Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talkrational: Yes, I keep a list.

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 - RAFH

26
https://www.popsci.com/sahara-desert-drought-humans
This is what Wright think the Sahara looked like back then before humans destroyed it ...


Well, that's dandy.

Unfortunately for Wright, there's not a lot of acceptance of his ideas.
27
The creation of new types of creatures is credibly related to mutations (changes) in regulatory genes and "not small-scales changes in the entire genome as neo-Darwinians thought."    
BUT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeotic_gene
Quote
Mutations in homeotic genes cause displaced body parts, such as antennae growing at the posterior of the fly instead of at the head.[3] Mutations that lead to such ectopic placements are usually lethal.[4]
Which is why such mutations doen't become fixed in the genome.

And, no, they are not new types of creatures, try to stick with the nomenclature. Lineages branch. Branches either spread and eventually branch themselves or die out. Most branches of most lineages have died out.
28
Another Pop-Sci take on Wright. Who takes a rather limited set of data from a highlands area and applies it to the entire Sahara.
He also puts a lot of stock in the paintings in that location as to numbers of livestock and has little to nothing to support any models of distribution. And even the paintings in that specific area do not show the sort of numbers that would trigger a drought. And we know the Sahara cycles through wet and dry seasons and we know what causes those cycles. It's not livestock.
30
Amazing, isn't it.


I tell ya, no matter what goes wrong, whatever gets me down, all I need to do is a get a doze of Bluffoonery and I feel better, often much better.
31
What if we looked and concluded that Nature was stupid?
What it Nature looked back and concluded we were stupid.

I suggest that even given the very unlikely probability that the above is the case, given the consequences of Nature concluding we are stupid, it would be wise to make sure sucky and Nature never cross paths.
32
I think you should do some more historic reading about West Texas and the Llano before you get overly invested and can't back down, Dave.


Otherwise we're in for a tedious reprise of the same ol' same ol' Dave makes firm statement, is contradicted immediately by recorded facts.
Oh Borealis, you know Bluffy can't back down. Especially on something as important as SAVING THE WORLD.

True. But he can, if he notices in time, commit to Radio Silence and Never Mention It Again.
Oh, he'll get there eventually, when he finally realizes he's said way too much. Then it's the ignore the subject and any reference to it for a while in hopes it will go away, possibly permanently. Of course, he won't be able to resist, so he'll also eventually bring it back up himself, in the guise of being one of his greatest wins over the forces of the evil Darwin.
33
I think you should do some more historic reading about West Texas and the Llano before you get overly invested and can't back down, Dave.


Otherwise we're in for a tedious reprise of the same ol' same ol' Dave makes firm statement, is contradicted immediately by recorded facts.
Oh Borealis, you know Bluffy can't back down. Especially on something as important as SAVING THE WORLD.
34
In any case the Llano estacado used to be teeming with bison herds and other life and now it is mostly dead like Westley in The Princess Bride, kept alive only by Center pivot irrigation but that too will soon fail  according to this article ...

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/08/vanishing-midwest-ogallala-aquifer-drought/
Cows can't replace irrigation. Stop the irrigation and let Nature do her thing.
Nope.  As weird as it sounds, properly managed cows are the only thing that will save areas like that.
Nope. As even weirder than your claim sounds, unicorns could save areas like that in just one day. Their majikal piss and poop make everyplace permanently more fertile than you can imagine. After they've shat up a place and hosed it down it doesn't even have to rain. You don't even have to plant seeds or anything. Just say a little prayer to the King Stallion and the food will go right into your tummy. Or, if you prefer, it'll show up on your table, ready to eat. Best of all, once you eat 100% grass (that's been Unicorned) fed whatever, your shit and piss will also be majikal. Yay!!!
35
Well we will just have to leave it at that. People can just tell. It is a matter of faith.
No, as has been explained, it's a matter of paying attention to the details and the context. No hard and fast rules. And one would have to have some concept of the modern world, though it would be possible to use antiquities as examples and look at what the average person from that time was knowledgeable. Obviously, if one were to show something made out of plastic, say a large sheet of plexiglass, to someone from even 1000 years ago, they'd be utterly mystified. But I'd expect someone with some education and smarts would realize it was a human artifact and know it's purpose, even if they were unable to know anything about it's origins.

Of course, if one takes only most cursory look at something, with no attempt to discover anything about it, they aren't going to end up knowing anything about it and would likely accept it's something the gods made. There have always been the ignorant and uninformed.

You for instance.
36
Even though it literally says "There was no science suggesting it would work.", you stand by your accusations of the "octo-hatters"?
Your'e not suggesting that the president of Senegal pulled this idea out of his ass are you?

You're not suggesting that because the President of Senegal might have been influenced by someone with an education greater than your own, that places the entire blame upon "octo-hatters", are you?
37
You folks are really struggling and failing. 
Basically people are saying they can just tell.

But not just by taking in sense data from the toaster. Some story has to be added. But those stories are great. I especially liked the one about reading the label. (Mind you that story fails if the toaster has no label). I am enjoying your stories very much.
Actually, it doesn't. Did you not read all the rest of the indicators mentioned.
And, yes, as others have suggested, you missed the point, two of them actually:
1. Any response can be falsified after it's presented by disclaiming some integral part, such as the label. You did not specify there would be no labels nor that you'd be allowed to change the rules after the submission was received. That's a serious problem on your part, especially with your credibility. Well, if you had any, it might.
2. The wider issue is that inference is a legitimate methodology for determining how reality is. Indeed, nothing is entirely factual. At least we can't know it is. After all, we're relying upon our senses and they could be corrupted. Or it's all just a hallucination. But in this case, while the label, which is required by law and are usually quite difficult to remove, is the crowning bit of evidence, it crowns a host of other evidence, all of which is consilient between and within what is available. Yes, it increases the probability that the toaster is made with intentional intelligence by humans to serve some other human purpose (the important word there is "intentional"), but that increase is no more material than 0.001 increase from 99.999 to 100.000. Yes, by itself it'd likely be sufficient to yield a probability of the toaster being made with intentional intelligence by humans to serve some other human purpose(again, the important word there is "intentional") of 70% or better. At least any researcher knowledgeable of humans. But all that means is there is more evidence in support than is needed to make a reasonably reliable inference from.

I realize that one argument against the above, the part about the researcher being knowledgeable of humans, makes the claim dependent upon "knowledgeable of humans" which is a different subject. But by that same token, then any argument can ignored on the basis it's not clear the rock you've been arguing with is getting it. Lack of knowledge does not validate or invalidate any position other than "there is a lack of knowledge". Unless, of course, there is good reason to expect there would be the knowledge which is lacking.

Beside the point, the main point being that nothing is absolutely known to be valid. That, however, leaves many levels of confidence in this or that bit of knowledge, some of which are right up there close like in "almost absolutely known to be valid". In any case, there are means of evaluating inferences for reliability. You should check into them some day when your mind isn't as clouded as usual.



38
All / Some / None  again Hawkins.
What land, exactly, were Coronado and Nájera talking about?
The Llano Estacado.  Read the article I linked.

THIS


What land, exactly are YOU talking about?

West Texas covers multiple ecological zones.
Llano Estacado =/= Chihuahua Desert
THIS part of Texas includes the Chihuahua Desert ...


Which part are you talking about? The two regions are separate. Yes, to some extent both are in west Texas and they butt against each other but they do not overlap.
39
But all that beautiful Wildlife is gone now. Destroyed by Octo Hatter  Directed farming.  Soon it will become a full-blown desert and a thousand years from now a new generation of Debaters at talk rational will be talking about it. One group will no doubt say that it's a natural desert, a beautiful ecosystem and the other group will say that it's been degraded by man.
Won't the Rapture have occured by then?
Bluffy's already been raptured, just he's such a lousy pilot he never made it off the ground.
40
So I cannot tell just by looking at the toaster whether it is the product of intelligence/plan/intention. How about if I use a very powerful microscope. Can I tell then?

sucky,

Yes, you can tell, just by visually examining the toaster. For instance, look at the manufacturer's label where it states who the manufacturer is and usually where it is located, the model number and a serial number, the voltage and amperage. Other such information.

While it's possible that label occurred by non-human effort, the odds of that happening are extremely low.
There's also that a toaster uses electricity, alternating current at 120V. Using a plug that is common and known to be a human artifact. Further examination would reveal materials in forms that are very rare to non-existent without human effort. These would include steel, plastic, copper wires, etc.

Again, while it's possible such could all come about without human effort, ie - intentional intelligence, it's highly unlikely.

And that's the point, we may not actually know anything for absolute certainty. but we can be reasonable confident about some knowledge. That would include looking at a toaster with its relatively pure and typically non-natural metals, plastics, etc, its use of electricity and, of course, it's use by humans for a very human activity. Not with absolute certainty, but then we don't know anything with absolute certainty other than things we have devised.
41
In any case, does everyone understand Allan Savory's use of the term brittleness better now?  Another way to look at it is that these are areas that will degrade without help from rotating herbivore herds natural or artificial. Of course if one bastardizes the term degrade and thus thinks that places like the Sahara Desert are not degraded, then we have a problem.
No, "we" don't have a problem. You and your Saint UnSavory have a problem. It's that some bastardization, at least of the traditional sense of the word "degrade", being promulgated by yourself.

High plateaus are not degraded, nor are deserts, nor are swamps and wetlands, nor are mountain peaks, nor dunes, nor bare rock, nor salt flats, nor forests. All of them are natural outcomes of life and geology on this planet. Endless savannas are not the "graded" ideal you believe to have been "degraded". This would appear to stem from directly from your YEC/dominionist beliefs.
42
No, that's not my duty.  My duty is twofold ...

TRUTH. LOVE.

Always strive to be truthful no matter how tempting it is to lie even just a little bit.  Always try to love my neighbor - even you - no matter how unlovable.

If we do these two things ... but use words like snappy-offyness ... then we will do good for the cause of science.  (And business) (And community) (And family)

Thus spake Dave "I don't have to apologise to dicks like you- YOU should apologise to ME!" Hawkins.
FYP
44
Oh brother.

The self-deception is strong with this one.
Bluffy took a poll, all of the citizens of Bluffoonylvania were required to respond. This poll found Bluffy the Great and Grand Bluffoon of Bluffoonylvania was the greatest and grandest bluffoon ever.
45
Dunno... Charles at his most likeable always struck me as a vaguely absentminded eccentric uncle that is really hard work if you sit next to him at family parties. At his most unlikeable he is horribly entitled and out of touch.  Not sure i'd pick him as a champion for any cause i cared about. But hey, better than nothing.
Certainly better than Bluffy.

Just imagine being stuck in an elevator with Bluffy.
46
This intelligence of the camouflage of plants and animals is just the tiniest tip of the iceberg of the intelligence of Nature. Intelligence manifests everywhere in Nature on planet Earth. You can see it everywhere if you simply look. 
The Problem is there is also so much STUPIDITY!
It's everywhere, you don't even have to look.
And, you, sucky, are a classic example of such.
47
Learning pennywhistle is right at the top of the list of signs of depression.
Just thinking about it depresses me.
48
I thought Americans were supposed to be unimpressed by such things as being a "king".
I am American and am pretty unimpressed with kings.
Kings, the original mafia.
49
So is citing Prince Charles's endorsement a valid or fallacious Appeal to Authority in your humble opinion Hawkins?
Neither

You really should study up on the appeal to Authority thing.

Wrong!
It's the fallacious one.
Charles is not any kind of authority on land management.
Dave's not citing Charles as an authority.

He's lording a predicted expansion in the use of HMG by the British crown over us unbelievers.
I'm just saying that (King) Charles is probably a more visible sales guy for holistic management than say... Dave Hawkins.
So is citing Prince Charles's endorsement a valid or fallacious Appeal to Authority in your humble opinion Hawkins?
Neither

You really should study up on the appeal to Authority thing.

Wrong!
It's the fallacious one.
Charles is not any kind of authority on land management.
Dave's not citing Charles as an authority.

He's lording a predicted expansion in the use of HMG by the British crown over us unbelievers.
I'm just saying that (King) Charles is probably a more visible sales guy for holistic management than say... Dave Hawkins.
This (retrospective) rationalization for why you posted that does not strike me as even slightly credible.
The only thing credible about this "(retrospective) rationalization for why [Bluffy] posted" is it's Bluffy that posted it.
50
OK, here's the deal, them Cannucks been foolin' us all along into thinkin' they's a polite and nice-nice. All just a plot to lullin' us 'Merkins inta thinkin' they's no threat. An' then, when wur not ready and not lookin' they'll strike, without warning or nuttin'.

Here's the real deal: https://boingboing.net/2018/06/14/canadian-border-authorities-ho.html, eh?