| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J McCoy" |
| Date: |
10 Nov 2004 02:16:09 AM |
| Object: |
Christianity and Lifestyles |
It just occured to me to bring this topic up since it does have some
validity in the discussion of origins. Namely, what is the purpose
and result of a world view?
Three days a week I work at this grocery store. It's one of my jobs.
And I work with a couple of Christians. They are hard workers and
have something in common. Both were into the drug scene at one time,
both have had obnoxious lifestyles, and both saw their lives going in
the wrong direction. One of the guys has a half brother who isn't a
Christian and he was a pain to work with. He gets fired quite often.
But I find that working with two Christians if quite inspiring. I
don't find them contentious, backstabbing and difficult to work with
as with the other two workers who aren't Christians yet backstab, make
claims that nobody but them are the hard workers , and yet actually
accomplish little compared to the two Christians.
One of the non-Christians is quite obnoxious. Even when you try to
compliment the guy he is rude and sneers it down.
The two Christians had an non-Christian past which was steadily
leading them down the tubes. I also knew a Pastor who had a claw
tattoo and was into the party scene and going in the wrong direction.
There are quite a few other examples I could put out that have
affected my life directly.
I fail to see the point in teaching evolution and skepticism when it
hasn't done any good that I could point to. I know in my life I try
to be helpful to others and do the right thing. In return I often get
treated harshly.
What is the point of teaching evolution when it ultimately doesn't
benefit mankind? If teaching evolution doesn't benefit mankind in a
positive way then it must not be true.
But you ask any Christian what positive things they can point to in
the lives of those who used to be skeptics and they will tell you
about all the good that they have seen.
One of the reasons I converted to Christianity has to do with the fact
that it intellectually gave me reasons to believe, but the second
thing was that High School kids acted like animals and Christianity
gave me reasons to believe in a way of life that was better. I became
a Christian in high school. And no wonder.
JM
.
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
28 Nov 2004 03:30:49 PM |
|
|
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote:
johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote:
Prior to Hennig? I doubt that prior to Simpson's work in the 1950s,
monophyly played any part at all except in the Germans and of course
Haeckel.
My early taxonomic training was mostly based the founders of the Modern
Synthesis, especially Mayr. Monophyly of taxa (in the older sense) was
considered necessary. [It was, technically, after Hennig, but cladism
was not yet widely accepted].
The term did not acquire its litmus status until Mayr and Ashlock tried
to ensure that they got priority for it (via Haeckel) and coined
"holophyly" to deal with Hennig's concept. Redefinition and neologism is
often a scientific weapon in dispute. In so doing, they attempted
simultaneously to both devalue Hennig's entire approach and defend
gradism (for if you arbitrarily remove some stem of a clade, you must be
doing so in terms of a grade achived by descendents).
It was monophyletic in the original sense of the word. The definition
would probably have been something like "amniotes lacking fur or
feathers" -that is a *clade* less certain specific sub-clades.
Well really, a clade minus certain *grades* (as monophyly of those
characters is neither explicitly nor implicitly stated)
Well, I was being a bit flip. The excluded clades would have been Aves
and Mammalia.
Ah. Subtle humour - no wonder I didn't get it. But if you remove clades,
on what grounds have you done so? What is many subclades not in either
Aves or Mammalia turn out to have independently arrived at the
characters definitive of those groups? Would you exclude them from
Reptilia? If yes, my point stands; if not, why select Aves and Mammalia
in the first place?
Part of the issue here is, again, a subtle shift in the meaning of
"grade based" in the shift to cladistics. Originally it was more often
used to refer to ad hoc *poly*phyletic groups within a larger
monophyletic (sensu lato) one.
Have you references for this? I think that the default view prior to the
late 60s was that classification was gradist, with the occasional
redescription to include evolutionary descent. It was all at 6s and 7s.
My start was in the late 60s, actually. Most of the non-cladist
taxonomic work I read at that time at least made some effort to
establish monophyly (old sense). The techniques were crude, admittedly,
but that doesn't change the orientation.
Sure - the issue had arisen then. But go back about 20 years, and you'll
find it was not high on anyone's agenda. Now ask: how many taxonomic
groups named before cladism relied on monophyly?
Don't be misled by Mayr's historical fictions. He writes justificatory
history the way the medievals wrote justificatory genealogies.
Perhaps, but his actual methodological works are a different matter.
Arguable... but I'm not a specialist here. I have (and have read once)
Mayr's
Mayr, E. and P. D. Ashlock (1991). Principles of systematic zoology. New
York, McGraw-Hill
but I find in it arbitrary and vague rules for naming and identifying
groups. It is precise, but arbitrary. Cladistic classification, on the
other hand is not arbitrary (as it has no rankings) but it is less
precise, because multiple trees generate polytomies in most cases (I'm
told). So it is objective but more vague. However, the logic of a
cladogram is not a matter of personal preference the way "evolutionary"
systematics is. Mayr and his colleagues purchase precision at the
expense of objectivity.
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
28 Nov 2004 10:33:02 PM |
|
|
(John Wilkins) wrote:
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote:
My early taxonomic training was mostly based the founders of the Modern
Synthesis, especially Mayr. Monophyly of taxa (in the older sense) was
considered necessary. [It was, technically, after Hennig, but cladism
was not yet widely accepted].
The term did not acquire its litmus status until Mayr and Ashlock tried
to ensure that they got priority for it (via Haeckel) and coined
"holophyly" to deal with Hennig's concept.
It precedes Ashlock, and precedes the word "holophyly". It is certainly
already in the first edition of Mayr's book on systematic's (1969), and
the bibliography cites papers on the issue as far back as 1964 (and on
species concepts as far back as 1954). The paper in which Ashlock
presented the concept of "holophyly" cannot be earlier than his 1971
paper.
By the way, I knew Ashlock personally. I found his approach very
thoughtful and careful (sometimes almost excessively careful). I had
many a long discussion with him on various subjects.
Redefinition and neologism is
often a scientific weapon in dispute. In so doing, they attempted
simultaneously to both devalue Hennig's entire approach and defend
gradism (for if you arbitrarily remove some stem of a clade, you must be
doing so in terms of a grade achived by descendents).
Well, part of the problem is that clades were not removed "arbitrarily".
There are (or were) principles for doing so. The most thought out
methods for this were those of Ashlock.
Well, I was being a bit flip. The excluded clades would have been Aves
and Mammalia.
Ah. Subtle humour - no wonder I didn't get it. But if you remove clades,
on what grounds have you done so?
Degree of divergence. (In Ashlock's formulation it would be weighted
number of synapomorphies supporting the subclade).
What if many subclades not in either
Aves or Mammalia turn out to have independently arrived at the
characters definitive of those groups? Would you exclude them from
Reptilia?
In that case I might actually cease to *use* Reptilia as a taxon.
[Though note: the feathered in dinosaurs *are* in a more inclusive
subclade containing Aves, so this is *not* an independent arrival at
that character - the feathers are fully homologous].
My start was in the late 60s, actually. Most of the non-cladist
taxonomic work I read at that time at least made some effort to
establish monophyly (old sense). The techniques were crude, admittedly,
but that doesn't change the orientation.
Sure - the issue had arisen then. But go back about 20 years, and you'll
find it was not high on anyone's agenda. Now ask: how many taxonomic
groups named before cladism relied on monophyly?
Hard to say, as I have not read the literature that far back. And it
would take some real careful study, to avoid problems with changes in
the meaning of various terms (such as using monophyly, sensu lato,
without actually *calling* it that).
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
29 Nov 2004 12:02:01 AM |
|
|
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote:
johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote:
My early taxonomic training was mostly based the founders of the Modern
Synthesis, especially Mayr. Monophyly of taxa (in the older sense) was
considered necessary. [It was, technically, after Hennig, but cladism
was not yet widely accepted].
The term did not acquire its litmus status until Mayr and Ashlock tried
to ensure that they got priority for it (via Haeckel) and coined
"holophyly" to deal with Hennig's concept.
It precedes Ashlock, and precedes the word "holophyly". It is certainly
already in the first edition of Mayr's book on systematic's (1969), and
the bibliography cites papers on the issue as far back as 1964 (and on
species concepts as far back as 1954). The paper in which Ashlock
presented the concept of "holophyly" cannot be earlier than his 1971
paper.
By the way, I knew Ashlock personally. I found his approach very
thoughtful and careful (sometimes almost excessively careful). I had
many a long discussion with him on various subjects.
*Monophyly* precedes Hennig and Mayr and Ashlock, to be sure. Haeckel
coined it in the 1880s if I recall correctly. But the definition was
vague until Hennig defined it strictly and then Ashlock (in 1968 I
think) tried to redefine it back and introduce "holophyly". As I said,
terms are used as weapons in scientific disputes.
I have no beef with Ashlock personally, so I'm not sure why you raise
that. I think he tried to gain control of the debate by redefinition. I
think Hennig did this too.
Oops: Ashlock wrote his paper in 1971:
Ashlock, Peter. 1971. Monophyly and associated terms. Systematic Zoology
21:430-438.
so if Mayr had it first, then he coined it. Are you sure he uses that
term? I may do a search on this...
Redefinition and neologism is
often a scientific weapon in dispute. In so doing, they attempted
simultaneously to both devalue Hennig's entire approach and defend
gradism (for if you arbitrarily remove some stem of a clade, you must be
doing so in terms of a grade achived by descendents).
Well, part of the problem is that clades were not removed "arbitrarily".
There are (or were) principles for doing so. The most thought out
methods for this were those of Ashlock.
OK, can you list those principles (in brief - I don't want you to go to
too much trouble). Refs could be nice too.
Well, I was being a bit flip. The excluded clades would have been Aves
and Mammalia.
Ah. Subtle humour - no wonder I didn't get it. But if you remove clades,
on what grounds have you done so?
Degree of divergence. (In Ashlock's formulation it would be weighted
number of synapomorphies supporting the subclade).
How much degree? Is there an objective value? Is it chosen for any
particular reason, or by convention (or is it arbitrary)?
What if many subclades not in either
Aves or Mammalia turn out to have independently arrived at the
characters definitive of those groups? Would you exclude them from
Reptilia?
In that case I might actually cease to *use* Reptilia as a taxon.
[Though note: the feathered in dinosaurs *are* in a more inclusive
subclade containing Aves, so this is *not* an independent arrival at
that character - the feathers are fully homologous].
Indeed. I was think of what might happen if feathers independently
evolved in distinct lineages.
My start was in the late 60s, actually. Most of the non-cladist
taxonomic work I read at that time at least made some effort to
establish monophyly (old sense). The techniques were crude, admittedly,
but that doesn't change the orientation.
Sure - the issue had arisen then. But go back about 20 years, and you'll
find it was not high on anyone's agenda. Now ask: how many taxonomic
groups named before cladism relied on monophyly?
Hard to say, as I have not read the literature that far back. And it
would take some real careful study, to avoid problems with changes in
the meaning of various terms (such as using monophyly, sensu lato,
without actually *calling* it that).
Yup. You'll recall we started this with my stating, ex derriere:
"monophyly was not used as the basis for taxonomic groups prior to
Hennig in any systematic manner (although some earlier German
systematists did try to use it). Reptilia was always a grade-based not
clade-based group. Even Haecekl [misspelled, damn] seemed to use it that
way."
I tend to look at things over a slightly longer term...
But my initial reply was motivated by the thought that most taxa haven't
been redescribed by cladists *or* "evolutionary" systematists. Most are
described back in the early 20thC, the 19thC, or even the 18thC. So
monophyly sensu lato aut strictu was not, except by accident, a defining
feature of them...
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
29 Nov 2004 09:15:46 AM |
|
|
(John Wilkins) wrote:
...
But my initial reply was motivated by the thought that most taxa haven't
been redescribed by cladists *or* "evolutionary" systematists. Most are
described back in the early 20thC, the 19thC, or even the 18thC. ...
Note, that while cladistic analysis is the *best* way to determine
monophyly (either definition), it is not the only way. I suspect that
many late 19th and early 20th century taxonomists were implicitly using
monophyly, probably under the terminology of "natural groups". That
they used imprecise, largely subjective, means to judge monophyly does
not mean they did not try to use the concept.
[I have a hard time seeing how somebody accepting Darwin's theories
could use the term "natural group" in any manner that does not imply
monophyly in at least Ashlock's sense].
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
29 Nov 2004 04:19:50 PM |
|
|
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote:
johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
...
But my initial reply was motivated by the thought that most taxa haven't
been redescribed by cladists *or* "evolutionary" systematists. Most are
described back in the early 20thC, the 19thC, or even the 18thC. ...
Note, that while cladistic analysis is the *best* way to determine
monophyly (either definition), it is not the only way. I suspect that
many late 19th and early 20th century taxonomists were implicitly using
monophyly, probably under the terminology of "natural groups". That
they used imprecise, largely subjective, means to judge monophyly does
not mean they did not try to use the concept.
[I have a hard time seeing how somebody accepting Darwin's theories
could use the term "natural group" in any manner that does not imply
monophyly in at least Ashlock's sense].
But as late as the 1940s, systematists were saying that accpeting
Darwin's theories had *not* modified systematic practice noticably.
"Natural groups" were proposed in the 18thC - poor old Adanson being the
originator of the most widely understood sense of it. All talk of
genealogical unity after Darwin was a post hoc rationalisation of what
was already being done.
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
01 Dec 2004 09:37:03 AM |
|
|
(John Wilkins) wrote:
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote:
(John Wilkins) wrote:
...
But my initial reply was motivated by the thought that most taxa haven't
been redescribed by cladists *or* "evolutionary" systematists. Most are
described back in the early 20thC, the 19thC, or even the 18thC. ...
Note, that while cladistic analysis is the *best* way to determine
monophyly (either definition), it is not the only way. I suspect that
many late 19th and early 20th century taxonomists were implicitly using
monophyly, probably under the terminology of "natural groups". That
they used imprecise, largely subjective, means to judge monophyly does
not mean they did not try to use the concept.
[I have a hard time seeing how somebody accepting Darwin's theories
could use the term "natural group" in any manner that does not imply
monophyly in at least Ashlock's sense].
But as late as the 1940s, systematists were saying that accpeting
Darwin's theories had *not* modified systematic practice noticably.
"Natural groups" were proposed in the 18thC - poor old Adanson being the
originator of the most widely understood sense of it. All talk of
genealogical unity after Darwin was a post hoc rationalisation of what
was already being done.
I am not so sure of that. For one thing, the sorts of analysis used
did turn out to have some utility in identifying ancestral groupings.
That is, I would consider the possibility that the continuity of method
may well have been because the methods already (by accident) provided
the best evolutionary analysis possible prior to the development of
formal cladistic analysis. Certainly the vast majority of the groups
proposed by these methods were later shown to be either monophyletic (in
the modern sense) or paraphyletic. And many or most of the ones now
known to be polyphyletic were recognized even then as being "artificial"
or "grab bag" groups that were kept solely for lack of anything better.
This seems to me to be a rather good track record for a set of methods
that supposedly didn't consider monophyly in the older sense.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
01 Dec 2004 04:00:30 PM |
|
|
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote:
johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote:
johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
...
But my initial reply was motivated by the thought that most taxa haven't
been redescribed by cladists *or* "evolutionary" systematists. Most are
described back in the early 20thC, the 19thC, or even the 18thC. ...
Note, that while cladistic analysis is the *best* way to determine
monophyly (either definition), it is not the only way. I suspect that
many late 19th and early 20th century taxonomists were implicitly using
monophyly, probably under the terminology of "natural groups". That
they used imprecise, largely subjective, means to judge monophyly does
not mean they did not try to use the concept.
[I have a hard time seeing how somebody accepting Darwin's theories
could use the term "natural group" in any manner that does not imply
monophyly in at least Ashlock's sense].
But as late as the 1940s, systematists were saying that accpeting
Darwin's theories had *not* modified systematic practice noticably.
"Natural groups" were proposed in the 18thC - poor old Adanson being the
originator of the most widely understood sense of it. All talk of
genealogical unity after Darwin was a post hoc rationalisation of what
was already being done.
I am not so sure of that. For one thing, the sorts of analysis used
did turn out to have some utility in identifying ancestral groupings.
That is, I would consider the possibility that the continuity of method
may well have been because the methods already (by accident) provided
the best evolutionary analysis possible prior to the development of
formal cladistic analysis. Certainly the vast majority of the groups
proposed by these methods were later shown to be either monophyletic (in
the modern sense) or paraphyletic. And many or most of the ones now
known to be polyphyletic were recognized even then as being "artificial"
or "grab bag" groups that were kept solely for lack of anything better.
This seems to me to be a rather good track record for a set of methods
that supposedly didn't consider monophyly in the older sense.
I concur that there is a remarkable congruence of the older "natural
taxa" with monophyletic groups sensu Ashlock (but not with Hennigian
monophyly). But this I put down to systematists being better than their
methodologies, and it didn't always work. In fact, a lot of problematic
cases (including Primates) were not resolved until cladistic methods
were applied. Systematists are, among other thing, neural net
classifiers, and so they will do good work if they train on a good set
to begin with :-)
But this is not to "consider monophyly". It is to classify without
knowing quite why the groups come out as they did, and there is a lot of
noise in those older classifications.
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
07 Dec 2004 08:21:48 AM |
|
|
(John Wilkins) wrote:
I concur that there is a remarkable congruence of the older "natural
taxa" with monophyletic groups sensu Ashlock (but not with Hennigian
monophyly). But this I put down to systematists being better than their
methodologies, and it didn't always work.
I would rather say that the older methods were less accurate and precise
than later methods.
Also, I am not sure that pre-Darwin "natural taxa" has the same meaning
as it did post-Darwin.
In fact, a lot of problematic
cases (including Primates) were not resolved until cladistic methods
were applied.
Of course difficult cases require more precise methods.
Though note, Prosimii *is* paraphyletic, so it isn't really an error
under the older approach.
But this is not to "consider monophyly". It is to classify without
knowing quite why the groups come out as they did,
I guess we may have to agree to disagree. I think that post-Darwin they
*did* have a decent idea why the groups came out as they did.
and there is a lot of noise in those older classifications.
And there was a lot of noise in the older measurements of the speed of
light too. This is largely a matter of the precision of the available
technology. It unfair to judge their results based on modern technology
not available to them.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
07 Dec 2004 06:20:22 PM |
|
|
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote:
johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
I concur that there is a remarkable congruence of the older "natural
taxa" with monophyletic groups sensu Ashlock (but not with Hennigian
monophyly). But this I put down to systematists being better than their
methodologies, and it didn't always work.
I would rather say that the older methods were less accurate and precise
than later methods.
Also, I am not sure that pre-Darwin "natural taxa" has the same meaning
as it did post-Darwin.
Which is my point, although I am making it for pre-Hennigian and
post-Hennigian systematics.
In fact, a lot of problematic
cases (including Primates) were not resolved until cladistic methods
were applied.
Of course difficult cases require more precise methods.
Though note, Prosimii *is* paraphyletic, so it isn't really an error
under the older approach.
But this is not to "consider monophyly". It is to classify without
knowing quite why the groups come out as they did,
I guess we may have to agree to disagree. I think that post-Darwin they
*did* have a decent idea why the groups came out as they did.
and there is a lot of noise in those older classifications.
And there was a lot of noise in the older measurements of the speed of
light too. This is largely a matter of the precision of the available
technology. It unfair to judge their results based on modern technology
not available to them.
I'm not. I'm saying that monophyly - a modern concept post-Hennig - did
not enter into the considerations of "natural taxa" in systematics as
actually practised, until after Hennig.
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
08 Dec 2004 09:09:41 AM |
|
|
(John Wilkins) wrote:
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote:
(John Wilkins) wrote:
I concur that there is a remarkable congruence of the older "natural
taxa" with monophyletic groups sensu Ashlock (but not with Hennigian
monophyly). But this I put down to systematists being better than their
methodologies, and it didn't always work.
I would rather say that the older methods were less accurate and precise
than later methods.
Also, I am not sure that pre-Darwin "natural taxa" has the same meaning
as it did post-Darwin.
Which is my point, although I am making it for pre-Hennigian and
post-Hennigian systematics.
My point it that it changed in meaning at least *twice*, not just once.
I guess we may have to agree to disagree. I think that post-Darwin they
*did* have a decent idea why the groups came out as they did.
and there is a lot of noise in those older classifications.
And there was a lot of noise in the older measurements of the speed of
light too. This is largely a matter of the precision of the available
technology. It unfair to judge their results based on modern technology
not available to them.
I'm not. I'm saying that monophyly - a modern concept post-Hennig - did
not enter into the considerations of "natural taxa" in systematics as
actually practised, until after Hennig.
Considering that monophyly was defined differently prior to Hennig, or a
different word was used in the same meaning, his *definition* certainly
wasn't applied. What I am maintaining is that the requirement for
common ancestry in a taxon *was* applied - *implicitly*, as the basic
justification for the methods used.
How often was the argument that a particular trait was too complex to
have evolved twice used as justification for maintaining or establishing
some taxon? This type of argument makes no sense if monophyly sensu
Mayr was not being implicitly applied (even if that *word* was not
used).
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
08 Dec 2004 03:46:05 PM |
|
|
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote:
johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote:
johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
I concur that there is a remarkable congruence of the older "natural
taxa" with monophyletic groups sensu Ashlock (but not with Hennigian
monophyly). But this I put down to systematists being better than their
methodologies, and it didn't always work.
I would rather say that the older methods were less accurate and precise
than later methods.
Also, I am not sure that pre-Darwin "natural taxa" has the same meaning
as it did post-Darwin.
Which is my point, although I am making it for pre-Hennigian and
post-Hennigian systematics.
My point it that it changed in meaning at least *twice*, not just once.
Oh, more than that. It changed from Adanson to Linnaeus, from Linnaeus
to Buffon, and so forth. You might even say there are as many
definitions or understandings of "natural taxa" as there are
systematists who have addressed the subject. Sneath and Sokal were just
the most recent in a tradition that is highly heterogeneous. Then there
are those verdammt philosophers who keep interjecting (usually
ineffectually)...
I guess we may have to agree to disagree. I think that post-Darwin they
*did* have a decent idea why the groups came out as they did.
and there is a lot of noise in those older classifications.
And there was a lot of noise in the older measurements of the speed of
light too. This is largely a matter of the precision of the available
technology. It unfair to judge their results based on modern technology
not available to them.
I'm not. I'm saying that monophyly - a modern concept post-Hennig - did
not enter into the considerations of "natural taxa" in systematics as
actually practised, until after Hennig.
Considering that monophyly was defined differently prior to Hennig, or a
different word was used in the same meaning, his *definition* certainly
wasn't applied. What I am maintaining is that the requirement for
common ancestry in a taxon *was* applied - *implicitly*, as the basic
justification for the methods used.
The word "monophyly" was not exactly *defined* as *used*, so far as I
can see. And it was used ambiguously. Focus on the topology of trees and
how they were to be (naturally) divided up is very late. In fact, before
Hennig I don't think people gave it a lot of thought (excepting some
generally ignored German paleontologists of the early 20thC).
How often was the argument that a particular trait was too complex to
have evolved twice used as justification for maintaining or establishing
some taxon? This type of argument makes no sense if monophyly sensu
Mayr was not being implicitly applied (even if that *word* was not
used).
It could be an implication,although I fail to see how it might imply the
Mayrian sense rather than the Hennigian sense. If it could not have
evolved twice, then it must include the stem species in which it evolved
once. I think [most] people were just not clear on the notion of an
apomorphy before Hennig.
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
30 Nov 2004 08:50:19 AM |
|
|
(John Wilkins) wrote:
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote:
(John Wilkins) wrote:
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote:
My early taxonomic training was mostly based the founders of the Modern
Synthesis, especially Mayr. Monophyly of taxa (in the older sense) was
considered necessary. [It was, technically, after Hennig, but cladism
was not yet widely accepted].
The term did not acquire its litmus status until Mayr and Ashlock tried
to ensure that they got priority for it (via Haeckel) and coined
"holophyly" to deal with Hennig's concept.
It precedes Ashlock, and precedes the word "holophyly". It is certainly
already in the first edition of Mayr's book on systematic's (1969), and
the bibliography cites papers on the issue as far back as 1964 (and on
species concepts as far back as 1954). The paper in which Ashlock
presented the concept of "holophyly" cannot be earlier than his 1971
paper.
By the way, I knew Ashlock personally. I found his approach very
thoughtful and careful (sometimes almost excessively careful). I had
many a long discussion with him on various subjects.
*Monophyly* precedes Hennig and Mayr and Ashlock, to be sure. Haeckel
coined it in the 1880s if I recall correctly. But the definition was
vague until Hennig defined it strictly and then Ashlock (in 1968 I
think) tried to redefine it back and introduce "holophyly". As I said,
terms are used as weapons in scientific disputes.
I have no beef with Ashlock personally, so I'm not sure why you raise
that. I think he tried to gain control of the debate by redefinition. I
think Hennig did this too.
Oops: Ashlock wrote his paper in 1971:
Ashlock, Peter. 1971. Monophyly and associated terms. Systematic Zoology
21:430-438.
so if Mayr had it first, then he coined it. Are you sure he uses that
term? I may do a search on this...
In his older work, Mayr does *not* use holophyly. He does use monophyly
in a definition closer to Haeckel's. Actually, Mayr played around with
several definitions, including some pretty bad ones. [At the time he
published the first edition of _Principles_ he was using his worst
definition].
Well, part of the problem is that clades were not removed "arbitrarily".
There are (or were) principles for doing so. The most thought out
methods for this were those of Ashlock.
OK, can you list those principles (in brief - I don't want you to go to
too much trouble). Refs could be nice too.
Well, I was being a bit flip. The excluded clades would have been Aves
and Mammalia.
Ah. Subtle humour - no wonder I didn't get it. But if you remove clades,
on what grounds have you done so?
Degree of divergence. (In Ashlock's formulation it would be weighted
number of synapomorphies supporting the subclade).
How much degree? Is there an objective value? Is it chosen for any
particular reason, or by convention (or is it arbitrary)?
It is certainly relative - there is a paper by ?Fisher (IIRC) that
provides the most worked-out method, based on maximizing information
content. Unfortunately I cannot locate the reference right now.
What if many subclades not in either
Aves or Mammalia turn out to have independently arrived at the
characters definitive of those groups? Would you exclude them from
Reptilia?
In that case I might actually cease to *use* Reptilia as a taxon.
[Though note: the feathered in dinosaurs *are* in a more inclusive
subclade containing Aves, so this is *not* an independent arrival at
that character - the feathers are fully homologous].
Indeed. I was think of what might happen if feathers independently
evolved in distinct lineages.
I think it unlikely, and I would have to analyze the result of this to
determine how to handle it. In other words, I cannot make a simple
general answer. Single characters do not, under Ashlock's method,
justify splitting a clade.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
30 Nov 2004 06:27:59 PM |
|
|
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote:
johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote:
johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote:
My early taxonomic training was mostly based the founders of the Modern
Synthesis, especially Mayr. Monophyly of taxa (in the older sense) was
considered necessary. [It was, technically, after Hennig, but cladism
was not yet widely accepted].
The term did not acquire its litmus status until Mayr and Ashlock tried
to ensure that they got priority for it (via Haeckel) and coined
"holophyly" to deal with Hennig's concept.
It precedes Ashlock, and precedes the word "holophyly". It is certainly
already in the first edition of Mayr's book on systematic's (1969), and
the bibliography cites papers on the issue as far back as 1964 (and on
species concepts as far back as 1954). The paper in which Ashlock
presented the concept of "holophyly" cannot be earlier than his 1971
paper.
By the way, I knew Ashlock personally. I found his approach very
thoughtful and careful (sometimes almost excessively careful). I had
many a long discussion with him on various subjects.
*Monophyly* precedes Hennig and Mayr and Ashlock, to be sure. Haeckel
coined it in the 1880s if I recall correctly. But the definition was
vague until Hennig defined it strictly and then Ashlock (in 1968 I
think) tried to redefine it back and introduce "holophyly". As I said,
terms are used as weapons in scientific disputes.
I have no beef with Ashlock personally, so I'm not sure why you raise
that. I think he tried to gain control of the debate by redefinition. I
think Hennig did this too.
Oops: Ashlock wrote his paper in 1971:
Ashlock, Peter. 1971. Monophyly and associated terms. Systematic Zoology
21:430-438.
so if Mayr had it first, then he coined it. Are you sure he uses that
term? I may do a search on this...
In his older work, Mayr does *not* use holophyly. He does use monophyly
in a definition closer to Haeckel's. Actually, Mayr played around with
several definitions, including some pretty bad ones. [At the time he
published the first edition of _Principles_ he was using his worst
definition].
I have Mayr, Linsley and Unger, 1953. Monophyletic groups are mentioned
once, in an ambiguous sense that could mean Ashlock's monophyly or
holophyly (as I expected). In an entire book devoted to the principles
of systematics, it is clear that, operationally at least, monophyly
plays almost no part in systematics at that time, at least in Mayr's
views.
Well, part of the problem is that clades were not removed "arbitrarily".
There are (or were) principles for doing so. The most thought out
methods for this were those of Ashlock.
OK, can you list those principles (in brief - I don't want you to go to
too much trouble). Refs could be nice too.
Well, I was being a bit flip. The excluded clades would have been Aves
and Mammalia.
Ah. Subtle humour - no wonder I didn't get it. But if you remove clades,
on what grounds have you done so?
Degree of divergence. (In Ashlock's formulation it would be weighted
number of synapomorphies supporting the subclade).
How much degree? Is there an objective value? Is it chosen for any
particular reason, or by convention (or is it arbitrary)?
It is certainly relative - there is a paper by ?Fisher (IIRC) that
provides the most worked-out method, based on maximizing information
content. Unfortunately I cannot locate the reference right now.
What if many subclades not in either
Aves or Mammalia turn out to have independently arrived at the
characters definitive of those groups? Would you exclude them from
Reptilia?
In that case I might actually cease to *use* Reptilia as a taxon.
[Though note: the feathered in dinosaurs *are* in a more inclusive
subclade containing Aves, so this is *not* an independent arrival at
that character - the feathers are fully homologous].
Indeed. I was think of what might happen if feathers independently
evolved in distinct lineages.
I think it unlikely, and I would have to analyze the result of this to
determine how to handle it. In other words, I cannot make a simple
general answer. Single characters do not, under Ashlock's method,
justify splitting a clade.
Of course. But how many characters are sufficient to excise a subclade,
and how marked the differences? As I noted, this is grade-based, and IMO
that is relative to a set of criteria that depend on some prior model of
evolution, and some prior conceptual commitments. And even *then* it
remains arbitrary.
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Augray" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
29 Nov 2004 06:24:04 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 06:02:01 +0000 (UTC), (John
Wilkins) wrote in news:<1go0tme.1keys2e1wni0whN%>:
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote:
(John Wilkins) wrote:
[snip]
What if many subclades not in either
Aves or Mammalia turn out to have independently arrived at the
characters definitive of those groups? Would you exclude them from
Reptilia?
In that case I might actually cease to *use* Reptilia as a taxon.
[Though note: the feathered in dinosaurs *are* in a more inclusive
subclade containing Aves, so this is *not* an independent arrival at
that character - the feathers are fully homologous].
Indeed. I was think of what might happen if feathers independently
evolved in distinct lineages.
Just as an historical footnote, that claim *has* been made in the past,
although I'm unaware of anyone who thinks this today.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phillip Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
18 Nov 2004 06:57:56 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:08:22 +0000, J McCoy wrote:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<%1Nmd.2099$Qh3.2030@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411171015.1bfd7120@posting.google.com... snipping
Haeckel made severe errors. The human heart doesn't start out as one
chamber, then into two chambers and then 3 to 4. 1-2-3-4. It
contradicts Haeckel's distortions proving that the man was big time
distortionist for evolution.
One fun thing about McCoy's claims is they are so simple to disprove.
See: http://www.rchc.rush.edu/rmawebfiles/Embryology.htm (edited for
clarity by me)
Week 1-2 No heart or major vessels Week 4
Single atrium
Week 5 Bilobed atrium
Week 5, day 31 Septum primum
Week 5, day 35 AV orifice, 3 chambered heart Week 7 day 49 4
chambered heart.
Also see:
http://heart.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/89/7/806#SEC4
DJT
Here's where you're wrong. Real embryologists do not over look the
third week. What takes place is the linking of endocardial tubes. At
21 days they are completely fused. The newly heart tube forms paired
atria which will fuse to form the single atrium that is listed in your
chart regarding week 4.
What you have just stated directly contradicts what you originally said
i.e. you say that the Haekel was wrong because the "human heart doesn't
start out as one chamber, then into two chambers and then 3 to 4" and then
provide evidence that it does indeed exist as one chamber after 21 days,
which corroborates what Dana said.
It's bad enough trying to debate you when you hold the one opposing
position, but when you start arguing your position *from both sides*,
that's when it starts to get scary.
--
phillip brown
"***** doesn't just happen. there is always an *****-hole involved"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
19 Nov 2004 04:49:46 AM |
|
|
Phillip Brown <phillipbrownau@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.11.19.01.10.13.779489@netscape.net>...
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:08:22 +0000, J McCoy wrote:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<%1Nmd.2099$Qh3.2030@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411171015.1bfd7120@posting.google.com... snipping
Haeckel made severe errors. The human heart doesn't start out as one
chamber, then into two chambers and then 3 to 4. 1-2-3-4. It
contradicts Haeckel's distortions proving that the man was big time
distortionist for evolution.
One fun thing about McCoy's claims is they are so simple to disprove.
See: http://www.rchc.rush.edu/rmawebfiles/Embryology.htm (edited for
clarity by me)
Week 1-2 No heart or major vessels Week 4
Single atrium
Week 5 Bilobed atrium
Week 5, day 31 Septum primum
Week 5, day 35 AV orifice, 3 chambered heart Week 7 day 49 4
chambered heart.
Also see:
http://heart.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/89/7/806#SEC4
DJT
Here's where you're wrong. Real embryologists do not over look the
third week. What takes place is the linking of endocardial tubes. At
21 days they are completely fused. The newly heart tube forms paired
atria which will fuse to form the single atrium that is listed in your
chart regarding week 4.
What you have just stated directly contradicts what you originally said
i.e. you say that the Haekel was wrong because the "human heart doesn't
start out as one chamber, then into two chambers and then 3 to 4" and then
provide evidence that it does indeed exist as one chamber after 21 days,
which corroborates what Dana said.
It's bad enough trying to debate you when you hold the one opposing
position, but when you start arguing your position *from both sides*,
that's when it starts to get scary.
You forget that for someone of McCoy's mindset such Orwellian
'doublethink' is a demonstration of devotion to their faith of
creationism.
RF
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Root" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
18 Nov 2004 04:34:58 PM |
|
|
You have still provided no evidence of this strong assertion:
His biogenetic law,
which appeared in numerous textbooks to teach gullible students into
becoming evolutionists, was proven to be fraudulent and untrue.
That's a pretty strong indictment to just make up. Where's your evidence?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "A. Carlson" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
17 Nov 2004 02:55:16 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:54:22 +0000 (UTC), (J McCoy)
wrote:
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0411160511.3cfbb311@posting.google.com>...
(J McCoy) wrote in message news:<3f355ee.0411151957.68d03eee@posting.google.com>...
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0411151128.66314f50@posting.google.com>...
(J McCoy) wrote in message news:<3f355ee.0411142315.53ada2af@posting.google.com>
<Clip>
As time goes along the association of two words becomes
permenent and the origins become forgotten. But it's obvious that
the word religion had to do with a number of people getting together
and hence, any form and structure that held the people together would
be considered religious.
But as words pick up and shed meanings as they go along, this is
entirely irrelevant. You make me feel so gay!
Are you?
Gay as the day is long. You may not have realised this, but the
meaning of the word has changed even within my lifetime. This
reinforces my statement that we should try to communicate in 21st
century English.
As if your'e the only one that knows that. Does gay mean that you are
happy or you're engaging in high risk disease prone activities?
False dichotomy. There you go again demonstrating a complete lack of
critical thinking skills.
<Clip>
So you see, belief in God play a rather important part. The fifth
definition on this list (i.e. a thing that one is devoted to) is not
relevant to the discussion. This is very much a casual use of the word
to emphasise the devotion someone might give to something such as
sport which is non-religious in its essence.
I see. But to be religious doesn't necessarily mean belief in God or
gods. You can be a humanist and be religious.
Got to catch a bus.
JM
I'm sure it's a short one.
Alex
.
|
|
|
| User: "J McCoy" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
17 Nov 2004 05:39:58 PM |
|
|
"A. Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<305mp0p2mokc44cs8t9rq3cotmg610fqs1@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:54:22 +0000 (UTC), (J McCoy)
wrote:
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0411160511.3cfbb311@posting.google.com>...
(J McCoy) wrote in message news:<3f355ee.0411151957.68d03eee@posting.google.com>...
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0411151128.66314f50@posting.google.com>...
(J McCoy) wrote in message news:<3f355ee.0411142315.53ada2af@posting.google.com>
<Clip>
As time goes along the association of two words becomes
permenent and the origins become forgotten. But it's obvious that
the word religion had to do with a number of people getting together
and hence, any form and structure that held the people together would
be considered religious.
But as words pick up and shed meanings as they go along, this is
entirely irrelevant. You make me feel so gay!
Are you?
Gay as the day is long. You may not have realised this, but the
meaning of the word has changed even within my lifetime. This
reinforces my statement that we should try to communicate in 21st
century English.
As if your'e the only one that knows that. Does gay mean that you are
happy or you're engaging in high risk disease prone activities?
False dichotomy. There you go again demonstrating a complete lack of
critical thinking skills.
Maybe I should have stuck another or onto the end and made it a tricotomy.
<Clip>
So you see, belief in God play a rather important part. The fifth
definition on this list (i.e. a thing that one is devoted to) is not
relevant to the discussion. This is very much a casual use of the word
to emphasise the devotion someone might give to something such as
sport which is non-religious in its essence.
I see. But to be religious doesn't necessarily mean belief in God or
gods. You can be a humanist and be religious.
Got to catch a bus.
JM
I'm sure it's a short one.
Alex
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Clayton" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
15 Nov 2004 09:31:37 PM |
|
|
J McCoy wrote:
Richard Clayton <reZIGclaytonZIG@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<2vnl66F2kfbt1U1@uni-berlin.de>...
J McCoy wrote:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message news:<P6dld.9355$_J2.7148@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411121548.453fc06b@posting.google.com...
Mark VandeWettering <markv@fishtank.brainwagon.org> wrote in message
news:<slrncp8q4q.1ius.markv@fishtank.brainwagon.org>...
snipping
How can you claim to be in favor or critical thinking when you are
against creationism in the public schools?
I'm also against teaching children that disease are caused by evil
spirits, that ufos regularly abduct people and subject them to anal
probes, or that the holocaust was a hoax. All are ridiculous claims,
just as is creationism.
Actually, you are wrong. It can't hurt to discuss presuppositions in
regard to evil spirits and that sort of thing.
I can hurt if you teach them as if they had some kind of objective validity.
And, pray tell, if
they do exist then you're the butt of the joke.
Show some evidence of evil spirits, and then you can joke all you want.
snipping a description of a psychotic episode
As for UFO encounters, I've always had doubts about those, but who is
to say that somebody isn't being drugged on purpose and this alien
encounter is just a myth to cover up something that is really going
on. People need to be exposed to this possibility.
Speaking of psychotic episodes.....
Teaching both theories
would foster debate and critical thinking. I recall debating in
school, so why should indoctrination be the standard?
We don't teach children nonsense in the hopes they will recognize it as
such.
We should teach children to decide for themselves if Creationism is
nonsense or not.
Thats why science classes should teach science, not religious beliefs.
How do you expect children to be able to recongize nonsense, when you want
to teach it with the same authority as science?
Which is where you are wrong. The word religion merely means re and
legion. To affirm group unit. Belief in God is not religion. You
can be a loner and not be religious.
Merriam-Webster Online disagrees with you, not only about the meaning
of the word, but about its etymology. It comes from the Latin /religio/.
As to its meaning...
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b
(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :
commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes,
beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
I see your knowledge of the English language matches your mastery of
biology, chemistry, and astronomy.
Well chalk that up to one guy who has never taken a good Roman History
course. Additionally, your ignorance betrays you. You can use any
dictionary that you want.
Feel free to show me a dictionary indicating that "The word religion
merely means re and legion."
, but it's also true that words pick up
meanings as time goes along. Many words are really composed of more
than one root. As time goes along the association of two words becomes
permenent and the origins become forgotten. But it's obvious that
the word religion had to do with a number of people getting together
and hence, any form and structure that held the people together would
be considered religious. In fact, if you break down the word further,
and look up the roots you notice a pattern.
Please feel free to cite any dictionary entry indicating that "any form
and structure that held the people together would be considered religious."
The root Le haas to do with structure or people, hence, LE when
combined to galis, becomes to collect in reference to the "law." The
structure of preservation.
Please feel free to cite any text on Latin indicating that "the root Le
has to do with structure or people."
The "legate" is of legare to send as
ambassador the representative of the people and the law. LEgend
refers to legendus or to read, Another binding phenomena in society
is the literature. Oftentimes the currency, land or the language is
identified in name to the people. Legacy refers to the money or
property left to someone, from an ancestor, hence a common bond and a
legal inheritance. Hence, Le, with the added x , or Lex, means law.
The Romans believed that law held . society together. Interestingly
enough there are other languages that follow along this line of
meaning. But if you look even further, you see that L added to atinus,
or latinus, means "flat land" and also latin refers to the ancient
Latium or its people. Of ancient Rome. Interestingly enough there is
also a connection with the land or the people. Tying L with assus,
means weak. Very telling is the opposite, being lex, or the law, with
laxus or lax. To be lax means to deny principle and to cut slack,
contrary to rigid affirmation of Lex.
This is a very interesting study and worthwhile for all those
interested.
It is indeed a fascinating study; I wish I'd taken more Latin in high
school and college. You, however, seem to be making this ***** up as you
go along.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
"Mmm! Power lines and paint chips! My childhood ROCKS!" -- Fighter,
8-bit Theatre
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Harper" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
17 Nov 2004 01:12:00 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 03:31:37 +0000, Richard Clayton wrote:
J McCoy wrote:
Richard Clayton <reZIGclaytonZIG@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<2vnl66F2kfbt1U1@uni-berlin.de>...
<snip>
The "legate" is of legare to send as ambassador the representative of
the people and the law. LEgend refers to legendus or to read,
Another binding phenomena in society is the literature. Oftentimes the
currency, land or the language is identified in name to the people.
Legacy refers to the money or property left to someone, from an
ancestor, hence a common bond and a legal inheritance. Hence, Le, with
the added x , or Lex, means law. The Romans believed that law held .
society together. Interestingly enough there are other languages that
follow along this line of meaning. But if you look even further, you see
that L added to atinus, or latinus, means "flat land" and also latin
refers to the ancient Latium or its people. Of ancient Rome.
Interestingly enough there is also a connection with the land or the
people. Tying L with assus, means weak. Very telling is the opposite,
being lex, or the law, with laxus or lax. To be lax means to deny
principle and to cut slack, contrary to rigid affirmation of Lex.
This is a very interesting study and worthwhile for all those
interested.
It is indeed a fascinating study; I wish I'd taken more Latin in high
school and college. You, however, seem to be making this ***** up as you go
along.
As someone who took Latin in high school and is considering a minor in the
classics, I can pretty well guarantee that McCoy is making up ***** as he
goes along.
Hence we add etymology to the ever-growing list of things that McCoy knows
nothing about.
--
Don't blame me -- I voted for the other guy.
--Daniel Harper
(Insert my name and change terra to earth for email)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark VandeWettering" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
16 Nov 2004 12:51:59 PM |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2004-11-15, J McCoy <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote:
Richard Clayton <reZIGclaytonZIG@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<2vnl66F2kfbt1U1@uni-berlin.de>...
J McCoy wrote:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message news:<P6dld.9355$_J2.7148@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411121548.453fc06b@posting.google.com...
Mark VandeWettering <markv@fishtank.brainwagon.org> wrote in message
news:<slrncp8q4q.1ius.markv@fishtank.brainwagon.org>...
snipping
How can you claim to be in favor or critical thinking when you are
against creationism in the public schools?
I'm also against teaching children that disease are caused by evil
spirits, that ufos regularly abduct people and subject them to anal
probes, or that the holocaust was a hoax. All are ridiculous claims,
just as is creationism.
Actually, you are wrong. It can't hurt to discuss presuppositions in
regard to evil spirits and that sort of thing.
I can hurt if you teach them as if they had some kind of objective validity.
And, pray tell, if
they do exist then you're the butt of the joke.
Show some evidence of evil spirits, and then you can joke all you want.
snipping a description of a psychotic episode
As for UFO encounters, I've always had doubts about those, but who is
to say that somebody isn't being drugged on purpose and this alien
encounter is just a myth to cover up something that is really going
on. People need to be exposed to this possibility.
Speaking of psychotic episodes.....
Teaching both theories
would foster debate and critical thinking. I recall debating in
school, so why should indoctrination be the standard?
We don't teach children nonsense in the hopes they will recognize it as
such.
We should teach children to decide for themselves if Creationism is
nonsense or not.
Thats why science classes should teach science, not religious beliefs.
How do you expect children to be able to recongize nonsense, when you want
to teach it with the same authority as science?
Which is where you are wrong. The word religion merely means re and
legion. To affirm group unit. Belief in God is not religion. You
can be a loner and not be religious.
Merriam-Webster Online disagrees with you, not only about the meaning
of the word, but about its etymology. It comes from the Latin /religio/.
As to its meaning...
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b
(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :
commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes,
beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
I see your knowledge of the English language matches your mastery of
biology, chemistry, and astronomy.
Well chalk that up to one guy who has never taken a good Roman History
course. Additionally, your ignorance betrays you. You can use any
dictionary that you want., but it's also true that words pick up
meanings as time goes along. Many words are really composed of more
than one root. As time goes along the association of two words becomes
permenent and the origins become forgotten. But it's obvious that
the word religion had to do with a number of people getting together
and hence, any form and structure that held the people together would
be considered religious. In fact, if you break down the word further,
and look up the roots you notice a pattern.
The root Le haas to do with structure or people, hence, LE when
combined to galis, becomes to collect in reference to the "law." The
structure of preservation. The "legate" is of legare to send as
ambassador the representative of the people and the law. LEgend
refers to legendus or to read, Another binding phenomena in society
is the literature. Oftentimes the currency, land or the language is
identified in name to the people. Legacy refers to the money or
property left to someone, from an ancestor, hence a common bond and a
legal inheritance. Hence, Le, with the added x , or Lex, means law.
The Romans believed that law held . society together. Interestingly
enough there are other languages that follow along this line of
meaning. But if you look even further, you see that L added to atinus,
or latinus, means "flat land" and also latin refers to the ancient
Latium or its people. Of ancient Rome. Interestingly enough there is
also a connection with the land or the people. Tying L with assus,
means weak. Very telling is the opposite, being lex, or the law, with
laxus or lax. To be lax means to deny principle and to cut slack,
contrary to rigid affirmation of Lex.
This may indeed be the biggest chunk of babbling nonsense I've seen all
year. Congratulations.
Mark
This is a very interesting study and worthwhile for all those
interested.
JM
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark VandeWettering" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
16 Nov 2004 12:50:32 PM |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2004-11-13, J McCoy <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message news:<P6dld.9355$_J2.7148@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411121548.453fc06b@posting.google.com...
Mark VandeWettering <markv@fishtank.brainwagon.org> wrote in message
news:<slrncp8q4q.1ius.markv@fishtank.brainwagon.org>...
snipping
How can you claim to be in favor or critical thinking when you are
against creationism in the public schools?
I'm also against teaching children that disease are caused by evil
spirits, that ufos regularly abduct people and subject them to anal
probes, or that the holocaust was a hoax. All are ridiculous claims,
just as is creationism.
Actually, you are wrong. It can't hurt to discuss presuppositions in
regard to evil spirits and that sort of thing.
I can hurt if you teach them as if they had some kind of objective validity.
And, pray tell, if
they do exist then you're the butt of the joke.
Show some evidence of evil spirits, and then you can joke all you want.
snipping a description of a psychotic episode
As for UFO encounters, I've always had doubts about those, but who is
to say that somebody isn't being drugged on purpose and this alien
encounter is just a myth to cover up something that is really going
on. People need to be exposed to this possibility.
Speaking of psychotic episodes.....
Teaching both theories
would foster debate and critical thinking. I recall debating in
school, so why should indoctrination be the standard?
We don't teach children nonsense in the hopes they will recognize it as
such.
We should teach children to decide for themselves if Creationism is
nonsense or not.
Thats why science classes should teach science, not religious beliefs.
How do you expect children to be able to recongize nonsense, when you want
to teach it with the same authority as science?
Which is where you are wrong. The word religion merely means re and
legion. To affirm group unit. Belief in God is not religion. You
can be a loner and not be religious.
You've made this curious claim before. The word simply doesn't have the
eytomology that you claim.
Mark
JM
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wakboth" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
14 Nov 2004 01:45:16 AM |
|
|
(J McCoy) wrote in message news:<3f355ee.0411121548.453fc06b@posting.google.com>...
Mark VandeWettering <markv@fishtank.brainwagon.org> wrote in message news:<slrncp8q4q.1ius.markv@fishtank.brainwagon.org>...
["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2004-11-12, J McCoy < > wrote:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message news:<r5rkd.6814$_J2.5930@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"J McCoy" < > wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411100026.5883b50b@posting.google.com...
It just occured to me to bring this topic up since it does have some
validity in the discussion of origins. Namely, what is the purpose
and result of a world view?
Perhaps one should remember that evolution is not a 'world view', but a
scientific theory.
snipping
I fail to see the point in teaching evolution and skepticism when it
hasn't done any good that I could point to.
Teaching evolution as a scientific theory leads to a better undestanding of
the world around you. If you can't see that's something "good", then
perhaps you have not the ability to distinguish between good and bad. As
far as skepticisim goes, can't you see the value in teaching critical
thinking, so that the population is not easy prey for conmen and swindlers?
Are you equivocating evolution and skepticism with atheism? One can be
skeptical of outrageous claims, and accept the scientific theory of
evolution, and still be Christian, and hold Christian values.
How can you claim to be in favor or critical thinking when you are
against creationism in the public schools?
I'm also against teaching children that disease are caused by evil
spirits, that ufos regularly abduct people and subject them to anal
probes, or that the holocaust was a hoax. All are ridiculous claims,
just as is creationism.
Actually, you are wrong. It can't hurt to discuss presuppositions in
regard to evil spirits and that sort of thing. And, pray tell, if
they do exist then you're the butt of the joke. And they do exist. I
recall being in my university course on Eastern Religions when a man
sitting to my right was talking to a friend of mine sitting behind
him. This man was mild manner and told my friend that he read occult
books. He also said that he heard voices. During our lectures he
would interrupt professor John Bash continuously, asking irrelevant
questions. Nonetheless, this mild mannered, low key voiced man all of
a sudden was talking a strange language. His voice changed and with a
bold and arrogant voice he said:
"YOU CANNOT DEFEAT ME."
My friend answered, "No, but He will."
The whole conversation sounded like it came out of a Hollywood movie.
Of course I already know your answer, you will say that this man is
suffering from some kind of psychiatric problems. Which doesn't
explain the occult books (by coincidence that you won't accept) and
the strange voices. I could go on about this, but nonetheless is
meaningless because you will merely reassert your contention that it
is merely a psychiatric problem.
You ever consider the possibility of someone reading occult books
_because_ of his existing psychiatric problems, and/or occult books
affecting the expression of his existing psychiatric problems? (Maybe
he just saw "Exorcist"!)
As for UFO encounters, I've always had doubts about those, but who is
to say that somebody isn't being drugged on purpose and this alien
encounter is just a myth to cover up something that is really going
on. People need to be exposed to this possibility.
Or, the more likely explanation: sleep paralysis (feeling of
helplessness and immobility, associated with the sensation of being
weighted down, and frequently with visual and auditory hallucinations,
such as shadowy shapes moving in your bedroom, whispering). The
details of such episodes depend on the cultural background: in the
Middle Ages, people thought they were hag-ridden, abducted by faeries
or surrounded by devils wanting to snatch out their soul. We (as a
culture) no longer really believe in witches or faeries or omnipresent
devils; their place has been taken by space aliens (and, thanks to the
million zillion stories, specifically the Greys).
[Snip the rest]
-- Wakboth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
12 Nov 2004 05:59:03 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 23:36:38 +0000 (UTC), (J McCoy)
wrote:
snip
The whole conversation sounded like it came out of a Hollywood movie.
Of course I already know your answer, you will say that this man is
suffering from some kind of psychiatric problems. Which doesn't
explain the occult books (by coincidence that you won't accept) and
the strange voices. I could go on about this, but nonetheless is
meaningless because you will merely reassert your contention that it
is merely a psychiatric problem.
Lets see..... He doesn't have a mental problem because he has
occult books?
Does that mean 'you' don't have a mental problem because you have a
bible book?
I love it when two crazy people call each other crazy.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
.
|
|
|
| User: "J McCoy" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
15 Nov 2004 01:15:13 AM |
|
|
Steve Knight <wooly@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<gvjap01f1qka2msld28vrakkj51hhlalv3@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 23:36:38 +0000 (UTC), (J McCoy)
wrote:
snip
The whole conversation sounded like it came out of a Hollywood movie.
Of course I already know your answer, you will say that this man is
suffering from some kind of psychiatric problems. Which doesn't
explain the occult books (by coincidence that you won't accept) and
the strange voices. I could go on about this, but nonetheless is
meaningless because you will merely reassert your contention that it
is merely a psychiatric problem.
Lets see..... He doesn't have a mental problem because he has
occult books?
Does that mean 'you' don't have a mental problem because you have a
bible book?
I love it when two crazy people call each other crazy.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
Suit your self. You definitely have the right to believe as you do.
But from my reading and knowledge I know that this is not a unique
situation. Speaking of which, I knew this man who was an atheist who
I spent at least one hour debating evolution with in my home. We
covered, yes, the gill slits, the peppered moths, fossil record,
DNA, and you name it. Later on he started dabbling in certain occult
books, cards and that sort of thing. Later he was absolutely scared.
He was paranoid about going outside and said, "John, I bet you, if
you tie me up tomorrow you'll find a pentagram cut into my arm. Tie
me up. You watch. " I said no. He showed me cut marks in his arm.
He told me that furniture would be rearranged in his room and all sort
of strange phenomena occurred.He also told me that he warned people to
stop or stay away from this material. Well, that only encouraged me
to ask him if he thought if there were invisible sentient beings
involved and he told me that, no, he thought it was a manifestation of
thought. OK. It won't be the last time that atheism held people
back from grasping the truth.
JM
.
|
|
| | |
