Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: This is why we can't have nice things

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - vivisectus

1
I mean, what facts are we waiting for here? That it really was a gun?
2
According to Rubio, it is also already too soon to talk about gun restrictions and if they would have helped prevent this.
3
So depressing that I said to Mrs Sectus this morning: white guy shooter, so it is a mental health issue. If he was brown it would be either terrorism or an immigration problem, if he was black then it would be a crime thing.

And yes indeed, the Donald tweets it before the day is out.
4
Some thoughts and prayers should solve this. I mean it worked every other time, didn't it?
5
LOL you immediately declared yourself Governor of your fantasy island.

Anyway we already know what happens if you put a narcissist in charge of an island full of survivors. A natural experiment occurred in 1629 at a place called the Houtman Abrolhos.
6
I think a micro-diary is affordable and relatively low on labor. It would mean inputs, of course - you'll need brine and rennet and something to cover your cheese with. But you can make damn fine Gouda, especially once spring kicks into gear, and it would give you calories you can store for years.
7
I also wonder about this photo, is it really people streaming from Caracas as a result of the horribleness of city life?
Is it even a picture of people streaming from Caracas.
It is not.
Hawkins is "misinformed" ( aka lying ) again.

Here's the article the photo comes from:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5374501/Mass-exodus-thousands-Venezuelans-flee-country.html
Here's the caption of the photo:
Quote
More than 2,000 additional military officers will be deployed to control the hundreds of dirt-road crossings known as 'trochas' that dot Colombia's 1,370-mile (2,200-kilometer) border with Venezuela

It's Venezuelans attempting to leave the country.
This is at least 300 km from Caracas.

The country is in economic crisis.
It's not a Caracas thing.
Ha ha ha. Bluffy never fails my expectations.

Look, many people say it is because of cities. Not anyone in specific though.
8
Dave doesn't realise that his 'simple' lifestyle is one destructive natural event away from back to square one.

One severe blizzard or hurricane or flood could kill all his animals.

Despite his sincere belief that his animals cannot get sick, they certainly can. They can get sick and die, or worse, make Dave sick as well.

His system is nowhere near as robust as he thinks it is.

You could also wonder if it is wise to have so many people in close proximity to so many animals. The chances of some sort of animal disease making the same leap as the Measles did long ago, and Swineflu much more recently, are small, especially in a set-up where the daily contact is limited to milking and such. But what Dave is proposing is scaling his system up massively: millions upon millions of people doing things his way day in day out.

The chance of such a transfer is very small, but the points of contact where such a transfer is highly unlikely, but still possible, are going up by a huge factor. And not just that: all these people will be milking and home-slaughtering their livestock with differing standards of hygiene. They will not pasteurize their milk. No anti-biotics or standard inoculations will be used.

Imagine avian influenza in a populous country where every household has a flock out in the open. So many opportunities for the chickens to get infected, and then so many opportunities for human influenza to get in contact with the avian variety. Contact will not be intense - it is not like they are in the house with them. But it will be continuous, and it will multiplied millions of times.
9
Quote
We need to get back to kindergarten science.

Simple stories, without any confusing detail or ambivalence.
10
"My point exactly - the appearance of design gives us the kind of information that most people have managed to grasp in kindergarten. like "Cows eat grass". It does not add to our understanding in any way. "

Well I agree with you that the observation of "cows eat grass" is kindergarten level stuff ... and that is precisely the reason that I find it so interesting that grown adults with fancy science degrees ignore what they learned in kindergarten and tell farmers it's ok to feed cows pure grain diets. 

Weird huh?

So you're partly correct - it does not ADD to our understanding.  But saying does REMIND us of what we learned in kindergarten and hopefully will MOTIVATE US TO RETURN to that "Prisca Sapientia" that we learned in kindergarten.

It has for me.

How about you?



Glad we cleared that up: the appearance of design adds nothing to our understanding, and when you say "prisca sapienta" you basically mean simple stories for kindergartners.

Well, I don't think anyone here disagrees with that, Dave. And good for you: you have stopped trying to dress up your ideas like science, and just stated in an honest way: I prefer simple stories, they do not really add much to our understanding but they suit my beliefs, and as far as I am concerned, that is that.
11
Hey Viv ...

Cows appear to be designed to eat grass, not meat and potatoes, not sushi, not egg milkshakes, not super tacos, not biscuits and gravy, etc.

Applying this scientific observation on my own little farm, I have decided to feed my dairy cow ... [drum roll] ... GRASS ... nothing more.  Mature grass.  Grass with seedheads intact. 

And the happy result is that she's happy and healthy and gives me milk which many say is far more healthy to drink than Frankenmilk you buy at the store.  Which might explain why "real milk" is growing in popularity and is selling for almost $20 a gallon in my city.

Any questions?

My point exactly - the appearance of design gives us the kind of information that most people have managed to grasp in kindergarten. like "Cows eat grass". It does not add to our understanding in any way.

And people who claim that the appearance of design is important do so because they have a set of beliefs, not because it is the best way to explain what we can observe. They believe in the design, and they believe a bunch of things about that design, and when they see anything that is compatible with that belief they consider that a confirmation of not just the existence of a design, but also of anything else they believe about that design. One of yours is that if you feed your cows according the the will of the Designer, everything will be better: the health of the cow, the quality of the milk, and the state of the environment the cows live in.

Many people say so! Well, that is settled then, isn't it? Many people saying whatever you like to believe is good enough for trump, after all, so why should it not be good enough for science?
12
Quote
But if we look at how perfectly suitable the human body is for lice, then all of a sudden the appearance of design is not important... unless you are interested in farming lice. What that means exactly never really became clear.
It's clear if you're not a moron.  "Farming lice" means exactly what a non moron would naturally think it means ... raising them just as one would raise rabbits ... or cattle or any other animal. 

Any other stupid questions?

You completely missed the point again, Dave. You have stated that the appearance of design is only important if you are interested in whatever the thing you are studying appears to be designed for.

This is silly, and not at all what you do. In your philosophy, there is a single design which exists independently of our interests, and if we learn to use it right, optimal results follow, and not just for the creatures we are interested in. Optimal results follow for pretty much everything. Land heals itself, rain falls in the desert, humans are healthier and happier, etc.

And all this without doing all that laborious, machine-code level science. Happy times!

So I propose that since humans appear to be designed to support lice, we should simply apply the same principle. We have just as much reason to do so. And we have just as much reason to expect all results to be optimal - not just for the lice, but for the eco-systems that they live in. Think of all the useless machine-code level research we can skip! Why bother with going into the details of cardio-vascular disease when it is all just a matter of realizing it is designed to bring nutrients to the scalp, and working with the design to ensure that happens in the best way possible!

But suddenly, when I propose this, it is only interesting if you want to farm lice, or something. No longer is it a universal method for avoiding useless research with wide-ranging effects and applications, but a stupidly simplistic principle that is impossible to distinguish from simply saying "If you are looking into growing animals, you should see what they are adapted for."

But that is completely useless. Not only do scientists already do this, but even the most ham-fisted amateur hobby-farmer can be expected to at least look into the basics of what an animal needs in order to survive.

It is almost as if it is only the appearance of design that match a set of specific beliefs about this design that matters. And that just looking for an appearance of design does not really lead anywhere, unless you already know exactly what it was designed to do, what the intentions behind the design where, and have good reason to trust that if only we work with this design, everything will turn out for the best.
13
It is rather strange that the appearance of design is only important in certain cases.

If we look at goats and how they appear to be designed to eat "green stuff" it is important and can be used to avoid all kinds of useless octohattery. The way to ensure both goats and the environment they live in get to the optimum state of health and general goodness is just a matter of working with this design. Dave does this by simulating predators by means of a small mobile cage. This ensures both goats are bunched together like they would be if predators threatened them, and are kept moving just like predators do to wild goats. His land, you see, is designed to be grazed by herbivores that are threatened by carnivores, and his goats are... well actually goats appear to be designed to browse, not graze, a completely different kind of landscape, but this is somehow not important.

This cleverly avoids all kinds of useless research. No need to look into how goat metabolism works, or what kind of ecological community is there at the start and how this changes over time with the new grazing regime. We know this is what the land is designed for, so if we make sure it happens, then it will heal itself to a state of optimum goodness. Water retention properties will improve, biodiversity will blossom, the goats will be healthy and happy, the land will become more productive. No need to measure any of this either: everyone who likes holistic land management says it works. Octohatters may constantly blind themselves with bias and conflicts of interest to such a degree that any science that seems mainstream should be challenged, but holistic land management folks can be blindly trusted.

But if we look at how perfectly suitable the human body is for lice, then all of a sudden the appearance of design is not important... unless you are interested in farming lice. What that means exactly never really became clear. It certainly seems to conflict with the idea that humans are designed to push big buttons on nature.

This was very disappointing to me. I was hoping we could bypass a lot of useless research into how the human body works, and simply work with nature to make us function better by simply assuming we were designed to provide shelter and nutrients for lice. But it seems curing cancer is not going to simply be a matter of holistic lice management, for instance. When we work with the design and make sure lice operate the way God and Nature intended, we do not solve all problems that can come up that involve humans and lice.

We are still waiting for Dave to explain why.
15
Quote
So the question is how can they be both 99.7% identical and 1-4% identical?

If this is something that you need explained, then your understanding of genetics extremely basic. Nothing wrong with this, and there are plenty of resources available online to get you started on this subject.

It is quite an important subject for someone interested in the origin of our species, though, and you seem to be making some strong claims about this subject without having even the most basic level of knowledge about a key field here. Frankly, it is a bit like proposing a theory that the sun revolves around the earth, and then admitting that your math is limited to basic arithmetic, or that you do not understand how telescopes work.

Would it not be better to at least get a basic grounding in the subject matter before proposing ground-breaking new theories?
Nice try. I have seen this ploy before. If you cannot answer this question why not just say so?

As I said when we covered this subject before the discrepancy is based on how much DNA identicalness is attributed to Neanderthal and how much to the common ancestor of Neanderthals and homo sapiens

Incorrect, and it kind of proves my point that you believe this.
16
Which is worse than NAZIS because that is what Nazi's did, lie.
Lol

You don't dictate to a cow how much water she's going to drink. You simply keep her supplied with as much as she wants.
Nobody said 'dictate'. Quit deliberately misquoting others.

No need to be nice. He calls far less than this lying, so he is lying here, by his own definition.

And lest we forget - lying is what the NAZIS did.

But of course it only counts if Dave feels someone other than Dave is doing it.
17
Lol

You don't dictate to a cow how much water she's going to drink. You simply keep her supplied with as much as she wants.
Nobody said 'dictate'. Quit deliberately misquoting others.

No need to be nice. He calls far less than this lying, so he is lying here, by his own definition.
18
Quote
No I'm not remembering wrong about the Wai Wai village where I lived.

Then you remember that they built no roads, created no healthcare services beyond some very basic herbalism, had a rather crude system of law enforcement, and you pointed out yourself they could not sustain the kind of technology required to make a machete, let alone anything more complicated.

You remain a master of shooting yourself in the gun-hand: your example effectively highlights the limits of societies with a low level of organization.
19
Quote
So the question is how can they be both 99.7% identical and 1-4% identical?

If this is something that you need explained, then your understanding of genetics extremely basic. Nothing wrong with this, and there are plenty of resources available online to get you started on this subject.

It is quite an important subject for someone interested in the origin of our species, though, and you seem to be making some strong claims about this subject without having even the most basic level of knowledge about a key field here. Frankly, it is a bit like proposing a theory that the sun revolves around the earth, and then admitting that your math is limited to basic arithmetic, or that you do not understand how telescopes work.

Would it not be better to at least get a basic grounding in the subject matter before proposing ground-breaking new theories?
20
Ah ok, I think I misunderstood the question.

As far as we can tell, Neanderthals are not ancestral to Sapiens. They share a common ancestor, which is not the same thing.
22
"People accept them as homo sapiens"?

That is not really the case. They show a mix of archaic and modern features, and there are still many competing hypotheses around about what they represent.

Quote
Would you accept the Out of the Middle East theory if a homo sapiens skull fossil were found in the Israel area, that was as old as the oldest Omo and Herto fossils?

I think that question does not really make sense any more. Specialists are generally abandoning the idea that human evolution was that neat and linear. Paleo-anthropology now thinks in terms of gene-flow more than neatly classified species, subspecies, etc.
So the first homo sapiens may have been in the Middle East OR in Africa. Is that what you are saying?
So we cannot say whether homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthals in the Middle East or whether homo sapiens evolved from a lineage in Africa then.
Is that right?

No, please see my answer in my previous post.
23
No, I am saying that as far as I can tell (I am far from an expert) that question does not make sense anymore. We do not think of human evolution is terms of a nice neat tree anymore, with a point where we can say "this is the first sapiens".

We think in terms of gene-flows. Populations that are isolated enough to start to evolve different traits, but that are not isolated enough to stop contributing genetic material to each other. These populations can move, they can change over time, and they can exchange genetic material.

Populations with sapiens traits and neanderthal traits, not because they represent a step on the way of one evolving into another, but as part of a much more complex pattern. One where some genetic populations are dead ends as they die out, some of them disappear as distinguishable populations because they become a part of a larger, mixed group. A pattern where we think more in terms of gene *frequencies* rather than of specific lineages and such.
24
What is the difference between the appearance of design we see in the global water cycle, and the appearance of design we see when we consider the human head and the relationship lice have with it?

It seems that it is not so much the appearance of design itself that you find important. It is the appearance of design plus something else.

I don't see a difference.

Excellent! So when we study the human body, we should not waste our time on superfluous details. We should simply look at it as a delivery device for nutrients and warm moist air for lice, because that is what it's function is - no reason to look under the hood much further than that, because then we are back to doing machine code when we should stay at the application level.

Studying as such will yield all the information we really need to understand it, in a holistic way rather than a reductionist way.

Either that, or there is some difference between considering the human head designed for lice, and considering the water cycle as designed for (mostly human) life.
if your goal is lice farming for whatever reason, then sure. My goal is not lice farming, but rather my goal is to feed humans sustainably while restoring ecosystems. So I'm frankly not very interested in lice, sorry to disappoint you.

Right - so it depends on your point of view? The human head can be seen as designed for lice, if you are interested in the well-being of lice? And studying it as such will not yield any understanding if you are interested in, say, the causes of ingrown toenails in humans?
25
"People accept them as homo sapiens"?

That is not really the case. They show a mix of archaic and modern features, and there are still many competing hypotheses around about what they represent.

Quote
Would you accept the Out of the Middle East theory if a homo sapiens skull fossil were found in the Israel area, that was as old as the oldest Omo and Herto fossils?

I think that question does not really make sense any more. Specialists are generally abandoning the idea that human evolution was that neat and linear. Paleo-anthropology now thinks in terms of gene-flow more than neatly classified species, subspecies, etc.