How did whales, porpoises, and dolphins evolve?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Apr 25 2007, 09:36 AM) [snapback]429925[/snapback]</div>

Not low brow ... just an unusual response. I was trying to understand how it impacted you enough that you cite it that way, and I think you did a good job of explaining it:


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Apr 25 2007, 09:36 AM) [snapback]429925[/snapback]</div>

I have a pet theory that kind of dovetails with what I've heard from Hawkins; most of the believers and atheists I have known can't point to a time when they didn't believe how they now believe. Their earliest memories are either of "going through the motions" and not having any reaction to the trappings of religion, or the reverse ... having a yearning that was only satisfied with a spiritual quest. Dawkins evidently believes that people are predisposed to either believe in spiritual things, or not.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Apr 25 2007, 09:36 AM) [snapback]429925[/snapback]</div>

I don't want to spend a lot of time dissecting this word by word, but I see this as an equivocation of your earlier statement's tone ... perhaps you didn't mean it to come across the way I received it. Obviously, doing what you suggest ... even if "practical" ... would be an immense violation of individual rights. Totalitarian governments are able to make such things "practical", of course.

Perhaps you mean to shame religionists into not teaching their children by calling all religious belief "a delusion"? Its an interesting diagnosis.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Apr 25 2007, 09:36 AM) [snapback]429925[/snapback]</div>

OK, this seems quite a bit more moderate than how I perceived your first statement.

I have a general problem with some comparisons, and when people tell me they "suffered verbal abuse" from their parents which is, they say "sometimes worse than physical abuse", I realize they do not have the same perspective on child abuse I have.

My childhood was wonderful, with two loving parents who remained married and modeled parenting in the way only good parents can, and part of their gift to the rest of us was taking in two kids who were "troubled". I loved them both. One foster brother is gone now, executed by the State of Texas after conviction as a serial killer, and the other is dying of diseases brought on by an adult life filled with bad choices about alcohol and drugs.

I know what they went through as children, before they became my brothers. And it was nothing like "religious indoctrination".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Apr 24 2007, 02:24 PM) [snapback]429137[/snapback]</div>

I don't believe I've ever read anything you've written that I would truly disagree with until now.

From a purely scientific point of view, the idea of god IS illogical; illogical in the "not logical" sense, not in an insulting way. Illogical in that it fails when subjected to scientific inquiry. The continued belief in something that fails the scientific test or non-belief in something that passes could be considered "fantasy" or even "delusional". The guy who truly believes that gravity does not exist and jumps off the roof to prove his point is most likely going to be considered "delusional" if he survives.

While I believe these terms themselves are not offensive (within the scientific context), I agree with you that their application to others beliefs often are meant to be. Whether or not they are insulting/offensive is, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

You are, in my opinion, highly respectful of others and their beliefs and are often one of the cooler heads when these discussions inevitably turn into pissing contests (vulgar, yet descriptive). You believe in god, I don't. You can no more prove his existence to me than I can prove his non-existence to you. Stalemate. I state this all without malice or feelings of superiority. It is what it is. Peace.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 25 2007, 11:53 PM) [snapback]430242[/snapback]</div>

i'm sorry to hear of your brothers. and yes, unfortunately that's where many abused children end up. it takes a LOT to recover from something like that, and not everyone makes it.

i do want to compound your discussion of physical vs emotional (which i choose to use rather than the word "verbal") abuse, if you don't mind.

depending on the situation, emotional abuse can really, really mess you up. but physical abuse has its own emotional aspect, which i suspect is what really gets the abuser off in the first place and wreaks further havoc upon the abused. so i'd say that physical abuse is indeed worse- unless you've got some really depraved person working on your psychology- simply because of the one-two punch physical abuse hits you with.

but here's the thing... a lot of times, physical abuse is kind of "supplemented" with emotional abuse, making it a one-two punch with a side of constant psychological manipulation. emotional abuse can stand as the sole form of abuse in far more situations, at least as far as i've observed from personal discussions. there's a line from mental to physical, and some abusers realize that and will not cross it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 25 2007, 08:53 PM) [snapback]430242[/snapback]</div>

What is your perspective or rough definition of child abuse? This is not an attack. I am just trying to better understand your point of view.

For me, abuse can come in many forms but it can still fall under the label "abuse". Sexual and Physical abuse would be the most obvious but some of the less obvious are no less destructive to a child.

Other types:

A parent that "withholds" their love or show of pride in their child (as depicted in the movie 8-Seconds).


A parent that does not try their best to prepare their child for the future by teaching them everything they can. IE, they sustain a child instead of nurturing them.

A parent that pushes their child to be just like them or fit some mold THEY think the child should develop into instead of simply guiding them and allowing the child to chose their own path.

Those are just a few of the many other forms of abuse because they can seriously disturb the child and/or cripple them in adulthood. In this respect our corporatized government and media are abusing every child in the U.S. but we can leave that for another thread once I get the chapter typed up.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 25 2007, 02:41 PM) [snapback]430034[/snapback]</div>

Oh. Well then, that would explain a lot about a lot of people.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Apr 25 2007, 11:53 PM) [snapback]430287[/snapback]</div>

That's cool that you think highly of me, and I thank you for that. I guess, what I wish, is that those who don't/won't believe in God, just use the same respect towards those who do, or should I say, show respect towards their view.

If we are, none of us, rational beings, then fine; none of what we think is going to matter.


I, for one, (and it's off topic, but follow me for a second), find it fascinating that we see upside down. That our brains know this, and fix the image for us, so we don't see all 'weird'.

If the creator, evolution, whatever, made it so we see correctly, so as to not be driven batty by seeing things incorrectly, then that is remarkable.

It truly is. And no where have I read, (not saying there might not be), a scientific reason for why our brains fix what our eyes see. Other then as I suggested, so we don't go batty.

It does suggest a higher power, some sort of thinking, was involved in our design. That we aren't just subject to a random evolution. Somehow, the design was well thought out.

I am a student of science. I study Zen and Buddhist ways, along with the teachings of Christ, and I also believe that the two aren't mutually exclusive. Some great scientists agree with me as well.

I just think, that if we, as a race that runs around this dirt ball are ever going to get along, we just all have to accept that none of us have all the answers, and that we will sometimes have to agree to disagree. But we should be civil about it.

It's part of what makes us, civilised.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Apr 25 2007, 11:39 PM) [snapback]430322[/snapback]</div>

In one of his speaches, Paul Hawken was describing the fundamental idea presented in the axial age and in parts of the bible was simply this:

"Do not ever ever, do anything to anyone or anything that you would not have done to yourself. That is the torrah, read it. All the rest is commentary."

"These were not theocratic systems, they did not require belief they required a change in behavior. The axial sages were not interested in providing their disciples with a little edifying uplift after which they could return with renewed vigor to their self-centered lives. Their objective was to create an entirely an entirely different kind of human being. Sages insisted that people abandon the egotism and greed, their violence and unkindness and not only was it wrong to kill another human being, you must not even speak a hostile word about or towards that person, not even make an irritable gesture. Further, you cannot confine your benevolence to your own people." ~ Paul Hawken at the 2006 Bioneers conference

Some of his references were from Karen Armstrong's book "The Great Transformation" -The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Apr 25 2007, 11:39 PM) [snapback]430322[/snapback]</div>

Not at all!

We don't "see" upside down. The image is projected bottom up on our retina, but there is absolutely no reason why this would or "should" be interpreted by our brain as "upside down." Remember that the brain is nothing but a very large collection of neurons, and these neurons connect to sensors (such as the retina of the eye) and to muscles throughout the body.

What we perceive is conditioned by experience: There are images formed on the retina and signals sent to the brain. The baby reaches out its hand and flops around until its hand touches something, and the brain learns to associate the retinal signals with an object at that position. (It's also getting signals from the muscle sensors in the arm and learning the meaning of those signals as well.)

They've done experiments where they put glasses on people that do an up/down reversal of the image. Test subjects are very confused at first, but eventually their brains learn the correct interpretation and they function normally, and they perceive the world "normally" (right side up) again. When the glasses are finally removed, and the image is once again as it is for everyone else, they perceive the world as upside down and have to re-learn everything!

There is no miraculous or god-ordained "righting of the image." There is merely the brain, learning to interpret the signals that come to it from the retina, as it learns everything else it does.

If you had really read all that much science (in this case biology) you'd have known all this. It's very basic.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Apr 25 2007, 08:55 PM) [snapback]430288[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, I agree ... I don't want to minimize anyone's suffering, and I understand that emotional abuse can be debilitating. But there's a certain cheapening of the horror the real victims of child abuse go through to try and compare religious teaching by parents to their children to that abuse. Its an unfair coupling of two different things (some of my fellow pro-lifers compare abortion to the Holocaust, which also troubles me).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 25 2007, 09:58 PM) [snapback]430304[/snapback]</div>

The standard definition includes emotional, physical and sexual abuse. I can accept that people can be emotional brutal, but I have known far too many people who have other problems and "project" their own problems back onto their parents, with tales of how their father "never said I love you" to them, or neglected them. If these people "discover" this fact in therapy I'm especially sensitive to the idea that they may be inflicting "parent abuse" rather than describing their own abuse.

But to get back on track, jared2 said:

The similarities between sexual abuse and the impact that has on people ... almost universally bad ... and the impact that religion has on the individual ... most religious people are happy with their religious beliefs ... are few and far between. To say that because "religious indoctrination" is passed on from generation to generation and it is therefore "similar to sexual abuse" is an unfair and provocative linking, and is not "logical" in any sense of the term. Using that type of illogic, you can link any two things, including multiple Toyota purchases and pedophiles, because pedophiles have multiple victims. It is especially troubling coming from someone who asserts his non-belief is more logical than those "deluded" souls who do not agree with him.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 26 2007, 10:41 PM) [snapback]431020[/snapback]</div>

Ok, thank you for the clarification.

I spend most of my lunch time at school with my chemistry partner and her friends who are all christian or baptist and most were home schooled. We have some interesting discussions considering I'm the only agnostic in the group and I didn't have a nurturing childhood. I would tend to agree with you that I cannot in all honesty call religious indocrination "abuse" in most situations. The students I hang out with at lunch are very respectful and have their act together and are well prepared individuals. Much of that is simply good parenting IMO and can be done with or without religion. I still cannot agree with some of their worldviews and intolerance for particular issues but that is not the focus of this discussion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Apr 25 2007, 11:23 AM) [snapback]429966[/snapback]</div>

No, I would say that there can't be more than one "Truth" but there can be more than one understanding/interpretation of what we perceive as the truth.
One of the components of truth is accuracy. IMHO there are two important components to accuracy as in Claim/Query accuracy and Subject Matter accuracy.
1) Claim/Query accuracy, as in two competing assertions as to the identity of the can of Soda Pop on the table. One says the can is “Pepsi†vs. the other “Cola*†if the can in fact is “Pepsi†then accuracy demands that “Pepsi†is the “Truthâ€. But what if the claim is “Coke†vs. “Cola†and the can as above is in fact “Pepsi†does that make “Cola†the truth? It does not, the “Truth†is that the can of soda pop is “Coke†even though both contain a “Cola†like drink.
2) Subject Matter accuracy, as in the competing claims of the makeup of light, is it a “Wave†or is it a “Particle?†In fact light is both a Wave and a Particle. So does that make Wave the “Truth†as well as Particle the “Truth� No it does not as accuracy in the knowledge of the Subject Matter prevents either from being accurate and the “Truth†is that light is both a “Wave†and a “Particle†each answer being excluded when subject matter accuracy is revealed.

IMHO “Truth†is mutually exclusive and eliminates all other claims.

*def: Cola is a sweet carbonated drink, with caramel coloring and containing caffeine.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 26 2007, 10:47 PM) [snapback]431023[/snapback]</div>

How do they manifest these worldviews or intolerance for particular issues? Could it be that they simply have a different POV that you don't agree with and you characterize it as intolerance? I don't mean to make this a confrontational question but for the life of me I can't think of another way to ask it. You describe them as respectful so I gather from this that they don't force their views or morality upon others. Are these accurate statements?

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 26 2007, 09:21 AM) [snapback]430447[/snapback]</div>

It's all very basic, that you are seeing what you want to see. The brain, it had to come from some design. It just did not appear out of nothing. Something had to draw the blueprint. And what ever that is, it thought out the problem, as it is, of a image being projected upside down on our retina. And fixed that.

You can call me a nut, but whatever. I see things in a different way then you, that is all.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 25 2007, 12:58 PM) [snapback]430051[/snapback]</div>

Modern evolutionary biologists still use trees to depict evolution because it still effectively captures the idea that speciation occurs through the splitting of lineages.

Once again, I ask; if there are transitional forms between Ambulocetus, a typical land mammal and Basilosaurus, a typical whale where are they?

Wildkow

p.s. PUOSU. [attachmentid=7695]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Apr 27 2007, 09:08 AM) [snapback]431046[/snapback]</div>

But it's not a problem. Why would a visual receptor necessarily want the projected image to be the "correct" way up? Why would it know or care which orientation it was, as long as it was steady?

This notion of the image being "upside down" is something you're imposing on it. All lens-based systems (projectors, cameras) have an "upside down" image. So that is the right way up

It's just an image receptor - don't try to impose your notion of "upside down" on it, it doesn't make sense. It's like insisting that mirrors reflect things left-to-right. They don't, that's just people attempting to interpret an image as a physical object.

Now, I see what point you're trying to make, but you're not making it effectively by trying to single out a non-problem. The real problems are things like focus, resolution, aperture control, motion sensitivity, image processing, handling a wide range of lighting conditions, gimbal mounting, protection, etc etc.

If I was designing a camera system, I'd spend 5 seconds making sure the connections to the receptor matched the incoming image, then the next 6 months doing the real work...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 27 2007, 01:26 AM) [snapback]431016[/snapback]</div>

I truncated your quote because this is the meat of what I wanted to address. Who then decides what real child (indeed, any) abuse is? Obviously the law has to have some requirements met before abuse can be charged, and even within that definition, there are degrees. My own feeling is that the word abuse has been broadened so much that both the parent who beats their child and the spouse who honestly answers a question (where the honest answer was NOT what the other spouse wanted to hear) are now both guilty of abuse. I'm not being facetious here, nor is this the stuff of urban legend. It is happening, and my feeling is that it lessens the gravity that the word abuse once commanded, and therefore dilutes the horrors that the victims of real abuse endure.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 27 2007, 12:27 AM) [snapback]431043[/snapback]</div>

I understand Wilkow. It didn't come across as confrontational.

Essentially, they force their worldview on others by lobbying, becoming politicians, or buying off politicians. So when they push for pro-life efforts they are forcing their worldview on me. That is why I do not feel such a large can ever be governed effectively with such a wide disparity in beliefs. Our population is simply too large for that IMO. These same people do nothing or worse yet, fight against environmental laws simply because their belief structure tells them that the world is going to end soon so why bother to fix anything or limit our consumption. In fact some push for higher consumption rates thinking this may bring the end sooner and they will get to be with their god.

So they (my friends) don't force their views in a direct manner, indeed they are nice people and I respect them. I tell them as much as well. Yet we have people who share some of their views sitting in the white house and that bothers me just as much as it did when Reagan sat in that seat and entertained thoughts of apocalyptic christianity.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 27 2007, 04:45 AM) [snapback]431060[/snapback]</div>

I don't understand. Are we looking at the same diagram? There are several identified transitional forms.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Apr 27 2007, 04:08 AM) [snapback]431046[/snapback]</div>

Ok, you're a walnut :lol:

But then the blueprint contained a design flaw, and if the brain was something that was designed (as opposed to a product of evolution), why was the design not changed immediately to fix the hardware/firmware problem instead of employing what is equivalent of a software patch to fix it? I read in another thread (not your statement) that we are not all products of incest (since we all were begat from Adam & Eve) because the first few "models" of human beings were "perfect" and therefore the genetic flaws that are the prohibiting factor for incest-induced genealogy were avoided. This seems contradictory.