Most of these changes will be bad but some of them will usefull.
Also breeders know that if you are willing to "put down" mistakes even bad breeding will work sometimes.
It seems likely that cloning will be used to create the basic beings and genetic engineering will be used to produce minor changes. "Carbon copies" get booring after a while.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Schoedel - 10:34pm Dec 1, 1997 ET (#946 of 950)
Noel, don't be so harsh on the Third-world. Most of these people are like you and I. They want to make money and live a good life. they start businesses and have dreams and goals like you and I. Some of them are even able to excercise a degree of self-control that many losers in the U.S. seem incapable. Statistics bear me out. The birthrates in countries such as Malaysia, indonesia, and Mexico have been declining for the last 20 years. I do agree with you that India and the Middle-east are a bit behind the the bend on this matter, but I think that as these people develop and get some money in their pockets and party time on thier hands, they will start to have fewer kids as well. 30 years ago, everyone said that those Italian people would never control thier birthrate because of thier Italian-ness. They now have the lowest birthrate in the world. Also, technology is the driving force behind social and cultural change. I know many "third-world" people over here in Japan (and other Asian countries I do business in) who are in thier 30's and who do not have kids. These are people from Iran and India who have started trading or other kinds of businesses in East Asia. The third-world is moving faster than you think.
As for space technology, you should get actively involved in lobbying for some of the space commercialization bills that are in congress right now. Also, take a look at www.spacedev.com as they are a commercial space venture that eventually plans to mine asteroids. If you have technical background, send them a resume. They might even hire you
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 11:13pm Dec 1, 1997 ET (#947 of 950)
Keith Fosberg: This does not mean that the folks behind "Scientific Creationism" are wrong (I think they are, but I could be in error.) it simply means that Creationism is not theory.
We should not forget that a specific mechanism for the genesis of the simplest forms life from inanimate substance by evolutionary means has not been proven to exist. Nor is there any evidence, whatever, that it did occur. In this sense, evolution is on the same footing as creation. Neither is a theory in the true sense. However, the fossil record is clear that complex forms of live did evolve from simpler forms.
With respect to the specifics of evolution from simpler to more complex forms, one of the difficulties is that appearances can be deceiving. To use a simple example, if one were to look at a poodle, a german shepherd and a wolf, one might tend to suspect that the german shepherd and the wolf are more closely related than the german shepherd and the poodle. This would be an error, however, since the we know that the poodle and the german shepherd are much more closely related than the german shepherd and the wolf.
The same applies to the fossil record. In many ways, the fossil record is rich, but it does contain gaps, and, sometimes, appearances can be deceiving. As a result, there are controversies among scientists about the specific paths of evolution: which fossil is in the line to a modern species, and which is a dead end. Furthermore, most scientists tend to give greater weight to their own discoveries than to the discoveries of others. No scientist wants his find to be a dead end. But, overall, the theory is sound, based on good physical evidence. And, as time goes on, as additional fossils from different stratum are found, more of the gaps are filled in. In addition, DNA testing of some fossils have shed additional light. Actually, there really is only one major problem with the theory of evolution. How did it get started in the beginning?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 11:16pm Dec 1, 1997 ET (#948 of 950)
Tom A: Does that answer your questions?
Yes.
M.A.DeLuca: Cliff, thank's for noticing my weekend absences. Am I that obvious? By the way, if you think I'm direct, what do you think about Tom's "Deaf, Dumb, and Blind?"
M.A., when I open up the board, weekends or otherwise, I like to see messages, and yours are always interesting. Anyway, I was just pointing out previous discussion that was on the topic to Tom. By the way, thanks for the DDD mention. That was funny. I think we are both reasonably direct, but compared to Tom, we need to admit that we are both rank amateurs. Sometimes, it is nice to see a real professional in action;-)
Incidentally, your reference to the "plasticity" of children's minds as a function of their learning potential seems to give more validity to the idea that people do become more rigid in their thinking with age than I am comfortable with. (That is scary for somebody my age.)
Noel Yap: It would depend on what constitutes "fittest."
Yeah, your right. The fittest, in a particular situation, would be the one best adapted, or adaptable, to a particular environment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 11:19pm Dec 1, 1997 ET (#949 of 950)
Noel Yap: This part of evolution doesn't explain how different animals have different numbers of chromosomes. Or, more generally, how at some point, species of the parent can no longer mate with species of the offspring.
Actually, it is more that one branch of the offspring can no longer mate with another branch of the offspring. Or that, in some cases, mating is still possible, but the offspring is sterile. I learned in Sunday School that evolution teaches that man "sprang" from a monkey. I was an adult before I came to the understanding that evolution teaches no such thing. Instead, it teaches that we and all other life forms have evolved from common ancestors. Other life forms have evolved as we have evolved, but in different directions (sometimes changing directions).
Noel Yap: God put those fossil records there ;)
Well, perhaps he caused their preservation. There is still that knotty problem at the beginning that evolution can not yet, and, perhaps, never will be able to answer.
Noel Yap: Cloning will buy us some time until we figure out how and in what way to change the gene pool of the existing animals.
That makes sense. Why didn't I think of that?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 11:20pm Dec 1, 1997 ET (#950 of 950)
Johari MA: Cliff, the book referred was : The Bible, The Qur'an and Science (by Dr. Maurice Bucaille), American Trust Publications.
Joe, I found a brief article: "The Qur'an and Modern Science" Taken from "The Origin of Man", by Dr. Maurice Bucaille, on the net. It obviously is not the book you were referring to and did not give any detail. However, I think I have a sense of what the book you refer to contains, regarding the flood, based on your description. I guess my question at this point is, since you have the book and I do not, how does Dr. Bucaille explain the verses that indicate to me that the author of the Our'an believed that the earth was flat?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 12:37am Dec 2, 1997 ET (#951 of 951)
Carl Nicolai: It seems likely that cloning will be used to create the basic beings and genetic engineering will be used to produce minor changes. "Carbon copies" get booring after a while.
Cloning of specially modified animals is useful in the mass production of medicines. If we are discussing genetic engineering as a means of prolonging our own lives, however, why do we need cloning? Of course, depending on how things develop, there may be medicines developed for prolonging our lives using this method.
Kurt Schoedel: Noel, don't be so harsh on the Third-world. Most of these people are like you and I. They want to make money and live a good life. they start businesses and have dreams and goals like you and I... The third-world is moving faster than you think.
Kurt, you make a good case. I have to agree. Be they from the north, south, east or west, people are people. I had to laugh when you mentioned "party time on their hands," but I agree.
I am not so sure about the space angle. Faster than light travel seems fundamental to meaningful space exploration and finding desirable habitants in space. I don't see that happening any time soon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Schoedel - 03:26am Dec 2, 1997 ET (#952 of 959)
Actually FTL would be nice but is not necessary for space development. Gerard O'Neill in his High Frontier book (published in the 70's) showed how large scale space habitats using lunar and asteroid resources could be built such that the total land area would be many thousands of times that of the Earth. Also, Freeman Dyson has an article in the Atlantic Monthly about how supramolecular chemistry (the REAL nanotechnology) could be used to grow such habitats in the Kupier belt of comets. However, the main barrier to space development is the high cost of space launch to Earth orbit. These costs will not drop until a robust commercial space launch industry develops in response to free-market driven space launch markets, much like today's airline industry. hence the reason for space commercialization legislation in congress. Also, even with FTL, space does not provide a complete answer to the overpopulation problem, even without immortality. However, with development of the "third-world", the pressure to have large families will go away and the birthrate will decline in the Italian fashion. With immortality, I think it will go down further but not to zero. I think some sort of policy where each couple are allowed to have two children per century might allow for a reasonable birthrate in an immortalist society (with space development, of course). I might point out that most immortalists I know of (including myself) do not want to have kids as well (in addition to wanting to migrate into space).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 09:31am Dec 2, 1997 ET (#953 of 959)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
Cliff --
Yeah, your right. The fittest, in a particular situation, would be the one best adapted, or adaptable, to a particular environment.
That wraps that up nicely.
Thanks for the "buying time" angle Noel, that is very relevant.
Please bear with me in the following detailed reiteration of a point I made previously, as it is going to be somewhat of a mish-mash of logic, science and philosophy. :o)
Let's start with God, whom you may define as either the omnipotent author of the universe or as the social perception of such a being. Either definition will sufice in the following.
The development of our world has proceeded in a natural order until very recently. This may be God's plan, or it may just be. In either case this development follows a set of rules that more or less ordain, over time, the successful development of a living planet.
More recently, through our ability to modify our environment, we have begun to alter the development of the world as a whole. The introduction of the genetic sciences, particularly the ability to alter DNA and alter cellular genetic "triggers," has given us the beginings of technologies that will enable us to alter the development of ourselves as a species.
The great danger I see in this is that we seem to be embarking upon this quest without God. We need to determine what and how ethics apply. We need to determine what we hope to achieve as we make deterministic alterations to our specie's development.
I don't see anything inherantly "evil" in taking control of our development, but I do percieve a rather large danger to us if we fail to produce some viable mechanism to regulate and direct that development.
We need to look to God, be that an actuall objective being or a social meme, and try to determine where we go from here. If we fail to do this we will be driven by more imeadiate desires and needs and may very well "paint ourselves into a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:58pm Dec 2, 1997 ET (#954 of 959)
Carl Nicolai: Evloution can also occur by alteration of the dna due to chemicals or ionizing raidation or random genetic accidents.
Almost all mutations are harmful. Most productive evolution occurs through cross-over. In fact, when simulated, mutations can be completely removed from evolution without any noticable effects.
Carl Nicolai: Also breeders know that if you are willing to "put down" mistakes even bad breeding will work sometimes.
Breeders know that always breeding the top of the breed (how's that for redundancy ;) eventually outputs lesser quality animals. Sometimes, they must inject some new traits.
Carl Nicolai: It seems likely that cloning will be used to create the basic beings and genetic engineering will be used to produce minor changes. "Carbon copies" get booring after a while.
I think so, too.
Kurt Schoedel: don't be so harsh on the Third-world. Most of these people are like you and I.
Yes, but to do so, they must change their society. They can't go on believing in the old ways under new circumstances. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they should change their ways, just that they can't have it both ways.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:59pm Dec 2, 1997 ET (#955 of 959)
Kurt Schoedel: Some of them are even able to excercise a degree of self-control that many losers in the U.S. seem incapable.
I have a lot of respect for the individuals within these societies. However, the society itself is not balanced. Technology itself won't solve their population problem. In fact, technology is partly to blame for the problem (ie if tech didn't tamper with their mortality rate, they'd have more resources per capita.)
Kurt Schoedel: The birthrates in countries such as Malaysia, indonesia, and Mexico have been declining for the last 20 years.
That's great. This is a clear example of how they must change their society to meet today's environment.
Kurt Schoedel: as these people develop and get some money in their pockets and party time on thier hands, they will start to have fewer kids as well.
I think it's the other way around. When they start having fewer kids, they'll start putting more money in their pockets.
Kurt Schoedel: technology is the driving force behind social and cultural change.
Maybe so, but this is too retroactive. A more proactive path would reduce a lot of suffering and get them on their/our way a lot faster. For example, instead of introducing new technologies to "save lives," their society could see the benefits of our society. If they so choose, they could start getting ready to introduce the technologies. Once they are ready, the technologies wouldn't have such a harmful effect on their lives as it does now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:00pm Dec 2, 1997 ET (#956 of 959)
Cliff Beall: Actually, there really is only one major problem with the theory of evolution. How did it get started in the beginning?
I see two other problems.
0. At what point will evolution produce a species incapable of reproducing with its parent species?
1. How did a rich gene pool evolve out of one parent's offspring when, clearly, they must've inbred.
Cliff Beall: it is more that one branch of the offspring can no longer mate with another branch of the offspring. Or that in some cases, mating is still possible, but the offspring is sterile.
OK, this answers point 0, but not point 1.
Cliff Beall: Be they from the north, south, east or west, people are people.
I guess my point has been misunderstood. I believe that just giving the third world countries new technologies is treating them as a spoiled child. They must grow up in their own accord (and I believe they're able to do it without our magnanimous intervention.)
Kurt Schoedel: space does not provide a complete answer to the overpopulation problem,
At the very least, I think it'll alleviate some of the population disparity problem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:20pm Dec 2, 1997 ET (#957 of 959)
Keith Fosberg: The introduction of the genetic sciences, particularly the ability to alter DNA and alter cellular genetic "triggers," has given us the beginings of technologies that will enable us to alter the development of ourselves as a species.
And the ecosystem in general.
Keith Fosberg: I don't see anything inherantly "evil" in taking control of our development, but I do percieve a rather large danger to us if we fail to produce some viable mechanism to regulate and direct that development.
I agree.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 07:20pm Dec 2, 1997 ET (#958 of 959)
Cliff,
The book does not offer any problem of 'flat earth'; The problem with the verse 20:53 is only because of different 'usage of language' to convey (interpret) the meaning of the verse. (As you can see, some translators don't use the words unappropriately, as it might convey the wrong meaning). The word carpet or bed are not used by other translators, including in my Koran, which is not in English language*. It is preferred by certain translator(s) to 'manifest' the meaning of the verse.
If I say to my friend : 'You look brilliant'... It does not (necessarily) mean that he is brilliant, or he is handsome or he is very bright. It may mean that he is wearing a new dress, or he has performed very well in a speech etc. That depends on the occasion/perspective. One may misunderstand this msg, if viewed on a wrong/bias perspective. If you think that verse 20:53 is 'wrong', (or other verses below) than I suggest you study Arabic and see it yourself, whether it really means 'the earth is flat'; Some people (rather) think as such (preferance due to bias), without complete analysis, and prefer to have such ignorant approach in making a conclusion [3:57]. The same goes with 51:48, 88:20, 20.53, 51.48, 88:20, 71.19, 78.6, 79.30 and 91.6. I did not find the word flat*, or the verse is reflecting that the earth is flat. What I could see is that, these verses were emphasizing the vastness of earth (wide), with excellent landscape(s), 'decorated' by God, with living things (nature). I'll leave your choice with you.
Last but not least, Koran is written in one, and only one language : Arab. No other languages, compared to other scripture(s), which could have different source(s) for compilation. . Whomsoever is very serious of examining
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 07:21pm Dec 2, 1997 ET (#959 of 959)
Whomsoever is very serious of examining the Koran, should either go to Istanbul or Tashkent, and compare those copies, with the Koran found wordwide today.
[5:48] To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Phillips - 09:27pm Dec 2, 1997 ET (#960 of 962)
Computer Science, Purdue Univ.
Noel Yap #956:
1. How did a rich gene pool evolve out of one parent's offspring when, clearly, they must've inbred.
The original parents would have drastically different dna. Therefore each of their children would be more unique. As these children spread throughout the Earth, they would adapt to specific clamatic regions; furthering their uniqueness and thus increasing the biodiversity.
About using space to alleviate population problems. There is no why to export humans at a rate large enough to make the worlds population go down. Even if FTL existed. In any case, it is impossible for FTL to exist because (it is proven) that nothing that has mass can travel at or beyond the speed of light. And even getting close to FTL is hard enough. The entire electrical/power output of the entire human civilization wouldn't even get a small spacecraft halfway to lightspeed. There may be other ways to explore other solar systems, but the physics involved is highly theoretical.
Closer to home; Mars could sustain a population of a few million, and the Moon could sustain a population of few thousand. But, it would take time (and a lot of money) to colonize Mars and a moon colony would be too dependant on the Earth. Still, economic development of space may help a little. Ultimately, there's really no avoiding it, Earth's going to be highly overpopulated. Our only hope is finding more efficient ways to feed everyone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Schoedel - 09:46pm Dec 2, 1997 ET (#961 of 962)
Actually, space development could put a significant dent in the population growth rate. The world's airline collectively transport roughly the world population every year. It takes about the same amount of fuel to put one kilogram of payload into orbit as it does to send it from L.A. to Sydney. Its not impossible that some kind of commercial SSTO transport could do the same by 2050.
Planetary surfaces are not the best places for settlement anyways. Gerard O'neill in the High Frontier and Freeman Dyson have both pointed out that 98% of the Solar System's real estate is in the form of small bodies such as comets and asteroids.
The real constrant on population growth is that at 5% annual growth per year. The Solar System gets completely developed in several tens of thousands of years. So, a slower population growth rate is desirable.
I'm doubtful that FTL is possible but, even if it is not, we can still get to the stars using either fusion or anti-matter propulsion. There has been a NASA-sponsored conference called the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Conference where they are designing experiments to research quantum gravity and determine if effects like quantum tunneling could be used for instantaneous space travel. These are long-shot options that probably won't work, but the upside potential is too great to ignore.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 12:22am Dec 3, 1997 ET (#962 of 973)
Keith Fosberg: The great danger I see in this is that we seem to be embarking upon this quest without God. We need to determine what and how ethics apply. We need to determine what we hope to achieve as we make deterministic alterations to our specie's development.
Keith, it appears that you think a belief in God is good for society whether God exists or not. I have taken the position that it is not necessarily harmful, and I have no problem with other people believing in God if they want to. But I am very much opposed to having a belief in God forced on me, whether for the good of society, or not.
Regarding objectives to be realized from this technology, I assume that different people will have different objectives. I think we need to enforce good ethical choices and values on the practitioners of the technology regardless what those objectives might be, and I think we have a right to work for that end. But I am unalterably opposed to enforcement of a belief system of any kind on any member of society as a means for anything.
Noel Yap: How did a rich gene pool evolve out of one parent's offspring when, clearly, they must've inbred.
Mutations. You earlier indicated that you believe most mutations are harmful and most productive evolution occurs otherwise, but it appears to me that evolution, without mutations, does not get very far.
Even if most mutations are harmful, something I tend to dispute, a half a billion years is a lot of time for the necessary favorable major and minor mutations to occur, and thus provide the answer to your question.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 12:38am Dec 3, 1997 ET (#963 of 973)
We are all doomed in one way or another. Humanity can't possibly survive given it's present course. The war on the family grows stronger, the only true God - money - lives and breathes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 12:44am Dec 3, 1997 ET (#964 of 973)
Noel Yap: You have a bad habit of saying things without backing it up. Most mutations are not harmful, they may or may not be, depending on the environment. That's where natural selection moves in. Haven't you read Darwin yet?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 08:03am Dec 3, 1997 ET (#965 of 973)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
Cliff,
I was afraid that might happen. It was undoubtably a mistake trying to express myself poetically, I should leave that to the profesionals. :)
I was not trying to say that society should be forced to believe in God. I was trying to show that society does have a "god," that is expressed as a social meme.
You can break it all down to sets of ethics, social responsibility, good manners, acceptable behaivior and paterns of though that are taught, but when you sum it all up you see people behaving as if there is a "god," whether they believe or not. We need to be in touch with and respectfull of this social consience/god when we are making far reaching descisions.
Acting ethically in detail is only part of the issue. The larger part is planning effectively based on shared goals. I don't think that it is at all unreasonable to assume that we will have completely bolixed natural selection as a development mechanism for our species within a century. We will have enough direct controll over our own development that we will be able to effectively chose what our forms will be.
The danger here is that, without clear goals, people will choose what seems most imeadiatly benificial for their children.
As an analogy; What if you were on your way to work by bus and were hungry. You see a street vendor and check your pocket. $1.50 in loose change is all you come up with. That being enough to buy some food you do. You have satisfied your hunger for now, but you can no longer get to work so you loose your job and starve.
The puzzles and descisions we will face in taking charge of our own development will not be so obvious.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
i op - 01:51pm Dec 3, 1997 ET (#966 of 973)
Click Me!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:23pm Dec 3, 1997 ET (#967 of 973)
Chris Phillips: The original parents would have drastically different dna. Therefore each of their children would be more unique.
The children would've had to come from the same parents 'cos it's highly unlikely that different parents would produce children that were able to interbreed.
Chris Phillips: As these children spread throughout the Earth,
The problem I stated occurs even before they have an ample population to spread throughout the Earth.
Chris Phillips: About using space to alleviate population problems...
It sounds like you're assuming that people would necessarily colonize planets (or other bodies) to take advantage of space.
Chris Phillips: There is no why to export humans at a rate large enough to make the worlds population go down.
Thinking about it some more, I think you're right. We would have to launch people at a rate equal to the current birth rate.
Then again, the problem that I said would be alleviated is not the population problem, but the population disparity problem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:24pm Dec 3, 1997 ET (#968 of 973)
Chris Phillips: it would take time (and a lot of money) to colonize Mars and a moon colony would be too dependant on the Earth.
Yes.
Chris Phillips: Our only hope is finding more efficient ways to feed everyone.
Our only hope is to control our population.
Cliff Beall: I am very much opposed to having a belief in God forced on me, whether for the good of society, or not.
I don't think Keith said anything about forcing the belief. He merely stated that that's the problem he sees. He suggested no way of solving the problem.
Cliff Beall: we need to enforce good ethical choices and values on the practitioners of the technology regardless what those objectives might be, and I think we have a right to work for that end. But I am unalterably opposed to enforcement of a belief system of any kind on any member of society as a means for anything.
"we need to enforce good ethical choices" sounds like enforcement of a belief system to me. My guess is that you meant teaching good ethics to the population and, assuming they are mature (for lack of a better word), the ethical choices will come about.
Noel Yap: How did a rich gene pool evolve out of one parent's offspring when, clearly, they must've inbred.
Cliff Beall: Mutations.
Assuming mutations can be beneficial, it wouldn't have occurred at a rate fast enough to prevent a lot of inbreeding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:25pm Dec 3, 1997 ET (#969 of 973)
Cliff Beall: evolution, without mutations, does not get very far.
This is entirely false according to the simulations conducted by John Koza.
Cliff Beall: Even if most mutations are harmful,
They are. Even when the mutations don't kill the offspring or make them incapable of reproducing, the mutations disappear after a few generations. DNA is such a good replicator that it actually cleans up mistakes.
Cliff Beall: a half a billion years is a lot of time for the necessary favorable major and minor mutations to occur, and thus provide the answer to your question.
Most beings mate before a half a billion years.
Tom A: the only true God - money - lives and breathes.
Money is only a God if you treat it that way.
Tom A: You have a bad habit of saying things without backing it up.
Yes, I do. My backup follows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:28pm Dec 3, 1997 ET (#970 of 973)
Tom A: Most mutations are not harmful, they may or may not be, depending on the environment.
Now who's not backing up statements? If you take the analogy of computer software, a random change in the binary will most likely be harmful; a random change in source code will probably make the program non-compilable (best case) or make it not meet specs (worst case.)
Tom A: That's where natural selection moves in. Haven't you read Darwin yet?
Duh. Current evolutionists know how limited Darwin's breakthrough theory was. In fact, evolution was not a new concept even in Darwin's time.
My backup: John Koza has written two books, Genetic Programming and Genetic Programming II. Read them, duplicate the experiments, and see for yourself what empirical evidence has to say about mutation's role in evolution.
Try http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-166.htm. Although I don't agree with their conclusions, they do have some facts about mutation and evolution.
I'll post more when I find them.
Keith Fosberg: We need to be in touch with and respectfull of this social consience/god when we are making far reaching descisions.
Yes. My arguments had started out sortof like this, but I was only able to defend it on internal feelings. I had said stuff about spirituality and the like, but never mentioned social consciousness. No matter what, it's in the realm of meta-physics and philosophy. This, in no way, diminishes its importance, but it made it much harder for me to defend.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:29pm Dec 3, 1997 ET (#971 of 973)
Keith Fosberg: The danger here is that, without clear goals, people will choose what seems most imeadiatly benificial for their children.
As valuation systems get more and more efficient, this problem will go away.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:19pm Dec 3, 1997 ET (#972 of 973)
Again, I disagree with their conclusions, but the evidence is there: http://www.pathlights.com/cr_encyclopedia/10mut03.htm http://www.pathlights.com/cr_encyclopedia/10mut11.htm
I guess you could rummage through http://www.pathlights.com/cr_encyclopedia, too.
This one lends a little credence to mutation (but in no way puts it as a major operator -- pun intended), also backs up cross-over, and suggests a more generic operator: http://www.irsip.na.cnr.it/~hotg/models.html
I added these in 'cos they're such cool applications of Genetic Algorithms (GA): http://ai.bpa.arizona.edu/~mramsey/papers/itsy/node1.html http://www.ultragem.com/
It's so amazing how far GA and GP (Genetic Programming) has come since I've done my senior project.
It's a shame that most of the pages I found were religious in nature ('cos they have an agenda.) However, searching through Yahoo with "mutation evolution" I found nothing saying that mutation was beneficial. If anyone finds anything (recent, let's not start quoting stuff written in the 1860's) please let me know. Also, I would have to see hard evidence to make me disregard my own experiments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 06:07pm Dec 3, 1997 ET (#973 of 973)
Noel Yap: You said; "Duh. Current evolutionists know how limited Darwin's breakthrough theory was. In fact, evolution was not a new concept even in Darwin's time."
I said natural selection. Name one legitimate evolutionist who "know how limited" Darwin's theory is and explain what you mean. You still have that bad habit of saying things and not backing them up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 01:48am Dec 4, 1997 ET (#973 of 973)
Keith Fosberg: I was not trying to say that society should be forced to believe in God. I was trying to show that society does have a "god," that is expressed as a social meme. You can break it all down to sets of ethics, social responsibility, good manners, acceptable behaivior and paterns of though that are taught, but when you sum it all up you see people behaving as if there is a "god," whether they believe or not.
Well, I disagree. I would have agreed if you had used the words, "social conscience." You appear to believe that they mean the same thing. I do not. If you think I am splitting hairs, you may have a point, but I do not think having a social conscience has anything to do with belief in God. One is set of moral values, and the other is a belief system. They do not necessarily come as a set. People sometimes point out to me that such and such a person is a Christian, as if it is supposed to mean something to me. It doesn't. I have known Christians as crooked as they come. (I have also known Christian as upstanding as they come.)
Noel Yap: "we need to enforce good ethical choices" sounds like enforcement of a belief system to me. My guess is that you meant teaching good ethics to the population and, assuming they are mature (for lack of a better word), the ethical choices will come about.
No, I mean enforcement of good ethical choices. This is not the enforcement of a belief system, it is the enforcement of good moral values that take into account the rights of others. We currently have many such laws, such as those against assault, stealing and fraud. These are laws based on moral values and I think such laws are legitimate. Society has a right to protect itself against such crimes. And merely because cloning is a "technology" does not mean that the practitioners of this technology should be exempt from moral and ethical considerations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 01:48am Dec 4, 1997 ET (#973 of 979)
Keith Fosberg: I was not trying to say that society should be forced to believe in God. I was trying to show that society does have a "god," that is expressed as a social meme. You can break it all down to sets of ethics, social responsibility, good manners, acceptable behaivior and paterns of though that are taught, but when you sum it all up you see people behaving as if there is a "god," whether they believe or not.
Well, I disagree. I would have agreed if you had used the words, "social conscience." You appear to believe that they mean the same thing. I do not. If you think I am splitting hairs, you may have a point, but I do not think having a social conscience has anything to do with belief in God. One is set of moral values, and the other is a belief system. They do not necessarily come as a set. People sometimes point out to me that such and such a person is a Christian, as if it is supposed to mean something to me. It doesn't. I have known Christians as crooked as they come. (I have also known Christian as upstanding as they come.)
Noel Yap: "we need to enforce good ethical choices" sounds like enforcement of a belief system to me. My guess is that you meant teaching good ethics to the population and, assuming they are mature (for lack of a better word), the ethical choices will come about.
No, I mean enforcement of good ethical choices. This is not the enforcement of a belief system, it is the enforcement of good moral values that take into account the rights of others. We currently have many such laws, such as those against assault, stealing and fraud. These are laws based on moral values and I think such laws are legitimate. Society has a right to protect itself against such crimes. And merely because cloning is a "technology" does not mean that the practitioners of this technology should be exempt from moral and ethical considerations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 08:35am Dec 4, 1997 ET (#974 of 979)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
OK Cliff, I don't want to get bogged down on what is most likely a difference in language usage so feel free to substitute the term "social consience" in my argument since I am interested in your thoughts on this.
I see some very imeadiate goals in the interest (or at least intent) of easing suffering, but as has been pointed out by several people these can backfire.
What does the collective will and consience of man want of himself? What do we hope to become, and how should we get there? If we engineer smarter children will they be more wise? If we engineer out "useless" structures in our bodies will we later find out that they were needed? What happens if we achieve a functional imortality for our species? Will we doom ourselves or be forced into draconian population controll measures? Do we even know how to ask these questions in a way that is meaningfull to the genetic sciences?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 02:38pm Dec 4, 1997 ET (#975 of 979)
Noel Yap: Further to my point on Darwinian natural selection and evolution, the following from Encylo. Britannica sums it up: "The central argument of Darwin's theory of evolution starts from the existence of hereditary variation. Experience with animal and plant breeding demonstrates that variations can be developed that are "useful to man." So, reasoned Darwin, variations must occur in nature that are favourable or useful in some way to the organism itself in the struggle for existence. Favourable variations are ones that increase chances for survival and procreation. Those advantageous variations are preserved and multiplied from generation to generation at the expense of less advantageous ones. This is the process known as natural selection. The outcome of the process is an organism that is well adapted to its environment, and evolution often occurs as a consequence."
Care to tell of one evolutionist who feels this is a weak concept?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 02:49pm Dec 4, 1997 ET (#976 of 979)
By the way the reference for post #975 is "The Theory of Evolution: The process of evolution" Britannica Online. <http://www.eb.com:180/cgi-bin/g?DocF=macro/5002/24/12.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:32pm Dec 4, 1997 ET (#977 of 979)
Tom A: I said natural selection.
My original post said that mutation was not a major player in evolution. When I say, "major," I mean that it's normal effects are detrimental and, therefore, evolution would do fine without it.
These being the facts, it is infinitely unlikely that new species will evolve due to mutation alone.
Tom A: Name one legitimate evolutionist who "know how limited" Darwin's theory is and explain what you mean.
Didn't you browse through the web pages? Holland, De Jong, Schaffer and Eshelman, and, more recently, Culberson. These are researchers in Genetic Programming. I'll have to dig up my bio/evo/gen books for researchers you might lend more credence to.
By limited, I mean that, although evolution is an elegent theory, there are many question unanswered by his original paper. Among these are the ones I posted previously.
Tom A: You still have that bad habit of saying things and not backing them up.
At this point, I don't know what you mean. When communicating with a group of people, one must make assumptions about their prior knowledge. I've come down as far as high school knowledge of which you seem to grasp. Please elaborate some more on your questions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:32pm Dec 4, 1997 ET (#978 of 979)
Cliff Beall: (I have also known Christian as upstanding as they come.)
These are the people I would describe as Christian, no matter what their religion.
Cliff Beall: This is not the enforcement of a belief system, it is the enforcement of good moral values that take into account the rights of others. We currently have many such laws, such as those against assault, stealing and fraud.
I see.
Tom A: Care to tell of one evolutionist who feels this is a weak concept?
Once again, I was not commenting on whether natural selection existed. I was commenting that Darwin never mentioned how this process occurred. The stuff they teach in high school (mutations) goes against empirical evidence.
I will now drop this thread 'cos it's clear we are not talking about the same thing (although I do feel that I made my topic very clear on my first post.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
M.A.DeLuca - 04:49pm Dec 4, 1997 ET (#979 of 979)
Tom, the Britannica Online reference you gave requires an account. How much does it cost you and do you think it's worth it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 03:16pm Dec 5, 1997 ET (#980 of 989)
Noel Yap: You seem too narrow on the topic. Care to explain this? "When I say, "major," I mean that it's normal effects are detrimental and, therefore, evolution would do fine without it.
These being the facts, it is infinitely unlikely that new species will evolve due to mutation alone."
What on earth do you mean evolution would do fine without it (mutation)? Waht do you mean "these being the facts"? Who's facts? Some laboratory snapshot as a minuscule representation of a vastly complicated process? If you or anyone is discrediting Darwin, then I would say you just don't understand natural selection. It's based on preditor-prey relations, environment-adaption etc. and increasing or decreasing fitness and/or the gene pool. Mutation is one aspect or component of the picture IN THE WILD not IN THE LABORATORY or ON A COMPUTER.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 03:54pm Dec 5, 1997 ET (#981 of 989)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
Noel,Cliff,
Here is a nice explanation regarding large scale irregularities from the cosmological digression of a couple of days ago.
Ask The Space Scientist
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:59pm Dec 5, 1997 ET (#982 of 989)
Tom had gotten me curious, so I did some digging in The Encyclopedia of Evolution by Richard Milner with a forward by Stephen Jay Gould.
Natural selection, Darwin, and evolution: Basically, Darwin and Wallace independently came up with natural selection, then they started working together .
"Sometimes [Darwin] spoke as if random variations were slected, eliminated or preserved in populations; at other times he adopted the so-called "Lamarckian" theory...
"So uncertain was Darwin on the question of inheritance that, under fire from critics, he began to retreat from natural selection as his main evolutionary mechanism... he suggested possible alternatives... By the last edition, Darwin had shrunk natural selection in importance to one of several possible mechanisms."
Wallace was influenced by Spiritual beliefs and tended to think that human evolution was different from other evolution.
"Ever since Darwin's day, biologists have debated the mechanisms, but not the fact, of evolution.
Evolution: "There are four commonly confused meanings of evolution, which should be kept separate and distinct:<blockquot e> 1. the general process of populational and species change, which is considered an established scientific fact
2. inevitable 'progress' from lower to higher life forms, a descredited notion
3. the particular history of the 'branching bush' of life and the origin of various groups which are interpreted from the fossil record and biochemical studies
4. the mechanism of evolution, which Darwin and Wallace proposed as 'natural selection,' but which is currently being investigated and modified by research.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:00pm Dec 5, 1997 ET (#983 of 989)
Regarding my posts of the problems of evolution, the Encyclopedia writes, "While some critics concede that new species (of fruit flies, for instance) have been produced in laboratories, they claim that general evolution has never been experimentally demonstrated. By this, they mean breeding a succession of progressively higher or more complex species. But there is no such theory of general evolution..."
Regarding Darwin's views, Darwin himself wrote, "The change of species cannot be directly proved and ... the doctrine must sink or swim according as it groups and explains [disparate] phenomena. It is really curious how few people judge it in this way, which is clearly the right way."
In light of the above, I understand how there was miscommunication about what the debate was.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:24pm Dec 5, 1997 ET (#984 of 989)
Noel Yap: When I say, "major," I mean that it's normal effects are detrimental and, therefore, evolution would do fine without it. These being the facts, it is infinitely unlikely that new species will evolve due to mutation alone."
Tom A: You seem too narrow on the topic. Care to explain this?
I don't know how else to say, "mutation is harmful most of the time." Since it is, it could not have produced enough new species to explain what we see today.
Tom A: What on earth do you mean evolution would do fine without it (mutation)?
What part don't you understand? Could it be "evolution" (it is a four-syllable word :)
Tom A: Waht do you mean "these being the facts"? Who's facts?
Laboratory experiments on mutation and empirical evididence from Chernobyl -- have you seen the pictures in National Geographic?
Tom A: Some laboratory snapshot as a minuscule representation of a vastly complicated process?
We know how to cause mutations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:25pm Dec 5, 1997 ET (#985 of 989)
Tom A: If you or anyone is discrediting Darwin, then I would say you just don't understand natural selection.
Darwin himself didn't understand it, plus, humans have done a lot to add to the equation. When humans choose which individual stock to mate, he is doing the selection; it is no longer natural.
Tom A: It's based on preditor-prey relations, environment-adaption etc. and increasing or decreasing fitness and/or the gene pool.
It's more than this. Symbiosis and other phenomenon start to play a role. "Fittest" is no longer defined by physical strength alone.
Tom A: Mutation is one aspect or component of the picture IN THE WILD not IN THE LABORATORY or ON A COMPUTER.
If we can't produce good mutations in a controlled environment, what makes you think the random acts of nature would fair better? Could God be involved in what you're thinking?
Also, have you performed the simulations or even read about them? According to your previous posts, probably not. How can you comment on something you have no idea about? Some of the simulations involve many "organisms" (processes) competing for resources and changing "environments". These Artificial Life (AL) demonstrated the same phenomenon that you and I mentioned above.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:25pm Dec 5, 1997 ET (#986 of 989)
Tom A: I'm truly puzzled as to why you spend so much time commenting on trivial things that people say.
To learn and to spread knowledge to those that want it. If they don't want it, they don't have to read my posts (just as you've demonstrated by not browsing the pages.)
Also, I don't consider them trivial. Why do you post?
Keith Fosberg: Here is a nice explanation regarding large scale irregularities from the cosmological digression of a couple of days ago.
Yes, but my problem is that they've developed Inflationary Theory to fit what they see. Everytime some evidence comes up against it, they patch it up a bit more. So, it's not, "The universe is non-uniform because of Inflationary Theory," but, "Inflationary Theory is because the universe is non-uniform."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:27pm Dec 5, 1997 ET (#987 of 989)
Also, I don't like how they added magic-physics to allow the universe to expand at a rate FTL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 06:11pm Dec 5, 1997 ET (#988 of 989)
"When humans choose which individual stock to mate, he is doing the selection; it is no longer natural."
I got you to admit selection does happen either by man or by nature.
"Fittest" is no longer defined by physical strength alone."
I never said it was, fitness is not synonomous with strength. Fitness is whatever survives and is passed on to future generations. "Could God be involved in what you're thinking?"
Not in your life. I have free will!
Irregardless of what S.J. Gould says, he still hasn't outdone Darwin yet. Also did you realize Relativity was not a novel idea thought up and developed exclusively to Einstein? True science does not work like that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rafi Mohamed - 12:08am Dec 6, 1997 ET (#989 of 989)
This message board is more than six months old and I have seen it just now. I do not know how many are actually going to read this. But let me state the following.
1. The real achievement of this experiment is not cloning, which is only a side product, but creation of a living being without the intervention of the male of the species. Pretty soon in the future you are going to see two women in love teaming up to produce their own child , egg from one and the 50% chromosome that is normally got from sperm comming from the other woman. I do not know , if the same could be achieved by two men. (They can use a woman's egg and split the male chromosomes 25%+25%, maybe) Thus in the short run it is a victory for the feminists.
2. In the long run, the 2000 year old mockery on Mary, mother of Jesus(may peace be upon them) has been laid to rest. Those who claimed that she could not have given birth without male intervention (this includes the christians too, because they bring the Almighty as the husband) have now been proved wrong, ofcourse you can go on to argue that this technolgy did not exist then, but the raw materials did exist and the probability value for this to have happenned 2000 years ago have moved up from zero since the cloning announcement.
3. Producing Genetically superior race or mutants could be done even without this technology, however this discovery does open up the possibility of cross breeding in labs. Anybody for a half human, quarter lion and modified butterfly?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 02:08am Dec 6, 1997 ET (#990 of 992)
Keith, I am not very good answering the kind of questions you have asked. I generally prefer to ask the questions. These are important questions, however, and I will try to do them justice.
First, a clarification, or perhaps a retraction. I do not think the immediate goals that practitioners of cloning technology have for the easing of suffering will "backfire." ( I think I may have indicated otherwise in a prior post while making reference to overpopulation.) However, after giving the matter additional thought, I think overpopulation is likely to occur independent of any effort to ease suffering, and I think efforts to ease suffering should continue even if it tends to add to the population problem. Means that do not result in significant suffering should be employed in limiting population increase.
Keith Fosberg: What does the collective will and consience of man want of himself?
I am not sure there is a collective will and conscience of man. We are all individuals. Somehow, however, groups of us have gotten together to form nations. Most nations appear to have a unique collective ethic, or at least a collective image. It appears to me, however, that there is less national uniqueness today that in previous generations, and I think that is good. In particular, I think nations, today, seem to desire to be seen as willing to cooperate with their neighbors more than in previous periods. Perhaps nations, today, desire more to be seen as desiring to cooperate, than to cooperate, but in desiring to be seen as cooperative, they force themselves into cooperation they might otherwise have avoided. Maybe this will grow. Personally, I think a major goal should be the uniting of all nations into a single world government. I think, if we are wise, a United States consisting of 200-300 states is in our future. Texas was the original prototype. It worked out pretty well, I think, although some may disagree;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 02:11am Dec 6, 1997 ET (#991 of 992)
Keith Fosberg: What do we hope to become, and how should we get there?
Others may disagree, but I think our hope should be to form ourselves into one people and one nation. As one people, in addition to other benefits, I think we could more easily handle the technology with which we are faced.
Keith Fosberg: If we engineer smarter children will they be more wise?
Yes. Part of wisdom comes from intelligence. As a general rule, the greater the intelligence, the greater the wisdom. Einstein, for example, was as wise as he was intelligent. This is not to say that all people who are intelligent are necessarily wise, but on the average, I think increased intelligence should translate into greater wisdom.
Keith Fosberg: If we engineer out "useless" structures in our bodies will we later find out that they were needed?
I am not sure that any structure in our body is considered completely useless by genetic scientists. I would be opposed to genetic engineering that engineered out "useless" structures. Improvements to existing structures to eliminate certain ailments can and should be done, however.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 02:13am Dec 6, 1997 ET (#992 of 992)
Keith Fosberg: What happens if we achieve a functional imortality for our species? Will we doom ourselves or be forced into draconian population controll measures?
I think we doom ourselves, at some point, if we do not control population, regardless whether we achieve functional immortality. Whether population control is by draconian measures depends on what is mean by draconian measures. If you are referring to China's policy of one child per couple, I do not consider that draconian, and I see no acceptable alternative.
Keith Fosberg: Do we even know how to ask these questions in a way that is meaningfull to the genetic sciences?
The genetic revolution will probably have a greater impact on people and nations, as a whole, then did the industrial revolution. I have confidence the right questions will be asked. Whether they can and will be answered adequately is another question. We should at least try.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 12:55pm Dec 6, 1997 ET (#993 of 994)
Tom A: I got you to admit selection does happen either by man or by nature.
Have you actually read and understood anything I wrote? I never said natural selection doesn't occur. In order for natural selection to occur, their must be differences among the species. How did this difference come about? Mutation is not the answer. There is too much evidence against it, and, there is supporting evidence for other genetic operators (ie crossover and gene sequence insertion.)
Also, it seems you've dropped the "mutation" thread altogether. Does this mean you concede?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 06:03pm Dec 6, 1997 ET (#994 of 994)
Noel Yap: Concede to what? This is discussion not a competition. Mutation is subtle in matters of evolution. Everything is bombarded by cosmic and solar radiation every second of every day. Of course mutation on a scale such as Chernobyl is harmful.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. A. Leffler - 07:53pm Dec 6, 1997 ET (#995 of 998)
Noel Yap: Yes, but my problem is that they've developed Inflationary Theory to fit what they see. Everytime some evidence comes up against it, they patch it up a bit more. So, it's not, "The universe is non-uniform because of Inflationary Theory," but, "Inflationary Theory is because the universe is non-uniform."
This is exactly how scientific theories are created. I think the best any scientist can ever hope to with any theory is disprove it; not prove it to be fact. The method of disproving a theory is in presenting repeatable, observable data that irrevocably contradicts what the theory predicts. Einstein's relativity theories are based on fitting observed phenomena into a theory that better describes mass and it's consequences, and so far, he was right.
Noel Yap: Also, I don't like how they added magic-physics to allow the universe to expand at a rate FTL.
I though that the inflation theory deals with the universe in the very first moments after creation; so close to the moment of creation that "today's" physics didn't apply. Stephen Hawking has shown where gravitational forces can override the law of conservation of energy in today's universe (singularities). I would venture to say that any theory precisely explaining what we see today from a point explosion (the big bang) would tend to involve some processes we would term as "magic". The best you can do is to disprove it...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Schoedel - 10:24pm Dec 6, 1997 ET (#996 of 998)
I think a world government is the worst idea. A world government means a world beaurocracy which would ultimately stifle all progress. The reason why free-market system works better than socialism is because of competition. Governments are a form of monopoly. We don't need any more monopoly in our lives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sohail Zia - 11:22am Dec 7, 1997 ET (#997 of 998)
With all the intelligence in Nature, I can not deny my Creator; the Source
Sorry for remaining absent. Although some of the later messages need to be responded first, for my own satisfaction, but I have nevertheless chosen to remain in order, in the hope that I might catch up. Cliff Beall - 11:14pm Nov 17, 1997 ET (#811) But men of faith are often more clever than the atheist gives him credit for being. Sure. However, for the most part, usually with the exception of evolution--particularly human evolution, men of faith are about as modern in their approach to science and things scientific as anybody. Thanks.
Cliff Beall - 11:19pm Nov 17, 1997 ET (#812) Noel Yap: We can't say how God would/should think. Cliff Beall: If we accept the evidence from the Bible, God acts remarkably similar to the way people act. For example, he gets mad and does things he didn't intend to do and/or things he is sorry he did and has to repent. Reminds me of me. (I think the assumption I made is probably a pretty good one.) Sorry, I disagree with your assumption and I think the Muslim perception is not the same for the same GOD of Christians. The Jewish perception could also be different for the same GOD; for Whom I often use the word Creator. I do not think that Koran has acknowledged such a concept. In fact people act to the way of God when they are right. You and other agnostics have such concepts because you think that believers have made God in their thoughts. For a person who want to believe in God, even this fact is enough that 'his/her knowledge does not cover everything around and within human body' (i.e. limited) and therefore considering him/herself a creation. Perhaps you were right when you said to Noel that something is missing in non-believers that they do not think the way believers do.
Noel Yap - 07:38am Nov 18, 1997 ET (#814) I think there is. Cloning is too close to creating life for some people. Not for Muslims, In my opinion; whether onboard or off this board.
<Previous message
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Carey - 01:41pm Dec 7, 1997 ET (#998 of 998)
Cliff; How can you suggest that ''with the exception of evolution'' men of faith are ''as modern in their approach to science---as anybody'' Organic evolution is the bedrock foundation upon which most life sciences are based. If one does not accept this, then much of modern science collapses like a house of cards. It is true there is something missing in unbelievers vs. believers. It is called irrationality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 07:55pm Dec 7, 1997 ET (#999 of 1001)
What Philip is saying, believers are irrational when it comes to matters of evolutionary biology. I agree. Creationists have a big problem with a God utilizing biological evolution as His means of creating. I have to not agree with Einstein on his belief that "God does not play dice". He sure does and usually rolls sevens.